Question: On the one hand, we Pasken like Beis Hillel due to the Bas-Kol; whereas on the other, we Pasken that Rebbi Eliezer is a Shamuti, ignoring the Bas-Kol that rules like him, in Perek ha'Zahav (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 9:)

Answer #1: There (in Bava Metzi'a) it is different, since the Bas-Kol only Paskened like Rebbi Eliezer in deference to Rebbi Eliezer, who stated 'Let them prove it in Heaven!')

Answer #2: Moreover, the Bas-Kol of Beis Hillel has the support of a Pasuk, which writes in Sh'mos (23) "Follow the majority to decide the Halachah!"

Question: Why does the Gemara then establish the author as Rebbi Yehoshua, who holds 'Ein Mashgichin be'Bas-Kol', seeing as he only says it with regard to the episode of Rebbi Eliezer, and we do not hold like the Bas-Kol of Rebbi Eliezer, either?

Answer: The Lashon 'Lo ba'Shamayim Hi' implies that Rebbi holds that we never follow a Bas-Kol.

Implied Question: When we said earlier that we place on him the Chumros of both Rav and of Shmuel ...

Answer: That was only according to what we initially thought.

Refuted Explanation: The Gemara could just as well have said that he did completely like Shmuel, since it was not the location of the Shechitah, and he also forbade a case of where one performed the first third with Hagramah, and the final two-thirds with a Kasher Shechitah ...

Refutation: And the reason that we established it like to Rav is because we Pasken like Rav in matters of Isur.

Refuted Answer: The Gemara does not want to say that they gave it a Shi'ur at the bottom exclusively ...

Refutation: Because, since the Gemara did not specifically say so, we assume that they gave the Shi'ur at the top as well as at the bottom.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that this means 'four finger-breadths.

Question: Then what is the Shi'ur by a bird?

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Yitzchak ben Rabeinu Meir therefore explains that four finger-breadths is the measurement of a large buffalo at the top of the scale, and that it decreases progressively as the animals get smaller.

Explanation #3: According to the B'hag however, 'K'dei Tefisas Yad' means the minimum amount that a person can hold between his thumb and orefinger.

Halachah: The words of the B'hag are considered words of tradition, and one can therefore rely on their opinion le'Halachah.

Implied Question: And when the Gemara later (on Da 50:) with regard to the Chalcholes (a membrane that keeps the entrails in position) equates 'K'dei Tefisah' with 'Batda de'Tura', which is the equivalent of four finger-breadths ...

Answer: The Gemara there refers to 'K'dei Tefisah' and not 'K'dei Tefisas Yad.

Observation #1 (Part 1): According to Rashi, who explained in the first Perek (29.) that Ikur Simanim renders the animal a T'reifah, it is difficult to understand why it is obvious that it is a T'reifah.

Observation #1 (Part 2): Since the Turbatz ha'Veshet cannot possibly become T'reifah with just a hole like the Veshet itself (see Maharam), only if it covers the majority. Similarly, if it is entirely removed it ought to be Kasher, too?

Suggestion: And to suggest that it is no worse than where the Gargeres has slipped out of place, rendering it a T'reifah ...

Refutation #1: Is a Dochek (forced [See Tosfos ha'Rosh])!

Refutation #2: And besides, the Gemara answers that a Rov is Kasher, even though if the majority of the Gargeres is broken, it is T'reifah.

Observation #2: According to the explanation of the B'hag, on the other hand, the Gemara's Kashya ('But there is Ikur Simanim') is justified, since even if it is not a T'reifah, how will it become Kasher, seeing as it does not become Mutar through Shechitah?

Question (Part 1): One can however, ask on the B'hag - When the Gemara asks 'But did Rabah bar bar Chanah not say that 'Simanim that have been moved out of place renders the animal a T'reifah' ...

Question (Part 2): Why does the Makshan (the questioner) not ask on Rabah bar bar Chanah directly - because if this makes the animal a T'reifah, what is then Ikur, on which Shechitah is not effective, but which we Pasken, is not a T'reifah?

Answer (Part 1): However, according to the text that reads initially 'Ha de'Idaldal Idalduli ... ', there is no Kashya (see Maharam).

Answer (Part 2): The questioner knew at the outset what the Gemara concludes - that Rabah bar bar Chanah is speaking by 'Ifruk Ifruki' (where the Simanim were torn out by force, a little here and a little there, in which case they can no longer heal, and it is a T'reifah; whereas Ikur Simanim that is not a T'reifah speaks where they were peeled away from the flesh gently.

Answer (Part 3): Nevertheless the Gemara asks from the 'Dildul' of Rabah bar bar Chanah on the Lashon 'Dildul' used by the initial Metaretz; So the Gemara explains to the Makshan once again that the 'Dildul' of which he spoke was not the same as the 'Dildul' of Rabah bar bar Chanah.

Question (Part 3): But according to the text that reads after the Kashya 've'Ha Amar Shmuel "be'Rubo" ' - Lo Kashya, Ha de'Inkuv Inkuvi, Ha de'Ikpal Ikpuli', the Kashya remains (See same Maharam).

Question (Part 4): And the same Kashya one can ask on Rabeinu Chananel, who interprets 'de'Ifruk Ifruki' to mean that the Simanim parted from one another. There too, one cannot say that the Makshan knew the truth, because if he did, he did not ask anything (See same Maharam).

Answer: When the Gemara asks from Rabah bar bar Chanah, it could indeed have asked 'And according to you (Makshan), why don't you ask on Rabah bar bar Chanah himself - seeing as if it is a T'reifah, then what is the case of Ikur Simanim (that is not a T'reifah)?

Question: The Gemara later (on Daf 49a) in connection with a needle that was found in the air-passage of the liver - cites Huna the grandson of Rav Idi who declared it T'reifah and Rav Ada bar Minyumi who declared it Tahor?

Answer #1: There Rav Ada bar Minyumi relied on what he had learned from his Rebbe ...

Precedent (Part 1): Like we learned at the end of the second Perek of Nidah (20:) with regard to Yalsa, who declared Tamei the blood that she brought for Rabah bar bar Chanah to inspect; and when she brought to Rav Yitzchak b'Rebbi Yehudah, he declared it Tahor.

Precedent (Part 2): In answer to the Kashya from 'Chacham she'Timei', the Gemara answers there that initially, the latter declared it Tamei, but when Yalsa explained to him that 'Rabah bar bar Chanah himself regularly Paskened that the same appearance of blood was Kasher, only on that day his eye-sight had not been so good. And that was when Rav Yitzchak b'Rebbi Yehudah declared it Tahor.

Precedent (Part 3): The Gemara then asks whether a woman who claims that so-and-so Rav permitted her this very same appearance of blood is believed or not. And it refutes the proof from the above case in Nidah on the grounds that - Rav Yitzchak b'Rebbi Yehudah relied on what he had learned learning (and not on Yalsa's statement).

Explanation #1: Rashi explains there that the Gemara retracted from its initial answer 'that Rav Yitzchak b'Rebbi Yehudah initially declared the blood Tamei ... ' - because, seeing as he relied on what he had learned from his Rebbes, he was permitted to declare Mutar what his colleague had declared Asur; and what the Gemara forbids is to rule against his friend on the basis of a S'vara.

Observation: According to Rashi, in our Sugya concludes that Rabah bar bar Chanah relied on what he had learned, it is no longer necessary to state that Rav did not forbid it; only that was the truth.

Explanation #2: It seems however, that when the Gemara in Nidah says that Rav Yitzchak b'Rebbi Yehudah relied on what he had learned, it means that this was why he relied on Yalsa's statement (that Rabah bar bar Chanah usually permitted the same appearance of blood, and that it was still necessary to abide by the first answer (that initially he too, had declared the blood Tamei).

Answer #2: And as for the case later (on Daf 49:) regarding the needle that was found in the air-passage of the liver, perhaps it speaks where they were both in the Beis-ha'Medrash together, and the the She'eilah was asked of them both at the same time.

Answer #3: Or that Rav Yitzchak b'Rebbi Yehudah was not aware that Rabah bar bar Chanah had already forbidden it.

Clarification: Because two witnesses are never suspect, like we learned in the second Perek of Yevamos (Daf 25:).

Halachah: It is nevertheless befitting for someone on a higher level to distance himself from something which is unpleasant.

Question #1 (Part 1): How can the witnesses be permitted to purchase the article (on which they testified)?

Question #1 (Part 2): One can understand that the Chachamim were not concerned about the signatories of a Get or of a document of sale, permitting them to marry the woman or to purchase the article, seeing as they will not perform an act (of signing on a document), but words they will say ...

Precedent: Like we say in Perek Hiskabel (Gitin 67.) 'If one says to witnesses "Tell the Sofer to write (a Get)! and to witnesses "Sign!", such a thing should not be done in Yisrael, since we suspect that the woman might hire witnesses'.

Question #2: Similarly, how are witnesses before whom a girl made Miy'un or a woman performed Chalitzah permitted to marry her, seeing as they did not perform an act?

Answer (Part 1): Wherever the matter is concluded through them, it is considered an act.

Answer (Part 2): Whereas there (in Gitin) where it is merely words, where, in the name of the husband, he tells the Sofer to write and the witnesses to sign, something that they may well not do, in which case she won't be divorced; and in any event, they don't complete the matter, they will not mind lying.

Question: In the case of 'Dan es ha'Din' in our Sugya, on what basis is the Dayan permitted to purchase the article, seeing as bearing in mind Tana's use of the word 'Dan', he is an individual (and the lenient ruling is restricted to two people)?

Refuted Answer: We cannot answer that a Dayan is above suspicion ...

Refutation: Since we have learned in the second Perek of Yevamos (Daf 25.) that a Chacham who forbids a woman (to her hisband) due to a Neder, is not allowed to marry her.

Reinstated Answer #1: Perhaps the case there is different, for we suspect that he has perhaps taken a fancy to her.

Answer #2: Furthermore, we can answer that the Gemara in Bechoros (in Perek ad B'chor 28:) is more clearly speaking about a Yachid, since in the Reisha it talks about 'someone who is not an expert and who examines a B'chor, which is why the Gemara in Sanhedrin asks from it).

Clarification: To whom one returns a lost article with recognition alone (without identification) - 'This is someone who forbids his own Safek T'reifah of his own accord.