it is certain that the perforation was created before the slaughter of the animal, and it is therefore a tereifa. If a drop of blood is not found on it, it is certain that it occurred after the slaughter, when the blood of the animal had stopped flowing. The animal is therefore kosher.

If a scab covered the opening of the wound, i.e., the perforation, it is certain that the perforation occurred three days before the slaughter. Consequently, if the animal was sold less than three days before the slaughter, the buyer can claim that the transaction was performed in error, as he did not intend to purchase a tereifa animal, and the seller must refund the buyer. If a scab did not cover the opening of the wound, and it is uncertain whether the perforation occurred before or after the animal was purchased, the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. Accordingly, the buyer must furnish proof that the perforation occurred before the purchase in order to demand a refund.

The Gemara asks: But in what way is this case different from all other perforations, where even though there is no blood on the wound the Master deems the animal a tereifa? The Gemara responds: There, in all other cases, there is nothing to which the blood can attach. Even if the wound had bled, the blood would be reabsorbed into the flesh. Here, since there is a needle, it follows that if it is the case that the perforation occurred before slaughter, blood from the wound would have attached to the needle. Accordingly, if there is no blood on the needle, it is certain that the perforation occurred after slaughter.

The Gemara relates that Rav Safra said to Abaye: Did the Master see a Torah scholar who came from the West, Eretz Yisrael, and said: My name is Rav Avira? He said that there was an incident that came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi involving a needle that was found in the thickness of the reticulum protruding from only one side, and he deemed the animal a tereifa. Abaye sent a message to Rav Avira calling for him to come and explain the matter, since this contradicts the baraita that states that the animal is a tereifa only if the needle protrudes from both sides. Rav Avira did not come before him, so Abaye went before Rav Avira. Rav Avira was standing on the roof. Abaye said to him: Let Master descend and come, but Rav Avira did not descend. Abaye ascended to him and said to him: Say to me, what were the circumstances of the incident itself?

Rav Avira said to him: I am a director of assemblies in the study hall. I was standing above the Great Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and Rav Huna of Tzippori and Rabbi Yosei of Medea were sitting before him, and a needle came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that was found in the thickness of the reticulum protruding from one side, i.e., the inside, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi turned the reticulum over and found a drop of blood on the outside, parallel to the wound on the inside, and he deemed the animal a tereifa. And he said: If there is no wound on the outside there as well, from where is this drop of blood? Abaye said to Rav Avira: He caused that man trouble needlessly, i.e., you troubled me for no reason. This is nothing more than the mishna, which states that an animal is a tereifa if the omasum or the reticulum was perforated to the outside.

§ The mishna states: An animal that fell from the roof is a tereifa, since its limbs may have been shattered. Rav Huna says: If one left an animal above, on the roof, and he came back and found it below, but did not see it fall, one need not be concerned with regard to the shattering of limbs. One may presume that it jumped intentionally and was not injured.

The Gemara relates: There was a certain kid belonging to Ravina that saw barley groats through an open skylight. It jumped down through the skylight and fell from the roof to the ground. The case came before Rav Ashi, and Ravina said to him: What is the rationale for this statement that Rav Huna says, that if one left an animal above and he came back and found it below, one need not be concerned about the possible shattering of limbs? Is it because the animal usually has something to grab hold of? If so, since this kid jumped through a skylight, it did not have something to grab hold of, and one must be concerned. Or perhaps it is because the animal evaluates itself and determines that it can jump without injury. If so, this kid also evaluated itself before jumping, and one need not be concerned.

Rav Ashi said to him: It is because the animal evaluates itself before jumping, and this kid also evaluated itself before jumping. Therefore, one need not be concerned about the possible shattering of limbs.

The Gemara relates that there was a certain ewe that was in the house of Rav Ḥaviva, whose hind legs would drag. Rav Yeimar said: This ewe suffers from rheumatism [shigrona], and this is why she drags her legs. Ravina objects to this: But perhaps the spinal cord was cut, and this is why the ewe dragged her legs, and the animal is a tereifa. They inspected her and found that the spinal cord was cut, as Ravina said. The Gemara notes: And even so, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yeimar, since rheumatism is common, but a cut spinal cord is not common. Accordingly, one need not be concerned about the possibility of a cut spinal cord.

Rav Huna also says: With regard to rams that butt one another, one need not be concerned with regard to shattering of limbs. Even though they are in pain and stand still, it is only a fever that afflicts them; one need not be concerned about the possibility of severe injuries. But if they fall to the ground due to the impact, we certainly must be concerned that their limbs may have been shattered.

Rav Menashei says: With regard to these rams that thieves steal and throw over the fence, one need not be concerned with regard to the shattering of limbs. What is the reason for this? When the thieves throw them over the fence, they throw them so that they land on their hips, where they will not be injured, so that they will be able to run before them. But if the thieves returned them to the owner, we certainly must be concerned that their limbs may have been shattered, since thieves do not throw them carefully when returning them. And this statement applies only when they return them due to fear of being caught, or are otherwise forced to return them. But if they return them due to repentance, they have performed full-fledged repentance and will take care to return them without injury.

Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: If one hit an animal on its head with a stick, and the length of the stick continued toward its back; or if one hit the animal on its tail and the length of the stick continued toward its head, such that in either case the blow extended along the entire spine, one need not be concerned with regard to the shattering of limbs. But if the length of the stick concluded at the middle of the back, we must be concerned that the strike caused an injury to the spine. And if there are knots, i.e., protrusions, on the stick, we must be concerned that it injured the spine, even if the stick fell across the entire back. And if he struck it like a slash across the width of the back, we must be concerned that it injured the spine.

§ Rav Naḥman says: The womb is not subject to concern about possible shattered limbs. In other words, one need not be concerned that the limbs of a newborn calf may have been shattered by the narrow birth canal. Rava said to Rav Naḥman: That which is taught in a baraita supports your opinion: A one-day-old infant