their measure in order to be susceptible to ritual impurity is that they can hold enough oil with which to anoint a small child. If they cannot hold this amount, they are considered useless and are not susceptible to impurity. And this measure applies only to vessels that held up to a log when they were whole; if they had originally held more, they must hold more when broken in order to be susceptible to impurity. What, is it not teaching that if it originally held exactly one log it is treated as though it had held below that amount? If so, the term: Up to, means up to and including. The Gemara responds: No, if it held exactly one log it is treated as though it held above that amount, and if broken it must be capable of holding a greater measure in order to be susceptible to impurity.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from the continuation of the same mishna: If the vessel originally held from a log up to a se’a, its broken-off base or sides must hold a quarter-log in order to be susceptible to impurity. What, is it not teaching that if it originally held exactly a se’a it is treated as though it had held below that amount? The Gemara responds: No, if it held exactly a se’a it is treated as though it had held above that amount, and its base or sides must hold a greater measure in order to be susceptible to impurity.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from the continuation of the same mishna: If the vessel had originally held from a se’aup to two se’a, its broken-off base or sides must hold half a log to be susceptible to impurity. What, is it not teaching that if it had originally held exactly two se’a it is treated as if though it had held below that amount? The Gemara responds: No, if it had held exactly two se’a it is treated as though it had held above that amount.

The Gemara asks: How can one explain the mishna in this manner? But isn’t it taught explicitly in a baraita: If the vessel had originally held exactly a log it is treated as though it had held below that amount; if it had held exactly a se’a it is treated as though it had held below that amount; if it had held exactly two se’a it is treated as though it had held below that amount? Evidently, the term: Up to, means up to and including the given measure, in contradiction to Rav Naḥman’s opinion that it means up to and not including the measure.

The Gemara responds: The term: Up to, is always interpreted in the more stringent manner. Accordingly, there, with regard to the impurity of vessels, the term: Up to, is interpreted as up to and including in order to rule stringently, since the vessel is then more easily susceptible to impurity. As Rabbi Abbahu says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: All measures of the Sages must be interpreted stringently, except for the measure of a groat as a standard for stains of blood found on a woman’s clothing, which is interpreted leniently. Even if the stain is exactly the size of a groat, the woman remains pure. Here, it is more stringent to interpret the phrase: Up to, as up to and including, because an animal is then more susceptible to being rendered a tereifa.

The Gemara notes: The language is also precise, i.e., it is evident that the phrase: Up to, is always interpreted stringently, as the mishna (Kelim 19:2) states that if a rope extending from a rope bed is of any length up to five handbreadths, it is not susceptible to ritual impurity, but if it is of any length from five up to ten handbreadths, it is susceptible. And a baraita teaches with regard to that mishna: If the rope was exactly five handbreadths long, it is treated as though its length were above that; if the rope was exactly ten handbreadths long, it is treated as though its length were below that. In both cases, the measure is interpreted stringently.

§ The mishna states: If the spleen was removed the animal remains kosher. Rav Avira says in the name of Rava: The Sages taught that it is kosher only when the spleen was removed, but if it was perforated, it is a tereifa.

Rabbi Yosei bar Avin, and some say Rabbi Yosei bar Zevida, raises an objection from a mishna in the next chapter (68a): If, prior to slaughtering an animal, one severs pieces from a fetus that is in the womb and leaves those pieces in the womb, their consumption is permitted by virtue of the slaughter of the mother animal (see 69a). By contrast, if one severs pieces of the spleen or of the kidneys of an animal and then slaughters it, then even if those pieces are left inside the animal their consumption is prohibited, because an organ severed from a living being is not permitted by the subsequent slaughter of the animal. One can infer from the mishna that the animal itself is permitted even when part of the spleen was severed. Evidently, such an animal is not a tereifa.

The Gemara responds: The same is true of the animal, and even the animal is prohibited. But since the mishna taught in the first clause, with regard to the parts of the fetus: Their consumption is permitted, it taught in the last clause with regard to the parts of the spleen: Their consumption is prohibited, to contrast between them. Or, if you wish, say instead that a perforated spleen is a discrete case, in which the animal is a tereifa, and a cut spleen is a discrete case, in which the animal is not.

§ The mishna states: If the kidneys were removed the animal remains kosher. Rakhish bar Pappa said in the name of Rav: If an animal was diseased in even one kidney, the animal is a tereifa. In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they say: And this applies only in a case where the disease reached