השוחט בשאר טבעות אף על פי שאין מקיפות את כל הקנה הואיל ומקיפות את רוב הקנה שחיטתו כשרה ומוגרמת פסולה העיד רבי חנינא בן אנטיגנוס על מוגרמת שהיא כשרה

With regard to one who slaughters from within the rest of the rings, even though they do not encircle the entire windpipe, since they encircle the majority of the windpipe his slaughter is valid. The baraita adds: And in a case where the knife is diverted from the place of slaughter above the ring, the slaughter is not valid. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus testified about a case where the knife is diverted from the area of slaughter above the ring that in such a case the slaughter is valid. Contrary to that which Rav and Shmuel said with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, he holds that slaughter from within the other rings is valid.

אמר רב יוסף רבי יוסי בר יהודה תרתי קאמר רב ושמואל סברי כוותיה בחדא ופליגי עליה בחדא

Rav Yosef said: Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda is say ing two statements; Rav and Shmuel hold in accordance with his opinion with regard to one matter, that if one cuts a majority of the windpipe within the large ring the slaughter is valid, and disagree with him with regard to one matter, as in their opinion if one cuts the windpipe within the other rings, the slaughter is not valid.

והא לא אמר קאמרי הכי קאמר הלכה כמותו בטבעת הגדולה ואין הלכה כמותו בשאר טבעות

The Gemara objects: But didn’t Rav and Shmuel say: And even Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, said his statement only with regard to the large upper ring and not with regard to the other rings, indicating that in their opinion, this is the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda? The Gemara explains that this is what Rav and Shmuel are say ing: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, with regard to cutting the majority of the windpipe within the large ring, and the halakha is not in accordance with his opinion with regard to the other rings that since they encircle a majority of the windpipe, one may slaughter within them as well.

כי סליק רבי זירא אכל מוגרמת דרב ושמואל אמרי ליה לאו מאתריה דרב ושמואל את אמר להו מאן אמרה יוסף בר חייא יוסף בר חייא מכולי עלמא גמיר

When Rabbi Zeira ascended from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, he ate meat from an animal during whose slaughter the knife was diverted from the place of slaughter, with regard to which Rav and Shmuel ruled that the slaughter is not valid, and in Eretz Yisrael the ruling was that the slaughter is valid. The Torah scholars in Eretz Yisrael said to Rabbi Zeira: Aren’t you from Babylonia, the place where Rav and Shmuel are the halakhic authorities? You should follow their ruling. Rabbi Zeira said to them: Who said this halakha citing Rav and Shmuel? It was Yosef bar Ḥiyya, referring to Rav Yosef. Yosef bar Ḥiyya learns from everyone, even from students of Rav and Shmuel who misquote their statements.

שמע רב יוסף איקפד אמר אנא מכולי עלמא גמירנא אנא מרב יהודה גמירנא דאפילו ספיקי דגברי גריס דאמר רב יהודה אמר רבי ירמיה בר אבא ספק משמיה דרב ספק משמיה דשמואל שלשה מתירין את הבכור במקום שאין מומחה

Rav Yosef heard the comment of Rabbi Zeira and was angry. He said: Do I learn from everyone? I learn from Rav Yehuda, who is so meticulous in citing the statements of Rav and Shmuel that he cites even uncertainties with regard to attribution of statements to the men who said them. As Rav Yehuda says that Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba says, and it is uncertain whether it is in the name of Rav and uncertain whether it is in the name of Shmuel: A tribunal of three permits slaughter of a blemished firstborn animal outside of the Temple in a place where there is no expert Sage to consult.

ורבי זירא לית ליה נותנין עליו חומרי המקום שיצא משם וחומרי המקום שהלך לשם

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Zeira not accept the principle that when a person travels from place to place, the Sages impose upon him the stringencies of the place from which he emerged and the stringencies of the place to which he went?

אמר אביי הני מילי מבבל לבבל ומארץ ישראל לארץ ישראל אי נמי מארץ ישראל לבבל אבל מבבל לארץ ישראל כיון דאנן כייפינן להו עבדינן כוותייהו

Abaye said: That statement applies when one travels from one place in Babylonia to another place in Babylonia, or from one place in Eretz Yisrael to another place in Eretz Yisrael, or alternatively, when one descends from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia. But when one ascends from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, this principle does not apply. Since we, the residents of Babylonia, are subordinate to them in terms of halakha, we act in accordance with their custom.

רב אשי אמר אפילו תימא מבבל לארץ ישראל הני מילי היכא דדעתו לחזור רבי זירא אין דעתו לחזור הוה

Rav Ashi said: Even if you say that when one travels from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, he is required to act stringently in accordance with the custom of the place from which he emerged, that statement applies only in a case where his intent is to return. Rabbi Zeira was not one whose intent was to return. Therefore, he was not obligated to observe the Babylonian stringencies.

אמר ליה אביי לרב יוסף והא רבנן דאתו ממחוזא אמרי אמר רבי זירא משמיה דרב נחמן מוגרמת כשרה אמר ליה נהרא נהרא ופשטיה

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: But didn’t the Sages who came from Meḥoza say that Rabbi Zeira says in the name of Rav Naḥman: In a case where the knife is diverted from the place of slaughter above the ring, the slaughter is valid? Rav Yosef said to him: Each river and its unique course, i. e., each place follows its custom, and in Meḥoza the custom was not in accordance with the opinion of Rav and Shmuel.

רבי שמעון בן לקיש אכשר בחודא דכובעא קרי עליה רבי יוחנן גיסא גיסא אמר רב פפי משמיה דרבא פגע בחיטי טרפה

The Gemara relates that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish deemed the slaughter valid in a case where one cut the windpipe at the tip of the thyroid cartilage that is above the large ring. Rabbi Yoḥanan proclaimed about Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: He greatly exaggerated the limits of valid slaughter. Rav Pappi said in the name of Rava: If one cut the windpipe and encountered the arytenoid cartilage that is adjacent to the upper ring in the direction of the jaw and covered by the tip of the thyroid cartilage, the animal is a tereifa, i. e., forbidden. Since the arytenoid cartilage is outside the area of slaughter, the slaughter is invalid.

איבעיא להו פגע ונגע בהן דכתיב ויפגע בו וימת או דלמא פגע ולא נגע כדכתיב ויפגעו בו מלאכי אלהים

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Does encountered mean encountered and touched it, as it is written: “ And he encountered him and he died” (I Kings 2: 25); or perhaps it means encountered but did not touch, like that which is written: “ And the angels of God encountered him” (Genesis 32:2)?

איתמר אמר רב פפא משמיה דרבא שייר בחיטי כשרה אמר רב אמימר בר מר ינוקא הוה קאימנא קמיה דרבי חייא בריה דרב אויא ואמר לי שייר בחיטי כשרה אמר ליה רבינא לרב אשי אמר לי רב שמן מסוברא איקלע מר זוטרא לאתרין ודרש שייר בחיטי כשרה מר בר רב אשי אמר פגע בחיטי כשרה שייר בחיטי טרפה

It was stated that Rav Pappa said in the name of Rava: If one left part of the arytenoid cartilage, i. e., if he cut it in the middle, the slaughter is valid. Rav Ameimar bar Mar Yenuka said: I was standing before Rabbi Ḥiyya, son of Rav Avya, and he said to me: If one left part of the arytenoid cartilage, the slaughter is valid. Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Rav Shemen of Suvara said to me that Mar Zutra happened to come to our place and taught: If one left part of the arytenoid cartilage, the slaughter is valid. Mar bar Rav Ashi said: If one encountered the arytenoid cartilage, the slaughter is valid. If one left part of the arytenoid cartilage, the animal is a tereifa.