But this is obvious. [42a] What might I have said? If it was the case that she gave birth, that is announced. [Since we know nothing about a child, then the slaughter of this animal must be a valid act on an unconsecrated animal.] It makes the novel point [that the slaughter is invalid] as we could say that she had a miscarriage [and was obligated to bring a sacrifice].
I.1 discusses Mishnah's precepts. II, III, and IV sketch the circumstances that apply to Mishnah's rules.
K. R. Judah says, “One mauled by a wolf, in the case of a small beast, and one mauled by a lion in the case of a large beast, one mauled by a hawk, in the case of small fowl, and one mauled by a falcon, in the case of large fowl.”
A. Said R. Simeon b. Laqish, “Where in the Torah is there an allusion to [the prohibition of eating an animal that is] terefah?” Where [is there an allusion? There is an explicit rule]: “You shall not eat any flesh that is torn by beasts in the field” (Exod. 22:31). [Hence this rule is explicit.]
B. Rather [what did Simeon ask about]? Where in the Torah is there an allusion to [the principle that] a terefah is not considered to be alive? As it was taught in the last text of the Mishnah, [This is the general principle:] Any the like of which does not live is terefah [M. Hul. 3:1 L]. From there we may derive the principle that a terefah is not considered to be alive.
C. What is the source [in the Torah] of this assertion? “[Say to the people of Israel], These are the living things which you may eat [among all the beasts that are on the earth]” (Lev. 11:2). What is living, you may eat. What is not living, you may not eat. You may derive the principle that a terefah is not considered to be alive.
D. And according to the authority who holds the view that a terefah is considered to be alive, what is the source of this assertion? We derive it from, “These are the living things which you may eat.” [This implies that] “These are the living things” you may eat. Other living things you may not eat. You may derive the principle that a terefah is considered to be alive.
E. And how does the other authority [who holds that it is not considered to be alive] interpret this [word in the verse], “These”? It is necessary [for the verse to use the word] in accord with that which the House of R. Ishmael taught.
F. For the House of R. Ishmael taught: “These are the living things which you may eat” — this teaches us that the Holy One blessed be He held up one of each of the species and showed them to Moses and said to him, “This you may eat. This you may not eat.”
G. And does the other authority not need to interpret the verse in accord with that which the House of R. Ishmael taught? Of course. Accordingly what then is the source of the assertion that a terefah is considered to be alive?
H. You may derive it from another teaching of the House of R. Ishmael. For the House of R. Ishmael taught, “Between the living creature that may be eaten and the living creature that may not be eaten” (Lev. 11:47) — these [varieties of creatures] are the eighteen categories of terefot that were addressed to Moses at Sinai.
I. And are there no more [categories]? But lo there are the four more [categories in the Mishnah based on Tannaitic authority alluded to by a mnemonic] and the seven that were taught [by Amoraic authorities (Rashi)].
J. [42b] This makes perfect sense according to the Tanna of our Mishnah. We can say that the Tanna taught [the rules in our Mishnah] and omitted [the other categories]. They are then subsumed in the general principle [M. Hul. 3:1 L].
K. But according to the Tanna of the House of R. Ishmael who said there are eighteen categories of terefot and no more, but lo there is [another category referred to in the following]: A beast, the [hind] legs of which are cut off [below the knee, is valid. If they are cut off] above the knee, it is invalid [M. 4:6 A-B].
L. He [the Tanna] holds in accord with the view of R. Simeon b. Eleazar who said, [If the bone broke and the juncture of the thigh-sinews is removed, it is invalid (M. Hul. 4:6). And R. Simeon b. Eleazar declares valid,] because it can be cauterized and recover [T. 3:6 B-C].
M. But even if it can be cauterized and recover, according to whom are we stating matters? According to the Tanna of the House of Ishmael. And the Tanna of the House of Ishmael reasons that a terefah is considered to be alive.
N. Rather he must reason in accord with the view of R. Simeon b. Eleazar who said that it is valid. [The justification that it can be cauterized and recover is not essential to the view that it is valid.]
O. But lo there is [another category of terefah — an animal that has an] abnormal deficiency of the spine. As it was taught on Tannaite authority in the Mishnah, How much is deemed a deficiency in the spine [of a skeleton so that it does not render unclean objects in a tent]? The House of Shammai say, “Two vertebrae.” And the House of Hillel say, “One vertebra” [M. Ohal. 2:3].
P. And said R. Judah, said Samuel, “And the same [rule of deficiency in the spine applies] for [rendering the animal] a terefah.”
Q. [Count this deficiency of the spine is another category. Accordingly in order to preserve eighteen as the number of categories] The omasum or the second stomach [reticulum which are pierced on the outer side] [M. 3:1 H] that you reckoned as two [categories], you should reckon them as one [category]. You take one out and add one in.
R. But lo there is [another category of terefah — an animal that] has lost its hide [having been flayed] [M. 3:2 E]. You can reason in accord with the view of R. Judah who declares it valid.
S. But lo there is [another category of terefah — an animal whose] [lung] is dried naturally [M. 3:2 D].
T. [If] the gallbladder [is pierced] [M. 3:1 F], who taught this rule? R. Yosé b. R. Judah [cf. b. 43a]. You can take out the gallbladder [from the list of eighteen] and put in the animal whose] [lung] is dried naturally.
U. But lo there are [other categories of terefah, namely] the seven that were taught [by Amoraic authorities as follows]:
V. (1) For said R. Matna, “This [case of an animal whose] femur slipped out of its socket [Cashdan] is terefah.”
W. (2) And said Rakhish bar Pappa in the name of Rab, “[An animal that was] diseased in one kidney is terefah.”
X. (3) And it was taught in the Mishnah on Tannaite authority, [if] the spleen is removed [M. 3:2 C] it is valid. And said R. Avira in the name of Raba, “They taught this rule only in the case where it was removed. But if it was pierced, it is terefah.”
Y. (4) And said Rabbah bar bar Hannah, said Samuel, “[If one of the throat] organs was for the most part [torn away and] dangling, it is terefah.”
Z. (5) And said Rabbah bar R. Shila, said R. Matna, said Samuel, “If a rib was torn away from its socket, [the animal] is terefah.”
AA. (6) And [if] the skull that was for the most part shattered, [the animal] is terefah.
BB. (7) And [if] the membrane that covers the rumen [that was for the most part torn], it is terefah.
CC. [How then do we maintain a list of eighteen categories of terefah?] The eight [categories of terefah caused by] puncturing should be reckoned as one [category]. Take out seven and add seven others.
DD. If so then [the cases in M. of] severing are two categories that should be reckoned as one. You are then short [of eighteen by] one category.
EE. And further, the case of R. Avira in the name of Raba [above at X] is also an instance of puncturing [and should be subsumed into this one category leaving us two categories short of eighteen].