Question: How much (of the dry or moist fodder) must the animal eat?

Answer (R. Yochanan): It must eat the volume of a dry fig.

Question #1 (Rava): In Eretz Yisrael they asked, does he mean, it must eat the volume of a dry fig at its first meal (feeding) every day, or at every meal?

Question #2: If you will say that it must eat at its first meal, must it eat (the dry or moist fodder) before or after its meal?

Surely, eating it before helps, just like medicine (for people) is generally taken before a meal;

We ask whether also eating after helps.

Question: Must it eat (the dry or moist fodder) before or after drinking?

Surely, eating it before helps, just like animals normally eat barley before drinking;

We ask whether eating after also helps. (The cure works better if the animal is happy. The next question are about things that could sadden it and disqualify the cure.)

Question: Must it eat when it is tied up or loose?

Surely, eating when untied helps. We ask whether also eating when tied helps.

Question: Must it eat when alone or among other animals?

Surely, eating with others helps. We ask whether also eating alone helps.

Question #1: Must it eat in the city or in the field?

Surely, eating in the field helps. We ask whether also eating in the city helps.

Question #2 (Rav Ashi): If you will say that it must eat in the field, is a garden close to the city considered like a field?

These questions are not resolved.

(Mishnah - R. Chanina ben Antigonus): We check it three times within 80 days.

(Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): The three times must be evenly spaced (Rashi - at 26, 53 and 80 days; Tosfos - at the beginning, 40, and 80 days).

Question (Pinchas, Shmuel's brother): If the water was not cured, was it retroactively a Mum (from when it was observed), or only now that it is established?

(If one redeemed the animal in the interim,) the answer to this determines whether or not one who benefitted from the Pidyon (redemption money) transgressed Me'ilah:

If it is a Mum retroactively, it was a proper Pidyon, he transgressed Me'ilah. If it is a Mum only now, the Pidyon did not take effect yet, so he was not Mo'el.

Shmuel: You are not a Chacham, but you asked a superb question! (I cannot answer it.)

(Mishnah): The following are Mumim:

The nose or lip was punctured, Chaser or cracked.

(Gemara - Beraisa): If the wall between the nostrils was punctured externally (at the bottom, where it is visible) it is a Mum;

If it was punctured internally, it is not a Mum.

(Mishnah): The lip was punctured, Chaser or cracked.

(Rav Papa): This refers to the outer edge of the lip. These are not Mumim in the width.

(Mishnah): If the outer Chutin (Rashi - gums; R. Gershom - teeth) are chipped or cracked, or if the inner Chutin are uprooted (it is a Mum).

R. Chanina ben Antigonus says, we do not check from the Tiyumes (molars, which look like double teeth) and inwards, nor the Tiyumes itself.

(Gemara - Beraisa) Question: What is the Tiyumes?

Answer: From the Tiyumes and inwards, and the Tiyumes itself is considered inside (this will be explained).

R. Yehoshua ben Kefutzai says, we slaughter only due to outer Chutin;

R. Chanina ben Antigonus says, we do not pay any attention to the Tiyumes.

Question #1: What does this mean? (The Beraisa did not explain what the Tiyomes is!)

Question #2: The first Tana and R. Yehoshua do not argue!

Answer to both questions: The Beraisa is abbreviated. It means as follows:

Question: What is considered inner (Chutin)?

Answer: From the Tiyumes and inwards is inner. The Tiyumes itself is considered inside;

One may not slaughter (outside the Mikdash) due to inner Chutin if they were Chaserim or cracked, but if they were uprooted, one may slaughter.

R. Yehoshua ben Kefutzai says, we slaughter (outside) only due to outer Chutin;

If inner Chutin were uprooted, one may not slaughter (outside), but this disqualifies from Hakravah;

R. Chanina ben Antigonus says, we do not pay any attention to the Tiyumes, even to disqualify.

Question (Rav Achdevoy bar Ami): Are we concerned about Mechusar Ever Bifnim (if an internal organ is missing)?

Question: What does he ask about?

(He cannot ask whether it is Posel a Bechor, because) only external Mumim are Posel a Bechor. It says "Pise'ach Oh Iver."

(He cannot ask whether it is Posel Kodshim, because) only external Mumim are Posel other Kodshim. It says "Averes Oh Shavur"!

Answer: Granted, Mechusar Ever Bifnim is not a full-fledged Mum to permit Shechitah (outside) or redemption, but perhaps it is Posel (a Bechor and Kodshim);

Perhaps "Tamim Yihyeh l'Ratzon" this disqualifies even internal Chisaron;

Or, perhaps the end of the verse, "... Mum Lo Yihyeh Bo" teaches about the beginning. Just like a Mum is external, also Tamim is required only externally!

Answer #1: Tana'im argue about this:

(Beraisa #1): "V'Es Shtei ha'Kelayos" excludes an animal with three kidneys, or only one;

Contradiction (Beraisa #2): "Yesirenah" (singular) is Machshir for the Mizbe'ach an animal with only one kidney.

We are thinking that all agree that an animal is not born with only one kidney, and one of the kidneys is missing.

Resolution #1: Tana #1 considers an internal Chisaron like (an external) Chisaron (it is Posel), and Tana #2 does not consider it a Chisaron (it is Kosher).

Answer #2 (Rav Chiya bar Yosef): No, all agree that an animal can be born with only one kidney, and an internal Chisaron is a Chisaron;

Resolution #2 (Rav Chiya bar Yosef): Beraisa #1 discusses an animal born with two kidneys (one is missing), and Beraisa #2 discusses an animal born with one kidney.

Objection: Beraisa #1 also discusses an animal with three kidneys. Surely it was born with three! Surely, also the case of one kidney is when it was born with one!

Resolution #3: They argue about whether an animal can be born with only one kidney. Tana #1 holds that it cannot, Tana #2 holds that it can.

Note: (Rashi - the Objection assumes that it can be born with one, therefore it is more reasonable to make the cases similar, even if we cannot explain why it is Pasul when it was born with one. if Tana #1 holds that it cannot be born with only one, we are forced to say that the cases of one and three kidneys are dissimilar.)

Resolution #4 (R. Yochanan): All agree that an animal cannot be born with only one kidney, and that an internal Chisaron is not a Chisaron;

Beraisa #1 is Posel when a kidney was lost before Shechitah. Beraisa #2 is Machshir when it was lost after Shechitah.

Objection: Even if it was lost after Shechitah, Chisaron before Kabalah is Posel!

(R. Zeira): If one nicked the ear of a Korban before Kabalah, it is Pasul. "V'Lakach... mi'Dam ha'Par" teaches that the bull must be intact.

Correction: Rather, Beraisa #1 is Posel when it was lost before Kabalah, and Beraisa #2 is Machshir when it was lost after Kabalah.

Objection: Even if it was lost after Kabalah, Chisaron before Zerikah is Posel!

(Beraisa): "Seh Samim Zachar Ben Shanah Yihyeh" - it must be Tam and yearling (within its first year) at the time of Shechitah.

Question: What is the source that it must be so at the time of the other Avodos?

Answer: "Yihyeh" - all its Avodos must be when it is Tam and yearling. (Griz - the Rambam understands "Tam" here to mean "complete.")

Answer: We must say that "Yihyeh" requires only it to be yearling during the Avodos (but it need not be Tam).

Support (Beraisa - R. Yehoshua): If a k'Zayis of the meat or Chelev of a Korban remains, we may do Zerikah (throw the blood on the Mizbe'ach. If only a k'Zayis remains, this is the ultimate Mum!)

Question: If it was yearling at the time of Shechitah, surely it is yearling at the time of Zerikah (it must be the same day)!

Answer (Rava): This teaches that we calculate the age of Korbanos from hour to hour. (The case is, its first year finished between Shechitah and Zerikah.)

Answer #3: Tana'im argue about whether an internal Chisaron is a Chisaron:

(Beraisa - R. Yehudah): "U'Ma'uch v'Chasus v'Nasuk v'Charus" all apply to the Beitzim (testicles).

Interjection: All the more so, they should apply to the Ever (it is more exposed than the Beitzim)!

Correction: Rather, R. Yehudah says that all apply even to the Beitzim;

R. Eliezer ben Yakov says, all apply (only) to the Ever;

R. Yosi says, Ma'uch and Kasus apply even to the Beitzim. Nasuk and Karus apply to the Ever.

Suggestion: R. Yehudah holds that an internal Chisaron is a Chisaron, and R. Eliezer ben Yakov holds that it is not.

Objection: If this is the only consideration, we cannot explain R. Yosi!

If he holds that an internal Chisaron is a Chisaron, all of these Mumim should apply even to the Beitzim. If it is not a Chisaron, none of them should apply to the Beitzim!

Rejection: No, they argue about whether a Mum in the Beitzim is considered exposed:

R. Yehudah holds that Ma'uch and Kasus are exposed, because they cause the Beitzim to shrivel up. Nasuk and Karus are exposed, because they cause the Beitzim to hang lower in the sac;

R. Eliezer holds that Ma'uch and Kasus are not exposed, because sometimes healthy Beitzim shrivel up. Nasuk and Karus are not exposed, because sometimes healthy Beitzim hang low in the sac;

R. Yosi says that Ma'uch and Kasus are Mumim, because the Beitzim are missing (R. Gershom - dissolved). Nasuk and Karus are not Mumim, because the Beitzim are intact.

(Mishnah): The following are Mumim:

The sac containing the Beitzim or the Eryah (area around the female genitals - this applies to Kodshim that can be females, not to Bechor) is Chaser;

There is a Chisaron in the bone of the tail, but not if the Chisaron is in the joint;

Version #1 (Rashi): A bone of the tail is exposed (the skin and flesh came off).

Version #2 (Tosfos): The end of the tail splits into two bones. (end of Version #2)

There is k'Etzba (a finger's width) of flesh between vertebrae (in the tail).

(Gemara - R. Elazar): It is a Mum only if the sac is Chaser, but not if it is removed (for then it can grow back). It is a Mum in the sac, but not in the Ever (for it can heal);

Support (Beraisa): It is a Mum only if the sac is Chaser, but not if it is removed. It is a Mum in the sac, but not in the Ever;

R. Yosi ben ha'Meshulam says, a case occurred in which a wolf took the entire sac, and it grew back.

(Mishnah): There is a Chisaron in the bone of the tail (... there is k'Etzba of flesh between vertebrae).

(Beraisa): The finger to which the Chachamim refer is a (thumb, a) quarter of a Tefach. (There was no tradition that this Beraisa explains our Mishnah. Perhaps it refers to a different Halachah.)

Question: To which Halachah does this refer? (The Griz asks, according to the Rambam, who says that whenever a Stam finger is mentioned, it is a quarter Tefach. If so, what was the question? The Netziv answers that we asked where the Mishnah discusses such a finger. However, Rabah answered from a Beraisa!)

Answer #1 (Rabah): It refers to Tzitzis:

(Beraisa) Question: How many strings are required?

Answer #1 (Beis Shamai): Four strings are required. (They are put through the corner and doubled over, making eight ends);

Answer #2 (Beis Hillel): Three strings are required (six ends).

Question: How long should be Meshuleshes? (This is what hangs below the corner. Alternatively, it is the Anaf (what hangs straight), without the Gedil (windings and knots, which is half the length of the Anaf). Alternatively, it is the Gedil, without the Anaf.)

Answer #1 (Beis Shamai): Four Etzba'os are required;

Answer #2 (Beis Hillel): Three Etzba'os are required.

Each Etzba (of Beis Hillel) is a quarter Tefach (handbreadth) of an average person.