Answer #2 (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua): It refers to the two Amos. (An Amah is the distance from the elbow to the end of the long finger);

(Mishnah): There were two rods for measuring an Amah in (a place in the Mikdash called) Shushan ha'Birah. One was half an Etzba bigger than the (six-Tefach) Amah of Moshe, and the other was one Etzba bigger.

Question: Why were there different Midos? (One Amah, that of Moshe, would suffice!)

Answer: Workers (who contracted to build for Hekdesh) would be hired (to build) according to the Amah of Moshe. What they made was measured by a larger Midah, lest they be overpaid and transgress Me'ilah. (Tosfos (in Menachos) - they did not want to be overpaid, but in any case they would not transgress Me'ilah.)

Answer #3 (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): It refers to our Mishnah. An Etzba of flesh between vertebrae is a Mum.

(Mishnah): If it has no Beitzim, or only one, this is a Mum;

R. Yishmael says if the sac has two compartments, there are two Beitzim. If there is only one compartment, there is only one Beitzah.

R. Akiva says (if we do not see a Beitzah in a compartment) we sit the animal on its rump, and press on the compartment and the loins. If there is a Beitzah inside, it will come out (from where it is "hiding" in the compartment, and become discernible from the outside).

A case occurred, they pressed, yet no Beitzah was discerned. After Shechitah (outside the Mikdash), a Beitzah was found clinging to the wall. R. Akiva permitted the animal. (Since the Beitzah was not in the proper place, it is a Mum.) R. Yochanan ben Nuri forbade it.

(Gemara) Question: If having only one Beitzah is a Mum, there is no need to say when it has none!

Answer: The Mishnah is abbreviated. It means that the following are Mumim:

It does not have two Beitzim in two compartments, rather in one compartment. (I.e. 'it has no Beitzim' in one of the compartments - PF.) Alternatively, there are two compartments but only one Beitzah.

R. Yishmael says, if there are two compartments, surely there are two Beitzim. If there is only one compartment, there is only one Beitzah.

R. Akiva does not say "surely... ". Rather, we sit it on its rump, and press. If there is a Beitzah inside, it will come out.

(Mishnah): A case occurred, and they pressed, yet no Beitzah was found...

(Beraisa - R. Yosi): A case occurred, and they pressed, yet no Beitzah was found. After Shechitah, a Beitzah was found clinging to the wall. R. Akiva permitted the animal, and R. Yochanan ben Nuri forbade it.

R. Akiva: You waste money of Yisrael (through forbidding it)!

R. Yochanan ben Nuri: You cause Yisraelim to eat Nevelah!

Question: It is not Nevelah. It was slaughtered!

Correction: Rather, he means 'you cause Yisraelim to eat Terefos.'

Question: They are not Terefos!

Correction: Rather, he means 'you cause Yisraelim to eat Kodshim slaughtered outside the Mikdash.'

(Mishnah): The following are Mumim:

It has five legs, or only three;

Its feet are uncloven, like a donkey's feet;

It is Shachul, i.e. its thigh was dislocated;

It is Kasul, i.e. one of its thighs (Rambam's text - knees) is too high.

(Gemara - Rav Huna): The Mishnah calls five or three legs a Mum. It refers to an extra or missing foreleg;

If there is an extra or missing hind leg, it is Terefah.

(Regarding Terefos,) anything extra is as if it were missing.

(Rav Papa): The Mishnah does not require its feet to be uncloven and round like a donkey's. Rather, if they are round it is a Mum, even if they are cloven.

(Mishnah): Shachul and Kasul...

(Beraisa): Shachul is a dislocated thigh. Kasul is if one thigh connects to the (hip at the) flank, and the other connects above the flank.

(Beraisa): "Sharu'a" is if one thigh is bigger than the other. "Kalut" is if its feet are uncloven like those of a donkey or horse.

(Mishnah): If the bone of the foreleg or hind leg is broken, even if it is not noticeable, it is a Mum.

Ila (an expert (29a)) testified about these Mumim (mentioned until now) in Yavneh. Chachamim agreed to them. He testified about three more, and Chachamim did not agree to them, for they had no tradition for them:

Its eye is round like human eye, its mouth is like a pig's, or if most of the Medaber (the unattached part) of the tongue was removed.

A later Sanhedrin agreed that these are Mumim.

(Gemara) Question: If a broken bone is not noticeable, it is not a Mum!

Answer (Rav Papa): It is not intrinsically noticeable, but it is evident when the animal works. (It limps.)

(Mishnah): Ila testified about these Mumim... (its eye is round like a human eye).

Inference: This is abnormal for an animal.

Question (Mishnah - R. Meir): If a woman miscarried the form of a male Behemah, Chayah or bird, whether Tahor or Tamei, she is (Tamei like) Yoledes Zachar. For a female form, she is Yoledes Nekevah. If we do not know the gender, she has the stringencies of both;

(R. Yochanan): R. Meir holds that Tum'as Yoledes applies (to a Tamei animal) because its eyes are round like human eyes.

Answer (Rav Yosef): The black of an animal eye is (Ramban - not) normally round like a human eye, but the eye socket (Rashi; R. Chananel - the iris surrounding the black) is not (Ramban - is).

(Mishnah): If its mouth is like a pig's.

(Rav Papa): The Mishnah does not require its mouth to be Shapid (round; alternatively, the upper jaw narrows at the end into a snout) and Parus (the upper lip and jaw extend past the lower lip and jaw). Rather, if it is Parus it is a Mum, even if it is not Shapid.

(Mishnah): If most of the Medaber of the tongue was removed.

Our Mishnah is like R. Yehudah;

(Beraisa): If most of the tongue was removed, it is a Mum;

R. Yehudah says, if most of the Medaber of the tongue was removed it is a Mum.

(Mishnah): And a case occurred in which the lower jaw extended past the upper jaw. R. Shimon ben Gamliel asked Chachamim, and they ruled that it is a Mum.

(Gemara) Question: This was not discussed earlier. Why does it say "and a case occurred... "?

Answer: (In the previous Mishnah,) Ila testified that if its mouth is like a pig's (the upper jaw extends past the lower jaw), it is a Mum, and Chachamim disagreed;

Our Mishnah (implicitly) teaches that they argue only in this case, but if the lower jaw extends past the upper jaw, all agree that it is a Mum.

A case occurred in which the lower jaw extended past the upper jaw. R. Shimon ben Gamliel asked Chachamim, they ruled that it is a Mum.

Question: A Mishnah teaches that it is a Mum in a Kohen if the lower jaw or upper jaw extends past the other;

This is a Mum only in a Kohen. "Ish Ish mi'Zera Aharon... " - a Kohen must resemble other (normal) Kohanim. It does not apply to animals!

Answer (Rav Papa): If the lower jaw extends past the upper jaw and there is a bone in the protrusion, it is a Mum even in an animal;

If there is no bone, it is a Mum only in a Kohen.

(Mishnah - Chachamim): If a kid's ear was doubled over:

Version #1 (Rashi): If there is only one cartilege, it is a Mum. If there are two cartileges, it is not a Mum;

Version #2 (Rambam): If the extra skin has its own Etzem (cartilege; Pirush ha'Mishnayos - it is an entity unto itself), it is a Mum. If not, it is not a Mum. (end of Version #2)

R. Chanina ben Gamliel says, if a kid's tail resembles a pig's, or if it does not have three vertebrae, this is a Mum.

Version #1 (Gemara - Beraisa): If the mouth cannot open wide or the legs were too narrow;

If it is because there is no space (due to their shape), it is not a Mum;

If it is due to the bone, it is a Mum. (end of Version #1)

Version #2 (Beraisa): If the mouth or legs were swollen:

If it is due to wind, it is not a Mum (it will heal);

If it is due to the bone (Rashi; Rambam - themselves, i.e. not due to wind), it is a Mum. (end of Version #2)

If the ear was doubled over --

If there is only one cartilege, it is a Mum. if there are two, it is not a Mum. (Presumably, the Rambam's text is reversed.)

(Mishnah - R. Chanina ben Gamliel): If a kid's tail resembles a pig's (it is a Mum).

(Rav Papa): The Mishnah does not require its tail to be very thin. Rather, if it is round it is a Mum, even if it is thick. (Rashi - a lamb's tail is not round. Rashash suggests that Rashi's text of the Mishnah does not mention 'kid' regarding the tail.)

(Mishnah): Or if it does not have three vertebrae...

(Rav Huna): If (the tail of) a kid has two vertebrae, it is a Mum. If it has three, it is not a Mum;

If a lamb has three vertebrae, it is a Mum; if it has four, it is not a Mum.

Question (Beraisa): If a kid has one vertebra, it is a Mum. If it has two, it is not a Mum;

If a lamb has two vertebrae, it is a Mum. If it has three, it is not a Mum.

Rav Huna is refuted.

The Mishnah misled Rav Huna;

He thought that since the Reisha discusses a kid, also the Seifa (and three is not a Mum, but two is a Mum);

This is wrong. The Reisha discusses a kid, but the Seifa discusses a lamb.

(Mishnah - R. Chanina ben Antigonus): The following are Mumim:

A wart in the eye, a Chisaron in the bone of a fore or hind leg, or if the bone in which the gums are fixed was uprooted;

If one eye is big and (Rambam; Rashi - or) one is small,

If one ear is big and (or) one is small,

Version #1 (Rashi): This is only if it is readily seen, but not if it is known only through measuring.

Version #2 (R. Gershom): This is based on appearance. Chachamim did not quantify the size (like they did regarding eyes (below) and Beitzim).

R. Yehudah says, if one of the Beitzim is twice as big as the other, it is a Mum;

Chachamim disagree.

(Gemara) Inference: Our Mishnah says that a wart is a proper Mum. (It permits slaughtering outside the Mikdash.)

Contradiction (Mishnah #2): If an animal has any of the following Mumim, it may not be slaughtered in or outside the Mikdash: Garav (a hard dry rash), wart...

Objection: The Torah explicitly lists "Yaveles" (wart) among (proper) Mumim!

Resolution #1: A wart in the eye is a Mum. A wart on the body is not a (proper) Mum.

Question: The verse does not distinguish between the eye and the body!

Resolution #2: Rather, the verse refers to a wart with a bone. It is a Mum;

The Mishnayos discuss warts without a bone;

Our Mishnah discusses a wart in the eye. It is a proper Mum. Mishnah #2 discusses a wart on the body. It is not a (proper) Mum.

Objection: A wart without a bone on the body is not even Posel (from offering it). It is merely a dangling piece of skin!

(Beraisa - R. Eliezer): A dangling piece of skin disqualifies a Kohen. It does not disqualify an animal.

Resolution #3: Both Mishnayos discuss warts in the eye. Our Mishnah discusses a wart in the black. Mishnah #2 discusses a wart in the white.

Objection: Mumim do not apply to the white! (A Mishnah (38b) says so.)

Version #1 (our text, Rashi) Answer: Indeed, Mishnah #2 discusses a wart in the white, and also the Mishnah of 38b;

(Reish Lakish): A wart without hair is not a Mum in the white. Mishnah #2 refers to a wart with hair.

Version #2 (Tosfos' text) Retraction: Rather, both Mishnayos discuss warts in the black of the eye. (The Rosh deletes this from the text, for Reish Lakish (below) does not distinguish whether the wart is in the black or the white.)

Resolution #4 (Reish Lakish): A wart with hair is a proper Mum. A wart without hair is only Posel.

(Mishnah): If one eye is big...

(Beraisa): An eye the size of a calf's eye is considered big. An eye the size of a goose's eye is considered small.

(Mishnah): If one ear is big (Rambam - and one is small; Rashi -... if one Beitzah is twice as big as the other) (... Chachamim are Machshir).

Question: What is the minimum size that Chachamim are Machshir?

Answer (Beraisa - Others): Even if the other (ear or Beitzah) is no bigger than a bean, it is Kosher.

Version #1 (Mishnah - Chachamim): A normal calf's tail reaches the knee and grows longer over time. (t.herefore, if it is shorter than this, it is a Mum.)

Version #2 - Tzon Kodashim - (Mishnah - Chachamim): A normal calf's tail does not reach the knee. It grows longer over time. (Therefore, even if it is shorter than this, it is not a Mum.) (end of Version #2)

Question: (Animals have two knees.) To which knee do we refer?

Answer (R. Chanina ben Antigonus): It refers to the knee in the middle of the Yerech (this will be explained).

(Gemara - Beraisa): It refers to the upper knee, not to the lower knee;

This joint is discernable in camels. (It sticks out. Alternatively, a camel's tail reaches it.)