Observation: Likewise, he could have asked from Charutz (a crack), which is not written about man, and Charutz applies to man in the place of a bone, just like in an animal;

Similarly, Natuk and Karus are not written about man, rather, they are written about animals, and similarly Giben is written about man, and it is not written about animals, even though it applies to animals, according to the opinion that explains below (43b) this his spine is bent, and he does not establish it to discuss eyebrows.

Question: If he does not have Beitzim, or he has only one Beitzah, a Mishnah above (40a) about animals says that this is a Mum, and this is Meru'ach Ashech that the Tana says below (44b) "if he does not have Beitzim, or he has only one Beitzah, this is Meru'ach Ashech of the Torah", and we learn animals from man through the Gezeirah Shavah below;

This is fine for the first Tana, but for R. Yishmael and R. Akiva, who say [unlike that Tana, for if so,] the Torah should have said Chaser Ashech, what is their source? They themselves consider it a Mum above (40a)!

Suggestion: They learn it, for it is an exposed Mum that does not return.

Rejection #1: If so, why does the first Tana need a verse for it?

Rejection: #2: Also [R. Yishmael and R. Akiva] would have established the verse for this, if not that [if so, the Torah] should have said Chaser Ashech!

Implied suggestion: We can distinguish people and animals, for an animal has two pouches, so it is a bigger Mum. (An exposed Mum that does not return teaches for animals, but we need a verse for people.)

Rejection: Even if he does not have Beitzim at all, we need to exclude it from Meru'ach Ashech! (Since an animal that has two pouches and only one Beitzah is a Ba'al Mum, all the more so a person who has one pouch and no Beitzah is a Ba'al Mum!)

Answer: Perhaps in such a case we can say that it was repeated due to a Chidush in it (a person with only one Beitzah, which we could not learn from animals), like R. Yishmael taught below.

Support: Now it is fine even if there are Mumin that are written, even though we would have learned them from an exposed Mum that does not return.

Question: We need it for like Rava taught above (41a) - the Torah wrote "Garav" to teach that Charutz in the place of flesh is not a Mum!

Answer: Garav is written twice, and Yalefes is written twice, once in people and once in animals. One of them is extra to make [the Gezeirah Shavah] Mufneh.

Question #1: You are forced to say that it is Mufneh only from one side, and there is an opinion in Bava Kama (25b, that in such a case, if we can challenge it,) we challenge it!

Question #2: Since the Beraisa said "it says Garav-Garav Yalefes-Yalefes" - why must it make a Gezeirah Shavah from both of them? It connotes that it said so because in all these two places, Garav is written with Yalefes to make it Mufneh!

Answer: Rava's Drashah above does not stop it from being Mufneh here, since according to his Drashah, we do not establish Garav for itself, rather, to teach that Charutz in the place of flesh is not a Mum.

Explanation: This is according to the first Tana below (43b) who establishes Giben to discuss eyebrows, but according to R. Chanina ben Antigenus, who says that [it looks like] he has two backs and two spines, this properly applies to an animal.

Support: This is why it does not say also Meru'ach Ashech, which does not apply to animals according to R. Chanina ben Antigenus, who says (44b) that he has a dark appearance, for we do not discuss according to him.

Question #1: According to what it says that they are needed, which implies that we do not learn them from each other, what is the source for man and Kodshim, an exposed Mum that does not return?

We expound this regarding Bechor, above (37a) from a Klal u'Ferat!

Question #2: Similarly, Mumim written about man and Kodshim that are not written about Bechor, for there are some that are not learned from "Kol Mum Ra", e.g. Dak and Tevalul, like Rashi explained above (DH v'Su - what is the source that they apply to Bechor)?

Answer: Since the Torah revealed [that they are Mumim in all three of these], it revealed (and we learn them from each other).

Remark: There is another text in Seforim other than Rashi's text (Shitah Mekubetzes brings it).

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Shechitah does not help, because it is a Nefel.

Objection (and Explanation #2): This implies that it was born. One cannot say so, for in Nidah (24a) we establish it when it was found in its mother's womb. According to Rav it is not permitted through Shechitah of its mother, and Shmuel argues there and permits it through Shechitah of its mother;

However, if it was born, it is forbidden even according to Shmuel!

Citation: Rav Simi asks there from our Mishnah here.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): He challenges both Rav and Shmuel, for R. Chanina ben Antigenus taught it regarding Mumim of an animal, and it is Pasul for Hakravah. This implies that it is permitted to people!

Objection (R. Tam): Here it is taught explicitly regarding Mumim of people!

Explanation #2: Rather, he challenges only Rav, who says that in a woman, it is not a child. This implies that it does not live;

Since [R. Chanina] disqualifies him here for Avodah, this implies that he can live! It also connotes that he challenges only Rav.

Explanation: The Gemara explains Sanei Shemesh, like Rashi explained, that he hates the sun, and he cannot see a place where the sun shines there;

Sachi is an expression of Chasuchei Shemesh - the sun's light is withheld from him.

Inference: He calls "Ris" the hairs that often fall out due to many tears, like the case of R. Gamliel in Sanhedrin (104b) regarding "Bacho Tivkeh."

Observation: Sometimes "Ris" is called the skin that surrounds the eye, like above (38a) "the Ris was punctured or cracked", and [Rav Papa] explains (38b) the outer row of the eye (eyelid).