Answer (Talmidim of Rav): If it cries out, excretes, or wiggles its ear, this is considered quivering (which permits the animal).

Shmuel: Does he really require such a sign of strength like wiggling an ear?! I say that anything that a dead animal does not do suffices!

Question: What do dead animals do?

Answer (Rav Anan, citing Shmuel): A dead animal can stick out a foreleg that was bent. However, if it was stuck out, it cannot bend it back.

Question: This is obvious! The Mishnah says that sticking out the leg is not a sufficient Siman. This implies that bending it back suffices!

Answer: One might have thought that bending it back is not enough, rather, it must be able to stick it out and bend it back. Shmuel teaches that this is not so.

Question (against Rav - Beraisa - R. Yosi): Crying out at the time of Shechitah is not considered quivering;

R. Eliezer b'Rebbi Yosi says, even excreting or wagging its tail is not considered quivering.

Answer - part 1: Crying out in a strong voice suffices, but not in a weak voice;

Answer - part 2: Casting excrement far away suffices; but dropping it in its place does not.

Opinion #1 (Rav Chisda): I heard that the quivering must be at the end of Shechitah. I explain that this really means in the middle. It just comes to exclude the beginning.

Rav Chisda: I learn from our Mishnah. It forbids a small (sick) animal stuck out its foreleg and did not bend it back;

This cannot refer to the end of Shechitah. How much can we expect an animal (even if it did not die during the Shechitah) to do?!

Rejection (Rava): We can say that this is at the end of Shechitah. Any animal that cannot return the leg surely died during the Shechitah!

Opinion #2 (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): The quivering can be at the beginning of Shechitah.

I learn from our Mishnah. If one who slaughtered a dangerously sick animal at night, and finds walls covered with blood the next morning, R. Shimon permits. This is like R. Eliezer;

(Shmuel): 'The walls' means the place of Shechitah (the sides of the cleaved neck).

The next morning, we do not know when the blood spurted there. We must say that quivering permits the animal even if it was at the beginning of Shechitah!

Rejection: Perhaps this applies only to spurting of blood, which is a greater sign of life than the other types of quivering.

Question: You cannot say that spurting is greater than the other Simanim of quivering!

(Mishnah - R. Eliezer): It suffices if it spurted.

Answer: Spurting is not as great as the quivering that R. Gamliel requires, but it is greater than the quivering that Chachamim require.

Question (Ravina): Spurting is not greater than the quivering that Chachamim require!

(Mishnah): Chachamim say, it is not enough unless it quivers with the fore or hind leg.

Question: To whom do Chachamim respond?

If they respond to R. Gamliel, they should say 'it is enough once it quivers...'!

Answer: Rather, they respond to R. Eliezer opinion. 'Unless' shows that they require a greater quivering than spurting.

Opinion #3 (Rava): Quivering must come at the end of Shechitah.

Rava: The following Beraisa teaches this.

(Beraisa): "A cow or sheep" excludes a crossbreed (it is Pasul for a Korban). "Or goat" excludes a Nidmeh (an animal that looks like a different species than its parents);

"That will be born" excludes an animal born through Caesarian section. "Seven days" excludes an animal that is too young (before its eighth day); "Tachas (under, or in place of) its mother" excludes an orphaned animal.

Question: What is the case of an orphaned animal?

Suggestion: The mother gave birth and later died.

Rejection: This is unreasonable (that an animal cannot be offered after its mother dies)!

Answer #1: Rather, the mother died, then the child came out.

Rejection: We already excluded this from "that will be born"!

Answer #2: Rather, the animal was born just when the mother died.

Granted, if the child is acceptable only if the mother lives until after the birth, we cannot learn this from "that will be born." Another verse is needed to exclude an orphan.

However, if the child is acceptable as long as the mother lives until the end of birth, and we exclude only when the mother dies during birth, we already know this from "that will be born"!

(Conclusion of Rava's reasoning: The mother must live through birth, i.e. through the end of birth. Likewise, an animal must show that it is alive during Shechitah (by quivering), i.e. during the end of Shechitah.)

(Rava): The Halachah is like the following Beraisa.

(Beraisa): If a small (dangerously sick) animal stuck out its foreleg and did not withdraw it, it is forbidden;

If it extends or withdraws the hind leg, the animal is permitted;

If a large animal extends or withdraws any leg, it is permitted;

If a bird even ruffles its wing (some texts - winks its eye) or wags its tail, it is permitted.

Question: Why must Rava teach this? We can derive it from our Mishnah!

The Mishnah forbids a small animal that stuck out its foreleg. This implies that had it stuck out the hind leg, or had it been a large animal, it would be permitted!

Answer: The Beraisa teaches also about birds, which we do not learn from the Mishnah.

(Mishnah): If one slaughtered for an idolater, the Shechitah is Kosher;

R. Eliezer says, it is invalid, even if he intended to give the idolater only from the Chelev on the liver.

This is because we assume that the idolater intended that the Shechitah is for idolatry.

R. Yosi says, a Kal va'Chomer teaches that the Shechitah is valid.

In Kodshim, (improper) intention disqualifies a Korban, yet we are concerned only for the intention of the Oved (the one offering the Korban). Intent does not disqualify Shechitah of Chulin, all the more so we should only be concerned for the intention of the Shochet!

(Gemara): The first two Tana'im hold like R. Eliezer b'Rebbi Yosi;

(Beraisa - R. Eliezer b'Rebbi Yosi): An animal becomes Pigul (disqualified) through improper intention of its owner.

Version #1: The first Tana holds that we do not assume that an idolater intends that the Shechitah is for idolatry. Unless we hear that he did, the Shechitah is permitted;

R. Eliezer holds that we assume that the idolater intended for idolatry.

R. Yosi holds, even if we know that he intended for idolatry, it is permitted. We care only about the intention of the Shochet.

Version #2: The first Tana and R. Eliezer argue when we know that he intended for idolatry.

The first Tana permits. We care about the intention of the Shochet only for Kodshim, but not for Chulin. We do not learn Chulin from Kodshim;

R. Eliezer holds that we learn Chulin from Kodshim;

R. Yosi holds that even for Kodshim, we care only about the intention of the Shochet.