If a bird lands on any if the following, we are not concerned for crushed limbs --

A garment that was doubled over (for then it cannot be stretched tightly); the sides of bundles of flax; legumes other than clover; peas.

The rule is, we are concerned if it fell on something that is not smooth, but not if it fell on something slippery.

(Rav Ashi): If a bird's wings were glued (to a stick) and it fell, we are not concerned;

(Ameimar): We are concerned.

Version #1: If only one wing was glued, all agree that it is Kosher; they argue when both wings were glued:

Ameimar holds that it cannot fly at all, so it is like an animal that fell;

Rav Ashi holds that it can flutter somewhat using the base of the wings (where people cut them off the bird), to soften the fall.

Version #2: If both wings were glued, all agree that it is like a fallen animal. They argue when one wing was glued.

Rav Ashi holds that it can fly somewhat using the unglued wing.

Ameimar holds that since one wing is glued, it cannot fly with the other wing. It is like a fallen animal. (end of Version #2)

The Halachah is, if both wings were glued, it is like a fallen animal. If one wing was glued, it is Kosher.

(Mishnah): If most of the ribs were broken.

(Beraisa): If the majority were broken (it is Tereifah). This refers to six on each side, or all 11 on one side, and one on the other side (or any other way that they add to at least 12).

(Ze'iri): A rib is considered broken only if it is broken on the half closer to the spine.

(Rabah bar bar Chanah): We consider the majority of the large ribs that have marrow inside.

(Ula): If the majority of ribs on one side were uprooted, or the majority of both sides were broken, it is Tereifah.

(R. Yochanan): In either case, we require a majority of both sides.

(Rav): If one rib and the vertebra to which it is attached are uprooted, it is Tereifah.

Question (Rav Kahana and Rav Asi): If the ribs on both sides of a vertebra are uprooted, but the vertebra itself is still attached, what is the law?

Answer (Rav): That is like an animal cut into two pieces (it is Nevelah)!

Question: Also in Rav's case, it was cut into two pieces!

Answer: In Rav's case the rib was uprooted but the vertebra was intact.

Objection: Rav said 'if one rib and the vertebra...'!

Answer: He meant a rib and part of the vertebra to which it is attached.

Question: If so, Rav Kahana and Rav Asi asked about when the ribs alone are detached, and Rav said that the animal is Nevelah;

Ula taught that if the majority of ribs on one side were uprooted (not just two), or the majority of both sides were broken, it is Tereifah (but not Nevelah)!

Answer: It is worse when two ribs from the same vertebra are uprooted.

Question: R. Yochanan said that if the majority of the ribs on both sides are uprooted it is Tereifah. A majority must include both ribs attached one of the vertebrae!

Answer: R. Yochanan discusses when the vertebra is complete. Rav Kahana and Rav Asi asked about when part of the vertebra is missing.

Question: If so, Rav's law answers their question!

Answer: They had not heard Rav's law. (This also shows that the premise of Question 5 was wrong.)

Question: If so, they should have asked about Rav's case (when one rib is uprooted)!

Answer: It is better to ask about when two are uprooted, for then one can derive the law when one is uprooted:

If they asked about one, and Rav answered that it is Tereifah, they would know that all the more so, when two are uprooted it is Tereifah. However, if he answered that it is Kosher, they would not know the law about two;

Rather, they asked about two. If Rav would answer that it is Kosher, they would know that all the more it is Kosher one is uprooted.

Question: If Rav would answer that it is Tereifah, they would not know the law about one!

Answer: They could learn from Rav's response;

If the law is that even one is Tereifah, Rav would respond in anger (since their question presumes that one is Kosher).

Question: Indeed, (Rav holds that) even one is Tereifah, but he did not respond angrily!

Answer: His amazement ('it is even Nevelah'!) is like responding angrily.

(Rabah bar Rav Shilo citing Shmuel): Any of the following makes an animal Tereifah:

A rib was uprooted from the spine; the majority of the skull was crushed, or a problem in the flesh covering the majority of the Keres.

Question: This contradicts another teaching of Shmuel!

(Mishnah - Beis Shamai): If two vertebrae are missing from the spine, the spine is not Metamei b'Ohel;

Beis Hillel say, even if one vertebra is missing, it is not Metamei b'Ohel.

(Shmuel): They argue similarly about how much must be missing to make (a person or animal) Tereifah (even without a rib being detached)!

Answer: Here, Shmuel teaches that a detached rib makes a Tereifah, even if the vertebra is intact. There, he teaches that a missing vertebra makes a Tereifah, even if the ribs are intact.

Question: Surely, a rib can be detached and the vertebra is intact. However, how can a vertebra be missing and the ribs are intact?

Answer: The lower vertebrae do not have ribs attached to them.

Question (R. Oshaya): According to Shmuel, this Mishnah should be taught among the Mishnayos in Maseches Idiyos in which Beis Shamai are more lenient than Beis Hillel!

Answer (Rava): They Mishnah was taught regarding Tum'ah. Regarding Tum'ah Beis Shamai are more stringent.

(Shmuel): If the majority of the skull was crushed it is Tereifah.

Question (R. Yirmeyah): Does this refer to the majority of the height, or the majority of the circumference?

This question is unresolved.

(Shmuel): (A problem in) the flesh covering the majority of the Keres is Tereifah.

Question (Rav Ashi): Does he refer to the flesh being torn, or missing?

Suggestion: We can learn from our Mishnah.

(Mishnah): If the majority of the outer Keres was torn (it is Tereifah.)

(R. Yosi bar Chanina): The outer Keres is the flesh covering the majority of the Keres. (Shmuel explains the Mishnah. He means that it was torn.)

Rejection: No, Shmuel explains the Mishnah differently!

(R. Yakov bar Nachmani citing Shmuel): The outer Keres is the part without hair.

(Here, Shmuel teaches a Tereifah not explicit in the Mishnah. We do not resolve our question.)

(Mishnah): An animal Nidras (clawed and poisoned) by a wolf (is Tereifah).

(Rav): A (venomous) animal at least as large as a wolf is Matrif (makes Tereifah through Derisah) an animal. A bird at least as large as a Netz (small hawk or cuckoo?) is Matrif a bird.

Question: What does Rav exclude?

Suggestion: He excludes something Nidras by a cat.

Rejection: We already know this. The Mishnah teaches something Nidras by a wolf. (This implies that smaller animals are not Matrif!

Suggestion: Perhaps the Mishnah teaches that a wolf is Matrif even a large animal (but animals smaller than a wolf can be Matrif small animals.)

Rejection (Mishnah - R. Yehudah): A wolf is Matrif small animals. A lion is Matrif large animals (but a wolf is not).

Suggestion: That is R. Yehudah's opinion. The first Tana holds that a wolf is Matrif even large animals!

Rejection: R. Binyamin bar Yefet taught that R. Yehudah explains the first Tana.

Answer #1: Rav argues with R. Binyamin. He says that R. Yehudah argues with the first Tana.

Answer #2: Indeed, the Mishnah teaches a wolf to exclude a cat;

Rav needed to teach this, lest we think that the Mishnah discusses a wolf because it is common.

(Rav Amram citing Rav Chisda): A cat or marten is Matrif a kid or lamb. A weasel is Matrif a bird.

Question (Beraisa): A cat, Netz or marten is not Matrif, unless an interior organ was punctured. (If not, the venom will not kill it.)

Counter-question: Our Mishnah says that a Netz is Matrif!

Answer: A Netz is Matrif birds, but not kids or lambs.

The question against Rav Chisda remains.

Version #1 - Answer: Rav Chisda holds like Beribi.

(Beraisa - Beribi): A cat is not Matrif when no one saves its prey, but if someone saves its prey, it is Matrif.

Question: A case occurred that disproves this!

A cat was chasing a chicken in Rav Kahana's house. The chicken closed a door in front of the cat. The cat clawed the door. Blood exuded from all five claws. (This shows that it has venom!)

Answer: The chicken saved itself. This is like being saved by a person.

Chachamim agree that it exudes venom (in such situations), but they say that it is not Matrif.

Version #2 - Answer: The Beraisa is like Beribi.

(Beraisa - Beribi): A cat is Matrif when someone saves its prey, but if not, it is not Matrif.

Question: A case occurred (with Rav Kahana's chicken) that disproves this!

Answer: The chicken saved itself. This is like being saved by a person.