Rashi's Two Translations: Here Rashi translates it as tore ('Tura'vin O.F.); whereas in Perek Kol Sha'ah (Pesachim 39.) he translates Mar'risa as burdock ('Amarfeul' in O.F.). See also Tosfos Succah (13. DH 'Mar'risa').

Question: Why does the Gemara not now ask the opposite 'But the camel has teeth (in which case it ought to be Kasher)?', like it asks shortly from a rabbit and a hare?

Translation #1: Rashi explains that a dog has two upper teeth (canine teeth), one on either side.

Translation #2: Alternatively, he translates it as 'gums' (gencives in O.F.).

The Correct Version: Tosfos prefers the first version however ...

Proof #1: As the Gemara says in Bameh Ishah (Shabbos 63:) in the case of a dog 'Its fangs and nails have been removed'. The two large teeth which it has in front with which it bites.

Proof #2: And in Perek Keitzad ha'Regel (Bava Kama 23:) 'where it stuck out its canine teeth and bit him'.

Clarification: Provided that is, that he recognizes a young camel, as Rav Chisda explains.

Clarification: This includes the other three species mentioned in the Torah together with it, namely, the rabbit, the hare and the Shesu'ah.

Explanation #1 (Part 1): The horns come to preclude it from a Beheimah, because, since it has horns that grow in layers and that are full of notches, as the Gemara will explain later, it cannot be a Beheimah.

Explanation #1 (Part 2): There is still room for doubt however, that it ia Chayah Temei'ah; That is why it must have split hooves, in which case one can no longer neither suspect that it is a Chayah Temei'ah nor that it is a Beheimah Tehorah. Consequently, its Cheilev is permitted.

Explanation #1 (Part 3): Whereas Rebbi says that 'If it has the horns of a Chayah, it is not necessary to check its hooves', because in his opinion, a Chayah Temei'ah does not have horns.

Consequently: It therefore emerges that the author of the Mishnah in Perek Ba Si'man (Nidah 51:) which rules that 'Whatever has horns has hooves' is Rebbi Dosa - since the Rabbanan hold that even if it has horns the possibility still exists that it is Chayah Temei'ah. This is how the Rivam explains it.

Explanation #2 (Part 1): Rabeinu Tam explains however, that the hooves are not to prove that it is a Chayah Tehorah, seeing as the Gemara is only concerned with permitting its Cheilev, to preclude a Beheimah Tehorah.

Explanation #2 (Part 2): And he explains the Gemara like this: Whatever has horns (as the Gemara will explain shortly - 'that are full of notches ... ' and that also has hooves like the hooves of a Chayah, one can be sure that it is a Kasher Chayah and its Cheilev is permitted.

Reason: For there are some species of Beheimah that do not exist among us, that have horns like the horns of a Chayah, or hooves like those of a Chayah. And that explains why two Simanim are required, since one will not find them both in any Beheimah.

Consequently: And when the Gemara now asks 'But there is an ox, that has horns with notches?' it is querying on Rebbi Nasan, who only requires one Si'man; since, according to the Rabbanan, the Gemara could have answered that 'an ox does not have the hooves of a Chayah'!

Question: However, this is a little difficult since the Gemara states later (Daf 63:) that based on the fact that there are more species of Beheimah Teme'ah that of Beheimah Tehorah, the Torah listed the 'Tahor' animals'. implying that there are no species of Beheimah Tehorah other than those listed in the Torah. And none of those species have either horns or hooves like those of a Chayah? (Continued on following Amud)

Explanation #3 (Part 1): One can therefore explain the Gemara like this - 'Whatever has just the horns of a Chayah, its Cheilev is permitted, and likewise whatever has just the hooves of a Chayah is certainly not a Beheimah, either.

Explanation #3 (Part 2): Whereas according to Rebbi Dosa, as long as it has the horns of a Chayah, its Cheilev is permitted; but if it only has the hooves of a Chayah, it might still be a Beheimah, since the hooves of a Beheimah are similar to those of a Chayah.

Consequently: The Mishnah in Perek Ba Si'man (Nidah 51:) that 'Whatever has horns has hooves' - can go according to everybody, since the Rabbanan too, concede that whatever has horns has split hooves.

Question: The problem with this explanation is that when the Gemara asks 'But how about a goat, that has horns and hooves?', one can assume that those hooves resemble those of a Chayah )like the hooves in the Beraisa). In that case, why does the Gemara need to mention both (the horns and the hooves), seeing as one of them would suffice to permit its Cheilev?

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that the Gemara thinks that we have retracted from 'K'ruchos' and that having established the Si'man as 'Charukos', we no longer need 'K'ruchos'.

Question #1: Why did the Gemara then not answer that we need both Charukos and K'ruchos?

Question #2: Furthermore, a little later, where we require Charukos, K'ruchos and Chaduros, why will Charukos and K'ruchos alone not suffice?

Explanation #2 (Part 1): The Rivam therefore explains that when the Gemara asks 've'Harei Eiz?', it is asking from Iza Karkoz, whose horns are K'ruchos and Charukos, and whose Cheilev is forbidden, according to the opinion that will shortly forbid it ...

Implied Question: Even though that opinion is not Halachah ...

Answer: The Gemara nevertheless asks according to him, to find out how he will explains the Beraisa.

Explanation #2 (Part 2): And the Gemara answers that we need 'Mefutzalos' (forked). It then asks 've'Harei Tz'vi ... and it answers that 'where they are not forked we need K'ruchos, Charukos and Chaduros. K'ruchos and Charukos lone will not suffice on account of Iza de'Karkoz; neither will Chaduros and K'ruchos, since the horns of an ox are also K'ruchos, Agulos (round) and Chaduros, and are also pointed at the ends.

Explanation #2 (Part 3): Nor will Chaduros and Charukos, because of a regular goat ... which explains why we need all three.

Explanation #2 (Part 4): 've'Hai Hu de'Mivla Chirkaihu' means that otherwise Charikah is not a sign that it is a Chayah.

Explanation #2 (Part 4): 've'Haynu S'feika de'Eiz de'Karkoz' does not refer to 'Mivla Chirkaihu', but to Chaduros, since according to those who consider an Eiz Karkoz a Chayah, it doesn't require Chaduros at all.

Question #1: The Gemara ought then to have specifically asked 've'Harei Eiz de'Karkoz', seeing as it is asking from an Eiz Karkoz.

Question #2: Also the Lashon implies that it is coming to issue a ruling there where the horns are not forked.

Explanation #3 (Part 1): We must therefore conclude that there is a certain species of goat whose horns are K'ruchos and Charukos. It is from that goat that the Gemara is asking, and not from Iza Karkoz.

Explanation #3 (Part 2): That being the case, 'S'feika de'Iza Karkoz' does refer to 'Mivla Chirkaihu', after all.

Explanation #1 (Part 1): Rashi explains that 'Tz'vi' in this context is not the animal that we call 'a deer', whose horns are definitely forked.

Explanation #1 (Part 2): 'Tz'vi' must therefore be the animal that we refer to as an 'wild goat (or an ibex), whose horns are not forked.

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam however, maintains that it is the one that we call 'a deer ...'

Proof #1: For we see that its skin does not fit its flesh, which is the mark of a deer, as the Gemara explains at the end of Kesuvos (Daf 112.).

Proof #2 (Part 1): We also see that when it sleeps, it keeps one eye open ...

Proof #2 (Part 2): Conforming with the Medrash in Shir ha'Shirim, which, commenting on the Pasuk "My Beloved is like a deer, explains 'Just as a deer keeps one eye open even as it sleeps, so too, Hakadosh-Baruch-Hu, at the time of the Galus and the suffering of Yisrael, keeps an Eye on them and guards them.

Text (Part 1): And Rabeinu Tam has the text (not Mefutzalos, but) Mevutzalos, meaning erect and bent at the ends, whereas the horns of a deer are not bent at all.

) Text (Part 2): And Mevutzalos means bent, like the Gemara says in Kidushin, Perek ha'Omer (Daf 62:) 'We know that the word 'Agam' is a Lashon of 'Butzl'na' (bent) from the Pasuk "ha'Lachof ke'Agmon Rosho" (Is it enough to bend one's head like a reed"?)

Text (Part 3): Even if we have the text 'Mefutzeles' however, there is no problem, because it has the same meaning as 'Mevutzlos' ...

Proof #1: Like we find in Perek 'ba'Kol Me'arvin' (Eruvin 29:) 'de'Aftzil Zirta', which has the same meaning as 'de'Avtzil ... ').

Proof #2): And we find many times in the Mishnah "Hevker', instead of 'Hefker' (See Pe'ah Perek 6, Mishnah 1).

Question (Part 1): The Gemara in Perek Bameh Madlikin (Shabbos 28:) states that the Tachash had one horn on its forehead, and that, based on the statement of Rav Yehudah - who said that 'The ox which Adam ha'Rishon sacrificed has one horn on its forehead', it was Kasher.

Question (Part 2): How can the Gemara extrapolate from Rav Yehudah that the Tachash was Kasher, seeing as not all the animals with one horn share the same specifications - bearing in mind that the Keresh (a kind o antelope or a unicorn) is a Chayah, whereas the ox is a Beheimah?

Answer: The Gemara relied relied on the Mishnah in Perek Ba Si'man (Nidah 51:) that 'Whatever has horns, has hooves, which presumably incorporates those with one horn. And this is because the ox that Adam sacrificed had one horn and was Kasher.

Observation: The Gemara however, could just as well have proved its point from Keresh, which has one horn, and which chews its cud and has cloven hooves.

Correct Text: The skin of a deer of Bei Ila'i measures sixteen Amos.

Refuted Text: We do do not have the text 'a lion of Bei Ila'i' ...

Reason for Refutation: Because even between one Una (lobe of the lung) and another there are nine Amos, in which case the skin will measure more than sixteen Amos.

Explanation (Part 1): We can extrapolate from here that 'Kachi' are not the gums that are called 'genzives' (O.F.) ...

Reason: Since they do not tend to fall out, as we find in Arvei Pesachim (Daf 113.), where Rav said to his son 'Don't drink drugs, so that your 'Kachi' will not fall out'.

Explanation (Part 2): So 'Kachi' are the back teeth, with which one grinds ome's food, whereas 'Shinayim' are the front teeth.

Precedent: Likewise in Iyov (13) where he said "Why should I carry my flesh with my teeth (be'Shinay), which Yonasan translates as "be'Kachi" (a proof that 'Kachi' means teeth and not gums).