Clarification: The same will apply if they are severed, since it is specifically if the hind legs of the animal are cut off that it is a T'reifah, but not the forelegs.

Precedent: Further on (on Daf 58b) too, the Gemara states that if an animal has either five or three legs, it is considered a blemish. On which Rav Huna comments 'This is only if it is missing a foreleg, but if is is a hind leg, then it is T'reifah as well'.

Rashi: Rashi explains that the thigh moved from its place, and the sinews have rotted.

Support #1: And he is right, since all the cases of Sh'mutah in our Sugya speak where the sinews have been eaten away, regarding both animals and birds; otherwise, they are Kasher. And this is how the Gemara rules earlier (Daf 54b) 'And the Halachah is that even if they (the sinews) have snapped it is Kasher, unless they have rotted'.

Support #2 (Part 1): And that explains why, throughout the Sugya, the Gemara uses the term 'Sh'mutah', and not 'de'Shaf mi'Duchteih' (that moved from its place), as Rav Masna referred to it above (Ibid.) ...

Support #2 (Part 2): ... because Rav Masna forbids it even if the sinews did not rot; whereas here, where it speaks where they did, the term 'Sh'mutah' is more appropriate.

Support #3: And that also explains why the Gemara cites specifically Rav Masna with regard to 'Eilu Kesheiros Davka', rather than Rav Yehudah here.

Support #4 (Part 1): Furthermore, Rebbi Yochanan stated earlier that 'Eilu T'reifos' is Davka', to preclude the case of Rav Masna; and Rebbi Yochanan himself rules later that Sh'mutas Yerech by a bird is T'reifah - and so is that of an animal, based on the Beraisa of Levi, who does not reckon 'Sh'mutah' among the additional T'reifos of a bird.

Support #4 (Part 2): Nor does it seem that anyone disagrees with him, seeing as, earlier on, the Gemara queried Rav and Shmuel from there (Levi's Beraisa).

Support #5 (Part 1): Moreover, later at the end of the Sugya, the Halachah clearly states that 'Sh'mutas Yerech by a bird is T'reifah, and the same applies to an animal, as Rashi explains ...

Support #5 (Part2): ... whereas earlier (54b) the Gemara ruled that even if the sinews snap, it is Kasher unless they have rotted' (as we explained earlier).

Conclusion: ... It therefore seems that the entire Sugya is speaking where the sinews have rotted.

Clarification: The Gemara currently thinks that Sh'mutah and Chatuchah are one and the same.

Implied Question: Even though a Beheimah would be T'reifah, as is evident in the Mishnah (later, Daf 76a) - regarding an animal whose legs have been severed from the knee and upwards, nevertheless, by a bird, it is Kasher.

Answer #1: Perhaps he (Rav Huna ... ) was unaware of the Beraisa of Levi that 'All T'reifos that the Chachamim listed with regard to animals, applies correspondingly to birds as well'.

Answer #2 (Part 1): And according to the Gemara's conclusion, which differentiates between Sh'mutah and Chatuchah, the problem is solved ...

Explanation #1: ... because then, based on Levi's Beraisa, Rav Huna Amar Rav, who declares Kasher Sh'mutas Yerech by a bird, will hold the same by an animal ...

Answer #2 (Part 3): ... and he is Machshir even if the sinews have rotted (I'achel Niveih), as Tosfos already explained in the previous DH (that throughout the Sugya, it is speaking by I'achel Niveih) ...

Implied Question: ... and despite the fact that even those who are lenient above with regard to 'Eilu Kesheiros', concede by I'achel Niveih ...

Answer: ... Rav Huna Amar Rav is lenient in all cases.

Question: It is difficult to understand however, why in the entire Sugya, nobody mentions that Sh'mutas Yerech by a Beheimah is Kasher.

Rejected Answer (Part 1): And it is not logical to say that he mentions birds as a Chidush.

Rejection #2 (Part 1): ... and also Rebbi Yirmiyah, who supports his opinion by saying 'I know of a Mishnah!', ultimately proved his point from Rav's comment 've'Cheim be'Of' ...

Rejection #2 (Part 2): ... but from the fact that the Mishnah is strict by a Beheimah, he did not want to extrapolate and say 'Kol she'Kein a bird, whose ability to live is weaker?

Explanation #2 (Part 1): It therefore seems that it is specifically by a bird that Rav Huna Amar Rav is Machshir, but not by an animal ...

Explanation #2 (Part 2): ... and he does not hold of the Beraisa of Levi.

Implied Question: And even though earlier the Gemara queried Rav from there ...

Answer: ... that is according to Rav Yehudah.

Conclusion: But this explanation is a Dochek (forced).

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that if it is dislocated, it is Kasher - even if it is removed completely; whereas if it is cut, it is T'reifah, even if it is only at the Tzo'mes ha'Gidin (the junction where the nerves converge).

Question (Part 1): What is he trying to say, when he explains that if it is is removed completely, it is Kasher?

Question (Part 2): ... If he means that if the thigh is removed from the place where it was joined to the fat-tail, it is Kasher; whereas if it is cut, it is T'reifah - with reference to the middle bone at the bottom of which is the Tzo'mes ha'Gidin, next to the knee-joint that is sold together with the head, and the top of which is inserted into the hip-bone, which is the bone that is inserted into the fat-tail.

Query: ... and even though on that middle bone, it is T'reifah ...

Answer: ... nevertheless, at the top, which is the hip-bone, it is Kasher, as the Gemara explains 'When one cuts it from here, it lives, and when one cuts it from there, it dies'.

Question (Part 3): But this is very difficult to understand. If the thigh has been removed and the cavity is visible, it ought even to be called a Neveilah ...

Proof: ... as Rebbi Elazar stated in the first Perek (Daf 21a) - and nobody argues with him!

Conclusion: ... How can one then call the one 'Sh'mutah' and the other, 'Chatuchah'? They are both in fact, 'Chatuchos', seeing as it speaks even it is completely removed?

Explanation #2: Rashi should rather have explained simply that 'Sh'mutah Kesheirah' - where the legs were not cut off, but where the thigh-bone became dislocated, that it 'jumped' from its place, from the hole of the hip-bone into which it is inserted; but 'Necht'chu', it is T'reifah, even if it is only at the Tzomes ha'Gidin.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that 'Trasi'im' are coppersmiths - and so does the Aruch ...

Proof: ,,, and he brings a proof for this from the Gemara in Perek B'nei ha'Ir (Megilah 26a) regarding the story of the Shul of the T'rasi'im in Yerushalayim.

Implied Question: In the third Perek of Nazir (Daf 52a) regarding the story where somebody brought a box-load of bones from the village of Tavya to the Shul of the T'rasi'im ...

Answer: The Aruch explains that this was probably because coppersmiths are 'sweaty' like tanners, which also explains why they had their own Shul.

Explanation #2: In the first Perek of Avodah-Zarah (Daf 17b) however, where, after somebody declared that he was the leader of the T'rasi'im, they brought him two balls of wool, one of Shesi and one of Areiv, this implies that Tarsi is a weaver.

Question: In Perek ha'Chalil (Succah 51b) however it seems that Gardi'im and T'rasi'im are not one and the same?

Explanation #3: We find yet another explanation in the Agadah of Megilah (Daf 13a) which describes Bigsan and Teresh (the two who plotted to kill Achashverosh) as two T'rasi'im, who were speaking the language of the T'rasi'im, implying that it is the name of a nation who have their own language.

Text: Some texts do not include the word 'Yoledes' ...

Reason: ... seeing as it is superfluous.

Proof: Moreover, the Gemara says in the first Perek of Avodah-Zarah (Daf 16a) regarding the statement 'Rebbi Yehudah permits a Shevurah' - 'They said to him "But does one not bring a male to mate it?"; to which he answered "When it gives birth!"

Conclusion: ... from which we see that a T'reifah does not mate!

Refutation: One can draw a distinction however, between a T'reifah due to broken legs and other T'reifos.

Implied Question: Even though the Gemara in 'ha'Mocher es ha'Sefinah' (Bava Basra 75a) describes a similar statement as 'mocking', in connection with a Talmid, to whom Rebbi Yochanan declared 'And had you not seen it you would not have believed it?' You are mocking the words of the Chachamim!' ...

Answer: ... this case is different, since he came to clarify the matter, and to make known exactly how Sh'lomoh knew.

Implied Question: There are many animals that cease to have children, yet we do not establish them as T'reifos?

Answer: What the Gemara therefore means is - that if it does have children, then we know that it is not a T'reifah