Explanation: The knee is included, i.e. [the leg was cut off] from the knee and above.

Implied question: This should be taught among "all Shi'urim of Chachamim are to be stringent" regarding "Ad" and "Ad biChlal" (when it says until, does it include the limiting case - Chulin 55a)!

Answer: This is like [I] explained in Chulin (46a DH Ad, that we list there only Mishnayos and Beraisos, but not teachings of Amora'im).

Implied question: Regarding [a woman who miscarried only] the form of a hand, it says below (28a) that she is Teme'ah Leidah [even though it is not enough to live]!

Answer #1: This is when it is evident that [there was a full fetus, and] the rest dissolved.

Answer #2: Here we discuss when it is evident that no more was created, i.e. in the place where something is missing, it is covered with skin. (However, if not, she is Teme'ah Leidah due to Safek, lest there was a full fetus, and part dissolved.)

Question: There are many [miscarriages for which she is not Teme'ah Leidah] that were not taught, e.g. the face is like a goat [according to Rabanan], the esophagus is closed, it is like a date tree (the arms and legs branch off from the shoulders. The Beraisa merely mentioned one of them!)

Answer: A Musmasin (slightly mashed) face is like a closed body. It should have been taught along with [a closed body].

Explanation: [Rav Papa holds that] R. Yochanan never challenged Reish Lakish [about this]. We find like this in Chulin (4a).

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Since it is a blemish for a Korban, this implies that it is permitted to people.

This is difficult for both (Rav and Shmuel), for even if it left [the womb] and entered the air of the world, it is permitted, and Shmuel permitted only in the womb.

Question (R. Tam): In Bechoros (43b) it is taught regarding blemishes of a Kohen, and not regarding animal blemishes. Also there we challenge Rav, and do not bring Shmuel's teaching at all!

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): We challenge only Rav, who says that in a woman it is not a child. This shows that it cannot live. Since it is taught among blemishes of a Kohen, this shows that it can live!

According to Shmuel, who says that if it is born to a woman, it [can] survive, we did not ask at all. R. Tam says that also in an animal, Shmuel holds that it survives.

Implied question: Why does the Gemara say that once it is born, it is forbidden?

Answer: This is because it is the Shesu'ah that the Torah forbids.

Consequence: Rashi explained below, according to his opinion that it is forbidden due to Nefel, and the Shesu'ah that the Torah forbids is a species in which the mother and child have two backs and two spines;

However, what is born to an animal, and has only one back and one spine, we do not need a verse to forbid it. It is an absolute Nefel.

Regarding [one] born to a woman, it can survive even according to Rashi (who says that in an animal, it is a Nefel), since we say that in a woman it is a child.

Support (for Rashi): The words "elsewhere, [Hash-m] taught [Moshe that it is forbidden]" connote like his Perush.

Question: In Chulin (60b), we ask regarding the Shesu'ah, which has two backs, "was Moshe a hunter" [that he would know about such rare creatures]?!

According to Rashi, this is fine. The Shesu'ah is a species according to Shmuel, and it is found only in forests. Therefore, we ask "was Moshe a hunter"?!

However, according to R. Tam, even Shmuel holds that it is not a species unto itself. Rather, so it was born to an animal. What is the connection to a hunter?

Answer: Even according to R. Tam, if Moshe were not a hunter, and accustomed to seeing different animals, he would not recognize this animal with two backs;

Even though it can be born also to animals found in civilization, it is not commonly born to normal animals.

Alternate text: Some texts (e.g. ours) say [he is proper] "for a Bris [on day eight].

Question: This is obvious! Is this worse than the body of a goat and a human face, which is a child according to everyone?!

Answer: There (the body of a goat and a human face), he departed from the form of an animal, and he is a person. Here, he did not depart at all from the form of Lilis (a Shed).

Question: We said above (23a) regarding birds that she checks according to Rabanan. [The form of] Karya v'Kifufa (kinds of owls) is [considered] a [human] child, even though the jaws do not exclude it at all from the status of Kos and Yanshuf (the Torah's names for the above two birds)!

Answer: Shmuel here explains above that she checks according to R. Meir. (Rabanan hold that even Karya and Kifufa are not considered a human child.)

Explanation: It was too much greater than his drinking, for it is normal to eat more than one drinks;

Source: We say in Megilah (12a) "veha'Shetiyah ka'Da'as Ein Ones" - it was according to the Torah. Eating was greater than drinking, for regarding Korbanos there is more [food] than the amount of [wine] libations. (Libations of three, four and six Lugim accompany, respectively, a lamb and 7.2 Lugim of flour, a ram and 14.4 Lugim of flour, and a bull and 21.6 Lugim of flour.)

Implied question: It says in Pesachim (110a) and Gitin (70a) that one should eat a third, drink a third, and leave a third [of the capacity of his stomach] empty, so when he gets angry, there will be room [in his stomach to bear it. This shows that it is proper to eat and drink the same amount!]

Answer: That is not precise. Rather, eating and drinking together should to be two thirds [of the capacity of his stomach].