The characteristics of animals and beasts were stated in the Torah, but the characteristics of fowl were not stated. The Sages, however, said: Any bird that seizes its food is nonkosher. Any one that has an additional toe, a crop, and its gizzard can be peeled, it is kosher. R’ Eliezer bar Tzadok says: Any bird that parts its toes is nonkosher.

And among locusts: Any one that has four legs, four wings, jointed legs, and its wings cover the greater part of its body. R’ Yose says: And its name must be chagav. And among fish: whatever has a fin and a scale. R’ Yehudah says: Two scales and one fin. These are the scales: those that are fastened to it; and fins: those with which it glides.

[If] an animal is in difficult labor, and the fetus put forth its foreleg and drew it back, it is permissible for eating. [If] it put forth its head, although it drew it back, it is regarded as having been born. [If] one cuts off [part] of the fetus that is in her womb, it is permissible for eating; from the spleen or from the kidneys, it is prohibited to be eaten. This is the general rule: What is [part of] its body is prohibited; what is not [part of] its body is permissible.

[If] an animal is in difficult labor with its first young, one may cut off each limb and throw [it] to the dogs. [If] its greater part comes out, it must be buried, and she is exempted from the law of the firstborn.

[If] a fetus died in the womb of an animal, and the shepherd stretched out his hand and touched it, whether it is a nonkosher animal, or a kosher animal, he is tahor. R’ Yose HaGlili says: If it is [a] nonkosher [animal], he is tamei; if it is [a] kosher [animal], he is tahor. [If] a fetus died within a woman’s womb, and the midwife stretched out her hand and touched it, the midwife is tamei for seven days, and the woman is tahor until the fetus comes out.

[If] an animal is in difficult labor and the fetus thrusts forth its foreleg, and one cut it off, and afterwards he slaughtered its mother, the flesh is tahor. [If] he slaughtered its mother and afterwards he cut it off, the flesh is regarded as having touched a neveilah; [these are] the words of R’ Meir. But the Sages say: It is regarded as having touched a slaughtered treifah — just as we find in the case of a treifah that its slaughtering renders it tahor, so too should the slaughtering of the animal render the limb tahor. Replied R’ Meir: Not so. If the shechitah of a treifah renders it tahor — a thing which is its own body — should it [also] render the limb tahor — a thing which is not its own body? From where do we learn that the slaughtering of a treifah renders it tahor? A nonkosher animal is prohibited to be eaten; a treifah is also prohibited to be eaten. Just as a nonkosher animal cannot be rendered tahor by its slaughtering, so should a treifah not be rendered tahor by its slaughtering. Not so. If this can be said of a nonkosher animal, which never had a time of fitness, can the same be said of a treifah, which had a time of fitness? Take back what you brought! If it was born treifah, how do we know it? Not so. If this can be said of a nonkosher animal whose entire species has no shechitah, can the same be said of a treifah, whose species has shechitah? An eight-month live birth — its slaughtering does not render it tahor, because there is no slaughtering in its kind.

[If] one slaughters an animal and finds in it an eight-month fetus alive or dead, or a dead nine-month fetus, he tears it open and takes out its blood. [If] he finds a nine-month live fetus, it requires slaughtering, and is subject to the [prohibition of] ‘‘it and its offspring’’; [these are] the words of R’ Meir. But the Sages say: The slaughtering of its mother renders it permissible. R’ Shimon Shezuri says: Even if it is eight years old and is plowing in the field, the slaughtering of its mother renders it permissible. [If] he tore her open, and he found in her a nine-month live fetus, it requires shechitah, because its mother was not slaughtered.

[If] the hind legs of an animal were severed below the joint, it is fit; above the joint, it is unfit. And likewise, [if] the meeting of the sinews was removed. [If] the bone was broken, if the greater part of the flesh remains, its slaughtering renders it tahor; otherwise, its slaughtering does not render it tahor.

[If] one slaughters an animal and finds an amniotic sac in it, one who is not fastidious may eat it, and it does not contract the tumah of foods or the tumah of neveilos. [If] he intended to eat it, it contracts the tumah of foods, but not the tumah of neveilos. [If] part of an amniotic sac came out, it is prohibited to be eaten; it is the sign of a fetus in a woman, and it is the sign of a fetus in an animal. [If] an animal carrying its first fetus aborted an amniotic sac, he may throw it to the dogs. But in the case of consecrated animals, it must be buried. We may not bury it at the crossroads, and we may not hang it on a tree, because of the ways of the Emorites.

[The law of] ‘‘it and its offspring’’ applies both in the Land [of Israel] and outside the Land, when the Temple exists and when the Temple does not exist, to unconsecrated animals and to consecrated animals. How so? [If] one slaughters ‘‘it and its offspring’’ which are: 1) unconsecrated animals outside [the Temple confines], both of them are fit, and the second one incurs forty lashes; 2) consecrated animals outside — the first one is liable to kares, and both are unfit, and both incur forty lashes; 3) unconsecrated animals inside — both are unfit, and the second one incurs forty lashes; 4) consecrated animals inside — the first one is fit and he is exempt, and the second one incurs forty lashes and it is unfit.