Talking Talmud

Ulla says that there 8 groups of treyfot that were told to Moses at Sinai - that is, the categories. Plus a focus on a punctured gallbladder, among other potential issues, where the animal may actually not die (but isn't that a miraculous event, and therefore not a proof for anything?). Also, a focus on some kind of injury for an animal that might or might not make the animal a treyfa -- with the example of a thorn in the animal's esophagus. And 4 cases that argue against Ulla's positions.

Chapter 3! A focus on the slaughtering of kosher animals -- and what makes an animal kosher (as compared to a treyfa, which is a kosher kind of animal, but some blemish prevents it from being kosher upon shechitah). Which is to say: a new mishnah -- that lists 18 "defects" that make an animal a treyfa in detail - and then because of the animal's status, the shechitah cannot be kosher. Plus, what is the source in the Torah for this concern about a treyfa? That should be obvious - it's an explicit verse, but what about the position that a treyfa has to be an animal that won't live from the defect? That source is provided - Leviticus 11. Also, the Gemara adds another 7 ways an animal could become a treyfa. With a mnemonic to remember them -- and a strong question why they weren't included in the 18.

2 mishnayot! The first one includes the details about a non-believing Jew who participates in shechitah, and whether that shechitah would be kosher. And the mishnah is preceded by Gemara that includes a discussion of a Jewish apostate. The mishnah includes what manner of disposing of the blood of kosher shechitah are acceptable and which are problematic because they smack of idolatry. The second mishnah lists ways of dedicating one's shechitah in ways that make it invalid. Plus other key variations on intent and the way one's actions might be misinterpreted.

A new mishnah! One who slaughters an animal in the name of worship of natural bodies (mountains, rivers, seas, etc.), then the slaughtering is not kosher shechitah. Even if two people are doing the slaughtering together and one of them has correct "kosher" intent, the shechitah is still not valid. But it's also not fully idolatry either - except for a beraita that presents comparable cases as being idolatry (with slight differences that make room to say they are different). Also, if one's animal is lying in front of idolatry, then the moment one cuts that animal, it's prohibited - because it smacks of idolatry, even if it was not intended as such (live, the animal isn't a concern of idolatry, or not until a physical act is done to it). But does that really work? To make another person's animal problematic? The distinction is drawn between a "zevach" (or a shelamim/peace-offering) and a "chatat" - sin-offering.

If one slaughters an animal with intent to use the blood for idolatrous purposes, is the rest of the animal forbidden for any benefit or not? Yes, it's a machloket. With hypothetical parallels to pigul. Unless you think nothing in the Temple can be used to infer halakhic details for that which does not pertain to the Temple service. Also, a husband who writes a bill of divorce that was written when he is healthy as a safeguard against the future, and then he dies -- but if he had no knowledge of that risk to his life, then his intent in writing the divorce is absent and the divorce is not a divorce. Conversely, one who inherits a contract of slaves cannot free them by protesting the ownership.