In summary, the loss of a limb is a defect, except in the case of castration, regarding which the distinction mentioned earlier applies.

His statement, “or a tooth”: a tooth is not a limb, because it is legally regarded as separate. Thus, if a man touches his wife’s tooth with desire—and we hold that touching one’s wife with desire invalidates one’s ablution—and he touches her tooth and experiences the utmost desire, yet nothing is discharged from him, his ablution is not invalidated, because it is not a limb and is legally regarded as separate. This is why he said, “or the loss of a limb or a tooth.” It should not be said that this is an instance of mentioning the specific after the general, for a tooth is not of the same kind as limbs; rather, it is the conjunction of one distinct category with another.

His statement, “a tooth,” includes both incisors and molars. Thus, if it is found that the item sold is missing one tooth or more, this is a defect. Even if an artificial replacement has been fitted in place of the tooth, it remains a defect, because an artificial tooth is not like a natural one.

His statement, “or an addition to either of them”: the loss of an additional limb or tooth is not a defect, because this is the removal of an extra feature. People have an extra finger removed, and likewise an extra tooth. Some people have additional overlapping teeth; if the extra tooth is lost, this is not a defect. This is why he said, “or an addition to either of them”: an extra limb is a defect, and an extra tooth is likewise a defect, because it reduces value. If he has two equal arms extending from the elbow, and the purchaser says, “This is a defect,” while the seller says, “Rather, it is an added benefit: instead of having one working arm, he now has two,” then the matter is referred to customary practice. If people say that his value increases because of this additional limb, then it is not a defect. But ordinarily it is a defect that reduces his value, even if he can use both of them equally well.