Question: What difference does it make if one or both sides (words) of a Gezeirah Shavah are extra?

Answer #1: Rav Yehudah taught that if neither side of a Gezeirah Shavah is extra, we do not learn from it;

If one side is extra, we learn from the Gezeirah Shavah;

Chachamim say, if we have a reason not to learn, we do not. (We do not learn a stringency of a stringent case to a lenient case);

R. Yishmael says, we do not challenge the Gezeirah Shavah.

If both sides are extra, all agree that we learn from it, and we do not challenge it.

Question: According to R. Yishmael, what is the difference whether one or both sides are extra?

Answer: If we have a choice of which Gezeirah Shavah to learn from (there are two), and only one of them is extra from both sides, we learn from it.

This is why the Torah wrote "va'Ya'as... ," so Yetzirah would be extra also regarding animals!

Answer #2: Rav Acha brei d'Rava is more lenient. He says that in any case, we may learn from a Gezeirah Shavah;

If neither side is extra, we may challenge it;

If one side is extra, Chachamim say that we may challenge it, and R. Yishmael says that we do not;

If both sides are extra, all agree that we do not challenge it.

Question: According to Chachamim, what is the difference whether neither or one side is extra?

Answer: If we have a choice of which Gezeirah Shavah to learn from (against which there is no challenge), and one is not extra from either side, and the other is extra from one side, we learn from the latter.

Question: (The Torah made "Yetzirah- Yetzirah" extra from both sides. If it were extra from only one side,) how could we have challenged the Gezeirah Shavah?

Answer: Man is Mekabel Tum'ah while he is alive, but animals are not.

(R. Chiya bar Aba): R. Meir learns a Gezeirah Shavah "Yetzirah-Yetzirah." (This is like Rav Yehudah explained.)

Question (R. Ami): If so, if a woman miscarried the form of a mountain, she should be a Yoledes. It says "Hinei Yotzer Harim u'Vorei Ru'ach"!

Answer (R. Chiya bar Aba): A miscarriage is small. It does not resemble a mountain, rather, a rock.

Question (R. Ami): If a woman miscarried Ru'ach (nothing came out), she should be a Yoledes, for it says "u'Vorei Ru'ach"!

Suggestion: We do not learn from this, because "u'Vorei" is not extra.

Rejection: It is extra. It could have said "Yotzer Harim v'Ru'ach"!

Answer (R. Chiya bar Aba): We learn a Gezeirah Shavah between verses of Chumash, but not from a verse of Chumash to a verse of Nevi'im or Kesuvim (Tosfos ha'Rosh - unless we cannot learn between verses of Chumash).

(Rabah bar bar Chanah): R. Meir learns animals from people because animal eyes resemble human eyes.

Question #1: If so, if a woman miscarried a snake, she should be a Yoledes. (The sockets of) snake eyes are round, like human eyes!

Suggestion: Perhaps that is the law!

Rejection: If so, the Mishnah should have taught regarding snakes, all the more so we would know regarding animals!

Question: Perhaps it did not, lest we think that Chachamim argue only about snakes, but they admit about animals, for they learn also "Yetzirah-Yetzirah"!

Question #2 (Mishnah): If animal eyes resemble human eyes, this is a blemish. (Normally, they are different!)

Answer: The black (pupil) of animal eyes is normally round, like human eyes. The socket is normally different than a human eye socket. If it is similar, this is a Mum.

(R. Yanai): R. Meir learns animals from people because their eyes face forward, like human eyes.

Question: The eyes of birds face to the side, yet R. Meir is Metamei (Tum'as Yoledes) one who miscarries the form of a bird!

Answer (Abaye): He is only Metamei only one who gave birth to an owl (or another similar species), for its eyes face forward.

Question: He is Metamei for other birds!

(Beraisa - R. Chanina ben Gamliel): I agree with R. Meir regarding animals, and with Chachamim regarding birds.

Question: To which birds does he refer?

Suggestion: He refers to owls.

Rejection: Presumably, he agrees with R. Meir regarding animals because their eyes face forward. For the same reason, he should agree regarding owls!

Answer: He agrees with Chachamim regarding other birds.

Inference: R. Meir argues regarding other birds!

Answer: R. Chanina means 'I agree with R. Meir regarding animals, and also regarding owls. I agree with Chachamim regarding other birds, for even R. Meir does not argue about other birds.'

Support (Beraisa - R. Eliezer b'Rebbi Tzadok): R. Meir considers a miscarried animal like a child. Chachamim do not;

A miscarriage of a bird must be checked.

Question: According to which Tana must it be checked?

Answer #1: R. Meir requires checking to see if it is an owl. (He agrees that any other bird is not a child.)

Rejection (and Answer #2): No, Chachamim require checking to see if it is an owl. (Only this is considered a child.)

Question: Why do Chachamim consider an owl to be a child more than an animal?

Answer: Its jaws are erect, like human jaws.

Question (R. Yirmeyah of R. Zeira): According to R. Meir, who says that an animal born to a woman is a proper child, if a father was Mekadesh such a daughter to a man, what is the law?

Question (R. Zeira): What difference does it make whether or not the Kidushin takes effect? (Tosfos - surely, she will not live to three years, the age for Bi'ah!)

Answer (R. Yirmeyah): If she is Mekudeshes, her husband is forbidden to her sister.

Inference: This implies that she can live! (Rashi - when a woman dies, her sister is permitted to her husband. Tosfei ha'Rosh - if she were considered a Nefel, Kidushin would not take effect.)

Objection (R. Zeira): Rav Yehudah taught that R. Meir considers an animal (born to a woman) to be a child only because others of its species live.

Inference: The species lives, but the animal itself cannot live!

Explanation (Rav Acha bar Yakov): R. Yirmeyah was merely trying to get R. Zeira to laugh. He failed. (Aruch la'Ner - the Zohar permits Sechok in learning Torah -- "Ivdu Es Hash-m b'Simchah"! Shabbos 30b says that the Rebbi should begin with a joke, but afterwards the learning is with trepidation.)

(Rav Yehudah): R. Meir considers an animal to be a child because others of its species live. (We inferred that the animal itself cannot live.)

Support (Rav Acha mi'Difti - Mishnah - R. Meir): If a woman's first birth had the form of an animal or bird, her next birth (if he is a boy) is a firstborn regarding inheritance. (He gets a double portion.) He is not a firstborn regarding Pidyon ha'Ben (the Mitzvah to redeem him through giving five Shekalim to a Kohen);

Chachamim say, only a human form exempts the next child from Pidyon.

If a woman miscarried a Shilya or Shefir Merukam (it has a human form inside) or a cut-up baby, her next birth is a firstborn regarding inheritance, but not regarding Pidyon.

Summation of support: If an animal could live, the next child would not be a firstborn regarding inheritance!

Rejection (Rava): Really, it can live. Regarding inheritance it says "Reishis Ono." This refers to the first child whose death would cause the father to be Mis'onen (mourn);

He would not grieve the loss of an animal.

Question (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): According to R. Meir, who says that an animal in a woman is a proper child, what is the law of a human form in the womb of a slaughtered animal?

Question: What difference does it make?

Answer: If it is considered an animal, one may eat it.

Answer: R. Yochanan taught that if the form of a dove is found in the womb of a slaughtered animal, it is forbidden;

The same should apply to a human form!

Rejection: (The Torah permits "Kol Mafreses Parsah... ba'Behemah," we include a fetus inside a slaughtered animal, even if its Parsos (hooves) are not split.) Bird feet are not considered Parsos;

Perhaps human feet are considered like unsplit hooves!

(Mishnah - Chachamim): Anything without (a human form is not a child).

(R. Yirmeyah bar Aba citing Rav): All agree that if the body resembles a goat and the face is human, it is human. If it has a human body and a goat's face, it is not a child;

They argue when it has a human face, but one eye is like an animal's eye. R. Meir says that even the partial form of a human (is considered a child). Chachamim require the entire form (of the face) to be human.

Version #1 - Tosfos - Question (Rabanan - Beraisa - R. Meir): The entire face must be human;

Chachamim say, even if its face is partially human (it is a child).

Version #2 - Rashi - Question (Rabanan - Beraisa - R. Meir): If any part of its face is human (it is a child);

Chachamim require half of the face to be human. (end of Version #2)

R. Yirmeyah bar Aba: (I told you what I heard.) You should rule according to your Beraisa.

(R. Yirmeyah bar Aba citing R. Yochanan): All of the following must be human (for the baby to be considered a child) -- the forehead, eyebrows, eyes, jaws, and chin.

(Rava citing Chasa (a Chacham)): The forehead, an eyebrow, an eye, a jaw, and the chin must be human.

They do not argue. R. Yochanan explains the opinion that the entire face must be human, and Chasa explains the opinion that part (Rashi - half) must be human.

Question (Beraisa): If even one Partzuf (feature) of the face is human, except for the ear, this is considered a human face.

Answer #1 (Abaye): It means that even if one Partzuf is not human (except for the ear) it is not a child. This is like the opinion that the entire face must be human.

Answer #2: It means, even if one Partzuf of each pair (e.g. eyes or jaws) is human, except for the ear, it is a child. This is like the opinion that part (Rashi - half) must be human.

(Rava): Tum'as Yoledes does not apply if a child was born with one eye and one thigh in the middle;

If the thigh and eye are off to a side, she is a Yoledes.

(Rava): If a child is born with a punctured Veshet (foodpipe), his mother is a Yoledes;

If his Veshet is sealed, she is not a Yoledes.

(Beraisa): If a baby is born Atum (this will be explained), his mother is not a Yoledes;

Question: What is considered Atum?

Answer (Rebbi): Atum is when it is lacking (Rashi; Ramban - formless) at the bottom, to the point that one cannot live if this is missing.