Question: What was the question? Also according to Abaye, the Beraisa holds that Tumtum is not a Beriyah (a creation with a new status), rather, a Safek. This is why he is fed like a daughter;

Only regarding our Mishnah, Abaye said that he does not receive even like a daughter, because our Mishnah holds like R. Shimon ben Gamliel, that he is a Beriyah, like is proven in the Seifa. Therefore he establishes also the Reisha like R. Shimon ben Gamliel!

Answer #1: The Gemara wants to resolve Abaye even like Rav Chisda, who holds in Bechoros (41b) that all agree that Tumtum is a Safek;

Implied question: R. Shimon ben Gamliel taught that Kedushah does not take effect on it! (If it is a Safek, Kedushah should take effect on it!)

Answer: That is only regarding Kedushah through speech, e.g. he said "if [the fetus] is a male, it should be an Olah, and it is it is a female, it should be a Shelamim." The reason is because (R. Shimon) holds that he intended only for a Vadai known male and a Vadai known female, but not for a Tumtum.

Implied question: It says about this in the Gemara there "even Kedushah of its mother, it does not receive, because he holds that Vlados (offspring of) Kodshim are Kodesh when they are born";

If it is a Safek, and not a Beriyah, even if they are Kodesh when they are born, so what? Since it is a total male or a total female, why does it not receive Kedushah when it is born?!

Answer: That Sugya is like R. Yochanan, who holds in Bechoros (42b) that it is a Beriyah;

However, according to Rav Chisda, Kedushah of its mother takes effect on it, and it is proper for an Olah if it is a male, and for a Shelamim if it is a female.

Answer #2 (to Question (a)): In Bechoros (42b), Abaye himself refers to Reish Lakish's teaching, that all agree that a human Tumtum is a Safek. It is possible that Abaye himself holds like this.

Source: If Abaye held that Tana'im argue about a Tumtum, whether it is a Beriyah or a Safek, he should have established the Reisha of our Mishnah like Rabanan, and the Seifa like R. Shimon ben Gamliel, like Rava did, rather than his poor answer "they reject him, and he does not get."

Answer #3: We can say that the wording of our Mishnah, which teaches "they dispel him" connotes that he is a Safek. Therefore, [Abaye] cannot answer that our Mishnah is like the opinion that Tumtum is a Beriyah.

Question: Still, what was the question against Abaye from the Beraisa? We should say that our Mishnah is like R. Shimon ben Gamliel, who says that a person intends [only] for a Vadai known male or a Vadai known female;

The Beraisa is like Rabanan who argue there with R. Shimon ben Gamliel, and hold that Kedushas Peh (through speech) takes effect on a Tumtum when he stipulates about male or female!

Answer: The Gemara holds that Abaye holds that even Rabanan who argue there with R. Shimon ben Gamliel, agree here that a person is inclined to be Makneh only to a Vadai male or a Vadai female;

They argue only about offering [Korbanos]. Since a Tumtum is proper to offer, [one who is Makdish] intends also for a Tumtum.

If Abaye held that they argue also here, he would not explain our Mishnah with difficulty, to say that they dispel him, and he does not receive. Rather, surely Abaye holds that all agree here.

Rava argues with [Abaye] and holds that Rabanan argue also here. He establishes the Reisha like Rabanan.

Implied suggestion: Perhaps also Rava holds that the Reisha, which says that they dispel him and he receives, is even like R. Shimon ben Gamliel;

Even though a person intends only for a Vadai known male and a Vadai known female, in any case, the Reisha, which discusses a stipulation of Beis Din about food of the daughters, is different.

Rejection: If so, why did Rava mention R. Shimon ben Gamliel? He should have explicitly made those distinctions, and said that the Reisha is unlike the Seifa!

Rather, [Rava holds that] surely we do not distinguish. Chachamim enacted only according to the intent of a person, who stipulates like this.

Support #1: The Mishnah (Kesuvos 51a) says that if he did not write [in the Kesuvah "if you will be captured, I will redeem you..."], he is obligated, for it is a stipulation of Beis Din. Therefore, he is obligated as if he wrote to her.

Support #2: It connotes like this also in Kesuvos 43a, that they enacted food for daughters [after death of the father] according to a person's intent. It says "regarding disgrace, he is more concerned for his widow. Regarding prosperity, he is more concerned for his daughter."

Question: What was the question against Rava? He can say that "he inherits like a son", i.e. what is above food for the daughters until Bagrus!

That excess is for the Tumtum, just like for the [Vadai] sons, like it says above "granted, according to Rava he inherits like a son when there is sparse property"!

Answer: "He inherits like a son" connotes that he is an absolute heir, like a son in other property, even if much remains.

Explanation #1 (Rashbam): [Rav Chisda] did not have sons.

Rebuttal: He had many sons, like we find Rav Nachman bar Rav Chisda (above, 8a), Mar Yenuka and Mar Kashisha Bnei Rav Chisda (above, 7b), Rav Chanan bar Rav Chisda (Avodah Zarah 11b), and Rav Mari and Rav Pinchas Bnei Rav Chisda (Bava Kama 117a)! (Above (7b), Tosfos explained that Mar Yenuka was called so because he was born in Rav Chisda's youth, so it is difficult to say that all his sons were born after he said that he prefers daughters. However, Rashi (Kesuvos 89b) explained that Mar Yenuka was older.)

Explanation #2 (Ri): The reason he said "my daughters are dearer to me than my sons" is because his son-in-laws were Gedolei ha'Dor - Rava, Rami bar Chama and Mar Ukva bar Chama. (Tosfos says that the word is mi'Banai (than my sons). Rashbam says that the word is mi'Bani (than sons).)

Question: Why didn't he marry her to Yitzchak, according to the opinion in Sanhedrin (58b) that a Ben Noach may marry his sister?

Answer #1: Perhaps she was small, and he did not want to marry her to Yitzchak yet. (According to the opinion that Rivkah was three when he married Yitzchak, we must say that Avraham did not want to wait until his own daughter would be three.)

Answer #2: She was from Hagar, and not from Sarah, therefore he did not want to marry her to Yitzchak.

Implied question: Perhaps he said "if she gave birth to a male, he will receive six, and a female, two"!

Answer: If so, it should have said like in our Mishnah "if she gave birth to a male, he will receive 200, and a female, 100"! (I.e. he gives twice as much for one as for the other.)

Explanation #1: (This is like Sumchus.) According to Rabanan, ha'Motzi me'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah. The male is Muchzak in everything, for he Vadai inherits, after death.

Explanation #2: This is even like Rabanan. We can establish it in the father's lifetime. The male is not more Muchzak than the female.

Explanation: We discuss a Shechiv Mera, since [Rav Nachman brought a proof from our Mishnah, and] it says about [our Mishnah] "he should establish it like R. Yochanan ben Brokah", and R. Yochanan ben Brokah discusses a Shechiv Mera, for above (131a), we asked "what is the law of a healthy person"?

Implied question: Words of a Shechiv Mera, it is as if they were written [in a document] and handed over! (Rav Huna should agree that he acquires.)

Answer: [Rav Huna holds that] it does not help, since for a healthy person it does not acquire even through a Kinyan.

Implied question: It says below (148a) that if a Shechiv Mera said "the loan owed to me should be [owed] to Ploni, his loan is to Ploni", even though for a healthy person it does not acquire even through a Kinyan! If for a healthy person it acquired through a Kinyan, a Shechiv Mera and a healthy person would be the same!

Answer: Even so, here [Hakna'ah to a fetus] it does not help, since for a healthy person it does not acquire even through a Kinyan. [Chachamim] did not make all matters the same. (In some ways a Shechiv Mera can do what a healthy person cannot, and in other ways they are the same.)

Question: Rather than challenging Rav Huna, Rav Nachman should challenge himself, for he holds below (142a) that one who is Mezakeh (acquires for) a fetus did not acquire!

Answer #1: He establishes our Mishnah [that he said] when she will give birth. He holds below that when she will give birth, he acquires.

Answer #2: Rav Nachman discusses a fetus that is not the child of the giver. He establishes our Mishnah to discuss the giver's child. A person feels affinity for his child, like R. Yochanan teaches below (142b).

Support: R. Chananel, the Rashbam and Bahag rule that regarding [the giver's] son, one who is Mezakeh for a fetus acquires.

Explanation #1 (Rashbam): He disqualifies his father's slaves from eating Terumah, for a fetus (even of a Kohen) in his mother's womb is considered a Zar, and he does not feed his mother (permit her to eat Terumah, e.g. after her husband died), for only one who was born feeds, but one who was not born does not feed;

Explanation #2 (Rashi in Yevamos 67a): [The fetus] disqualifies his mother, who is a Bas Kohen, if he is a Zar, and he does not feed his mother if he is a Kohen, for a fetus in the womb of a Zarah (his mother is not a Bas Kohen) is a Zar.

Question: According to this Perush, nothing is proven here (whether or not a fetus acquires. The Gemara proved from it that R. Yosi holds that a fetus acquires!)

Implied suggestion: [Perhaps the Mishnah means that] he disqualifies his father's slaves if he is a Zar in a Bas Kohen's womb, and he does not feed his father's slaves if he is a Kohen in a Zar's womb!

Rejection: This is one matter. Obviously, since if he is a Kohen he does not feed, all the more so if he is a Yisrael! It should not have taught "he disqualifies", rather, "he does not feed" (since also without the fetus, his father's slaves have no rights to eat)!

Question: Why did it mention R. Yochanan ben Brokah? Even Rabanan agree that an expression of a gift helps!

Answer: Since he is proper to inherit him, and he did not mention an expression of a gift, if so, he meant that he should inherit it.