Rejection: No, they discuss giving a fetus.

Support: It says "he is fined 10 times b'Damav." (R. Gershom - this is masculine. It must discuss a fetus. Maharsha - it is unreasonable to fine 10 times for giving a female for its offspring. Rashi's text says "he gives its full value to a Kohen." There is no reason to give the mother to a Kohen.)

Version #1: This supports Reish Lakish.

(Reish Lakish): If one sold a large animal to a Nochri, he is fined. He must buy it back for up to 10 times its value.

Question: Is this precise? (Must he pay even more? Alternatively - is this an exaggeration?)

Answer: R. Yehoshua ben Levi taught that if one sold a slave to a Nochri, he is fined. He must buy it back for up to 100 times its value. (Rashi - each of these is precise. If not, both of them would have taught the same number. Shitah Mekubetzes - surely, the same fine applies to an animal. Ten is not precise.)

Rejection: Perhaps the fine for an animal is (even) smaller. It is not like selling a slave, for that prevents the slave from being able to keep Mitzvos.

Version #2 - (Reish Lakish): If one sold a large animal to a Nochri, he is fined. He must buy it back for up to 100 times its value.

Question (Beraisa): If he gave to a Nochri b'Kabalah, even though this is forbidden, he is fined 10 times its value.

Answer: The fine is bigger for an absolute sale than for giving b'Kabalah.

Question: Reish Lakish says 100. Is this precise?

Answer: R. Yehoshua ben Levi taught that if one sold a slave to a Nochri, he is fined. He must buy it back for up to 10 times its value. (Rashi - surely, the fine for an animal is not greater than for a slave; 100 is an exaggeration; Shitah Mekubetzes - just like 10 for a slave is not precise (surely, it is no less than for an animal), 100 is not precise (one must pay more).)

Rejection #1: Perhaps the fine for an animal is larger, because he gets to keep the animal.

Rejection of rejection: This justifies paying only one more times the value, but not 90 times more!

Rejection #2: It is unusual to sell a slave to Nochrim, Chachamim did not fine (so much) in unusual cases.

(Beraisa - Chachamim): Whenever a Nochri has a share...

(R. Yochanan): Both Tana'im expound the same verse - "Chol Bechor."

Possibility #1: Chachamim hold that "Bechor" connotes even a partial Bechor (i.e. part lacks Kedushas Bechor, because it is owned by a Nochri). "Chol" requires it to be a full Bechor;

R. Yehudah holds that "Bechor" connotes a full Bechor. "Chol" includes even a partial Bechor.

Possibility #2: All agree that "Bechor" connotes that the majority has Kedushas Bechor:

Chachamim hold that "Chol" requires it to be a full Bechor;

R. Yehudah holds that "Chol" includes even a minority Bechor.

Question: (According to Chachamim,) how much must a Nochri own to exempt it?

Answer #1 (Rav Huna): Even if he owns an ear it is exempt.

Question (Rav Nachman): Even if the ear would be cut off and given to the Nochri, the remainder would (be blemished, but still) have Kedushas Bechor! (It must be given to a Kohen. One may not work with it, shear it, or sell it in the market.)

Answer #2 (Rav Chisda): If removal of the Nochri's share would make it Nevelah, it is exempt.

Answer #3 (Rava): If removal of the Nochri's share would make it Treifah, it is exempt.

Question: What do Rava and Rav Chisda argue about?

Answer: They argue about whether or not a Treifah can live (R. Gershom - for 12 months):

Rava holds that it cannot;

Rav Chisda holds that it can. Therefore, the Nochri's share is not essential unless its removal would make it Nevelah.

Rabanan: Rav Chisda and Rava do not argue with Rav Huna. They say how much a Nochri must own of the mother to exempt. Rav Huna says how much he must own of the fetus to exempt.

Objection (Rav Papa): Presumably, you say that any (Nochri) ownership in the fetus exempts, because this is not "Kol Bechor";

If so, any ownership also in the mother should exempt, because this is not "v'Chol Miknecha Tizachar"!

Rather, there is no distinction between the mother and the fetus.

Question (against all three answers - Mar bar Rav Ashi): Why is this different than Nefalim (non-viable offspring)? They get Kedushas Bechor, even though they have no life at all!

"(Kedushas Bechor applies to) Peter Sheger Behemah." This is a fetus that was born prematurely (alternatively - a miscarriage).

Answer: There, the entire fetus is proper for Kedushas Bechor. This is "bi'Vehemah Kol Bechor." Here, there is a mixture of Chulin (the Nochri's share). The verse does not apply.

R. Asi (to R. Elazar): (When you were not in the Beis Medrash,) R. Yochanan taught a law and explained a Mishnah.

(R. Yochanan): If removal of the Nochri's share would make even a minor Mum (blemish), it is exempt.

(Mishnah): If a sheep gave birth to a goat, or vice-versa, it is (a Nidmeh, i.e. the child does not resemble the mother. It is) exempt from Bechorah;

If the child resembles its mother in some ways, it has Kedushas Bechor;

(R. Yochanan): (Since it primarily resembles another species,) this is a Kavu'a (permanent) Mum. It may be slaughtered (outside the Mikdash, like Chulin).

Question: Granted, the first teaching is a Chidush. It is like Rav Huna, and unlike Rav Chisda and Rava. (Ramban - some say that it is not exactly like Rav Huna, who exempts even if removal of the Nochri's share would not make any Mum.)

However, it is no Chidush to say that a partial Nidmeh is a Mum Kavu'a. A Mishnah teaches that any deviation is a Mum!

(Mishnah): If its mouth resembles a swine's mouth, this is a Mum.

Suggestion: Perhaps that is a Mum because it resembles something that has no Kedushas Bechor, but if it resembles a sheep or goat (even though this is unlike its mother), this is not a Mum!

Rejection: A Mishnah (according to a Beraisa that explains it) refutes this!

(Mishnah): If one eye was big or one eye was small, this is a Mum.

(Beraisa): This refers to an eye (of a Seh) as big as that of a calf or as small as that of a goose.

Granted, geese have no Kedushas Bechor, but calves do. Surely, an eye as big as a calf's is a Mum because it is a deviation!

Answer: No, the Mishnah refers to the Mum of Sharu'a (one limb of a pair is bigger than its counterpart).

Support (Mishnah): These Mumim (of animals, listed in the sixth Perek), whether Over (temporary) or Kavu'a, disqualify a Kohen from Avodah. In addition, if a Kohen's eyes are too big or too small, he is Pasul.

Big or small eyes disqualifies a Kohen, for it says "Ish Ish mi'Zera Aharon." A Kohen must be similar to other descendants of Aharon (like regular people);

Big or small eyes do not disqualify an animal.

Question: Why is an animal Pasul if it has one big or one small eye?

If any deviation is a Mum, even two big or small eyes should disqualify!

Answer: This is (the Mum called) "Sharu'a."

Rejection (of the answer and the support) : Really, the deviation disqualifies;

Two big or small eyes does not disqualify, because it is due to the animal being healthy or weak!

We cannot attribute one big or small eye to being healthy or weak. If so, both should be the same!

A case occurred in which a Nochri gave an animal to his sister, who was a convert, to fatten it.

(Rava): No one is concerned for R. Yehudah's opinion that partnership of a Nochri does not exempt from Bechorah.

Rav Mari bar Rachel had a flock. He used to be Makneh (transfer ownership of) the ears to a Nochri, yet he would forbid working (with the Bechoros) and would give them to Kohanim. His flock died out.

Question: Since he would forbid working with them and give them to Kohanim, why did he give the ears to a Nochri?

Answer: He was concerned for Takalah (lest someone slaughter it by mistake).

Question: Why did his flock die out?

Answer #1: It was a punishment for uprooting Kedushas Bechor.

Question: Rav Yehudah permits blemishing a Bechor before it leaves the womb (even though this uproots the Kedushah)!

Answer: This disqualifies it from Hakravah, but the Mitzvah to give it to a Kohen remains. Rav Mari uprooted the entire Mitzvah.

Answer #2: Rav Mari caused a Takalah. He knew how to be Makneh to a Nochri, but onlookers, who did not know the proper way, would be Makneh in an invalid way (and mistakenly think that the Bechor is not Kodesh. Rashi - they thought that he was Makneh verbally. Really, the Nochri paid money; Tosfos - he was Makneh the mother for the sake of acquiring the fetus' ear. Others would be Makneh the ear of the fetus. This does not take effect, for it is Lo Ba l'Olam (not yet in the world). Shitah Mekubetzes - he told the Nochri to do Meshichah on a pregnant mother to acquire the fetus' ear. People would do this before the mother was pregnant. R. Gershom - one of his adult children would Mezakeh (acquire) on behalf of the Nochri. Others would be Mezakeh through a minor.)