(R. Chiya bar Amram): Three commoners can permit a Mum in a place where there is no expert. Three commoners can permit a vow in a place where there is no Chacham.

His first law teaches that the Halachah does not follow R. Yosi;

His second law teaches that the Halachah does not follow R. Yehudah;

(Beraisa): Three people may permit a vow;

R. Yehudah says, one of them must be a Chacham.

Question: R. Chiya allows three commoners to permit a Bechor where there is no Chacham. What kind of Chacham does he refer to?

Answer (Rav Nachman): He refers to a Chacham like myself. (He must be an outstanding Chacham. He need not be ordained (Semichah).)

(Beraisa - R. Yehudah): One of the three (to permit a vow) must be a Chacham.

Question: May the others be utterly unlearned?!

Answer (Ravina): No. They must be able to understand when something is explained to them.

(Mishnah - R. Yosi): Even a Sanhedrin of 23 cannot permit a Bechor. Only an expert can.

(Rav Chananel citing Rav): The Halachah does not follow R. Yosi.

Question: This is obvious. The general rule is, the Halachah follows the majority, not an individual!

Answer: One might have thought that the Halachah follows R. Yosi, for Nimuko Imo (he always gave reasons for his laws). Rav teaches that this is not so.

(R. Yirmeyah bar Aba taught that three commoners can permit a Mum where there is no expert. He was unsure whether he heard this from Rav or Shmuel.)

Suggestion: He must have heard it from Shmuel, for Rav already taught that the Halachah does not follow R. Yosi! (He would not teach the same matter in two different ways.)

Rejection: Perhaps Rav taught it only once, and the other teaching was inferred from what he explicitly taught.

(Mishnah): If Reuven slaughtered a Bechor (and sold it), then it became known that he did not show it to a Chacham, what was eaten was eaten, but (nevertheless) Reuven must return the money he received;

What was not yet eaten must be buried, and Reuven returns the money.

Similarly, if Reuven slaughtered a cow (and sold it to Shimon), then it became known that it is a Terefah, what was eaten was eaten. Shimon returns the meat that was not eaten, and Reuven returns the money;

If Shimon sold it to Nochrim or fed it to dogs, (Reuven refunds the money, but deducts because) Shimon must return the value of a Terefah (in place of the meat).

(Gemara - Beraisa): In the following cases, if Reuven sold food and it later became known that it was forbidden, what was eaten was eaten, and Reuven must return the money:

He sold meat, and it was found to be a Bechor (that was not permitted by a Chacham);

He sold produce, and it was found to be Tevel;

He sold wine, and it was found to be Yayin Nesech.

R. Shimon ben Elazar says, if he sold things that people detest, he returns the money;

If he sold things that people do not detest, he (returns the money, but) deducts for their value.

People detest Nevelos, Terefos, Shekatzim and Remashim (vermin). They do not detest Bechor, Tevel or Yayin Nesech.

Question: (According to R. Shimon,) why does Reuven deduct when he sold Bechor? It had no value!

Answer: The case is, it had a Mum. Shimon ate the blemished part;

Had he not eaten it, Reuven could have shown it to a Chacham, who would have permitted it;

The Beraisa is like R. Yehudah (who says that a Chacham can permit a slaughtered Bechor).

Question: Why does he deduct when he sold Yayin Nesech? (It is Asur b'Hana'ah!)

Answer: The case is, Yayin Nesech was mixed with Kosher wine. The Beraisa is like R. Shimon ben Gamliel:

(Mishnah): If Yayin Nesech fell into a pit of Kosher wine, all of it is Asur b'Hana'ah;

R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, he may sell the mixture to a Nochri, except for the quantity of Yayin Nesech. (He may not take money for it.)

(Mishnah): A Bechor may be slaughtered (outside the Mikdash) due to any of the following Mumim of the ear:

A Chisaron in the cartilage (part is missing), but not in the skin;

It is cracked, even if nothing is missing;

There is a hole the size of Karshinah (vetch or horsebean);

It is dry.

Question: How dry must it be?

Answer #1: (It must be so dry that) if it is punctured, blood will not exude.

Answer #2 (R. Yosi ben ha'Meshulam): If one rubs it, it will crumble.

(Gemara) Question: Why are these Mumim? The Torah specifies only "Pise'ach Oh Iver (lame or blind)"!

Answer: It says "v'Chi Yihyeh Vo Mum" (to include others).

Question: We should say that "v'Chi Yihyeh Vo Mum" is a Klal (general term), and "Pise'ach Oh Iver" is a Prat (specific term). From a Klal u'Frat we learn only the Peratim, i.e. lame or blind!

Answer: "Kol Mum Ra" is another Klal. From a Klal u'Frat u'Chlal we learn everything similar to the Peratim, i.e. visible Mumim that do not heal.

Question: We should learn only everything similar to the Peratim, i.e. visible Mumim of Bitul Melachah (Rashi - they make the limb dysfunctional; R. Gershom - they make the animal unable to work) and do not heal. (Why does the Mishnah teach Mumim without Bitul Melachah?)

(Mishnah): A Chisaron in the cartilage (is a Mum).

Answer: "Kol Mum Ra" is a Ribuy. (R. Gershom - it includes Mumim without Bitul Melachah. Rashi - we expound according to Ribuy and Mi'ut, and not according to Klal u'Frat u'Chlal.)

Question #1: If so, we should also include hidden Mumim!

(Mishnah): If the outer Chutin (gums or teeth) are chipped or cracked, or if the inner Chutin are uprooted (it is a Mum).

Inference: If the inner Chutin are only chipped or cracked, this is not a Mum (because it is not visible)!

Answer: "Mum Ra" excludes Mumim that are not seen.

Question #2: If so, also a Mum Over (temporary) should be disqualified!

(Mishnah): Chisaron in the skin is not a Mum. (This is because it can heal!)

Answer #1: Logic teaches that this is not a Mum:

An animal with a Mum Over cannot be redeemed. All the more so one cannot slaughter it!

(Beraisa): "V'Im Kol Behemah Temei'ah Asher Lo Yakrivu Mimenu Korban la'Shem" refers to a Ba'al Mum that was redeemed.

Suggestion: Perhaps it truly refers to a Tamei (species of) Behemah!

Rejection: "V'Im ba'Behemah ha'Temei'ah u'Fadah v'Erkecha" discusses a Tamei Behemah. "V'Im Kol Behemah Temei'ah " must refer to a Ba'al Mum that was redeemed.

Suggestion: Perhaps a Zevach may be redeemed if it has a Mum Over!

Rejection: "Asher Lo Yakrivu Mimenu Korban la'Shem" is something that can never be offered. This excludes a Ba'al Mum Over, for it may be offered later.

Answer #2: The Peratim (or Mi'utim) "Pise'ach Oh Iver" exclude a Mum Over.

(Mishnah): It is cracked, even if nothing is missing.

(Beraisa): A crack of any size is a Mum. Chisaron is a Mum, whether it came b'Yedei Adam (through man) or b'Yedei Shamayim.

Objection: This implies that a crack b'Yedei Shamayim is not a Mum. (Surely, this is not so!)

Correction - (Beraisa): A crack or Chisaron is a Mum, whether b'Yedei Adam or b'Yedei Shamayim;

The Shi'ur of Chisaron is big enough for a fingernail to get caught in.

(Mishnah): There is a hole the size...

(Beraisa): The Shi'ur for a hole in the ear is the size of Karshinah;

R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah says, it is the size of a lentil.

Question: How dry must it be?

Answer #1: (It must be so dry that) if it is punctured, blood will not exude.

Answer #2 (R. Yosi ben ha'Meshulam): If one rubs it, it will crumble.

(Beraisa): These two Shi'urim are very close.

Question: Which Shi'urim are very close?

Suggestion: The Shi'urim of dryness are very close.

Rejection: They are very different!

Answer: A lentil is very close to a Karshinah. (It is slightly smaller.)

Contradiction: R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah does not require the size of a lentil!

(Beraisa - R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah): "Martze'a" (an awl is used to pierce the ear of a slave). What is the source to include a wood chip, thorn, needle, drill or stylus?

Answer: "V'Lakachta" includes anything that may be taken in the hand.

Rebbi says, just like Martze'a is of metal, any metal Kli may be used.

R. Yudan says the ear is pierced through the lobe;

Chachamim: A Kohen may not be Nirtza because this is a Mum. A hole in the lobe is not a Mum!

Rather, it is pierced through the upper part (cartilage. R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah must hold that a needle makes a Mum, even though the hole is smaller than a lentil!)

Answer (Rav Huna bar Katina): A lentil-sized hole is required to slaughter (outside the Mikdash). A smaller hole disqualifies from Hakravah.

Question: What is Karshinah?

Answer (Rav Sharbiya): It is Hinda (vetch or horsebean).

Question (R. Hoshaya): Must the hole allow a Karshinah to enter and leave (easily), or does it hold it in place?

Answer (Rav Huna Rabah): I did not hear about this, but we can learn from a Mishnah:

(Mishnah - Beis Shamai): A spine missing two vertebrae does not have Tum'as Ohel (to be Metamei everything the same roof as it);

Beis Hillel is Metaher (b'Ohel) even if one is missing.

Beis Shamai is Metaher (b'Ohel) a skull with a hole the size of a (standard) drill-hole.

Beis Hillel is Metaher if it has a hole that would cause one to die.

Question (Rav Chisda): What size hole would cause one to die?

Answer (Rav Tachlifa bar Avodimi citing Shmuel): A hole the size of a Sela (a coin) would cause one to die.

Rav Safra: This teaching (the size of the hole) was from the Amora'im (Shmuel).

R. Shmuel bar Yehudah: It is (Shitah - Shmuel himself cited) a Beraisa.

A Siman (way to remember which opinion is which) is that Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah taught many Beraisos (that were not commonly known).

Question (Rav Chisda, of Rav Tachlifa): According to you, Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel do not argue!

(Mishnah): If an opening in a wall was not made by man, it must be the size of a big fist to allow Tum'as Mes to pass to the other side;

This refers to the fist of Ben Avati'ach;

R. Yosi says, his fist was the size of an average head.

If it was man-made, it must be the size of a hole made by a big drill (used to pierce walls). This is the size of an Italian Pundyon or a Sela of Niron, or like the hole in a standard yoke.

Rav Tachlifa could not answer.