THE ABOVE MUMIM ARE PROPER
(Mishnah): We rely on these Mumim (taught until now) to slaughter a Bechor (outside the Beis ha'Mikdash) and to redeem Pesulei ha'Mukdashim.
(Gemara) Question: The first Mishnah of our Perek already teaches this. It says "we rely on the following Mumim to slaughter a Bechor... "!
Answer #1: Our Mishnah permits redeeming Pesulei ha'Mukdashim.
Objection: This is obvious. if a Bechor may be slaughtered, all the more so Pesulei ha'Mukdashim may be redeemed!
Answer #2: Rather, because Chachamim did not (initially) agree with Ila's additional three Mumim, and subsequent Mumim were taught in the name of individuals, it was not clear that Chachamim agree with them;
Therefore, our anonymous Mishnah permits slaughtering and redeeming based on any of them. (This shows that this is the Halachah.)
MUMIM THAT ONLY POSEL
(Mishnah): If a Korban has any of the following Mumim, it may not be slaughtered in or outside the Mikdash:
Chavarvar or dripping water (from the eye) that are not Kavu'im, inner Chutin (gums or teeth) that are Chaserim, but not uprooted;
A Garav (rash), wart, or Chazazis (boil);
The animal is old, sick, or putrid;
One witness or the owner testifies that it was used for bestiality or killed a person.
Tumtum (its genitals are covered, we cannot tell its gender) or Androginus (it has male and female genitals) may not be slaughtered in or outside the Mikdash;
R. Yishmael says, this (Androginus; some say also Tumtum) is the ultimate Mum!
Chachamim say, it has no Kedushas Bechor. One may shear it and work with it.
(Gemara) Questions: Garav and Chazazis are proper Mumim!
Garav is explicit in the Torah;
(Beraisa): "Garav" is (a wart as hard as) Cheres (earthenware). "Yalefes" is Chazazis ha'Mitzris (sores, pimples or scabs).
(Reish Lakish): It is called Yalefes because it is Melafefes (clings) to one until he dies.
Answer - part 1: Chazazis ha'Mitzris is a proper Mum. Our Mishnah discusses regular Chazazis.
Answer - part 2: The Torah refers to dry Garav, which is a proper Mum. Our Mishnah discusses a moist Garav, which can heal.
Question: Moist Garav cannot heal. It says "... bi'Shechin Mitzrayim (... uva'Garav uve'Chares Asher Lo Suchal l'Herafei)";
Since Chares is dry (like Cheres), Garav must be moist. The Torah says that it cannot be healed!
Answer: There are three kinds of boils. (Only the type that is moist on the inside can be healed):
Garav in the Parshah of Mumim is dry on the inside and outside;
Garav of our Mishnah is moist on the inside and outside;
Shechin Mitzrayim was dry on the inside and moist outside. It says "va'Yehi Shechin Avabu'os Pore'ach." (The outer part was fluidy.)
(Mishnah): The animal is old, sick, or putrid.
Question: What is the source of this?
Answer (Beraisa): "Min ha'Tzon... Min ha'Kesavim Oh Min ha'Izim" exclude (disqualify to the Mizbe'ach) an old, sick, or putrid animal.
Three (words in the verse that are expounded to be) exclusions are needed to disqualify them:
Had the verse disqualified only an old animal, one might have thought that this is because it will not heal, but a sick animal is Kosher;
Had it disqualified only a sick animal, one might have thought that this is because this is unnatural, but it is normal to grow old;
Had it written only two exclusions, we would have disqualified an old or sick animal, for they are weak, but not a putrid animal;
Had it disqualified only a putrid animal, one might have thought that this is because it is disgusting, but the others are Kesherim;
Therefore, three exclusions are needed.
(Mishnah): One witness or the owner testifies that it was used for bestiality...
Question: What is the source of this?
Answer (Beraisa): "Min ha'Behemah" excludes an animal used for (the male or female role in) bestiality;
"Min ha'Bakar" excludes Ne'evad (an animal that was worshipped);
"Min ha'Tzon" excludes Muktzah (an animal designated for idolatry);
"U'Min ha'Tzon" excludes an animal that killed a person.
Question: If an animal was used for bestiality or killed a person, it is killed!
Answer: An animal is killed only through testimony of two witnesses. The case is, only one witness or the owner testified about it.
TUMTUM AND ANDROGINUS
Question: We understand why Tumtum may not be slaughtered in the Mikdash. Perhaps it is a female (and has no Kedushas Bechor);
It may not be slaughtered outside, for perhaps it is a male without a Mum;
We understand why Androginus may not be slaughtered in the Mikdash. Perhaps it is a female;
However, why can't Androginus be slaughtered outside? Even if it is a male, it is "Charutz" (it has a crack, i.e. female genitals that should not be in a male). This is a Mum!
Answer #1 (Abaye): "Oh Shavur Oh Charutz" equates these Mumim;
Just like Shavur (broken) applies only to bones, also Charutz.
Answer #2 (Rava): We do not need a Hekesh to teach that Charutz does not apply to (regular) flesh;
We learned that "Garav" is Cheres (a Nega);
(Regarding Tzara'as it says) "Mar'ehu Amok Min ha'Or." A sunlit area appears deeper than the shade; (The Chazon Ish asks that Garav need not resemble Tzara'as. Rather, we consider it is as if it was removed, therefore it is Charutz!)
If Charutz applied to flesh, the Torah could have taught Charutz, and we would learn Garav from a Kal va'Chomer:
Charutz is not disgusting, yet it is a Mum; Garav is disgusting, all the more so it is a Mum!
Since the Torah wrote "Garav," we conclude that Charutz does not apply to flesh.
(Mishnah - R. Yishmael): This (Androginus, and possibly also Tumtum) is the ultimate Mum!
R. Yishmael argues with Abaye (who says that female genitals in a male are not a Mum). He does not equate Shavur with Charutz;
He argues with Rava. Granted, a crack in flesh is not a Mum where it is not noticed, but in a place where it is noticed, it is "Mum Ra."
Question (Rava): Why does R. Yishmael disqualify Androginus?
Is he sure that it is a (male, hence a) Bechor, and it has a Mum;
Or, perhaps he is unsure. He teaches that even if it is a Bechor, it has a Mum!
Question: What difference does it make?
Answer: If it is a Bechor, (then even though it has a Mum) one who shears it or works with it is lashed, and it must be given to a Kohen.
Answer #1 (Beraisa - R. Ilai citing R. Yishmael): Androginus is a Bechor, and it has a Mum.
This shows that he is sure that it is a Bechor.
Rejection: Perhaps he is unsure. He teaches that even if you will say that it is a Bechor, it has a Mum!
Answer #2 (Beraisa): (Olah must be) "Zachar", and not a female;
Question: Another verse requires Olah to be "Zachar". What do we learn from it?
Answer: It excludes Tumtum and Androginus.
Question: Who is the Tana of the Beraisa?
Answer #1: It is the first Tana of our Mishnah.
Rejection: He is unsure whether Androginus is a male or female. A verse would not teach about such a Safek! (If they are truly females, they are already excluded from the first verse "Zachar".)
Answer #2: It is Chachamim (of the Seifa).
Rejection: Regarding Bechor, it says "Zachar" only once. This suffices for them to exclude female, Tumtum and Androginus. (They would not need two verses regarding Olah.)
Answer #3: It is R. Yishmael.
Question: Granted, if he is sure that it is a male, a verse must disqualify it;
However, if he is unsure about its gender, a verse would not teach about such a Safek!
Rejection (and defense of Answer #2): Really, it is Chachamim of the Seifa.
There are also two verses regarding Bechor. It says "ha'Zachar" and "ha'Zecharim."