1)

(a)The Tana begins the Masechta with the Dinim of a Petter Chamor rather than with the first-born of a Kasher animal - because its Dinim are few, so he decided to finish with it quickly in the first Perek, and spend the rest of the Masechta with the more numerous Dinim of a Kasher animal.

(b)Whilst discussing the buying from a Nochri and selling to him of a first-born Ubar (unborn fetus) of a donkey before it is born, the Mishnah mentions that selling it to him is actually forbidden' - due a Rabbinical decree forbidding the sale of all larger animals, because the purchaser will work with it on Shabbos (and the Rabbanan decreed selling because of renting, which would be an Isur d'Oraysa [as we learned in Avodah-Zarah]).

(c)The Tana includes someone who owns the donkey in partnership with the Nochri and someone who is Mekabel from a Nochri or the Nochri from him, which means that - the Nochri owns the donkey and the Yisrael undertakes to look after it in exchange for a fifty per-cent share in each baby that is born (or vice-versa).

(d)The reason for all these Dinim is based on the Pasuk in Bamidbar - "Hikdashti Li Kol B'chor be'Yisrael" (exempting any B'chor in which a Nochri has a share [in either it or the mother]).

2)

(a)If someone buys a fetus of a first-born donkey from a Nochri, he is Patur from giving it to the Cohen. The Tana finds it necessary to add the case of someone who ...

1. ... sells to him - because we might have thought that we punish him for removing the Kedushas B'chor from the animal, and force him to redeem it and give it to the Cohen.

2. ... purchases a donkey in partnership with a Nochri - to preclude the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah, who holds that one is in fact, Chayav.

3. ... is Mekabel a donkey from him (not for itself, but because of ...

4. ... Nosen be'Kabalah, which comes to teach us - that although the mother still belongs to the Yisrael, we do not fine him and obligate him to retrieve the B'chor and give it to the Cohen, in case he becomes confused and fails to give it to the Cohen even when the Nochri does not have a portion in the animal.

3)

(a)In the Mishnah in Avodah-Zarah, Rebbi Yehudah permits the sale of an animal with broken legs. We ask whether he will also permit selling him a fetus (which cannot work either, but), which Rebbi Yehudah might agree is nevertheless forbidden - because unlike an animal with broken legs, there is nothing irregular about it (in which case, there is nothing to remind the owner not to sell [or rent] an animal that is already born to a Nochri).

(b)We try to resolve the She'eilah, from our Mishnah, which mentions the prohibition of selling a Nochri the unborn fetus of a donkey - without adding that Rebbi Yehudah disagrees.

(c)We reject this proof however, based on the continuation of the Mishnah 'ha'Mishtatef lo ... ' - where Rebbi Yehudah (in a Beraisa) disagrees with the Tana of our Mishnah, yet the Mishnah omits his opinion. Perhaps he also disagrees regarding the sale of a fetus, but the Tana omits it.

4)

(a)Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa, rules that someone who is Mekabel an animal from a Nochri, which subsequently gives birth to a B'chor - must have its value assessed, of which he pays half to a Kohen.

(b)He also rules that, if he is Nosen le'Kabalah, we fine him, forcing him to pay up to ten times the value of the animal to buy it back, and he is obligated to give all of its value to the Cohen. The problem with...

1. ... the word Damav, if as we suggest, this refers to the mother is that - seeing as 'Beheimah' (the word that pertains to the mother) is feminine, the Tana ought then to have said 'Damehah'.

2. ... 'Nosen Kol Damav le'Kohen', even if we amend 'Damav' to 'Damehah' is that - the Kohen has no rights over the mother, so why should the owner have to give him its value.

(c)We finally establish the case - where he gave the Nochri a pregnant animal to fatten, and where we anyway fine him on the mother. So Rebbi Yehudah will agree here that we fine him on the Ubar too (even though he does not agree by a regular Ubar).

5)

(a)In another Beraisa, Rebbi Yehudah permits selling to a Nochri an animal with broken legs - because it is incurable (and will therefore never be able to work on Shabbos).

(b)Rav Ashi resolves our She'eilah with an Ubar from there - by extrapolating that if it could be cured, it would be Asur, in which case an Ubar (which stands to be born one day) will be Asur, too.

(c)Another Lashon suggests that our Mishnah, which forbids selling an Ubar to a Nochri, cannot go like Rebbi Yehudah. We refute this suggestion however - by differentiating between an animal with a broken leg (which is irregular) and an Ubar, which is not (and where Rebbi Yehudah will therefore concede that it is Asur, as we explained earlier).

6)

(a)After asking from the same Beraisos and concluding 'Hai Nami ke'Yachol Lehisrap'os Dami' (like we concluded in the first Lashon), we ask what the Din will be if someone sells his animal to a Nochri for its Ubar. The She'eilah is - whether we penalize him and force him to buy back the animal from the Nochri, or not.

(b)The She'eilah is pertinent both according to Rebbi Yehudah and according to the Rabbanan. On the one hand, there is even more reason to be ...

1. ... lenient in this case than in that of an animal with broken legs, according to Rebbi Yehudah, (even though it is not irregular) - because it is not a total sale (since he retained ownership of the animal), whilst on the other, there is reason to be ...

2. ... strict than by an animal with a broken leg, according to the Rabbanan (even though it is not a total sale) - because it is not irregular, and one will therefore come to permit the sale of an ordinary animal.

7)

(a)We query the She'eilah according to the Rabbanan from a Beraisa, where they asked Rebbi Yehudah why he permitted selling an animal with broken legs, seeing as it was still fit to give birth. This suggests that - their reason is because the animal can have children, and if so, in the current case, it should definitely be forbidden.

(b)The gist of the Rabbanan's query is that - seeing as the Nochri will retain the animal that is fit to give birth, people who see it there after a year or two will think that one is permitted to sell an animal to a Nochri, even if it is not in order to Shecht it.

(c)To which Rebbi Yehudah countered - 'Let the animal first give birth!', by which he meant that an animal with broken legs will not accept a female, in which case the Nochri will not keep the animal for long, and there is nothing to worry about.

(d)We refute that proof however in that - perhaps their personal reason is because one might confuse the sale of an animal with a broken leg with that of a healthy one (which gives rise to the She'eilah), and they only mentioned the concept of fit to give birth to counter Rebbi Yehudah's argument, that the animal is incurable.

8)

(a)We try to resolve the She'eilah from our Mishnah 've'ha'Nosen lo be'Kabalah' - by virtue of the Tana's failure to add that it is Asur to do so.

(b)And we refute this proof from the following ruling 've'ha'Mishtatef lo' - which the Tana also omits, even though Shmuel has taught us that it is prohibited to enter into a partnership with a Nochri.

(c)Shmuel learns this from the Pasuk in Mishpatim "Lo Yishama al Picha" - which teaches us the prohibition of even causing a Nochri to swear by his god (by entering into a Shutfus with him).

(d)And the Tana omitted the Isur Lechatchilah both by Mishtatef and by Nosen lo be'Kabalah' (assuming that it is Asur) - because it is considered sufficient to mention it with regard to Mechirah ...

(e)... rather than Shutfus and Kabalah - snce, when all's said and done, it constitutes the main Isur.

9)

(a)We cite the Beraisa that we quoted earlier, where Rebbi Yehudah obligates someone who gave an animal be'Kabalah to a Nochri, to redeem it from the Nochri ad Asarah be'Damav and to pay its full value to the Kohen. The Chachamim - exempt any animal in which a Nochri has a share, from the Din of Bechorah.

(b)On the assumption that the Tana is referring to the animal that he sold, we try to prove from here that - regarding the Din of Nosen be'Kabalah, the K'nas of redemption extends to the animal itself ...

(c)... even according to the Chachamim - who only argue with Rebbi Yehudah with regard to the Din of Bechorah, but who agree with him as regards the K'nas.

(d)We switch the proof however, by confining the Beraisa's ruling to the Ubar specifically (and not to the mother) - which we prove from the fact that the Tana says 'be'Damav' and not 'be'Damehah' (as we learned above, though this time we do not change the text).