1)

(a)We explained in our Mishnah, that when, after permitting the retention of a B'chor that obtained a Mum within twelve months, the Tana adds 'le'Achar Shenaso, Eino Rashai Lekaymo Ela ad Sheloshim Yom', that if it obtained the Mum after the second year has already begun, one may keep it alive for thirty days. Alternatively, the Tana may mean that - in the original case, the owner may retain it for another thirty days.

(b)In the Beraisa that we cite to resolve the She'eilah - the Tana permits keeping a B'chor Tam alive nowadays for as long as two or three years.

(c)The Tana first gives the time limit for retaining a B'chor that obtains a Mum as not a moment more than twelve months. He then goes on to permit keeping it alive for another thirty days - because if one were to Shecht it at the end of the year, perhaps he will not find a Kohen to whom to give it, so he gives him another thirty days, at which time he is obligated to Shecht it (and salt it until such time as he finds a Kohen to whom to give it [see also Tosfos DH 'Mipnei Hashavas Aveidah']).

2)

(a)We try to prove from the current Beraisa that - the thirty days is an extension to the twelve month period in the original case.

(b)We refute this however - by suggesting that this Beraisa, like our Mishnah, is subject to the same She'eilah (whether the Tana means as we explained, or whether he too, is perhaps referring to a B'chor that obtained a blemish in its second year).

(c)Another Beraisa rules that if a B'chor obtains a Mum fifteen days before the end of its year - the owner may retain it for fifteen days into the second year, a proof that the Seifa of our Mishnah must be referring to a B'chor that obtains a blemish in its second year.

(d)This Beraisa also lends support to Rebbi Elazar who maintains that - one may keep a B'chor alive for thirty days from the time that it is born (and not one year plus thirty days).

3)

(a)In the second Lashon, Rebbi Elazar states that if a B'chor is born during its mother's first year - the owner may retain it for an additional thirty days.

(b)And he derives this from the Pasuk in Re'ei "Lifnei Hash-m ... Sochlenu Shanah be'Shanah" - which implies that he has a period of time that is considered a year (thirty days, that is called a year in some regards).

(c)We cannot reconcile this with the previous Beraisa, which only allows fifteen days into the second year - and which therefore refutes this Lashon of Rebbi Elazar.

4)

(a)Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah, permits a B'chor whose blemish was inspected after being Shechted be'Isur and found to be permanent. Rebbi Meir holds that - since it was Shechted without being examined first, it is forbidden.

(b)The Tana rules in a case where someone who is not an expert examined the blemish of a B'chor and declared it to be permanent ...

1. ... the B'chor - must be buried, and ...

2. ... the examiner - is obligated to reimburse the Kohen for his loss.

(c)According to Rabah bar bar Chanah, in a case where a B'chor with Dukin she'be'Ayin (eye's-webb) is Shechted before it has been examined, even Rebbi Yehudah will concede that it is forbidden - because that particular Mum tends to change after the animal's death (in which case any examination is unreliable).

(d)And the basis of the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah is - whether we decree other blemishes on account of Dukin she'be'Ayin (Rebbi Meir) or not (Rebbi Yehudah).

5)

(a)In the Beraisa that we cite in support of Rabah bar bar Chanah, Rebbi Meir says 'Echad Zeh ve'Echad Zeh Asur, Mipnei she'Mishtanin'. The problem with this is that - other than Dukin she'be'Ayin, blemishes do not change after the animal's death, as we just explained.

(b)So we amend it to read - 'Mipnei ha'Mishtanin' (meaning that we forbid even blemishes that do not change, on account of Dukin she'be'Ayin, which do).

(c)Based on the words of Rebbi Meir in our Mishnah 'Ho'il ve'Nishchat She'Lo al-Pi Mumcheh', Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak explains that - Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah are arguing over whether to issue a K'nas or not, because, had they been arguing specifically over Dukin she'be'Ayin, then he ought to have said 'Ho'il she'Mishtanin'.

6)

(a)We ask whether Dukin she'be'Ayin always changes after the animal's death, or only sometimes. The ramifications of this She'eilah are - whether we can believe witnesses who testify that they did not change (which we will not in the event that their appearance always changes).

(b)We resolve the She'eilah from Rebbi Oshaya from Usha who said to Rebbi Yochanan - 'Come, let me show you a case of Dukin she'be'Ayin that changed' (a clear indication that sometimes they don't change).

(c)We initially assume that the Seifa of our Mishnah (which requires a B'chor that was Shechted before a Chacham examined it to be buried) is a S'tam Mishnah like Rebbi Meir - because, according to Rebbi Yehudah, the Shechitah is generally Kasher once a Chacham has examined it.

(d)We refute this suggestion however - by establishing the Mishnah by Dukin she'be'Ayin, where Rebbi Yehudah concedes to Rebbi Meir (as we explained earlier).

7)

(a)A Beraisa rules that, in the previous case, the examiner pays the Kohen only a quarter of the price of a Beheimah Dakah - and half of the price of a Beheimah Gasah ...

(b)... because it is Mamon ha'Mutal be'Safek (since we do not know whether a Chacham would have permitted it or not), and we rule Yachloku.

(c)We reject Rav Papa's suggestion that he pays only a quarter of the price of a Dakah due to the fact the loss is that much smaller - because then he ought still to pay half the cost of the animal (in which case, the discrepancy between the two is automatically taken care of).

(d)Rav Huna bar Mano'ach in the name of Rav Acha bar Ika therefore attributes it - to the extra care that a Beheimah Dakah requires (as we learned above).

8)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that someone who judges, and errs by declaring the one who is Chayav, Patur, and an animal that is Tahor, Tamei, or vice-versa - his ruling is valid, and he is obligated to compensate the loser from his own pocket.

(b)A Mumcheh le'Beis-Din is - an expert who has Semichah (the authorization from the Beis-Din to issue rulings),

(c)If he is a Mumcheh le'Beis-Din - he is Patur from paying.

(d)We suggest that this is a S'tam Mishnah like Rebbi Meir, who holds Diyna de'Garmi - which obligating someone who causes damage without an act (see Hashmatos Tosfos of the Shitah Mekubetzes) to pay.

(e)We counter this suggestion - by establishing our Mishnah where the Dayan actually took the article from the hand of the litigant and damaged it (as we will now see).

9)

(a)We have no problem with Chiyev es ha'Zakai, which speaks where the Dayan took the money out of the defendant's hands and gave it to the claimant. Ravina establishes the case of Nasa ve'Nasan be'Yad by Zikah es ha'Chayav - where the Dayan took the security from the hand of the claimant, and returned it to the defendant.

(b)And the case of Nasan ve'Nasan be'Yad by ...

1. ... Timei es ha'Tahor is - where he took a Sheretz and touched the Taharos with it, to demonstrate that it really is Tamei.

2. ... Tiher es ha'Tamei - where he took the fruit that he declared Tahor and mixed it with other fruit belonging to the same man.

(c)When a case of a cow whose womb had been removed came before Rebbi Tarfon - he declared it T'reifah, and to stress this, he took the cow and fed it to the dogs.

10)

(a)The Chachamim in Yavneh disagreed with Rebbi Tarfon on the basis of Todos the doctor - who declared that every cow and pig that left Alexandria had had its womb removed ...

(b)... to prevent it from breeding (so that they could retain the monopoly on their high-quality cows and pigs [yet they survived]).

(c)When Rebbi Tarfon lamented that he had lost his donkey he meant that - he was now obligated to compensate the owner of the cow, and that he intended to give him his donkey instead.

(d)Rebbi Akiva commented that - this was not necessary, since Rebbi Tarfon was a Mumcheh le'Rabim.

11)

(a)We query Rebbi Akiva, who declared Rebbi Tarfon Patur only because he was a Mumcheh la'Rabim. Even if he hadn't been, he ought to have Patur - because his mistake fell under the heading of Ta'ah bi'Devar Mishnah, since it is a S'tam Mishnah in Chulin 'Nitlah ha'Eim Kesheirah' (which Rebbi Tarfon does not dispute).

(b)The reason that 'Ta'ah bi'Devar Mishnah is Patur' is - because the Dayan is able to retract (in which case, his ruling is meaningless, and if the owner took the animal and fed it to the dogs, he has only himself to blame [see Ya'avetz]).

(c)A Ta'us be'Shikul ha'Da'as - means that there is a Machlokes Tana'im (or Amora'im) in the matter, and that this particular Tana or Amora rules against the generally accepted opinion.

(d)We answer that in fact, Rebbi Akiva mentioned specifically Mumcheh le'Rabim - as a second reason, as if to say that Rebbi Tarfon was Patur, not only because he was To'eh bi'Devar Mishnah, but also because he was a Mumcheh le'Rabim.