1)

(a)Rebbi Akiva's source for permitting a B'chor Ba'al-Mum even to a Nochri - is the Pasuk in Re'ei comparing a Shor Pesulei ha'Mukdashin to "Tzvi ve'Ayal" (which are permitted to a Nochri).

(b)The Tana Kama counters that - the three times "Tzvi ve'Ayal" that the Torah mentions, are all needed for specific D'rashos (as we shall now see).

(c)The first "Tzvi ve'Ayal comes to teach us that someone who breeds or leads a Shor Pesulei ha'Mukdashin receives Malkos (like Rebbi Yitzchak and Rebbi Oshaya [see Tosfos DH 'Chad'), the second, that Tzvi ve'Ayal require Shechitah (like Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar [see Rabeinu Gershom]), whilst the third "Tzvi ve'Ayal", comes to teach us that - Pesulei ha'Mukdashin, like Tzvi ve'Ayal, are Patur from the Bechorah.

2)

(a)In another Beraisa, Beis Shamai also prohibits feeding a B'chor Ba'al-Mum to Nidos. They learn this - from the Pasuk in Korach "u'Vesaram Yih'yeh lach ka'Chazeih ha'Tenufah ... ".

(b)Beis Hillel counter that - this Pasuk refers to a B'chor Tam, but not to a B;chor Ba'al-Mum.

(c)Beis Shamai counter Beis Hillel's proof from the Pasuk "ha'Tamei ve'ha'Tahor Yachdav Yochelu" - by confining it to external Tum'os, but not to those that stem from the body.

(d)And they quote a precedent - from the Mishnah in Pesachim, which restricts the concession to eat a Pesach which comes be'Tum'ah to those who became Tamei through an external Tum'ah, but not through a bodily Tum'ah (Zavin, Metzora'in, Nidos, Zavos ve'Yoldos).

(e)Beis Hillel counter that - whereas in Beha'aloscha (in connection with a Pesach ha'Ba be'Tum'ah) the Torah writes "T'mei Nefesh", in Re'ei (in connection with Pesulei ha'Mukdashin) it writes "Tamei" S'tam.

3)

(a)The Beraisa forbids Margilin both on Yom-Tov and on a B'chor. Margilin - is a specialized process of flaying that begins by the legs and leaves the skin intact, to be used either as a pair of bellows, or to form a sack in which to store honey or oil.

(b)The third thing on the Tana's list is - an animal of Pesulei ha'Mukdashin.

(c)It is forbidden on Yom-Tov - because it entails extra work from which one derives no benefit on Yom-Tov itself.

4)

(a)To solve the problem as to why B'chor and Pesulei ha'Mukdashin should be included in the prohibition, Rav Chisda establishes B'chor like Beis Shamai - who forbid feeding it to Nidos, a clear indication that, according to them, a B'chor Ba'al-Mum retains its Kedushah ...

(b)... and the Tana forbids Margilin - because the extra care that is needed in removing the skin results in the Basar becoming torn (which is forbidden because of Bizayon Kodshim [a denigration of Kodshim]).

5)

(a)We resolve the problem by Pesulei ha'Mukdashin by establishing it like Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon in a Beraisa which discusses someone who has two Chata'os in front of him - which he designated, one to bring, the other, for Acharayus (liability, should the first one become Pasul) one a Tam, the other, a Ba'al-Mum.

(b)At that stage, he should redeem the Ba'al-Mum and bring the Tam. According to the Tana Kama, if, after being redeemed, the Ba'al-Mum is Shechted ...

1. ... before the blood of the Tam has been sprinkled - he is permitted to eat it (because once it is Shechted, it is no longer called a Chatas).

2. ... after the blood of the Tam has been sprinkled - it is forbidden even be'Hana'ah (because it is a Chatas whose owner has been atoned for, which has to die), a Halachah that Shechitah cannot change.

6)

(a)According to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon - even if the Shechted Chatas is cooking in the pot, it becomes Asur when the blood of the Tam is Shechted, because it is still called a Chatas ...

(b)... and will explain why the Isur Margilin will apply to it (despite the Pidyon and the Shechitah).

(c)Rav Chisda declines to establish ...

1. ... Pesulei ha'Mukdashin like Beis Shamai - because he maintains, it is only a B'chor Ba'al-Mum (which is Kadosh from birth) that retains its Kedushah, but not Pesulei ha'Mukdashin, which only became sanctified at a later stage.

2. ... B'chor Ba'al-Mum, like Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon - because there too, he will restrict his ruling to Pesulei ha'Mekudashin, whose Kedushah is strong in that it requires Pidyon, but will not extend it to B'chor, which is not subject to Pidyon.

7)

(a)Our Mishnah 'Kol Pesulei ha'Mukdashin Nimkarin be'Itliz ... ' creates a problem with Rebbi Elazar be'Rebbi Shimon - because it indicates that we permit Bizayon Kodshim if it will result in the benefit of Hekdesh, in which case he ought to permit Margilin, which raises the value of the skin.

(b)Rav Mari b'rei de'Rav Kahana answers that - Margilin is different, because what one gains from the superior skin, one loses from the spoiled Basar.

(c)In Eretz Yisrael, they quoted Ravina who explained the Isur of Margil both by B'chor and by Pesulei ha'Mukdashin differently and unanimously. He explained that - flaying the skin in a manner that produces a pair of bellows, looks as if one is performing Avodah with Kodshim (using Kodshim for one's own needs), which is forbidden.

(d)Rebbi Yossi bar Avin bases the Isur on the fear that he will then raise whole herds of animals from the one Hekdesh animal - which he is likely to do whilst he is waiting for someone who wants a skin for bellows or to store honey or oil.

8)

(a)Rebbi Yehudah - forbids letting he blood of a B'chor Beheimah that has a blood seizure ('B'chor She'Achzo Dam'), even if it will die as a result of not doing so.

(b)He forbids it even in a place where it does not create a blemish - based on the fact that a person becomes confused when he is losing money, and that once we allow one, he will allow himself the other.

(c)The Chachamim - permit letting the blood of a B'chor, provided one is careful not to create a blemish ...

(d)... because in their opinion - the opposite is true; if one does not permit him to let blood where it does not create a blemish, he will come to do it even where it does.

9)

(a)In a case where one inadvertently created a blemish - the Chachamim forbid the owner to Shecht it on account of that blemish (until it obtains one independently).

(b)Rebbi Shimon, the most lenient opinion of all, permits letting the blood of a B'chor, even if it leads to (inadvertently [see Tosfos Yom-Tov]) creating a blemish - because he is doing it as a cure, and not for the sake of creating a blemish, and he holds 'Davar She'Eino Miskaven, Mutar'.

(c)In a Beraisa, Rebbi Meir permits letting the blood of a B'chor she'Achzo Dam, provided it is in a place where it does not create a blemish. The Chachamim ...

1. ... permit it - even in a place where it will inevitably create one.

2. ... prohibit using that blemish however, to Shecht the B'chor ...

(d)Rebbi Shimon - permits it.

10)

(a)Rebbi Elazar (or Rebbi Chiya bar Aba) tries to equate the triple Machlokes between Rebbi Meir, the Chachamim and Rebbi Yehudah with the triple Machlokes Tana'im in the Mishnah in Terumos, regarding a barrel of T'rumah. According to Rebbi Eliezer there, if a barrel of T'rumah that became Safek Tamei is lying in an unguarded location, or if it was open, one is obligated to move it to a guarded place or to cover it. Rebbi Yehoshua - permits even moving it from a guarded place to an unguarded one, and uncovering it if it is covered ...

(b)... because as things stand, it is neither fit to be eaten nor to sprinkle about the house to settle the dust (in case it is Tahor), whereas if is placed in a location where it can become Tamei, it will at least be fit to sprinkle.

(c)Rabban Gamliel holds that - one should leave the barrel where it is.

(d)We try to establish Rebbi Meir, who forbids creating a blemish on the B'chor, but permits rectifying it, like Rebbi Eliezer, who similarly permits rectifying the barrel without causing it to become Tamei. And we equate ...

1. ... the Rabbanan - who permit even creating a blemish, with Rebbi Yehoshua - who permits rendering the barrel Tamei.

2. ... Rebbi Yehudah - who forbids both rectifying the B'chor and creating a Mum with Rabban Gamliel - who holds a similar view in the case of the barrel.

11)

(a)We reconcile ...

1. ... Rebbi Meir with Rebbi Yehoshua however inasmuch as - whereas he (Rebbi Meir) objects to actually creating a blemish, Rebbi Yehoshua permits moving the barrel to an unguarded location, where he causes it to become Tamei indirectly, without actually being Metamei it.

2. ... Rebbi Eliezer with the Rabbanan - inasmuch as in the case of the barrel, Eliyahu may come and declare the barrel Tahor, whereas in the case of the B'chor, where, if one does nothing, the B'chor will die, maybe he will concede that one is permitted to let blood, even if it means creating a blemish.

(b)By the same token, we assume that the Rabbanan will agree with Rebbi Eliezer, and that ...

1. ... Rebbi Yehudah, who forbids letting the B'chor's blood at all, will permit moving the barrel to a place where it will become Tamei, like Rebbi Yehoshua - because he is only causing Tum'ah, not actually being Metamei it (as we explained according to Rebbi Meir).

2. ... Rabban Gamliel, who forbids moving the barrel at all, will permit letting blood even if it means creating a blemish, like the Rabbanan - in order to save it from dying (as we just explained according to Rebbi Eliezer).

(c)According to what we have just learned, the basis of the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua is - whether, since it is only a Safek, it is better to save it from becoming Tamei (Rebbi Eliezer), or whether it is better to at least put it to some use (Rebbi Yehoshua).

(d)We also object to Rebbi Elazar's equation - bearing in mind that the two sets of Tana'im are arguing over how to interpret their respective Pesukim, in which case the two issues are unconnected.

12)

(a)According to Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan, Rebbi Meir and the Rabbanan learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... in Tzav "Lo Se'afeh Chametz" and the Pasuk "Kol ha'Minchah ... Lo Se'aseh Chametz" that - someone who renders Chametz a Minchah that is already Chametz has nevertheless transgressed a La'av.

2. ... in Emor (in connection with castrating an animal) "u'Ma'uch, ve'Chasus, ve'Nasuk ve'Charus" ('Koreis' after 'Nosek') that - someone who detaches the male Beitzim of an animal after they have already been cut, has nevertheless transgressed a La'av.

(b)Rebbi Meir learns from the Pasuk "Kol Mum Lo Yih'yeh Bo" that - someone who blemishes an animal of Kodshim that is already a Ba'al-Mum has transgressed a La'av.

(c)The Rabbanan, on the other hand, learn from the Pasuk "Tamim Yih'yeh le'Ratzon" that - one only transgresses if one blemishes a Kodshim animal that is a Tam (but not one that is a Ba'al-Mum).

(d)We object to the suggestion that, according to Rebbi Meir, "Tamim Yih'yeh le'Ratzon" comes to preclude someone who Shechts a Kodshim animal that was a Ba'al-Mum before it became sanctified - on the grounds that this is obvious (since Hekdesh does not take effect on a Ba'al-Mum me'Ikaro).

13)

(a)We conclude that, according to Rebbi Meir, "Tamim Yih'yeh le'Ratzon" comes to preclude Pesulei ha'Mukdashin after the Pidyon from the prohibition, which we would otherwise have included - since their shearings and working with them is prohibited.

(b)And, based on a Beraisa, the Rabbanan learn from the word "Kol" (in the Pasuk in Emor "Kol Mum Lo Yih'yeh bo") that - besides creating a straightforward Mum on a B'chor Tam, it is also forbidden to cause a blemish by sticking a dry fig or a piece of dough on its ear, so that a dog should come and take it, and create a Mum as it bites its ear.

(c)We have explained the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and the Rabbanan. Rebbi Yehudah (who forbids letting blood even on a location which will not result in a blemish) - holds like Rebbi Meir, only he decrees a location which will not result in a blemish on account of one that will.