Question: In Chulin (88a) it says oppositely! R. Yehudah says that "Damo" means [even] part of its blood. Rabanan holds that it is all of its blood;

Answer #1 (R. Tam): There, it is because "Dam" connotes all the blood. The Torah wrote "Damo" to teach [even] part, like it says here. It wrote "Kol" to teach even any amount.

Question #1: There (86b), R. Yehudah expounds Damo to divide (the blood of even one of them, i.e. a bird or Chayah, must be covered)!

Question #2: R. Tam rules like R. Yehudah, like I explained in Gitin (7b). If so, there is a contradiction in the Halachah, for here the Halachah does not follow R. Yehudah, like it says below (3b) that no one is concerned for R. Yehudah's opinion that partnership of a Nochri is obligated!

Answer #2 (to Question (a)): We compare only what the Gemara compares, like the case of "Besulah" - even some Besulim (e.g. a Bogeres, whose Besulim are diminished - Yevamos 59a), that the Gemara in Kesuvos (97b) compares this to the argument about if some of the money [of the Kesuvah that a widow is owed] is like all of the money;

Those resemble each other. It is one matter. When Besulim are diminished and some remain, it is as if all of them remain. Similarly, when some money of the Kesuvah remains, she is fed [from the estate] as if all of it remains.

And there are many Drashos that we should not equate, [e.g.] "Seh", even a partial Seh (it was crossbred with something else) which R. Elazar and Rabanan argue about it in Chulin (79b, 132a) and the argument of R. Yehudah ben Beseira and Rabanan about "Kol Nefesh."

And even if we will equate those that resemble each other to [the Drashah] here, it is not difficult that here [the Gemara] rules unlike R. Yehudah and there it says that no one is concerned for R. Shimon's opinion, that we do not say that some of the money is like all of the money...

Just the contrary, this supports that the Halachah follows Rabanan, that "Bechor" connotes a partial Bechor, if not for "Kol"! Also there, 'Besulah' connotes [even] some of the Besulim.

Answer #3: R. Yehudah does not contradict himself, for the Stam verse discusses a Stam animal, which is of Yisrael, and a Nochri has no partnership in it. Therefore, if not for "Kol", we would establish the verse to discuss a total Bechor;

Alternatively, it is because it says "Kol Bechor b'Yisrael", and "b'Yisrael" connotes totally, like it says in Yevamos (102a) "and [to be a judge] for Chalitzah, his father and mother must be from Yisrael", but elsewhere, it properly connotes part.

Observation: In Temurah (11b) the text says oppositely regarding one who says "the leg of this [animal] is an Olah." (Rav Chisda says that if removal of the limb Hukdash would make it Tereifah, the entire animal is an Olah, and Rava says so if its removal would make it Neveilah.) This is among texts that are opposite [in different Gemaros].

Assertion: The text there is primary, for Rav Chisda said that R. Yehudah agrees about something [whose removal] makes it Tereifah. Rava says, [he agrees if] it makes it Neveilah. Rav Sheshes said, something that it dies [immediately] due to it. Each one adds to his colleague [who said before him].

Like this, it is possible that here [also each one adds to his colleague, based on the text there, i.e.] Rav Huna said its ear, Rav Chisda adds Tereifah, and Rava adds Neveilah.

Support: We find like this in Nidah (23b) regarding an Atum body (there is no Tum'as Yoledes for such a baby. Atum is when it is lacking (or formless) at the bottom, to the point that a person cannot live if this is missing). One says that this is until the knee, one adds until the rectum, and one adds until the navel.

Implied question: Rava said there that if [a baby is born with] a punctured Veshet (foodpipe), his mother has Tum'as Leidah (even though this is a Tereifah. Here, Rava says that a Tereifah cannot live! This would be fine if the text here was "Rabah".)

Answer: Even if the text in our Sugya is "Rava", because he was after Rav Chisda, Rava does not contradict himself. There, even though a punctured Veshet is Tereifah, it is unlike what is lacking until the thigh.

Note: Mayim Kedoshim says that if the text says Rabah, he should have been taught before Rav Chisda, for he was older. I question this. In Bava Metzi'a (18b), Rav Chisda told Rabah "tomorrow, Rav Huna will ask you..." It seems that Rav Chisda was already an established Talmid of Rav Huna. Rabah could not have been much older than Rav Chisda, for Rabah died at 40 (and Rav Chisda at 92 - Mo'ed Katan 28a), and Rabah was Rosh Yeshivah for 22 years (Brachos 64a), after Rav Yehudah died (Rashi Gitin 60b), so he was 18 at the time, and even younger in the days of Rav Huna, who died before Rav Yehudah (Tosfos below, 14a)! Igeres Rav Sherira Gaon says that Rav Chisda died 11 years before Rabah. If so, he was born 63 years earlier (since he lived 52 years longer)! We cannot say that Rabah was Rav Chisda's Rebbi, for Rav Chisda said "you", without a title of respect. I prefer to explain that according to our text, the Amora'im said "a missing ear, Neveilah, Tereifah." This is not in ascending order, and not descending order. Granted, if the text here is "Rava", we can say that the Gemara wanted to teach the opinions of the older Chachamim first. However, if it says Rabah, Rav Chisda's colleague, why was Rav Chisda's opinion brought first?! However, Tosfos in Menachos (106a DH Rabah) connotes that normally, Rabah should be taught before Rav Chisda. This requires investigation.

Implied question: Obviously, Rav Chisda and Rava argue!

Answer: It means that Rav Huna does not [necessarily] argue with Rav Chisda and Rava.

Implied question: [Nefalim are different,] for there is a verse (Peter Sheger Behemah)!

Answer: We should learn from there, or we should learn Nefalim from partners, for it says "Kol Bechor", and we will equate all the Drashos.

Explanation: Shinuy is not a Mum. (Therefore we needed to say that it is Sharu'a, that one limb of a pair is bigger than its counterpart.)

Question: If so, it is more difficult for R. Yochanan, who said above "since it is different, it is a Mum", for here we infer that if both are big, it is Shinuy, and it is not a Mum!

Answer: We can say that above he discusses a Shinuy more severe than both are big or both are small.

Implied question: Why aren't people careful nowadays (not to be Makneh part of an animal to a Nochri, to uproot Kedushas Bechorah)? Rav Mari was punished for this!

Answer (R. Tam): Rav Mari was punished because he was Makneh the ears of a fetus, and there is a Hafka'ah (uprooting the Kedushah) in the fetus itself. However, Hakna'ah of the mother is permitted.

Implied question: There are Seforim in which the text is "Aznah", i.e. feminine (it refers to the mother)!

Answer: This is because it refers to "Chayusa" (his animals, which is feminine). It likewise wrote "he forbade Lah (it, feminine) regarding shearing and working with it."

Question: Below (53a) it asks about Ma'aser Behemah, that it does not apply nowadays, lest people come to Takalah (transgress). If so, also Bechor should not apply nowadays, due to Takalah! It answers that it is possible to do like Rav Yehudah (blemish a Bechor before it leaves the womb);

Why doesn't it find a solution through [selling the ear of] the mothers, like I explained?

Answer #1: There, since there is concern for Takalah, and they can fix it without uprooting from the Kohen, that they do like Rav Yehudah (the law of Bechor applies to a Ba'al Mum, and it is given to a Kohen to eat like Chulin), they did not want to enact to always do so through Hafka'ah. However, if he did so, he did so.

Answer #2: In the days of Rav Mari they were experts to blemish a Bechor before it enters the world (is born), so it was forbidden [to evade the chance of Takalah] through Hafka'ah. We are not experts to do so, so it is better to sell to a Nochri rather than to come to [chance of] Takalah.

Support: It connotes like this below (53a). If not that it were possible like Rav Yehudah, we should have enacted to sell to Nochrim. We are not experts, so it is as if it is not possible;

Even Rav Yehudah's [solution], it connotes in Temurah (24b) that it would be proper to forbid it, due to this decree, lest [the fetus] stick its head out before one blemishes it...

[It would be forbidden,] if not that Rav Yehudah's [solution] is better, to blemish it before it enters the world, for [if not] one would need to wait until a Mum comes by itself (and there is chance of Takalah, lest one blemish it or benefit from it).

Assertion: It suffices to sell the ear alone, for we hold like Rav Huna, since R. Yochanan holds like him, since he says [that if removal of the Nochri's share would make] even a minor Mum [it is exempt].

Support #1: And also Rav Mari, who used to sell the ear, was punished only due to Hafka'ah (but not because they still had Kedushah).

Support #2: And below (53a) [the Gemara] asks that he should be Makneh them for their ears to a Nochri, and (even according to the opinions that this does not exempt), the most [that anyone requires to exempt] is Hakna'ah of something [whose removal] makes it Tereifah or Neveilah.

Implied question: According to the version that explains that Rav Mari was punished because he knew how to be Makneh, but others did not, and they thought that he did a mere Milsa (this will be explained), and people will come to Takalah (why do we do so nowadays)?

Answer #1: Also this we can explain that Rav Mari, who was expert to do like Rav Yehudah, he should not have done in a way that people will come to err. However, we [who are not expert] have no other way [to avoid Takalah].

Answer #2 (R. Tam): Rav Mari was not Makneh the ear of the fetus to a Nochri, which is Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam (normally, such a Kinyan is invalid), but he was Makneh the [mother] animal for the ears of the fetus, like [Hakna'ah of] a date tree for its Peros (in this way, the Kinyan is valid);

A people would err and say that he was Makneh the ears of the fetus to a Nochri, which is [an invalid Kinyan,] like Peros of a date tree, and he would come to Takalah.

Distinction: However, when one is Makneh the ears of the [mother] animal it is permitted, for people will not come to err.

Limitation: According to Rashi, one cannot explain so, for he explains that Rav Mari knew to make an absolute Kinyan, to take coins from the Nochri, for a Nochri acquires only through money, like it says below (13a). People thought that he does a mere Milsa (verbal Kinyan), and does not take money.

Objection: Also according to [Rashi's] Perush (that people will err about the need for a Kinyan), he should not have mentioned money, for just the contrary, according to R. Yochanan, who says that mid'Oraisa money acquires, he expounds below (13b) that from your fellow [Yisrael you acquire] through money, but [one is Makneh] to a Nochri via Meshichah, and we hold like R. Yochanan! (Rashi should have said that Rav Mari knew that the Nochri must do Meshichah, and others would be Makneh without Meshichah.)

Question: Without the Kal v'Chomer, we should already know from R. Yochanan ben Zakai's answer to the officer, that he answered (5a) that the [missing] 300 were Bechoros, and a Bechor does not uproot a Bechor [from the need to redeem himself], for it suffices that he exempts himself. This shows that he exempts himself!

Answer: If not for the Kal v'Chomer, we could have answered that the 300 were Bechoros, and they needed redemption.

Question: If so, they should have been counted with the 273 extra [Bechoros Yisrael above the number of Leviyim]!

Answer: One could say that the Torah needed to count only the Yisrael [Bechoros, for only some of them needed Pidyon. It did not need to count the Levi Bechoros, for all of them needed to redeem themselves - Shitah Mekubetzes 4a(2).]