Observation: Also in Temurah (8b), Mar Zutra visited Rav Ashi'a house. They cut meat in front of him. They said to him "let the master taste. It is healthy, for it is a Bechor."

Implied question: Rashi explained that Egla Tilsa is the third born from the womb [and it was esteemed], like we say in Sanhedrin (65b) "they prepared for him Egla Tilsa"!

Answer: (It is unlike Rashi explained.) Rather, Tilsa is an expression of importance, like "v'Shalishim Al Kulo."

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This is a Klal u'Ferat, for Bechor is a Klal, and Zachar is a Prat. From a Klal u'Ferat we learn only what is in the Prat;

This Reisha [of the Beraisa] is not an explanation of a Klal that needs a Prat. Rather, the middle case and Seifa [are]. It taught 'had it said Zachar, one might have thought that this is even if a female was born before it! It says "Peter Rechem", and this [male] was not the first to leave the womb';

This is a Klal that needs a Prat, for you cannot understand what the Klal says until the Prat comes and explains it;

This is because one can explain Bechor in several ways - it is the Bechor of all the offspring, or it is the Bechor of the womb, even though it is not the Bechor of the offspring, e.g. it left through the womb after a Yotzei Dofen, or it is the Bechor of males, even though a female left before it through the womb;

The Prat comes and explains that it is called Bechor only if it is the Bechor of the womb, that it was first and opened the womb.

Support: We learned like this in Chulin (88b) regarding "v'Chisahu be'Afar" - one might have thought that he can cover it with a rock or put a Kli over it! It says be'Afar. I would know only earth. What is the source to include ground earthenware or flax stubble? It says v'Chisahu;

We ask that I should say that v'Chisahu is a Klal, be'Afar is a Prat, and from a Klal u'Ferat we learn only what is in the Prat!

We answer that it is a Klal that needs a Prat, and we do not judge it like Klal u'Ferat, because we can explain Kisuy in two ways. One is something big, like a rock or Kli, and one is something fine;

Therefore it wrote be'Afar, and explains that the Torah discusses covering with something fine that mixes with [the blood] and covers it. Until here is from Rashi.

Question: His Perush is possible according to Ravina below, who says that Bechor in one respect is a Bechor. However, in the conclusion of our Sugya we say "clearly, we must say like Abaye, who says that Bechor in one respect is not a Bechor";

According to Abaye, it is not a Klal that needs a Prat for anything, for it is possible to explain Bechor only in one way!

Answer: We can explain according to Abaye that if not for the Prat, one might have thought that even a Yotzei Dofen is a Bechor, since it is a Bechor for offspring, and even though it is not a Bechor for the womb.

Explanation #2 (Ri): According to Abaye, Bechor and Peter Rechem, both are Klal and both are Prat, and both need each other, and in each you find a Klal that needs a Prat and a Prat that needs a Klal, for each is Sosem (conceals) one matter and explains one matter;

Bechor connotes even a Yotzei Dofen, and Peter Rechem excludes it. And Peter Rechem connotes if another was Yotzei Dofen (before it), and Bechor excludes it.

Explanation #3 (R. Tam): Both here and in Chulin it is a total Klal u'Ferat like elsewhere, for Bechor connotes both this (Bechor for offspring) and this (Bechor for the womb).

Similarly, v'Chisahu connotes both covering with a Kli and covering with earth, whichever he wants, and the Prat connotes specifically earth;

What the Gemara considers there a Klal that needs a Prat, it does not refer to inverting a Kli (to cover the blood) of that Beraisa;

Rather, it is a different Drashah that other expounds there (83b) from the Beis in "be'Afar" that he must put earth below and above, for from v'Chisahu we do not learn below, only above.

It is not due to the Prat that it is considered there a Klal that needs a Prat, rather, due to the extra Beis written in the Prat;

And in our Sugya it does not come to explain a Klal that needs a Prat, rather, a Prat that needs a Klal, like the Seifa teaches 'had [it written only] Peter Rechem, one might have thought even if it came out after a Yotzei Dofen! It says "Bechor"', like Rashi explained.

Implied question: [The Beraisa taught] "from a Klal that needs a Prat, and a Prat that needs a Klal, what is the case?" This connotes that it comes to explain also a Klal that needs a Prat!

Answer: The matter was taught primarily only for a Prat that needs a Klal.

Inference: Because a Bechor in one respect is a Bechor, we would obligate even if a female left before it, if not for Peter Rechem.

Question: R. Tarfon, who was unsure, he should obligate also when a female left before it, just like a Yotzei Dofen and the one that comes after it. He does not exclude Yotzei Dofen from Peter Rechem!

Answer: Granted, he holds that it is unreasonable to exclude Yotzei Dofen from Peter Rechem, because it is the Bechor for offspring, both for males and females;

[However,] at least [Peter Rechem] comes to exclude when a female left before it. If not, why did the Torah write Peter Rechem?

Implied suggestion: It can give birth within two years, but if it gave birth in the second year, it would not give birth again in the third year, even though an adult gives birth every year;

This is like Rashi explained in the Gemara regarding a goat. The Gemara said that it does not give birth again within its year, and Rashi explained that even though old [goats] give birth again within the year, young [goats] do not give birth again within the year.

Rejection: Do not explain so, for we explicitly say in Avodah Zarah (24b) "v'Es Bneihem Kalu va'Bayis" - if it was less than three, would it give birth?! A Mishnah teaches that [if one buys a cow or female donkey] three years old [from a Nochri, its first child] is Vadai for a Kohen;

Inference: [The question] shows that it does not give birth at all within two years. (The proof is only for cows. Tosfos assumes that the same applies to donkeys.)

Citation: In Chulin (77a), a Mishnah teaches that a Shilya that partially left, it is forbidden to eat it. Like a Siman of a child in a woman, so is a Siman of a child in an animal (i.e. the law of a woman was known, and we learn an animal from a woman).

Question: Here the Mishnah teaches an animal like [it teaches] a woman! (It connotes that we do not learn one from the other.)

Answer #1: Some Seforim do not say so there. Rather, it says a Siman of a child in a woman, [and] a Siman of a child in an animal.

Answer #2 (Tosfos' Rebbi): We can resolve the text [there]. Because a Shefir is not a Siman of a child in an animal like [it is] in a woman, it says [here] this expression, for in any case a Shilya is a Siman of a child in an animal like in a woman.

Observation: He could have said 'according to you, does R. Meir argue there? It is written "Acharei Rabim Lehatos", and from there we learn nine stores, in Chulin (11a)!'

Inference: Chalitzah of a Ketanah is Pasul mid'Oraisa, just like of a Katan.

Question #1: In a Mishnah (Yevamos 104b), the text in the Yerushalmi says that Chalitzah of a Katan is Pasul. If a Ketanah did Chalitzah, she does Chalitzah [again] after she matures, and if she did not do Chalitzah again, her [first] Chalitzah is Kosher!

And so it says in some of our Seforim [of the Bavli], and it says in the Gemara "these are the words of R. Meir, who says that it says "Ish" in the Parshah (so the Yavam must be an adult), and we equate [the Yevamah] to him.

Inference: R. Meir agrees that the Chalitzah is Kosher b'Di'eved, but l'Chatchilah she may not do Chalitzah, and according to Rabanan, she may do Chalitzah even l'Chatchilah.

Also in the Yerushalmi it establishes it like R. Meir.

Answer #1: In most of our Seforim the text says "her Chalitzah is Pasul."

Objection #1: If so, it should teach it with the others taught in the clause above of a Cheresh (deaf-mute) Chereshes and Katan, and it should teach "a Cheresh to whom Chalitzah was done and a Chereshes who did Chalitzah, and one who does Chalitzah from (i.e. with) a Katan, and a Ketanah who did Chalitzah, their Chalitzah is Pasul"!

Objection #2: Why is it different regarding a Ketanah, that it taught "she does Chalitzah [again] after she matures", and regarding a minor it did not teach so?

Objection #3: Obviously, since her Chalitzah is Pasul, she does Chalitzah [again] after she matures!

Answer #2: The text says "Kosher", like in the Yerushalmi;

Possibility #1: We must say that the Drashah here that equates a man to a woman is a mere Asmachta, and the reason is because we decree a woman (i.e. she must be an adult) due to a man (the Yavam);

Possibility #2: Alternatively, we decree Chalitzah due to Yibum.

Support (for Possibility #2): The Yerushalmi connotes like this. It says in the Gemara of that Mishnah, the text of which [in the Yerushalmi] says "her Chalitzah is Kosher", that R. Shimon b'Ribi Yosi asked Rebbi, what is the difference between a Katan and a Ketanah?

He told him, that it says "Ish" in the Parshah. However, here it says "v'Nigshah Yevimto Elav l'Einei ha'Zekenim" - in any case (even if she is a minor).

R. Mana said Stam (in his own name), and R. Yitzchak brei d'R. Chiya Kahana said in the name of R. Yochanan, that "these are the words of R. Meir, who says that a Ketanah does not do Chalitzah or Yibum, lest it be found that she is an Ailonis."

Inference: All (Chalitzah and Yibum) is one reason. (R. Meir forbids a Ketanah to do Chalitzah lest she come to do Yibum!)

Rebuttal: Rabanan said [to R. Meir] "you properly said that they do not do Chalitzah... and a Ketanah does not do Yibum, lest she be found to be an Ailonis";

The Yerushalmi mentions [this] only [as] the reason for Yibum, but the reason [why Ketanos] do not do Chalitzah, if it is mid'Rabanan, is a decree due to a man (Katan).

Defense of Answer #1: According to our texts that say [that the Chalitzah is] Pasul, we can explain that [the Tana] did not teach [Ketanah] together with Cheresh, Chereshes and Katan, because all agree to those, and there is an argument about a Ketanah. (This answers Objections #1,2 above.)

Implied question (Objection #3 above): Why did it teach that she does Chalitzah [again] after she matures?

Answer #1: This teaches that only according to the opinion that it is Pasul, she does Chalitzah after she matures, but according to the opinion that it is Kosher, even l'Chatchilah she need not return to do Chalitzah.

Answer #2: According to the opinion in Gitin (25a) that a minor and a sock are Pasul [for Chalitzah] and they do not disqualify [from doing Yibum], it needs to teach about a Ketanah that she does Chalitzah after she matures, to teach that her Chalitzah is Pasul and disqualifies to the brothers, and after [it] she cannot do Yibum.

Question: According to the opinion in Yevamos (80b) that Simanei Seris [establish someone to be a Seris] only if he has all of them, we should see if when he urinates [the urine] makes a dome! (If it does, he cannot be a Seris.)

Answer: If he does not bring [two hairs] until the majority (i.e. 35) of his years he is considered a Seris without Simanei Seris, like we say in Yevamos (80b) and Nidah (47b) "when he does not bring Simanei Seris, until when [is he a minor]? It is until the majority of his years."