Question: Also R. Yosi ben ha'Meshulam, they argue with him in a Beraisa, no matter what you will say, since [Rav] needed to rule like him (25a)!

Answer: Perhaps the argument was not taught, not in a Mishnah and not in a Beraisa, but [Rav] knew that Rabanan argue with him.

Question: Why did it mention a case like this? It should say "one who entered his flock and saw males [nursing]... and females..."!

Answer: It said so for a bigger Chidush. Even though surely the beginning of their birth was at night, and the mothers did not yet recognize their children, and they normally err at night, and this one's child comes to this [mother to nurse], even so we are not concerned.

Assertion: It seems a little that he mentioned a pig, and not a camel, because he holds like R. Shimon (above, 6b) who forbids Kalut (an animal without cloven hooves) born from a Tahor, and even if it was known that it was the ewe's child, it would be forbidden to eat it.

Rebuttal #1: However, we can say that since he mentioned a ewe, which is a small animal, he similarly mentioned a pig.

Rebuttal #2: He preferred to make his teaching according to everyone (even like R. Shimon, even if R. Yochanan does not hold like R. Shimon).

Citation: The Gemara says that the text should say "l'Kopitz", i.e for the need of the Kopitz.

Inference: It is normal to slaughter with a Kopitz, for it did not teach [a Stam] knife.

Objection: In Pesachim (70a) it connotes unlike this, regarding a knife found on [Nisan] 14! One may slaughter with it immediately. [If he found] a Kopitz, he sprinkles [Mei Chatas] on it a second time and immerses it [before using it for Kodshim];

[It explains the reason because] a knife is proper for Korban Pesach, for Shechitah. (The owner knew that he will need it on Erev Pesach, so he finished Haza'ah) and immersed it on the 13th [so it will be fully Tahor on the 14th]. A Kopitz is not proper for Pesach, for one may not break bones of it. (Perhaps the owner planned to finish its Taharah on the 14th.)

Explanation: It mentions here a Kopitz because it requires making a bigger place [smooth, without hairs] than a knife, and one must make a big place.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): He makes a [smooth] place due to Chaladah (if the knife is covered during Shechitah, it is Pasul).

Rebuttal #1: If so, it should have mentioned a knife. There is more concern for Chaladah [with a knife, which is smaller than a Kopitz]!

Rebuttal #2: It was a question in Chulin (30b, if the knife slaughtered) "under tangled wool, what is the law?", and it was not resolved. (According to Rashi, we must say that the Shechitah is Pasul!)

Explanation #2: Rather, it is normal to make a [smooth] place for a Kopitz, so it will be easier to cut and slaughter, for it is not easy to cut with a Kopitz without making a place.

Support: For this reason it mentioned Bechor and not Stam Kodshim, for Kodshim are slaughtered in the Azarah, and there knives are available, and they need not make a place. (How is Bechor different? All Kodshim are slaughtered in the Azarah when Tam, and one may not shear a Ba'al Mum! Shai l'Mora - we discuss a Bechor Ba'al Mum. Stam "Kodshim" connotes Tam. Rashash changes the text to say that Kodshim (i.e. Pesulei ha'Mukdashim) are slaughtered in the market.)

Also, we can say that it mentioned Bechor because it applies nowadays, and also, it is common that its wool is long, because one delays it until it gets a Mum;

Source: A Mishnah below (35a) teaches an episode with an old male sheep, that its hair was hanging down. There is more need to make a place [for old sheep] than for lambs.

Also, [it mentioned Bechor] because the Lav to shear is written about Bechor.

Explanation #1: [If it is because Davar she'Eino Miskaven is permitted,] "Tolesh" (he removes hair by hand) of our Mishnah is not with intent to detach. Rather, he makes a place, and if [hair] is detached, it is detached;

However, if the reason is because Tolesh is not Gozez, it is possible that he intends to be Tolesh. So it seems to explain the Sugya.

Question: What is the relevance to ask about this about Yom Tov? If he intends, obviously it is forbidden! If he does not intend, it is obvious to [those who asked Rav Huna] that it is permitted!

Answer: Perhaps they ask about this itself. If he does not intend, what is the law on Yom Tov? Is it permitted or forbidden?

Question: Without Yom Tov they could have asked, what the Mishnah teaches "he is Tolesh the hair" - is this [permitted] with intent, because Tolesh is not Gozez?

Or, perhaps it is [only] without intent, and also it may not be [done in a way that it is] a Pesik Reishei (inevitable consequence), because Tolesh is Gozez!

Explanation #2: Even if you will say that Tolesh is not Gozez, in any case it is forbidden mid'Rabanan if he intends, or if it is a Pesik Reishei. This is a decree due to Gozez;

And really, Tolesh that our Mishnah taught is without intent, and it is not a Pesik Reishei.

And regarding Bechor we could not ask anything, like the simple meaning of our Mishnah, if not for lashes. (The Mishnah forbids moving hair, i.e. if it became detached. Surely it does not permit to intend to detach!)

Explanation #2 (cont.): They asked, correspondingly on Yom Tov, what is the law? Perhaps only for Bechor, Tolesh is not Gozez, and there is no Isur mid'Oraisa, for Davar she'Eino Miskaven is permitted;

However, on Yom Tov there is an Isur mid'Oraisa of uprooting something from where it grows. We do not permit when he does not intend;

Or, perhaps also for Bechor there is an Isur mid'Oraisa, for Tolesh is Gozez, and just like it is permitted for Bechor because he does not intend, it is permitted also on Yom Tov.

Proof: It is proven like this below, for Rav said "correspondingly on Yom Tov is permitted", and it asks from what Rav taught that the Halachah follows R. Yehudah, who forbids Davar she'Eino Miskaven;

It answers that Tolesh is not Gozez, and it is permitted on Yom Tov because it is uprooting something from where it grows ki'Le'acher Yad (unskillfully);

Suggestion: If you will say [like Explanation #1] that if Tolesh is not Gozez, if so, Tolesh taught in our Mishnah is intentionally...

Rejection: [If so,] how is correspondingly on Yom Tov permitted with intent, because it is ki'Le'acher Yad?!

And according to the other version, that we say that Rav holds like R. Yosi ben ha'Meshulam, and R. Yosi ben ha'Meshulam does not hold like Rav, this means that Rav permits Bechor due to Ein Miskaven, because Tolesh is not Gozez;

However, R. Yosi ben ha'Meshulam permits even if we would say that Tolesh is Gozez, for Eino Miskaven is permitted everywhere, like we find regarding Parah.

Implied question: Rav said that that the Halachah follows R. Yosi ben ha'Meshulam. Above (23b-24a) it connotes that there is no argument (we say that Rav's teaching "wherever there is no argument" applies to R. Yosi's law, yet) we find that several Tana'im forbid Davar she'Eino Miskaven!

Below (33b) regarding a Bechor that Achzo Dam (R. Yehudah forbids to let blood, even without intent to make a Mum), and in Kil'ayim (9:2 - one may not wear Sha'atnez even to evade a tax, even though he does not intend to benefit from the garment) and in Beitzah (23b) in the Beraisa of dragging [Kelim on Shabbos, without intent to make a furrow, Tana'im forbid Davar she'Eino Miskaven].

Answer #1: For the reason that Rav ruled like [R. Yosi ben ha'Meshulam], because Tolesh is not Gozez, we do not find that [Tana'im] argue.

Answer #2: It is like I explained above, that it is called an argument only if they argue about that matter itself.

Proof: We must say so, for regarding washing one's sheep [and wool came off], R. Yosi and Rabanan argue in Chulin (137a) about Reishis ha'Gez. One opinion obligates;

Inference: This shows that it is called "Gez Tzoncha", and likewise Tolesh is Gozez, unless we distinguish Tolesh from rinsing.

Question: Below (25a), we bring a proof from Parah that R. Yosi ben ha'Meshulam permits Davar she'Eino Miskaven, and we answer that Parah is different, for it is Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis;

It asks that R. Elazar taught that one may not shear or work with Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, and answers that this is mid'Rabanan. It asks that there is an Isur mid'Rabanan.

Inference: [The Gemara] wants to infer that just like he permits Ein Miskaven mid'Rabanan, he permits also mid'Oraisa!

Answer: That mid'Rabanan is unlike these of Tolesh is not Gozez and uprooting something from where it grows k'Le'acher Yad. They are not mid'Oraisa anywhere;

However, there (Parah) it discusses absolute shearing. Even though mid'Oraisa there is no Isur of shearing Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, everything that Chachamim enacted, they enacted like mid'Oraisa, and they totally made Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis like Kodshei Mizbe'ach.

Proof: There is a proof for my words from Kesuvos (5b). [The Gemara] asked whether first Bi'ah (of one who married a Besulah) is permitted on Shabbos. If he needs the blood (to verify her virginity), it is permitted. I.e. the blood is deposited (Bi'ah merely enables it to leave. The blood does not result from a wound);

Or, he needs to make an opening, and it is forbidden.

If you will say that he needs the blood, and the opening comes automatically, does the Halachah follow R. Shimon, who permits Davar she'Eino Miskaven, or does the Halachah follow R. Yehudah, who forbids Davar she'Eino Miskaven? And if you will say that the Halachah follows R. Yehudah, is he Mekalkel (destructive) regarding the opening?

Inference: R. Yehudah permits Davar she'Eino Miskaven regarding Mekalkel, even though there is an Isur mid'Rabanan for Mekalkel alone!

Implied question: Why does R. Yehudah forbid dragging, even though it is Mekalkel, like is proven in Chagigah (10a) regarding one who digs a hole and he needs only its earth?

And in Beitzah (23a) R. Yehudah forbids Kidur (scratching an animal with a comb with sharp teeth), because Davar she'Eino Miskaven is forbidden, even though he is Mekalkel regarding causing it to bleed?

Answer #1: We can distinguish a case of a Mitzvah (Bi'as Besulah) from where it is not a Mitzvah.

Answer #2: Regarding dragging one can explain that he evens out cavities on the other side (of where he drags), and regarding Kidur, the animal benefits through bleeding, just like a person who does bloodletting.

Implied question: Below (25a) we ask about "and similarly, he is Tolesh hair in order to inspect a Mum" - is this l'Chatchilah or b'Di'eved?, and we conclude that it is l'Chatchilah;

And it connotes that since it taught "and similarly", also the Reisha (Tolesh for Shechitah) is l'Chatchilah, like the Seifa!

Answer: It does not mean that l'Chatchilah he is Tolesh intentionally. Rather, the same way we permitted for Shechitah, we permit l'Chatchilah in order to inspect a Mum;

Or is it b'Di'eved? I.e. also if he did (he bent it to the side, and some became detached), he may not move it from its place.

Conclusion: It seems like I explained (Explanation #2). The entire Sugya is resolved.

Observation: If we will explain (like Explanation #1) that if Tolesh is not Gozez, it is permitted even to intend to be Tolesh...

Consequence: We must say that below, correspondingly is permitted on Yom Tov because he uproots something from where it grows k'Le'acher Yad, even if he intends to detach. Chachamim permitted lest his Shechitah be ruined on Yom Tov.

Question: Why was he particular about this (whether or not the Halachah follows R. Yosi)? In any case correspondingly on Yom Tov is permitted, either due to Davar she'Eino Miskaven, or due to uprooting something from where it grows ki'Le'acher Yad, like below!

Answer: If the Halachah were unlike him, rather, we forbid regarding Bechor even though Tolesh is not Gozez, for Chachamim were stringent and did not permit for the sake of a proper Shechitah of Bechor...

Similarly they would not permit uprooting something from where it grows ki'Le'acher Yad for the sake of a proper Shechitah on Yom Tov.