==========

FOOTNOTES:

==========

(1) According to Rebbi Shimon, it is prohibited to examine a Mum on Yom Tov, either because it is considered like Metaken (because one thereby makes it permitted), or because it is considered like passing a judgment (which is prohibited on Yom Tov because it might lead to writing, as the Gemara says on 37a). [According to TOSFOS (DH Bechor), since Rebbi Shimon holds that it is prohibited to examine a Mum on Yom Tov, the animal becomes Muktzah when it was not shown to a Mumcheh prior to Yom Tov (because one has no way of knowing at the onset of Yom Tov that he will be able to bring the animal to a Mumcheh, and that the Mumcheh wil permit it to be eaten).]

(2) This is true even b'Di'eved (that is, if one transgressed and had the Mum examined on Yom Tov, the Bechor remains prohibited). This is in contrast to the opinion of Ada bar Uchmi (26b) who permits the animal b'Di'eved if one transgressed and had it examined.

(3) If the animal had no Mum at all on Erev Yom Tov, then the Mum that it developed on Yom Tov may not be examined, because it is Muktzah (and Rebbi Yehudah holds that Muktzah is prohibited). Even if it had a "Mum Over" on Erev Yom Tov which developed into a "Mum Kavu'a" on Yom Tov, it may not be examined -- either because it remains Muktzah, or, in a case where it had fallen into a pit and the owner raised it out without first having its Mum examined, because of a penalty for raising it out without first having it examined (RASHI DH ka'Mashma Lan, see Insights). This is all according to Rebbi Yehudah. Rebbi Yehudah ha'Nasi, on the other hand (according to the Girsa which does not have the word "Tam" in the phrase, "A Bechor that fell into a pit"), does not prohibit a Bechor which had a "Mum Over" on Erev Yom Tov which became a "Mum Kavu'a" on Yom Tov (see MAHARSHA).

(4) This is true even b'Di'eved (if one transgressed and had the Mum examined on Yom Tov, the Bechor remains prohibited. Even Ada bar Uchmi agrees in this case (see footnote #2).

(5) This is true only when the owner did not transgress and raise the animal from a pit before it developed the Mum, for in such a case the owner is penalized and the Mum may not be examined, according to Rashi's first explanation (that the reason why the Bechor is prohibited when the owner raised it out of the pit is because of a penalty, and not because of Muktzah).

(6) This is in contrast to the opinion of Ada bar Uchmi, who permits the Mum to be examined l'Chatchilah in this case.