Question: Also regarding Kodshim it says "ox or lamb", which cannot produce Kilayim. We should say that 'or' comes to include Kilayim!

Answer: Since the second 'or' in the verse comes to exclude, also the first 'or' excludes.

Question: To the contrary! We should say that since the first 'or' comes to include, also the second 'or'!

Answer: No. The way we learned is reasonable. After excluding Kilayim, we must also exclude Nidmeh;

But if the first 'or' includes Kilayim, all the more so a Nidmeh is a valid Korban. We would not need another 'or'!

Question: Rava taught that wherever the Torah says "Seh", this excludes Kilayim. To what does he refer?

He cannot refer to Kodshim. "An ox or lamb" excludes Kilayim!

He cannot refer to Ma'aser (of animals). We learn from a Gezeirah Shavah "Tachas-Tachas" from Kodshim!

He cannot refer to a Bechor (firstborn male ox or Seh, which is automatically a Korban). We learn from a Gezeirah Shavah "Ha'avara-Ha'avara" from Ma'aser!

Alternatively, we can learn from Nidmeh to Kilayim.

A firstborn Nidmeh is not Kodesh - "only the firstborn of an ox" - the ox and its firstborn must both look like oxen;

All the more so, a firstborn Kilayim is not Kodesh!

Answer: Rabah taught about a Bechor donkey (one may redeem it with a Seh, even if the donkey is worth more than the Seh)..

(Mishnah): The following are not considered like a Seh to redeem a Bechor donkey: a calf; a Chayah (wild animal); a slaughtered Seh; a Tereifah; Kilayim; a Koy (a crossbreed of a deer and goat).

Question: According to R. Elazar (who permits redeeming a Bechor with Kilayim), what does Rabah's rule teach?

(Mishnah - R. Elazar): One may redeem a Bechor donkey with Kilayim, because it is a Seh.

Answer: Rabah's rule excludes a Tamei species born from a Tamei father and a Tahor mother.

Rabah's rule is not needed according to R. Yehoshua.

R. Yehoshua learns from "Seh of sheep (plural)" and "Seh of goats" that the child is considered a Seh only if both parents are sheep (or both are goats).

Question: Can a Tahor animal really become pregnant from a Tamei animal?

Answer: It can become pregnant from a (Tahor) animal with uncloven hooves. This is like R. Shimon (who calls such an animal Tamei, and forbids eating it).

Questions (Rava): If Reuven accepted on himself to offer an Olah, and he separated an ox for this, and it was stolen, according to Chachamim, can the thief exempt himself by returning a lamb? According to R. Eliezer ben Azaryah, can the thief exempt himself by returning a bird?

(Mishnah): If one said 'I accept on myself to bring an Olah', he must bring a lamb (or another animal);

R. Eliezer ben Azaryah says, he may bring a pigeon or dove.

Summation of question: Do we say that Reuven never specified what type of Olah he will bring, so the thief may return any valid species?

Or, can Reuven say 'I intended to do an ideal Mitzvah (a big Korban, so you must return a big animal)'?

Answers (Rava): The thief can exempt himself by returning a lamb (according to Chachamim) or a bird (according to R. Eliezer ben Azaryah).

(Mishnah): A thief pays Kefel, not four or five, in all the following cases: he sold the animal, except for one part in 100;

He was a partner in it before stealing it;

He slaughtered it improperly, making it Neveilah;

He did Nechirah or Ikur (he tore or uprooted the foodpipe and windpipe).

(Gemara) Question: What does 'except for one part in 100' mean?

Answer #1 (Rav): He excluded (did not sell) something that is permitted through slaughter.

Answer #2 (Levi): It is (even) if he excluded its shearings.

Support (Beraisa): It is (even) if he excluded its shearings.

Question (Beraisa #1): A thief does not pay four or five if he sold it except for its foreleg, hind leg, horn or shearings;

Rebbi says, he pays four or five only if he sold everything necessary for slaughter (i.e. he did not retain anything whose removal would make the animal Neveilah);

R. Shimon ben Elazar says, if he retained its horn, he does not pay four or five; if he retained the shearings, he pays four or five.

Levi is like the first Tana, but Rav is not like any Tana!

Answer: Rav holds like the following Tana.

(Beraisa #2 - R. Shimon ben Elazar): A thief does not pay four or five if he sold it except for its foreleg or hind leg. He does pay if he retained its horn or shearings.

Question: What do the Tana'im argue about?

Answer: The first Tana expounds "and he slaughtered it" - all of it; "or he sold it" - all of it;

Rebbi expounds "and he slaughtered it" - whatever is necessary for slaughter. "Or he sold it" - this is like slaughter (he must sell whatever is necessary for slaughter);

R. Shimon ben Elazar (Beraisa #1) holds that the horn is a remnant (rendering the sale incomplete, which exempts him), for it was not destined to be cut off from the animal;

The shearings are not remnants, for they were destined to be cut off (so it is as if he sold the entire animal).

R. Shimon ben Elazar (in Beraisa #2) holds that the legs are remnants, because they are permitted only through slaughter. The horns and shearings are not remnants, because they are permitted without slaughter.

Question: R. Shimon ben Elazar contradicts himself!

Answer: The Tana'im (of the two Beraisos) argue about what R. Shimon ben Elazar held.

(Beraisa): A thief is liable for all the following animals: it is missing a limb, or lame, or blind, or it is of partners;

Partners who stole are exempt.

Contradiction (Beraisa): Partners who stole are liable!

Answer #1 (Rav Nachman): A man who stole from his partner is exempt. A partner who stole from someone else is liable.

Question (Rava - Beraisa) Suggestion: Perhaps one who stole from his partner, or partners who stole are liable!

Rejection: "And he slaughtered it" - he is liable only if he slaughtered an entirely stolen animal.

Answer #2 (Rav Nachman): Rather, if two partners stole, and one of them slaughtered, if the other authorized him to slaughter, both are liable. If not, they are exempt.

Questions (R. Yirmiyah): What is the law in the following cases?

He sold the animal except for 30 days (during which the thief may work with it);

He retained the right to collect any work done with it (but the buyer may slaughter it whenever he wants);

He retained its fetus.

This last question is not according to the opinion that a fetus is like a limb of its mother. He surely exempts the thief, as if he retained a limb of the mother. The question is according to the opinion that a fetus is not like a limb of its mother:

Version #1: Do we say, since it is connected to the mother, it is a remnant (rendering the sale incomplete);

Or, since it is destined to separate from the mother, it is not a remnant?

Version #2: Do we say, since it is not like a limb of its mother, therefore, it is not a remnant?

Or - do we say, since it needs to become permitted through slaughter of the mother, it is a part of the mother (and is a remnant)? (end of Version #2)

These questions are unsettled.

Question (Rav Papa): If a thief stole an animal, cut off a limb and sold the (rest of the) animal, what is the law?

Do we say, since he did not sell the entire animal he stole, he is exempt (from four or five)?

Or, since he did not retain anything for himself in what he sells, he is liable?

This question is unsettled.