1)

(a)We just explained that the word "O" in the Pasuk by (in connection with Kodshim) "Shor O Kesev" comes to preclude Kilayim. We learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' ...

1. ..."*Tachas* ha'Shevet" (regarding Ma'aser Beheimah) from "Tachas Imo" (regarding Kodshim) that Kilayim is also invalid with regard to Ma'aser Beheimah.

2. ... "ve'Ha'avarta Kol Peter Rechem la'Hashem" (regarding Bechor Beheimah) from "Kol Asher Ya'avor Tachas ha'Shavet" that it is also invalid with regard to Bechor.

(b)An alternative Derashah to the latter is a direct Limud from the Pasuk "Ach Bechor Shor" from which we extrapolate 'Ad she'Yehei Hu Shor u'Bechoro Shor (to preclude Kilayim).

2)

(a)Having found independent Derashos for all of the above, Rava's Binyan Av (invalidating Kilayim) pertains to Pidyon Peter Chamor, where the Torah writes in Bo "ve'Chol Peter Chamor Tifdeh be'Seh".

(b)This is the source of the Mishnah in Bechoros, which invalidates a lamb of Kilayim with regard to redeeming a donkey of Peter Chamor. The Tana there, also invalidates a calf, a wild animal, a Shechted lamb and a Coy (the offspring of a cross between a Beheimah and a Chayah).

(c)And a lamb that has been Shechted is Pasul because a Shechted lamb is not called a 'Seh'.

3)

(a)Rebbi Elazar permits the redemption of a Peter Chamor with a lamb of Kilayim.

(b)According to Rebbi Elazar therefore, we suggest that Rava's Binyan Av pertains to a non-Kosher animal that is born from a Kosher mother, but whose father is not Kosher either (e.g. a horse born from a cow, whose father is a horse [though we are dealing specifically with a lamb]). The problem with this explanation is that a Kosher animal cannot become pregnant from a non-Kosher one.

(c)We solve the problem by establishing it when the non-Kosher father itself was born (not from a non-Kosher species, but) from a Kalut (a sheep which did not have split hooves [she'Parsosav Kelutos]), and like Rebbi Shimon ...

(d)... who does not consider such n animal Kosher.

4)

(a)This explanation cannot go according to Rebbi Yehoshua in Bechoros who learns Rava's Derashah from "Seh Kesavim ve'Seh Izim" (implying that both parents must be sheep [though it is unclear how Rava can argue with Rebbi Yehoshua]).

(b)Rebbi Yehoshua argues with Rebbi Shimon inasmuch as, in his opinion, as long as both parents are Kosher, the child is Kosher too, provided the father has at least one Siman of Kashrus (e.g. it chews its cud, even if it a Kalut).

5)

(a)The Tana Kama in the Mishnah in Temurah requires someone who declares a Neder to bring an Olah, to bring at least a lamb. According to Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah he is even permitted to bring an Olas ha'Of (a pigeon or a young dove).

(b)In light of this Machlokes, Rava asks that, in the case of Reuven who steals the ox that Shimon designated for his Olah is he permitted to return a lamb, according to the Rabanan, or even a bird, according to Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah.

(c)Perhaps he may, because at the end of the day, the Ganav is paying back an Olah, with which the owner fulfills his obligation. He might nevertheless be obligated to return an ox because of the owner's claim that he wishes to perform the Mitzvah in the best possible manner.

(d)Rava concludes that he may indeed return a lamb or even a bird. According to Rav Acha B'rei de'Rav Ika's version of Rava's statement Rava simply stated the above, not in question and answer form.

6)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that, if the Ganav sells the stolen article 'except for a hundredth part of it', or if he is a part owner to begin with, he is Patur from Dalet v'Hey because the Torah writes "u'Mecharo", and we extrapolate "u'Mecharo", 'Kulo' (all of it, but not if he sells only part of the animal).

(b)If, instead of Shechting it, he simply kills it he is Patur from Dalet v'Hey, because "u'Tevacho" implies specifically Shechitah.

(c)The same applies if he made ...

1. ... Nechirah tearing it open from the nostrils down to the heart.

2. ... Akirah tearing out the Simanim (the two pipes) rather than actually cutting them.

7)

(a)Rav interprets 'except for a hundredth part of it' to mean except for any part of the animal which is permitted through Shechitah to preclude a Ganav who sold everything but the skin, the horns or the fleece (Gizosehah), who is Chayav.

(b)According to Levi he is Patur, even if he sells it all except for the fleece.

(c)Levi's opinion tallies with that of the Tana Kama of the Beraisa, who says 'Machrah Chutz mi'Yadah ... Raglah ... Karnah ... Gizosehah, Einah Meshalem Arba'ah va'Chamishah'. The Beraisa continues 'Rebbi Omer, Davar ha'Me'akev bi'Shechitah, Eino Meshalem'.

1. The Tana Kama interprets "u'Tevacho u'Mecharo" literally and independently: a. everything must be Shechted, and b. everything must be included in the sale.

2. ... Rebbi interprets a. "u'Tevacho" to mean that all major parts of the animal which would cause the animal to become a Neveilah (were they missing) must be intact at the time of the Shechitah (such as one of the two pipes, the thigh, the liver, or the intestines), and b. 'Mechirah Dumya li'Tevichah'. Note, see Sugya above 77b, where Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish appear to argue over this point (Rashash there).

(d)The final opinion in the Beraisa is that of Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar. According to him, 'Chutz mi'Karnah', pays Dalet v'Hey; 'Chutz mi'Gizosehah', does not because whereas the former is not destined to be removed from the animal before the Shechitah, the latter is.

8)

(a)We reconcile Rav (who differentiates between 'Chutz mi'Yadah ve'Raglah' and Chutz mi'Karnah ve'Gizosehah') with the fact that none of the opinions of the Beraisa hold like him by citing another Beraisa, where Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar supports his opinion 'Machrah Chutz mi'Yadah ... ve'Raglah, Eino Meshalem ... Chutz mi'Karnah ve'Gisosehah, Meshalem ... '.

(b)The reason of Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar in the second Beraisa (and Rav), where he differentiates between the feet of the animal on the one hand, and its horns and fleece on the other is that the former require Shechitah, whereas the latter do not (and like Rebbi, he learns 'Mechirah Dumya di'Tevichah).

(c)When Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar states two conflicting opinions in two Beraisos it is (not Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar himself, but) two Tana'im who argue over what he said.

9)

(a)The Tana of the Beraisa states that if someone steals an animal with a foot missing or which is lame or blind and Shechts it, he is Chayav Dalet v'Hey. Despite the fact that the animal is incomplete, this is not a problem of "u'Tevacho" 'Kulo' because the Ganav Shechted all that he stole.

(b)The Beraisa also obligates someone who steals an animal belonging to partners but exempts partners who steal, from Dale v'Hey.

(c)Rav Nachman tries to reconcile this Beraisa with another Beraisa 'Shutfin she'Ganvu, Chayavin', by establishing the latter in the case of a partner who stole from a third party, and the former, by one who stole from his partner who is Patur because it is not "u'Tevacho" 'Kulo be'Isura'.

(d)Rava refutes Rav Nachman's explanation on the basis of another Beraisa which exempts a partner even when he steals from a third party, because it does not conform with "u'Tevacho" 'Kulo be'Isura', and the case in which the Tana obligates him is where he Shechted a cow which he stole from a third party with his partner's consent.

10)

(a)Rebbi Yirmiyah asked whether a Ganav is Chayav Dalet v'Hey if he steals an ox and sells it barring thirty days (during which time he retained the right to work with it, or 'bar mi'Melachtah' meaning that he sold it permanently for the purchaser to Shecht, but he retains the right to work with it as long as it is alive.

(b)He also asked whether he would be Chayav if he sells a pregnant cow but retains the Ubar a She'eilah according to those who hold 'Ubar Lav Yerech Imo Hi' (a fetus is not considered an intrinsic part of the mother), but not according to those who hold 'Ubar Yerech Imo' (in which case he would obviously be Patur).

(c)According to those who hold Ubar Lav Yerech Imo Hu, the Ganav might be Chayav Dalet v'Hey because the Ubar is intrinsically attached to the animal. He might nevertheless be Patur because it stands to separate from its mother.

(d)Another reason to obligate the Ganav to pay Dalet v'Hey is because it requires the Shechitah of the mother to permit it to be eaten.

11)

(a)Rav Papa asked whether the Ganav will have to pay Dalet v'Hey if he subsequently cut off a limb and sold it. On the one hand, he did not sell the entire animal that he stole, on the other when he sold the animal, he sold it in its entirety, retaining nothing.

(b)The outcome of the She'eilah is Teiku.