1)

(a)Rav Chananya asks what the Din will be if the Ubar of a Shelamim animal sticks out its foot in the Azarah - whether we apply the Migu that, since the walls of the Azarah are effective to permit the Shechitah of the animal, they will also serve to permit the foot via the Shechitah of the mother.

(b)Abaye counters the She'eilah, by citing Kodshim Kalim in Yerushalayim. He cannot be referring to a Shelamim which sticks out its foot in Yerushalayim, following which the mother is immediately Shechted - because then the mother will be forbidden too, because of Shechutei Chutz.

(c)So he must be referring to a case - where, according to those who hold Yesh Leidah le'Evarim, the Ubar withdraws its foot and is then returned to the Azarah and Shechted, and the She'eilah is whether the walls of Yerushalayim will consider the foot as if it had not left its boundary, and permit it with the subsequent Shechitah.

(d)What Abaye is now saying is that - seeing as it is obvious (even to Rav Chananya), that it is the mother that is considered the walls of the Ubar, and not the walls of Yerushalayim, the same will apply to Kodshei Kodshim in the Azarah.

2)

(a)Ilfa asks what the Din will be if the Ubar sticks out its foot between the Shechitah of the first and second Siman - whether the Shechitah of the second Siman will combine with that of the first to remove Tum'as Neveilah from the foot, even though it cannot combine with it to permit it to be eaten.

(b)Rava answers with a Kal va'Chomer - if the first Siman generally combines with the second Siman to permit the entire animal to be eaten, it will certainly combine with it to remove Tum'as Neveilos from only one limb.

(c)And when Rebbi Yirmiyah asks whether the animal with the forbidden foot will affect its babies, he means to ask - whether if the ben Peku'ah subsequently mates with another animal that gives birth to babies, those babies will be forbidden or not.

(d)We query Rebbi Yirmiyah however, from a statement by Rav Mesharshaya, who says that - according to those who contend with the seed of the father (even though primarily, we go after the animal's mother), a baby born to a regular animal whose father is a ben Peku'ah - cannot be rectified (since from the mother's side, it requires Shechitah, whereas from the father's side, it does not (leaving the animal either as if its Simanim are half Shechted, or as if it only has one Siman).

(e)In that case - Rebbi Yirmiyah's She'eilah cannot be speaking in such a case, which is sufficiently problematic without Rebbi Yirmiyah.

3)

(a)So we try to establish Rebbi Yirmiyah's She'eilah by the case of a baby that is born to a bas Peku'ah whose father is our ben Peku'ah with the forbidden foot as to - whether the defect in the foot extends exclusively to the baby's foot (permitting the rest of the animal), or whether it spreads to the entire body (rendering the animal forbidden).

(b)Rebbi Yirmiyah himself proves that this cannot have been the She'eilah that he was asking - because according to the first side of the She'eilah, a blind animal ought to give birth to a blind one, and a lame animal, to a lame one (which simply does not happen).

(c)We finally establish Rebbi Yirmiyah's She'eilah with regard to Cheilev and Dam, meaning that - when all's said and done, all animals are formed from the Cheilev and Dam of the father.

(d)We suggest that the Ubar might ...

1. ... therefore be permitted - because if it is anyway formed from two Isurim, what difference will it make if we add another one?

2. ... forbidden - because the Torah may have permitted specifically two Isurim, but not three.

4)

(a)We query this however mi'Mah Nafshach. When we say that, according to ...

1. ... Rebbi Meir, there is an Isur of Cheilev and Dam, but not of Yotzei - we are referring to the Mishnah later, where he does not hold of the Heter of be Peku'ah in the first place.

2. ... Rebbi Yehudah, there is an Isur of Yotzei, but not of Cheilev - we are referring to a Beraisa, where he permits the Isur of Cheilev on a She'lil (a fetus), even though he concedes that the blood is forbidden (see Hagahos me'ha'Rav Renshberg). Either way, there are two Isurim and not three.

(b)We therefore refute the current theory - and conclude that there is no such thing as an Isur mi'Ko'ach ha'Av (in the way that we just explained).

(c)And we establish Rebbi Yirmiyah's She'eilah with regard (not to the Ubar itself, but) to its milk - whether (bearing in mind that milk ought to be forbidden because of Eiver min ha'Chai), the milk of the ben Peku'ah's daughter is not worse than the milk of any other Kasher animal, since unlike them, it has no Heter Shechitah (which normally permits the milk together with the animal), as we explained earlier.

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

5)

(a)We learn from the Pasuk in Re'ei "ve'Chol Beheimah Mafreses Parsah ... bi'Veheimah Osah Tocheilu" that - a fetus inside the mother's womb (one animal inside another one) becomes permitted with its mother's Shechitah.

(b)The Mishnah in Temurah rules that - if one declares a Temurah, any combination of Eiver, Ubar and complete animals one against the other - it is not valid ...

(c)... a proof that an Ubar is not considered a Beheimah ...

(d)... whereas according to the previous Limud ("Beheimah bi'Veheimah") it is!

(e)So we learn it from the word "ve'Chol" (from the beginning of the Pasuk there "ve'Chol Beheimah Mefreses Parsah") - which comes to include whatever one finds inside a Shechted animal in the Heter Achilah, even an Ubar).

6)

(a)From the end of the Pasuk "Osah Tocheilu" we initially learn that - the previous D'rashah is confined to a complete animal, but does not incorporate a piece of the mother itself.

(b)Rebbi Yochanan rules that a fetus 'D'mus Yonah' (in the shape of a dove) that is found inside a Shechted animal - is forbidden ...

(c)... even though it is not part of the mother itself - because, in order to be permitted, it must have "P'rasos" (hoofs), as the Torah specifies.

(d)The problem with a Kalut (whose hoofs are only half split, but are not called P'rasos) is that - it ought to be forbidden like a D'mus Yonah, yet, as we learned above, it is permitted.

7)

(a)We answer by establishing Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael like Rebbi Shimon, who learns from "P'rasos" and "Parsah" that - any fetus is permitted inside the mother, irrespective of whether its hoofs are completely split ("P'rasos") or half-split ("Parsah"), including a Kalut, but not a D'mus Yonah.

(b)Rav Shimi bar Ashi reinstates our original answer (considering an Ubar a Beheimah), and the reason that it is not subject to Temurah is because the author of the Mishnah in Temurah is Rebbi Shimon, who learns that Temurah does not apply to limbs - from a Hekesh to Ma'aser Beheimah (as we will now see).

(c)We learn from the Pasuk in Bechukosai (in connection with Ma'aser Beheimah) ...

1. ... "Kol asher Ya'avor Tachas ha'Shavet" that - Ma'aser Beheimah only applies to a complete animal that is able to walk (precluding both Ubrin and Evarim).

2. ... "Kol Ma'aser Bakar va'Tzon ... Lo Yevaker bein Tov la'Ra" (seeing as Ma'aser is already included in the prohibition of Temurah together with all the other Korbanos) that - we compare other Korbanos to Ma'aser in many regards, including that Ubrin and Eivarim are not subject to Temurah.

8)

(a)Rebbi Yossi rules in the Mishnah in Temurah that if someone declares the leg of an animal an Olah - the Kedushas Olah spreads to the entire animal.

(b)He then extrapolate from there that - if someone declares the leg of an animal a Temurah instead of a Hekdesh animal, the Kedushah spreads to the entire animal (Hispashtus).

(c)In the Pasuk in Bechukosai "Kol asher Yiten Mimenu la'Hashem Yih'yeh Kodesh, the Beraisa learns from the word ...

1. ...... "Mimenu" that - if someone declares Hekdesh one limb of an animal, then that limb becomes Hekdesh, but not the entire animal.

2. ... "Yih'yeh" that - the limb concerned remains Kadosh and cannot simply be redeemed.

(d)The owner must therefore - sell the animal as an Olah ...

(e)... and the money that he receives for it, with the exception of what corresponds to the limb that is Hekdesh, is Chulin (the Sugya in Temurah explains how this works).

9)

(a)The current opinion in the Beraisa is that of Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah. Rebbi Yossi and Rebbi Shimon hold that - the Hekdesh spreads to the entire animal, which becomes an Olah, because they Darshen "Yih'yeh" to mean that the entire animal becomes Hekdesh, not just the one limb.

(b)The Tana Kama of Rebbi Yossi in the Mishnah in Temurah cannot be Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah - since, when Rebbi Yossi cites as his source, the Din of Mukdashin, he is obviously talking to someone who holds, like he does, that the entire animal becomes Hekdesh, whereas Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah do not hold like that, as we just explained.

10)

(a)The Tana Kama must therefore be - Rebbi Shimon, who agrees with Rebbi Yossi that the Hekdesh spreads to the entire animal (as we just learned in the Beraisa), and ...

(b)... Rebbi Yossi is saying to him that - just as he agrees with him that the Kedushah of the one limb spreads to the entire animal, so too, ought he agree that the same applies to the limb of the Temurah ...

(c)... which Rebbi Shimon will counter that - he learns Temurah from Ma'aser, as we just explained; a proof that he is the author of the Mishnah in Temurah Ein Mamirin (like Rav Shimi bar Ashi explained).

(d)We refute this proof however - by establishing Rebbi Yossi himself as the Tana Kama. He is saying his own original thoughts, and is not necessarily talking to anybody who disagrees with him.

11)

(a)A B'chor is considered born, regarding Kedushas B'chor - when the majority of the fetus has emerged from the womb (provided the head did not emerge first).

(b)Our Mishnah rules that if an animal is having difficulty in giving birth to a firstborn ...

1. ... the fetus may be cut up as it emerges and thrown to the dogs.

2. ... must be buried, once most of the fetus has emerged intact.

12)

(a)If one sells the first third of the B'chor that emerges to a Nochri and then the second third emerges, Rav Huna declares the animal Kadosh - because he holds that once the majority of the fetus has emerged, the B'chor is Kadosh retroactively, thereby negating the sale.

(b)Rabah - validates the sale and declares the B'chor Chulin, because in his opinion, a B'chor becomes Kadosh only once the majority has emerged, and not retroactively. Consequently, in our case, by the time that occurred, the animal had already been sold to a Nochri ...

(c)... thereby exempting the owner from giving it to a Kohen.

13)

(a)And they follow their own reasoning in anothyer Machlokes. In a case where one third of a B'chor emerged via a cut and two thirds via the womb, Rav Huna rules that - the B'chor is not Kadosh ...

(b)... because he reckons the B'chorah retroactively, which means that the major part of the birth at the point when the majority of the fetus has left the womb, must have taken place via the womb, which in this case it did not.

(c)Whereas according to Rabah - we do not reckon the B'chorah retroactively, and as long as the majority of the birth takes place via the womb, as it did in this case, it is considered a B'chor.

(d)They need to repeat the same Machlokes twice, because if they had not presented ...

1. ... the second Machlokes, we would have thought that Rav Huna only reckons retroactively in the first case, because it constitutes a Chumra, but the second case, where it entails a Kula, he will concede to Rabah and reckon the B'chorah only from the time of birth.

2. ... the first Machlokes, we would have thought that Rabah reckons from the time of birth in the second case because it constitutes a Chumra, but in the first case, where it entails going le'Kula, he will concede to Rav Huna that we reckon retroactively.