Answer: Rebbi Yochanan only rules like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel inasmuch as there would not be a bond between them if the cow had not given birth to it, and the difference will manifest itself there where the cow was seen to have milk before it gave birth, which we will therefore not exempt from the Bechorah because it has milk.

Alternative Explanation: It may even be that Raban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that milk does exempt.

Proof #1: ... and this will explain why he does not contend with the minority, at the beginning of 'Kol ha'Tzelamim (Avodah-Zarah 40b), where he does not decree other places on account of that place, in the way that Rebbi Meir does there.

Proof #2: And it will also explain why earlier (on Daf 5b) Rebbi Yochanan ate from the Shechitah of a Kuti, and did not decree on them like Rebbi Meir did.

Proof #3: And in Perek Asarah Yuchsin too (Kidushin 80.) with regard to two things that do not posses the intelligence to ask, but the Pasuk considers them as if they did, it also implies that R. Yochanan holds like the Rabbanan of Rebbi Meir,

Implied Question: Why did Rebbi Yochanan then say at the end of Perek Ein Ma'amidin (Avodah-Zarah 39:) 'To exclude fish in brine and cheeses of Nochrim, and it is a S'tam Mishnah like Rebbi Meir (seeing as he does not hold like Rebbi Meir)?

Answer: There it is a case of a S'tam Mishnah followed by a Machlokes (where the Halachah is not like the S'tam).

Implied Question (Part 1): And that what Raban Shimon ben Gamliel says in Perek Rebbi Eliezer de'Milah (Shabbos 135b) 'Once a (human) baby has survived thirty days, he is no longer a Nefel (a miscarriage)', from which we extrapolate that if it did not, it is a Safek Nefel, even though it fell from the roof or was eaten by a lion, and we rule there like him, even though most babies are not Nefalim?

Implied Question (Part 2): ... and the same applies to an animal that dies within eight days, which we likewise forbid there, and do not go after the majority?

Answer (Part 1): There the reason is (a Chumra) to prevent being lenient with regard to Ervah. They required the mother to make Chalitzah if the baby died within thirty days. They did not just rely on the majority, to permit her to get married without Chalitzah, to prevent people from saying that the baby gasped his last breath and died, and the matter will end up with a stigma and with damages ...

Extension: ... and that is why they are also Patur from Aveilus (mourning), in order not to come to be lenient regarding Ervah.

Alternative: In any event, it is appropriate to be lenient regarding Aveilus, seeing as we rule in Mo'ed Katan (18a) that the Halachah is like the lenient opinion in disputes regarding Aveilus.

Answer (Part 2): ... and the reason that they were strict in the case of an animal is because they decreed Beheimah on account of Adam, since if not for latter, the former would not stand.

Alternative: Alternatively, they forbade even a healthy animal, to ensure that one does not come to permit a sick one which stands to gasp its last breath and die.

Implied Question: Why does the Gemara not ask from Basar Ta'avah?

Answer (Part 1): Because it would seem that min ha'Torah Rebbi Meir does contend with the minority, only mi'de'Rabbanan. That is why the Gemara asks whether Rebbi Meir is so strict that he forbids eating meat at all; and even if he is, how can he extend that stringency to Pesach and Kodshim?

Answer (Part 2): And the Gemara concludes that just as Rebbi Meir differentiates between where it is possible and where it is not, so too do the Rabbanan.

Clarification (Part 1): Firstly, the Tana mentions the case where somebody finds a Shechted chicken in the street, where it is possible to assume that the owner Shechted it.

Clarification (Part 2): Then he adds a case where he told his Shali'ach to go and Shecht, and the Shali'ach then found it already Shechted, where the Chazakah that it has been properly Shechted applies, even though it was Shechted without the owner's permission.

Reference: This is explained in Perek ba'Kol Me'arvin (Eruvin 32b)

Alternative: The same will apply to a case where the kid-goats were stolen, since somebody who is suspected of stealing is not automatically suspected of eating Neveilah.

Proof: In fact, the Tosefta specifically presents the case where the animal was stolen and he found (and not where it was lost).

Clarification: They also argue there where he found it in the street (even if it not in a trash-heap), as is evident in 'Eilu Metzi'os' (Bava Metzi'a 24b), in the case of Rebbi Chanina, who found a Shechted kid-goat between Teverya and Tzipori.

Question (Part 1): From here it seems that 'Chashu' are not subject to Kavanah, even if somebody is standing over them.

Question (Part 2): Whereas regarding the Mishnah in the second Perek of Gitin that everybody is Kasher to write a Get, even a 'Chashu', the Gemara asks from the fact that they do not have D'a'as (intelligence). And it answers that it speaks where there is a Gadol standing over them; from which we see that they are capable of mustering Kavanah when a Gadol stands over them?

Answer: 'A Gadol standing over them' means that he actually instructs them and warns them to write the Get li'Shemah; whereas 'Others watching them' that is mentioned here simply means that the person is watching them.

Implied Question: ... even though at the beginning of the Perek (3a) it refers to others watching them as 'a Gadol standing over them'.

Question (Part 1): In Perek Mitzvas Chalitzah (Yevamos 104: [in connection with the Mitzvah of Chalitzah]) we learned that 'If a Cheresh's shoe is removed, a Chareshes who takes off the Yavam's shoe and a Yevamah who takes off the shoe of a Katan, the Chalitzah is Pasul'. And the Gemara attributes the P'sul by a Cheresh and a Chareshes to the fact that they are not subject to Chalitzah, and a Katan to the fact that the Torah uses the expression "Ish".

Question (Part 2): Why does it not ascribe it to the fact that Chalitzah requires Kavanah, as the Gemara says there (Daf 106a) that Chalitzah is Pasul unless both parties have Kavanah?

Answer: Because Chalitzah in Beis-Din is as if a Gadol is standing over him, since they warn him to do it li'Shemah.

Question: Why then did we learn in the Tosefta that a Shoteh is not subject to Chalitzah, why do we not say that Beis-Din is considered li'Shemah, as we just explained?

Answer: Because it is specifically by a Get, where it is evident that he is doing it li'Shemah, where he needs to distinguish between the name of the man and the name of the woman, the name of his town and the name of her town, that 'Gadol Omed al Gabav' helps even by a Shoteh, (but not by Chalitzah).

Clarification: This is a place-name, like we find in the Bereishis Rabah 'Avimi from Chavraya used to visit the sick'.

Clarification (Part 1): This falls under the category of 'intending to cut with it', as is evident later in the second Perek (Daf 31.) regarding the case of 'If a knife fell and it Shechted ... ') ...

Clarification (Part 2): ... and it mentions it as a Chidush according to the Rabbanan, that even though he intended to cut with it, it is nevertheless Pasul unless one actually intends to cut the Simanim.

Clarification (Part 3): Rebbi Nasan however, validates the Shechitah even if one did not intend to cut with it - such as where he let the knife fall and it Shechted, as is evident later in the second Perek (Ibid.)

Clarification: Rashi establishes this by Shechitas Kodshim, which the Gemara says at the beginning of Zevachim (Daf 2a) requires li'Shemah; the Gemara asks whether, if a Katan now Shechts an Olah li'Shemah, it is considered Kavanah or not.

Question: The Gemara there implies that S'tam (without any Kavanah at all) is also Kasher, since S'tam Kodshim stand to be Shechted li'Sheman, and they are not Pasul unless one actually Shechts them she'Lo li'Sheman?

Answer (Part 1): ... because S'tam of a Katan is worse, since he does not have the Da'as to know that what he is Shechting is Kodshim. He assumes them to be Chulin, in which case his Shechitah is 'Mis'asek, and it is Pasul ...

Precedent: ... like we say in Perek Beis Shamai (Zevachim 46b) 'A Chatas that one Shechted for the sake of Chulin is Kasher; because it is Chulin is Pasul'.

Answer (Part 2): ... and even where the Katan claims that he knows it is Kodshim, and that he is Shechting it li'Sheman, we ask that perhaps it does not help unless it is clear from his actions that he is doing it li'Shemah.

Explanation #1: Throughout the Sugya, Rashi explains that a Ma'aseh together with Dibur is considered 'Ma'aseh', 'Machshavah' alone refers to Dibur without a Ma'aseh, and 'Machshavto Nikeres Mitoch Ma'asav' is a Ma'aseh without a Dibur.

Question #1 (Part 1): However, the Lashon of the Gemara does not seem to say this, since 'Yesh Lahem Ma'aseh' implies a Ma'aseh without a Dibur.

Question #1 (Part 2): ... because if you say that it requires a Dibur as well as a Ma'aseh, then just as it says 'Yesh Lahem Ma'aseh' (meaning with Machshavah), whereas 'Ein Lahem Machshavah' means Machshavah alone, it could just as well have said 'Yesh Lahem Machshavah' (meaning with a Ma'aseh), whereas 'Ein Lahem Ma'aseh' means Ma'aseh alone?

Question #2: Furthermore, why does the Gemara then explain that the She'eilah is 'Machshavah Nikeres Mitoch Ma'asav' - there where the Olah is standing in the south and he took it to the north? It should rather have established the case where he carved out an acorn or a pomegranate ... S'tam, without explaining that he wants it to measure earth or for the spoon of scales.

Answer: According to the conclusion however, which establishes the She'eilah by a d'Oraysa, the Gemara is justified in establishing the case by an Olah ... .

Question #3: Moreover, the Beraisa which states that the Chashu brought the fruit up on to the roof, they are not 'be'Chi Yutan', even though he had the intention to do so, but surely there is a Ma'aseh there together with a Dibur?

Answer: That is why Rashi there explains with a Dochak that he had Kavanah only after bringing up the fruit.

Refutation #1: But this is not what the Tana implies, but rather that he had Kavanah at the time that he brought it up?

Refutation #2: Besides, even if they brought it up S'tam, without saying that they did so because of the moths, it ought to enter the realm of 'b'Chi Yutan', according to Rebbi Yochanan, who holds that 'Machshavto Nikeres Mitoch Ma'asav' (which is a Ma'aseh without a Dibur) is effective?

Answer: It is possible however, that the Ma'aseh is worse, because perhaps they brought it up specifically because of the moths.

Question: Since the Gemara says 'or perhaps he did not find a place', this implies that were it not for that, it would not have asked the She'eilah, even though it is a Ma'aseh without a Dibur?

Explanation #2 (Part 1): It therefore seems that his Dibur is not effective, only a complete Ma'aseh, such as the case of 'the acorn, the pomegranate or the nut ... ', where it is obvious that they carved it out in order to make a receptacle out of it.

Implied Question: Why does it then add 'to measure earth or as the 'spoon of the scales'?

Answer: That is just a regular example of what they might need it for, and the same will apply to any other use that one might have for it.

Conclusion: In any event, since one only carves out in order to create a receptacle, it is considered a complete Ma'aseh, even though he did not specifically say so ...

Explanation #2 (Part 2): And an inferior Ma'aseh on the other hand, such as the case of 'He'elelum Chashu', Dibur is ineffective, as the Mishnah states 'Even though they had Kavanah, they are not 'b'Chi Yutan'.

Explanation #2 (Part 3 #1): Whereas 'Machshavto Nikeres Mitoch Ma'asav' speaks where the Ma'aseh is partially evident, such as where they 'moved the Olah from the south to the north and then Shechted it'. That is where the Gemara asks ... whether it is considered a Ma'aseh, since that is what they had in mind when they moved it, and it is therefore effective even without an explanation ...

Explanation #2 (Part 3 #2: ... or whether it is not a complete Ma'aseh, since it is possible to ascribe it to the fact that the location did not suit them, and even his explanation (that it was for the correct motive) will not help, like the case of 'He'elum'.

Conclusion: And the Gemara resolves the She'eilah from the statement of Rebbi Yochanan that 'if he turned it (the fruit) over, then it is 'b'chi Yutan' ...

Implied Question: ... even though there too, one might possibly ascribe it to the moths (to induce them to move to the other side) ...

Answer (Part 1): Nevertheless, it is more likely to attribute it to the dew, seeing as he only turned it round after the dew had fallen on one side of it.

Answer (Part 2): ... but the fact that the Katan took them up to the roof S'tam would not render the fruit 'b'chi Yutan ...

Chidush: Moreover, it is even possible that if a Gadol took them up S'tam, they would not be 'b'chi Yutan'.

Refuted Question: Nor can one draw an inference that 'because of the moths' it is not b'chi Yutan', but S'tam, is ...

Refutation: ... because one might just as well extrapolate from the Seifa 'If they had Kavanah for that, they are 'b'chi Yutan', but not S'tam!

Ruling (Yerushalmi) Part 1: However, if the children brought the fruit up to the roof whilst the dew was actually falling, the Yerushalmi implies that it is 'b'chi Yutan ...

Ruling (Yerushalmi) Part 2: ... since at the beginning of Maseches Terumos, the Yerushalmi cites this Mishnah, and following the question 'And what is their Ma'aseh?', Rav Huna answers 'Tafus Bahen be'Tal' ('When they are holding it in the dew').

Refutation: But perhaps 'Tafus Bahen be'Tal' that the Yerushalmi mentions is synonymous with turning over the fruit that Rebbi Yochanan mentions here.

Alternative Refutation: Alternatively, what it means is that when the dew falls, he brings the fruit up on to the roof, and when it stops, he takes it down.

Question (Part 1): In the Yerushalmi, in connection with the Mishnah 'Chamishah Lo Yitromu, ve'Im Tarmu Ein Terumasan Terumah ... (Continued).