Clarification: This means that the onus lies on the purchaser to prove that it became a T'reifah in the domain of the seller.

Implied Question: ... and even though he has not yet paid ...

Answer: ... we apply the principle 'Since they were found here, this is where it happened', as the Gemara says at the end of Perek ha'Madir (Kesuvos 76b).

Implied Question: ... and he refers to him as the Motzi?

Answer: ... because presumably, as long as he has not paid, they will not give him the animal.

Question (Part 1): Rebbi Yom-Tov asks from a Beraisa in Perek ha'Ro'eh Kesem (Nidah 58a) 'If a woman examined herself and her gown, which she then lent to her friend, she is Tahor, and her friend can attribute it to her (the owner) ...

Question (Part 2): Rav Sheishes explains there that the Tana is speaking regarding the Halachah - that her friend is not obligated to wash the gown.

Question (Part 4): Why do we not apply the principle 'Since they were found here, this is where it happened', like we do by the animal here and by 'blemishes' at the end of Perek ha'Madir?

Answer (Part 1): One cannot compare the cases. To be sure, in order to establish the sale and by Kidushin, it is a S'vara to apply it, since the seller can say to the purchaser 'Take your cow, since it became a T'reifah under your jurisdiction!, and the father can say to the husband 'Take your wife, since the blemish occurred in your domain!' ...

Answer (Part 2): ... and we are not going to negate the transaction ...

Answer (Part 3): ... a c claim that does not apply with regard to the gown.

Alternative Answer: Moreover, the gown is in the domain of the first woman (the owner of the gown) all the time, since it only entered the domain of the second one in the form of a loan. Consequently, we cannot say that the stain appeared in the domain of the second woman and not in the domain of the owner.

Clarification: The same will apply if there is a thorn or anything else that with a sharp point.

Proof: Proof of this lies in the fact that the Gemara then goes on to say 'There there is nothing on which to stick.

Clarification: And it did not walk ...

Proof: ... because later we conclude that once the animal walks, it does not even require an examination.

Clarification: It is not speaking where the animal fell.

Implied Question (Part 1: Even though in the case of Nefilah, the animal must fall from a height of at least ten Tefachim ...

Proof: ... as we have learned in Perek Shor she'Nagach es ha'Parah (Bava Kama Daf 50b),

Implied Question (Part 2): ... whereas the space between the belly of the ox and the ground is only four Tefachim, as the Gemara implies there?

Answer: Nevertheless, we suspect here (that it is a T'reifah) since it fell as the result of a stroke, seeing as the oxen were goring each other.

Clarification: The Gemara needs to tell us this, because there is a Re'usa (a cause for suspicion) - inasmuch as the animal did not walk ...

Reason: ... otherwise, it is obvious that we go after the majority of babies.

Question (Part 1): In that case, how can the Gemara support its statement from a one-day old baby who is Metamei with Zivus, seeing as there is no Re'usa there?

Question (Part 2): ... or where it continued to live long after that.

Answer #1: If it would sometimes occur that its limbs would be crushed on account of the (tightness of the) womb, then we ought to have considered it an Oneis with regard to Zivus (in which case it would be Tahor).

Answer #2: Moreover, the Zivus itself would indicate that its limbs were crushed, and it would be considered a Re'usa, since we can assume that the Zivus came about because of that.

Conclusion: It is therefore clear that it is not subject to Risuk Eivarim.

Implied Question: It was not really necessary to quote Rebbi Yochanan here, seeing as the Tana is talking about a B'chor, which the Torah ascribes to 'Peter Rechem' ...

Reason: ... and Kodshim themselves Rebbi Shimon only learns with a Gezeirah-Shavah "Leidah" "Leidah" from B'chor, as the Gemara explains at the beginning of 'Yotzei Dofen' (Nidah Daf 40.).

Conclusion: In fact, it only mentions other Kodshim as an additional Chidush.

Clarification: But if it did not even stand, then it needs Me'eis Le'eis to survive as well as examination, as we will learn in the Mishnah later (on Daf 46a [regarding a bird]) 'If someone trampled on it or struck it against a wall or if an animal crushed it, it needs to survive for twenty-four hours. And the Gemara, quoting Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Yanai comments 'Both cases require examination!'

Question (Sugya in Zevachim [Part 1]): But did we not learn in the Mishnah in Perek Ta'aroves (Zevachim 70b) that if an ox became mixed up with an ox with which an Aveirah was performed - with a Kil'ayim or with a T'reifah ... '.

Question (Sugya in Zevachim [Part 2]): And the Gemara (on Daf 74a) asks there how T'reifah speaks; If he recognizes it, then let him remove it, whereas if he doesn't, then how does he know that it is a T'reifah? ...

Question (Sugya in Zevachim [Part 3]): ... to which Resh Lakish replies that the ox became mixed up with a Nefulah.

Question (Sugya in Zevachim [Part 4]): And the Gemara asks further, why one cannot therefore inspect it? And it answers that the Tana holds that even if it stands up, it still needs to survive twenty-four hours, and that if it walks, it still needs inspection.

Establishing Answer #1: Now we have to say that the basic answer is not from 'Amdah, Tzerichah Me'eis Le'eis', since one still needs to ascertain whether it walks or not?

Establishing Answer #2: Furthermore, since 'Me'eis Le'eis' is sufficient, why does the Mishnah require 'Yir'u ad she'Yista'avu'/

Conclusion: It is therefore clear that the answer is from 'Halchah, Tzerichah Bedikah'.

Actual Question: Now since the Gemara gains nothing by adding 'Amdah Tzerichah Me'eis Le'eis'; it is not even possible to say it, seeing as everyone in our Sugya holds 'Amdah, Einah Tzerichah Me'eis Le'eis'?

Answer: It therefore seems that the correct text there is 'Amdah, Einah Tzerichah Me'eis Le'eis' ...

Implied Question: ... even though there is no need to mention it there ...

Answer: ... it only mentions it to balance 'Halchah, Ba'i Bedikah'.

Implied Question: The reason why the Gemara did not specifically rule like Rav Yehudah regarding Risuk Eivarim is ...

Answer: ... because it wants to teach us Davka where it stood still, to preclude where it stretched out a foot in order to stand, or where it shuddered in an attempt to stand up (which Rav Yehudah does not mention).