Implied Question: Even though at the end of Kesuvos (Daf 111:) we rule regarding mules like Rebbi Yehudah, who has a Safek in Perrek Oso ve'es B'no (later on Daf 79.) whether we take into account the seed of the father or not.

Answer (Part 1): That is only in a case where each one is permitted on its own, in which case, 'Zeh ve'Zeh Gorem' is not applicable.

Answer (Part 2): Whereas in our case, where one is Asur and one is Mutar, we say 'Zeh ve'Zeh Gorem'.

Refutation of Rashi: Not like Rashi explains, ho explains that it refers to the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua ...

Alternative Explanation: But rather that it refers to the Machlokes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel in the Mishnah in Eduyos (5:1), where we learned, in the case of the egg of a Neveilah the likes of which is sold in the shops - 'Beis Shamai permit it, whereas Beis Hillel forbid it. And they agree that the egg of a T'reifah is forbidden, since it grew be'Isur'.

Question (Part 1): It transpires that Beis Hillel considers the egg of a Neveilah, even if the likes of it are sold in the shops; whereas in the first Perek of Beitzah (Daf 6:) we say that someone who Shechts a chicken and finds inside it completed eggs, they may be eaten in milk?

Question (Part 2): And even Rebbi Ya'akov does not argue; it's just that he qualifies the ruling, and says that if they are joined to the nerves, they are forbidden; But if they are not, they are permitted.

Answer #1: The Ba'al Halachos Gedolos answers that by Isur Neveilah, which is d'Oraysa, the Chachamim were more strict; whilst on the other hand, when it comes to Basar Of be'Chalav, which is only mi'de'Rabbanan, they were lenient.

Answer #2: Whilst Rabeinu Tam answers that they were stringent by the eg of a Neveilah, since Neveilah a Davar Asur, whereas the meat of Basar in milk they were lenient, since bearing in mind that each item is permitted, it is considered a Davar Heter.

Clarification (Part 1): Rabeinu Tam's explanation fits nicely with the Aruch, who explains at the beginning of Perek ha'Dar im ha'Nochri (Eruvin 62:) that 'One is even forbidden to rule that an egg is permitted in a milk-stew is permitted in front of one's Rebbe'.

Clarification (Part 2: Clearly, this is speaking about where one Shechted a chicken and found inside it fully-developed eggs; because if it was referring to S'tam eggs, every Am-ha'Aretz knows that one my eat a regular chicken's egg together with milk.

Question on Answer #1: Now according to the answer of the Halachos Gedolos, the question arises why does the Gemara say 'Even an egg in a milk stew', why is that Heter so much more obvious than other Heterim, seeing as it is a Machlokes - because those who hold that 'Basar Of be'Chalav is d'Oraysa', it is in fact, Asur, just like the egg of a Neveilah?

Answer #1: The reason the Gemar says 'Afilu' is because the Heter as universally accepted.

Precedent: Likewise in the first Perek of Bava Kama (Daf 6:), the Gemara takes for granted that Rav's statement that an egg becomes permitted the moment the majority of it has emerged is permitted; when the Gemara there asks 'In which regard? If it is with regard to eating it with milk, implying that whilst it is still in its mother's stomach it is forbidden - But did we not learn in a Beraisa that someone who Shechts a chicken ... ?' This implies that it is obvious that Rav does argue with that.

Answer #2: Furthermore, one can answer that Beis Hillel forbid the egg of a Neveilah due to a decree on account of the eg of a T'reifah, which in turn, is forbidden because it has been completed be'Isur.

Refutation: This answer does not seem right however, since, in our Sugya, we do not forbid the eggs of the last batch on account of the eggs of the first batch or on account of the eggs that were hatched from the ground (and not from a cock).

Source: It is a Beraisa.

Implied Question: The Gemara could have cited the Mishnah in Temurah (Daf 30:), which states that 'Whatever is Asur to go on the Mizbe'ach, their babies are nevertheless permitted'. Rebbi Eliezer says 'the baby of a T'reifah should not approach the Mizbe'ach'.

Answer: And the reason that it chose to cite a Beraisa is because Rebbi Yehoshua is mentioned there by name.

Implied Question: The Lashon of the Gemara implies that, if not for Ameimar, there would no problem of what they are arguing about.

Answer #1: It is only because Ameimar forbids the first batch, that we can no longer establish their Machlokes by 'Ubar Yerech Imo', and by where the mother became pregnant before it became a T'reifah. That being the case, Ameimar holds like Rebbi Eliezer, who is a Shamuti (and the Halachah is therefore not like him)?

Answer #2: And according to the second Lashon that the Gemara will cite shortly, one can explains - that because he holds 'T'reifah Einah Yoledes', the Gemara asks 'What is the source of their Machlokes?' since we cannot then establish the Machlokes with regard to 'Zeh ve'Zeh Gorem'.

Question: Why does Rav Ashi not want to establish the Machlokes by 'Zeh ve'zeh Gorem', seeing as in Perek Kol Sha'ah (Pesachim 27.) Rebbi Eliezer specifically forbids is, as it says there 'And so Rebbi Eliezer forbids it (Zeh ve'Zeh Gorem) with regard to all Isurim in the Torah.

Answer: Perhaps Rav Ashi was not aware of that Beraisa.

Text 1: The text in Perek Kol ha'Asurin (Temurah 31.) should tally with the text here.

Text 2: Some texts read there 'According to those who hold that a T'reifah can give birth, they argue over a case where the animal became a T'reifah and then became pregnant, and Rebbi Eliezer holds 'Ubar Yerech Imo Hu' ... .

Refutation: But this text is incorrect.

Question (Part 1): The Lashon 'if so' is difficult, since the Gemara could ask this Kashya irrespective of the circumstances.

Question (Part 2): One also needs to understand as to why there would be no problem with arguing by Gavohah if we were to explain the Machlokes with regard to 'Ubar Yerech Imo Hu' any more than now, when we establish the Machlokes by 'Zeh ve'Zeh Gorem'?

Question (Part 3): And according to the second Lashon, we can ask the same Kashya in the reverse.

Clarification (Part 1): According to current conclusion that a T'reifah cannot give birth - we can only establish the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua with regard to 'Ubar Yerech Imo Hu', and Rebbi Yehoshua holds 'La'av Yerech Imo Hu'.

Clarification (Part 2): Only by the case of 'Beitzah' he concedes (that 'Yerech Imo Hu') since it is joined to the body, it is considered part of the body'.

Question #1 (Part 1): At the beginning of 'Shor she'Nagach es ha'Parah' (Bava Kama 47a) it implies the opposite, since on Rava's statement there, that if a cow does damage, one can claim from its baby; because, the Gemara explains, 'it is part of its body'. Whereas if a chicken damages, one cannot claim from its egg, because 'it is no more than its dung'.

Question #1 (Part 2): This implies that even if the cow would not be available, one could claim from the baby. But why, even assuming that the baby assisted with the goring, that it and its baby gored together, one ought not to be able to claim the full damages from the baby, there were the cow is not available, seeing as we hold 'Ubar La'av Yerech Hu'?

Question #2: And in the case of the chicken, why can one not claim from the egg?

Answer (Part 1): It speaks there with regard to eggs that are fully complete, which are not attached to the chicken's body.

Answer (Part 2): Consequently, with regard to damages, the Mazik can say to the Nizak 'Prove that at that moment the egg was attached to the chicken's body and take it!' Whereas regarding T'reifus, since it is a Safek (as to whether it was attached at that moment or not) we go to the strict side forbid it.

Answer (Part 3): Whereas as far as the baby (animal) is concerned, even though we generally say 'Ubar Yerech Imo Hu', when it comes to T'reifus, it is different, since it is linked with the life of the animal, and a fetus has life of its own.

Conclusion: In Bava Kama, Tosfos elaborated on this point.

Alternative Text: Rabeinu Shmuel has the text '(Tamri) di'Kerum', meaning 'that it became wormy' ...

Precedent #1: Like 'Invei di'Kerum ve'Sadeh she'Laksah be'Amarim', in Perek ha'Mekabel (Bava Metzi'a Daf 106: See there) ...

Precedent #2: And in Nazir, at the beginning of the Sugya in Perek Sheloshah Minim (Daf 34:) 'To include Anavim di'Kerum'.

Precedent #3: And in the middle of this Perek (Daf 38:) 'But did it not leave over Anavim di'Kerum?'

Refutation of Original Text #1: Since it is not the done thing to leave fruit in a jar.

Refutation of Original Text #2: Moreover, it ought to have then said ' ... which turned wormy'.

Support of Original Text #1: Rabeinu Tam however, explains that it is the done thing to place just about everything in a jar, like we find in Perek Chezkas ha'Batim (Bava Basra, 55.) 'Those barley-grains in a jar are Meshu'bad (pledged) to the head-tax'.

Support of Original Text #2: And in 'ha'Mafkid' (Bava Metzi'a 40.) 'There was a case, and the jar (containing grain) broke'.

Support of Original Text #3: And in Perek ha'Zahav (Ibid 59.) 'When the barley has terminated from the jar, a merchant arrives'.

Explanation #1: Rashi interprets this with regard to Pigul.

Text #1: 'And he has the text 'But with regard to Pigul, he (Rebbi Yehudah) holds like the Rabbanan.

Explanation #2: But Rabeinu Tam maintains that it is a Mishnah in Taharos (Perek 1, Mishnah 2) 'The thick feathers and the thin feathers are both Metamei and subject to Tum'ah, but they do not combine. Rebbi Yishmael says that thin feathers combine' - to make up a k'Beitzah, since they are a Shomer, and we learned in Maseches Uktzin (Perek 1, Mishnah 1) that ' Whatever is a Yad but not a Shomer, is Metamei and subject to Tum'ah, but does not combine; but if it is a Shomer and not a Yad, it is Metamei, subject to Tum'ah and combines.

Explaining the Sugya (Part 1): And the Gemara now proves that seeing as it is considered a Shomer for the Basar, it is similar to skin. Consequently, if it is removed, it is as if the skin has been removed, in which case it falls under the category of 'G'ludah' and is T'reifah.

Explaining the Sugya (Part 2): But Rava refutes the proof inasmuch as 'Rebbi Yehudah only says that the feathers protect the meat, but not to the extent that it becomes a Shomer ... ' ...

Explaining the Sugya (Part 3): Since it is not common to put away a bird together with its feathers to prevent it from getting dirty.

Explaining the Sugya (Part 4): 'Whereas Rebbi Yishmael only says that it becomes a Shomer with regard to Tum'ah, but as far as protecting it is concerned, it does not protect it.