Support (cont.): Rav Yosef challenged Rabah from a Beraisa in Zevachim (66b) "all of them do not have Tum'as Beis ha'Bli'ah", and it was taught above "Olas ha'Of that was done like Chatas [ha'Of];

The Mishnah there (68b) says that that whatever was Pesulo b'Kodesh is not Metamei, and similarly Lo Yered.

Question: What was the question? It is proven in Zevachim that Olas ha'Of that was done like Chatas [ha'Of] means that Mitzuy was below, but Melikah was in its [proper] place (above)!

Answer: Rather, surely Rabah, who said Yered, this is even if he slaughtered in the north and received in the south. Due to Kosher Shechitah alone, it is not called Pesulo b'Kodesh, even according to R. Shimon.

Rebuttal: We could reject this. When Shechitah was in the north, Rabah agrees that Lo Yered. Rav Yosef challenged him, because Mitzuy is like Shechitah. He presses and extracts the blood from the bird, just like Shechitah does;

Even though Melikah was above, since Mitzuy was below, this is like Shechitah in the south.

Explanation: The Pesul can be only after it was Hukdash. However, Rove'a and Nirva can be while they are Chulin.

Question #1: We say in Zevachim (68b) that [Melikah through] a Zar and a knife are Metamei. This shows that they are considered Ein Pesulo b'Kodesh, even though the Pesul applies only after it was Hukdash!

Also [Melikah with] the left hand or at night would be Metamei, if not that they are Kosher elsewhere, like it says there.

Question #2: Regarding Dukin (cataracts) in the eye, R. Akiva says that Im Alah Lo Yered because they are Kosher in birds;

Inference: It is considered Pesulo b'Kodesh, even though it can come before Hekdesh!

Answer: When there is a Hechsher elsewhere, this is called Pesulo b'Kodesh. What is slaughtered at night has a Hechsher regarding [Haktarah of] limbs and Chelev;

If the blood was Yotzei, this is Kosher regarding Eimurim. Eimurim [that left] are Kosher, for this is Kosher on a Bamah. If the blood spilled, since Kabalah was Kosher, this is called Pesulo b'Kodesh.

Explanation: The expression Pesulo b'Kodesh means that it is not an absolute Pesul. Rather, it was disqualified from its Kedushah.

Support - Citation (68b): What is different about the left hand? It has a Hechsher on Yom Kipur. Night has a Hechsher for limbs and fats. Therefore, they are not Metamei, for they are Pesulo b'Kodesh.

Question: We should require three verses like all Pesulim such as Tereifah that are listed here with them!

In Menachos (6a) we require two verses for Tereifah - one for when it became Tereifah before Hekdesh, and one for when it became Tereifah after Hekdesh;

And even so, we need a verse here to exclude from Zos, to teach that Im Alah Yered;

Similarly, for other Pesulim we should require two verses, without the verse Zos -- one for before Hekdesh, and one for after Hekdesh, that Lo Ya'alu, and the verse of Zos teaches that Im Alah Yered!

Answer: Since the verse revealed about Tereifah, the same applies to other Pesulim.

Explanation #1: Rashi said that the text should not say so, for all the more so, according to the opinion that they are Kodesh in the womb, we need to exclude them from Zos!

Rebuttal: The text says so. It teaches a bigger Chidush;

Even though they are Kadosh from birth, and the Hekdesh did not precede the birth, we need a verse to exclude them, since the Pesul did not come beforehand, rather, at once [with the Hekdesh].

Suggestion: Perhaps the text says "he holds that they are Kodesh in the womb"!

Rejection #1: In Kerisus (23b), it says that R. Shimon holds that they are Kadosh from birth;

Rejection #2: This is proven also from our Sugya, which establishes the verse "Zos" for an animal of Kodshim, and we find Esnan and Mechir [Kelev, i.e. something traded for a dog] only after Hekdesh;

This is even according to R. Yosi ha'Glili, who says that Kodshim Kalim are Mamon Hedyot (they are considered the owner's property, and not Hekdesh's property), for he said in Pesachim (90a) "l'Chol Neder" excludes Nadur, for Esnan does not take effect on them (what is already Kadosh);

He finds [Esnan] only regarding Vlados Kodshim, according to the opinion that they are Kadosh from birth, and he gave them to a Zonah when they were in the womb;

We establish it like this in Zevachim (114a), and so explained Rashi.

Question: In Temurah (33b), a Mishnah says "the following are buried: Kodshim that miscarried, Chulin slaughtered in the Azarah... R. Shimon says, Chulin slaughtered in the Azarah are buried";

Inference: He does not argue about Kodshim that miscarried.

Why are they buried? Kedushah does not take effect on them, like the Mishnah says in Temurah (24b). R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, if it gave birth to a Tumtum or Androginus, Kedushah does not take effect on them!

The Gemara says that he holds that they are Kodesh when they are born, and even Kedushas Damim does not take effect on them;

If [Kedushah] took effect on them, it says in Temurah (19b) that since they get Kedushas Damim, they [would] get also Kedushas ha'Guf.

If so (since even Kedushas Damim does not take effect on them), why is a miscarriage of Kodshim Asur b'Hana'ah according to R. Shimon?

Answer #1: He argues also with the Reisha, but he came to argue only about Chulin slaughtered in the Azarah.

Proof: It lists there also Basar v'Chalav among [Isurei Hana'ah] that are buried, and R. Shimon permits benefit from it in Bechoros (10a).

Answer #2: Kedushah takes effect on a Nefel more than on a Tumtum or Androginus, because if it would be viable, it would be proper for a Korban.

Question: Since he holds that they are Kadosh from birth, how does Kedushah take effect on a Yotzei Dofen and Kil'ayim? Why is this different than Tumtum and Androginus?

Answer: The case is, he was Makdish them verbally before they were born. Even though their mother's Kedushah does not take effect on them, verbal Kedushah takes effect on them.

Question #1: The Mishnah in Temurah (24b) connotes that even verbal Kedushah does not take effect on them!

Question #2 - Citation (Temurah 17a): You find [that they are Kodesh] only regarding Vlados Kodshim, according to R. Yehudah.

Why can't we find this through verbal Kedushah?

Answer: Perhaps only regarding Tumtum and Androginus, Kedushah does not take effect on them.

Question: Even though they say that she is not Teme'ah due to Leidah, in any case her Dam Koshi should be Tahor!

Even if she miscarried Ru'ach (nothing came out), we asked above (8b) that her [Dam] Koshi should be Tahor, even though she does not get Yemei Tum'ah and Yemei Tohar [of a Yoledes]!

Answer: There, it is because we wanted to say that it is called a birth, like we brought verses "Yaladnu Ru'ach." Here, the Torah excluded it from the law of a child.

Question: He (R. Yochanan) said this in the name of R. Shimon, and also Reish Lakish agrees that R. Shimon is Metaher the woman, for he said "the one who is Metaher the blood, he is Metaher the woman! (Why do we say that R. Yochanan teaches like he taught elsewhere?)

Answer: Reish Lakish means as follows. The one who is Metamei the blood, he is Metamei the woman due to Re'iyah. The case is, the fetus and blood left through the wall (Caesarian section). It is not [Dam] Koshi of the fetus;

R. Shimon, who is Metaher the blood, is Metaher the woman, for it is a child, and the Torah was Metaher Koshi adjacent to birth;

However, if it were not a child, even according to R. Shimon she is Teme'ah. All agree that we do not require that the blood leave through her Ervah [to be Metamei her].

R. Yochanan says that even Rabanan are Metaher the woman. All require that the blood leave through her Ervah.

Now, we properly say that R. Yochanan teaches like he taught elsewhere, even though he says in the name of R. Shimon, for from R. Shimon we learn about Rabanan (for both Amora'im say that no Tana argues about this).

Implied question: The verse discusses a woman who has Bi'ah!

Answer: The Makshan held that she should not be Teme'ah due to Bi'ah unless the semen is expelled to Beis ha'Chitzon.

Question: Also according to Rabanan, we can ask why we need the verse. It should suffice that it says "Yihyeh"!

Answer #1: We ask a contradiction even in R. Shimon. When we answer "this discusses one who emits, and this discusses one who has Bi'ah", it is fine even according to Rabanan;

We need the verse for one who has Bi'ah, even though the semen initially enters Beis ha'Pnimi, and did not go out to Beis ha'Chitzon;

If it went out [to Beis ha'Chitzon], we know [that she is Teme'ah] due to emitting semen;

Even according to the opinion that above that Beis ha'Chitzon is where the Ever rubs, this refers to an average man and woman. If he is big or she is small, it is possible that the semen initially enters Beis ha'Pnimi, and did not go out to Beis ha'Chitzon;

Answer #2: Perhaps according to Rabanan, [the semen] is Metamei due to emission of semen only when the semen was in Beis ha'Pnimi and was emitted to Beis ha'Chitzon;

However, when the semen stays in Beis ha'Chitzon and is not emitted there from elsewhere, it is Metamei only due to Bi'ah.

Implied question: He should have known that he will answer that this is when she immersed after Bi'ah, for it says "v'Tam'ah Ad ha'Arev"!

Answer: (He knew this.) He asked because he wanted to ask from Rava, who said that all three days, Tevilah does not help her.

Question: Even without this, he could have challenged Rava from the verse!

Answer #1: We could establish the verse when she walked [to the Mikveh, so all the semen already fell out];

Answer #2: We could establish it when she cleaned herself well. She can clean the area so no semen will remain.

Citation (Mikva'os 8:4 - Mishnah): If a woman had Bi'ah, descended and immersed, and did not clean herself, it is as if she did not immerse. (This implies that if she cleaned herself, the Tevilah helped.)

However, now, based on the answer "this discusses one who emits, and this discusses one who has Bi'ah", we ask properly, for if she cleaned herself, we already know [that she is Teme'ah] because she emitted (surely the semen touched her externally when she cleaned herself)!