1)

(a)We already discussed our Mishnah 'Heilech T'leh Zeh, ve'Talin Shifchasech Eitzel Avdi', earlier. Initially, Rav Huna tries to establish Avdi with regard to the master himself - and Eved is simply a refined way of referring to the Eiver Tashmish.

(b)The problem with this answer is - on what grounds Rebbi Meir then argues with the Tana Kama (and does not consider it an Esnan).

(c)Shmuel bar Nachmeni therefore establishes the Mishnah by the Eved Ivri, and he cites a Beraisa which confines the Din of giving a Shifchah Cana'anis to an Eved Ivri to one who has a wife and children.

(d)Shmuel bar Nachmeni therefore establishes our Mishnah - by one who doesn't.

2)

(a)Our Mishnah defines "M'chir Kelev" ...

1. ... simply - as someone who says to his friend 'Here is a lamb in exchange for your dog'.

2. ... in a case of two partners - where one partner takes ten sheep and the other, nine sheep and the dog. The former are all forbidden, the latter, permitted.

(b)The Tana now discusses Esnan Kelev and M'chir Zonah. The case of ...

1. ... Esnan Kelev is - where Reuven gives Shimon a lamb as payment for one night that the latter's dog sleeps with him.

2. ... M'chir Zonah is - where he gives him a lamb in exchange for his Shifchah.

(c)The Tana - permits them both.

(d)He precludes them from the prohibition via the "Sh'nei" of the word "Sh'neihem", whereas from the "hem" he precludes - the lamb's babies from the Isur.

3)

(a)The Beraisa learns from the word "bi'Mechireihem" (in the Pasuk in Tehilim "Timkor Amcha be'Lo Hon, ve'Lo Ribis bi'Mechireihem") - that "M'chir Kelev" the price of the dog (what one pays for it).

(b)We ...

1. ... suggest that the Torah forbids both Esnan and M'chir Kelev - from the 'Vav' in "u'M'chir Kelev".

2. ... refute this suggestion - because of the Pasuk "Gam Sheneihem", from which we preclude the possibility of there being three cases.

(c)And we refute the suggestion that the two cases forbidden by the Torah are Esnan Zonah and Esnan Kelev - because then it ought to have omitted the word "M'chir".

4)

(a)The problem with our Mishnah, which forbids all ten lambs because of the one dog is that - logically speaking, only one of the lambs ought to be forbidden.

(b)And we solve the problem - by pricing the dog slightly higher than each of the lambs, in which case, a little of the excess pertains to each lamb, rendering them all forbidden.

5)

(a)When Rava from Parzakya asked Rav Ashi from where we know that there is no Din Z'nus regarding an animal (see Tosfos DH 'Mina Ha Milsa'), he replied that - it is evident from the fact that the Torah does not forbid Esnan Kelev (see also tosfos [ibid.])

(b)We support this with a Beraisa which repeats our Mishnah, permitting an Esnan Kelev and M'chir Zonah. We cite the Beraisa rather than our Mishnah (though some do have the wording 'T'nan') - because the Beraisa opens with the words 'Minayin le'Esnan Kelev ... she'Hein Mutarin' (as if in answer to our question).

6)

(a)Rava forbids the baby of an animal that was raped or that gored a person to death, to be brought on the Mizbe'ach - because, based on the S'vara 'Ubar Yerech Imo hu', he holds that the baby too, was raped or gored.

(b)On the other hand, he permits the baby of an animal that was Muktzah or that was worshipped - because the person who designated or worshipped it had in mind the mother, and not the baby.

(c)According to others, he forbids them too - because the fatter the animal that one offers to the gods, the better.

7)

(a)Rava's latter ruling is supported by Rav Achdevu'i bar Ami Amar Rav, who validates Kidushin that consists of the dung of an ox that has been sentenced to death due to bestiality - but not if it consists of the dung of a calf of Avodah-Zarah ...

(b)... either because the extra fatness of the ox enhances the act of worship (as we explained), but means nothing to the person who commits bestiality with it ...

(c)... or on account of the Pasuk ...

1. ... in Va'eschanan "Vehayisa Cherem Kamohu" which teaches us that - whatever comes from an object of Avodah-Zarah (even dung) is forbidden like the Avodah Zarah itself.

2. ... in Mishpatim "Lo Ye'achel es Besaro" which teaches us - that it is only the flesh of a Shor ha'Niskal that is forbidden, but not the dung.

8)

(a)Our Mishnah permits the money that a man pays a Zonah (since it is not fit to go on the Mizbe'ach) - but forbids the wine, oil of flour that he gives her (because it is).

(b)The Tana rules that if a man gives a Zonah ...

1. ... an animal that is already Hekdesh - it remains permitted ...

2. ... whereas if he gives her a dove or a pigeon of Chulin, it is forbidden.

(c)And he learns this from the Pasuk in connection with Esnan Zonah and M'chir Kelev) "le'Chol Neder". Otherwise, based on a Kal va'Chomer from Mukdashin (which become invalid through a blemish, yet it is permitted), we would have permitted them too (seeing as they do not become invalid through a blemish).

9)

(a)The Tana Kama of our Mishnah permits the babies of all Mukdashin. Rebbi Eliezer - forbids the baby of a T'reifah to go on the Mizbe'ach.

(b)The reason that it is permitted to a Hedyot is - because it grew (not from the body of its mother, but) independently.

(c)Our Mishnah - forbids the redemption of Kodshim animal that is a T'reifah, because one may not redeem Kodshim to feed to the dogs.

10)

(a)If a man gives a Zonah wheat with which she makes flour, olives with which she makes oil, or grapes with which she makes wine, one Beraisa forbids the end product, whilst a second Beraisa permits it. According to Rav Yosef, quoting Gurion from Aspurk - the former Beraisa is the opinion of Beis Shamai, the latter Beraisa, of Beis Hillel.

(b)With regard to the Pasuk "ki So'aves Hash-m ... Gam Sh'neihem", Beis Shamai learns from ...

1. ... "hem" - to preclude V'lados Kodshim (like we learned on the previous Amud) ...

2. ... "Gam" - to include a commodity that the Zonah changed (such as the current case).

(c)The (unresolved) problem with Beis Hillel is - what they learn from the word "Gam".

11)

(a)From the Pasuk "Lo Savi Esnan Zonah ... Beis Hash-m Elokecha", Rebbi Elazar precludes a Parah Adumah (if a man gives it to a Zonah as an Esnan) from the Isur, since it is not brought into the Beis-Hamikdash. Based on the same Pasuk, the Chachamim incorporate in the Isur - gold that the Zonah subsequently beats into plates with which to overlay the Mizbe'ach.

(b)Rav Chisda names the Chachamim as Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, who rules in a Beraisa that if a man gives a woman gold (or stones that are fit for building) - it cannot be used for overlaying the Mizbe'ach (or for building the wall of the Azarah behind the Kodesh Kodashim (even though its Kedushah is less intense).

(c)We suggest that Esnan and M'chir ought to take effect on Mukdashin - Kal va'Chomer from birds, which are not subject to the P'sul of Mumin (using the reverse Kal va'Chomer that we attempted to apply earlier).

(d)We reject this suggestion however, based on the Pasuk "le'Chol Neder" - from which we preclude what is already Nadur.

12)

(a)The problem with the previous D'rashah is that - the Pasuk ought not to be necessary, since Kodshim do not belong to the owner (so how can the Isur Esnan take effect on them).

(b)To answer the question, Rav Hoshaya establishes it like Rebbi - who argues with the Tana Kama of a Beraisa with regard to the owner of a Korban Pesach taking money for a portion in his animal. When Rebbi says 'Af Michdei Mekach', he means that - if he needs money or articles (even for his own personal use), he is permitted to take them as payment for a portion in the Korban Pesach (which is akin to doing business with the animal).

(c)The Tana Kama permits only 'Michdei Achilah' - taking money in order to purchase wood to roast the Korban Pesach (but not money or articles for his own personal use).

(d)Both Tana'im explain the Pasuk "ve'Im Yim'at ha'Bayis mi'Heyos mi'Seh" to mean that - if his household is short (he is short of funds), he may make up the loss from the lamb.

13)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah that the babies of whatever is Asur to go on the Mizbe'ach are permitted. Rav quotes Rebbi Eliezer in a Beraisa as saying that - they are forbidden (not just those of a T'reifah, as he says in our Mishnah).

(b)Rav Huna bar Chin'na Amar Rav Nachmon establishes the Machlokes by Ibru ve'li'be'Sof Nirve'u (where the pregnancy preceded the rape) - and the basis of the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and the Rabbanan is - whether we say Ubar Yerech Imo hu (Rebbi Eliezer) or not (the Rabbanan).

(c)In the reverse case (Nirve'u ve'li'be'Sof Ibru [where the rape preceded the pregnancy]), they will both hold - that they are permitted.

14)

(a)According to Rava, they argue by Nirve'u ve'li'be'Sof Ibru, in which case, the basis of their Machlokes is - whether Zeh ve'Zeh Gorem (seeing as the father, who is not Asur, creates the V'lad together with the mother) is Asur (Rebbi Eliezer) or not (the Rabbanan).

(b)But by Ibru ve'li'be'Sof Nirve'u they will both hold- that the baby is Asur.

(c)When we say that Rava follows his own reasoning, we are referring to his rulings (cited earlier) forbidding V'lad Nirva'as and V'lad Nogachas ...

(d)... based on the principle 'Ubar Yerech Imo hu', as we explained there.

15)

(a)In the second Lashon, Rav Huna bar Chin'na establishes the Machlokes by a case where the animal was raped when it was already Kodshim, and the basis of the Machlokes is - whether we forbid the V'lad because it is degrading for Hekdesh (see Rabeinu Gershom [Rebbi Eliezer]), or not (the Rabbanan).

(b)But if it was raped when it was still Chulin, and the owner declared it Hekdesh only afterwards - even Rebbi Eliezer will concede that it is permitted, since the animal changed its status before it became pregnant.

(c)Whereas Rava Amar Rav Nachman establishes the Machlokes where the animal was raped when it was still Chulin, and Rebbi Eliezer nevertheless forbids the V'lad - because he considers it degrading (in spite of the change).

(d)In a case where it was raped when it was already Kodshim, even the Rabbanan will concede that - the baby is forbidden.