Alternative Text: Some Sefarim have the text 'If it is Rebbi Yehudah, how will we explain the Reisha - "And not Evarim of Chulin on Shelamim of Hekdesh" ' ...

Clarifying the Question: Which implies that although one cannot make the limbs of an animal a Temurah on an animal - that the Kedushas Temurah should take effect on the body of an animal, on account of its limb which he declared a Temurah on a complete animal ...

Clarifying the Question (cont.): They are Kadosh at the inception of Hekdeh - if one is Makdish them at the beginning of Hekdesh, and if one is Makdish a limb, the Kedushah spreads to the entire animal ...

Source: Seeing as the Tana of our Mishnah holds of that S'vara - since he counters 'We see by Mukdashin that if someone declares "this animals leg is an Olah", the entire animal is an Olah' ...

Source (cont.): We can infer that the Tana Kama concedes that, at the inception of the Kedushah, it spreads to the entire animal ...

Clarifying the Question (cont.): And the partner of Rebbi Yossi is Rebbi Shimon, who says later in the Beraisa that at the inception of Hekdesh, it is all Hekdesh', and he now teaches us that this is not the case by Temurah ...

Reason: Either because he Darshens "Beheimah bi'Veheimah" or because at the end of the Perek, he compares Temurah to Ma'aser - 'Just as Ma'aser is a Korban Yachid ... ' ...

Reason (cont.): And from that same Hekesh he learns that just as Ma'aser does not apply to limbs, so too does Temurah not apply to limbs ...

Proof: And this is what the Gemara says in Perek Beheimah ha'Maksheh (Chulin, Daf 69a) ...

Clarifying the Question (concl.): Because if it was Rebbi Yehudah, he says later on in a Beraisa that 'The Kedushah does not spread to all of it'?

Answer: When we extrapolated that if not by Temurah, the entire animal does become Kadosh via one limb, that is speaking where he was Makdish a limb on which the life of the animal depends ...

Proof: As the Gemara says later 'Rebbi Yehudah concedes by a limb which renders the animal a T'reifah ...

Example: Such as where he was Makdish one of its legs from the knee and upwards - then all of it is an Olah'.

Answer (cont.): But by Temurah we do not Darshen "Beheimah bi'Veheimah" (See Hagahos ha'Bach on Rashi [until here is the wording of Rashi]).

Refutation: It is not however, necessary to insert this text ...

Reason: Because it implies that the Gemara's Kashya is based on the fact is asking from the fact that Rebbi Yossi countered 'We see by Mukdashin ... ', from which we see that the Tana Kama concedes to that ...

Reason (cont.): Whereas in Perek ha'Maksheh (Ibid.) the Gemara explains that Rebbi Yossi is making his own statement, and that the Tana Kama argues with him even at the inception of Hekdesh ...

Reason (concl.): In which case one can say that the Tana Kama is Rebbi Yehudah.

Text #1: This is Rashi's text - and it means that, if the Kedushah spread to the entire animal on account of the Kedushah of the one limb, then one can declare a Temurah on the entire animal, but if one said 'This limb of Chulin shall be a Temurah', he has said nothing.

Reason: And it seems that Rashi 'pushed' to read 'u'Mamirin' because the Gemara will shortly query it 'Since when are Emurin holy?' ...

Reason (cont.): And if we did not have the text 'u'Mamirin', where do we find that the Tana said 'Evarin Kadshi'?

Reason: Only since he said 'Evarin u'Mamirin', this must be speaking where he was Makdish a limb, and the Kedushah spread to the entire animal.

Refutation: It is not however, correct to insert 'u'Mamirin' ...

Reason #1: Firstly because it does not appear in the majority of Sefarim ...

Reason #2: And secondly, because the Beraisa is speaking about where the inception of Hekdesh is more stringent than the Temurah, and if we insert 'u'Mamirin', this is not the case?

Refutation: Therefore we do not insert it.

Implied Question: And when the Gemara asks shortly 'Evarim Mi Kadshi?' ...

Answer: That is because it states 'Makdishin Ubrin ve'Evarim', and it is certain that they were not Makdish a limb on its own unless the Kedushah spread to the entire animal.

Clarification: This can only refer to a (kid)-goat ...

Reason: Because a lamb cannot possibly give birth within the first year, as the Gemara explains in Bechoros (Daf 19b).

Reason: Because a fifth-month old Beheimah Dakah (small-type animal) is not permitted by its mother's Shechitah, according to Rebbi Meir, as the Gemara states in Perek Beheimah ha'Maksheh (Chulin, Daf 74a).

Switched Opinions: In the first Perek of Bechoros (Daf 3a) the Sugya is reversed, in connection with the partnership with a Nochri - where Rav Chisda holds that a T'reifah can survive ...

Switched Opinions cont.): And this is one of the reversed Sugyos in Shas ...

Precedent: And we find this in a number of places - e.g. by the Machlokes between Abaye and Rava with regard to 'Yadayim Mochichos', in Maseches Nedarim (Daf 5b) & Maseches Nazir (Daf 62a - [See there]).

Question: One needs however, to look into Rava' here, who says that a T'reifah can survive, whereas in Perek ha'Choletz (Yevamos Daf 36 - See Ein Mishpat), he rules regarding a Safek T'reifah, that one waits twelve months.

Clarification: Rashi explains that the Tana holds that the partnership of a Nochri exempts the owner form the Bechorah.

Implied Question: Whereas in the first Perek of Bechoros (Daf 3b) the Gemara says that it applies even according to the opinion that the partnership of a Nochri does not exempt the owner form the Bechorah - and when it says there that the Kedushah does noyt take effect ...

Answer: It means to bring on the Mizbe'ach.

Clarification: This means that the mother of the baby I Asur because it is Chulin in the Azarah.

Resolution: It appears that one can resolve it from the Beraisa that we learned earlier 'ha'Shochet es ha'Chatas u'Matza bah ben Daled Chai' - implying that it is not Chulin in the Azarah (See Shitah Mekubetzes 38).