Clarification: Specifically when the majority emerged, but if he made the declaration when just the minority emerged, he did not ask ...

Reason: Because then Olah definitely takes effect on it, since the Kedushah of a B'chor did not yet take effect.

Clarification: Because as soon as he declares 'Hi Shelamim', Kedushas Peh takes effect on the fetus as well, like it does on the mother ...

Clarification (cont.): And even according to the opinion that holds 'Shayro Meshuyar', he can nevertheless not change it to another Kedushah ...

Reason: Seeing as, the moment he is Makdish the mother, he has the intention that via his declaration, that Kedushah should also take effect on the fetus ...

Reason (cont.): And he cannot change it from its mother's Kedushah - unless he first mentions ythe Kedushah of the V'lad.

Explanation: Rashi writes that 'It is not applicable here "be'Havayasan" and "be'Me'ei Iman" ...

Reason: Since 'be'Havayasan' and not 'be'Me'ei Iman' only applies where one is first Makdish the animal and it then becomes pregnant ...

Reason (cont.): Seeing as he did not then declare it Hekdesh, and it is only Kadosh with its mother's Kedushah ...

Reason (concl.): But if he was Makdish a pregnant animal, the fetus is sufficiently Chashuv to receive its own Kedushsah (Up to here is the Lashon of Rashi [Note that the wording of the previous Dibur also tallies with that of Rashi, suggesting that the previous two Diburim plus this one are really all one Dibur]).

Conclusion: That being the case, when the Gemara established the Mishnah 've'Im Nekeivah, Shelamim' by an animal of Kodshim ...

Conclusion (cont.): We will have to say that it is speaking where the owner declared it Hekdesh and it became pregnant only afterwards.

Implied Question: Because when the Gemara said (above, Daf 21b) that 'V'lad Chatas must die' ...

Answer: That is when he was Makdish and then it became pregnant, but if he was Makdish a pregnant animal the fetus is Chashuv to adopt Kedushah in its own right - not on account of its mother ...

Precedent: And it is like designating two Chata'os, in which case he can attain his Kaparah with whichever one he chooses (Rashi's words).

Clarification: Since if he wishes it is not Kadosh, from which we see that 'La'av Yerech Imo', even if he does not leave it over it is also not 'Yerech Imo' ...

Clarification (cont.): It is Kadosh in its own right and not on account of its mother - and it is not therefore a V'lad Chatas (Rashi's words).

Clarification: We see that it is called a 'V'lad Shelamim' - because becomes Kadosh due to its mother and not in its own right.

Clarification (cont.): And by Chatas too, it is called 'V'lad Chatas' and must die.

Clarification: Because it is considered an animal it its own right, and consequently, if he does not leave it over, it is Kadosh in its own right ...

Clarification (cont.): The Tana ought then to have said 'The V'lad itself is Kadosh' (Rashi's wording).

Clarification: And since if he wants to leave it out and make it Chulin, he is permitted to do so ...

Clarification (cont.): We see that it is an animal in its own right, in which case if he is Makdish its mother as a Chatas, its verbal Kedushah extends to the V'lad, making it a V'lad Chatas, which is why it cannot be eaten ...

Clarification (cont.): Whereas the latter Tana holds 'Shayro Eino Meshuyar', but 'Ubar Yerech Imo hu', so when he is Makdish the mother, the V'lad is Kadosh on account of the mother, just like other V'lados of Kodshim, and not with his verbal Kedushah ...

Clarification (cont.): However, when he Shechts the mother and finds inside it a live four-month baby, it is not Kadosh, since it is only Kadosh from the moment it comes into existence, and this animal, which did not experience that moment is not Kadosh.

Clarification (concl.): And that is why it says that it can be eaten by anybody - whereas if 'Shayro Meshuyar', as soon as he declares the mother Hekdesh, the verbal Kedushah takes effect on the baby.

Introduction to Question: Tosfos' Rebbe ha'Rav Mordechai asks - Our Mishnah states ' "Hi Shelamim u'Veladah Olah", harei Zeh V'lad Shelamim' ...

Introduction to Question: Rashi explains that 'be'Havayasan hein Kedoshim' is not applicable where one is Makdish a pregnant animal ...

Introduction to Question (cont.): So we see that one cannot change the V'lad, in that it is Kadosh with the mother's Kedushah as soon as he declares the mother Kadosh ...

Introduction to Question (concl.): The Gemara wants to say that this Mishnah holds 'Shayro Eino Meshuyar', in spite of which he cannot make the V'lad Chulin - and it queries Rebbi Yochanan, who holds 'Shayro Meshuyar' from it ...

Question: Now if it was Chulin as the Gemara says here, why, according to the opinion that 'Shayro Eino Meshuyar' can one not declare the V'lad an Olah?

Answer: And he answers that we are forced to say that the Kedushah of the mother has the effect that one cannot be Makdish it (the V'lad) with another Kedushah, and that as soon as it is born the mother's Kedushah takes effect ...

Answer (cont.): But until it is born it remains Chulin, and should he Shecht the mother in the interim, the V'lad can be eaten by anybody.

Implied Question: And even though the Reisha of the Mishnah states 'Im Nekeivah, Zivchei Shelamim' - which the Gemara establishes by an animal that is Hekdesh, indicating that one is able to change the V'lad for another Kedushah ...

Answer: That speaks where he is Makdish it and then it becomes pregnant, as Tosfos (citing Rashi) explained at the beginning of the Sugya ...

Answer: That we need to differentiate between where one is Makdish a Me'uberes and where the animal became pregnant only after one has been Makdish it.

Alternative Text/Explanation: Some Sefarim invert the text - The Tana Kama holds 'Shayro Eino Meshuyar', and the Kedushah falls on the V'lad immediately on account of the mother - which is why it cannot be eaten ...

Alternative Text/Explanation: Whereas the latter Tana holds 'Shayro Meshuyar' and the V'lad is Chulin - and that is why he says that 'It can be eaten by anybody'.

Question #1: It is impossible to explain it however, since granted that, according to the opinion 'Shayro Meshuyar', the mother's Kedushah does not take effect on the V'lad, nevertheless why does the Kedushas Peh of the person not take effect ...

Source: As we learned in the Mishnah ' "If it is a Shelamim and its V'lad, an Olah, it is a V'lad Shelamim'.

Introduction to Question #2: Moreover, how can we say that, according to the Tana Kama, 'Shayro Eino Meshuyar', when, in the first Perek, in connection with thye Machlokes bar Pada and Rebbi Yochanan regarding 'Kedushah Chalah al ha'Ubrin', the Gemara cites the two Beraisos cited here, to say that it is a Machlokes Tana'im ...

Question #2: In which case, the Beraisa of 'Einah Ne'echeles must go like Rebbi Yochanan, who holds 'Shayro Meshuyar'.

Introduction to Question: Here it implies that Rebbi Yochanan holds that 'A person cannot achieve atonement with 'the Sh'vach of Hekdesh' ...

Introduction to Question (cont.): Whilst in the last Perek of Kerisus in reply to Rebbi Elazar's She'eilah as to whether 'One can achieve atonement with Sh'vach Hekdesh', Rebbi Yochanan replied 'How many years has this man grown up among us and he still doesn't know whether one can achieve atonement with 'the Sh'vach of Hekdesh or not!' ...

Question: From which we say that he holds that one can?

Answer: We must therefore differentiate between the Sh'vach Hekdesh of a Todah and that of a Chatas - and the Sugya here is talking about a Chatas.

Clarification: This means the time it takes for a Talmid to greet his Rebbe - 'Shalom Alecha Rebbi' ...

Implied Question: And when the Gemara in Bava Basra (Daf 120b) Paskens 'Toch K'dei Dibur is like Dibur' ...

Answer: That is the time that it takes for a Rebbe to greet his Talmid (i.e. 'Shalom Alecha').