Clarification: The case is where it became a T'reifah after it became pregnant - and they arguing over whether 'Ubar Yerech Imo' or not.

Introduction to Question: The Gemara said earlier that where it became a T'reifah after it became pregnant it is Asur because 'It and its V'lad were raped' ...

Introduction to Question (cont.): And here it says that according to the opinion that 'T'reifah Einah Yoledes', the case is where it became a T'reifah after it became pregnant ...

Introduction to Question (concl.): And the Rabbanan hold that it is permitted, because 'Ubar La'av Yerech Imo hu' - and we Pasken in 'Eilu T'reifos' (Chulin, 55a) 'T'reifah Einah Yoledes' ...

Question: Does this mean that Rava does not go according to the Rabbanan?

Answer: The two rulings are not comparable ...

Reason: Since certainly Treifus is a matter of life and health, and since we see that the V'lad is alive and well, we cannot maintain that it became a T'reifah together with its mother, and we cannot therefore declare it Pasul on account of its mother'aT'reifus ...

Answer (cont.): But as far as rape and goring are concerned, the V'lad is for sure considered the Yerech of its mother.

Question: The difficulty remains however, that thye Mishnah goes 'li'Tzedadin' (speaks in two different cases) - since in the case where the V'lad is Nirva, it speaks where the animal became pregnant after it was raped, whereas in the case of the V'lad of a T'reifah, it speaks where it became a T'reifah after it was raped? ...

Source: Since the Gemara concludes in Perek Eilu T'reifos (Ibid.) that a T'reifah cannot give birth'.

Answer: Seeing as by T'reifah, there is only one case where Ubar is applicable, it is not considered 'li'Tzedadin', since the Tana is only coming to teach us the Heter of V'lados by all cases with regard to the Mizbe'ach ...

Answer (cont.): Consequently, regarding Nirva, where there are two possible cases, by one of which it is Mutar, he lists it on account of the case which is Mutar, and regarding T'reifah, where is only one possible case, he lists it because it is Mutar.

Explanation #1: The baby inside its mother's womb is not attached to her body and it forms and grows independently; whereas the egg is joined to the cluster (of eggs).

Explanation #2: 'It grows from the air' - After it is born, it continues to grow, a proof that its basic growth is not from its mother ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): Whereas an egg grows from the body of the chicken - as proven from the fact that after it is born it does not continue to grow (Both Leshonos are taken from Rashi).

Clarification: 'It seems to me' says Rashi, that 'Rebbi Eliezer declares it Tamei even in his lifetime ...

Reason: Since "Eiver min ha'Chai is Metamei by touching, transporting and Ohel" ' - as we learned in 'ha'Or ve'ha'Rotev' (Chulin, 128b).

Question: In Maseches Nazir (Perek kohen Gadol, Daf 51b) the Gemara asks what the Din will be if it became rotten in his lifetime, and he then died.

Question (cont.): What is the She'eilah? Rebbi Eliezer renders it Tamei, according to Rashi's first explanation; whilst according to his second one, it will be Tamei even if he does not die, Kal va'Chomer if he does?

Answer: The She'eilah is according to the Rabbanan - Perhaps they only declare him Tahor by worms, which are merely droppings from the person; they are not directly from his body, but are an independent entity ...

Answer (cont.): But by rot, they will concede (that it is Tamei).

Clarification: To answer the above-mentioned She'eilah, the Gemara cites the Mishnah in Iduyos (6:3) 'Amar Rebbi Yehoshua, Lo Im Amarta be'Meis, she'Yesh lo Rov ve'Rova ve'Rekev, Tomar be'Chai she'Ein lo Rov ve'Rova ve'Rekev'.

Clarification: The Ri explains that Rebbi Yehoshua is synonymous with the Rabbanan here, who hold that a live animal does not have worms, because according to Rebbi Eliezer, since it has worms, it certainly has rot!

Question: Tosfos' brother, the Ri asks that here the Gemara mentions a Tarvad (a medical spoon-full) of worms, whereas in the Mishnah in Ohalos (2:2) Rebbi Eliezer declares Tamei a k'Zayis of worms, whether dead or alive, and the Chachamim declare it Tahor?

Answer: Tosfos' Rebbe answers that it is only when it comes from the person after his death that Rebbi Eliezer (in Ohalos) ascribes to it the Din of the flesh of a dead person ...

Answer (cont.): Whereas the Machlokes here speaks when it comes from a live person.

Refutation: This is not correct however, since in any case, what is the Shi'ur Tarvad doing here (i.e. what is its source)?

Clarification: Whereas when does an egg grow, after it rots, at which stage it is mere dust.

Question: Why is it necessary to give this reason? What is wrong with the reason that a person is called a worm, which is not applicable to an egg?

Answer: This reason is just a bonus, inasmuch as even if that of a person would not be called a worm, it would nevertheless not be comparable to the egg of a chick.

Clarification: The same would in fact apply regarding oats of Avodas-Kochavim, in the event that all its life, that is mainly what it ate ...

Clarification (cont.): And it would appear that this will apply even to a Hedyot.

Source: As the Gemara says in Zevachim (46a) 'Why does the Torah write three times Kareis by Shelamim? One for a K'lal and one for a P'rat - meaning to learn from it 'Something that was initially included in the K'lal ... ' - since they are (written) far away - See Tosfos there, Amud Beis DH 'Achas').

Source (cont.): And just as Shelamim is Kodshei Mizbe'ach, so too, by all Kodshei Mizbe'ach ...

Source (concl.): And we learn Nosar "Avon" "Avon" from Pigul and Tamei "Chilul" "Chilul" from Nosar.

Clarification: The Gemara in Bechoros (Daf 14a) establishes it where it became pregnant before the Pidyon and gave birth after the Pidyon ...

Reason: Because if it became pregnant and gave birth before the Pidyon, the Gemara said earlier in Perek Eilu Kodshim (Daf 17b) that "Im" comes to include the V'lad of Ba'alei-Mumin - to be brought on the Mizbe'ach according to one opinion, and to graze, according to the other opinion ...

Reason (cont.): Whereas if it became pregnant and gave birth after the Pidyon, it is called 'the V'lad of a gazelle and a deer'.

Clarification (cont.): It must therefore be speaking about where it became pregnant before the Pidyon and gave birth after the Pidyon, in which case the mother's Pidyon is not effective on the V'lad, which is a Tamim in its mother's womb ...

Clarification (cont.): And even if it becomes a Ba'al-Mum after it is born, it will not become permitted, as the Beraisa learns there, 'It is not strong enough for the Pidyon to take effect and it remains Kadosh'.

Reason: Because seeing as it became pregnant before the mother's Pidyon, it was Kadosh immediately - according to the opinion that holds that 'They become Kadosh whilst still in their mother's womb' ...

Reason (cont.): And even according to the opinion that they become Kadosh when they are born, and at the time that their mother was sanctified they remained Chulin, nevertheless the Kedushah of their mother takes effect when they are born.

Question: What else should one do with them, other than give it to the workers as remuneration for strengthening Bedek ha'Bayis?

Answer: Tosfos' Rebbe ha'Rav Mordechai answers that we would have thought that one is only permitted to purchase wood and stones that are needed for the building, and that their Kedushah remains intact ...

Answer (cont.): And that giving it to the craftsmen as payment, thereby taking it out to Chulin is forbidden ...

Answer (cont.): Unless someone donates money on its own to pay the craftsmen ...

Answer (concl.): That is why we need a Pasuk to teach us that one pays them with what was actually sanctified.

Clarification: Because we Pasken later (on Daf 33b) that 'If someone is Matfis unblemished animals to Bedek ha'Bayis, they do not leave the realm of the Mizbe'ach (See Shitah Mekubetzes 34) ...

Clarification (cont.): And Rebbi Yehoshua holds that 'males are brought as Olos' ...

Reason: Since people do not tend to ignore Kodshei Mizbe'ach and to be Makdish Kedushas Damim ...

Clarification (concl.): So we see that according to Rebbi Yehoshua S'tam Hekdesh does not go to Bedek ha'Bayis.

Clarification: Who says that even according to Rebbi Eliezer, on principle S'tam Hekdesh does not go to Bedek ha'Bayis ...

Clarification (cont.): And the reason here is because one does not tend to divide one's Neder ...

Reason: Consequently, since in this case, there are both male and female, he must have meant to say 'for Bedek ha'Bayis' ...

Reason (cont.): Because had he meant 'for the Mizbe'ach', his Neder would be divided - the males on the Mizbe'ach, and the females to be sold.

Clarification: It speaks where he was Makdish the forest ...

Reason: Because if it was referring to Hekdesh treasurers who purchased wood, the Gemara says at the end of Perek V'lad Chatas (Me'ilah, Daf 14a) that 'The shavings and the leaves are not subject to Me'ilah'.

Question: We will now need to explain (the continuation of the Mishnah) 'which is not the case regarding Kodshei Mizbe'ach'. How are shavings and leaves applicable to Kodshei Mizbe'ach?

Answer: Where someone donated two logs of wood for the Ma'arachah (the wood-pile).

Question: The Lashon is difficult, since it ought to have said 'What does it come to preclude?'?

Explanation #1: This refers to V'lados - Rashi.

Question #1: Tosfos however, maintains that V'lados are certainly not Kadosh because of Gidulin, but because the Torah writes "Yih'yu lach" 'these are the V'lados (above, 17b)?

Question #2: Moreover, there is no Tana who holds 'Mo'alin be'Gidulei Mizbe'ach' ...

Question #2 (cont.): Yes, regarding Gidulei Bedek ha'Bayis we do find a Machlokes Tana'im, in Me'ilah (Daf 13a), but as far as Kodshei Mizbe'ach is concerned, they all agree that there is no Me'ilah.

Answer: However Tosfos' Rebbe ha'Rav Mordechai suggests that maybe it is Ze'iri, who says in Perek V'lad Chatas (Me'ilah, Daf 12b) that 'Someone who lets blood on an animal of Hekdesh, it is subject to Me'ilah' ...

Answer (cont.): And Rav Hamnuna queries him from the Mishnah that 'The milk of Hekdesh and doves' eggs are not subject to Me'ilah'? ...

Answer (cont.): Now since he queries him from Gidulin, we see that it considers blood to be Gidulin ...

Answer (concl.): And that is why the Gemara says 'even according to the opinion that holds 'Mo'alin be'Gidulin' - meaning even according to the opinion that holds that blood is subject to Me'ilah, that is confined to blood which is fit to sprinkle, but not to the milk of Hekdesh and to doves' eggs.