Explanation: Daima Minei means that he Vadai had Bi'ah with her. Daima me'Alma means ill repute.

Suggestion: Perhaps also Daima Minei merely ill repute!

Rejection: If so, what was Rava's proof from the Mishnah? There, he Vadai had Bi'ah with her. Therefore we attribute the child to him!

Explanation (Rashi): His brothers died due to Milah.

Affirmation: This is correct. This is unlike Orlah before its time (a baby with foreskin before the eighth day), about which the Gemara (71a) asks if it is considered Orlah;

There, others similar to him are not proper for Milah in any case. However, after eight days, even though we cannot circumcise this baby due to danger, he is an Arel, since the time came.

Support #1: The Gemara does not resolve the question from a Tumtum, who may not eat, to [say similarly about] Orlah before its time, even though [also there] there is no obligation to tear (the flesh over the Tumtum's genitals) in order to circumcise him.

This is proven from the Gemara (71b). It says that we can find a case of his males [whom he must circumcise] at the time of eating [Korban Pesach], but not at the time of doing (offering it), e.g. a Tumtum who was torn in between, and found to be male.

We do not apply at the time of doing "Himol Lo Kol Zachar v'Az Yikrav La'asoso", for he is not obligated to tear and circumcise him.

Support #2: Also in Chagigah (4a), it says that "Zechurcha" exempts Tumtum and Androginus (one with male and female genitals) from Re'iyah (the Mitzvah to enter the Mikdash every festival with a Korban). We establish this when the testicles show. (He is a Vadai male. If he were considered Arel, we already know that he may not enter the Mikdash!)

Support #3: The Yerushalmi brings a proof from our Mishnah about one who had a fever, that we delay 30 days before circumcising him, that he may not eat Terumah.

Inference: Our Mishnah discusses an Arel whose brothers died due to Milah. (Even though he may not circumcise, he may not eat Terumah.)

The Yerushalmi explicitly distinguishes between Orlah not in its time, and when the time for Milah came, but it is dangerous for him.

Distinction: However, the Yerushalmi argues with the Bavli. It holds that surely, Orlah not in its time is not Orlah, and he may eat Terumah. The Bavli asked about this, and did not resolve it.

Question: We should learn from this Gezeirah Shavah that one who eats Tamei Terumah is lashed. Below (73b), we say that only an Aseh forbids it - "bi'Sh'arecha Sochalenu" this (Tahor Terumah), and not another (Tamei Terumah)!

Answer (Ri): This Gezeirah Shavah was given only regarding disqualification of the person eating, e.g. an Arel or Onen (one whose relative died today), but not regarding disqualification of it (Pesach or Terumah) itself.

Question: Still, we should learn from Bikurim that one is lashed for Tum'ah of it itself, just like we learn Bikurim from Terumah, because the Torah called it Terumah. We should similarly learn Terumah from Bikurim!

In Chulin (120b), we learn Terumah from Bikurim regarding liquids that come from them are [Halichically] like them!

Note: In Menachos (15a), the Gemara said that Lechem [brought with Todah] is called Todah, but Todah is not called Lechem. There, Tosfos (DH Lechem) said that we can similarly answer here that Bikurim are called Terumah, but Terumah is not called Bikurim!

Explanation: This is the source for what we say everywhere (Chagigah 4b) that R. Akiva includes an Arel to be like a Tamei.

In any case, it needed to write Arel regarding Pesach. Had it not written it explicitly anywhere that he is like a Tamei, we would not include him from Ish Ish, even though Milah of one's male [children] and slaves is a requisite for [Korban] Pesach.

Text #1: Some texts do not say "Tamei", because there is an Isur Tum'ah also regarding Terumah.

Text #2: Some texts say "Tamei", because there is Kares for one who eats Pesach b'Tum'as ha'Guf (when he is Tamei). This does not apply to Terumah. Also Rashi explained that one is liable a Korban for it.

Observation: We could have asked all of Panak Achas (an acronym of six stringencies of Kodshim over Terumah - Pigul, Nosar, Korban, Me'ilah, Kares and it is forbidden to an Onen.

Implied question: It says in Kidushin (16a) that a master owns the Guf of an Eved Ivri!

Answer: That refers to the need for a Get Shichrur. One cannot free him through mere speech. Regarding Mitzvos, he does not own Gufo.

Implied question: Why is he permitted to a Shifchah Kena'anis? (This shows that he is like an Eved!)

Answer: That is so he can serve his master during the day (work), and also at night (he fathers children through the Shifchah, and they belong to the master), like it says "Ki Mishneh Sechar Sachir Avadcha" (he worked double for you). The Torah calls him a Sachir (worker).

Question: Our Gemara connotes that if the master owns him, this is a reason to be exempt. Even an Eved Kena'ani is obligated in Korban Pesach according to the opinion (Pesachim 91b) that Pesach Rishon is obligatory for women!

And even according to the opinion that it is Reshus (optional, for women and slaves), he may eat Pesach. Here, the verse says that he may not eat it!

Answer: If his master owned him, he could eat only if his master designated him [to eat from the master's Pesach], like an Eved Kena'ani, but he could not eat through others' designation.

Question: Did the Torah write something false in order to make the Gezeirah Shavah free?! It says he may not eat, but they (both kinds of an Eved Ivri) eat!

Answer (Ri): We can establish the verse to discuss Sachir v'Toshav Nochri. In any case, it is not needed for the simple meaning, for he (a Nochri worker) is no better than an Arel or Ben Nechar (a verse explicitly forbids them);

The Mechilta explicitly expounds like this. "Toshav" refers to a Ger Toshav. "Sachir" is a Nochri.

Question: Since we do not need it for a Nochri, the Torah should have written that Toshav and Sachir may eat it. We would establish this it to discuss Yisre'elim, to make the Gezeirah Shavah free!

Answer (R. Yitzchak): If so, it would connote that the Gezeirah Shavah is to be lenient. We would expound it to permit an Onen to eat Pesach.

Implied question: We learn below (73a) that an Onen is forbidden to eat Pesach from a Gezeirah Shavah "Mimenu-Mimenu" from Ma'aser [Sheni]!

Answer: [Had the Torah written that Toshav and Sachir may eat], we would not have expounded this. Rather, we would have established [the Gezeirah Shavah] to forbid an Arel to Ma'aser, like below (74a).

Explanation: It is as if the Torah wrote Toshav here needlessly, and Sachir there needlessly.

Implied question: [If it is as if] it says here Toshav and there Sachir [how can we learn a Gezeirah Shavah]?

Answer: Even so, we can learn a Gezeirah Shavah, like Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael (above 17b) "Shivah (returning) and Bi'ah (coming) are the same" (we learn a Gezeirah Shavah between them).

Implied question (Ri): A Mishnah (Pesachim 91b) says that an Onen immerses and eats Pesach at night;

We establish this like the opinion that Aninus of the night is mid'Rabanan, and Chachamim did not enforce their words [to be Mevatel him from Pesach] in a place of Kares [for one who b'Mezid neglects the Mitzvah. Is our Sugya unlike this opinion?]

Answer: We can say that our Sugya is even like the opinion that Aninus of the night is mid'Rabanan. It is mid'Rabanan only when the Mes died during the day, or was buried during the day, according to the opinion that it depends on burial. Mid'Oraisa, it does not apply at night;

However, if he died at night, he is an Onen [mid'Oraisa at night] like [Aninus is mid'Oraisa during the day] when he died during the day. This is "k'Yom Mar."

Implied question: The Gemara in Zevachim (99b) asks 'does R. Shimon really hold that Aninus of the night is mid'Rabanan?'

Citation (99b - Beraisa - R. Shimon): Shelamim - he brings when he is Shalem, but not when he is an Onen. What is the source to include Todah?... What is the source to include Pesach?... In any case he taught Pesach (an Onen may not eat it at night. He must hold that Aninus of the night is mid'Oraisa!)

Note: Tosfos asks, what was difficult? R. Shimon can hold that Aninus Laylah is mid'Rabanan, and he expounds to forbid when he died at night!

Answer: There we cannot say that he died at night, for it connotes that he includes an Isur to offer [which is during the day] when he is an Onen;

We ask that when he is an Onen at the time to offer Pesach, the Aninus will end before night, which is when the time to eat begins. Why can't he offer Pesach?

Implied question: Even without the Gezeirah Shavah, we could have asked that an Onen should be forbidden in Terumah, since it is equated to Bikurim below (73b), and Bikurim are equated to Ma'aser [Sheni]!

Answer: In several places, the Gemara could say "also according to you [this is difficult...]!", but does not say so.

Observation: We could have said that 13 covenants were made over it (Milah).

Observation: Even without the fact that these are more, we could have said that Kares overrides [the stringencies of Aninus], like it says below (73b).

Explanation: We learn Pesach from a Gezeirah Shavah "Mimenu-Mimenu."

Question: What is the source that other Kodshim are forbidden to an Onen? They are all forbidden, like it says in Zevachim (101a) from a Kal va'Chomer from Ma'aser;

We can challenge the Kal va'Chomer! Ma'aser requires minted coins [to redeem it]!

Rava himself asks this in Makos (17b) regarding learning lashes for one who eats Todah and Shelamim outside the wall [of Yerushalayim] from a Kal va'Chomer from Ma'aser.

Answer: We learn other Kodshim from a Hekesh to Pesach "v'Zos ha'Torah [la'Olah la'Minchah vela'Chatas...]" It equates all Kodshim, like it says in Zevachim (4b) and Menachos (82b);

That verse teaches also about Pesach. We expound "b'Yom Tzavoso" to refer to Bechor, Ma'aser and Pesach.

Question: The verse says also "ul'Milu'im" which were Kodshei Sha'ah (they applied only at Chanukas ha'Mishkan);

Kodshei Sha'ah may be eaten in Aninus. This is clear from Zevachim (101a)!

Answer: Not all Kodshei Sha'ah may be eaten in Aninus, only those that it discusses there.

Implied question: In Zevachim (50a), it connotes that there is an argument about something learned from a Gezeirah Shavah, whether it can "return" to teach through a Hekesh! (The one who says that it cannot, he cannot learn other Kodshim from a Hekesh to Pesach!)

Answer: That is when the source is Kodesh, and one opinion says that it is only when both [the source and what is learned] are Kodesh. Then, it cannot "return" to teach;

However, here, the source is Ma'aser [Sheni] of grain, which is Chulin. All agree that it "returns" to teach through a Hekesh;

We find there explicitly that we learn that Todah may be brought from [money used to redeem] Ma'aser since it is Hukash to Shelamim, and Shelamim itself we learn from a Gezeirah Shavah Sham-Sham from Ma'aser.

Question: This Sugya is like R. Eliezer, and R. Eliezer himself expounds in the Mechilta that Milah of his slaves is not Me'akev one from eating Pesach! He expounds "Az Yochal Bo" - the slave [may eat after he circumcises]!

Answer (R. Yitzchak): The Gemara asked [imprecisely] based on what it is used to, like R. Akiva who expounds "Az Yochal Bo" - the master. According to R. Eliezer, it asks from "Zecharav".

Explanation: Circumcision of his sons and slaves would be Me'akev him from Terumah through the Gezeirah Shavah of Toshav v'Sachir;

"Bo" that is written [regarding Pesach] would teach that this (Milah of his sons and slaves) is not Me'akev him from Matzah and Maror.

The text: The text does not say Toshav v'Sachir, for we established the verse for the Gezeirah Shavah, and totally uprooted it from its simple meaning.