(Shmuel): One may be Mezakeh (acquire) for a fetus.

(R. Lazar): One may not be Mezakeh for a fetus.

(R. Yosi): Even though Shmuel said that one may be Mezakeh for a fetus, he agrees that [it acquires] only if the head or majority come out alive.

Support (Mishnah): If one does Chalitzah to his Yevamah and she was found to be pregnant... just like you say there that it is a child, and the Chalitzah was void retroactively, also here it is a child retroactively, and the Zechiyah [is only if he is born alive].

(Mishnah): If one said 'if my wife will give birth to a male, he will receive 100' and she gave birth to a male, he receives 100. [If he said] 'if she will give birth to a female, she will receive 200' and she gave birth to a female, she receives 200.

(R. Lazar): This (one can be Mezakeh for a fetus) is only for his son (one feels fondly about him, and resolves to give), but not for another.

(R. Yosah): It is even for another.

According to R. Lazar, [Zichuy for a fetus] is only for a Shechiv Mera (one who is dangerously sick; Chachamim enacted that his words be fulfilled, lest anxiety befuddle him), but not for a healthy person. It is only for Metaltelim, but not for land. (Since according to letter of the law he does not acquire, we limit it to what we find in the Mishnah, i.e. Metaltelim - NIMUKEI YOSEF Bava Basra 66a Sof DH Lemi'utei Nefel.)

Question (against R. Lazar - Tosefta): If a convert died and Yisraelim took his property, and it became known that he has a son overseas, or [his wife] was pregnant, they must return it [for the fetus acquired].

How will R. Lazar explain this?

Answer: Here is different, for he is his son [and he inherits him automatically. It is unlike a gift, which requires a Kinyan - PNEI MOSHE.]

Question: The Seifa [of the Tosefta] is difficult for Shmuel, according to how R. Yosah explained [that Shmuel said that one may be Mezakeh for a fetus, i.e. only if the head or majority come out alive];

If they returned all [the property that they took], and after the son died or his wife miscarried, whoever acquired first the latter time (after death or the miscarriage) acquired. [What they acquired] the first time, they did not acquire.

Even the first time, they should acquire! Didn't R. Yosah say that even though Shmuel said that one may be Mezakeh for a fetus, he agrees that this is only if the head or majority come out alive? [Since she miscarried, the fetus] was not viable!

Answer (R. Yitzchak bar Elazar): It is due to despair [when they heard that she was pregnant, they despaired].

(Rabanan of Kisarin citing R. Chiya bar Va citing R. Aba bar Nasan): R. Lazar retracted due to the Mishnah 'if a male, he will receive 100... if a female, 200' - a female with respect to a son, is she not like a stranger?! (Rather, one may be Mezakeh even for a stranger.)

(Bar Kapara - Beraisa): [All agree that] a newborn baby, one may be Mezakeh for him.

(Mishnah): If a Yevamah did Yibum and was found to be pregnant - if she gives birth to a viable baby, the Yavam must divorce her, and they must bring a Korban [Chatas];

If it is a Nefel, he may keep her.

If we are unsure whether the baby was born nine months after conception from the deceased, or seven months after conception from the Yavam, he divorces her, the child is Kosher (he is not a Mamzer), and they bring Asham Taluy (perhaps they sinned).

(Gemara - R. Yosi): In any case that you can clarify Vadai [whether or not he sinned], he is not liable Asham Taluy for the Safek.

What is the case? There were two k'Zeisim in front of him - one of Chelev and one of Shumen (permitted lard) and he ate one of them (and does not know which), and the other is in front of him, he is not liable Asham Taluy for the Safek. (SHA'AREI TORAS ERETZ YISRAEL)

Question: If the other one was in a box, and he lost the key, since if I will find the key, I can clarify Vadai [which I ate], is he liable Asham Taluy for the Safek? (Perhaps this is different, for he can clarify only later.)

Answer: We learn from our Mishnah. If one did Yibum and she was found to be pregnant [if she gives birth to a viable baby... they must bring a Korban. This implies that] as long as it is not known whether it is viable or a Nefel, he does not bring;

This shows that [also when it is possible to clarify only later,] he does not bring! (We explained this like CHESHEK SHLOMO.)

(Rav): In any case that it was never possible for him to clarify Vadai, one is not liable Asham Taluy for a Safek.

What is the case? There were two k'Zeisim in front of him - one of Chelev and one of Shumen and he ate one of them, and a raven came and ate the other. Since he could have clarified Vadai, he is liable Asham Taluy for the Safek.

However, if first the raven ate and afterwards he ate, since he could not have clarified Vadai, he is not liable Asham Taluy for the Safek.

Question: Rav did not say so! [He said that one is liable Asham Taluy] if Vadai there is Chelev in front of him (i.e. even if there was no chance to clarify)!

Answer: Even though Rav said there must Vadai be Chelev in front of him, he agrees here that [he is liable only] if it was possible to clarify Vadai.

Question (against Rav - Beraisa): A Kvi (it is unknown whether it is a Behemah, and one is Chayav Kares for its Chelev, or it is a Chayah, and its Chelev is permitted) - R. Lazar says, one is liable Asham Taluy for its Chelev.

How can Rav answer this? (There is no Vadai Isur here, and we cannot clarify it!)

Answer: [That is R. Lazar's opinion, but Chachamim] argue with R. Lazar.

Question (against Rav - Beraisa): If there were a piece of Chulin and a piece of Hekdesh, and he ate one of them, and he does not know which he ate, he brings Asham Taluy. If he ate the second, he brings Asham Vadai [for Me'ilah];

If he ate the first, and another came and ate the second, this one brings Asham Taluy and this one brings Asham Taluy.

Granted, the first brings Asham Taluy (there was Vadai Isur here, and he could have clarified Vadai.) Why does the second bring?!

Answer (R. Yosah): The case is, it was a big piece. [The first] ate half and left half.

Question (against Rav - Mishnah): If it is a Safek whether it is a nine month baby from the first, or a seven month baby from the latter, he divorces her, the child is Kosher, and they bring Asham Taluy.

It is impossible for you to clarify Vadai, yet they are Chayav Asham Taluy for the Safek!

Answer: R. Yosi said that R. Ze'ira answered this in front of R. Chiya bar Va, and R. Chizkiyah said that R. Chiya bar Ba said 'R. Ze'orah answered this in front of us.' Since he could do Ha'ara'ah (the initial stage of Bi'ah; from then he was Safek liable) and separate (she cannot become pregnant through this), he is like one who could clarify Vadai (whether or not he is liable - GILYONEI HA'SHAS, SEFER NIR).