Please note that unless otherwise indicated, we follow the explanation of Rashi. Consequently, our notes and comments do not necessarily have any bearing on the practical Halachah.

(a) Why does the Tana begin the Masechta with the Dinim of a Peter Chamor rather than with the first-born of a Kasher animal?

(b) Whilst discussing the buying and selling of a first-born Ubar (unborn fetus) of a donkey before it is born, the Mishnah mentions that selling it is actually forbidden'.
Why is that?

(c) The Tana includes someone who owns the donkey in partnership with the Nochri and someone who is Mekabel from a Nochri or the Nochri from him. What does 'Makabel' mean?

(d) The reason for all these Dinim is based on a Pasuk in Bamidbar.
What does the Pasuk say?

1. ... sells it to a Cohen?
2. ... purchases a donkey in partnership with a Nochri?
3. ... is Mekabel a donkey from a Nochri?
4. ... is Nosen be'Kabalah to a Nochri?

(a) Rebbi Yehudah in the Mishnah in Avodah-Zarah, permits the sale of an animal with broken legs. We ask whether he will also permit selling him a fetus (which cannot work either).
Why might Rebbi Yehudah agree that it is forbidden? What makes a fetus worse than an animal with broken legs in this regard?

(b) How do we attempt to resolve the She'eilah, from our Mishnah, which mentions the prohibition of selling a Nochri the Ubar of a donkey?

(c) On what grounds do we reject this proof based on the continuation of the Mishnah 'ha'Mishtatef Lo ... '?

(a) What does Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa, rule, with regard to someone who is Mekabel an animal from a Nochri, which subsequently gives birth to a Bechor?

(b) He also rules that, if he is Nosen le'Kabalah, we fine him, forcing him to pay up to ten times the value of the animal to buy it back, and he is obligated to give all of its value to the Cohen. What problem do we have with the word ...

1. ... 'Damav', if as we suggest, this refers to the mother?
2. ... 'Nosen Kol Damav le'Kohen', even if we amend 'Damav' to Damehah'?

(c) How do we finally establish the case, which explains why Rebbi Yehudah will agree here in any case that the fine will apply to the Ubar (even if he does not agree by a regular Ubar)?

5)

(a) In another Beraisa, what reason does Rebbi Yehudah give for permitting selling to a Nochri an animal with broken legs?

(b) How does Rav Ashi resolve our She'eilah with an Ubar from there?

(c) Another Lashon suggests that our Mishnah, which forbids selling an Ubar to a Nochri, cannot go like Rebbi Yehudah. How do we refute that suggestion? Why might the author of our Mishnah be Rebbi Yehudah after all?

(a) After asking from the same Beraisos and concluding 'Hai Nami ke'Yachol Lehisrap'os Dami' (like we concluded in the first Lashon), we ask what the Din will be if someone sells his animal to a Nochri for its Ubar.
What is the She'eilah?

(b) The She'eilah is pertinent both according to Rebbi Yehudah and according to the Rabbanan.
Why on the one hand is there even more reason to be ...

1. ... lenient in this case than in that of an animal with broken legs, according to Rebbi Yehudah (even though it is not irregular)?
2. ... strict here more than by an animal with a broken leg, according to the Rabbanan (even though it is not a complete sale)?

(a) We query the She'eilah according to the Rabbanan from a Beraisa, where they asked Rebbi Yehudah why he permitted selling an animal with broken legs, seeing as it was still fit to give birth.
What do we try and prove from here?

(b) What is the gist of the Rabbanan's query?

(c) How did Rebbi Yehudah counter their query?

(d) How do we refute that proof?

(a) How do we try to resolve the She'eilah from our Mishnah 've'ha'Nosen Lo be'Kabalah'?

(b) And we refute this proof from the following ruling 've'ha'Mishtatef Lo'. How does that disprove it? What did Shmuel say about entering into a partnership with a Nochri?

(c) How does Shmuel learn this from the Pasuk in Mishpatim "Lo Yishama al Picha"?

(d) How do we then justify the Tana's omission of the Isur Lechatchilah of 'ha'Mishtatef' and 'ha'Nosen Lo be'Kabalah' (assuming that it is Asur)?

(e) Why does the Tana mention specifically Mechirah, rather than Shutfus and Kabalah?

(a) We cite the Beraisa that we quoted earlier, where Rebbi Yehudah obligates someone who gave an animal be'Kabalah to a Nochri, to redeem it from the Nochri 'ad Asarah be'Damav' and to pay its full value to the Kohen'.
What do the Chachamim say?

(b) What do we try to prove from here, on the assumption that the Tana is referring to the animal that he sold?

(c) Why will this proof go even according to the Chachamim?

(d) We switch the proof however, by confining the Beraisa's ruling to the Ubar specifically (and not to the mother).
How do we prove this?

Next daf