Previous daf

1)

(a) Rav Chananya asks what the Din will be if the fetus of a Shelamim animal sticks out its foot in the Azarah.
What is Rav Chananya's She'eilah? On what grounds might the foot become permitted with the mother's Shechitah?

(b) Abaye counters the She'eilah by citing Kodshim Kalim in Yerushalayim.
Why can he not be referring to a Shelamim which stuck out its foot in Yerushalayim, and they Shechted the mother on the spot?

(c) Then what exactly is he referring to?

(d) So what is the point that Abaye is making?

(a) Ilfa asks what the Din will be if the fetus sticks out its foot between the Shechitah of the first Siman and the second.
What is his She'eilah?

(b) Rava answers with a 'Kal va'Chomer'.
Which 'Kal va'Chomer'?

(c) And what does Rebbi Yirmiyah mean when he asks whether the animal with the forbidden foot will affect its babies?

(d) We query Rebbi Yirmiyah however, from a statement by Rav Mesharshaya.
What does he say, according to those who contend with the seed of the father (even though primarily, we go after the animal's mother), about a baby born to a regular animal whose father is a ben Peku'ah?

(e) What is then the problem with Rebbi Yirmiyah's She'eilah?

(a) So how do we try to establish the She'eilah by the case of a baby that is born to a bas Peku'ah whose father is our ben Peku'ah with the forbidden foot?

(b) How does Rebbi Yirmiyah himself prove that this cannot have been the She'eilah that he was asking?

(c) We finally establish Rebbi Yirmiyah's She'eilah with regard to Cheilev and Dam. What does this mean?

(d) On what grounds do we then suggest that the baby might be ...

1. ... permitted?
2. ... forbidden?

(a) We query this however 'mi'Mah Nafshach'.
What do we mean when we say that according to ...

1. ... Rebbi Meir, there is an Isur of Cheilev and Dam, but not of Yotzei?
   Why not?
2. ... Rebbi Yehudah, there is an Isur of Yotzei, but not of Cheilev? Why not?

(b) We therefore refute the current theory.
What do we conclude with regard to 'mi'Ko'ach ha'Av'?

(c) And we establish Rebbi Yirmiyah's She'eilah with regard (not the babies themselves, but) to their milk.
What is the She'eilah? On what grounds might the milk of the ben Peku'ah's daughter be any worse than the milk of any other Kasher animal?

(d) What is the outcome of the She'eilah?

(a) We learn from the Pasuk in Re'ei "ve'Chol *Beheimah* Mafreses Parsah ... *bi'Veheimah* Osah Tocheilu". Which ruling in our Mishnah does this support?

(b) What does the Mishnah in Temurah say with regard to declaring a Temurah, any combination of Eiver, Ubar and Sheleimin one against the other?

(c) What problem does this create with our previous statement?

(d) So we learn it from the beginning of the Pasuk there "ve'Chol Beheimah Mefreses Parsah".
How do we learn it from there?

(a) What do we then learn from the end of the Pasuk "*Osah* Tocheilu"? What do we initially think that this Pasuk comes to preclude (from the previous ruling)?

(b) What does Rebbi Yochanan say about a fetus 'Demus Yonah' (in the shape of a dove) that is found inside a Shechted animal?

(c) Bearing in mind that it is not part of the mother itself, what is the reason for this?

(d) What is then the problem with a Kalut? What is the Din regarding a Kalut that is found inside a Shechted cow?

(a) We answer by establishing Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael like Rebbi Shimon.
What does he learn from "Perasos" and "Parsah" that explains why we include a Kalut, but exclude a D'mus Yonah?

(b) Rav Shimi bar Ashi reinstates our original answer (considering an Ubar a Beheimah), and the reason that it is not subject to Temurah is because the author of the Mishnah in Temurah is Rebbi Shimon.
From where does Rebbi Shimon learn that Temurah does not apply to limbs?

(c) What do we learn from the Pasuk in Bechukosai (in connection with Ma'aser Beheimah) ...

1. ... "Kol Asher Ya'avor Tachas ha'Shavet"?
2. ... "Kol Ma'aser Bakar va'Tzon ... Lo Yevaker Bein Tov la'Ra" (seeing as Ma'aser is already included in the prohibition of Temurah together with all the other Korbanos)?

8)

(a) What does Rebbi Yossi say in the Mishnah in Temurah regarding a case where someone declares the foot of an animal an Olah?

(b) What does he then extrapolate from there regarding the Din of a Temurah?

(c) What does the Beraisa learn from the Pasuk in Bechukosai ...

1. ... "Kol Asher Yiten *Mimenu* la'Hashem ... "?
2. ... "*Yih'yeh* Kodesh"?

(d) What must the owner now do with the animal?

(a) The current opinion in the Beraisa is that of Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah.
What do Rebbi Yossi and Rebbi Shimon hold? What do they learn from "Yih'yeh"?

(b) Why can the Tana Kama of Rebbi Yossi in the Mishnah in Temurah not be Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah?

(a) Then who must be the Tana Kama?

(b) What is Rebbi Yossi therefore saying to Rebbi Shimon?

(c) How will Rebbi Shimon counter that? What does this prove? (d) How do we refute this proof?

(a) At which point is a Bechor considered born, regarding Kedushas Bechor?

(b) What does our Mishnah say about an animal that is having difficulty in giving birth to a firstborn ...

1. ... regarding cutting it up as it is being born?
2. ... if most of the fetus has already emerged?

(a) If one sold the first third of the Bechor that emerged to a Nochri and then the second third emerged, Rav Huna declares the animal Kadosh.
Why is that?

(b) On what grounds does Rabah argue with him?

(c) On what grounds is the owner exempt from giving the Bechor to a Kohen according to Rabah?

(a) And they follow their own reasoning in a second Machlokes.
What does Rav Huna say in a case where one third of a Bechor emerged via a cut and two thirds via the womb?

(b) What does Rabah say?

(c) What are their respective reasons?

(d) Why do they need to repeat the same Machlokes twice? If they had not presented ...

1. ... the second Machlokes, what would we have thought Rav Huna holds there?
2. ... the first Machlokes, what would we have thought Rabah holds there?

Next daf