Explanation #1 (Rashi): The Okainus (Atlantic ocean) swallows all water in the world, and emits it through the Tehom (depth), for it says "veha'Yam Einenu Malei."

Question: Below, it says that he cast them in Tigra, i.e. one Kli. How could [the water] descend to the Tehom?

Answer: If [Rashi] would explain that it is a cavity or a ditch, it is fine.

Explanation #2: Perhaps Bei Beli'i is the name of a place, since it says there "there are three idols in Bei Beli'i - one's hand is on its head, one is on its heart. The last of all of them points with its hand in back of it." (Bach - the final words of Tosfos are actually from the Gemara; we find them in the text of Ein Yakov.)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [We ask] who is the Tana [who says that] if a donkey gave birth to two males, he gives only one lamb to the Kohen?

Objection: Here, even R. Yosi ha'Gelili agrees, since our Mishnah did not teach that their two heads came out like one, like it taught below (17a);

Since we did not see that they came out like one, amidst Safek we do not say that they came out like one, even according to R. Yosi ha'Gelili, for it is not common!

Explanation #2: We must say that granted, due to Safek, R. Yosi ha'Gelili agrees that he gives to the Kohen only one, in any case [even] due to a small Safek it is good to be stringent about the matter, and separate a second lamb [and keep it] for himself. (Since the Mishnah does not mention this, it is unlike R. Yosi ha'Gelili.)

Question: In Chulin (70a), it asks "if its sister (a female born at the same time) was wrapped around it and took it out [of the womb with it], what is the law?"

Answer #1: Here that part of the womb is open (nothing separates it from the fetus) there is more room to say that Min b'Mino is not a Chatzitzah.

Answer #2: Its sister is Eino Mino more than its brother.

Answer #3: Only because it took it out, i.e. its sister helped to take it out, we are unsure whether or not it is a Chazakah. However, if it did not help to take it out, obviously it is not a Chatzitzah.

Question: According to Abaye, who establishes our Mishnah like R. Yosi ha'Gelili, that it is Efshar Letzamtzem, and even so he gives only one lamb to the Kohen, for it says "ha'Zecharim", why doesn't he say that whatever cannot be one after the other (the second to leave cannot be a Bechor, b'Bas Achas Eino (when they come out at once, the law does not apply), and neither is Kadosh!

Answer: It is reasonable to say so only regarding a matter that depends on speech, like the case of one who was Mekadesh two sisters, or a Todah slaughtered on (with intent to be Mekadesh) 80 loaves;

However, Kedushah that comes by itself, we do not say so, and one of them is Kadosh, even though one could say "which will you include (consider to be a Bechor), and which will you exclude?!"

Question: Since it says "granted, Iy Efshar Letzamtzem. However, it is a Chatzitzah!", this connotes that granted, Iy Efshar Letzamtzem, and it is proper that one should be Kadosh according to Rabanan. However, it is a Chatzitzah, and it should not be Kadosh;

Inference: If Efshar Letzamtzem, then it would be difficult how it is Kadosh without the reason of Chatzitzah. What is difficult? I explained that we say "whatever cannot be one after the other, even b'Bas Achas [Eino]" only regarding a matter that depends on speech!

Answer: It means as follows. Granted, Iy Efshar Letzamtzem, and therefore it is fine for Rabanan that we do not say that due to "ha'Zecharim", both are Kadosh like R. Yosi ha'Gelili says. They cannot expound ha'Zecharim for this, since they hold that Iy Efshar Letzamtzem. In any case, it should be a Chatzitzah!

Question #1: According to R. Yosi ha'Gelili, who says that Efshar Letzamtzem, if both came out at once, the male is not Kadosh, according to what I explained above that the female is a Chatzitzah!

Question #2: A Mishnah below (17b) says that if a male and female [were born], the Kohen does not receive anything. This implies that it refers to when both heads came out at once, [the case] of the Reisha. The female is Mevatel Bechorah of the male, for also it was the first from the womb;

If so, we should join the minority of cases [in which both came out] at once, to the half of the [remaining] cases in which the females are first, and males are first in a minority of cases (so he should not even need to separate a Seh)!

Answer: We can say that like I explained above (Sof DH Man). For a small Safek they were stringent to separate a Seh, [and it is] for himself.

Explanation: Here it is fine that it needs to teach that one does not redeem and redeem again [a second Peter Chamor with the same Seh], as long as he did not give [it] to the Kohen, like I explained above (4b DH u'Podeh);

However, below (18b), that it taught like this regarding Bechoros Behemah Tehorah, we cannot say so!

Answer: The Chidush is that we do not attribute [to unlikely possibilities] to establish money in the Chazakah of its owner, that one was Metanef (miscarried bubbles of blood) and the fetus was dissolved, and the other gave birth to two males.

Implied question: However, below (48b) it teaches like this regarding women. We cannot say so, for each knows what she gave birth to!

Answer #1: Agav (for parallel structure) with what it taught here, it taught so there.

Answer #2: The Tana prefers to teach all cases, even though they are not needed, like it teaches "male and female, he gives one to the Kohen", which is not needed at all.

Assertion: It seems that he [also] separates a lamb for himself due to Safek.

Support #1: It is proven like this below (18b) regarding [lambs, i.e.] two males and a female. One [male] is for himself, and one is for a Kohen, because [Safek] Kedushas Bechor takes effect on both of them.

Support #2: Also Rashi explained that he separates another lamb, and it is for himself.

Explanation: There is no need to separate amidst Safek to exempt from the Mitzvah of Arifah. Just like he does not give to the Kohen amidst Safek, so he does not break [the Peter Chamor's] neck amidst Safek.

Inference: It connotes here that according to R. Yehudah, it is [the owner's] money in the Gevulim, [even] before he reaches Yerushalayim, since he is able to be Mekadesh with it.

Implied question: It says in Sanhedrin (112b) that in the Gevulim, all agree that [a dough of Ma'aser Sheni] is exempt from Chalah. (This shows that it is like Hekdesh!)

Answer: It is not because it is considered Hash-m's property according to everyone in the Gevulim. Rather, it is because we do not call it "Arisosiechem", since it is forbidden to eat [there];

Similarly [we need not burn Ma'aser Sheni of] an Ir ha'Nidachas, for it is not [the city's] spoils, like it says there.

Implied question: In Bava Metzi'a (90a), R. Yehudah exempts from muzzling [an animal threshing Ma'aser outside the wall [of Yerushalayim. I.e. it is considered Hash-m's property!]

Answer: It is not because it is considered Hash-m's property outside the wall. Rather, it is because we require "Disho" (its threshing) proper for it, like we exclude [liability for muzzling regarding] Hekdesh in Me'ilah.

Question: In Chulin (85a) we exempt a Tamei bird from Kisuy ha'Dam even according to R. Shimon, regarding improper Shechitah, since it says "Tzeid Chayah Oh Ohf Asher Ye'achel...";

(What is the reason?) You can feed it to others!

Answer: There it is written "Chayah Oh Ohf Asher Ye'achel." This connotes that it comes to exclude Tamei species, which Yisraelim do not eat, and even though you can feed it to others. (If not, it should have omitted Asher Ye'achel);

However, here "mi'Kol ha'Ochel Asher Ye'achel" properly connotes to exclude what others may not eat.