Explanation: Also [they established the Halachah like R. Shimon ben Gamliel for animals] for this itself, that if we will permit to slaughter it and eat when it is healthy, one will come to slaughter it when it is ill, and close to yawning of death, for now there is a Rei'usa (reason to suspect a problem).

Implied suggestion: We can infer that R. Shimon ben Gamliel is not concerned for the minority, since R. Akiva and R. Tarfon are concerned for the minority in Makos (7a, regarding a murderer) perhaps [the victim was already Tereifah, but it is impossible to know this, for] there was a hole where the knife cut;

Citation (7a - R. Shimon ben Gamliel): Even they increase murderers in Yisrael (for people will not fear execution)!

Rejection: There, he is not concerned [for the minority] because we consider it impossible, for if so [we will be concerned], no one will ever be killed, and even R. Meir agrees [when it is impossible to be concerned for the minority], like it says in Chulin (11b).

Implied question: The Gemara wanted to say that R. Akiva says that milk exempts because he is not concerned for the minority. We could have asked from the case in Makos, in which he is concerned lest there was a hole where the knife went!

Answer #1: [The Gemara] did not want to elaborate.

Answer #2 (R. Tam): The reason [of R. Akiva and R. Tarfon] is not at all because they are concerned for the minority, for [the Gemara] explicitly considers it impossible in Chulin (11b);

Rather, R. Tam says that when they asked the witnesses "did you see if there was a hole where the knife went?", and they say "we do not know", their testimony is Batel, even though if they would not ask them, [the murderer] would be killed;

This is like if one [witness] says that he killed him with a sword, and one says that he killed him with a battle ax, this is not accurate (testimony, and he is not killed), even though if they would not ask them, he would be killed, and we would not be concerned perhaps if we would ask them, they would contradict each other.

Objection: This is not a difficulty [that forces us] to consider it impossible [to be concerned for the minority], for it is possible, e.g. the membrane of the brain was exposed, and [the witnesses] saw that it is still intact [and the murderer broke it].

Implied question: In Chulin, we consider it impossible!

Answer: It is because it is difficult to establish the verse [to discuss] this;

And the one who exempts [every murderer, unless the membrane of the brain was exposed, and the witnesses saw that it is intact] holds that the verse is difficult, and we are forced to establish it like this.

Explanation: And all the more so this [animal], which gave birth to absolute children [will not give birth again within the year].

Assertion: "Within its year" is not precise. Also slightly after the year (it cannot give birth), for the [oldest] goat was not born in the same year, for if so, it would be tithed with its daughters! (Yad Binyamin - Tosfos explains like Rashi Kesav Yad (brought in Shitah Mekubetzes), that the Tana'im argue about whether or not the oldest joins for Ma'aser. If it was born in the same year, all would agree that it is tithed with them.)

The first Tana does not count [the oldest with it for Ma'aser]. Rather, "Bas Shenasah" is a day after its year. Rashi explained that it is like R. Yishmael, and a bigger Chidush than R. Yishmael.

Affirmation: He is correct, for according to R. Yishmael, it can return to give birth on the first day of the second year, for he holds that (if one does not know whether or not an animal already gave birth, if it gave birth) from now (the first day of its second year) and onwards is a Safek [Bechor].

Question (Rashi): Since [the oldest] does not enter with them, we should establish it when it was born in Nisan, and it gave birth in Elul, for it is possible for it to return and give birth with its daughters the next Elul!

Criticism: Rashi was not precise with his words, for below we say that the first Tana holds like Ze'iri, and likewise, an animal does not become pregnant less than 30 days after it is born;

If so, we need 30 days aside from the five months of pregnancy. He should have said that it was born in Adar. (Then, it can give birth in Elul.)

Explanation #1: Also here, Rashi explained that the days of pregnancy are five full months.

Objection: This connotes that they are of 30 days, like he explained above (20a DH l'Gamrei). One cannot say so at all, according to how we explain their argument about Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo (part of a day is like the whole day)!

He must count everything from Elul 1 of this year until Elul 1 of the coming year according to the lunar year, for Elul 1 is Rosh Hashanah for Ma'aser Behemah;

Summation of objection (and Explanation #2): We cannot find this in any way, unless the months of pregnancy are lunar months!

Consequence: Now, according to the first Tana we do not say Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo, and when it was born on Elul 1 it did not allow a male to mate with it until 30 full days from when it was born;

Source: Since Ze'iri said that Tinuf is not less than 30 days (from birth, for a female does not mate before this), all the more so its daughter [was not conceived before this].

Consequence: Now, the 30 days finish on Tishrei 2, for we require 30 days me'Es la'Es (until the same hour of the day that it was born), since Ein Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo, and Elul is Chaser (29 days), and that day (Tishrei 2) it can become pregnant.

The five months of pregnancy end on Adar 2, and that day it gave birth. Count 30 days me'Es la'Es for its daughters before they mate with a male, and they finish on Nisan 3, and that day they became pregnant;

It turns out that the five months of pregnancy end on Elul 3, and that day they gave birth. (According to the first Tana, the grandmother cannot be tithed with the grandchildren, for they cannot be born in the same year. Therefore, we must say that the grandmother was born before Elul, so the grandchildren can be tithed with the daughters.)

Explanation #2 (cont.): R. Shimon says Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo. The 30 days end on Tishrei 1, and that day it became pregnant. It turns out that the five months of pregnancy end on the last day of Shevat, for Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo, and that day it gave birth;

Count 30 days me'Es la'Es for its daughters before they mate with a male, and they end on the last day of Adar, which is Chaser, and that day they became pregnant. It turns out the five months of pregnancy end on Av 29.

Implied question: How can it be that the five months of pregnancy of animals are lunar months?

Answer: We find so in the Yerushalmi in Nidah. Even though a donkey does not give birth after incomplete months, sometimes the 12 months of its pregnancy are according to the solar year, and sometimes according to the lunar year;

It says there that R. Chiya bar Ashi was sitting in front of Rav. He saw that [R. Chiya] was anxious. [Rav] asked him why, and he said "my donkey is pregnant, and it needs to give birth, and I must guard it, lest it get cold";

Citation (Yerushalmi): [Rav] asked him "when did a male mate with it?" He said "on day Ploni." [Rav] said "it needs to wait more days [until it gives birth], for it was taught that the least [gestation] is a lunar year, and the longest is not more than a solar year."

Afterwards, it says there that R. Yehoshua's teaching argues, for R. Yehoshua ben Levi taught that the kingdom's bulls were passing by, and mated with [cows] of Rebbi's house. Some of them gave birth now, i.e. after incomplete months, and some gave birth afterwards;

Afterwards, we say "this refers to Tamei animals, and this refers to Tahor animals (their time is not fixed)." I.e. [Rav and R. Yehoshua ben Levi] do not argue.

It asks that it says "ha'Yadata Es Ledes Ya'alei Sala Cholel Ayalos Tishmor; Tispor Yerachim Temalenah v'Yadata Es Lidtanah" (count full months) - it does not give birth after incomplete months!

It answers that a Tahor Chayah is like a Tamei Behemah. I.e. it does not give birth after incomplete months, but a Tahor Behemah gives birth after incomplete months. In our Sugya, the argument is about a Tahor Behemah.

Implied question: It says in Temurah (19b) Mechusar Zman was not proper [to be offered], and R. Shimon said that it is Kadosh!

Answer: That refers to Ma'aser Behemah, like is proven here, that R. Shimon and Rabanan argue, but other Kodshim, even R. Shimon agrees [that it cannot become Kadosh Mechusar Zman].

Implied question: Why didn't it say that [Bechor and Ma'aser] do not come from Chutz la'Aretz, like other Kodshim do?

Answer: It is because it is an argument there in Temurah (21a).

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [Bechor and Ma'aser] are eaten with a Mum without Pidyon.

Question: This is included in Go'el (they are not redeemed, which was already listed)!

Explanation #2: They are eaten unlike other Pesulei ha'Mukdashim. [Bechor and Ma'aser] are not slaughtered in the market or sold in the market or weighed in units of weight (as opposed to estimation);

This is mid'Oraisa (so it is a proper reason to prefer learning Ma'aser from Bechor), like it connotes in Temurah (8a) and in Sanhedrin (112b) regarding Ir ha'Nidachas. It excludes Bechor and Ma'aser, since it says "Behemtah" - what is eaten like your animal;

This excludes Bechor and Ma'aser, which are not eaten like your animal, for a Mishnah teaches that all Pesulei ha'Mukdashim may be sold in the meat market, except for Bechor and Ma'aser.

Implied question: We can learn also "Tachas-Tachas" from Kodshim, like it says above (12a) regarding an animal with some Simanim [like its mother]!

Answer: Here, regarding Kidush [of Mechusar Zman], it is more appropriate to learn from Ha'avarah, for "Kol Asher Ya'avor Tachas ha'Shevet" connotes an expression of Kidush. (Shitah Mekubetzes explains that also the other expression of Ha'avarah, i.e. v'Ha'avarto, discusses making an animal Kadosh.)

Explanation (Rashi): It already gave birth, and it will not be in danger due to future births.

Distinction: However, a Nochri [seller], even if he said so, his words are not true.

Inference: We learn from his Perush that a Nochri is not believed even if he speaks l'Fi Tumo (unaware of the consequence of his words), for he says so to praise what he sells.

Explanation #2: Here, to praise it means that it was already exempted from Bechorah.

Pesak: Bahag rules like R. Yochanan, for in Beitzah (4b) we say that [in an argument of] Rav and R. Yochanan, the Halachah follows R. Yochanan, and in Eruvin (47b) we say that [in an argument of] Shmuel and R. Yochanan, the Halachah follows R. Yochanan.

Explanation: The seller knows that the buyer buys to slaughter, and [the seller] transgresses Lifnei Iver if he does not inform him;

This is because it need not cross the buyer's mind that [the seller] sold the mother or its daughter (to slaughter today, so there is no reason for him to refrain).

Explanation: He must investigate his animal, [to determine] whether Bechorah applies to it.

Implied question: It was taught in Chulin (77a) that a Mevakeres that miscarried a Shilya, he casts it to the dogs, like there, because we join the minority of Nidmeh to the half that are females!

Answer: Here is different, like the Gemara explains, in order to publicize that it was exempted from Bechorah.

Implied question: The Gemara was forced to say so only due to R. Chiya! It said "since it is not Metamei through touching or moving, why must it be buried?", and answered "in order to publicize..."

Even without this (that it is not Metamei), we needed the reason "in order to publicize..." (because in most cases, the cake of blood came from a female or Nidmeh, so it has no Kedushah)!

Answer: Based on R. Chiya's [Beraisa, the Gemara] was not so pleased to say that it must be buried for publicity, since even if we would know that it gave birth to something Kadosh, it would not need burial, due to Bitul [of the dissolved fetus in blood].