WHEN DOES A FETUS BECOME KODESH?
(Mishnah - R. Shimon ben Gamliel): If it gave birth to a Tumtum or Androginus...
Question: Why don't they get Kedushah?
Answer: He holds that Vlados Kodshim are not Kodesh until they are born.
If he held that they become Kodesh in the womb, they would get Kedushah from their mothers (from the beginning of their creation)!
The following Tana holds that Vlados Kodshim become Kodesh in the womb;
(Beraisa): Had it said "Bechor Lo Yakdish," we would think that a Bechor (a man) may not be Makdish Korbanos. Therefore, it says "(Lo Yakdish) Ish Oso" - one may not be Makdish a Bechor (to be another Korban), but a Bechor may be Makdish.
Suggestion: Perhaps a Bechor may not be Makdish a Bechor, but others may be Makdish a Bechor!
Rejection: "Bi'Vhemah" teaches that Bechor refers to a firstborn Behemah, not to Bechor Adam.
Suggestion: Perhaps one may not be Makdish a Bechor (to be another Korban) even while it is in the womb!
Rejection: "Asher Yevukar la'Shem" - after it is born you may not be Makdish it, but before this it is permitted.
Suggestion: Perhaps the same applies to Vlados Kodshim!
Rejection: "Ach" differentiates. (It applies only to Bechor.)
Conclusion: This Tana holds that Vlados Kodshim are Kodesh in the womb. (Therefore, their Kedushah cannot be changed before birth.)
Question (Rav Amram): If one said "When the Bechor (inside this mother) is born, it should become an Olah" (i.e. at the same moment that Kedushas Bechor normally takes effect), what is the law?
Version #1: Since Olah is Kalil (entirely burned on the Mizbe'ach; it is more Kadosh, so), it gets Kedushas Olah;
Or, since every part that leaves the womb (until the majority, when Kedushas Olah should take effect) is b'Chezkas Bechor, it becomes a Bechor!
Version #2: Kedushas Olah is Chal on a Bechor (for it is more Kadosh);
Or, since Bechor is (always) Kodesh from birth, Kedushas Bechor takes effect! (end of Version #2)
Answer (Rav Sheshes): This is Ilfa's question!
Question (Ilfa): If a Ba'al ha'Bayis said "at the moment that sheaves fall mostly out of my hand (normally they become Leket then, and he must leave them for the poor), they are Hefker," what is the law?
Since Shamayim makes Leket, this overrides his Hefker;
Or, since Hefker is permitted to the rich and poor, it takes effect!
Answer (Abaye): Clearly, we heed the Rebbi's (Hash-m's) words (it is Leket), and not the Talmid's;
Also here, we heed the Rebbi's words (it is a Bechor), and not the Talmid's!
GIVING A FETUS A DIFFERENT KEDUSHAH
(Mishnah): If one said "the fetus in this animal is an Olah, it (the mother) is a Shelamim," his words take effect;
R. Meir says, if he said "it is a Shelamim, the fetus is an Olah," the child is a Vlad Shelamim;
R. Yosi says, if he intended for this from the beginning, since one cannot say two things simultaneously (there is nothing wrong with what he said), his words take effect;
If after saying "it is a Shelamim," he reconsidered and said "and the fetus is an Olah," the child is a Vlad Shelamim.
(Gemara - R. Yochanan): If one was Makdish a pregnant animal for a Chatas and it gave birth, he may bring either of them for his Chatas.
Question: What is the reason?
Answer: He holds that one can be Meshayer (be Makdish a pregnant animal, and stipulate that the fetus remain Chulin), for Ubar Lav Yerech Imo (a fetus is like an independent animal.) It is as if he was Makdish two Chata'os for Acharayus. He may offer either for Kaparah.
Question (R. Elazar - Mishnah - R. Meir): If one said "it is a Shelamim, and the fetus is an Olah", the child is a Vlad Shelamim. (This connotes that its Kedushah is due to its mother;)
According to R. Yochanan, it should say "the child is a Shelamim"! (Tosfos 10b DH v'Azda - R. Yochanan holds that Kedushah takes effect on fetuses, therefore when he said 'it is a Shelamim', he intended also for the fetus.)
Answer (Rav Tavla): Rav taught that indeed, the text should say "the child is a Shelamim."
Question (Beraisa #1): If one (gave a Get Shichrur, i.e. a document of freedom, and) said to his Shifchah "you are (still) a slave, and your fetus is free":
If she was pregnant at the time, she acquires freedom on behalf of her child.
Granted, according to the opinion that one cannot (be Makdish a pregnant mother and) be Meshayer (stipulate that the fetus be Chulin or a different Korban), and that Ubar Yerech Imo, it is as if he frees half the slave, according to R. Meir;
(Beraisa - R. Meir): If one frees half of his slave, half of the slave is free, for he receives his Yad (ability to acquire) simultaneously with the Get.
However, according to the opinion that one can be Meshayer, for Ubar Lav Yerech Imo, how can she acquire on behalf of her child?! (The child is like another slave of her master!)
(Beraisa): A slave can receive a Get Shichrur on behalf of a slave of a different master, but not for a slave of his own master (for then the Get never leaves the master's Reshus).
Conclusion: One cannot be Meshayer.
R. Yochanan is refuted.
Suggestion: Tana'im argue about whether or not one can be Meshayer.
(Beraisa - R. Yosi ha'Gelili): If one (gave a Get Shichrur and) said to his slave "you are free, and your fetus is (still) a slave", her fetus is (free) like her;
Chachamim say, his words takes effect. It says "ha'Ishah vi'Yladeha Tihyeh la'Adoneha."
Question: How do Chachamim learn this from the verse?
Answer (Rava): Really, R. Yosi brought the verse for his law. Her children belong to her master only when she belongs to him.
Suggestion: R. Yosi holds that one cannot be Meshayer. Chachamim hold that one can.
Rejection: No, all hold that one can be Meshayer (regarding Korbanos). R. Yosi learns from the verse that freeing the mother frees her children.
Suggestion: The following Tana'im argue about whether or not one can be Meshayer:
(Beraisa #1): If one slaughtered a Chatas and found a live four-month fetus (a Nefel) inside, it may be eaten only by male Kohanim in the Azarah for one day and a night;
(Beraisa #2): It may be eaten by anyone, anywhere, at any time (it is Chulin. We are assuming that the Chatas was Hukdash when it was pregnant.)
Suggestion: Tana #1 holds that one cannot be Meshayer (so the fetus also becomes a Chatas). Tana #2 holds that one can be Meshayer.
Rejection: No, all hold that one can be Meshayer;
Possibility #1: (The Chatas was Hukdash before it became pregnant.) Tana #1 holds that Vlados Kodshim become Kodesh in the womb, and Tana #2 holds that they are not Kodesh until they are born.
Possibility #2: One Tana taught both Beraisos. He holds that Vlados Kodshim become Kodesh when they are born;
In Beraisa #1, he was Makdish a pregnant animal. In Beraisa #2, it became pregnant after he was Makdish it.
Question (Rava): Why was R. Yochanan refuted? (We said that he holds that it is as if the fetus was Hukdash for Acharayus, but he did not explicitly say this.) Perhaps he (rather) holds that one may offer Shevach (something that grows from) Hekdesh for his Kaparah!
Answer (Rav Hamnuna): R. Elazar (25a) challenged R. Yochanan himself, and R. Yochanan did not give your answer. Surely, R. Yochanan holds like we said.
TWO KEDUSHOS IN ONE ANIMAL
(Mishnah - R. Yosi): If after saying "it is a Shelamim" he reconsidered...
Objection: This is obvious. Would we think that one may retract his Hekdesh at any future time?!
Answer (Rav Papa): The case is, he retracted Toch Kedai Dibur (the time to greet someone);
One might have thought that everything said within Toch Kedai Dibur is like one Dibur. (Nothing takes effect until he finishes.) The Mishnah teaches that this is not so. (There is a short Shi'ur of Toch Kedai Dibur, to greet a Talmid ("Shalom Alecha" - two words). The long Shi'ur is the time to greet one's Rebbi ("Shalom Alecha Rebbi (some add - u'Mori)" - three or four words. Tosfos - R. Yosi teaches that one may not retract within the long Shi'ur. He allows (Bava Kama 73b) retracting within the short Shi'ur. Rambam - Hekdesh and Temurah are exceptions. One may not retract even within the short Shi'ur.)
(Mishnah - R. Meir): If one said "this is Temuras Olah Temuras Shelamim," it is Temuras Olah;
R. Yosi says, if he intended for this from the beginning, since one cannot say two things simultaneously, his words take effect. (It is Ro'eh until it gets a Mum. Olah and Shelamim are bought with its money);
If after saying, "this is Temuras Olah," he reconsidered and said "Temuras Shelamim," it is Temuras Olah.