(Mishnah): The Vlad of a Tereifah...

According to the opinion that a Tereifah can (become pregnant and) give birth, the case is, it became Tereifah and then became pregnant;

R. Eliezer forbids Zeh v'Zeh Gorem, and Chachamim permit;

According to the opinion that a Tereifah cannot (become pregnant and) give birth, the case is, it was pregnant and then became Tereifah;

R. Eliezer holds that Ubar Yerech Imo, and Chachamim hold that Ubar Lav Yerech Imo.

(Rav Huna): Chachamim agree with R. Eliezer that a chick that comes from an egg of a Tereifah is forbidden.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: They argue only about a Vlad of a Behemah, for it grows (by itself) unattached to its mother. An egg (in a bird is attached to and) grows from the mother, so all forbid it like the mother.

Support (Rava - Beraisa - R. Eliezer): A spoonful (a single or double handful) of worms from a live person is Tamei (some say - after the person dies);

Chachamim are Metaher.

Chachamim argue only about worms, for it is merely Pirsha (something that comes from the person), but they admit about an egg. It is part of the bird itself.

Objection (Abaye): Just the contrary! R. Eliezer argues only about worms, for a live person is called worms - "Af Ki Enosh Rimah u'Ven Adam Tola'ah";

All permit a chick that comes from an egg of a Tereifah. Before it develops, it putrefies, so it is like earth (the Isur goes away).

Support (Abaye, for himself - Beraisa): R. Eliezer agrees that a chick that comes from an egg of a Tereifah is permitted.

Rava: Indeed, the Beraisa supports you.

(Mishnah - R. Chanina ben Antignos): If a Kosher animal...

Question: What is the reason?

Suggestion: It is forbidden because it was fattened by the Tereifah's milk.

Rejection: If so, an animal that ate vetch of idolatry should be forbidden! (According to Version #1 above (29b), it is forbidden only if it was Muktzeh. According to Version #2, Muktzeh becomes permitted after eating such vetch!)

Answer (R. Chanina Trita'ah): The case is, it nursed from a Tereifah every (Rambam - that) morning. This is enough to sustain it. (Therefore, even if it also ate permitted food, it is forbidden. The Rema (YD 60:1, based on Tosfos), forbids it even to people. The Gra proves this from the Sifri. Shach - Tosfos is unsure about this, and the Mordechai permits because milk of a Tereifah is Mutar b'Hana'ah.)

(Mishnah): If any Kodshim became Tereifah, it may not be redeemed...

Version #1 - Question: What is the source of this?

Answer (Beraisa): (Regarding Pesulei ha'Mukdashim it says) "Tizbach (slaughter)" but do not shear. "V'Achalta (you will eat)", but it is not for your dog to eat. "(You may eat) Basar", but not milk;

This teaches that we may not redeem Kodshim to feed them to dogs.

Version #2 (Beraisa): "Tizbach v'Achalta" teaches that you may benefit (from Pesulei ha'Mukdashim) only after Shechitah;

This Tana permits redeeming Kodshim to feed them to dogs. (He has no source to forbid.)

(Mishnah): There are stringencies of Kodshei Mizbe'ach over Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, and vice-versa. The following apply only to Kodshei Mizbe'ach:

They make Temurah, one can be liable for them for Pigul, Nosar and Tamei, their Vlados and milk are forbidden after they are redeemed, one who slaughters them outside (the Mikdash) is liable, and they may not be given to workers for wages.

The following apply only to Bedek ha'Bayis;

Stam (unspecified) Hekdesh is for Bedek ha'Bayis, Hekdesh to Bedek ha'Bayis takes effect on everything, Me'ilah applies to Giduleihem (what grows from them), and Kohanim do not benefit from them.

(Gemara) Question: It is not always true that Kodshei Mizbe'ach make Temurah. Korbanos ha'Of do not!

(Mishnah): Birds and Menachos do not make Temurah.

Answer: The Mishnah refers to animals.

Question: Vlados Kodshim are Kodshei Mizbe'ach, but they do not make Temurah!

Answer #1: Our Mishnah is R. Yehudah, who says that Vlados Kodshim make Temurah.

Question: Temurah is Kodshei Mizbe'ach, but it does not make Temurah!

Answer: The Mishnah refers to initial Hekdesh.

Answer #2 (to Question (e)): Our Mishnah is even like Chachamim. It refers to initial Hekdesh.

(Mishnah): Kodshei Mizbe'ach may not be given to workers for wages.

Inference: We may give Bedek ha'Bayis to workers for wages.

(R. Avahu): We learn from "v'Asu Li Mikdash" - from My (Hash-m's) property.

(Mishnah): The following apply only to Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis - Stam Hekdesh is for Bedek ha'Bayis, (Hekdesh to Bedek ha'Bayis takes effect on everything - Shitah Mekubetzes deletes this from the text).

Question: Who is the Tana of the Mishnah?

Answer #1 (R. Chiya bar Aba): It is (like R. Eliezer, and) unlike R. Yehoshua:

(Mishnah - R. Eliezer): If Reuven was Makdish his property and it included Behemos that were valid for Korbanos:

We sell males to people who need to bring (and will offer them for) Olos. We sell females (similarly) for Shelamim. The money (for both of them) and the rest of his property go to Bedek ha'Bayis;

R. Yehoshua says, males themselves are offered for Olos;

We sell females for Shelamim, and the money is used to buy and offer Olos;

The rest of his property goes to Bedek ha'Bayis.

R. Chiya argues with Rav Ada bar Ahavah;

Version #1 (Rav Ada): If one was Makdish a herd of all males, all agree that one does not intend to be Makdish to Bedek ha'Bayis something Kosher for the Mizbe'ach. (Rather, they are offered for Olos);

They argue about a herd of males and females;

R. Eliezer holds that people make uniform vows. Since the females cannot be Olos, also the males are not Olos;

R. Yehoshua holds that people (sometimes) make a vow that is not uniform (it takes effect in different ways).

Version #2 (Rav Ada): If one was Makdish only animals, all agree that one does not intend to be Makdish to Bedek ha'Bayis in place of the Mizbe'ach;

They argue when he was Makdish animals and other property;

R. Eliezer holds that one makes a uniform vow. since the other property is not for the Mizbe'ach, also the animals are not;

R. Yehoshua holds that people make a vow that is not uniform.

Question (Mishnah - R. Eliezer): Their money (of the animals) and the rest of his property go to Bedek ha'Bayis;

Granted, according to Version #2, we understand why it discusses other property, for R. Eliezer argues only when there is other property;

However, according to Version #1, why does it mention other property? It does not affect the argument!

Answer: Indeed, it should say (only), "their money goes to Bedek ha'Bayis."

(Mishnah): Hekdesh Bedek ha'Bayis takes effect on everything.

Question: What does this include?

Answer (Ravina): It includes sawdust and fallen leaves.

(Mishnah): Me'ilah applies to Giduleihem.

Question: What does this exclude? (Tosfos)

Answer (Rav Papa): It excludes (Kodshei Mizbe'ach, e.g.) milk of Korbanos and eggs of Torim:

(Mishnah): We may not benefit from milk of Korbanos and eggs of Torim. Me'ilah does not apply to them.

This applies to Kodshei Mizbe'ach, but Me'ilah applies to eggs (such as those) of a chicken and milk of a donkey of Bedek ha'Bayis.

Even according to the opinion that Me'ilah applies to Gidulei Kodshei Mizbe'ach, that is only for things that are Kosher for the Mizbe'ach (e.g. Vlados Kodshim).