Implied question: He could have asked that we should exclude a goat born to a sheep from the verse that excludes (Chulin 137a) hair of goats from "La'amod u'Leshares" (in the verse after Reishis ha'Gez) - we require something proper for service (Bigdei Kehunah), to exclude goats' hair!

Answer: Perhaps since it is from a species proper for service, since it was born to a sheep, this suffices. (Therefore, we need "umi'Gez Kevasai Yischamam.")

Implied question: Why did it say "a kind of goat"? (The same applies if it is a sheep!)

Answer: This is for a Chidush. Even though the father's seed helped to change the child to a goat like itself, even so Rabanan are not concerned for the father's seed.

Disclaimer: However, the one who asked "they should argue about whether or not we are concerned for the father's seed!" was not concerned for this Chidush.

Explanation: It mentioned the first [goat] mentioned [in Musafim], and the same applies to goats offered during the festivals, for also regarding them it is written "Echad".

Explanation: This refers even to "if both heads came out at once", and R. Yosi ha'Gelili agrees here;

Even if the entire womb is Mekadesh (there cannot be an interruption between the Bechor and the wall of the womb on any side), in any case [when two males leave together] Min b'Mino is not a Chatzitzah, like it says above (9b)...

Here that [the other child] is a female, and it is Peter Rechem like [the male], its Bechorah is totally Batel.

Implied question: Why is this unlike the case in Chulin (70a) "if its sister was wrapped around it and brought it out..."? (The Gemara was unsure whether it is Kodesh!)

Answer: There, the male came out head first, and the female came out feet first, so the female is not Peter Rechem.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This is in a case like here of birth, even though [Shamayim] is not adamant (that they come out simultaneously, perhaps they did), and all the more so bi'Ydei Adam, [for people] intend to make a measure or a matter exact, surely Efshar Letzamtzem.

Question (Ri): [The Gemara] asked according to Rabanan, who hold that bi'Ydei Shamayim Iy Efshar Letzamtzem, what is the law bi'Ydei Adam. How did it resolve from [a murdered body] found exactly [in the middle] between two cities?

You are forced to say that granted, they can be precise when they intend to measure, but in any case, according to Rabanan it is impossible that it is exactly [in the middle] between two cities, since it is bi'Ydei Shamayim! He fell by himself there. They did not engage with him to measure and leave him there exactly [in the middle]!

Answer (Ri): Even according to the opinion that Iy Efshar Letzamtzem bi'Ydei Shamayim, sometimes it is found that it is exact;

Rather, it means as follows. It is impossible to clarify something that is exact bi'Ydei Shamayim, e.g. the birth here. There is no time to clarify and be precise which left first. Therefore, the Kohen does not receive both of them;

However, bi'Ydei Adam that there is time to clarify, we ask about this, and he resolved it from [a body] found [midway] between two cities;

If you will say that Iy Efshar Letzamtzem whether it is exact, even though I explained that sometimes it turns out it is exact, since one cannot perceive [that it is exact], they would not bring two Eglos amidst Safek, for it is not common, and we should not attribute amidst Safek that it occurred so.

Answer (cont.): In the conclusion, we conclude that according to Rabanan Iy Efshar Letzamtzem, and even bi'Ydei Adam.

Pesak: Since Amora'im argue in Eruvin (16b) about Parutz k'Omed (the sum width of the breaches in a wall equates the sum widths of what remains standing), and in Chulin (28b) about whether or not [a Siman cut] half-way is like a majority, it seems that the Halachah follows R. Yosi ha'Gelili that Efshar Letzamtzem, at least bi'Ydei Adam.

Implied suggestion: Perhaps (there is no proof from there, for) we call it Parutz k'Omed when it seems to us that they are equal, even though perhaps they are not equal, and similarly half-way regarding Shechitah!

Rejection: It explains the reason that [half] is not like a majority, and [Parutz] is not k'Omed, because Hash-m told Moshe to cut the majority or fence the majority;

If [we are unsure if they are equal,] even without this, it would be forbidden amidst Safek, lest he left over the majority!

Implied Question #1: In Gitin (78a), it asks Iy Efshar Letzamtzem regarding [if a man threw a Get to his wife, and it landed] in the middle, she is divorced and not divorced;

It explains that the case is, both of them came within four Amos [of where it landed] at once;

And even if the Halachah follows R. Yosi ha'Gelili, in any case it is difficult to establish the Mishnah like this, for it is not common to be precise. Stam, they did not intend to come at once;

Question #2: And in Shevuos (32a) regarding if both [witnesses] denied [knowing testimony] at once, it asks Iy Efshar Letzamtzem, and answers "it is like R. Yosi ha'Gelili", and R. Yochanan answers "you can even say that it is like Rabanan..." This implies that the Halachah does not follow R. Yosi ha'Gelili!

Question #3: And in Yevamos (28a, R. Yochanan said) "I do not know who taught the Mishnah of [four] sisters", we say [that he holds that] we do not have a Stam [Mishnah] like R. Yosi ha'Gelili!

Pesak (cont.): It seems that bi'Ydei Shamayim the Halachah does not follow [R. Yosi ha'Gelili]. The cases in Shavu'os and Yevamos are bi'Ydei Shamayim. (Yad Binyamin - since simultaneous testimony does not depend on one person alone, it is considered bi'Ydei Shamayim.) However, bi'Ydei Adam the Halachah follows him, like is proven in Chulin and Eruvin.

Question: We say in Eruvin (5b) that a Lechi (a vertical post to permit carrying in an alley) that extends from the wall of the Mavuy [towards the inside], if it is less than four Amos, we do not need another Lechi to permit [the Mavuy]...

And Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua said, we said only for a Mavoy [at least] eight [Amos] wide. If it is seven [or any amount less than eight, a Lechi of four Amos] permits it, for Omed Merubah Al ha'Parutz (the wall exceeds the breaches);

Rav Ashi said that even a Mavuy eight [Amos wide] does not need [another] Lechi, no matter what you will say!

If the wall exceeds the breaches, it is permitted through Omed Merubah Al ha'Parutz. If the breaches are greater, it is considered a Lechi. I.e. if so the Lechi is less than four Amos (so it is a valid Lechi);

Will you say that they (the wall and the breaches) are equal? This is a Safek mid'Rabanan. We are lenient.

Inference: It is impossible to clarify the matter!

Answer #1: Really, it is possible to measure, but Chachamim did not obligate him to measure amidst Safek, since whether Omed Merubah or Parutz Merubah there is no concern for Isur, only if they are equal, and this is uncommon;

In any case, if it were a Torah Isur, it would be forbidden, since it is possible to measure.

Implied question (against Rav Ashi): Also when they are equal, it should be permitted, for we hold that Parutz k'Omed is permitted!

Answer #1: Rav Ashi discusses the opinion of Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua, who forbids Parutz k'Omed.

Opinion #2 (R. Shimon of Yeinvala): These Amora'im [who discuss] Parutz k'Omed and half-half is like the majority, hold like Rabanan, that Iy Efshar Letzamtzem, even bi'Ydei Adam;

And the one who permits when it seems to us that Parutz k'Omed, it is because I can say that Omed Merubah. And if you will say that they are equal, the Torah said not to leave the majority (open), and the one who forbids, it is because I can say that Parutz Merubah, and if you will say that they are equal, the Torah said to fence the majority.

And we can explain like this the case of half-half (for Shechitah) is like the majority.

Support: Now it is fine the case of Safek mid'Rabanan to be lenient, since it is impossible to measure.

Question #1 (Tosfos' Rebbi): It connotes that a Safek Torah would be forbidden, due to a mere concern lest they are equal, even though if Omed Merubah or Parutz Merubah it is permitted;

If so, how do we infer from [a body] found exactly in the middle between two cities that bi'Ydei Adam Efshar Letzamtzem? Also there, even though it is impossible to be exact and Letzamtzem, Rabanan [should] agree that they bring two calves due to a Safek Torah, that perhaps they are equal!

Question #2: The one who forbids Parutz k'Omed, forbids only because Hash-m told Moshe to fence the majority or slaughter the majority, and there are more reason to attribute to Isur than to Heter;

However, if we should attribute to Heter more than to forbid, it would be permitted, like we find according to the one who permits, because Hash-m told Moshe not to leave over the majority. He does not forbid lest the Parutz is the majority.

Consequence: If so, the case of a Lechi, even if it were a Safek mid'Oraisa, it would be permitted mid'Oraisa, since whether the Parutz is more or the Omed is more, it is permitted.

Implied suggestion: From the question in that Sugya of Parutz k'Omed "it is Efshar Letzamtzem!" regarding if there is a distance between [metal spits (rods) equal to the width of the rods, and Kosher Sechach was put in between, this shows that we rule like R. Yosi ha'Gelili, at least regarding bi'Ydei Adam]!

Rejection: One cannot infer from there at all, for the text of R. Chananel and R. Tam says "it is Iy Efshar Letzamtzem!"

Implied suggestion: According to their text, we can prove that this is the Halachah (Iy Efshar Letzamtzem, even bi'Ydei Adam)!

Rejection: This is unlike Iy Efshar Letzamtzem elsewhere. Rather, it means that it is impossible to be precise that there will not be any amount of air between the Sechach and the rod, like I explained there.

Implied question #1: The case below (60b, if one was tithing animals), and two went out together as 10th, and he called [both of] them Asiri. This shows that [the Gemara] holds like R. Yosi ha'Gelili, even bi'Ydei Shamayim...

For according to Rabanan, [who hold] that Iy Efshar Letzamtzem, the one that was first is Asiri, even if [the owner] was silent, and it is as if he called the 10th "Asiri" and the 11th "Asiri". The 11th is not Kadosh, for the name "Asiri" was not uprooted from [the 10th]!