Explanation: Rav Chananyah asked his question regarding the Azarah because it is considered more of a wall, even regarding the slaughtering of Kodshim Kalim.

Explanation: However, if all of it was born in the Azarah he would not ask this question, as it would obviously require slaughtering.

Explanation: It had relations with another animal that similarly had one limb of it prohibited due to sticking it out before birth.

Observation: The Gemara does not specifically mean (that the logic is dependent in it being only) two, as there is also the prohibition of Gid ha'Nasheh in an animal (along with Cheilev and Dam).

Question: This seems difficult. What is the question? Don't we rule that Zeh v'Zeh Gorem (when there is one forbidden source and one permitted source that combine to make a third item) is permitted?

Explanation: It appears that it specifically says an image of a pigeon is forbidden even if it goes into the air of the world because it will not live. However, if he found a finished animal that is fitting to be permitted and its feet look like those of a pigeon or it has no feet at all, it is permitted.

Explanation (cont.): Rebbi Yochanan does not exclude anything that is fitting to be permitted when it enters the air of the world, as this is considered as having split hooves and being able to be permitted with the slaughtering of its mother, just as it is considered having split hooves when it enters the air of the world.

Explanation (cont.): Rebbi Yochanan did not choose the case of an image of a pigeon without reason, and he purposely did not state that the case was where a fetus had feet that looked like pigeon's feet or it did not have feet at all.

Explanation (cont.): When he asked that an animal that did not have split hooves that was in the womb of a kosher animal should be forbidden, he only asked this according to Rebbi Shimon who forbids such an animal when it is born, as explained earlier in the Gemara.

Implied Question: This is incomparable to a case of an animal owned by two partners where one was Makdish his half, bought the other half, and then was Makdish that half as well. In that case, we say in Kidushin (7a) that the animal is holy but not offered, as it is considered pushed aside from being offered. (Why aren't the cases comparable?)

Answer: In the case in Kidushin (ibid.), he was not originally able to be Makdish the entire animal. However, here when he was Makdish the foot, he was technically able to be Makdish the entire animal.

Implied Question: Despite the fact that the Mishnah states in Bechoros (32b) that Beis Hillel permits a Nochri to eat a Bechor that has a blemish (and therefore one could sell it to a Nochri), here they agree that it is forbidden to sell it to a Nochri. (Why?)

Answer: This is because we establish the Mishnah there as being according to Rebbi Akiva. The Gemara in Zevachim (103b) says that from Rebbi Akiva's words we understand that if someone slaughters a Bechor and it is found to be a Treifah, the Kohanim can still benefit from its skin. This indicates that the meat is forbidden from benefit.

Answer (cont.): His reason is that where it is permitted for a Jew to eat the Bechor it is compared to a deer and ram, and it is therefore even permitted to a Nochri. (However, when it is not permitted to a Jew as is the case of our Mishnah, it cannot be sold to a Nochri.)

Opinion #1: Rav Yehudah says in Bechoros (35a) that it is permitted to put a blemish on a Bechor before it enters the air of the world (i.e. when it is still in the womb). He explains, "a goat by its ear, a sheep by its lips."

Opinion #1 (cont.): However, one should not make a blemish by the ear of a sheep. This is because we suspect that if he sees his ear, perhaps most of the head already came out, and it then retracted (so that it was not most) back into the womb. However, this suspicion does not apply to a goat, as being that it has big ears, it normally has a small part of its head come out first (including an ears).

Opinion #1 (cont.): This is unlike Rav Huna. According to him, being that it is holy retroactively even if most of the head did not come out (before it was sold to a Nochri), it is forbidden to make a blemish in it (when it is in the womb). This is because when the majority of it leaves the womb afterwards it is clear retroactively that it was holy, as stated here regarding selling (to a Nochri).

Opinion #2: However, it is possible to establish Rav Yehudah as agreeing with Rav Huna. It could be he means that when one sees the ear of the goat inside the mother, he is allowed to make a blemish on it because the entire goat never entered the air of the world. However, one should suspect that if he can see the ear of a sheep inside the womb, it is possible that the majority of the head was already born, and it just went back inside.

Observation #1: The Gemara in Temurah (24b) establishes that Rav Yehudah's statement was only regarding nowadays when the Bechor cannot be brought (because there is no Beis Hamikdash). The Gemara there asks, what is Rav Yehudah's point? The Gemara answers, one might think that we should say this cannot be done because perhaps most of the head has come out. This Gemara is clearly indicating that Rav Yehudah argues with Rav Huna (as per opinion #1 above), as according to Rav Huna there would even be a problem if a small part of the head already came out.

Observation #2: Additionally, Rav Amram asked Rav Sheshes regarding the law in a case where a person said when most of a Bechor came out that it should be an Olah, whether it is indeed an Olah or a Bechor. This question is clearly unlike the position of Rav Huna, as it seems obvious to Rav Amram that before most of the animal is born one can take away the holiness of Bechor from this animal (by dedicating it to be a different Korban).

Observation #2 (cont.): This is unless we would differentiate between selling the animal to a Nochri (the case of Rav Huna) and the cases above (c and d).