Question: This is difficult. Even according to the opinion that it is only holy from the time most of it is born, why is he allowed to throw it to the dogs if most of it came out? If most of it was cut it is also considered as being born, as stated in Nidah (28a) that if most of it came out in pieces the mother is considered impure due to the birth.

Question (cont.): Our Mishnah also says that the next animal born is exempt from having the status of a Bechor, and it implies that this is whether it came out limb by limb or most of it came out at once.

Answer: It is understandable if it is only holy from the time most of it is born. Being that it is not considered holy until most of it comes out, what was cut before most of it came out has no holiness at all. He can throw it to the dogs even after most of it came out.

Answer (cont.): However, once most of it comes out it, whatever comes out (afterwards, see Tosfos ha'Rosh) requires burial. This is also implied by the terminology used by Rashi.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that the Mishnah says that if most of it comes out it should be buried. This indicates that most of it came out at once, as is apparent from our Gemara, unlike a case where it came out limb by limb.

Answer: This is only regarding the first minor amount, as even that small amount requires burial when most of it comes out, being that it has not been cut up. (If it has been cut up before most if it was born, it would not require burial.)

Answer (cont.): However, according to the opinion that it is holy retroactively from the beginning of the birth, it should also be buried if it was cut up.

Implied Question: There is no question regarding his cutting of the Bechor, with the question possibly being how he can make a blemish in Kodshim. (Why is this permitted?)

Answer #1: It is possibly referring to a Neifel that anyways cannot be brought as a Korban.

Answer #2: Alternatively, it is referring to him cutting the animal before it enters the air of the world.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that a woman cradled the fetus of the animal in her hands and held it, and her hands separated between the fetus and the walls of the womb.

Question #1: Rabeinu Tam asks that we never find the Gemara making a reference to a woman who is helping an animal birth. Rather, it usually refers to the person doing this as a shepherd. This is as the Mishnah states, if an animal's fetus died when in its womb and the shepherd sticks his hand etc.

Question #1 (cont.): The first of these questions also refers to a shepherd, as the question asked is, what is the law if he wraps it with a palm leave? "He" indicates a male. This question should have also read, "He wrapped it, held it, and took it out."

Question #2: Additionally, what is the question that if it came out head first, it should cause the next animal to be exempt. Is it impossible that one would hold its head and have his hands between its head and the womb?

Question #2 (cont.): It is difficult to say that the womb does not really open before the head exits, and that he cannot put his hand inside.

Question #3: Additionally, the Mishnah (70b) regarding a shepherd putting his hand in is referring to a case where he did not take the fetus out at all, as otherwise he would be impure because it came out.

Answer #1: It would seem possible to differentiate between an animal having a Bechor and one not having a Bechor.

Answer #2: Alternatively, it could be referring to an animal that already had a birth beforehand that opened its womb.

Question: However, all of these differences are forced.

Explanation #2: It appears to Rabeinu Tam that the text of Rabeinu Chananel, "its sister wrapped it up and caused it to come out" is correct. This means that a female animal was born together with it.

Explanation #2 (cont.): This is as we find later (114a, that a female animal is called a "sister") when the Gemara says, "I only know this regarding his younger sister. What about the older sister?"

Explanation #2 (cont.): The Gemara's question is if it went out head first, as did the female, the head of the female that came out first exempted the animal from having a Bechor, as the male's head was wrapped up between the female's legs.

Explanation #2 (cont.): The Gemara's answer is that its legs went out, and it was entangled in the female's knees.

Explanation #2 (cont.): The Gemara could have also discussed it coming out wrapped up in its brother, and discussed which one is the Bechor. However, it discussed a sister because a sister has no law of Bechor at all.

Question: What is the question? Isn't this impurity that is swallowed up (internal) and it therefore does not cause impurity? (Why is the shepherd deemed impure?)

Answer #1: Being that Rebbi Akiva says later (72a) that a fetus in the womb of a woman does cause impurity, a Kal v'Chomer is required here to teach that this is not the law regarding an animal. This is as explained by Rashi that (due to this Kal v'Chomer) even Rebbi Akiva will agree that a fetus in an animal does not cause impurity.

Answer #2: Alternatively, we should have ruled that the fetus is impure based on the Pasuk, "And anything that walks on its palms" quoted later in the Gemara, even in a case where the fetus did not have split hooves and was in an animal that did not have split hooves. Being that there is a Kal v'Chomer, the Tana Kama says that this Pasuk must be teaching us a different lesson.

Implied Question: It could have answered that this is why Rav Chisda's Kal v'Chomer is helpful. (Why didn't the Gemara give this answer?)

Answer: Rather, the Gemara instead gave a better answer.

Question: What is the question? It is true that we are holding according to the position of Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili who derives the word "Es." In Bava Kama (42a), he derives from "and the owner of the ox is clean" that it means he is exempt from paying for the fetus that his ox destroyed. This implies that he uses the word "Es" stated there to teach that one can receive benefit from the skin of the ox.

Question (cont.): If so, it would seem that Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili holds like Rebbi Shimon who rules that an animal without split hooves is forbidden when it enters the air of the world (i.e. is born), as this is derived from "Es ha'Gamal" in Bechoros (6b)!

Answer #1: It is better for the Gemara to answer that Rebbi Yosi can even be according to the opinion that an animal without split hooves is pure if it is inside a kosher animal that happened not to have split hooves (i.e. it was born from a kosher animal but happened not to have split hooves).

Answer #2: Alternatively, the Gemara here is referring to his head and most of his body being similar to his mother, as even Rebbi Shimon admits that in such a case it is a permitted animal, as is apparent there.

Explanation: Each comparison implies that there is a novel teaching that results due to this comparison. In other words, being that a Chayah is included in a Beheimah, it is clear the prohibition of crossbreeding also applies to Chayos.

Explanation (cont.): However, even without this we know that this prohibition applies to birds, as we derive "Behemtecha - Behemtecha" from Shabbos as stated in Bava Kama (54b).