Question: Why didn't [R. Yochanan] give the reason given below, that "Kol Chelev" includes Chetzi Shi'ur?

Strengthening of Question: R. Yochanan knew the Beraisa, for below he asks from it!

Answer: R. Yochanan needed to give the reason [because it can join], for one might have thought that "Kol Chelev" teaches primarily about a Koy (Safek Behemah, Safek Chayah), and Chetzi Shi'ur is forbidden only mid'Rabanan; the verse is a mere Asmachta;

Now that he gives a reason, because it can join, presumably it is a proper Drashah that teaches about Chetzi Shi'ur.

Question: Why didn't Chachamim decide whether it is a Chayah or Behemah? We should check the horns. Through them, it is recognized whether it is a Chayah or Behemah, like it says in Chulin (59b)!

Answer: Perhaps they erred (were unsure) about the sign of grooved, i.e. that the grooves are very close to each other. This was the Safek about the goats of Karkuz;

Even the one who permits Chelev of goats of Karkuz (he holds that they are Vadai Chayos), perhaps he considers their grooves to be very close, but Chachamim were in Safek about those of a Koy.

Implied question: In Bechoros (58b), we expound "Asiri" to teach a Vadai, but not a Safek. (We did not ask that a verse should not teach about Safek!)

Question #2: Also in Nazir (65b), we learn that if it is a Safek whether a Baheres (appearance of Tzara'as) or the white hair inside came first, he is Tahor (i.e. not a Muchlat).

We learn from "Letaharo Oh Letam'o" - the Torah began with Taharah [to teach that we are Metaher a Safek]. We did not ask that a verse should not teach about Safek!

Answer: Here we properly ask that a verse should not teach about Safek. It is clear to Hash-m that it is always the same;

He could have taught us whether it is a Chayah or Behemah. If one of them (a particular Koy) is a Chayah, all of them are Chayos. If one of them is a Behemah, all of them are Behemos.

Support: Similarly in Chulin (22b), when we exclude the beginning of yellowing in both (it is too young to be Machshir a Tur for a Korban, and too old for a Ben Yonah), the Gemara asks "if you will say that it is a Safek, do we need a verse to teach about Safek?!"

This is because it is clear to Hash-m that it is always the same. The beginning of yellowing is always too old, or it is always too young.

Distinction: However, we could not say that the Safek of the 10th is always the 10th. Sometimes it is the ninth, and something it is the 10th. The same applies to a Safek about a Baheres. Sometimes the white hair comes first.

Implied question - Citation (Bechoros 41b - Beraisa): Below it says "Zachar", to exclude a Tumtum (the gender is unknown, for the genitals are covered) and Androginus (one with both male and female genitals).

Citation (cont.): Like whom is this? If it is like the first Tana, Do we need a verse to teach about Safek? (The Gemara asked this, even though not all Tumtums are the same!)

Answer: The Gemara did not asked from Tumtum, for they are not all the same. When [the flesh covering the genitals] is torn, we find that some are males, and some are females;

Rather, the question was from Androginus. They are all the same. Hash-m knows that all are males, or all are females.

Question - Citation (Rav Chisda): They argue about Androginus, but all agree that a Tumtum is Kodesh due to Safek. The verse does not come to exclude a Tumtum.

Answer: Even though it is not clear to Hash-m [that all are the same], since we can establish the Mi'ut (exclusion) to teach about Androginus, which has female genitals, it is unreasonable to establish it to discuss Tumtum, for perhaps it will be torn and found to be a male. It is more reasonable to establish it to teach about Androginus than Tumtum.

Support: This is why the Gemara asked 'if so, Erchin should apply [to a Tumtum]. Why does a Beraisa expound "ha'Zachar", but not a Tumtum or Androginus?' We should have established the verse to exclude only Androginus! The Gemara answered that we should delete 'Tumtum' from the text.

Implied question - Citation (Chagigah 4a - Beraisa): "Zechurcha" excludes a Tumtum [from Re'iyah, the Mitzvah to enter the Mikdash every festival and offer Korbanos].

Citation (cont.) Question: Do we need a verse to teach about Safek?!

Answer: There we ask because without the verse, we would not know that [a Tumtum] cannot bring [Korbanos] due to Safek;

'He' cannot do Semichah, for perhaps 'he' is really a woman, and this is doing work with (supporting one's weight on) a Korban. If he will not do Semichah, perhaps he is really a man, and he is Mevatel the Mitzvah of Semichah!

Even though Semichah is not Me'akev, one may not bring a Korban l'Chatchilah in order to be Mevatel the Mitzvah of Semichah, like it says in Pesachim (88b) regarding the skins of five Korbanos Pesach that became mixed, and a wart was found on one. (This shows that its owners were not Yotzei.) All of them are exempt from Pesach Sheni, because there is no solution;

They do not bring [animals] and stipulate "if it is not Pesach [Sheni, for my animal had no wart and I was Yotzei Pesach Rishon], it is Mosar [leftover from] Pesach", because Pesach does not require Semichah, and Mosar Pesach requires Semichah.

Question: We say in Shekalim (11b) and Kidushin (55a) that if an animal was found between Yerushalayim and Migdal Eder, males are Olos and females are Shelamim. We offer them without Semichah, since we do not know who the owner is!

Answer: There is different, for they were already Hukdash, and there is no other solution except to offer them without Semichah.

Question: A Safek Metzora brings an Asham (Zevachim 76b), and he is Mevatel Semichah, according to the opinion that Semichah on Asham Metzora is not mid'Oraisa (so he may not do real Semichah. If he is not a Metzora, it is a Shelamim, which requires Semichah!)

Answer: Fixing up a person is different. (Until he brings an Asham, he cannot eat Kodshim, lest he was a Metzora.)

Question: Rav (Nidah 28a) holds that Androginus is a Safek, for he is Metamei for white emissions [of semen] and red emissions [of blood], and he rules (Yevamos 83a) like R. Yosi, who says that Chachamim did not decide whether he is a male or female.

In a Beraisa there, R. Yosi said "he is a separate creation (neither male nor female)." This is not precise.

Even so, Rav excludes [Androginus] regarding [liability for] Bi'as Mikdash from "mi'Zachar v'Ad Nekevah" - a Vadai male or female, but not a Tumtum or Androginus. How can a verse exclude a Safek?

Answer: Rav's verse has two Mi'utim. It could have said 'mi'Zachar v'Ad Adam' or 'mi'Nekevah v'Ad Adam.' One of the Mi'utim excludes Androginus, and the other excludes Tumtum;

If Androginus is a male, "mi'Zachar" excludes him. If 'he' is a female, "v'Ad Nekevah" excludes him, because he is different.

Question: In Bechoros (41b), we exclude Androginus from being an Olah due to an extra "Zachar";

Citation (41b) Question: Who is this [Tana]? If it is Rabanan, they hold that he is a Safek. Do we need a verse to teach about Safek?!

Answer: There, we ask a proper question. If we come to exclude him even if he is a male, because he is different from other males, if so, since we exclude him from "ha'Zachar", this shows that he is a male, and not a Safek.

Inference: This is unlike the first Tana, who says that he is a Safek;

Consequence: According to what I explained, Rav in Nidah (28a) holds like Rav Chisda, who holds that a Tumtum Bechor is Kodesh due to Safek, since there is only one Mi'ut regarding Bechor, and we establish it to discuss Androginus, and not Tumtum, for if a Tumtum is a male, it is a full male.

Question: If so, what was the question against Rav Chisda from Erchin, in which we exclude Tumtum and Androginus from Erech of a man or woman?

The Gemara answered that we delete Tumtum from the text. What was difficult? There are two verses there, "ha'Zachar" and "v'Im Nekevah"! Therefore, we exclude him (a Tumtum), like in Nidah!

Answer: There, we need both of them regarding Androginus. Had it written only ha'Zachar, we would have excluded him from the Erech of a male, but the Erech of a female would apply, for he is no worse than a female.

Question: What was the question there from "Im Zachar Im Nekevah" to exclude Tumtum and Androginus? Regarding Shelamim there are two Mi'utim, "Im Zachar Im Nekevah"! (Each "Im" excludes.)

Answer: The text there says "Zachar Oh Nekevah", written in Vayikra regarding Shelamim of sheep and goats, which Toras Kohanim expounds. ("Oh" is the only Mi'ut);

"Im Zachar Im Nekevah", which is written regarding Shelamim of cattle, we expound (Temurah 17b) to include the child of a Ba'al Mum and Temurah of a Ba'al Mum.

The Gemara properly asked against Rav Chisda. There is only one Mi'ut in the verse. "Oh" excludes, just like "Kesev Oh Ez" excludes Nidmeh (a child that does not resemble its parents).

Question: We find that a verse writes something lest we err. We ask in Chulin (66b) 'we rely on Kaskeses (scales, to know that a fish is Kosher). Why did the Torah write "Snapir" (fins)?'

Citation (66b) Answer: Had the Torah not written Snapir, one might have thought that Kaskeses is fins, and we would be Machshir even [some] Tamei fish. It wrote [also] Snapir, to require Snapir and Kaskeses. (Here also, perhaps the Torah wrote both, lest we err!)

Answer: (That is not a mistake.) Kaskeses connotes something that is not smooth, which the hand gets caught on it. This applies also to fins. It would be proper to call them Kaskeses.

Explanation: Here, "a creation unto itself" means that it is not a Safek Chayah or Behemah.

Implied question: In Chulin (80a), R. Yosi says that it is "a creation unto itself" and Chachamim did not decide whether it is a Chayah or Behemah!

Answer: There, "a creation unto itself" means that it is a Safek Chayah or Behemah. We know that R. Yosi (Chulin 84b) forbids slaughtering it on Yom Tov, and if one slaughtered it, one may not cover the blood;

If it were clear to us that it is a creation unto itself, and not a Chayah or Behemah, it would be permitted to slaughter it l'Chatchilah, for there would be no Mitzvah to cover the blood. (See also Tosfos Kerisus 21a DH Koy.)