1)

TOSFOS DH Din Hu she'Tafki'a Es Shel Atzman

úåñôåú ã"ä ãéï äåà ùúô÷éò àú ùì òöîï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos says what the two possible texts are.)

âøñ åàé âøñ ùúô÷ò ìà âøñ àú

(a)

Assertion: This is the text. If the text says "she'Tifka" (a Levi's Peter Chamor is exempt), the text does not say "Es" (for it does not say that something else exempts it. Tosfos' preferred text, she'Tafki'a, means that a Levi's Seh exempts his Pitrei Chamorim. If so, the text must say "Es".)

2)

TOSFOS DH v'Ha Patru Inhu ka'Tani

úåñôåú ã"ä åäà ôèøå àéðäå ÷úðé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with the Reisha.)

îøéùà ã÷úðé åäëäðéí åäìåéí ôèåøéï

(a)

Implied question: The Reisha teaches that Kohanim and Leviyim are Peturim (exempt)!

ìà ÷ùä îéãé ãàéëà ìôøù ôèåøéï îì÷ãù ôèøé çîåøéäï ÷àîø åìà ôèåøéï äï òöîï

(b)

Answer: This is not difficult at all. We can explain that they are exempt from being Mekadesh their Pitrei Chamorim, but not that they themselves are exempt from [Pidyon];

àáì ôèøå îùîò ôèøå àéðäå

1.

However, "Patru" connotes that they exempted [others].

3)

TOSFOS DH v'Od Im Isa

úåñôåú ã"ä åòåã àí àéúà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the question.)

ããøùéðï ÷''å âáé áäîä îáëåø áäîä èäåøä ìéôèøå ìåéí ãäà áäîä [ö"ì èäåøä - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã] ãéãäå äô÷éòä áäîú éùøàì äèäåøä [ö"ì ëê ôé' á÷åðèøåñ - ùéèä î÷åáöú]

(a)

Explanation: If we expound a Kal v'Chomer about animals, Leviyim should be exempt from Bechor Behemah Tehorah, for their Tahor animals exempted Tahor animals of Yisrael.

[ö"ì îùîò ùø"ì ãäà ã÷àîø ìà ðôèøå îáëåø áäîä èäåøä äééðå òëùéå àáì áîãáø ðôèøå îï äëì - ùéèä î÷åáöú]

(b)

Inference: He means that what we say that they were not exempted from Bechor Behemah Tehorah, this is nowadays, but in the Midbar they were totally exempt.

åà''ú à''ë ì÷îï ãð÷è ùä à' ùì áï ìåé ôèø ëîä ôèøé çîåø ùì éùøàì àîàé ìà ð÷è áäîä èäåøä

(c)

Question: If so, below (4b) that it says that one Seh of a Levi exempted several Pitrei Chamorim of Yisrael, why didn't it mention Behemah Tehorah?

ãìéëà ìîéîø ãááäîä èäåøä ìà ôèø ùä àçã ëîä áëåøåú ãèäåøåú ãéùøàì àìà ãå÷à áôèøé çîåø àáì áèäåøä îðå àçã ëðâã àçã

1.

Implied suggestion: For Behemah Tehorah, one Seh did not exempt several Bechoros Pitrei Chamorim of Yisrael. This was only for Pitrei Chamorim, but for Tahor [Bechoros] they counted one against one (each Tahor Bechor of a Levi exempted one Tahor Bechor of a Yisrael. If there were excess Tahor Bechoros of Yisrael, they would need Pidyon, just like human Bechoros.)

(ã÷àîø îä ùôèøå áäîú) [ö"ì ãäà îä ùôèøå áäîåú - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã] ìåéí ùì éùøàì (áéï èîàä áéï èäåøä( îáäîú úçú áäîúí ðô÷à ìéä ì÷îï áäîä àçú úçú áäîåú äøáä îùîò áéï èîàä áéï èäåøä

2.

Rejection: This that the Leviyim's animals exempted Yisrael's, we learn from "Behemas Tachas Behemtam" below (4b) - one animal in place of many animals. This connotes both for Tamei and Tahor!

é''ì ø' çðéðà ãì÷îï ð÷è îä ùéëåì ìðäåâ òëùéå

(d)

Answer #1: Below, R. Chanina mentioned what can apply nowadays. (The same Seh can redeem many Pitrei Chamorim if the Kohen returns it each time. Nowadays, a Tahor animal cannot exempt another Tahor animal from Kedushas Bechorah.)

åòåã éù ìôøù )îúðéúéï ãì÷îï àúà) [ö"ì ãì÷îï èòîà ãîúðé' àúà ìôøù - öàï ÷ãùéí] îúðéúéï ãì÷îï àúà îä èòí ôåãä åçåæø åôåãä îùåí ãùä àçã ùì áï ìåé ôèø ëîä ôèøé çîåø ùì éùøàì áîãáø

(e)

Answer #2: [R. Chanina] comes to explain our Mishnah (9a), like it says below (4b). Why can he redeem and redeem again (with the same Seh)? It is because one Seh of a Levi exempted several Pitrei Chamorim of Yisrael in the Midbar;

àáì îä ùôèø ùä àçã ùì áï ìåé áîãáø ëîä áëåøåú ãèäåøä ùì éùøàì ìà ðäâ àìà áàåúä ùòä ãòëùéå àéï ìäí ôãéåï àìà éù áäï ÷ãåùú äâåó

1.

However, this that one Seh of a Levi exempted several Tahor Bechoros of Yisrael, applied only at that time. Now there is no Pidyon, rather, they have Kedushas ha'Guf.

åà''ú åàáéé îàé ÷ñáø àîàé ìà òáãé ÷''å áèäåøä

(f)

Question: What did Abaye hold? Why didn't he make a Kal v'Chomer from Tehorah?

é''ì ÷ñáø ìòðéï èäåøä ùéù áäï ÷ãåùú îæáç ìà ùééê ìîéîø ôåèøéï àú ùì òöîï î÷''å ãôåèøéï ùì éùøàì

(g)

Answer: He holds that regarding Tehorah, which has Kedushas Mizbe'ach, we cannot say that they exempt their own [animals] from a Kal v'Chomer, that they exempted Yisrael's [animals]...

[ö"ì ãëéåï ãùì éùøàì çæå ìîæáç îèòí ëôøä ë"ù ãëäðéí åìåéí çæå ìîæáç - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã] ãëäðéí åìåéí ÷øåáéí ìöã îæáç éåúø îùì éùøàì

1.

Since Yisrael's [animals] are proper for the Mizbe'ach due to Kaparah, all the more so of Kohanim and Leviyim are proper for the Mizbe'ach, for Kohanim and Leviyim are closer to the Mizbe'ach than Yisrael.

4)

TOSFOS DH Im Hifki'ah Kedushah Shel Leviyim v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä àí äô÷éòä ÷ãåùä ùì ìåéí ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the Kal v'Chomer, and why Rava disagrees.)

åà''ú îàé ÷''å äåà æä åäìà ôùåèé äìåéí äô÷éòå áëåøåú éùøàì àáì áëåøé ìåéí ìà äô÷éòå ëìåí ëãì÷îï åäéëé òáéã ÷''å ááëåø ùì ìåéí ùìà îöéðå ùäô÷éòå ùåí ãáø

(a)

Question: What Kal v'Chomer is this? Pashut Leviyim exempted Bechoros Yisrael, but Bechorei Leviyim did not exempt anyone [other than themselves], like it says below (5a). How can he make a Kal v'Chomer from a Bechor Levi? We do not find that they exempted anything!

é''ì äëé ãéé÷ ÷''å (÷ãåùú ìåéåú ùäìåé) [ö"ì ù÷ãåùú ìåéåú ùáìåé - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã] äô÷éò ÷ãåùú áëåøåú éùøàì à''ë ìåé áëåø ãéï äåà ùìåéåú (ùìå éô÷éò) [ö"ì ùáå úô÷éò áëåøú - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã] òöîå åëï ô''ä

(b)

Answer: He infers a Kal v'Chomer that Kedushas Leviyos in a Levi uprooted Kedushas Bechoros of Yisrael. If so, a Levi Bechor, it is proper that the Leviyos in him uproot his Bechorah (from needing Pidyon). So Rashi explained.

åìäëé ÷àîø ì÷îï ãàéï áëåø îô÷éò áëåø ìåéåú ùì ìåé àéï îô÷éò (ùúé áëåøåú ùì òöîå åáëåøåú) [ö"ì úåøú ùúé áëåøåú áëåøä ùì òöîå åáëåøä - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã] ùì éùøàì

(c)

Support: This is why it says below (5a) that a Bechor does not uproot a Bechor. The Leviyos of a Levi does not uproot two laws of Bechorah - his own Bechorah, and Bechorah of Yisrael.

åà''ú î''è ãøáà ãìéú ìéä ÷''å ãàáéé ãáäîä åäìà ÷''å âîåø äåà

(d)

Question: What is Rava's reason to argue with Abaye's Kal v'Chomer for animals? It is an absolute Kal v'Chomer!

åô''ä äééðå èòîà ãìà ãøùé ÷''å âáé áäîä (ãàéöèøéê) [ö"ì îãàéöèøéê - îøàä ëäï] ìà÷åùé áëåø áäîä èîàä ìáëåø àãí ìâîåøé ëì ùàéðå ááëåø àãí àéðå ááëåø áäîä èîàä ëãì÷îï

(e)

Answer #1 (Rashi): [Rava holds that] the reason why [Rabanan] do not expound the Kal v'Chomer for animals is because we needed to equate Bechor Behemah Temei'ah to Bechor Adam, to teach that any[one] who has no [need to redeem] Bechor Adam, there is no [Kedushah to his] Bechor Behemah Temei'ah, like below;

ù''î âáé áäîä ìà àúééäá ìîãøù ÷''å

1.

Inference: We cannot expound the Kal v'Chomer for animals. (If we could, we would not need the Hekesh. We could learn from the Kal v'Chomer!)

åàéï äìùåï îùîò ëôéøåùå ãîã÷àîø àùëçï àãí áäîä èîàä îðìï îùîò ãàéöèøéê ä÷éùà ìàâîåøé àáäîä èîàä åìà ìâìåéé àèäåøä ãìà òáãé ÷''å

(f)

Objection #1: The words do not connote like his Perush. Since it says "we find man. What is the source for Behemah Temei'ah?", this connotes that we need the Hekesh to teach about Behemah Temei'ah, and not to reveal about Tehorah that we do not make a Kal v'Chomer!

åòåã ããéìîà àéöèøéê ä÷éùà ìëããøùéðï ì÷îï áùîòúà ãáëåø áäîä èîàä ìà úçìå÷ áå áéï ìãåøåú áéï áàåúä ùòä áùä

(g)

Objection #2: Perhaps we need the Hekesh like we expound below (4b) in the Sugya of Bechor Behemah Temei'ah "do not distinguish in it between Doros and Sha'ah (what applied only once), that [it is redeemed] through a Seh";

åìãåøåú ðîé ðô÷à îéðä (ëääéà) [ö"ì áääéà - îøàä ëäï] ãøùà ãâîøé îéðä ôåãä åçåæø åôåãä ëîå ùôèø áîãáø ùä àçã ùì áï ìåé ëîä ôèøé çîåø ùì éùøàì

1.

Also for Doros we learn from [the Hekesh], we learn from this Drashah that one may redeem and redeem again (with the same Seh), just like in the Midbar one Seh of a Levi exempted several Pitrei Chamorim of Yisrael!

åòåã àéöèøéê ìø' àìéòæø ããøéù áñåó ôø÷éï (éá:) îä áëåø àãí çééá áàçøéåúå àó áëåø áäîä çééá áàçøéåúå

2.

Also, we need [the Hekesh to expound] like R. Eliezer, who expounds below (12b) just like Bechor Adam one has Achrayus (if he designated money for Pidyon ha'Ben, and it was lost, he must separate more money to redeem his son), also Bechor Behemah he has Achrayus!

åð''ì äééðå èòîà ãøáà ããåå÷à áàãí ù÷ãåùú ìåéä âåøîú äô÷òú áëåøä ùééê ìòùåú ÷''å

(h)

Answer #2: Rava's reason is because only for man, that Kedushas Leviyos causes Hafka'ah of Bechorah, we can make a Kal v'Chomer;

àáì ááäîä ùàéï ÷ãåùú äùä ùì ìåéí âåøîú äô÷òú áëåø áäîä ãàéï áå ÷ãåùä ìà ùééê ìîéòáã ÷''å

1.

However, an animal, that Kedushas of a Levi's Seh does not causes Hafka'ah of Bechor Behemah, for [the Seh] has no Kedushah, we cannot make a Kal v'Chomer.

5)

TOSFOS DH Din Hu she'Tafki'a Shel Atzmo

úåñôåú ã"ä ãéï äåà ùúô÷éò ùì òöîå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos brings two opinions about how Rava explains our Mishnah.)

ô''ä ìøáà )ôåèøéï( [ö"ì ôèåøéï - äøù"ù] ãîúðéúéï àééøé áôãéåï äáï

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): According to Rava, "they are exempt" in our Mishnah discusses Pidyon ha'Ben.

å÷ùä ãáôèø çîåø òñ÷éðï

(b)

Question: [Our Perek primarily] discusses Peter Chamor!

åôø''ú ä''÷ îúðéúéï ëäðéí åìåéí ôèåøéï îôãéåï ôèø çîåø îä èòí ãäí òöîï ôèåøéï î÷''å ìëï ùîòéðï áäîä èîàä îãàú÷ù ìàãí

(c)

Answer #2 (R. Tam): [Rava] says that our Mishnah teaches as follows. Kohanim and Leviyim are exempt from Pidyon Peter Chamor. What is the reason? It is because they themselves are exempt, from a Kal v'Chomer. Therefore, we learn Behemah Temei'ah from the Hekesh to man.

åìùåï äëé ÷àîø ÷''÷ ìôé' æä

(d)

Disclaimer: The wording "it means as follows" is somewhat difficult according to this. (Rava explains that the Mishnah exempts them from Pidyon ha'Ben. Perhaps in Tosfos' text, Rava said "Hachi ka'Amar", or the text of Tosfos should say "Hachi ka'Tani.)

6)

TOSFOS DH d'Lo Havah Lei Seh d'Afka Lo Lifka

úåñôåú ã"ä ãìà äåä ìéä ùä ãàô÷ò ìà ìô÷ò

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why we do not learn from a Kal v'Chomer.)

åà''ú î''î ÷''å îéäà àéúà àí ôèø ùä ùì áï ìåé ôèøé çîåøéí ùì éùøàì ë''ù (î''î) [ö"ì ãôåèø - öàï ÷ãùéí] ùì ùàø ìåéí ùìà äéä ìäí ùä

(a)

Question: In any case, there is a Kal v'Chomer! If a Levi's Seh exempted Pitrei Chamorim of Yisrael, all the more so [it exempted Pitrei Chamorim] of other Leviyim, who did not have a Seh!

åé''ì àéï æä ÷''å (ìà àîø äëúåá ì÷çú) [ö"ì ãìà àîø äëúåá åì÷çú - öàï ÷ãùéí] áäîä ùì ìåé æä úçú áäîä ùì ìåé àçø àìà úçú áäîú éùøàì

(b)

Answer: This is not a Kal v'Chomer. The verse did not say 'you will take a Levi's animal in place of another Levi's animal', rather, in place of a Yisrael's animal! (Chidushei Basra asks that in every Kal v'Chomer, the Torah taught the bigger Chidush, and we infer the smaller Chidush! Perhaps we learn animals from people - Leviyim exempted only Yisraelim from Pidyon ha'Ben, and not other Leviyim. It seems that this is Efshar from Iy Efshar. No Levi needed to do Pidyon ha'Ben - PF.)

åî''î áãéãéä ëùéù ìå [ö"ì ùä - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã] òáãéðï ÷''å

(c)

Remark: In any case, when [a Levi] has [a Seh], we make a Kal v'Chomer.

7)

TOSFOS DH Ben Chodesh d'Afka Lifka

úåñôåú ã"ä áï çãù ãàô÷ò ìéô÷ò

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the question.)

ìà ÷àîø áìåé áëåø áï çãù ãàô÷ò áëåø éùøàì ìô÷ò

(a)

Implied suggestion: [Rav Safra] asks that [only] a month-old Levi Bechor, who exempted a Bechor Yisrael, should be exempt.

ãàéï áëåø îô÷éò áëåø

(b)

Rejection: A Bechor does not exempt a Bechor!

àìà ä''÷ áï çãù ãéù ëç ììåéåú ùáå ìäô÷éò áëåøåú éùøàì ìéô÷ò áëåøú òöîå ëéåï ùëéåöà áå áôùåè îô÷éò áëåøåú éùøàì

(c)

Explanation: Rather, he says as follows. A month-old, whose Leviyos has power to exempt Bechoros Yisrael, should exempt his own Bechorah, since a corresponding Pashut exempts Bechoros Yisrael;

àáì àåúå ùäéä ôçåú îáï çãù áàåúä ùòä ìà úô÷éò áëåøú ùì (òöîï) [ö"ì òöîå - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã] åàò''ô ùàçøé ëï ðòùä áï çãù

1.

However, one who was less than a month old at the time should not exempt his own Bechorah, even though later he became a month old!

åëï ìáëåøåú îùí åàéìê ãëéåï ãáàåúä ùòä ìà (îô÷éò âí ìãåøåú) [ö"ì äô÷éò âí ìãåøåú éäéä ëòðéï æä - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã] ëããøéù áñîåê åäéå áäåééúï éäå

2.

The same applies to Bechoros from then and onwards. Since at that time he did not exempt, also for Doros it should be like this, like we expound below (4b) "v'Hayu" - their status will persist.

8)

TOSFOS DH b'Peter Rechem Talah Rachmana

úåñôåú ã"ä áôèø øçí úìä øçîðà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that this answer stands by itself.)

ô''ä ëéåï ãøçí ãäê ìåéä äåà [àé] îùëçú ãìåééí ëåìï ôèåøéï àôé' ôçåú îáï çãù áï ìåéä ôèåø

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Since the womb [from which this Yisrael was first to come to out] is of a Leviyah, if we find that all Leviyim are exempt, even less than a month, [also] the son of a Leviyah should be exempt.

îùîò ùøö''ì äê ôøëà ãáï (ìåé áùðåéà ãôèø øçí åáï ìåé ùäåà áï çãù) [ö"ì ìåéä áùðåéà ãôèø øçí åáï ìåé ùäåà ôçåú áï çãù ðèø - öàï ÷ãùéí] òã ùðåéà ãäå÷ùå ëì äìåéí ëåìï æä ìæä

(b)

Inference: [Mar brei d'Rav Yosef] wants to answer this question of a Ben Leviyah with the answer of Peter Rechem, and [the answer for] a Ben Levi less than a month old, he delayed until the answer that all Leviyim are equated to each other.

åàéï îùîò ëï àìà ìâîøé îúøöà áùðåéà ãôèø øçí (ááï ìåé ùäåà ôçåú îáï çãù àéï áå ùåí âøéòåúà àìà áîä ùäåà ôçåú îáï çãù åäøé äåà) [ö"ì åáï ìåéä ùäåà áï çãù àéï áå ùåí âøéòåú àìà áîä ùàéðå - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã] áï ìåé

(c)

Objection: It does not connote like this. Rather, it is totally answered through the answer of Peter Rechem, and a Ben Leviyah who is a month old, his only shortcoming is that he is not a Ben Levi;

åëéåï ãáôèø øçí úìä øçîðà îä ùäåà áï )ìåé îùåéäå ìåé) [ö"ì ìåéä îåòéì - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã] åàò''ô ùàéï àáéå ìåé

1.

Since the Torah made it dependent on Peter Rechem, this that he is a Ben Leviyah helps [to exempt him], even though his father is not a Levi.

9)

TOSFOS DH v'Aharon she'Lo Hayah b'Oso Minyan

úåñôåú ã"ä åàäøï ùìà äéä áàåúå îðéï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that we ask why Aharon exempt his animals.)

ô''ä ìà äåà åìà áäîåúéå ùìà äô÷éòå áëåøé éùøàì ìà ìô÷òå áëåøä ãéãéä

(a)

Explanation (Rashi): Aharon and his animals did not exempt Bechoros Yisrael. He should not exempt his own Bechorah!

îùîò ùøåöä ëîå ëï ìä÷ùåú ãìà ìô÷ò áëåøú' òöîå

(b)

Inference: [He explains that the Gemara] asks also that he should not exempt his own Bechorah (need to redeem himself).

åà''à ìåîø ëï ãìà äéä àäøï áëåø ãîøéí âãåìä îîðå â' ùðéí ëãàîø áîãøù [øéù ô' ùîåú] ëîå ùäéä àäøï âãåì îîùä â' ùðéí

(c)

Rejection: We cannot say so, for he was not the Bechor, for Miryam was three years older than him, like it says in the Midrash, just like Aharon was three years older than Moshe.

åà''ú îàé ÷ùä ìéä îàäøï èôé îâ' îàåú áëåøéí ùì ìåéí ùìà ðîðå áäãé ë''á àìó ëãì÷îï

(d)

Question: What was difficult [to the Makshan] from Aharon more than from the 300 Leviyim Bechoros who were not counted among the 22,000, like below?

åéù ìåîø ðäé ãìòðéï ë''á àìó ìà ðîðå îùåí ããéå ìáëåø ùéô÷éò òöîå îëì î÷åí ðîðå áîðéï ìåéí

(e)

Answer: Granted, they were not counted with the 22,000, for it suffices for a Bechor to exempt himself. In any case they were counted with the count of Leviyim;

àáì àäøï ìà ðîðä ëìì:

1.

However, Aharon was not counted at all.

4b----------------------------------------4b

10)

TOSFOS DH Mah l'Kesef she'Chen Podin Bo Hekdesh u'Ma'aser Sheni

úåñôåú ã"ä îä ìëñó ùëï ôåãéï áå ä÷ãù åîòùø ùðé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that also a Seh can redeem Hekdesh.)

àò''â ãä÷ãù ðôãä áùä åëì ãáø çåõ îòáã å÷ø÷ò åùèø ëãàîøéðï áô' éù áëåø (ì÷îï ãó ðà.)

(a)

Implied question: Hekdesh can be redeemed with a Seh, or anything except for a slave, land or document, like we say below (51a)!

äééðå îèòí ùùåä ëñó ëëñó åìà îèòí ùä

(b)

Answer: That is because Shaveh Kesef is like Kesef, but not because it is a Seh;

àáì ôèø çîåø ðôãä áùä ëì ãäå åáùàø áùåéå ëãàîø ì÷îï

1.

Distinction: However, a Peter Chamor is redeemed through a Seh Kol Dehu (of any value), or with other matters for its value, like we say below (9b).

11)

TOSFOS DH u'Podeh Bo Pa'amim Harbeh

úåñôåú ã"ä åôåãä áå ôòîéí äøáä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos gives two explanations of how this can be.)

ô''ä àí çæø å÷ðàå îéã ëäï àçø ùðúðå ìå çåæø åôåãä áå ôèø çîåø àçø

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): If he returned and bought it from the Kohen after he gave it to him, he can redeem another Peter Chamor with it.

åø''ú îôøù ãàñô÷ ÷àé (ì÷îï) [ö"ì ëãì÷îï - öàï ÷ãùéí] áôø÷éï (ã' è.) ã÷úðé øéùà àçú áëøä åàçú ìà áëøä (éìãä) [ö"ì åéìãå - äøù"ù] æëø åð÷áä îôøéù [ö"ì èìä - ùéèä î÷åáöúú, äøù"ù] åäåà ìòöîå

(b)

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): This refers to a Safek [Peter Chamor], like below (9a). The Reisha teaches that if one [donkey] Bikrah (already gave birth) and another did not, if they gave birth to a male and female (and we do not know which was from which), he separates a Seh and it is for himself (he keeps it);

åáñô÷ æä ùìà éöà îéãå äåöøê ìîúðé ùçåæø åôåãä áå ñô÷ àçø ôòîéí äøáä

1.

Regarding this Safek, which never left his hand, [the Mishnah] needed to teach that he can redeem another Safek with it many times.

åëï îùîò ãàñô÷ ÷àé ã÷úðé áúø äëé ðëðñ ìãéø ìäúòùø åîå÷é ìéä áâî' áñô÷

(c)

Support: It connotes that it refers to a Safek, for it teaches afterwards "it enters the pen to be tithed", and we establish it to discuss a Safek;

àáì áååãàé ìà àôùø ìîéîø ôåãä åçåæø åôåãä ëì æîï ùäåà áéã éùøàì åìà ðúï ãäà úðï ì÷îï áôéø÷éï (è.) ùúé çîåøåú ùìà áëøå åéìãå ùðé æëøéí ðåúï ùðé èìàéí ìëäï

1.

However, a Vadai, it is impossible to say that he returns to redeem with it as long as it is in the Yisrael's hand and did not give it, for the Mishnah below (9a) says that if two donkeys did not yet give birth, and they gave birth to two males, he gives two lambs to a Kohen.

12)

TOSFOS DH Lo Kidshu Bechoros ba'Midbar

úåñôåú ã"ä ìà ÷ãùå áëåøåú (ðîé) áîãáø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that this is unlike the question above.)

ìà áëåø àãí åìà áëåø áäîä

(a)

Explanation: Bechor Adam [did not become Kadosh], and not Bechor Behemah.

åäà ãôøéê ìòéì àôé' îáëåø áäîä èäåøä ìéôèøå ãäà áäîä èäåøä ãéãäå äô÷éòä áäîú éùøàì äèäåøä

(b)

Implied question: Above, it asks that [Leviyim] should be exempt even from Bechor Behemah Tehorah, for their Tahor animals exempted the Tahor animals of Yisrael!

àéï æä àìéáà ãøéù ì÷éù ìôé ñáøúå ùì òëùéå

(c)

Answer #1: That is unlike Reish Lakish, according to his reasoning now.

åîéäå ìôé îñ÷ðà ãì÷îï äå÷ãùå áçåîù äô÷åãéí åàçø ëê ôñ÷å ðéçà

(d)

Answer #2: According to the conclusion below, that they became Kadosh in Chumash Bamidbar, and afterwards ceased, it is fine.

13)

TOSFOS DH Oso ha'Yom

úåñôåú ã"ä àåúå äéåí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that it was the last day for Bechoros.)

îëàï åàéìê ìà ÷øåá

(a)

Explanation: From here and onwards they were not offered.

åàò''â ãðãøéí åðãáåú ÷øåá îùí åàéìê

(b)

Implied question: Nedarim and Nedavos were offered from then and onwards!

îùåí áëåøåú ð÷è àåúå äéåí

(c)

Answer: It mentioned that day due to Bechoros. (They were not offered afterwards.)

14)

TOSFOS DH Ela Iy Itmar v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä àìà àé àéúîø ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that we concluded that the above questions were not asked.)

ìîñ÷ðà æå ìà ðàîøå äðé úéåáúà ãìòéì

(a)

Explanation: According to this conclusion, the questions above were not asked.

åëä''â àéúà áøéù äçåìõ (éáîåú ãó ìä: åùí) âáé àìîðä îòåáøú åáôø÷ ÷îà ãçâéâä (ãó æ.) åôø÷ äîôìú (ðãä ãó ëã.) âáé ôðéå îåñîñéï åáëîä ãåëúé àéëà èåáà:

(b)

Observation: We find like this in Yevamos (35b) regarding a pregnant widow, and in Chagigah (7a) and in Nidah (24a) regarding a face [of a newborn baby] that is Musmasin (slightly mashed), and there are more [such cases] in other places.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF