1)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that, if a donkey gives birth for the first time to two males, the owner is obligated to give one lamb to the Kohen ...

1. ... since, Mah Nafshach, one of them is the B'chor and required redemption.

2. ... a male and a female, after separating one lamb (to remove the Safek Bechorah), he may eat it himself - due to the principle Hamotzi me'Chavero, Alav ha'Re'ayah, the onus lies on the Kohen to prove that the male was born first.

(b)One is permitted to eat the latter (without redeeming it) - because the obligation regarding Pidyon Petter Chamor is purely a monetary one (since neither the donkey nor the lamb [even in the case of a Vaday B'chor] has any Kedushah).

(c)If it was two donkeys that gave birth for the first time to ...

1. ... two males - the owner must give two lambs to the Kohen.

2. ... a male and a female or two males and a female - he must give one lamb to the Kohen, and to separate a second lamb (in case the male was born first)), which he may then eat himself.

3. ... two females and a male or two females and two males - he must separate two lambs, both of which he is permitted to eat (because both females may have been born first.

(d)Assuming that one of those two donkeys has already given birth before, and between them, they now gave birth to two males, the owner must give one lamb to the Kohen. But if they gave birth to a male and a female - he must separate a lamb, though he is not obligated to give it to a Kohen (seeing as the donkey that is subject to the Bechorah may be the mother of the female).

2)

(a)The Tana cites the Pasuk in Ki Sisa "u'Feter Chamor Tifdeh be'Seh" - as the source for the Din of giving a lamb to the Kohen instead of the donkey.

(b)"Seh" incorporates - a sheep or a goat, male or female, whole or blemished.

(c)The Tana permits redeeming another donkey with the same lamb - there where the Kohen has given the lamb to a Yisrael.

3)

(a)Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili (in the Mishnah in the second Perek) obligates someone whose sheep gave birth for the first time to two lambs, to give them both to the Kohen - because he holds Efshar Letzamtem (it is possible for both babies to have left the womb simultaneously, in which case they are both considered firstborn.

(b)Rebbi Yirmiyah therefore maintains that Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili disagrees - with the middle case where, when a donkey gives birth for the first time to two males, and the owner gives only one lamb to the Kohen (according to Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili, he ought to give two).

(c)Abaye reconciles Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili with our Mishnah - by citing the Pasuk in Bo "Ha'Zecharim la'Hashem", implying that, besides the S'vara of Efshar Letzamtzem, we also require the Pasuk "ha'Zecharim ... " (in the plural) to teach us that sometimes, there are two firstborn (and there is no such Pasuk by a Petter Chamor).

(d)We cannot however, learn Beheimah Temei'ah from Beheimah Tehorah with a Binyan Av - because the 'Hey' in "ha'Zecharim" is a Miy'ut, which precludes Beheimah Temei'ah from that Halachah.

4)

(a)According to the second Lashon, Abaye is coming to refute the suggestion that - our Mishnah does not go like Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili.

(b)The problem our Mishnah presents Abaye is that seeing as the author might be Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili - the Tana ought to have added that the owner gives only one lamb to the Kohen even if both heads emerged from the womb simultaneously.

(c)We also query Abaye from a Beraisa, which, citing Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili, rules that - if the two heads emerged simultaneously, the owner is obligated to give them both (two lambs) to the Kohen (like Rebbi Yirmiyah.

5)

(a)We learn from the Pasuk in Beha'aloscha "Petter Kol Rechem" that - the B'chor must touch the womb until it is completely born ...

(b)... causing us to suggest that the Rabbanan hold that Miktzas Rechem Mekadesh (part of the womb will suffice to sanctify the Bechor). Otherwise, even though they hold I Efshar Letzamtzem, neither animal should be Kadosh, since at least during part of the birth, the twin will divide between the B'chor and the womb.

(c)It is not necessary to say this, according to Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili - since, according to him, both animals become Kadosh as if they were one.

(d)Rav Ashi refutes this suggestion however - based on the principle - Miyn be'Miyno Eino Chotzetz (something of the same species is not considered a Chatzitzah).

6)

(a)In the cases in our Mishnah where the owner is permitted to eat the lamb himself, he nevertheless needs to designate it before eating it, because - even though the donkey has no Kedushah that needs to be redeemed, it is nevertheless Asur be'Hana'ah.

(b)According to Rebbi Shimon however - it is not Asur be'Hana'ah.

(c)We refute the suggestion that the Isur Hana'ah is the result of the obligation ...

1. ... to redeem it - because B'chor Adam also needs to be redeemed, yet nobody holds that prior to the redemption, whatever he produces is Asur be'Hana'ah.

2. ... to redeem it specifically with a lamb - on the basis of Rav Nechemyah b'rei de'Rav Yosef, who redeemed his firstborn donkey with cooked herbs.

(d)We reject this latter refutation however, on the grounds that the Torah does indeed require specifically a lamb - if one wishes to redeem one's donkey for less than its value (But in the event that he redeems the donkey with any other object, that object must equal the value of the donkey).

(e)This answer solves the problem regarding Isur Hana'ah - since the fact that the Torah is stringent in this point is the source of the Isur Hana'ah (as long as it has not been redeemed).

7)

(a)The problem with the current explanation from the Mishnah in Kidushin, where Rebbi Yehudah himself rules that if someone betroths a woman with Ma'aser Sheini be'Meizid (with the intention of transferring its Kedushah), the Kidushin is valid - despite the Torah's requirement for minted money to be used for its redemption.

(b)We answer by citing Rebbi Elazar - who ascribes the validity of the Kidushin to the fact that the woman, aware of the fact that the Ma'aser Sheini does not go out to Chulin through her, clearly intends to eat it in Yerushalayim.

(c)Here too - any woman who is betrothed with the Petter Chamor knows that it is forbidden, so she intends to redeem it with a lamb ...

(d)... and she is betrothed with the difference in value between the lamb and the donkey.

8)

(a)Ula explains that Rebbi Shimon holds that the donkey is Mutar be'Hana'ah - because there is no such thing as an article that is Asur be'Hana'ah, and its Pidyon (in this case, the lamb) is permitted (without having to bring it on the Mizbe'ach), whereas the article itself is forbidden.

(b)And we reconcile this with Shevi'is, which is forbidden even though the Pidyon is permitted - by citing Mar, who stated that it is only the interim stages of Pidyon that are permitted, but that the last stage will always remain forbidden.

9)

(a)Alternatively, Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon argue over the Pasuk in Re'ei "Lo Sa'avod ... , ve'Lo Sagoz ... ". When Rebbi Yehudah Darshens Darshens "Lo Sa'avod bi'Vechor Shorecha", 'Aval Atah Oved be'she'Lecha u've'shel Acherim'; "ve'Lo Sagoz B'chor Tzonecha", 'Aval Atah Gozez she'Lecha ve'shel Acherim', he means that - if someone owns a firstborn sheep or ox together with a Nochri, he is permitted to shear the former and to work with the latter.

(b)Rebbi Shimon learns from ...

1. ... "Shorecha" that - one is permitted to work with a B'chor Adam, and from ...

2. ... "Tzonecha" that one is permitted to shear a firstborn donkey.

(c)The problem with ...

1. ... the fact that there are two words that need to be Darshened - affects Rebbi Yehudah, in that why does Rebbi Yehudah need two Pesukim to preclude the shearings and the work of an animal that is shared by a Nochri? Why will one not suffice?

2. ... B'chor Adam according to him is that - his work too, ought then to be forbidden, according to him.

10)

(a)So we conclude that both Tana'im preclude B'chor Adam (from the Isur Hana'ah) from "Shorecha", and they argue over "Tzonecha". Rebbi Yehudah learns from there that the shearings of a B'chor that is partially owned by a Nochri and its work are forbidden, whereas Rebbi Shimon (who precludes a firstborn donkey from the prohibition, as we just learned), disagrees with him, since in his opinion, a B'chor that is partially owned by a Nochri - is Patur from the Bechorah to begin with.

(b)According to Rebbi Yehudah, then, the Torah adds the suffix "cha" to ...

1. ... "Tzonecha" - to preclude one which is owned partially by a Nochri.

2. ... "Shorecha" - to balance "Tzonecha".

(c)According to Rebbi Shimon - we do not know why the Torah writes "Shorecha" and "Tzonecha".

(d)Rabah explains that even Rebbi Shimon will agree that - once the neck of the donkey has been broken, it is Asur be'Hana'ah ...

(e)... and he learns it - from the Gezeirah-Shavah "Arifah" "Arifah" from Eglah Arufah (which he certainly forbids be'Hana'ah after its neck has been broken).

11)

(a)Rabah learns his previous statement from a Beraisa, where the Tana Kama rules that Orlah, K'lai ha'Kerem, Shor ha'Niskal, Eglah Arufah, Tziprei Metzora, Petter Chamor and Basar be'Chalav - are all Mitamei Tum'as Ochlin.

(b)Apart from where the Shechted animal is still convulsing (as we learned in Chulin), the Petter Chamor will still be considered a food - assuming it is a smaller than a k'Zayis (which is not subject to Tum'as Neveilos, but which is fit to make up the Shi'ur of a k'Beitzah of food).

(c)Despite the fact that all of these are Asur be'Hana'ah anyway, the difference if they are Tamei Tum'as Ochlin as wel, will be - with regard to rendering other food Tamei, should they touch it.

(d)Rebbi Shimon disagrees with the Tana Kama, on the grounds that something that is Asur be'Hana'ah is not subject to Tum'as Ochlin, except for Basar be'Chalav - which had a Sha'as ha'Kosher (each of the two were permitted before being cooked together) which other Isurei Hana'ah did not..

12)

(a)Rebbi Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan cites Rebbi Shimon's reason (for his ruling regarding Basar be'Chalav) as the Pasuk in Shemini "mi'Kol ha'Ochel asher Ye'achel", from which he extrapolates that - any food that can be fed to others (since it is Mutar be'Hana'ah) is considered a food (vis-a-vis Tum'ah)

(b)Rebbi Yehudah quoting Rebbi Shimon learns that Basar be'Chalav is Mutar be'Hana'ah from the Gezeirah-Shavah "Ki Am Kadosh Atah la'Hashem Elokecha" (in Re'ei in connection with Basar be'Chalav) and "ve'Anshei Kodesh Tih'yun Li" (in Mishpatim, in connection with a T'reifah, which the Torah specifically permits be'Hana'ah).

(c)The problem this creates is - why, in the earlier Beraisa, Rebbi Shimon then considers Basar be'Chalav a food because it has a Sha'as ha'Kosher, and not because it is fit to feed to others?

(d)And we answer that - Rebbi Shimon in the Beraisa is merely adding a second reason to the one that we already know. As if to say, not only is Basar be'Chalav something that one can feed to others, but in addition, it also had a Sha'as Ha'Kosher).