1)

TOSFOS DH v'R. Yehudah Savar Kulei Bechor Mashma

úåñôåú ã"ä åøáé éäåãä ñáø ëåìéä áëåø îùîò

(SUMMARY: Tosfos compares this to similar arguments elsewhere.)

úéîä ô' ëñåé äãí (çåìéï ãó ôç. åùí) àîø àéôëà øáé éäåãä àåîø ãîå î÷öú ãîå åøáðï ñáøé ëì ãîå

(a)

Question: In Chulin (88a) it says oppositely! R. Yehudah says that "Damo" means [even] part of its blood. Rabanan holds that it is all of its blood;

åôø''ú ääéà îùåí ããí ëåìå ãí îùîò ëúá øçîðà ãîå î÷öú ãîå ëãàîø äëà ëúá ëì ãàôé' ëì ãäå

(b)

Answer #1 (R. Tam): There, it is because "Dam" connotes all the blood. The Torah wrote "Damo" to teach [even] part, like it says here. It wrote "Kol" to teach even any amount.

å÷ùä ãäúí ãøéù ø''é ãîå ìçì÷

(c)

Question #1: There (86b), R. Yehudah expounds Damo to divide (the blood of even one of them, i.e. a bird or Chayah, must be covered)!

åòåã ìôé îä ùôñ÷ ø''ú ëø' éäåãä ëãôøéùéú ô''÷ ãâéèéï (ãó æ: åùí ã''ä àîø) ÷ùä äìëúà àäìëúà ãàéï äìëä ëø' éäåãä ãäëà ëãàîø áñîåê ìéú ãçù ìäà ãø' éäåãä ãàîø ùåúôåú òåáã ëåëáéí çééáú

(d)

Question #2: R. Tam rules like R. Yehudah, like I explained in Gitin (7b). If so, there is a contradiction in the Halachah, for here the Halachah does not follow R. Yehudah, like it says below (3b) that no one is concerned for R. Yehudah's opinion that partnership of a Nochri is obligated!

òì ëï éúëï ìôøù ãàéï ìãîåú àìà îä ùäù''ñ îãîä ëääéà ãáúåìä àôé î÷öú áúåìéí ãô' äáà òì éáîúå (éáîåú ãó ðè.) (åáôø÷ àìîðä ðéæåðú (ëúåáåú ãó öæ:) îãîä ìäå ìôìåâúà) [ö"ì ãîãîé ìäå úìîåãà áôø÷ àìîðä ðéæåðú (ëúåáåú ãó öæ:) ìääåà - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã] ãî÷öú ëñó ëëì ëñó

(e)

Answer #2 (to Question (a)): We compare only what the Gemara compares, like the case of "Besulah" - even some Besulim (e.g. a Bogeres, whose Besulim are diminished - Yevamos 59a), that the Gemara in Kesuvos (97b) compares this to the argument about if some of the money [of the Kesuvah that a widow is owed] is like all of the money;

ãäðäå ãîå àäããé æäå òðéï (àçø ëùðúîòèå) [ö"ì àçã ãëùðúîòèå - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã] áúåìéí åðùúééøå î÷öúí ëàéìå ðùúééøå ëåìï åëï ëñó ëúåáä ðùàø î÷öú éù ìä îæåðåú ëàéìå ðùàø ëåìå

1.

Those resemble each other. It is one matter. When Besulim are diminished and some remain, it is as if all of them remain. Similarly, when some money of the Kesuvah remains, she is fed [from the estate] as if all of it remains.

åéù äøáä ãøùåú ùàéï ìäùååúï ùä àôé' î÷öú ùä ãôìéâé ø' àìòæø åøáðï ô' àåúå åàú áðå (çåìéï ãó òè:) åô' äæøåò (ùí ãó ÷ìá.) åôìåâúà ãøáé éäåãä áï áúéøà åøáðï àëì ðôù

2.

And there are many Drashos that we should not equate, [e.g.] "Seh", even a partial Seh (it was crossbred with something else) which R. Elazar and Rabanan argue about it in Chulin (79b, 132a) and the argument of R. Yehudah ben Beseira and Rabanan about "Kol Nefesh."

åàôé' ðùåä (ääéà ããîå) [ö"ì äðê ããîå àäããé - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã] ìäê ãäëà ìà ú÷ùä äà ãôñé÷ äëà ãìà ëø' éäåãä åäúí ÷àîø ìéú ãçù ìäà ãø' ùîòåï ãàîø ìà àîøéðï î÷öú ëñó ëëì ëñó

3.

And even if we will equate those that resemble each other to [the Drashah] here, it is not difficult that here [the Gemara] rules unlike R. Yehudah and there it says that no one is concerned for R. Shimon's opinion, that we do not say that some of the money is like all of the money...

ãàãøáä ñééòúà ãäìëúà ëøáðï ãáëåø î÷öú áëåø îùîò àé ìàå ëì åäúí ðîé áúåìä î÷öú áúåìéí áîùîò

i.

Just the contrary, this supports that the Halachah follows Rabanan, that "Bechor" connotes a partial Bechor, if not for "Kol"! Also there, 'Besulah' connotes [even] some of the Besulim.

òåã é''ì ãìà ú÷ùä ãø' éäåãä àãøáé éäåãä îùåí ãñúîà ã÷øà àééøé áñúí áäîä ùäï ùìäï åàéï ìòåáã ëåëáéí ùåúôåú áäï äìëê àé ìàå ëì îå÷îé ìéä ì÷øà áëåìéä áëåø

(f)

Answer #3: R. Yehudah does not contradict himself, for the Stam verse discusses a Stam animal, which is of Yisrael, and a Nochri has no partnership in it. Therefore, if not for "Kol", we would establish the verse to discuss a total Bechor;

àé ðîé îùåí ãëúéá (áîãáø â) ëì áëåø áéùøàì åáéùøàì îùîò ëåìéä ëãàîø ôø÷ îöåú çìéöä (éáîåú ãó ÷á.) åìòðéï çìéöä òã ùéäà àáéå åàîå îéùøàì àáì áòìîà îùîò ùôéø î÷öú

1.

Alternatively, it is because it says "Kol Bechor b'Yisrael", and "b'Yisrael" connotes totally, like it says in Yevamos (102a) "and [to be a judge] for Chalitzah, his father and mother must be from Yisrael", but elsewhere, it properly connotes part.

2)

TOSFOS DH Rav Chisda Amar... Neveilah Rava Amar... Tereifah

úåñôåú ã"ä øá çñãà àîø... ðáìä øáà àîø... èøéôä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos prefers the text in Temurah.)

ô''÷ ãúîåøä (ãó éà:) âøéñ àéôëà âáé àåîø øâìä ùì æå òåìä åîäâøñåú äôåëåú äéà æå

(a)

Observation: In Temurah (11b) the text says oppositely regarding one who says "the leg of this [animal] is an Olah." (Rav Chisda says that if removal of the limb Hukdash would make it Tereifah, the entire animal is an Olah, and Rava says so if its removal would make it Neveilah.) This is among texts that are opposite [in different Gemaros].

åääéà ãäúí òé÷ø ãàîø øá çñãà îåãä øáé éäåãä áãáø ùòåùä àåúä èøéôä øáà àîø áãáø ùòåùä àåúä ðáéìä øá ùùú àîø áãáø ùîúä áå ëå (îø) [ö"ì ùëì àçã - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã] îåñéó àãçáøéä

(b)

Assertion: The text there is primary, for Rav Chisda said that R. Yehudah agrees about something [whose removal] makes it Tereifah. Rava says, [he agrees if] it makes it Neveilah. Rav Sheshes said, something that it dies [immediately] due to it. Each one adds to his colleague [who said before him].

åáòðéï æä éúëï ãàîø äëà øá äåðà àæðå øá çñãà îåñéó èøôä øáà îåñéó ðáéìä

1.

Like this, it is possible that here [also each one adds to his colleague, based on the text there, i.e.] Rav Huna said its ear, Rav Chisda adds Tereifah, and Rava adds Neveilah.

åëä''â ô' äîôìú (ðãä ëâ:) âáé âåó àèåí (òã ìàøëåáä åçã îåñéó) [ðøàä ùö"ì ãîø àîø òã ìàøëåáä åîø îåñéó òã ìð÷áéå åçã îåñéó òã èáåøå - ò"ô ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã, îøàä ëäï]

(c)

Support: We find like this in Nidah (23b) regarding an Atum body (there is no Tum'as Yoledes for such a baby. Atum is when it is lacking (or formless) at the bottom, to the point that a person cannot live if this is missing). One says that this is until the knee, one adds until the rectum, and one adds until the navel.

åäà ãàîø øáà äúí åùèå ð÷åá àîå èîàä ìéãä

(d)

Implied question: Rava said there that if [a baby is born with] a punctured Veshet (foodpipe), his mother has Tum'as Leidah (even though this is a Tereifah. Here, Rava says that a Tereifah cannot live! This would be fine if the text here was "Rabah".)

àôé' âøñ øáà áùîòúà ìôé ùäåà áúø øá çñãà ìà ÷ùä ãøáà àãøáà äúí ãàò''â ãåùèå ð÷åá èøéôä (åçéä) ìà îãîå ìçñøåï òã ìàøëåáä

(e)

Answer: Even if the text in our Sugya is "Rava", because he was after Rav Chisda, Rava does not contradict himself. There, even though a punctured Veshet is Tereifah, it is unlike what is lacking until the thigh.

1.

Note: Mayim Kedoshim says that if the text says Rabah, he should have been taught before Rav Chisda, for he was older. I question this. In Bava Metzi'a (18b), Rav Chisda told Rabah "tomorrow, Rav Huna will ask you..." It seems that Rav Chisda was already an established Talmid of Rav Huna. Rabah could not have been much older than Rav Chisda, for Rabah died at 40 (and Rav Chisda at 92 - Mo'ed Katan 28a), and Rabah was Rosh Yeshivah for 22 years (Brachos 64a), after Rav Yehudah died (Rashi Gitin 60b), so he was 18 at the time, and even younger in the days of Rav Huna, who died before Rav Yehudah (Tosfos below, 14a)! Igeres Rav Sherira Gaon says that Rav Chisda died 11 years before Rabah. If so, he was born 63 years earlier (since he lived 52 years longer)! We cannot say that Rabah was Rav Chisda's Rebbi, for Rav Chisda said "you", without a title of respect. I prefer to explain that according to our text, the Amora'im said "a missing ear, Neveilah, Tereifah." This is not in ascending order, and not descending order. Granted, if the text here is "Rava", we can say that the Gemara wanted to teach the opinions of the older Chachamim first. However, if it says Rabah, Rav Chisda's colleague, why was Rav Chisda's opinion brought first?! However, Tosfos in Menachos (106a DH Rabah) connotes that normally, Rabah should be taught before Rav Chisda. This requires investigation.

3)

TOSFOS DH Ha d'Rav Huna v'Rav Chisda v'Rava Lo Pligi

úåñôåú ã"ä äà ãøá äåðà åøá çñãà åøáà ìà ôìéâé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that there is surely an argument.)

äà ôùéèà ãøá çñãà åøáà ôìéâé

(a)

Implied question: Obviously, Rav Chisda and Rava argue!

àìà ä''÷ äà ãøá äåðà ìà ôìéâà àãøá çñãà åøáà

(b)

Answer: It means that Rav Huna does not [necessarily] argue with Rav Chisda and Rava.

4)

TOSFOS DH Mai Shena mi'Nefalim

úåñôåú ã"ä î''ù îðôìéí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that there is a reason to distinguish.)

àò''â ãäúí ëúá ÷øà

(a)

Implied question: [Nefalim are different,] for there is a verse (Peter Sheger Behemah)!

äåä ìï ìîéìó îäúí àå ðôìéí ðéìó îùåúôåú ãëúéá ëì áëåø åðùåä ëì äãøùåú áòðéï àçã:

(b)

Answer: We should learn from there, or we should learn Nefalim from partners, for it says "Kol Bechor", and we will equate all the Drashos.

3b----------------------------------------3b

5)

TOSFOS DH Ela Lav Mishum d'Havah Lei Sharu'a

úåñôåú ã"ä àìà ìàå îùåí ãäåä ìéä ùøåò

(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with what R. Yochanan said above.)

åùéðåé ìà äåé îåîà

(a)

Explanation: Shinuy is not a Mum. (Therefore we needed to say that it is Sharu'a, that one limb of a pair is bigger than its counterpart.)

åà''ú àí ëï ÷ùä èôé ìø' éåçðï ãàîø ìòéì ëéåï ãàéùúðé äåé îåîà ãäëà ãéé÷éðï ùúéäï âãåìåú äåé ùéðåé åìà çùéá îåîà

(b)

Question: If so, it is more difficult for R. Yochanan, who said above "since it is different, it is a Mum", for here we infer that if both are big, it is Shinuy, and it is not a Mum!

åéù ìåîø ääéà ãìòéì ùéðåé çîåø èôé îùúéäï âãåìåú àå ùúéäï ÷èðåú

(c)

Answer: We can say that above he discusses a Shinuy more severe than both are big or both are small.

6)

TOSFOS DH d'Ka Mafka Lehu mi'Kedushasaihu

úåñôåú ã"ä ã÷à îô÷ò ìäå î÷ãåùúééäå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why nowadays we are not concerned for this.)

îä ùàéï ðæäøéï òëùéå åàò''ô ùðòðù øá îøé

(a)

Implied question: Why aren't people careful nowadays (not to be Makneh part of an animal to a Nochri, to uproot Kedushas Bechorah)? Rav Mari was punished for this!

ôø''ú øá îøé ðòðù ìôé ùäéä î÷ðä àæðå ùì òåáø åàéëà äô÷òä áâåó äòåáø àáì ä÷ðàä áàí ùøéà

(b)

Answer (R. Tam): Rav Mari was punished because he was Makneh the ears of a fetus, and there is a Hafka'ah (uprooting the Kedushah) in the fetus itself. However, Hakna'ah of the mother is permitted.

åàò''â ãàéú ñôøéí ãâøñé ìàæðä ìùåï ð÷áä äééðå

(c)

Implied question: There are Seforim in which the text is "Aznah", i.e. feminine (it refers to the mother)!

îùåí ã÷àé àçéåúà (åäëé ðîé àñø) [ãäëé ðîé ëúá åàñø - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã] ìä áâéæä åòáåãä

(d)

Answer: This is because it refers to "Chayusa" (his animals, which is feminine). It likewise wrote "he forbade Lah (it, feminine) regarding shearing and working with it."

åà''ú ì÷îï ô''è (ãó ðâ.) ãôøéê âáé îòùø áäîä (åàéðå) [ö"ì ãàéðå] ðåäâ áæîï äæä ãìà ìéúé ìéãé ú÷ìä àé äëé áëåø ðîé ìà ìðäåâ áæîï äæä îùåí ú÷ìä åîùðé àôùø ëãøá éäåãä

(e)

Question: Below (53a) it asks about Ma'aser Behemah, that it does not apply nowadays, lest people come to Takalah (transgress). If so, also Bechor should not apply nowadays, due to Takalah! It answers that it is possible to do like Rav Yehudah (blemish a Bechor before it leaves the womb);

àîàé ìà îùëçú ú÷ðä áàîäåú ëãôøéùéú

1.

Why doesn't it find a solution through [selling the ear of] the mothers, like I explained?

é''ì äúí ëéåï ãàéëà çùù ú÷ìä åéù ìäí ìú÷ï áìà äô÷òä îëäï ùéòùä ëøá éäåãä ìà øöå ìú÷ï ùéòùä ìòåìí ëê ò''é äô÷òä åîéäå àé òáã òáã

(f)

Answer #1: There, since there is concern for Takalah, and they can fix it without uprooting from the Kohen, that they do like Rav Yehudah (the law of Bechor applies to a Ba'al Mum, and it is given to a Kohen to eat like Chulin), they did not want to enact to always do so through Hafka'ah. However, if he did so, he did so.

àé ðîé áéîé øá îøé äéå á÷éàéï ìäèéì îåí ááëåø ÷åãí ùéöà ìòåìí àñåø ìòùåú ò''é äô÷òä àáì àðå ãìà á÷éàéï áëê îåèá ìä÷ðåú ìòåáã ëåëáéí ÷åãí ùéáà ìéãé ú÷ìä

(g)

Answer #2: In the days of Rav Mari they were experts to blemish a Bechor before it enters the world (is born), so it was forbidden [to evade the chance of Takalah] through Hafka'ah. We are not experts to do so, so it is better to sell to a Nochri rather than to come to [chance of] Takalah.

ëãîùîò ô' áúøà (ì÷îï ãó ðâ.) ãàé ìàå îùåí ãàôùø ëøá éäåãä äéä ìðå ìú÷ï ìä÷ðåú ìòåáãé ëåëáéí åàðï ãìà á÷éàéðï äåé ëìà àôùø

(h)

Support: It connotes like this below (53a). If not that it were possible like Rav Yehudah, we should have enacted to sell to Nochrim. We are not experts, so it is as if it is not possible;

åàôé' áäà ãøá éäåãä )áôø÷ àéï îòøéîéï ãàñåø) [ö"ì îùîò áôø÷ ëéöã îòøéîéï ãäåä øàåé ìàñåø - îøàä ëäï, îìàëú éå"è] îï äãéï âæéøä ãìîà îôé÷ àú øàùå ÷åãí ùéèéì áå îåí

1.

Even Rav Yehudah's [solution], it connotes in Temurah (24b) that it would be proper to forbid it, due to this decree, lest [the fetus] stick its head out before one blemishes it...

àé ìàå îùåí ãøá éäåãä òãéôà ìäèéì áå îåí ÷åãí ùéöà ìòåìí ëé äéä öøéê ìäùäåúå òã ùéôåì îåí îòöîå

i.

[It would be forbidden,] if not that Rav Yehudah's [solution] is better, to blemish it before it enters the world, for [if not] one would need to wait until a Mum comes by itself (and there is chance of Takalah, lest one blemish it or benefit from it).

åðøàä ãáä÷ðàú àæï ìçåã ùøé ã÷é''ì ëøá äåðà îã÷àé ø' éåçðï ëååúéä åàîø àôé' îåí ÷ì

(i)

Assertion: It suffices to sell the ear alone, for we hold like Rav Huna, since R. Yochanan holds like him, since he says [that if removal of the Nochri's share would make] even a minor Mum [it is exempt].

åøá îøé ðîé ãî÷ðä àæðééäå ìà ðòðù àìà îùåí äô÷òä

(j)

Support #1: And also Rav Mari, who used to sell the ear, was punished only due to Hafka'ah (but not because they still had Kedushah).

åì÷îï ô' áúøà (â''æ ùí) ôøéê ì÷ðéðäå ìäå ìàåãðééäå ìòåáã ëåëáéí åìëì äéåúø îåúø ò''é ä÷ðàä áãáø ùòåùä àåúä èøéôä àå ðáéìä

(k)

Support #2: And below (53a) [the Gemara] asks that he should be Makneh them for their ears to a Nochri, and (even according to the opinions that this does not exempt), the most [that anyone requires to exempt] is Hakna'ah of something [whose removal] makes it Tereifah or Neveilah.

åìàéãê ìéùðà îôøù ùðòðù øá îøé îùåí ãéãò ìà÷ðåéé åë''ò ìà éãòé åñáøé øá îøé îéìúà áòìîà äåà ãòáã åàúé ìéãé ú÷ìä

(l)

Implied question: According to the version that explains that Rav Mari was punished because he knew how to be Makneh, but others did not, and they thought that he did a mere Milsa (this will be explained), and people will come to Takalah (why do we do so nowadays)?

éù ìôøù ðîé øá îøé ùäéä á÷é (áãøá éäåãä ìéú ìéä ìîéòáã á÷ðéï) [ö"ì ìòùåú ëãøá éäåãä ìéú ìéä ìîéòáã áòðéï - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã] ãàúé ìîéèòé àáì ìãéãï ìà àôùø áòðéï àçø

(m)

Answer #1: Also this we can explain that Rav Mari, who was expert to do like Rav Yehudah, he should not have done in a way that people will come to err. However, we [who are not expert] have no other way [to avoid Takalah].

òåã ôø''ú øá îøé [ö"ì ìà - öàï ÷ãùéí] ùäéä î÷ðä àæï òåáø ìòåáã ëåëáéí (äåé) [ö"ì ãäåé - öàï ÷ãùéí] ãáø ùìà áà ìòåìí àìà äéä î÷ðä áäîä ìàæðé òåáø ëîå ã÷ì ìôéøåúéå

(n)

Answer #2 (R. Tam): Rav Mari was not Makneh the ear of the fetus to a Nochri, which is Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam (normally, such a Kinyan is invalid), but he was Makneh the [mother] animal for the ears of the fetus, like [Hakna'ah of] a date tree for its Peros (in this way, the Kinyan is valid);

åèòä àéðù åàîø àæðé òåáø äéä î÷ðä ëîå ôéøåú ã÷ì åàúé ìéãé ú÷ìä

1.

A people would err and say that he was Makneh the ears of the fetus to a Nochri, which is [an invalid Kinyan,] like Peros of a date tree, and he would come to Takalah.

àáì ëé î÷ðä àæðé äáäîåú ùøé ãìà àúé ìîéèòé

2.

Distinction: However, when one is Makneh the ears of the [mother] animal it is permitted, for people will not come to err.

åìôé' ä÷åðèøñ ìà éúëï ìôøù ëï ùôéøù øá îøé äéä éåãò ìä÷ðåú ÷ðéï âîåø ìéèåì îòåú îï äòåáã ëåëáéí ãòåáã ëåëáéí ìà ÷ðé àìà áëñó ëãàîø ì÷îï ô''á (éâ.) åñáøé îéìúà áòìîà äåà ãòáã åàéðå ðåèì ãîéí

(o)

Limitation: According to Rashi, one cannot explain so, for he explains that Rav Mari knew to make an absolute Kinyan, to take coins from the Nochri, for a Nochri acquires only through money, like it says below (13a). People thought that he does a mere Milsa (verbal Kinyan), and does not take money.

åîéäå ìôé ãáøéå (ìà äéä ìå ìäæëéø øàéä îì÷îï) [ö"ì ðîé ìà äéä ìå ìäæëéø ãîéí - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã] ãàãøáä ìø' éåçðï ãàîø ãáø úåøä îòåú ÷åðåú ãøéù ìä ì÷îï (ãó éâ:) îéã òîéúê áëñó äà ìòåáã ëåëáéí áîùéëä åëøáé éåçðï [÷é''ì]

(p)

Objection: Also according to [Rashi's] Perush (that people will err about the need for a Kinyan), he should not have mentioned money, for just the contrary, according to R. Yochanan, who says that mid'Oraisa money acquires, he expounds below (13b) that from your fellow [Yisrael you acquire] through money, but [one is Makneh] to a Nochri via Meshichah, and we hold like R. Yochanan! (Rashi should have said that Rav Mari knew that the Nochri must do Meshichah, and others would be Makneh without Meshichah.)

7)

TOSFOS DH Kohanim u'Leviyim Patru Atzman mi'Kal v'Chomer

úåñôåú ã"ä ëäðéí åìåéí ôèøå òöîï î÷''å

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Kal v'Chomer is needed.)

åà''ú áìà ÷''å úéôå÷ ìéä (îúåê ÷åðèøå÷åñ) [ö"ì îúùåáú øéá"æ ì÷åðèøé÷åï] äùø ãîùðé (ì÷îï ä.) àåúí â' îàåú áëåøéí äéå åàéï áëåø îô÷éò áëåø îùåí ããéå ùéô÷éò (ùì òöîå ù''î ãùì òöîå) [ö"ì àú òöîå ù''î ãùì ãòöîå - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã] îéäà îô÷éò

(a)

Question: Without the Kal v'Chomer, we should already know from R. Yochanan ben Zakai's answer to the officer, that he answered (5a) that the [missing] 300 were Bechoros, and a Bechor does not uproot a Bechor [from the need to redeem himself], for it suffices that he exempts himself. This shows that he exempts himself!

é''ì àé ìàå ÷''å îöéðå ìùðåéé àåúï â' îàåú áëåøåú äéå åäåöøëå ôãéåï

(b)

Answer: If not for the Kal v'Chomer, we could have answered that the 300 were Bechoros, and they needed redemption.

åëé úéîà à''ë ìîðéðäå áäãé ùìùä åùáòéí åîàúéí äòåãôéí

(c)

Question: If so, they should have been counted with the 273 extra [Bechoros Yisrael above the number of Leviyim]!

îöé ìîéîø ìà (äåçæ÷) [ö"ì äåæ÷÷] äëúåá ìîðåú àìà ãéùøàì ìçåãééäå:

(d)

Answer: One could say that the Torah needed to count only the Yisrael [Bechoros, for only some of them needed Pidyon. It did not need to count the Levi Bechoros, for all of them needed to redeem themselves - Shitah Mekubetzes 4a(2).]

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF