Question: We understand Reish Lakish. (He learns from "v'Hayah Chi Yevi'acha... v'Ha'avarta");

However, what is R. Yochanan's reason?

R. Elazar: I saw R. Yochanan in a dream. Surely, I will give a good reason!

Answer (R. Elazar): "Li Yihyu" - they will remain in their current status. (Kidush Bechoros will never cease.)

Question: How does R. Yochanan expound "v'Hayah Chi Yevi'acha... v'Ha'avarta"?

Answer: He expounds like R. Yishmael:

(Beraisa - Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael): Doing this Mitzvah will entitle Bnei Yisrael to enter Eretz Yisrael.

Version #3 - Rav Mordechai: We learned the argument of R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish just the contrary. R. Yochanan says that they were not Mekadesh Bechoros in the Midbar, and Reish Lakish says that they were!

Rav Ashi: Do you learn the questions oppositely? Did R. Elazar explain Reish Lakish, and see him in a dream? (R. Elazar was a Talmid of R. Yochanan!)

Rav Mordechai: R. Yochanan means that they did not need to Mekadesh Bechoros in the Midbar (in order to be Makriv them, for they became Kodesh automatically). Reish Lakish says that (they were Chulin, so) they had to be Mekadesh them.

Rav Ashi: This is like we learned!

Even though there is no Halachic difference, Rav Mordechai taught the argument in different words, for one must use the same words that his Rebbi used.

Question (a Nochri officer): If one adds up the number of Leviyim who descended from each son of Levi, we find a total of 22,300. However, a verse says that there were only 22,000 in all. What happened to the other 300?!

Answer (R. Yochanan ben Zakai): They were Bechoros. Only the 22,000 Leviyim who were not Bechoros exempted Bechorei Yisrael from redemption.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer (Abaye): It is enough that a Bechor exempts himself. He cannot exempt someone else as well.

Question (the officer): Each of 603,550 Yisraelim gave "Beka (half a Shekel) la'Gulgoles" for the Mishkan. This is a total of 201 Kikarim and 11 Manos (a Maneh is 25 Shekalim, a Kikar is 60 Manos);

Only 100 Kikarim were used in the Mishkan. "Me'as Kikar ha'Kesef Latzekes" (one for each socket);

Your Rebbi Moshe was a thief, dice player (he pocketed money to pay gambling debts) or could not do arithmetic. He kept over half, and returned (for the Mishkan) less than half!

Answer (R. Yochanan ben Zakai): He was a faithful treasurer. He did not err. The Maneh of Hekdesh is double a standard Maneh (also the Kikar of Hekdesh is double.)

Question (Rav Achai): What was the officer's question? "Me'as Kikar ha'Kesef Latzekes" implies that the rest was put in the treasury of Hekdesh!

Answer: It also says "v'Chesef Pekudei ha'Edah Me'as Kikar."

Question: What is R. Yochanan ben Zakai's source to say that the Maneh of Hekdesh is double?

Answer #1: There were 71 (regular) Manos above the 100 Kikar. The Torah calls this 1775 Shekalim. If the Maneh (and Kikar) of Hekdesh were like of Chulin, it would have called the excess a Kikar and (275 Shekalim, which is) 11 Manos!

Rejection: Perhaps the Torah counts only 'round' numbers of Kikarim (e.g. 100), but not units (a lone Kikar)!

Answer #2: The Torah calls the amount of copper "Shiv'im Kikar and 2400 Shekalim." If the Maneh of Hekdesh were not double, it would have called the 2400 Shekalim 'a Kikar and (900 Shekalim, i.e.) 36 Manos!'

Rejection: Perhaps the Torah combines Shekalim into Kikarim only if it amounts to a 'round' number of Kikarim (e.g. a multiple of 10)!

Answer #3 (Rav Chisda): He learns from "Esrim Shekalim Chamishah v'Esrim Shekalim Asarah va'Chamishah Shekel ha'Maneh Yihyeh Lachem";

Question: A Maneh is (100 Dinarim,) not 240 (Dinarim, i.e. 60 Shekalim, i.e. 20 and 25 and 15)!

Answer: This teaches three things:

The Maneh of Hekdesh is double a normal Maneh;

We may increase measures, but no more than a sixth. (A double Maneh was initially 200 Dinarim, and the verse considers it to be 240);

The sixth is "external". (The increase (40) is a sixth of the total (the new measure, 240. This equals a fifth of the old measure.)

Question (R. Chanina): Why is Peter Chamor different than firstborn horses or camels?

Answer #1 (R. Elazar): This is a Gezeras ha'Kasuv. (The Torah decreed. We do not know the reason.)

Answer #2 (R. Elazar): This is because donkeys helped Bnei Yisrael carry wealth out of Mitzrayim. Everyone had at least 90 donkeys laden with gold and silver.

Question (R. Chanina): What is the meaning of "Refidim" (where Amalek attacked Yisrael)?

Answer (R. Elazar): This is its name.

Tana'im argue like R. Chanina (who assumes that this was not its name) and R. Elazar;

(Beraisa - R. Eliezer): Refidim is its name.

R. Yehoshua says, it is called Refidim because Bnei Yisrael Rifu (slackened) from Torah - "Lo Hifnu Avos El Banim mi'Rifyon Yadayim."

Question (R. Chanina): What is the meaning of "Shitim" (where Benos Midyan enticed Bnei Yisrael)?

Answer (R. Elazar): This is its name.

Tana'im argue like R. Chanina and R. Elazar;

(Beraisa - R. Eliezer): Shitim is its name.

R. Yehoshua says, it is called Shitim because Bnei Yisrael engaged in Shetus (lunacy) there.

(R. Eliezer): "Va'Tikrena la'Am l'Zivchei Eloheihen" - their very bodies (i.e. unclothed) came out to greet the Yisraelim.

(R. Yehoshua): "Va'TiKRena" teaches that the Yisraelim had emissions of Keri (semen).

(Mishnah): If a cow gave birth to (an animal that looks like) a donkey, or a donkey gave birth to a horse (Rosh's text - calf), it is exempt from Bechorah;

It says "Peter Chamor" twice. The mother and baby must both be donkeys (for the Mitzvah to apply).

Question: May these (Tosfos - it, the donkey born from a cow) be eaten?

Answer: If a Tahor animal gave birth to a Tamei animal, it is permitted. If a Tamei animal gave birth to a Tahor animal, it is forbidden;

What comes from something Tamei is Tamei. What comes from something Tahor is Tahor.

(Gemara - Mishnah): If a sheep gave birth to a goat, or vice-versa, it is (a Nidmeh, it is) exempt from Bechorah;

If the child resembles its mother in some ways, it has Kedushas Bechor.

Question: What is the source of this?

Answer (Rav Yehudah): "Ach Bechor Shor" - a calf has Kedushas Bechor only if it and its mother are cattle.

"Vechor Kesev" and "Vechor Ez" teach that a lamb (or kid) has Kedushas Bechor only if it and its mother are sheep (or both goats).

Suggestion: Perhaps a Nidmeh has no Kedushas Bechor even if it resembles its mother in some ways!

Rejection: "Ach" limits (the exemption to the case when it has no resemblance. Alternatively, this is a second Mi'ut (exclusion). Two Mi'utim for the same matter always come to include it - Sefas Emes).

Question: Our Tana (of the Mishnah) learns about a cow that gave birth to a Nidmeh from the repetition of "Peter"!

Answer: Rav Yehudah explains according to R. Yosi ha'Gelili;

(Beraisa - R. Yosi ha'Gelili): "Ach Bechor Shor" teaches that a calf has Kedushas Bechor only if it and its mother are cattle. "Vechor Kesev" and "Vechor Ez" teach similarly about a lamb or kid.

Suggestion: Perhaps a Nidmeh has no Kedushas Bechor even if it resembles its mother in some ways!

Rejection: "Ach" limits the exemption.

Question: What do the Tana'im argue about?

Answer: Our Tana holds that a verse exempts a Nidmeh regarding (Peter Chamor, which is only Kedushas Damim), and the same applies to Kedushas ha'Guf (Bechoros of Tahor animals, which are Korbanos);

R. Yosi holds that a verse exempts a Nidmeh regarding Kedushas ha'Guf, and the same applies to Kedushas Damim.

Question: How does our Tana expound "Bechor (Kesev) Bechor (Ez)" in R. Yosi's verse?

Answer: This teaches R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina's law:

(R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina): The Torah (wrote "Bechor" regarding each of the three kinds of Tahor Bechoros. It) explicitly commands Lehaktir (to burn on the Mizbe'ach) Eimurim (parts of animals offered from all Korbanos, e.g. the Chelev) of Bechoros of all of them. We could not have learned one from the others;

Had the Torah taught only about a calf, we would have said that this is because it has larger Nesachim (six Lugim of wine. The Nesech for other Bechoros is only three Lugim);

Had it taught only about a lamb, we would have said that this is because its tail is offered, unlike other Bechoros;

Had it taught only about a goat, we would have said that this is because an individual who transgressed idolatry b'Shogeg must bring a goat for his Chatas.

Suggestion: True, we could not have learned one from any one of the others. Perhaps we could have learned one from the other two!

Rejection - Question: Which could be learned from the other two?

We cannot learn a calf from the others, for they are Kosher for Korban Pesach;

We cannot learn a lamb from the others, for they are brought to atone for Helam Davar of idolatry;

We cannot learn a kid from the others, for more is offered on the Mizbe'ach for them (bigger Nesachim, or the tail) than for a kid.

Conclusion: The Torah must teach all of these.

Implied question: R. Yosi ha'Gelili [should agree with this! Why does he expound differently?]

Answer: If so, it should have written 'Ach Bechor Shor Kesev v'Ez.' Why does it repeat Bechor [for each]? Rather, this teaches that it must be a Shor (look like cattle), and also its mother must be.