1)

(a)Our Mishnah precludes a calf, a Chayah, a Shechutah, a T'reifah, Kil'ayim or a Koy from the Din of Seh. The difference between Kil'ayim and a Coy is that - the former is a cross between a he-goat and a ewe, whilst the latter (which is a Safek Chayah) is a cross between a Beheimah and a Chayah.

(b)Rebbi Eliezer incorporates Kil'ayim in the Din of Seh - because he considers it a lamb, but precludes a Coy - because it is a Safek Chayah.

(c)The Mishnah finally rules that if the owner gave the Petter Chamor to a Kohen - the latter is forbidden to keep it intact, but is obligated to transfer its Kedushah on to a lamb immediately.

2)

(a)We establish the author of our Mishnah as ben Bag Bag, who, in a Beraisa, learns from a Gezeirah-Shavah "Seh" "Seh" from the Korban Pesach that - all the cases in the Mishnah are disqualified from the Din of Seh (as regards redeeming a Petter Chamor is concerned).

(b)He does not, on the other hand, preclude a female animal, an animal that is blemished or one that is in its second or third year (as we learned earlier). And he learns them from the repetition of the word "Tifdeh" (in the Pesukim in Bo and Ki Sisa).

3)

(a)We ask whether a ben Peku'ah is included in the Din of Seh. A ben Peku'ah is - a live baby that one finds inside an animal that has been Shechted.

(b)This She'eilah is not relevant according to Rebbi Meir - who requires a ben Peku'ah to be Shechted like any other animal.

(c)According to the Rabbanan on the other hand, it might not have the Din of a Seh - because, seeing as its mother's Shechitah covers it too, it is as if it was Shechted and is lying in a basket.

4)

(a)Mar Zutra holds that a ben Peku'ah is indeed not considered a Seh. Rav Ashi maintains that - it is ...

(b)... since it is undeniably running around like a live animal.

(c)A ben Peku'ah is not eligible to be brought as a Korban Pesach (or as any other Korban) - because it is a Yotzei Dofen [not born via the womb of its mother]).

(d)Rav Ashi considers a ben Peku'ah eligible to redeem with from the Gezeitah-Shavah "Tifdeh" "Tifdeh". Mar Zutra counters that - it is more logical to preclude it from that of "Seh" "Seh", since a Shechted animal is not a Seh.

5)

(a)We ask whether a Nidmeh - (i.e. a sheep that gave birth to a goat, even though its father is a sheep too) is included in the Din of Seh.

(b)This She'eilah is not relevant according to Rebbi Eliezer in our Mishnah - who holds that even a lamb of Kil'ayim is called "Seh", how much more so one that is a Nidmeh.

(c)The She'eilah according to the Rabbanan is - whether a Nidmeh is called a "Seh" in this regard, even though a lamb of Kil'ayim is not.

6)

(a)We try to resolve the current She'eilah from the Beraisa 'Parah she'Yaldah Miyn Eiz, Ein Podin', from which we can extrapolate - Ha Rachel she'Yaldah ke'Miyn Eiz, Podin.

(b)Initially, we establish the author as the Rabbanan (thereby automatically resolving the She'eilah) - because according to Rebbi Eliezer, even a lamb of Kil'ayim is permitted (as we just explained), so it would be unnecessary to tell us that a Nidmeh is, too.

(c)We refute this proof however, by establishing the author as Rebbi Eliezer after all, and the Chidush lies in the actual statement - which teaches us that we do not go after the father, but after the mother exclusively.

7)

(a)Rabah bar Shmuel cites another Beraisa describing Kil'ayim as a ewe that gives birth to a goat, whose father is a sheep. Seeing as the description is that of a Nidmeh, the Tana is really coming to teach us - that here is a case of Nidmeh that the Rabbanan give the Din of Kil'ayim.

(b)He cannot be referring to Kodshim (meaning that a Nidmeh, like a Kil'ayim, cannot be brought as a Korban), because we already know this from another source. The Pasuk in Emor "Shor O Kesev" comes to preclude an animal that is Kil'ayim from the Mizbe'ach, and "O Eiz" - a Nidmeh.

(c)Neither can he be referring to a B'chor or an animal of Ma'aser Beheimah, because we learn from ...

1. ... "Ach B'chor Shor" that - only a Shor that resembles its mother has a Din B'chor, and from ...

2. ... the Gezeirah-Shavah "Tachas (ha'Sheivet)" "Tachas (Imo)" (from Kodshim) that - Ma'aser Beheimah has the same Din as Kodshim, in this regard.

(d)We therefore suggest that the Tana of Rabah bar Shmuel's Beraisa is talking about - redeeming a Petter Chamor, thereby resolving our She'eilah.

8)

(a)We reject this proof however, on the grounds that maybe the Tana is talking about Ma'aser after all, where the animal has some of the Simanim of its mother. We might otherwise learn from the Gezeirah-Shavah "Kol asher Ya'avor Tachas ha'Sheivet" "Ve'ha'avarta Kol Petter Rechem la'Hashem" that - such an animal is subject to Ma'aser, just as it is subject to B'chor (as we learned earlier).

(b)The Tana learns however, that it is not - from the Gezeirah-Shavah "Tachas" "Tachas" from Kodshim.

9)

(a)The previous She'eilah remains unresolved, and we now ask whether the owner is permitted to redeem a Petter Chamor with a lamb of Pesulei ha'Mukdushin. This She'eilah is not relevant according to Rebbi Shimon - who holds that a Petter Chamor is Mutar be'Hana'ah, in which case it is pure Chulin (and the problem [which we will now define] is nonexistent).

(b)The She'eilah, according to Rebbi Yehudah is whether it might be ...

1. ... forbidden - because Pesulei ha'Mukdashin are already forbidden to shear and to work with, so the Isur Hana'ah from the Petter Chamor cannot be transferred on to it.

2. ... permitted, in spite of that - because the fact is that, unlike most cases of Pidyon, in practice, the Isur Hana'ah of the donkey is not transferred on to the lamb anyway, so there is no reason for the Pidyon not to take place.

(c)How does Rav Mari b'rei de'Rav Kahana resolve the She'eilah from the Pasuk in Re'ei "ka'Tzevi ve'cha'Ayal", comparing P'sulei ha'Mukdashin to a deer and a gazelle. Consequently - just as one cannot redeem a Petter Chamor with a deer or a gazelle (as we learned earlier), so too, can one not redeem it with a lamb of Pesulei ha'Mukdashin.

(d)In that case, we conclude - even Rebbi Shimon will have to agree that one cannot redeem a Petter Chamor with a lamb of Pesulei ha'Mukdashin.

10)

(a)We now ask whether one is permitted to redeem the Petter Chamor with a 'lamb of Shevi'is' - (a lamb that one purchased with fruit of Shevi'is).

(b)We declare that this She'eilah is only applicable in a case of Safek Petter Chamor, but not Vaday - because since the She'eilah is based on the prohibition of doing business with Sh'mitah produce, it definitely looks like doing business by Vaday, where he is obligated to give the lamb to the Kohen (whereas by Safek, which he may eat it himself, it does not).

(c)Neither will it be relevant according to Rebbi Shimon, who permits a Safek Petter Chamor without Pidyon.

(d)And the She'eilah according to Rebbi Yehudah is whether it is ...

1. ... permitted - since the owner after all, only needs to designate the lamb, but is then permitted to eat it himself (so it falls under the category of 'le'Ochlah').

2. ... forbidden - since on the other hand, the donkey is forbidden until it has been redeemed, it resemble a business deal.

11)

(a)We resolve the She'eilah with a statement of Rav Chisda, who explicitly - forbids redeeming a Vaday Petter Chamor with an animal of Shevi'is, but permits redeeming a Safek.

(b)Rav Chisda also precludes an animal of Shevi'is from the B'chorah - because the Torah requires Shevi'is to be eaten ("le'Ochlah"), and the Emurin of the B'chor have to be burned on the Mizbe'ach.

(c)And in the same statement, he rules that - it is Chayav Matanos (Zero'a Lechayayim ve'Keivah), since they are eaten entirely by the Kohen.

12)

(a)The Beraisa rules that someone who eats from a dough that is made from Shevi'is produce, before the Chalah has been separated - is Chayav Misah (bi'Yedei Shamayim).

(b)The problem with Rav Chisda's previous ruling (by the Din of B'chor) from there is that, should the Chalah become Tamei, it will have to be burned (in which case the Din of "le'Ochlah" will be negated). Consequently, it ought not to be subject to Chalah in the first place.

(c)We substantiate our answer (that Chalah is different), with a Beraisa. The Tana learns from the word "le'Doroseichem" (in the Pasuk "me'Reishis Arisoseichem ... le'Doroseichem") - the current Din (declaring Chayav Misah someone who eats from a dough that is made from Shevi'is produce, before the Chalah has been separated).

(d)We cannot learn the Din of Bechorah from there however - because whereas the Emurin are initially meant to go on the Mizbe'ach, the Chalah is initially meant to be eaten by the Kohanim.

13)

(a)Our Mishnah, which forbids the Kohen to retain the Petter Chamor that he receives from a Yisrael, supports the Beraisa - which forbids a Yisrael to comply, if the Kohen asks for his Petter B'chor, which he volunteers to redeem for a lamb, unless the Kohen redeems it with a lamb, in his presence.

(b)Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah extrapolates from this ruling that - the Kohanim are suspected of working with Pitrei Chamorim before having redeemed them.

(c)That is not obvious from the Mishnah and Beraisa themselves - which we might otherwise have thought are confined to Kohanim who are suspect (or who have been known to actually do that).

(d)Rav Nachman therefore teaches us that - all Kohanim are inclined to do so, since the donkey will remain theirs even after they have redeemed it.

14)

(a)Rebbi Eliezer in our Mishnah rules that if the lamb which the owner separated as Pidyon Petter Chamor died, the owner remains responsible to replace it, like the five Sela'im of Pidyon ha'Ben that got lost. According to the Chachamim, he is not responsible - like the money of Pidyon Ma'aser Sheini, which the owner is not obligated to replace, should it get lost.

(b)Rebbi Yehoshua and Rebbi Tzadok testified that if a Pidyon Petter Chamor dies - the Kohen receives nothing (like the Chachamim).

(c)Rebbi Eliezer also rules that if the donkey itself died before the owner managed to give the lamb to the Kohen, it must be buried and the owner may retain the lamb. The Chachamim maintain that - the donkey does not require burial and the lamb belongs to the Kohen (from the moment it is designated, as we learned earlier).

(d)Rav Yosef learns from the Pasuk in Korach "Ach Padoh Sifdeh ... es B'chor ha'Adam ve'es B'chor ha'Beheimah ha'Temei'ah Tifdeh" that - just as the father remains responsible in the event that the Pidyon B'chor Adam got lost, so too, according to Rebbi Eliezer in our Mishnah, does the owner remain responsible should the lamb die.

15)

(a)Abaye queries Rav Yosef from Rebbi Eliezer's own ruling in the Seifa (of our Mishnah), requiring a dead Petter Chamor to be buried - when, according to the Hekesh to B'chor Adam, the donkey ought to be Mutar be'Hana'ah (like B'chor Adam).

(b)We try to resolve this problem - by attributing the obligation to bury the donkey to the same Hekesh to B'chor Adam, who is Asur be'Hana'ah after his death.

(c)Besides the mistaken implication from here that other than a B'chor, human-beings are Mutar be'Hana'ah, we have a problem from Rebbi Eliezer himself - who concedes that a Yisrael who has a Safek Petter Chamor in his house is obligated to redeem it with a lamb, which he may eat himself (a proof that he considers a Petter Chamor Asur be'Hana'ah, even during its lifetime).

(d)Rava finally learns from Rebbi Eliezer's source Pasuk "Ach Padoh Sifdeh ... " that - the latter only compares Pidyon Petter B'chor to B'chor Adam only as regards the actual Dinim of redemption (the Din of responsibility), but not in other regards (such as Heter Hana'ah).

16)

(a)The Beraisa rules 'ha'Erchin be'Sha'atan, u'Pidyon ha'Ben Achar Sheloshim'. ha'Erchin be'Sha'atan means that - we assess the Erech of a person according to his age at the time the person declared the Erech (if he was between one month and five years at the time, the Noder must pay accordingly, even if he has already turned six when the latter comes to fulfill his Neder).

(b)The Tana adds - 'u'Pidyon Petter Chamor le'Alter'.

(c)Another Beraisa rules that Erchin, Pidyon ha'Ben, Nezirus, and Petter Chamor - only take effect after thirty days.

(d)The Tana concludes 'u'Mosifin ad Olam', by which he means that - the Din of Erchin extends to the entire period mentioned in the Torah, that one can add to the period of Nezirus whatever one wishes and that the obligation regarding Pidyon ha'Ben and Pidyon Petter Chamor continues even beyond the thirty-day period.

17)

(a)To resolve the discrepancy between the two rulings regarding Pidyon Petter Chamor, Rav Nachman establishes the first Beraisa - where Bedieved, he redeemed it before thirty days.

(b)From which we can extrapolate that if a father redeemed his firstborn son within thirty days - his son is not redeemed even Bedieved.

(c)Rava reconciles this with Rav, who said 'B'no Paduy' - by establishing the latter where he specifically mentioned that although he was redeeming him then, the redemption would take effect after thirty days.

(d)Rav Sheishes accepts the first Beraisa literally (Lechatchilah), whereas what the second Beraisa ('Ein be'Erchin Pachos mi'Sheloshim') means is that - someone who fulfils any of these up to thirty days has not transgressed; after thirty days, he has.

18)

(a)In the Beraisa 'Mitzvaso Kol Sheloshim Yom; O Podeihu O Arfo', Rami bar Chama interprets Mitzvaso as - Mitzvaso Lish'hoso (like Rav Nachman), thereby posing a Kashya on Rav Sheishes.

(b)Rav Sheishes cannot interpret the Beraisa to mean Mitzvah Lifdoso - because then the Tana ought to have added to 'O Podeihu O Arfo' 'O Over alav'.

(c)Rava concedes that Mitzvaso means Lish'hoso. Nevertheless, he reconciles this Beraisa with the earlier Beraisa which rules Le'alter - by establishing the latter Beraisa like Rebbi Eliezer (who compares Petter Chamor to B'chor Adam) and the earlier one like the Rabbanan (who don't [to concur with Rav Sheishes]).