1)

(a)The Pasuk "Rak be'Chol Avas Nafch'cha Tizbach ve'Achalta Basar ... ke'Virkas Hash-m Elokecha asher Nasan lach" is talking about - Pesulei ha'Mukdashin.

(b)Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak extrapolates from the latter half of the Pasuk that the Torah is speaking about Ma'aser Beheimah - because it implies that there is no B'rachah during the animal's lifetime, only after its death (and other Kodshim may be sold [once they have been redeemed] even whilst they are still alive).

(c)We now prove from there that - Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak concurs with Rava, that min ha'Torah, Ma'aser Beheimah may be sold after it has been Shechted.

2)

(a)We ask whether it is permitted to absorb the Basar of Ma'aser Beheimah in the cost of the bones. Rebbi Chiya and Rebbi Shimon be'Rebbi appear to argue over this point - one permits it, whilst the other forbids it.

(b)We reconcile the two opinions however - by establishing the one who permits it by a Beheimah Gasah, and the one who forbids it by a Beheimah Dakah ...

(c)... which he prohibits because the bones of a Beheimah Dakah have no basic use (and to permit it would be considered Ha'aramah [swindling]).

(d)Nevertheless, in the second Lashon, one of them forbids absorbing the Basar of Ma'aser Beheimah even in the cost of the bones of a Beheimah Gasah - because it was not customary in his town to use them either.

3)

(a)On the previous Amud, we cited a Beraisa that draws a distinction between B'chor and Ma'aser. Rav and Rebbi Yochanan both learn from the Gezeirah-Shavah "Lo Yiga'el" "Lo Yiga'el" (Ma'aser from Charamim) that - Ma'aser may not be sold.

(b)We know that Charamim may not be sold - because the Torah specifically writes in Bechukosai (in connection with Charamim) "Lo Yimacher ve'Lo Yiga'el").

(c)Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak explained to Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehudah that if one of Lo Yiga'el would not be superfluous, we could not learn Ma'aser from Charamim - because Charamim possess the Chumra in that they apply to everything (not just to animals [see Rashash]).

4)

(a)So he initially assumes that "Lo Yiga'el" by Charamim is superfluous, because we could otherwise learn it from Ma'aser. We refute this too however - since Ma'aser also possesses a Chumra over Charamim, inasmuch as, in certain cases, the animal before the tenth and the one after it are Kadosh too.

(b)We then try to learn Ma'aser from "Ha'avarah" "Ha'avarah" from B'chor, leaving "Lo Yiga'el" by Ma'aser, superfluous. We refute even that however - because B'chor possesses a Chumra over Ma'aser in that it is Kadosh from birth.

(c)We answer that "Ha'avarah" by B'chor is superfluous too - in which case it is not subject to a Pircha (see also Rabeinu Gershom).

5)

(a)We ask that perhaps "Lo Yiga'el" of Ma'aser comes for itself, and "Lo Sipadeh" of B'chor for a Gezeirah-Shavah (instead of the other way round), in which case ...

1. ... Ma'aser - will be permitted to sell ...

2. ... whereas - B'chor will be Asur (as we would learn "Lo Yipadeh" by B'chor with a Gezeirah-Shavah from "Lo Yiga'el" by Charamim).

(b)We counter ...

1. ... this suggestion however - by pointing out that it is preferable to learn "Lo Yiga'el" from "Lo Yiga'el" than "Lo Yipadeh" from "Lo Yiga'el".

2. ... the argument from Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael, who teaches us (Zu Hi Shiyvah, Zu Hi Bi'ah) that it is not necessarily the actual word that creates the Gezeirah-Shavah, but the meaning (in which case there ought to be no difference between "Lo Yiga'el" and "Lo Yipadeh") - by restricting it to where there is no better alternative.

(c)Having ascertained that we learn Ma'aser Beheimah 'Ge'ulah' 'Ge'ulah' from Charamim, the word "Hu" (in the Pasuk in Bechukosai "Kodesh Kodshim Hu la'Hashem") comes to exclude - Bechorah, which we might otherwise have learned from the Gezeirah-Shavah "Ha'avarah" "Ha'avarah" from Ma'aser.

6)

(a)Rava, discarding the Gezeirah-Shavah 'Ge'ulah' 'Ge'ulah', Ma'aser from Charamim, learns the Isur of redeeming Ma'aser Beheimah from "Lo Yiga'el" of Charamim directly - Im Eino Inyan le'Charamim (enabling him to transfer it to Ma'aser).

(b)The Pasuk is not needed for Charamim themselves, because Mah Nafshach, the Beraisa describes Charamim whilst they are in the house of ...

1. ... the owner as - Kodshim in all regards (so it is obvious that they cannot be redeemed [in the way that Kodshei Mizbe'ach can]).

2. ... the Kohen - as Chulin in all regards (in which case it is obvious that they can).

(c)And we know that it does not come to preclude B'chor (rather than Ma'aser) from being sold - because the same word "Lo Yiga'el" is mentioned by Ma'aser but not by B'chor (as we already explained).

7)

(a)The current version in Rava is riddled with problems however. The problem with the statement ...

1. ... I bei Ba'alim, Hekdesh ninhu is that - even if they are Hekdesh, why can they not be redeemed (any less than other Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis)?

2. ... Teneihu Inyan le'Ma'aser is that - the Torah has already written "Lo Yiga'el" by Ma'aser Beheimah, so why does it need to repeat it. And if Rava means to preclude Ma'aser from being sold over and above being redeemed, then why did he not say so?

(b)Therefore what Rava really said was "Lo Yimacher de'Kasav Rachmana Lamah-li". It is "Lo Yimacher" which is superfluous by Charamim, and which we transfer Im Eino Inyan to Ma'aser.

(c)Rava considers "Lo Yimacher" superfluous by Charamim - because they are Hekdesh, and it is obvious that nobody besides the Gizbar of Hekdesh has the authority to sell them.

8)

(a)We have assumed until now, that Ge'ulah does not incorporate Mechirah. Rav Ashi presents as the Beraisa's source for the prohibition of selling Ma'aser Beheimah the Pasuk - "Lo Yiga'el, which he translates as 'Lo Yimacher'.

(b)Based on the same premise as we learned above (that Temurah can only refer to the animal whilst it is alive), he extrapolates from the Pasuk "Ve'hayah Hu u'Semuraso Yih'yeh Kodesh, Lo Yiga'el" - that Ge'ulah is permitted after the Ma'aser animal has been Shechted.

(c)We initially assume that the Pasuk cannot be referring to its redemption - because redemption requires Ha'amadah ve'Ha'arachah.

(d)But we query this assumption - according to those who confine Ha'amadah ve'Ha'arachah to Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, in which case Ma'aser Beheimah, which is Kodshei Mizbe'ach, does not present a problem.

9)

(a)Rav Ashi therefore ascribes the fact that reedption should certainly be prohibited after the animal has been Shechted to the S'vara that - if it cannot be redeemed when it is alive, then how much more so after its death.

(b)We query him logically on the grounds that - perhaps it cannot be redeemed before the Shechitah because its Kedushah is in full force, but after it has been Shechted, where its Kedushah is weaker, maybe it can.

(c)Rav Ashi replies however that on the contrary - we have a principle that, if anything, it is a weak Kedushah that cannot be redeemed. Consequently, there is no S'vara whatsoever to permit redeeming Ma'aser after the Shechitah if it cannot be redeemed before it.

(d)This is not a problem however, now that, according to Rav Ashi, "Lo Yiga'el" means "Lo Yimacher" - since the reason that the Torah prohibits selling Ma'aser is because it is degrading to Hekdesh, in which case after the Shechitah, once the Kedushah becomes weaker, it is permitted.

(e)And the reason that the Torah did not write "Lo Yimacher" is - because we would then have confined the prohibition to selling the Ma'aser, sue to the fact that it is mundane, but redeeming it, where the money goes to Hekdesh, we would have thought is permitted. Therefore the Torah writes "Lo Yiga'el", incorporating both Pidyon and Mechirah.

10)

(a)Beis Shamai does not permit a Yisrael to eat the blemished B'chor of a Kohen together with a Kohen. Beis Hillel - permit it ...

(b)... not only a Yisrael, but a Nochri too.

(c)We establish our Mishnah like Rebbi Akiva in a Beraisa. According to the Tana Kama of Rebbi Akiva, Beis Shamai permits only a group of Kohanim to eat the blemished B'chor of a Kohen. Beis Hillel - permit even a group of Yisre'elim ...

(d)... but not of Nochrim, like Rebbi Akiva.

11)

(a)The Torah (in Re'ei) specifically confines the eating of Chazeh ve'Shok to Kohanim. Beis Shamai learns from the Pasuk in Korach (in connection with B'chor) "u'Vesaram Yih'yeh lach ka'Chazeh ha'Tenufah ... " that - the prohibition pertaining to Zarim eating Chazeh ve'Chok extends to B'chor.

(b)Beis Hillel reconciles this Pasuk with the Pasuk "bi'She'arecha Tochlenu, ha'Tamei ve'ha'Tahor Yachdav Yochlen" - by establishing the former Pasuk by a B'chor Tam, whereas the letter Pasuk refers to a B'chor Ba'al-Mum.

(c)And if a Tamei, who may not eat Kodshim Kalim, is permitted to eat a B'chor Ba'al-Mum - then how much more so a Zar, who may.

(d)And we counter the query that a Tamei has a Heter to serve by Avodas Tzibur, which a Zar does not - by pointing out that we are talking about eating (where that Heter does not exist) the B'chor, and not about the Avodah.