Assertion: This is the text. If the text says "she'Tifka" (a Levi's Peter Chamor is exempt), the text does not say "Es" (for it does not say that something else exempts it. Tosfos' preferred text, she'Tafki'a, means that a Levi's Seh exempts his Pitrei Chamorim. If so, the text must say "Es".)

Implied question: The Reisha teaches that Kohanim and Leviyim are Peturim (exempt)!

Answer: This is not difficult at all. We can explain that they are exempt from being Mekadesh their Pitrei Chamorim, but not that they themselves are exempt from [Pidyon];

However, "Patru" connotes that they exempted [others].

Explanation: If we expound a Kal v'Chomer about animals, Leviyim should be exempt from Bechor Behemah Tehorah, for their Tahor animals exempted Tahor animals of Yisrael.

Inference: He means that what we say that they were not exempted from Bechor Behemah Tehorah, this is nowadays, but in the Midbar they were totally exempt.

Question: If so, below (4b) that it says that one Seh of a Levi exempted several Pitrei Chamorim of Yisrael, why didn't it mention Behemah Tehorah?

Implied suggestion: For Behemah Tehorah, one Seh did not exempt several Bechoros Pitrei Chamorim of Yisrael. This was only for Pitrei Chamorim, but for Tahor [Bechoros] they counted one against one (each Tahor Bechor of a Levi exempted one Tahor Bechor of a Yisrael. If there were excess Tahor Bechoros of Yisrael, they would need Pidyon, just like human Bechoros.)

Rejection: This that the Leviyim's animals exempted Yisrael's, we learn from "Behemas Tachas Behemtam" below (4b) - one animal in place of many animals. This connotes both for Tamei and Tahor!

Answer #1: Below, R. Chanina mentioned what can apply nowadays. (The same Seh can redeem many Pitrei Chamorim if the Kohen returns it each time. Nowadays, a Tahor animal cannot exempt another Tahor animal from Kedushas Bechorah.)

Answer #2: [R. Chanina] comes to explain our Mishnah (9a), like it says below (4b). Why can he redeem and redeem again (with the same Seh)? It is because one Seh of a Levi exempted several Pitrei Chamorim of Yisrael in the Midbar;

However, this that one Seh of a Levi exempted several Tahor Bechoros of Yisrael, applied only at that time. Now there is no Pidyon, rather, they have Kedushas ha'Guf.

Question: What did Abaye hold? Why didn't he make a Kal v'Chomer from Tehorah?

Answer: He holds that regarding Tehorah, which has Kedushas Mizbe'ach, we cannot say that they exempt their own [animals] from a Kal v'Chomer, that they exempted Yisrael's [animals]...

Since Yisrael's [animals] are proper for the Mizbe'ach due to Kaparah, all the more so of Kohanim and Leviyim are proper for the Mizbe'ach, for Kohanim and Leviyim are closer to the Mizbe'ach than Yisrael.

Question: What Kal v'Chomer is this? Pashut Leviyim exempted Bechoros Yisrael, but Bechorei Leviyim did not exempt anyone [other than themselves], like it says below (5a). How can he make a Kal v'Chomer from a Bechor Levi? We do not find that they exempted anything!

Answer: He infers a Kal v'Chomer that Kedushas Leviyos in a Levi uprooted Kedushas Bechoros of Yisrael. If so, a Levi Bechor, it is proper that the Leviyos in him uproot his Bechorah (from needing Pidyon). So Rashi explained.

Support: This is why it says below (5a) that a Bechor does not uproot a Bechor. The Leviyos of a Levi does not uproot two laws of Bechorah - his own Bechorah, and Bechorah of Yisrael.

Question: What is Rava's reason to argue with Abaye's Kal v'Chomer for animals? It is an absolute Kal v'Chomer!

Answer #1 (Rashi): [Rava holds that] the reason why [Rabanan] do not expound the Kal v'Chomer for animals is because we needed to equate Bechor Behemah Temei'ah to Bechor Adam, to teach that any[one] who has no [need to redeem] Bechor Adam, there is no [Kedushah to his] Bechor Behemah Temei'ah, like below;

Inference: We cannot expound the Kal v'Chomer for animals. (If we could, we would not need the Hekesh. We could learn from the Kal v'Chomer!)

Objection #1: The words do not connote like his Perush. Since it says "we find man. What is the source for Behemah Temei'ah?", this connotes that we need the Hekesh to teach about Behemah Temei'ah, and not to reveal about Tehorah that we do not make a Kal v'Chomer!

Objection #2: Perhaps we need the Hekesh like we expound below (4b) in the Sugya of Bechor Behemah Temei'ah "do not distinguish in it between Doros and Sha'ah (what applied only once), that [it is redeemed] through a Seh";

Also for Doros we learn from [the Hekesh], we learn from this Drashah that one may redeem and redeem again (with the same Seh), just like in the Midbar one Seh of a Levi exempted several Pitrei Chamorim of Yisrael!

Also, we need [the Hekesh to expound] like R. Eliezer, who expounds below (12b) just like Bechor Adam one has Achrayus (if he designated money for Pidyon ha'Ben, and it was lost, he must separate more money to redeem his son), also Bechor Behemah he has Achrayus!

Answer #2: Rava's reason is because only for man, that Kedushas Leviyos causes Hafka'ah of Bechorah, we can make a Kal v'Chomer;

However, an animal, that Kedushas of a Levi's Seh does not causes Hafka'ah of Bechor Behemah, for [the Seh] has no Kedushah, we cannot make a Kal v'Chomer.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): According to Rava, "they are exempt" in our Mishnah discusses Pidyon ha'Ben.

Question: [Our Perek primarily] discusses Peter Chamor!

Answer #2 (R. Tam): [Rava] says that our Mishnah teaches as follows. Kohanim and Leviyim are exempt from Pidyon Peter Chamor. What is the reason? It is because they themselves are exempt, from a Kal v'Chomer. Therefore, we learn Behemah Temei'ah from the Hekesh to man.

Disclaimer: The wording "it means as follows" is somewhat difficult according to this. (Rava explains that the Mishnah exempts them from Pidyon ha'Ben. Perhaps in Tosfos' text, Rava said "Hachi ka'Amar", or the text of Tosfos should say "Hachi ka'Tani.)

Question: In any case, there is a Kal v'Chomer! If a Levi's Seh exempted Pitrei Chamorim of Yisrael, all the more so [it exempted Pitrei Chamorim] of other Leviyim, who did not have a Seh!

Answer: This is not a Kal v'Chomer. The verse did not say 'you will take a Levi's animal in place of another Levi's animal', rather, in place of a Yisrael's animal! (Chidushei Basra asks that in every Kal v'Chomer, the Torah taught the bigger Chidush, and we infer the smaller Chidush! Perhaps we learn animals from people - Leviyim exempted only Yisraelim from Pidyon ha'Ben, and not other Leviyim. It seems that this is Efshar from Iy Efshar. No Levi needed to do Pidyon ha'Ben - PF.)

Remark: In any case, when [a Levi] has [a Seh], we make a Kal v'Chomer.

Implied suggestion: [Rav Safra] asks that [only] a month-old Levi Bechor, who exempted a Bechor Yisrael, should be exempt.

Rejection: A Bechor does not exempt a Bechor!

Explanation: Rather, he says as follows. A month-old, whose Leviyos has power to exempt Bechoros Yisrael, should exempt his own Bechorah, since a corresponding Pashut exempts Bechoros Yisrael;

However, one who was less than a month old at the time should not exempt his own Bechorah, even though later he became a month old!

The same applies to Bechoros from then and onwards. Since at that time he did not exempt, also for Doros it should be like this, like we expound below (4b) "v'Hayu" - their status will persist.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Since the womb [from which this Yisrael was first to come to out] is of a Leviyah, if we find that all Leviyim are exempt, even less than a month, [also] the son of a Leviyah should be exempt.

Inference: [Mar brei d'Rav Yosef] wants to answer this question of a Ben Leviyah with the answer of Peter Rechem, and [the answer for] a Ben Levi less than a month old, he delayed until the answer that all Leviyim are equated to each other.

Objection: It does not connote like this. Rather, it is totally answered through the answer of Peter Rechem, and a Ben Leviyah who is a month old, his only shortcoming is that he is not a Ben Levi;

Since the Torah made it dependent on Peter Rechem, this that he is a Ben Leviyah helps [to exempt him], even though his father is not a Levi.

Explanation (Rashi): Aharon and his animals did not exempt Bechoros Yisrael. He should not exempt his own Bechorah!

Inference: [He explains that the Gemara] asks also that he should not exempt his own Bechorah (need to redeem himself).

Rejection: We cannot say so, for he was not the Bechor, for Miryam was three years older than him, like it says in the Midrash, just like Aharon was three years older than Moshe.

Question: What was difficult [to the Makshan] from Aharon more than from the 300 Leviyim Bechoros who were not counted among the 22,000, like below?

Answer: Granted, they were not counted with the 22,000, for it suffices for a Bechor to exempt himself. In any case they were counted with the count of Leviyim;

However, Aharon was not counted at all.

Implied question: Hekdesh can be redeemed with a Seh, or anything except for a slave, land or document, like we say below (51a)!

Answer: That is because Shaveh Kesef is like Kesef, but not because it is a Seh;

Distinction: However, a Peter Chamor is redeemed through a Seh Kol Dehu (of any value), or with other matters for its value, like we say below (9b).

Explanation #1 (Rashi): If he returned and bought it from the Kohen after he gave it to him, he can redeem another Peter Chamor with it.

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): This refers to a Safek [Peter Chamor], like below (9a). The Reisha teaches that if one [donkey] Bikrah (already gave birth) and another did not, if they gave birth to a male and female (and we do not know which was from which), he separates a Seh and it is for himself (he keeps it);

Regarding this Safek, which never left his hand, [the Mishnah] needed to teach that he can redeem another Safek with it many times.

Support: It connotes that it refers to a Safek, for it teaches afterwards "it enters the pen to be tithed", and we establish it to discuss a Safek;

However, a Vadai, it is impossible to say that he returns to redeem with it as long as it is in the Yisrael's hand and did not give it, for the Mishnah below (9a) says that if two donkeys did not yet give birth, and they gave birth to two males, he gives two lambs to a Kohen.

Explanation: Bechor Adam [did not become Kadosh], and not Bechor Behemah.

Implied question: Above, it asks that [Leviyim] should be exempt even from Bechor Behemah Tehorah, for their Tahor animals exempted the Tahor animals of Yisrael!

Answer #1: That is unlike Reish Lakish, according to his reasoning now.

Answer #2: According to the conclusion below, that they became Kadosh in Chumash Bamidbar, and afterwards ceased, it is fine.

Explanation: From here and onwards they were not offered.

Implied question: Nedarim and Nedavos were offered from then and onwards!

Answer: It mentioned that day due to Bechoros. (They were not offered afterwards.)

Explanation: According to this conclusion, the questions above were not asked.

Observation: We find like this in Yevamos (35b) regarding a pregnant widow, and in Chagigah (7a) and in Nidah (24a) regarding a face [of a newborn baby] that is Musmasin (slightly mashed), and there are more [such cases] in other places.