Explanation #1: Elsewhere (Chulin 91b), Rashi explained that this is a kidnapper.

Remark: This is not applicable here regarding collecting money, and [not] in Bava Basra (92b) regarding slaves. Stam slaves are not kidnappers!

Explanation #2 (R. Chananel): It is a diceplayer (gambler).

Implied question: It says in Bereishis Rabah [that at the end of the fight, the Sar of Esav told Yakov] "send me, for dawn came" [and Yakov asked] "are you a thief or Kubyustus, that you fear morning?"! (Why would a gambler fear morning?)

Answer: A diceplayer often hides himself, for he loses money in the game, and he owes money.

Observation: [The officer] did not mention the verse "the 1775 [remaining Shekalim] he made hooks for the pillars" for the officer intended to antagonize him.

Explanation: We should be meticulous to infer [R. Yochanan ben Zakai's] source to say [that the Maneh Kodesh was double], other than this question.

Explanation: The verse did not count [another whole Kikar], rather, just a remainder (1775 Shekalim). This shows that the Kodesh Maneh [and also the Kikar, which is 60 Manos] was double. (If the Maneh was like Chulin (25 Shekalim), 1775 Shekalim would be a Kikar and 11 Manos. Rather, it was double, so the excess was only 35 and a half Kodesh Manim, less than a Kodesh Kikar.).

Distinction: However, the Shekalim of Chulin and Kodesh were the same.

Question: In any case [the verse] should count them in [Kodesh] Manim, and say that there were 35 and a half Manim!

Similarly, below [the Gemara] says "there are 96 Manim" [of copper. The Torah] should have counted them in [Kodesh] Manim, and say 48 Manim, and the count would be more complete.

Answer: The weight "Maneh" was not in the days of Moshe. [If it were,] the Torah would not have avoided writing it. (The Griz points out that if so, the Gemara should have said that the Kikar Kodesh was double!)

Proof: In Kesuvos (10b), regarding an Almanah, it says that [a widow] is called Almanah because in the future, Chachamim would enact a Maneh for her [Kesuvah]. It asks does the verse write for the future!?

Why don't we infer that [it was not written for the future. Rather,] the Kesuvah of a widow is mid'Oraisa? Rather, surely [we could not say so, for] there was no Maneh in the days of Moshe.

Explanation: These are Ma'in, like the Targum [of Shmos 30:13 "Esrim Gerah ha'Shekel" is] "20 Ma'in is the Sela."

Question: A Sela is four Dinarim, and six Ma'ah Kesef is a Dinar. This shows that there are 24 Ma'in in a Sela!

Answer #1 (R. Tam): They added to the weights twice - in the days of Yechezkel the Shekel was 20 Gerah and the Chulin Maneh was 25 Sela'im and the Kodesh Maneh 50 Sela'im. They added a sixth to the Maneh Kodesh, and made it 60. However, they did not add to the Shekel;

In the days of Chachamim they added a sixth to the Shekel, aside from the initial addition, and made it 24.

Consequence: Now, according to R. Tam, when it increased in the days of Yechezkel, the Maneh Kodesh because more than twice the Chulin Maneh. The Chulin was always 25 Sela'im, and they made the Kodesh 60 Sela'im;

In the days of Chachamim when they added to the Sela'im, automatically the Maneh of Kodesh and of Chulin increased.

Answer #2 (Ri): There was one addition [to the weights]. In the days of Yechezkel they added to the Sela and made it 24 [Gera], and automatically [the Maneh] of Chulin and of Kodesh increased.

The verse of Yechezkel means as follows. The Shekel is 20 Gera, i.e. of the Shekalim that were initially 20 Gerah, the current Maneh [Kodesh] has 60. However, in the current Shekalim, which were made 24 [Gerah], there are only 50 in the Maneh Kodesh and 25 in the Chulin [Maneh].

Implied question: Why didn't the verse count at once "60 Shekalim ha'Maneh", rather, it divided it like this (20, 25 and 15)?

Answer: There were three weights in the Mikdash - one weight in the Mikdash was 20 Shekalim. With it they weighed of a third of a Maneh Kodesh after it increased a sixth. (This Dibur continues on the next Amud);

One weight was of 25, the amount of a Chulin Maneh before it increased, and one weight of 15, a quarter Maneh of Kodesh after it increased. All three of them (in all) hold the Shi'ur of a Maneh of Kodesh.

Support: The Targum [of the verse] proves so. It translates v'Sal'a Asrin Ma'in Tilsus Maneh Asrin Sal'in Maneh d'Kaspa Asrin va'Chamesh Sal'im Riv'us Maneh Chamesh v'Asarah Sal'im Kulhon Shitin Maneh Raba Maneh d'Kudsha Yehei Lechon.

Question: According to the latter Perush (the Ri, in the previous Tosfos) it is somewhat difficult. A third of a Maneh and a quarter Maneh discuss a Maneh of Kodesh after it increased, and a silver Maneh of 25 Sela'im discusses a Chulin Maneh, and not a Chulin Maneh after it increased, rather, it discusses a Chulin Maneh before it increased!

Question: What is the source that Yechezkel added anything? Perhaps from the beginning the Maneh of Kodesh was 60!

Answer: The 100 Kikarim of Moshe (used to make the Adanim) prove that initially, the Maneh of Kodesh was only double [that of Chulin. Shmos 38:25,26 prove that the 100 Kikarim were from 300,000 Shekalim. Each Kikar (60 Manim) is 3000 Shekalim, so each Maneh was 50 Shekalim!]

Explanation: [They are called so] based on (their origin -) "Poot v'Luvim Hayu b'Ezrasecha", and "Luvim v'Chushim b'Mitz'adav" (Daniel 11:43. This is unlike Rashi, who connotes that Luvim means "high quality.")

Support #1: Shabbos 51b discusses a Luva'ah donkey. The Aruch explains that it is from Mitzrayim.

Support #2: The text in the Yerushalmi says "converts from Poot and Luv - must they wait three generations [before marrying into Yisrael, like the law of Mitzri converts]?"

Question: Our Tana, who does not expound so, what is his source that it is obligated [in Bechorah] due to some Simanim?

It is a Mishnah below (16b). It is unreasonable to say that it argues with [the Mishnah here in] our Perek!

Counter-question: If they do not argue, it is difficult, for when it said "what is the source of this (the other Mishnah)?", it brings Rav Yehudah [who taught] like the Beraisa. It should have brought the verse of our Mishnah!

Implied suggestion: In any case we need the verse of our Mishnah to exempt from Kedushas Peter Chamor, and the verse here to exempt from the law of an ox!

Rejection: "It is exempt from Bechorah" in our Mishnah connotes that it totally exempts the cow. This implies that we learn Peter-Peter from each other, like below.

Question: Granted, we learn from Peter-Peter a cow that gave birth to a kind of donkey. Perhaps this is only when it changed [to give birth] to something that does not [ever] have Kedushas ha'Guf, but if a ewe give birth to a kind of goat, which [sometimes] has Kedushas ha'Guf, one might have thought that it is Kadosh!

Answer: Presumably, we totally learn Kedushas Damim and Kedushas ha'Guf from each other, like it says below.

Question: Even Kedushas ha'Guf we do not learn from Kedushas ha'Guf, for we need a verse for each of an ox, lamb and goat!

Implied question: We expound also from "Bechor Shor" that [the mother] must be [the species of] an ox, and its Bechor an ox, even though we need it to teach like R. Yosi bar Chanina (that we are Maktir the Chelev of a Bechor ox. The Torah needed to write Bechor regarding each. How can R. Yosi ha'Gelili say that it did not need to write regarding each?)

Answer: It is because we should expound from the first "Bechor" like the second and third. (They reveal about the first, even though the first is not extra.)