Question: Perhaps we would learn from Hekdesh that it is redeemed!

Answer #1: We learn to be stringent (because it is a Kal v'Chomer, and not a Binyan Av. We cannot learn a leniency.)

Answer #2: Because in Charamim it is written "Lo Yimacher", we would have established that also Lo Yiga'el applies to them.

Observation: Also Rava, who answers below that Lo Yimacher is not needed for Charamim, expounds "Hu", and not a Bechor, like is proven in Temurah (5b) regarding Iy Avid Lo Mehani (when the Torah forbade an action, if one did it, it did not take effect). If not, he would have learned ""Ha'avarah-Ha'avarah" from Ma'aser;

And also Abaye, who establishes in Temurah (5b) "Hu" - it will remain in its status, even so he expounds "Hu", and not a Bechor, and since "Hu" is written next to Kodshei Kodoshim, this connotes "Hu" - it will remain in its Kedushah.

Correction: This was the text in Seforim, and Rashi changed the text to say "Lo Yimacher", because the Gemara infers "where is this? If they are in the house of the owner (the one who made it Hekdesh), they are Hekdesh." If [the Gemara] discusses Lo Yiga'el, Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis are redeemed (the verse would properly teach that Cherem is different. It cannot be redeemed!)

Defense (of our text - R. Tam): "They are Hekdesh" means even if they were redeemed, for "Kodshei Kodoshim Hu" connotes Kedushas ha'Guf, until they come to the Kohen's hand. (Therefore, we do not need "Lo Yiga'el.")

Question #1 (Tosfos' Rebbi): In Temurah (5b) it connotes that we prove that Pidyon does not help for Chermei Kohanim in the owner's house from "Hu" - it will remain in its status, according to Abaye, [who says] that Iy Avid Mehani, and according to Rava, who says that Iy Avid Lo Mehani, he learns from "Lo Yiga'el" itself;

If so, how could [Rava] infer here that "Lo Yiga'el" is not needed, for if they are in the owner's house, it is Hekdesh, even if they are redeemed? We learn this itself from "Lo Yiga'el" according to Rava!

Question #2 (Rashi): It says Im Eino Inyan (if it need not teach about) Charamim, we use it to teach about Ma'aser. Why do we need for Ma'aser to learn from Lo Yiga'el of Charamim? Lo Yiga'el itself is written about Ma'aser itself!

Suggestion: It says so (we use it to teach about Ma'aser) due to Lo Yimacher.

Rejection: If so, it should have said "if it need not teach about Ge'ulah (Pidyon), use it to teach about selling!"

Alternatively, it should say "why is Lo Yiga'el of Charamim needed? This shows that it is to make it free (for the Gezeirah Shavah." The Gemara said that "Lo Yiga'el" of Ma'aser is free!)

Question: We should establish it to discuss a Mefarcheses (an animal quivering after Shechitah)! It is as if it is alive in every way, like it says in Chulin (30a) "was it rejected from using its value (redemption money) for Pesach?! It was taught that if one slaughtered both Simanim or their majority... [and it is quivering, it is considered alive in every way, i.e. it can be appraised]!"

Answer #1: Perhaps [a Mefarcheses] is considered alive even regarding Temurah. (Therefore, we cannot find Pidyon when it is dead regarding Temurah.)

Answer #2 (R. Shimon of Naivila): Here that the Shechitah was finished according to Halachah, a Mefarcheses is not considered alive.

Remark: I explained everything in Bava Kama (76a) in the Sugya of "Parah Adumah receives Tum'as Ochlim."

Opinion #1 (Ri): The Halachah follows Beis Hillel in our Mishnah, who permit even to a Nochri, and unlike Beis Hillel in the Beraisa, who forbid, and argue with R. Akiva.

Source: It is a Stam Mishnah, and an argument in a Beraisa. The Halachah follows the Stam Mishnah, like it says in Yevamos (42b);

And all the more so here [the Halachah follows the Stam], for the Stam was taught as Beis Hillel's opinion. This is better than other Stam [Mishnayos], like it says in Shabbos (157a).

Implied question: I explained above that R. Akiva's reason is due to "ka'Tzvi vecha'Ayal", and we say that the other opinion establishes it like R. Elazar ha'Kapar, i.e. who expounds in Chulin (28a) "just like Pesulei ha'Mukdashim are [permitted through] Shechitah, also Tzvi and Ayal are through Shechitah", but Shechitah of birds is not mid'Oraisa, rather, mid'Rabanan;

Inference: R. Akiva argues with R. Elazar ha'Kapar. Rather, he holds like Rebbi, who expounds Shechitah from "Ka'asher Tzivisicha" - this teaches that Moshe was commanded about the majority of one [Siman , i.e. the foodpipe or windpipe] in a bird, and the majority of two in an animal!

Answer: Perhaps we hold like Rebbi.

Implied question: In Nazir (29a), R. Yosi bar Chanina holds that the Torah does not obligate Shechitah for birds! (When Tana'im argue, we follow how the Amora'im rule.)

Answer #1: This does not prove that this is the Halachah, for [R. Yosi bar Chanina] is a Tana, like is proven there.

Answer #2: R. Akiva could hold like R. Elazar ha'Kapar, and he learns one [Drashah] from Tzvi, and one from Ayal, like I explained above (15a DH Mah) regarding "just like Tzvi and Ayal are exempt from Bechorah..."

Opinion #2: Bahag connotes that he wants to rule like Beis Hillel in the Beraisa;

He connotes also that they argue with R. Akiva mid'Rabanan, for he explained that one may feed the Chelev to a Nochri, because Pesulei ha'Mukdashim are equated to Tzvi va'Ayal, and it is forbidden to feed the meat to a Nochri mid'Rabanan.

Implied suggestion: We can bring a proof that it is forbidden [to feed the meat] to a Nochri, because we hold like the Drashah "v'Achalta", and not for your dog, and the same applies to a Nochri, like is proven in Pesachim (29a);

And we find several Stam [Mishnayos] like this, [e.g.] above (21b) regarding [a miscarriage of] a cake of blood. The Mishnah says that it is buried;

Note: Tosfos infers that if it were permitted to Nochrim, even if Nochrim would not want to eat it, the Mishnah should not say "it is buried."

And above (28a), if one who is not an expert saw a Bechor [and ruled that it is a Ba'al Mum], and it was slaughtered according to him, it is buried. (Rashash questions the Havah Amina to bring a proof from here and the next case. These are like a Tam Bechor slaughtered outside the Mikdash, which is Asur b'Hana'ah!)

And below (37a), if one slaughtered a Bechor, and it became known that he did not show it [to an expert...] the meat is buried;

And in Chulin (69b), regarding if the majority [of a fetus] left [the womb] and it died, it is buried.

Rejection: There is no proof from all of these, for they are properly like R. Akiva;

We know that R. Akiva himself said in Zevachim (103b, 104a) "from his words we learn that if one slaughtered a Bechor and it was found to be Tereifah, Kohanim may benefit from the skin." This implies that its meat is Asur b'Hana'ah!

The reason is like I explained above (14a) about Kodshim that had a Mum Kavu'a before they were Hukdash. When it is permitted to Yisrael, it is equated to Tzvi va'Ayal, and it is permitted even to a Nochri. It is not forbidden due to "v'Achalta", and not for your dog. (Shitah Mekubetzes Sof DH v'Im brings so from Tosfos Kesav Yad);

Distinction: However, when it is forbidden to Yisrael, it is not equated to Tzvi va'Ayal. Therefore, if a Bechor died, or it was slaughtered without a Heter, or it was permitted and found to be Tereifah, it must be buried, like is proven from these Stam Mishnayos;

And even R. Akiva agrees, like it says in Zevachim (104a) "even R. Akiva said that the skin is permitted, even in Gevulim (outside the Mikdash), only when an expert permitted it, but if an expert did not permit it, no."

And also regarding a Tereifah, even though R. Akiva permits the skin, the Halachah does not follow him, like we conclude there "and the Halachah follows Chachamim", who say that 'we did not see [skin of a Tereifah Bechor going to be burned]' is not a proof. Rather, it goes to Beis ha'Sereifah.

Distinction: However, we do not require burning, for there, [only] Kodshei Mikdash require burning, for it discusses Kodshei Mikdash.

Citation: It says there in Seforim "the Halachah is like Chachamim. The meat is buried, and the skin is burned."

Correction: Rashi explained there that the text does not say so, for Rabanan, who say that it goes to Beis ha'Sereifah, do not address R. Akiva, who discusses a Bechor in Gevulim. Rather, they address R. Chanina, who discusses Kodshei ha'Mikdash.

Question: The Beraisa below in our Sugya (33a) regarding two Chata'os, one Tam and one Ba'al Mum, R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon says that even if meat of a Ba'al Mum is in a pot, and the blood of the Tam was thrown, [the Ba'al Mum] is forbidden;

And it teaches about this in Temurah (24a) that it goes to Beis ha'Sereifah.

Why is it burned? The whole reason it is Pasul is only because it is like a Chatas whose owner atoned [through another animal], which must die, and Chata'os ha'Mesos are buried when they die!

Implied suggestion: Since [both Chata'os] were slaughtered [and the blood of one was thrown, the other], is like Pasul Kodshim that became Pasul after Shechitah, which go to Beis ha'Sereifah.

Rejection: Regarding Bechor, a Mishnah teaches that if it was slaughtered not according to an expert, or when it was found to be Tereifah [after Shechitah], it is buried, like I explained!

Answer #1: Perhaps we can distinguish between nowadays and in the days of the Mikdash.

Answer #2: If we would distinguish between what was slaughtered not according to an expert, and other Pesulim that occurred after Shechitah, this would resolve the text in Zevachim, but the text would be opposite;

The Halachah follows Chachamim. The meat is burned and the skin is buried, and it discusses nowadays that we are not stringent to burn the skin like the meat.

Question: What is the difference between this, and in Maseches Orlah (3:3), and it is brought in Temurah (34a) "one who weaves a full Sit (as far as one can separate his thumb from his index finger) of wool of a Bechor [into a garment], the garment must be burned?" In all the cases I brought, it connotes that the Bechor is buried!

Implied suggestion: We can distinguish between wool and the Bechor itself.

Rejection #1: [The Gemara] asks like this from Peter Chamor, which the Mishnah there says that it is buried, and in Orlah a Mishnah teaches that hair of Peter Chamor is burned!

Remark: It is unreasonable to reject this, that there it asks because it connotes to [the Makshan] that the Mishnah there, which taught "hair of a Nazir and Peter Chamor", that "hair of" applies to both of them (he asks a contradiction about hair of a Peter Chamor, but he would not ask from hair to the animal itself.)

Rejection #2: Also, a Tosefta (Bechoros 2:17) teaches "one who detaches wool of a Tam Bechor and left it in the window, even though later it got a Mum and he slaughtered it, [the hair] must be buried"!

Answer #1: We can answer here like we answered there about Peter Chamor - this refers to Sak, and this refers to hair. I.e. hair decays quickly, so burial suffices. However, if he made a garment from it, we are concerned lest people take it out [of the ground] after it was buried, so it must be burned.

Answer #2: Some answer there and establish it like R. Yehudah, who says that if he wanted to be stringent and burn what should be buried, he may.