Explanation: Everywhere, Bechor, Ma'aser and Pesach are mentioned [together], for their Matanos [of Dam] are the same. Therefore, Ma'aser Behemah was taught [here] along with Bechor;

Since there are many laws of [Korban] Pesach, it was taught in Pesachim. (Perhaps Tosfos means that it was taught along with laws of Chag ha'Pesach in Pesachim. Alternatively, the entire Masechta pertains to Korban Pesach, since one must eradicate Chametz before Shechitas Pesach, and one must eat with it Matzah...)

Implied question: We say in Chulin (138b) that wherever it taught "ba'Aretz uv'Chutzah la'Aretz", this was not needed, except for Reishis ha'Gez! (Also here it is needed!)

Answer: That refers to Mishnayos in Chulin, but here it is needed.

Explanation: Also in Temurah (21b), R. Akiva said so, that a Bechor that comes from Chutz la'Aretz is not offered;

And we establish there the Mishnah in Chalah (4:11), that Ben Antigenos brought Bechoros from Bavel and they did not accept them, like R. Akiva.

Implied question: Rav Huna's teaching is below (58b, regarding the Mishnah) how do we tithe? There, it is not applicable to decree due to Kil'ayim, Tereifah or Yotzei Dofen. However, here, it is applicable to decree due to these, just like due to a Yasom! (Why do we say that it is only due to concern for a Yasom?)

Answer #1: Since there Rav Huna mentioned [only Yasom], also here.

Objection: Why didn't he say here a bought animal and a Yasom, like he said there?

Answer #2: It mentioned here specifically Yasom, for people err more about it than others, because they are not expert about it, for Yasom is found only when this (the mother) died, and this (the fetus) was born [at the same time].

Inference: Here it connotes that Ma'aser Behemah does not apply nowadays, due to Takalah.

Question (R. Tam): In Shabbos (54b), we say that R. Elazar ben Azaryah used to tithe 13,000 calves from his herd every year, and this was after the Churban!

Source: R. Yochanan ben Zakai was Nasi after the Churban, and after him R. Gamliel, and in the days of R. Gamliel they appointed R. Elazar ben Azaryah to be Nasi, like it says in Brachos (27b), and [then] he was 18 years old.

Note: In Shabbos (54b), Tosfos assumes that he was at least 13 when he tithed, and R. Yochanan ben Zakai was Nasi after the Churban one or two years. He shows that R. Gamliel was Nasi two or three two years before they appointed R. Elazar ben Azaryah, so at the time of the Churban, he was at most 14 or 15. There, Tosfos gives the three "answers" he mentions here, and does not reject any of them.)

Unacceptable Answer #1: Do not explain that it refers to tithes they give to the king, like Arnona.

Poor Answer #2: It is difficult to say that he had an overseer when he was a minor, and [the overseer] tithed [on behalf of him].

Answer #3: Perhaps they were not Mevatel Ma'aser Behemah so soon after the Churban. (Even if it was only one or two years later, we can say that R. Elazar ben Azaryah tithed three or four years.)

Implied question: According to the opinion that Stam Cherem is given to Kohanim, [especially] if he specifies that it is for Kohanim (there is no reason to decree)!

Answer: There is reason to decree due to Takalah, for as long as it is in the owner's hand, it is Hekdesh, like it says above (32a).

Explanation: In Avodah Zarah (13a), Rashi explained that [the Tana] holds that Stam Cherem is to Bedek ha'Bayis.

Rebuttal: One need not say so, like I explained. (In any case, there is reason to decree.)

Implied question: Ula said in Erchin (29a) "if I was there, I would have given all of them to a Kohen", for he holds that Stam Charamim are to Kohanim, regarding the man who made his property Cherem! (Tosfos said that all agree that we decree against any Hana'ah from Cherem!)

Answer: We can distinguish. That refers to land.

Support: Even without this [question from Ula], R. Tam asked that Rav Yehudah holds that Stam Cherem is to Bedek ha'Bayis. How did he permit there (the man who was Macharim his property) through Pidyon, that he casts four Zuz to the river? (The Beraisa decrees to forbid Hana'ah!)

Answer (R. Tam): There (he was Macharim) land. If you will forbid it forever, all the more so people will come to Takalah more!

Question: It connotes there that it was a case of Metaltelim, for it asks from a Beraisa "a Cherem field applies only when Yovel applies", and answers that [the Beraisa] discusses land, and here (the man was Macharim) Metaltelim!

Answer: Land of Chutz la'Aretz it calls Metaltelim, like we conclude there, that it is like Metaltelim.

Implied question: It says there "the case in Pumbedisa was also with land." Since it says "also", this connotes that it was with land and Metaltelim!

Answer: In any case, [Rav Yehudah] permitted only land.

Support: All the more so it is fine now that due to this, it was obvious to the Gemara that the episode was also with land, for if it were only with Metaltelim, he would not have permitted it.

Inference: [He must cast it] specifically to Yam ha'Melach, but not to other rivers.

Support #1: It connotes like this in Pesachim (28a) that [if one casts Chametz] in other rivers, he must grind it up, but to the Yam ha'Melach he may cast it intact.

Support #2: Also in Me'ilah (11a) and Nazir (24b), regarding one who separated coins for his Nezirus and he died, we say that he casts [the coins for the Chatas] to the Yam ha'Melach (he may cast them intact).

Question: In the episode in Erchin (29a), it says that he takes four Zuz and casts them in the river! Also in Yoma (55b), it says that we should take four Zuz and cast them in the river, and the rest should be permitted!

Answer: Perhaps there it discusses [casting to the river] through (i.e. after) grinding them up.

Consequence: Nowadays, when one comes to redeem Kerem Revai or Neta Revai (grapes or fruits of a vine or tree in its fourth year), he must grind the coins that he redeemed on them, and cast them in the river. (Rashash - perhaps we need not fix the text, for one opinion in YD 331:138 says that nowadays that Ma'aser Sheni is not eaten, the redemption money need not have a [minted] form.) (I think that if Tosfos held like this, he would have said so explicitly - PF!)

Explanation: We would not permit doing so with a Bechor nowadays;

This is not only for a Yisrael, who should fulfill the Mitzvah of giving, and wait for a Kohen who wants to receive it, even more than 30 days for a small animal and 50 for a big animal;

Source: A Mishnah (above 26b) teaches "how long must one care for [a Bechor]?" This is even if the Kohen comes during the time, like it teaches "if the Kohen told him within this time 'give it to me', he may not give it";

Rather, even if the Kohen received it, the Kohen may not enter it in a cell [to die], for [if this were permitted], it should have been taught somewhere regarding a Bechor!

Above (35a), a Mishnah teaches "an old male ram and its hair hung down." This connotes that they used to wait until a Mum.

Observation: We can distinguish between a Bechor and one who is Makdish nowadays. A Bechor is permitted when it gets a Mum without Pidyon. There is a loss to Kodshim if he enters it in a cell;

However, one who is Makdish [nowadays], even if it gets a Mum, it is not permitted without Pidyon, and if he redeems it, he must cast the money to be lost. Therefore, now that he enters it in a cell, there is no loss of Kodshim [more than if he waits for a Mum].

Reference: Above (3b) I explained that we permit to be Makneh to a Nochri, since we do not hold like Rav Yehudah.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This is Tovas Hana'ah that he has from Kedushas Mizbe'ach, he can give to Bedek ha'Bayis. He can take a Sela from another Yisrael [e.g.] on condition to give it to his daughter's son, who is a Kohen, to offer it, like it says above (20a). Until here is from Rashi.

Explanation #2: In Erchin (28b), Rashi explained differently. A Mishnah there teaches that one can be Macharim (Makdish to Bedek ha'Bayis) his Kodshim, both Kodshei Kodoshim and Kodshim Kalim. If [the Korban] is a Neder, he gives its value. I.e. it is worth its entire value to him, for he is obligated in Achrayus;

If it is a Nedavah, he gives its Tovas [Hana'ah]. [If one said] "this ox is an Olah", we estimate how much one would pay for this ox to offer it for an Olah that he is not obligated.

Resolution #1: The Tovas Hana'ah above (27a) applies only to something eaten, for it was said about Terumah there.

Support: It was taught like this in Erchin (28b) regarding a Bechor. A Mishnah teaches "a Bechor, whether Tam or Ba'al Mum, one can be Macharim it. How do we redeem it? We estimate how much one would pay for this Bechor to give it to his daughter's son or his sister's son (who is a Kohen);

Resolution #2: Alternatively, regarding something that is not brought for Neder or Nedavah, this Tovas Hana'ah (taught in Erchin) applies, but something brought for Neder or Nedavah, the other Tovas Hana'ah (taught above, 27a) applies.

Implied question: Here, the Hekesh overrides the Kal v'Chomer. Above (33a), a Kal v'Chomer overrides a Hekesh, regarding the argument of Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel! Beis Hillel permit even to Zarim!

Answer: There, I explained (DH v'Beis Hillel. Here, the Kal v'Chomer cannot override the Hekesh, for we could not establish the Hekesh to teach anything else.)