What is this Pasuk referring to?
Rashi, Rashbam, Targum Onkelos and Targum Yonasan: It is referring to someone who declares a Tamei species 1 Hekdesh Bedek ha'Bayis.
Ramban: It is referring to a B'chor of a Tamei species. If one is Makdish it, there is no Kedushas Bechorah, and it has the Din of Hekdesh [Bedek ha'Bayis], which the owner can redeem with an added Chomesh, and others, for its market-value. 2
Rashi (in Pasuk 11) and Rashbam: As opposed to "Beheimah Teme'ah" there, which refers to a Tahor species with a blemish. Refer also to 27:27:151:1 & 2.
Ramban: And this is the source of the Din that Tamei species are not subject to the Bechorah
Why does the Torah insert the ?Hey? in "ba'Beheimah ha'Teme'ah"?
Bava Metzi'a, 54b: To preclude Hekdesh Sheini - where for example, the owner transferred the Kedushah on to a second animal - from the Din of adding a fifth. 1
Refer to 27:15:1:1*. See also Torah Temimah, note 157, who elaborates.
What are the connotations of the word "u'Fadah be'Erkecha"?
Rashi: It means 'according to the evaluation of the Kohen'.
What is the definition of "Chamishiso"?
Refer to Vayikra 5:16:2:1.
What is the end of the Pasuk "ve'Im Lo Yiga'el ... " coming to teach us?
Rashi: It teaches us that, if the owner fails to redeem the animal from Bedek ha'Bayis (and pay the extra fifth), then the Gizbar sells it to somebody else.
Bechoros, 13a: It teaches that the Mitzvah to redeem Cherem lies first and foremost with the owner, and it is only if he does not redeem it that others may do so. 1
See Torah Temimah, note 163.
Why does the Torah write first "u'Padah be'Erkecha" and then "Venimkar be'Erkecha"?
Rashi (in Succah, 40b): To teach us that Hekdesh goes out to Chulin either via the owner redeeming it and adding a fifth, or via the Gizbar selling it to someone else.
Rashi (in Avodah Zarah, 54b): The Torah writes "Venmkar be'Erkecha" to teach us that one can transfer the Kedushah of Hekdesh - When one redeems Hekdesh, the animal goes out to Chulin and the money becomes Hekdesh.
QUESTIONS ON RASHI
Rashi writes that the current Pasuk is discussing being Makdish a Tamei species to Bedek ha'Bayis. Why don't we know it from "ve'Im Kol Beheimah Teme'ah" in Pasuk 11, since we already know a Ba'al Mum from "Asher Lo Yakrivu" mentioned there?
Moshav Zekenim #1: According to the opinion in Menachos, 100a - that a Tahor Minchah may not be redeemed, even before it is sanctified in a K'li Shareis, we can say that Temei'ah teaches us that only a Tamei [Minchah] may be redeemed, but not a Tahor [Minchah].
Moshav Zekenim #2: Temei'ah teaches that it has a [permanent] blemish that can never be fixed, similar to a Tamei species.
Rashi writes that the current Pasuk discusses being Makdish a Tamei species to Bedek ha'Bayis. Perhaps it refers to the Din of B/chor discussed in the previous Pasuk?
Rashi: It cannot refer to a B'chor, since Tamei species are not subject to the Bechorah. Nor can it refer to the B'chor of a donkey, since it is redeemed with a Seh, which is given to the Kohen and is not Kadosh.
