on daf 10 in Bechoros i think the gemora says we separate a lamb even though there is a doubt because the donkey is ussur bi-hanuah.
according to rabbi yehuda why can't we say suffik momen li-hokel or according to rabbi shimon suffik di-orayso li-chumra?
According to Rebbi Yehudah, since a Peter Chamor is Asur b'Hana'ah it
is a Safek Isur, even though we do say Safek Mamon l'hakel which permits him to keep the Seh. According to Rebbi Shimon that a Peter Chamor is never Asur b'Hana'ah (even when it is a Vadai), the whole question is a monetary issue (Mamon) and therefore it is l'Kula.
Dov Zupnik
I am trying to figure out what is bothering me.
If we have a doubtful firstborn baby donkey in front of us with another baby donkey. do i look at this donkey according to Rabbi Yehuda as a suffik di-orayso li chumra? why can't we look at this donkey as a case of suffik mu-moan li-hukel? the gemora later says that if i do not redeem the donkey i am taking away from a cohen, so i break the neck to take away any gain that the owner can have by breaking the neck.
If the we are not sure if he redeemed the donkey, do i then say suffik mo-moan li hu kel?
I do not know why i can't understand this sugya, 101 times is better than 100, right? Thank you for your time and patience.
Yehuda
Rebbi Yehuda merely maintains that one should be Mafrish Tleh l'Atzmo, which means he has no financial loss, in order to take away the possibility of Isur. Tosfos (DH "l'Afku'ei") indeed explains that everyone agrees that there is no reason to do Arifah in a case of Safek. [The argument between Rebbi Yehuda and Rebbi Shimon is explained in the Gemara at length.]
All the best,
Yaakov Montrose