The gemorah asks for the source that eglah arufah is asur hanaah, gm'answers it says kapora therefore it's like kodshim. Rashi there in parenthesis says "v'lo parchinan e ma kadesh" because ein mesheven al hahekish. Why on the daf before about kalei hakerem can we not apply the same thing and also on daf nun zayin amud beis reguarding "seir nazir"???
Donnie Appel, Staten Island, NY
The Maharshal explains that Rashi means to say that since Eglah Arufah is not referred to as "Kodesh" (as opposed to Kila'ei ha'Kerem and Se'ar Nazir) it is not Tofeis the money given in exchange for it. The Maharsha objects to this. He says that Rashi is not Mashma like the Maharshal since this cannot be described as a Pircha on a Hekeish. The Maharsha says that in earlier editions these words are absent from Rashi and they should be regarded as an erroneous addition. He does not explain how he would answer the question as to why Eglah Arufah is not Tofeis the money given in exchange for it, but since he does not argue with the substance of the Maharshal's explanation, only with the way he tried to explain it into Rashi, it seems he agrees that this answer is indeed the correct one. The Ritva also explains like the Maharshal in his first answer. He then brings that some answer "Ein Meishivin Al ha'Heikish" but he rejects this explanation.
The Penei Yehoshua expands on the Maharshal's explanation by saying that the Limud from Kaparah is from Kodshim that have a Hakravah and hence are not liable to Pidyon or becoming Chulin. Therefore, here it is not possible to suggest that it should be Tofeis its Damim and go to Chulin.
Dov Freedman