Explanation #3 (cont.): And what does 'Go'alin Le'olam' mean? Because the Torah writes (in Vayikra 25) by a Yisrael who sells his inherited field "be'Mispar Sh'nei Tevu'os Yimkor lach" - that he may not redeem it before two years - yet a Levi may redeem it immediately, as the Torah writes (See Shitah Mekubetzes 14) ...

Explanation #3 (cont.): Because it writes by a Yisrael who sells a house in a walled city "ve'Im Lo Yig'al .... ad M'los lo Shanah Temimah" - that it is final - yet a Levi may redeem his house immediately, as the Torah writes "Ge'ulas Ilam Tih'yeh la'Levi'im".

Explanation #3 (cont.): And because it writes by someone who declares Hekdesh an inherited field "And if he (the owner) does not redeem the field, and he (the treasurer of Hekdesh) sells the field to somebody else, it may no longer be redeemed" , and is shared among the Kohanim in the Yovel year - yet the Levi'im can always redeem it.

Explanation #3 (cont.): And when it says here that 'They are not subject to the Mitzvah of Yovel' ...

Explanation #3 (cont.): It refers to someone who declares Hekdesh his inherited field which he did not redeem, and which the treasurer subsequently sold ...

Explanation #3 (concl.): That the Yovel does not take it away from the domain of the Makdish, assuming he was a Levi, in the way that it takes it away from the domain of a Yisrael (Up to here is the wording of Rashi).

Clarification (cont.): 'If they sold a field, they can redeem it immediately, whereas a Yisrael is not permitted to redeem it before two years, as the Torah writes (there) "be'Mispar Sh'nei Tevu'os ... " ...

Clarification (concl.): 'Granted they are not subject to Hashmatas Karka' - in other words, to all the Dinim of Hashmatas Karka, since the Mishnah states 'u'Mochrin Le'olam' (Rashi's wording).

Alternative Text: In Rosh ha'Shanah (Daf 29a) Rashi omits the text 'N'hi de'Lisn'hu be'Hashmatas Karka' ...

Reason: Since it implies that it does revert to the Kohanim in the Yovel - and this is incorrect (See Shitah Mekubetzes 15).

Current Text: However, here Rashi explains the text well.

Question: What has Hashmatas Kesafim got to do with Yovel? (See Avodah Berurah) ...

Source: Seeing as we learned in the Sifri "bi'Shenas ha'Yovel ha'Zos", 'Zos (Yovel) reverts Avadim, but not Shevi'is, how much more so ought the Yovel be Meshamet ...

Source: If Shevi'is, which does not revert Avadim, is Meshamet, Yovel, which does revert Avadim, shoujld certainly be Meshamet! Therefore the Torah writes 've'Zeh D'var ha'Shemitah" - Sh'mitah is Meshamet but not Yovel.

Question (cont.): So we see that Yovel is not Meshamet Kesafim?

Answer: One can answer however, that Hashmatas Kesafim has a slight connection with Yovel, inasmuch as Shevi'is only applies at the time that Yovel applies.

Clarification: Because it is a Kaparah, as the Pasuk writes "ve'Achlu osam asher Kupar bahem" - which teaches us that the Kohanim eat and the owner receives an atonement, Perhaps a Zimun is not required ...

Clarification (cont.): 'And they combine' - if a Kohen, a Levi and a Yisrael; they combine since the Kohen is permitted to eat Chulin (Rashi's wording).

Inferred Halachah: From here there is a proof that three people who are Mudar Hana'ah from one another cannot combine, seeing as none of them can eat with the other.

Refutation: It seems however, that three people who are Mudar Hana'ah from one another is not a good proof (See Avodah Berurah), since a Zar has no Heter to eat T'rumah even via a She'eilah, which is not the case by a Mudar Han'ah (See Shitah Mekubetzes 17).

Reference: Tosfos has dealt with this at length in B'rachos, Daf 45a DH 'Achal').

Source: Snce he (Raban Yochanan ben Zakai) Darshens "Zeh Yitnu" - all twelve tribes - the Gematriyah of "Zeh".

Implied Question: He could just as well have said 'Any Levi who does not give a half-Shekel' ...

Answer: But he not then have been able to continue 'Only they Darshened the following Pasuk for their own benefit'.

Explanation #1: We would have included it - Because, since a person knows that the limbs are not subject to Erech, he had in mind to incorporate all the limbs - therefore he teaches us that this is not the case (See Avodah Berurah).

Explanation #2: Furthermore we would have thought that since the limbs are subject to Damim, they are also subject to Erchin.

Implied Question: Even though it is Asur be'Hana'ah min ha'Torah, and is not therefore subject to Damim ...

Answer: We would have thought that it is subject to Erchin, in the same way as we include a Menuval and a Mukeh Sh'chin (in the Din of Erchin), despite the fact that they are not subject to Damim.

Question: In the second Perek of Chulin (Daf 30a) the Gemara says that 'If one Shechted the two Simanim or the majority of the two Simanim, and it is still shuddering (Mefarcheses), it is still subject to Ha'amadah and Ha'arachah'?

Answer: An animal has more life than a person) and is still able to stand (See also Shitah Mekubetzes).

Implied Question: And it mentions 'Mefarcheses' ...

Answer: Because then it is not a Neveilah.

Introduction to Question: One needs to examine this however, since according to the simple P'shat of the Pasuk, "ve'He'emid ve'He'erich" is referring to the Noder who is mentioned in that same Pasuk, when it writes "al-Pi asher Tasig Yad ha'Noder Ya'archenu" (See Tosfos, Sotah, Daf 27a, DH 'Rav Ashi') ...

Proof: And a Goseis can be Noder and Ma'arich, as the Mishnah states in Maseches Semachos (See Tosfos Yom-Tov, Mishnah 3, DH 've'Lo Ne'erach') ...

Question: So on what basis do we say that "ve'He'emid al-Pi" that is mentioned in the same Pasuk in connection with the Ma'arich, teaches us that he cannot be Ne'erach?

Clarification: Where he said 'Erech P'loni u'Peloni alai' - mentioning the word 'Erech' in the singular, which teaches us that the Erech is nevertheless valid, even though we would have thought that it is not.

Implied Question: Even though it says in the Tosefta in this Masechta 'Harei alai Erech S'tam, Meivi ha'Mu'at; ve'Kamah ha'Mu'at? Chamishah Shekalim' ...

Answer: There it is speaking about the S'tam Erech of a male, whereas here it is speaking about the S'tam Erech of a male and a female.

Clarification: The Gemara learns it from the extra 'Beis' and 'Chaf' (See Shitah Mekubetzes 15), since it could have written 'Etech' ...

Reason: It learns it from the extra letters, since 'Erech' per se needs to be written.

Explanation #1: Why is that? Because it is as if he specified' - Because since he said 'Erech' S'tam alai' and he knows that the smallest Erech is three Shekalim, it is as if he said 'Harei alai Sheloshah Shekalim' ...

Implied Question: It is not comparable to where he declared 'Erki alai' or 'Erech P'loni alai' ...

Answer: Because there it (his intention) is unclear, since not everybody knows his age ...

Answer (cont.): Whereas here it is clear to all, since he did not attach his declaration to any particular person (Rashi's wording).

Question: But when he says 'Erech P'loni alai', he knows that he is not under one month old, in which case he ought to be Chayav five Sela'im, yet he is subject to Heseg Yad of one or two Sela'im?

Answer- Explanation #2: 'ki'Mefaresh' therefore means - that it is as if he specifically declared 'Harei alai Sheloshah Sela'im', seeing as he said Erech S'tam ...

Clarification: Since, to be sure, if he said 'Erech P'loni ben Esrim', despite the fact that he knows that he should be Chayav fifty Sela'im ...

Clarification (cont.): It is nevertheless a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv that seeing as he connected the Erech to the Ne'erach, he is subject to Heseg Yad, and is not like saying 'Harei alai Chamishim Sela'im le'Bedek ha'Bayis.

Clarification: Rashi explains that by Hekdesh, the Tana mentions 'Shutfin' - to say that the owner and Hekdesh divide it equally ...

Reason: Because someone who is Makdish is Makdish generously ...

Clarification (cont.): Whereas with regard to selling, he uses the term 'Meshamnin - a Lashon of Shuma (assessment) is more appropriate - indicating that one assesses the limb concerned, to ascertain what it is fit to be used for (See Shitah Mekubetzes 22), and according to its value he takes.

Clarification: And all the more so when he is Makdish the body (i.e. Kedushas ha'Guf - See Avodah Berurah), where the Kedushah spreads to the entire body.

Clarification: The Beraisa speaks by Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, whereas the Gemara is speaking by Kodshei Mizbe'ach - where he declares the head of a donkey Hekdesh for the value of an Olah, in which it is not 'Nidun bi'Chevodo' ...

Reason: Because when the Torah writews "Nefashos", it is with regard to Erchin, which are Kodshei Bedek Ha'Bayis ...

Clarification (cont.): And when the Gemara says 'Nidun bi'Chevodo', it refers even to a Tumtum whose value one declsares Hekdesh for Bedek ha'Bayis.