Question: Why not attribute it to 'Amiraso li'Gevohah ki'Mesiraso le'Hedyot', and consequently, since he made a Meshichah for two hundred Zuz, he is not permitted to retract?

Answer: Seeing as he erred in that he did not think that the official price would change, it is not comparable to handing over to a Hedyot.

Introduction to Question: The Gemara says in Perek Yesh Nochlin (Bava Basra, Daf 133b) in the case of the son of Yosef ben Yo'ezer who found a pearl' - 'His wife instructed him to sell it to the treasurer of Hekdesh, and not to assess it himself, because 'Declaring to Hash-m is like handing over to a Hedyot'.

Question: Why is that? In the event that he would say to give it to Hekdesh for less than the price would be an assessment made in error?

Answer #1: Regarding something whose value is not known such as a pearl, one has in mind to give it even if it is worth more, seeing as he is equally in doubt as to whether it is not worth less.

Answer #2: Alternatively, there, where he assessed it for less than its value, he had the intention of foregoing the difference to Hekdesh, in which case applying 'Amiraso li'Gavohah ...' is justifiable ...

Answer #2 (cont.): Whereas in our case, he did not have in mind to forego anything when he drew it for two hundred Zuz, since that is how much it was worth at the time.

Answer #2 (concl.): And 'Amiraso li'Gevohah ... ' is therefore not applicable.

Clarification: And since a Hedyot is not able to retract without a 'Mi she'Para', once the money has been paid, neither can Hekdesh.

Introduction to Question: The Gemara in Perek ha'Nizakin (Gitin, Daf 52a) compares Yesomim to Hekdesh in that they are only Makneh with money ...

Introduction to Question (cont.): If one gives money to Yesomim for fruit, if it goes down in price, the purchaser is able to retract; And if the price goes up, then the Yesomim are able to retract

Reason: So that the strength of a Hedyot should not exceed that of Hekdesh ...

Question: Why is that, seeing as a Hedyot too, is subject to a 'Mi she'Para'?

Answer: One cannot compare the cases, since there regarding Yesomim, min ha'Torah they have the Din of a Hedyot, in which case, they cannot acquire without Meshichah, only the Chachamim strengthened their rights like Hekdesh, to acquire with Kesef ...

Answer (cont.): Consequently, where it causes them a loss, they reverted to Din Torah - even though a Hedyot would be subject to a 'Mi she'Para' ...

Reason: In order that the strength of a Hedyot should not exceed theirs, and that they should not lose as a result of the Takanas Chachamim ...

Reason (cont.): Because, if not for the Takanah, they would be able to retract even after receiving the money, seeing as they did not make a Meshichah ...

Answer (cont.): Hekdesh on the other hand, is Makneh via Kesef min ha'Torah, and the Rabbanan instituted Meshichah for the benefit of Hekdesh, so that the strength of Hedyot should not exceed that of Hekdesh ...

Answer (concl.): So, since Hedyot cannot retract without accepting a 'Mi she'Para', we place it on its Din Torah - Kesef, and Hekdesh cannot retract at all, once it has received the money.

Question: Why do we need a Pasuk, why not attribute it to the fact that it is a 'Mitzvas Asei she'ha'Zeman G'rama', seeing as the Milah takes place on the eighth day after its birth, and women are therefore Patur?

Answer: Since the Mitzvah extends from the eighth day and onwards without a break, it is not considered 'Z'man G'rama'.

Question: Nevertheless, it is a 'Mitzvas Asei she'ha'Zeman G'rama', seeing as one may only perform it during the day, as the Gemara states in Perek ha'Areil (Yevamos, Daf 72a)?

Answer: Our Sugya goes according to the opinion there that holds that 'Milah not in its time can be performed both by day and by night.

Question: Why not attribute it to the Pasuk "Kol B'chor Banecha Tifdeh", which implies "Your sons but not your daughters"?

Answer: We need the current Pasuk, since from there we would have learned that "Your firstborn sons" the father must redeem and not his daughters, but the daughters must redeem themselves.

Explanation #1: Meaning that he redeems his son with the B'nei Chorin (the 'free' property) ...

Reason: Because if he would use the B'nei Chorin to redeem himself, he would not be able to redeem his son with the Meshubadim ...

Reason (cont): Since it is speaking where the property became Meshubad before the son was born ...

Reason (concl.): That is why he must give his son's redemption precedence.

Implied Question: Nor is this cheating the purchasers ...

Answer: Since the Mitzvah to redeem his son takes precedence over redeeming himself.

Question: On the contrary, he is cheating the purchasers, since a personal Mitzvah always takes precedence, so why can they not say to him 'Redeem yourself first'? ...

Question (cont.): And if he says that he will redeem himself with Meshubadim, they can retort that 'One cannot pay with Meshubadim there where there are B'nei Chorin' ...

Question (cont.): And even if he redeemed his firstborn son from B'nei Chorin, they can tell the Kohen 'We left you a place of B'nei Chorin from which to claim your five Sela'im!'.

Explanation #2: Therefore the Ri establishes the case where Yitzchak has five Sela'im of Meshubadim, which he designated as an Apotiki (a mortgage) to a Kohen for the redemption of Ya'akov his son, and which he then sold ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): Meanwhile, Ya'akov grew up and fathered a son, and he and his son now require redemption, but they only have five Sela'im of B'nei Chorin altogether ...

Rebbi Yehudah: Rebbi Yehudah holds that 'A loan written in the Torah is considered written in a Sh'tar', in which case the Kohen documented claim preceded the Apotika'os ...

Reason: Consequently, he can claim from them, even though Ya'akov had B'nei Chorin ...

Rebbi Yehudah (cont.): Because the Mitzvah on his father's property is greater than that of his own, since the debt of the father lies on the property of the father and not on that of the son.

Rebbi Yehudah (concl.): Nor can they say 'We left you a place from which to claim - the property of Ya'akov!' ...

Reason: Because he (Ya'akov) is not obligated to pay his father's debts, and he (the Kohen) has no claim on his (Ya'akov's) property.

Proof: And this is also implied in the Lashon 'Because his (Ya'akov's) Mitzvah lies on his father'.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains - 'B'nei Bavel who went to study the Mishnah of Eretz Yisrael in Eretz Yisrael, and since they were studying away from home, the onus of providing for their families did not lay on them ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): They would marry, in order to remain free of bad thoughts, and then go and study Torah.

Explanation #1 (cont.): "That speaks to them" - to the 'B'nei Eretz Yisrael, who studied in their home-towns; If they would marry first, the onus of providing for their families would rest on them, and would interfere with their learning'.

Question #1: Rabeinu Tam queries this however - since it implies that according to Shmuel, they would marry first in order to be free from bad thoughts - and it establishes him with regard to the B'nei Bavel. In that case, the problem with bad thoughts remains, seeing as they went to study away from home?

Question #2: Moreover, having married, how could they go away to learn elsewhere - seeing as they were obligated to provide for their wives and children?

Proof: In the first Perek of Gitin (Daf 6b) Rebbi Evyasar sent a message that people who come here (to Eretz Yisrael) from there (Bavel), fulfill the Pasuk (in Yo'el, 4) "And they gave their sons to harlots, and sold their daughters for wine" ...

Proof (cont.): Meaning that they had to give their sons and daughters as securities for Parnasah - implying that they were not right to go away from home to learn?

Explanation #2: Consequently, Rabeinu Tam learns the other way round; That Rebbi Yochanan who said 'He haws a mill-stone round his neck and he should study Torah?' - was speaking to the B'nei Bavel, who could not leave their wives to go and study, and who moreover, were poor ...

Explanation #2: Whilst Shmuel, who said 'One should first get married' was talking to the B'nei Eretz Yisrael, who were able to learn in their home-towns and who were wealthy. For them it was preferable that they first marry and then study Torah with pure thoughts.

Explanation #2 (cont.): It did sometimes happen that also the B'nei Eretz Yisrael went to learn away from home (as we see with Shmuel's Talmidim), but most of them learned at home.

Implied Question: It is not surprising for Shmuel, who lived in Bavel, to teach residents of Eretz Yisrael ...

Answer: Since there sat before him Talmidim from Eretz Yisrael, with whom he as speaking.

Implied Question: And likewise, Rebbi Yochanan who lived in Eretz Yisrael ...

Answer: Spoke with Talmidim from Bavbel who were studying before him.