1)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that T'muras B'chor and Ma'aser, V'ladan u'Velad V'ladan ... have the same Din as B'chor and Ma'aser - inasmuch as they are subject to Kedushas B'chor and Ma'aser, as we will now see.

(b)Other Kodshim that obtain a blemish can be sold and Shechted in the butchery and weighed on regular scales, but not B'chor and Ma'aser. Furthermore - one can redeem Kodshim that obtain a blemish, but not B'chor and Ma'aser.

(c)The third distinction that the Tana draws between other Kodshim and B'chor and Ma'aser is that - whereas the former may be brought Lechatchilah from Chutz la'Aretz, the latter may not.

2)

(a)If the owner did bring B'chor or Ma'aser from Chutz la'Aretz, then if they are

1. ... blemished - the owner is permitted to eat them.

2. ... not blemished - he may bring them on the Mizbe'ach.

(b)Rebbi Shimon ascribes the prohibition of bringing B'chor and Ma'aser from Chutz la'Aretz Lechatchilah, to the fact that - once they obtain a blemish, they can be eaten directly, whereas other Kodshim, require Ro'eh, and (in most cases), the proceeds are used to purchase another Korban (which can only be brought on the Mizbe'ach).

3)

(a)Citing the b'nei Eretz Yisrael, Rav Acha bar Rav Azya asked whether someone who makes a blemish on a T'muras B'chor or on a T'muras Ma'aser receives Malkos ...

(b)... because of "Kol Mum Lo Yih'yeh bo) ...

(c)The two sides of the She'eilah are that - whereas on the one hand, T'muras B'chor is not brought on the Mizbe'ach (in which case he ought to be Patur from Malkos), on the other, it is Kadosh Kedushas ha'Guf (so maybe he is Chayav).

4)

(a)Teshi'i shel Ma'aser is - the ninth animal that the owner mistakenly called the tenth.

(b)Abaye cited it in order to resolve the She'eilah, from the fact that they did not ask the same She'eilah with regard to it.

(c)The Pasuk ...

1. ... "Asiri" - is apparently their reason not to do so (because we Darshen "Asiri", 've'Lo Teshi'i', from which they precluded the one who makes a blemish on it from Malkos).

2. ... "Lo Sifdeh ki Kodesh Heim" - teaches us "Heim" 'K'reivin', ve'Ein Temurasan K'reivin', that a T'muras B'chor does not go on the Mizbe'ach, and by the same token, the person who makes a blemish on the latter should be Patur from Malkos, too.

(d)Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak presented the Sugya - in the reverse. According to him, Rav Acha bar Azya cited the b'nei Eretz Yisrael with regard to the Teshi'i shel Ma'aser, and Abaye replied by citing T'muras B'chor and Ma'aser with the relevant Pasuk.

5)

(a)When ben Antignos arrived in Eretz Yisrael from Bavel with his Bechoros animals - they declined to accept them.

(b)Rav Chisda reconciles this with our Mishnah, which permits it Bedieved - by establishing a Machlokes between Rebbi Yishmael and Rebbi Akiva (as we will see shortly).

(c)Rebbi Yossi, in a Beraisa, cites three statements in the name of three Zekeinim - all of whom discuss the Pasuk in Re'ei "ve'Achalta lifnei Hash-m Elokecha Ma'asar Degancha ... u'Vechoros Bekarcha ... " (comparing Ma'aser to B'chor and vice-versa).

(d)Rebbi Yishmael (the first Zakein) discusses eating Ma'aser Sheini nowadays in Yerushalayim. We cannot learn that it is forbidden from ...

1. ... B'chor - since B'chor requires Matan Damim on the Mizbe'ach (whereas Ma'aser Sheini does not).

2. ... Bikurim - which requires placing in front of the Mizbe'ach (whereas Ma'aser Sheini does not).

6)

(a)We ultimately learn it from the Pasuk "ve'Achalta lifnei Hash-m Elokecha Ma'asar Degancha ... u'Vechoros Bekarcha ... " - from the Hekesh of Ma'aser to B'chor (and one cannot query a Hekesh).

(b)We ask why we need the Pasuk, why we cannot learn it from a Mah ha'Tzad from B'chor and Bikurim. Rav Ashi answers - because they both share a connection with the Mizbe'ach, which Ma'aser Sheini does not possess.

(c)We query this however, mi'Mah Nafshach. Assuming that Rebbi Yishmael holds Kedushah Rishonah Kidshah le'Sha'atah ve'Kidshah le'Asid Lavo - then both B'chor and Ma'aser will be permitted (see Shitah Mekubetzes 14).

(d)The problem we have, assuming he holds ' ... Lo Kidshah le'Asid Lavo' is - why B'chor is more obviously forbidden than Ma'aser Sheini.

7)

(a)We conclude that Rebbi Yishmael holds ... Kidshah le'Asid Lavo (Rabeinu Gershom), and B'chor is definitely Asur to eat in Yerushalayim (even though Ma'aser Sheini is a Safek) - because the Tana is speaking when it was Shechted before the Churban, in which case the blood can only be sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach, which was already obligated before the Churban), and since the blood cannot be sprinkled, the Basar cannot be eaten.

(b)The text that concludes in Rebbi Yishmael ' ... Lo Kidshah le'Asid Lavo' cannot be correct - because how could he then even have a Safek that maybe one is permitted to bring Ma'aser to Yerushalayim nowadays.

8)

(a)We query the very attempt to learn Ma'aser from B'chor however, from a statement of Rebbi Yochanan - who says that one can learn one Lameid from another ...

1. ... in most areas of Torah, but not ...

2. ... in that of Kodshim.

(b)And our case is Lameid min ha'Lameid - because we are learning Ma'aser from Basar B'chor and Basar B'chor from Dam B'chor.

(c)We reject the suggestion that we can learn Ma'aser Sheini from B'chor, because in fact, it is Chulin, and not Kodshim - because of those opinions who go after the Melamed (the source, which is B'chor, which is Kodshim).

(d)And we solve the problem, based on the fact that the first Lameid is Basar from Dam - which are really considered one entity (and not one thing that one learns from another), in which case it is not a Lameid min ha'Lameid at all.

9)

(a)The second Zakein cited by Rebbi Yossi is Rebbi Akiva, who learns that, at the time when the Beis-Hamikdash stood, a Kohen was not permitted to bring on the Mizbe'ach a B'chor that was born in Chutz la'Aretz to Eretz Yisrael (to bring on the Mizbe'ach) from - "ve'Achalta lifnei Hash-m ... " (the Hekesh of B'chor to Ma'aser Sheini, which is confined to crops that grow in Eretz Yisrael, that we cited on the previous Amud.

(b)Rav Chisda has proved from here that the author of ...

1. ... the Beraisa who refused to accept the B'choros of ben Antignos even Bedieved, is Rebbi Akiva, whereas ...

2. ... our Mishnah which permits it, goes like Rebbi Yishmael, who uses the Pasuk for a different D'rashah (and who therefore forbids it Lechatchilah only mi'de'Rabbanan).

(c)ben Azai too (the third elder cited by Rebbi Yossi), tries to learn Ma'aser from B'chor (with regard to eating it within the walls of Yerushalayim). We would otherwise have thought - that one is also permitted to eat it in any location that someone standing in Yerushalayim is able to see.

(d)We refute the Limud from B'chor, on the same grounds as Rebbi Yishmael did (with regard to eating Ma'aser Sheini in Yerushalayim nowadays), and ben Azai's ultimate source forbidding Ma'aser to be eaten outside the walls of Yerushalayim is - the same Hekesh of Ma'aser to B'chor (from the Pasuk "ve'Achalta ... ") as we just cited according to Rebbi Akiva.

(e)We know that a B'chor cannot be eaten in any location that can be seen from Yerushalayim - because a B'chor that leaves the walls of Yerushalayim becomes Pasul be'Yotzei.

10)

(a)ben Azai's suggestion that one may perhaps be permitted to eat Ma'aser Sheini outside the walls of Yerushalayim, is based on a Mishnah in Megilah. The precedent presented there by the Tana is - Mishkan Shiloh, where both Kodshim Kalim and Ma'aser Sheini could in fact, be eaten in any location that could be seen by someone standing in Shiloh.

(b)And he initially thought that Ma'aser Sheini may be permitted, even though Kodshim Kalim are not - because unlike Kodshim Kalim, it does not require Matan Damim on the Mizbe'ach.

11)

(a)Acherim (not cited by Rebbi Yossi) learns from the Hekesh of B'chor to Ma'aser Sheini that - a B'chor does not become Pasul from one year to the next.

(b)The Rabbanan (the Zekeinim of Rebbi Yossi, who use the Hekesh of B'chor to Ma'aser for other things) learn that - from the Pasuk "lifnei Hash-m ... Tochlenu Shanah be'Shanah" (implying two years).

(c)Acherim (who already knows this from the Hekesh of B'chor to Ma'aser) learns from "Shanah be'Shanah" (implying one day in the last year and one day in the next) that - a B'chor can be eaten for two days and the intervening night.

(d)Whereas the Rabbanan learn this - from the Torah's comparison of B'chor Beheimah to Chazeh ve'Shok of a Shelamim ("u'Vesaram Yih'yeh lach ka'Chazeh ha'Tenufah ... "), which can be eaten for two days and one night.

(e)Alternatively, they learn it from the word there "Yih'yeh", which we need - because we would otherwise compare it to the Chazeh ve'Shok of a Todah (le'Chumra), which may only be eaten for one day and a night.

12)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that ...

1. ... a V'lad Chatas, a T'muras Chatas and a Chatas whose owner died - must die.

2. ... a Chatas whose year passed (since a Chatas must be a kid-goat in its first year), or which got lost and is found with a blemish, before the owner brought another one, but where he subsequently did - must die too.

(b)Even the Rabbanan, who will later argue with Rebbi and say that as long as the Chatas is found before the owner has been atoned for, it does not die, concede that in this case it does - because it has two disadvantages; a. that it got lost, and b. it had a blemish (see also Tosfos DH 'v'Ad Chatas')

(c)If in the latter case, the Chatas had still been a Tam when they found it, the Din would have been - Tir'eh ... .

(d)The Mishnah continues 'Lo Nehenin (mi'de'Rabbanan), ve'Lo Mo'alin' (mi'd'Oraysa). The reason for the latter ruling is - because since neither it, nor its Damim, are brought on the Mizbe'ach, its Kedushah has dissipated.

13)

(a)The previous ruling taught us the Din of the Chatas after the owner brought a second one. As long as he has not yet done so ...

1. ... the Din of a Chatas whose year passed is - 'Tir'eh ... ', and the proceeds used to purchase another Chatas.

2. ... a Chatas that was lost and found with a blemish - is sold immediately.

(b)And the Mishnah concludes 've'Oseh Temurah u'Mo'alin bah'. The reason for the former ruling - is because the Damim will be brought on the Mizbe'ach (as opposed to going to Bedek ha'Bayis).