Clarification: This refers to the Seifa of the Pasuk.

Clarification: Since it retains its sanctity inasmuch as it cannot be sold in the butchery and weighed on a scale.

Question: Why can we not answer that it goes like the Rabbanan who say that it is not his Mamon?

Answer #1: It seems to him that it goes even according to Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili.

Answer #2: Whereas the Ram explains that it (the Kashya) goes even according to the Rabbanan ...

Answer (cont.): And basically, it pertains to Ma'aser, which is his Mamon, according to all opinions (the Remah)

Alternative Explanation: In the first Perek of Bava Kama, Rashi explains that it must be speaking in the time of the Beis-Hamikdash - because it talks about Shevu'as ha'Pikadon which applies in the time of the Beis-Hamikdash - since it is subject to an Asham.

Implied Question: And the reason that the Gemara mentions here that it is because it is similar to Shalamim is ...

Answer: Because in any event, it has to say that it is like Shelamim - in order to prove that it is speaking about an animal without a blemish, and not a Ba'al-Mum, as the Gemara will say shortly.

Clarification: The Gemara in Bava Kama concludes that 'Ba'u' implies Bedi'eved, but that Lechatchilah, they may not be sacrificed.

Clarification (cont.): Whereas Rebbi Akiva holds that one sacrifice them even, even Bedi'eved ...

Reason: Because B'chor is compared to Ma'aser Beheimah, and Ma'aser Beheimah, to Ma'aser Dagan - and just as Ma'aser Dagan may not be br brought from Chutz la'Aretz to Eretz Yisrael, so too, B'chor and Ma'aser (Beheimah)'.

Question: Why does the Gemara not establish it like Rebbi Akiva, who holds more that it is his Mamon?

Answer: Because according to Rebbi Akiva, it is not so comparable to Shelamim.

Reason : Since Shelamim are brought on the Mizbe'ach, whereas a B'chor in Chutz la'Aretz according to Rebbi Akiva is not - even Bedi'eved ...

Reason (cont.): Whereas according to Rebbi Shimon, who holds that it is sacrificed Bedi'eved, it is indeed similar to Shelamim.

Reason: Since we established that by a B'chor in Chutz la'Aretz.

Question: What is the problem? They will not permit it, seeing as the blemish occurred when it was by the Kohen without witnesses - bearing in mind that the Kohanim are suspect on this?

Answer: What the Gemara means is that he will say 'The Kohen gave it to me already blemished, and I saw the blemish occur by itself'.

Question: How can Rav Chisda suspect that the Yisrael may go and make a blemish on the animal - seeing as a Yisrael is not suspected of doing that? ...

Source: As the Gemara states in Bechoros (Daf 35a) - that everyone is believed on a B'chor in the hand of a Yisrael - since it is the Kohanim who are suspect of making blemishes, and not a Yisrael?

Refuted Answer: Nor can one answer that that speaks exclusively in the case of a Vaday B'chor which will definitely be given to the Kohen - and a Yisrael will not sin on something that is not his ...

Refutation: Because in Perek Pesulei haMukdashin (Ibid. Daf 35b) Rav Nachman says with regard to a Safek B'chor that its owner is believed to testify on it.

Answer: The cases are not comparable - because that speaks where it was a Tam to begin with, in which case, the owner is afraid to make a blemish, since the animal was born in his possession ...

Reason: Seeing as he has no way of getting out of it ...

Answer (cont.): Whereas in our case, where he can ascribe it to the fact that ythe Kohen gave it to him already blemished, he is indeed suspect.

Implied Question: It seems that that is why the Gemara did not want to try a different approach and to ask that perhaps the Yisrael will go and make a blemish, and show it to a Chacham and claim that it occurred by itself, and not that the Kohen gave it to him ...

Answer #1: Since he will not do that (as we just explained).

Answer #2: Alternatively (See Olas Shlomoh), they are likely to suspect him, to ask why he bothers to bring it to the Chacham, seeing as it is not his.

Continuation of Sugya: The Gemara then asks 'But did Rav Yehudah not say that 'One may not examine a B'chor on behalf of a Yisrael unless he brings a Kohen with him?' ...

Reason: For fear tat he will keep it for himself and not give it to a Kohen ...

Clarification of Question: And since he is obligated to bring a Kohen with him, he cannot claim that the Kohen gave it to him already blemished ...

Clarification of Question (cont.): Because we tell him to 'Bring the Kohen who gave it to you!' - and as long as he has not does so, we will not permit him to Shecht the B'chor.

Clarification: Since it is common for a Kohen who sells a B'chor to drop the price when welling it to a Yisrael, to encourage him to give him his B'chor (Beheimah) on other occasion.

Clarification (cont.): And it is all the more Asur to accept it from him as a gift.

Warning: One must take care when giving a Kohen a B'chor, that, if the Kohen says to him 'Keep it!', he is not permitted to accept it.

Reason: Because it would resemble 'Kohen ha'Mesaye'a be'Veis ha'Geranos.