1)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that if a B'chor dies ...

1. ... after thirty days - the father is Chayav to pay the five Sela'im.

2. ... within thirty days - he is Patur ...

(b)... even if he already gave the money to the Kohen.

(c)If the baby dies on the thirtieth day, the Tana Kama holds that it is as if it died before thirty days. Rebbi Akiva rules that - it is a Safek (if he paid the money, he cannot take it back, but if he did not, then he is not obligated to pay).

2)

(a)The Tana Kama learns his Din from the Gezeirah Shavah "ben Chodesh" (by B'chor [implying above but excluding, the given age]) "ben Chodesh" (regarding the Bechoros in the Desert), since by the latter - the Torah adds the word "va'Ma'alah" (which it does not insert here).

(b)Based on the fact that the Torah also inserts the word "va'Ma'alah" by Erchin, Rebbi Akiva counters the Rabanan's source - by referring to the principle that When two Pesukim teach the same thing, (they are exceptions, and therefore) we learn that the opposite is the rule."

(c)Nevertheless, he only considers it a Safek, since the principle will not apply here - seeing as, at the end of the day, we are learning B'chor from B'chor will override the fact that there are two Pesukim.

3)

(a)Rav Ashi rules that - if a B'chor dies on the thirtieth day, it is unanimously agreed that one is not obligated to mourn for him, because the thirtieth day is like the twenty-ninth in this regard.

(b)Sh'muel stated that - when it comes to Aveilus, the Halachah is always the more lenient opinion.

4)

(a)With regard to whether the father paid the Kohen or not, our Mishnah rules, that in a case where he died ...

1. ... within thirty days of the birth of his B'chor - he is assumed not to have paid, unless the son brings proof to the contrary.

2. ... after thirty days - he is assumed to have paid, unless witnesses testify that the B'chor's father informed them that he did not.

(b)The former ruling is based on the principle that - a person does not pay before he is obligated to.

5)

(a)According to the Tana Kama, if both a father and a son need to be redeemed, and the father only has five Sela'im, the father takes precedence over his son. According to Rebbi Yehudah - the son takes precedence ...

(b)... because - whereas the obligation to redeem his son lies on him, the obligation to redeem him lies with his father.

6)

(a)According to Rav, if a father redeems his first-born son within the first thirty days, the Pidyon is effective. Shmuel maintains that - it is not.

(b)On the one hand ...

1. ... Rav concedes that - his Pidyon does not take immediate effect, whilst on the other ...

2. ... Shmuel concedes that - as long as the money is still intact, the Pidyon will take effect after thirty days.

7)

(a)Rav bases his ruling on that of Kidushei Ishah - where, if a man betroths a woman to take effect at a later date, she is betrothed even though, when that time arrives, the money has already been spent.

(b)To counter Rav's source, Shmuel points out that - whereas the man had the option of betrothing the woman there and then, a father does not have the option of redeeming his son within thirty days.

(c)When Rav and Sh'muel argue, we generally rule like Rav - in matters concerning Isur, and like Sh'muel - in money-matters.

(d)In this case however, we rule - like Shmuel ...

(e)... even though - it is basically a matter of Isur.

8)

(a)We query the current ruling (like Shmuel) from our Mishnah which rules that if the father died within thirty days, even if he already paid the Kohen, the latter is obligated to refund the money, implying that - if the father would not have died, his son would be redeemed.

(b)To reconcile the Mishnah with Shmuel, we establish it - where the money is still intact.

(c)The problem we have with the Tana's ruling 'be'Chezkas she'Lo Nifdeh ad she'Yavi Re'ayah she'Nifdeh' is - why, according to Sh'muel, the baby is redeemed, even if he does not prove that he paid the Kohen.

(d)And we answer the Kashya on Shmuel from there - in the same way as we answered the previous Kashya (that the money is still intact).

(e)When a Beraisa expert cited a Beraisa which declares the son redeemed, there where the father paid within thirty days - Rav Yehudah commented that Sh'muel holds that he is not, and, in spite of the principle that rules like Rav in matters of Isur, in this case the Halachah is like Sh'muel.

9)

(a)The Beraisa repeats the Machlokes in our Mishnah regarding a father and son who both need redeeming, and where the father has only five Sela'im. Rebbi Yirmiyah rules that, in a case where there is literally no more than five Sela'im available - the father has precedence ...

(b)... because a Mitzvah she'be'Gufo (a Mitzvah that concerns oneself) take precedence.

(c)He then establishes the case over which Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabanan are arguing - where besides the five Sela'im that the father actually owns (b'nei Chorin), there are another five Sela'im worth of property that he sold (and which are Meshu'bad to his creditors (of which the Kohen is one).

(d)The basis of their argument is - whether 'Milveh ha'Kesuvah ba'Torah ke'Milveh ha'Kesuvah bi'Sh'tar Dami (Rebbi Yehudah), or not (the Rabbanan).

(e)Consequently, with regard to claiming from the b'nei Chorin ...

1. ... Rebbi Yehudah now holds that the son takes precedence - since the father can be redeemed by the Kohen claiming the Meshubadim (since his claim precedes that of the purchaser).

2. ... the Tana Kama holds that the father takes precedence - because, seeing as the Kohen cannot claim from the purchaser (we apply the principle Mitzvah de'Gufeih Adif).

10)

(a)Our Mishnah discusses how to evaluate the five Sela'im of Pidyon ha'Ben, the thirty Shekalim of an Eved - the fifty of Oneis Mefateh and the hundred of Motzi-Shem-Ra.

(b)The currency used by the Tana as a gauge is - Manah Tzuri (which will be discussed shortly).

(c)The Tana adds that all of these are reckoned according to the Shekel ha'Kodesh. The number of Manim that comprise ...

1. ... a Shekel ha'Kodesh is - twenty.

2. ... a regular Shekel is - ten.

11)

(a)All of these are assessed according to the Shekel ha'Kodesh - which is double that of a regular Shekel (as we explained earlier).

(b)When the Mishnah concludes that all of the above may be paid be'Kesef u've'Shaveh Kesef, it means that - one is permitted to pay with objects to the value of the required amount, and not necessarily with money ...

(c)... with the sole exception of - the half-Shekel, which can only be paid with money.

12)

(a)Rebbi Asi interprets Manah Tzuri literally as the currency of Tzur (Tyre). If a Zuz (a Dinar) of that currency is equivalent to two and a half P'shitin (of the weight of iron) - then there are four Zuzim in a Sela

(b)According to Rebbi Ami, the definition of Manah Tzuri is Dinra Arva (an Arabian Dinar), and according to Rebbi Chanina, an Astira Savraisa. Ten Dinra Arva comprise a Dinar (the equivalent of six Ma'ah).

(c)Astira Savraisa means - a very old Sela (See also Tosfos DH 'Rebbi Chanina ... ') ...

(d)... eight of which comprise a Dinar.

(e)For Pidyon ha'Ben, one must give - five of these coins.

13)

(a)There are twenty five Zuz (one Zuz equals one ordinary Dinar) in one golden Dinar of the emperors Hadrian and Turian. We initially thought that Rebbi Yochanan said to deduct one sixth from the twenty five Zuz, and what remains, will be the sum of the five Sela of Pidyon ha'Ben.

(b)But that is a mistake, because, if we deduct one sixth of twenty five Zuz from the twenty five Zuz, we will still be left with almost twenty one Zuz, and the five Sela'im of Pidyon ha'Ben is the equivalent to twenty Dinrim (or Zuzim)?

(c)We therefore conclude that - one must remove one Zuz, and then deduct a sixth, in order to arrive at the twenty Zuz, and that is equivalent to just over twenty eight and a half Zuzim of the (smaller) Arabic Dinar (of which there are ten to every seven).