Why does the Torah insert the (otherwise superfluous) words "asher Yevukar la'Hashem"?
What is "Ach" coming to preclude?
Temurah, 25a: With reference to 27:26:0.1:1 ? it teaches us that regarding other Kodshim besides B?chor, the prohibition against declaring a Kodshim animal as a different form of Hekdesh applies even whilst it is a fetus in its mother's womb. 1
See Torah Tm imah, note 146.
What does the Torah mean when it writes about a firstborn animal "Lo Yakdish"?
Rashi, R. Bachye and Rashbam: It means that one is not permitted to take a B'chor and declare it Hekdesh (as an Olah or a Shelamim), since it is not his (to declare Hekdesh [And the Torah adds the word ?bi?Veheimah? to teach us that the prohibition extends to all Korbanos ? R. Bachye]). 1
Ramban and Moshav Zekenim: The Torah means (not that one may not declare it a B'chor, but) that it is not necessary to do so. 2
Rashbam: Since it is already Hekdesh.
Ramban: Since, if it is a calf or a lamb, it automatically belongs to Hashem. Refer to 27:26:2:1. Refer also to 27:26:1.3:1.
?Ach B?chor ? Lo Yakdish Ish oso?. What is the significance of the words ?Ish oso??
Temurah 25a: If not for ?Ish oso?, the Pasuk would mean that a B?chor is not permitted to declare an animal Hekdesh.
?Ach B?chor ? bi?Veheimah?. Why does the Torah insert the (otherwise superfluous) word "bi'Veheimah"?
Temurah, 25a: Because, with referene to 27:26:1.1:1 - had the Torah omitted "bi'Veheimah", it would imply that he cannot be Makdish a B'chor but others can. Therefore the Torah inserts "bi'Veheimah" to teach us the "B'chor is referring to B'chor Beheimah and not B'chor Adam.
?Lo Yakdish Ish oso Im Shor Im Seh?. Why does the Torah add ?Im Shor Im Seh??
Sifra: To teach us that the prohibition of switching one Kedushah for another extends to all Korbanos. 1
How will we reconcile the current Pasuk ("Lo Yakdish") with the Pasuk in Devarim, 15:19, which states "Kol ha'Bechor ... Takdish la'Hashem Elokecha"!
Rashi #1 (in Re'ei Devarim, 15:19): Although a B'chor is automatically Kadosh, it is nevertheless a Mitzvah for the owner to declare it Hekdesh 1 .
Rashi #2 (Devarim 15:19): Although one cannot sanctify the actual B'chor as another Korban, 2 one can however, declare Hekdesh his Tovas Hana'ah, 3 and he must give that amount to Hekdesh. 4
Ramban: What the Pasuk in Devarim means is that one should treat it as Hekdesh, not to work with it or to shear it, and to eat it in Yerushalayim.
This can perhaps be compared to the Mitzvah to add fire to the Mizbe'ach, even though fire comes down from Heaven.
See Torah Temimah, note 149
Rashi (Bechoros 53b): This is the amount that another Yisrael would pay him on condition that he gives it to [a Kohen that the latter chooses, e.g] his grandson.
See Torah Temimah, note 150
?Ach B?chor ? bi?Veheimah, Lo Yakdish Ish oso ? la?Hashem hu?. Why does the Torah insert the (otherwise superfluous) words "bi'Veheimah" and "Lo Yakdish Ish oso"?
Temurah, 25a: Because, had it not inserted " Ish oso" the Pasuk would imply that a firstborn is not eligible to declare Hekdesh, and had it omitted "bi'Veheimah", it would have implied that he cannot be Makdish a B'chor but others can. Therefore the Torah inserts "bi'Veheimah" to teach us the "B'chor is referring to B'chor Beheomah and not B'chor Adam.
?Im Shor Im Seh la?Hashem Hu?. What is ?Hu? coing to preclude?
