Question: A Beraisa teaches that "everyone is obligated to read the Megilah -- Kohanim, Leviyim and Yisraelim." This is obvious!

Answer: It must teach that we interrupt Avodah to hear the Megilah;

(Rav Yehudah): All of the following interrupt in order to hear the Megilah -- Kohanim engaging in Avodah, Leviyim singing on the Duchan, Yisraelim at their Ma'amad (representatives of Yisrael to oversee the Avodah).

Question: A Beraisa teaches that "everyone is obligated to (say Birkas ha'Mazon and) make a Zimun - Kohanim, Leviyim and Yisraelim." This is obvious!

Answer: The case is, Kohanim ate (their share of) Kodshim;

"V'Ochlu Osam Asher Kupar Bahem" teaches that their eating is in order to complete the atonement for Yisrael. One might have thought that (Birkas ha'Mazon, and hence) Zimun does not apply to it (because this is not an optional eating - R. Gershom; Rashi - because they do not eat for the sake of satiation; Kli Chemdah - because Mitzvos are not for Hana'ah, and the Hana'ah of eating is Batel to the Mitzvah);

"V'Achalta v'Savata (u'Verachta)" teaches that if one was satiated, (in any case) he must bless.

Question: A Beraisa teaches that "everyone joins to make a Zimun - Kohanim, Leviyim and Yisraelim." This is obvious!

Answer: The case is, Kohanim ate Terumah or (Menachos, which are Kodshei) Kodshim (that are forbidden to Zarim), and the Zar ate Chulin;

One might have thought that since the Zar could not eat the Kohanim's food, they do not join. The Beraisa teaches that since the Kohanim could eat the Zar's food, they do join.

Question: Our Mishnah teaches that "everyone can be Ma'arich... Kohanim, Leviyim and Yisraelim... " This is obvious!

Answer #1 (Rava): Our Mishnah is like Ben Buchri:

(Mishnah - R. Yehudah citing Ben Buchri): If a Kohen is Shokel (gives a half-Shekel along with Bnei Yisrael, to buy Korbanos Tzibur), he does not transgress;

R. Yochanan ben Zakai: Rather, a Kohen who does not Shokel transgresses! Kohanim (incorrectly) expound the following, to their (monetary) advantage:

"V'Chol Minchas Kohen Kalil Tihyeh Lo Se'achel"- if Kohanim would be Shokel, they would be (joint) owners of (all Korbanos Tzibur, including) the Omer, Lechem ha'Panim and Shtei ha'Lechem, and these could not be eaten!

Question: According to Ben Buchri, a Kohen who is Shokel transgresses, for the Tzibur will (improperly) buy Korbanos using his half-Shekel. It is Chulin b'Azarah!

Answer: The Kohen gives his half-Shekel to the Tzibur, and then it is given to Hekdesh.

Summation of answer #1: One might have thought that since it says "v'Chol Erkecha Yihyeh b'Shekel ha'Kodesh," Erchin applies only to those obligated to give Shekalim, but not to Kohanim. The Mishnah teaches that this is not so.

Objection (Abaye): We use "v'Chol Erkecha Yihyeh b'Shekel ha'Kodesh" to teach that an Erech is never less than one Shekel (i.e. for an Oni paying according to Heseg Yad (what he can afford))!

Answer #2 (Abaye): Rather, since it says "u'Feduyav mi'Ben Chodesh Tifdeh b'Erkecha," one might have thought that Erchin applies only to those obligated in Pidyon ha'Ben, but not to Kohanim (and Leviyim), who are exempt. The Mishnah teaches that this is not so.

Question (Rava): It also says "v'Es Ashamo Yavi la'Shem Ayil Tamim Min ha'Tzon b'Erkecha." (According to your reasoning,) we should say that only one who can be Ne'erach brings a Korban Asham, but not a Tumtum or Androginus! (Even though in conclusion we do not equate Pidyon ha'Ben to Erchin, so likewise we should not equate Asham to Erchin, we do not find a Mishnah teaching that Tumtum and Androginus indeed bring an Asham.)

Answer #3 (Rava or Rav Ashi): It says "v'He'emido Lifnei ha'Kohen." One might have thought that the Ma'arich must be in front of a Kohen, but he himself cannot be a Kohen. The Mishnah teaches that this is not so.

The Mishnah says that everyone can be Ne'erach. We explained that this includes Menuval and Muchas Shechin.

Question: What is the source of this?

Answer (Beraisa #1): "B'Erkecha" includes a Sasum (unspecified) Erech (this will be explained);

Also, "b'Erkecha" teaches that one gives the Erech of a full person, and not the Erech of a limb;

Suggestion: Perhaps this applies even to limbs essential for life!

Rejection: It says "Nefashos." (What is essential to life is like the entire Nefesh).

(Erchin applies to) "Nefashos", but not a Mes;

Suggestion: Perhaps we exclude a Mes, but not a Goses (one who will probably die from his illness)!

Rejection: "V'He'emido... v'He'erich" teaches that Erchin applies only if the Ne'erach can stand. (This excludes a Goses, who cannot stand. This is like Rashi on Chumash, who explains "v'He'emido (the Kohen is Ma'amid the Ne'erach), v'He'erich Oso (the Kohen evaluates how much of the full Erech the Noder can afford)." Tosfos holds like Rashi said above, that "v'He'erich" means that the Kohen evaluates the wealth of the Ma'arich, and asks how this excludes a Goses from being Ne'erach. Sefas Emes answers that since a Goses can be Makdish, it is unreasonable to expound that he cannot be Ma'arich, therefore we use the verse to teach that he cannot be Ne'erach. The Beraisa now derives other laws from "Nefashos.")

Question: We know that an individual can be Ne'erach. What is the source that 100 people can be Ne'erachim (at the same time)?

Answer: We learn from "Nefashos."

Question: We know that a man can be Ma'arich a man or woman. What is the source that a woman can be Ma'arich a man or woman?

Answer: We learn from "Nefashos."

"Nefashos" also includes Menuval and Muchas Shechin;

One might have thought that "Neder b'Erkecha" teaches that Erchin applies precisely to those who can be Nidarim. "Nefashos" teaches that this is not so.

"V'Hayah Erkecha" teaches that a Tumtum or Androginus can be Nidar;

Suggestion: Perhaps "Neder b'Erkecha" teaches that precisely those who can be Ne'erachim can be Nidarim!

Rejection: "V'Hayah Erkecha ha'Zachar" excludes a Tumtum or Androginus (even though they can be Nidarim);

Suggestion: Perhaps this teaches that Erech of a male does not apply to them, rather, Erech Nekevah!

Rejection: "V'Hayah Erkecha ha'Zachar... v'Im Nekevah Hi" teaches that Erchin applies to a known male or female, not to a Tumtum or Androginus. (We now explain Beraisa #1 from the beginning.)

Question: Beraisa #1 learns Erech Sasum from "b'Erkecha". What is this?

Answer (Beraisa #2): If one said "Erech Sasum (i.e. he did not specify a Ne'erach) Alai," he gives the smallest Erech (i.e. of a young girl), which is three Shekalim;

Suggestion: Perhaps he should give the largest Erech (i.e. of an adult male), which is 50 Shekalim!

Rejection: You may assume only the smallest amount, but not more than this.

Suggestion: Perhaps he should give only one Shekel, for it says "v'Chol Erkecha Yihyeh b'Shekel (singular) ha'Kodesh"!

Answer: That teaches about Heseg Yad. (One who cannot afford what he pledged must give at least one Shekel.)

Question: If so, why do we need the verse? (Reasoning teaches that you may assume only the smallest amount!!)

Version #1 - Answer (Rav Nachman): It teaches that Heseg Yad does not apply to Erech Sasum.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: Since he did not specify a Ne'erach, this is like an explicit Neder (Tosfos - to give the smallest Erech. Rashi - this Erech is unlike (regular) Erchin. Since everyone knows what he must give, Heseg Yad does not apply.)

Version #2 - Answer (Rav Nachman): The verse teaches that Heseg Yad applies to Erech Sasum.

Objection: This is obvious! (Heseg Yad applies to all Erchin.)

Answer: One might have thought that this is like an explicit Neder. The verse teaches that this is not so. It has all laws of (regular) Erchin.

(Beraisa #1): Also, "b'Erkecha" teaches that one gives the Erech of a full person, but not the Erech of a limb.

Question: We already used "b'Erkecha" to teach about Erech Sasum!

Answer: Had it said "Erech," we would learn only Erech Sasum. The extra final "Chaf" (Rashi; Shitah Mekubetzes - and the extra "Beis") enable us to learn both laws.

(Beraisa #1) Suggestion: Perhaps this applies even to limbs essential for life!

Rejection: It says "Nefashos", to exclude a Mes.

Question: We already used "Nefashos" to teach about limbs!

Answer: It could have said "Nefesh". Rather, it says "Nefashos" to allow us to learn both laws.

(Beraisa #1) Suggestion: Perhaps we exclude a Mes, but not a Goses!

Rejection: "V'He'emido... v'He'erich" excludes a Goses.

Question: This excludes also a Mes! (Why did we exclude a Mes from "Nefashos" (plural)?)

Answer: Indeed, this excludes a Mes. We expound a different law from "Nefashos", as we shall later see.

(Beraisa #1) Question: We know that an individual can be Ne'erach. What is the source that 100 people can be Ne'erachim (at once)?

Answer: It says "Nefashos".

Question: We know that a man can be Ma'arich a man or woman. What is the source that a woman can be Ma'arich a man or woman?

Answer: It says "Nefashos."

(Beraisa #1): "Nefashos" also includes Menuval and Muchas Shechin.

Question: We already expounded "Nefashos" (to teach about limbs, and that a woman can be Ma'arich, and that one can be Ma'arich 100 at once)!

Answer: They are equal Chidushim. All of them could have been learned from "Nefesh". Therefore, the plural "Nefashos" teaches about Menuval and Muchas Shechin.

(Beraisa #1): "V'Hayah Erkecha" teaches that a Tumtum or Androginus can be Nidar.

Question: Why must a verse teach this? If one said "Alai Demai Dekel," he must give its value. Tumtum and Androginus are no worse than a date tree!

Answer (Rava; according to Tosfos 5a - Rabah): This teaches that a Tumtum or Androginus is evaluated bi'Chvodo (if a vital limb was Nidar, the value of the entire person must be given);

One might have thought that only one who can be Ne'erach is evaluated bi'Chvodo. The verse teaches that this is not so.

Question (Abaye): Is it really true that one who cannot be Ne'erach is evaluated bi'Chvodo?!

(Beraisa): If one said "the head of this slave is Hekdesh," he and Hekdesh are partners in him;

If he said "the head of this slave is sold to you," he and the buyer are Meshamnim. (Rashi - they are partners in him; Tosfos - we estimate the work he can do with his head alone. This is the buyer's share.)

If one said "the head of this donkey is Hekdesh," he and Hekdesh are partners in it. If he said "its head is sold to you," he and the buyer are Meshamnim.

If one said "the head of this cow is sold to you," he sold only the head. Even if he said "the head of this cow is Hekdesh," only the head is Hekdesh.

(Rav Papa): This is because a cow's head is often sold by itself in slaughterhouses.

Summation of question: A donkey or cow cannot be Ne'erach, yet it is not evaluated bi'Chvodo!

Counter-question: The Beraisa teaches also that a slave, who can be Ne'erach, is not evaluated bi'Chvodo!

Answer #1 (to the question and counter-question): The Beraisa refers to (an animal Hukdash to buy) Kodshei Mizbe'ach. Evaluation bi'Chvodo applies only to Bedek ha'Bayis.