Clarification: It speaks where his daughter did not have children.

Reason: Since the Gemara establishes it like Rebbi Yehudah, who holds (in Sanhedrin 27b) that 'If he was his son-in-law, and his daughter died, he is still considered a relative as long as she had children from him; but not if he did not.

Question: 'Rebbi' asked what the Rabbanan will learn from the "Hu" in the Pasuk "ve'Im Mach Hu me'Erkecha

Answer: Perhaps somewhere there is a D'rashah from this "Hu" (Refer to Gilyon).

Refuted Explanation: Rashi explains that by Erchin it all depends on the decision of the Kohen, who, if he sees that his father is a Goseis, will refrain from assessing him until his father dies.

Refutation #1: This is not correct however, because later on the Gemara says that "Hekdesh depends on its location and in its time'.

Refutation #2: And the Gemara will also shortly cite it, when it says 'You compare value (Neder) to Erchin and pearls to Kalim (a poor man) ...

Clarification: This (latter phrase) means that if a poor man who was Ma'arich himself owns a pearl which is currently worth twenty Sela'im, we do not say 'Wait until market day, when the price will go up to forty Sela'im ...

Clarification (cont.): But rather we assess it as it is now, and he only needs to give twenty Sela'im ...

Refutation (cont.): If so, why should we wait until his father dies?

Authentic Explanation: The Ri therefore explains that 'But Korbanos are different' is not referring to 'Meis Aviv' ...

Authentic Explanation (cont.): But to the earlier part of the Mishnah - in fact it is the conclusion of Rebbi Yehudah's statement.

Implied Question: And when it says later 'Even if his father died and left him ... ' ...

Answer: It is an independent statement, regarding which Korbanos and Erchin are equivalent (See Shitah Mekubetzes).

Refuted Explanation #1: Rashi explains that by Damim it is obvious yjat one pays according to the time of payment and not according to the time of the Neder ...

Reason: Seeing as one assesses him like an Eved in the market-place - and if he declared 'D'mei alai' in Tishri, but came to Beis-Din only in Tishri, how would one possibly know his value at the time of the Neder?

Refuted Explanation #1 (cont.): And 'the time of giving' is synonymous with the time that he comes to Beis-Din (Rashi's wording).

Refutation: What sort of logic is that?

Refutation (cont.): Why would one assume that he beforehand he wass worth more than he is now? ...

Refutation (cont.): If on the other hand, we see that now he is weak, whereas before he was strong, then we will know that he was definitely worth a Sela more (than he is now) ...

Refutation (concl.): And we will cause Hekdesh a loss - since we see that he was worth at least a Sela more then?

Explanation #2: The Ri therefore explains that this is not a S'vara but there is source for it from a Pasuk.

Proof: Moreover, we learned later in Perek Mishkali alai (Daf 20a & 20b) that 'If the Nidar dies, the heirs do not pay - because a Meis has no value'.

Proof (cont.): Now if the reason was a matter of logic - because we go after the time of giving, that S'vara is not applicable there, since we know for certain that he was worth at least at least a Sela in his lifetime ...

Proof (concl.): So why do we exempt the heirs completely?

Conclusion: Consequently, it must be based on a Pasuk.

Question: How can one say that ...

Question (cont.): Seeing as the Torah writes (in Sh'mos 13) "Seven days you shall eat Matzos"? ...

Answer: The Tana is talking about a Chiyuv Kareis, since Kareis is mentioned in the current Pasuk - "Ki Kol Ochel Machmetzes ve'Nichr'sah mi'Yom ha'Rishon ad Yom ha'Shevi'i" ...

Answer: That is why it cites the Pasuk "ad Yom ha'Rchad ve'Esrim ba'Erev" - which also mentions Kareis (See Avodah Berurah).

Clarification: And he cannot examine the head due to the hair, and the foot between the toes.

Introduction to Question: Here it implies that spreading to the whole body does not include the foot, whereas in 'Eizehu Mekoman' (Zevachim, Daf 49b) it seems otherwise ...

Introduction to Question (cont.): Since there is says, quoting R. Nasan ben Avtulmus 'From where do we know that spreading by Begadim is Tohor? ...

Introduction to Question (cont.): It says 'Karachas and Gabachas' by Begadim and 'Karachas and Gabachas' by Asam - just as by the latter it is Tahor, so too, by the former ...

Introduction to Question (concl.): And from where do we learn there (by Adam)? Because it writes "From his head to his feet; just as there if it spreads to all of him he is Tahor - i.e. 'be'Regel' also here - 'be'Rosho', if it spreads to all of it, he is Tahor' ...

Question: Implying that spreading applies to the feet, since we learn Rosh from Regel (See Shitah Mekubetzes 17)?

Question: Tosfos searched for this Pasuk, but only found the Pasuk that reads "u'Feduyav mi'ben Chodesh Tifdeh"?

Answer: Perhaps the Gemara makes this D'rashah because the Torah writes "u'Feduyav mi'ben Chodesh" - implying from one month and upwards ...

Proof: Since it did not write just " ... ben Chodesh".

Question: ha'R. Shmuel ben ha'R. Elchanan asks why a Pasuk is needed - why we cannot learn this from a S'vara?

Question (cont.): Since otherwise, how will Temidin ever be Kasher for Rosh Ha'Shanah ...

Question (cont.): Because if the animal is born before Rosh ha'Shanah, as soon as Rosh ha'Shanah enters, it will be two years, whereas for the Tamid, we require a lamb in its first year?

Question (concl.): And if it is born on Rosh ha'Shananh itself, it will be premature?

Refuted Answer: Some commentaries explain that we only begin counting its year on the day that of Hartza'ah (i.e. on the eighth day) ...

Precedent: As we says in connection with B'chor - where the Torah writes "Lifnei Hash-m Elokecha Tochlenu Shanah Be'Shanah ...

Precedent (cont.): And the Gemara says in Rosh ha'Shanah (Daf 6b) that 'We only count from the day of Hartza'ah - so we will say the same here.

Refutation: This is not correct however ...

Reason: Because we only say that with regard to 'bal Te'acher' (the La'av of delaying a Korban), but not with regard to its age ...

Proof: Since the Gemara states in the second Perek of Zevachim (Daf 25b) that 'hours invalidate by Kodshim'

Proof (cont.): Since the Gemara states in the second Perek of Zevachim (Daf 25b) that 'hours invalidate by Kodshim' ...

Proof (cont.): Now if we were to go after Hartza'ah, this Din would not be applicable - seeing as it would still be in its first year.

Proof (concl.): So we see that we go after the actual birth, in which case The Kashya remains intact.

Answer: Tosfos' Rebbe R. Shmuel answers that the Pasuk is nevertheless needed, because otherwise we would not say by it me'Eis le'Eis ...

Proof: As the Gemara will say later in the last Perek (31a) See Shitah Mekubetzes 19.

Question: How can we learn this from that Pasuk?

Question (cont.): Why do we not rather say 'four produces, seeing as "Sh'nei" means two and "Tevu'os" implies another two - making four?

Answer: The Gemara learns it from the word "Mispar" - which implies two produces, after which it ought to have written 'Tevu'ah', which would have implied that one produce still remained (See Avodah Berurah).

Question: The Ri asks that even if we count according to 'the years of the world' there will be three produces in two years ...

Question (cont.): In a case where one sold it on the second of Tishri full of fruit, so when the following Tishri arrives, he will already have harvested the fruit from the twenty-ninth of Ellul?

Answer: It is more common to have three harvests in the two years that we count me'Eis le'Eis more than when we count from the creation of the world (See Avodah Berurah).

Question: ha'Rav R. Ri ben Yom Tov asks that we can only learn from here me'Eis le'Eis of the last year; but from where do we know me'Eis le'Eis of the other years ...

Question (cont.): Why do we not say that the thirty days before Rosh ha'Shanah are considered a year (See Avodah Berurah)?

Answer: The Rashbam answered him - that the Pasuk "u'va'Shevi'is teaches us the last year - and the same applies to the other years ...

Answer (cont.): By them too, we go me'Eis le'Eis, similar to those by which it is written (See Avodah Berurah).