Answer #1 (Rav Gidal): Someone said 'it is (encumbent) on me to give (to Hekdesh) the Erech of this Keli.'

(Rav Gidal): If someone said 'it is upon me to give the Erech of this Keli', he must give its value.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: A person knows that Erchin does not apply to Kelim. Surely he meant to give its value.

Question: Why does the Mishnah say 'Erchin ha'Metaltelim'? It should say 'Erchin of Metaltelim'!

Answer: Indeed, the proper text is Erchin of Metaltelim.

Answer #2 (Rav Chisda): The Mishnah discusses one who designates a Keli for payment of Erchin.

Question: Why does the Mishnah say 'Erchin ha'Metaltelim'? It should say 'Metaltelim of Erchin'!

Answer: Indeed, the proper text is Metaltelim of Erchin.

Answer #3 (R. Avahu): The case is, he said 'it is upon me to give my Erech';

If the Kohen comes to collect it from Metaltelim, three judges are required. If he comes to collect it from land, 10 are required.

Question (Rav Acha mi'Difti): We understand why three judges are required to take from Hekdesh. Why are three needed to give to Hekdesh?

Answer (Ravina): Reasoning teaches that the same applies to taking and giving;

Taking requires three because we are concerned for an error. The same applies to giving!

(Mishnah - R. Yehudah): (One of them must be a Kohen.)

Question (Rav Papa): According to R. Yehudah, we understand why it says 'Kohen';

According to Chachamim, why does it say 'Kohen'?

This is left difficult.

(Mishnah): Redemption of land needs nine people and a Kohen.

Question: What is the source of this?

Answer (Shmuel): There are 10 mentions of Kohanim in the Parshiyos (of Erchin and redemption of Hekdesh);

The first teaches that a Kohen is required. Every other one is an exclusion following an exclusion;

An exclusion following an exclusion always comes to include (i.e. the other nine occurrences of 'Kohen' teach that Yisraelim are acceptable).

Question (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Nasan): We should require five Kohanim and five (that can even be) Yisraelim! (Indeed, the second 'Kohen' includes even a Yisrael. However, the third is therefore an exclusion after an inclusion, which is an exclusion, i.e. it mandates a Kohen! Likewise, the fifth, seventh and ninth are exclusions.)

This is left difficult.

(Mishnah): Man has the same law (as land).

Question: Is man Kodesh, that he must be redeemed?!

Answer (R. Avahu): The case is, he said 'it is upon me to give my value (to Hekdesh).'

(Beraisa): If one said 'it is upon me to give my value', we estimate what one would pay to buy him to be a Kena'ani slave;

Slaves are equated to land (therefore, their laws of redemption are the same).

Question (R. Avin): How many are required to estimate the value of hair that should be cut?

If we consider it as if it was already cut, (it is Metaltelim,) three are required;

If we consider it to be attached, 10 are required (like for people).

Answer (Beraisa): If one makes his slave Hekdesh, Me'ilah does not apply;

R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, Me'ilah applies to his hair.

They argue about hair that should be cut. (R. Shimon ben Gamliel considers it as if it was already cut. The first Tana does not.)

Suggestion: They argue as the following Tana'im argue.

(Mishnah - R. Meir): Some things are like land, but they are not considered like land. If Reuven says 'I entrusted you with 10 laden vines', and Shimon admits to five, he must swear (like one who partially admits to a claim of Metaltelim);

Chachamim (exempt, for they) say that anything attached is like land.

(R. Yosi bar Chanina): They argue about grapes that are ready to be harvested. R. Meir considers them as if they were already harvested, and Chachamim do not.

Rejection: Chachamim (of the Beraisa) can hold like R. Meir. He considers grapes as if they were harvested, for they get worse if left attached too long (so surely they will be harvested soon);

Hair increases in value the longer it is attached. R. Meir can consider it to be attached!

(Mishnah): Capital cases (require 23 judges. If an animal was Rove'a (put its penis into) a person, 23 judges are required to kill it.)

We do not distinguish whether it was Rove'a a man or woman.

Question: Granted, 23 judges are required to kill an animal that was Rove'a a woman - "v'Horagta Es ha'Ishah v'Es ha'Behemah" (equates killing the animal to killing her);

Why are 23 required to kill an animal that was Rove'a a man?

Answer: We do not need "Kol Shochev Im Behemah Mos Yumas" to teach about a man who was Rove'a an animal ("v'Ish Asher Yiten Shechavto bi'Vhemah Mos Yumas v'Es ha'Behemah Taharogu" equates killing him to killing it), so we use it to teach about an animal that was Rove'a a man;

The Torah taught about an animal that was Rove'a with words ("Shochev Im Behemah") that connote that the man was Rove'a, to teach that the law is the same when he is Rove'a or it is Rove'a, i.e. 23 judges are required to kill him and to kill it.

(Mishnah): An animal that is stoned (for killing a Yisrael) requires 23 judges - "ha'Shor Yisakel v'Gam Be'alav Yumas." The animal is killed like its owner (a person).

Question (Abaye): What is the source that "v'Gam Be'alav Yumas" teaches that the animal is killed like a person? Perhaps it teaches that we kill the owner!

Answer #1 (Rava): If the owner should be killed, it should have said only "(ha'Shor Yisakel) v'Gam Be'alav";

Note: Rather, "Yumas" equates the animal's judgment to that of a person.

Question: Perhaps the Torah did not say only 'ha'Shor Yisakel v'Gam Be'alav', for this would imply that the owner is stoned. "Yumas" teaches that he is killed differently (by choking)!

Answer: We would never have thought that the owner is stoned. A man who kills is killed by the sword. He cannot be stoned (a harsher Misah) for not stopping his animal from killing!

Question: Perhaps 'ha'Shor Yisakel v'Gam Be'alav' would imply that the owner is killed by the sword, and "Yumas" teaches that he is killed by choking!

This is not difficult for the opinion that choking is harsher than the sword (he cannot receive a harsher death for his ox's goring than if he himself had murdered);

According to the opinion that the sword is harsher than choking, how can we answer?

Answer: "Im Kofer Yushas Alav" teaches that he pays ransom;

If he were Chayav Misah (liable to be killed), he could not pay ransom - "v'Lo Tikchu Kofer l'Nefesh Rotze'ach."

Rejection: The verse teaches that a murderer cannot redeem himself, but perhaps ransom can save one who is Chayav Misah because his ox killed!

Answer #2 (Chizkiyah): "Mos Yumas ha'Makeh Rotze'ach Hu" - a man is killed if he killed, but not if his ox killed.

Question: How many judges would have been required to kill an animal that alighted on Har Sinai (at the time the Torah was given)?

Do we learn this law, which only applied once, from the law that applies to all generations (that 23 judges are required to kill an animal)?

Answer: We learn from Rami bar Yechezkeil.

(Rami bar Yechezkeil): "Im Behemah Im Ish Lo Yichyeh" - just like 23 judges would be required to kill a person who alighted on Har Sinai, also to kill an animal.

(Mishnah): Twenty-three judges are needed to kill a wolf, lion...

(Reish Lakish): This is only if they killed. If not, we do not kill them.

Inference: He holds that these animals can be domesticated, and a person can own them.

(R. Yochanan): We kill them even if they did not kill.

Inference: He holds that they cannot be domesticated, and one cannot own them.

(Mishnah - R. Eliezer): If anyone kills one of these (without Beis Din), he merited.

Question: Granted, according to R. Yochanan, he merits to keep the hide.

According to Reish Lakish, what does he merit? The animal will be stoned. One may not benefit from it!

Answer: He will be rewarded from Hash-m (for doing a proper deed).

Support (for Reish Lakish - Beraisa): The same applies to an ox, Behemah or Chayah that killed. We need 23 judges to kill it;

R. Eliezer says, 23 judges are needed to kill an ox that killed. If any other Behemah or Chayah killed, whoever kills it will be rewarded from Hash-m.

(Mishnah): R. Akiva says, 23 judges are needed.

Question: This is like the first Tana!

Answer: They argue about killing a snake. (The first Tana requires 23 to kill it. R. Akiva does not.)

Seventy-one judges are needed to judge a Shevet.

Question: What did it transgress?

Suggestion: It desecrated Shabbos.

Rejection: The Torah distinguishes between individual transgressors and a multitude only regarding idolatry!

Answer #1: It was enticed to serve idolatry.

Inference: If a Shevet seved idolatry, it is judged like a multitude (i.e. an Ir ha'Nidachas, a city destroyed because its majority served idolatry); . The transgressors are killed by the sword instead of being stoned.)

Objection: This is not like R. Yoshiyah, nor like R. Yonason!

(Beraisa) Question: What size city can become an Ir ha'Nidachas?

Answer #1: R. Yoshiyah says, it can be between 10 and 100.

Answer #2: R. Yonason says, it can be between 100 and the majority of the Shevet.

Even R. Yonason only says until the majority of the Shevet, and not an entire Shevet!

Answer #2 (Rav Masnah): The Mishnah discusses judging the Nasi of a Shevet (in capital cases).

(Rav Ada bar Ahavah): "Kol ha'Davar ha'Gadol Yavi'u Elecha" refers to matters of a Gadol (important person. Moshe is like 71 judges.)