1)

(a)We already cited the Beraisa 'bi'Bechor Ne'emar "Lo Sifdeh", ve'Nimkar Hu ve'Ye'achel bi'Kedushah'. 've'Ye'achel bi'Kedushah' implies - that it may not be Shechted in the butchery nor weighed in the conventional manner.

(b)We extrapolate from the Seifa "ve'es Damam Tizrok al ha'Mizbe'ach" - that the Pasuk (and the Beraisa) must be speaking when the Beis-Hamikdash stood.

(c)Based on the Seifa (which cannot be speaking about a Ba'al-Mum, we now query Rav Nachman from the Reisha - in that even though it is speaking about a Tam, the Beraisa permits selling it.

(d)We solve the problem - by saying 'Midi Ayri', meaning - 'Who says that both the Reisha and the Seifa of the Pasuk must be speaking in the same case'? Not at all, the Seifa speaks about a Tam, but the Reisha speaks about a Ba'al-Mum.

2)

(a)Rav Mesharshaya now queries Rav Nachman from another Beraisa which discusses a Kohenes and her Shifchah whose baby boys became mixed up. The Tana rules that they will become permitted to marry a bas Yisrael - if they write each other a Sh'tar Shichrur (setting each other free).

(b)There is no reason why they should not be permitted to eat Terumah. They may only receive a portion however, if they both appear at the barn of the Yisrael together - because this Tana forbids an Eved to receive Terumah at the barn unless his master is present ...

(c)... since receiving Terumah at the barn on one's own serves as testimony that the Kohen is Kasher regarding marrying a woman who is Meyuchas.

3)

(a)The Tana rules that a B'chor Beheimah that either of them own - is 'Ro'eh' (sent to graze in the field, until it obtains a blemish ... ).

(b)We try to prove that ...

1. ... the Beraisa must be speaking in the time of the Beis-Hamikdash - because otherwise, what is the difference between this case and nowadays, when a B'chor can also only be eaten once it becomes blemished.

2. ... they must own a portion in the B'chor (even before the Emurim have been brought [a Kashya on Rav Nachman]) - because otherwise, why would the Gizbor wait for the animal to obtain a blemish? Why not take it straightway and give it to the Kohanim of that Mishmar?

(c)And we know that the Tana is talking about a Tam - because otherwise, why would it need to be 'Ro'eh'.

(d)Even though he is talking about a Tam bi'Z'man ha'Mikdash, the two S'feikos cannot just bring their B'chor to the Beis-Hamikdash, without the Din of 'Ro'eh' - because a B'chor can only be eaten by a Kohen, and one of the two is not a Kohen.

(e)We reconcile Rav Nachman with the Beraisa by establishing the Beraisa nowadays after all. And we answer the Kashya that we asked earlier ('Mai Sh'na Didan u'Mai Sh'no Didhu') - by pointing to a difference between us and them, in that we are obligated to give a B'chor to a Kohen, whereas they (the Kohanim) are allowed to keep it.

4)

(a)We query Rav Nachman again from another Beraisa, where Rebbi Shimon learns from the Pasuk in Shoftim (in connection with an Ir ha'Nidachas) "Behemtah", 'P'rat li'Bechor u'Ma'aser' - precluding a B'chor Beheimah and Ma'aser Beheimah from being burned together with all the personal belongings of the town's inhabitants.

(b)Whereas from the Pasuk "Shelalah" - he precludes the money of Ma'aser Sheini.

(c)The Beraisa cannot be referring to ...

1. ... nowadays - because a town cannot become an Ir ha'Nidachas nowadays.

2. ... a Ba'al-Mum - because then there would be no reason to preclude it from "Beheimah", since they are Chulin just like all the other animals.

(d)We try to prove from there that a Kohen has a portion in a B'chor - because if he did not, then we would not need the Pasuk "Behemtah" as we would already know it from "Shelalah", 've'Lo Sh'lal Shamayim'.

5)

(a)We answer by establishing the Beraisa by a Ba'al-Mum. And we nevertheless answer the Kashya 'Haynu Behemtah' - by differentiating between 'Behemtah', which is eaten without restrictions, and a B'chor Ba'al-Mum, which must be eaten bi'Kedushah, as we explained a little earlier (in which case Rebbi Shimon is justified in precluding it from "Behemtah").

(b)The reason for the two stringencies regarding the sale of a B'chor and Ma'aser is - because even though it is Kodshim, it is not Hekdesh that benefits from the sale, but the owner (as we learned in Bechoros).

6)

(a)We query Rav Nachman from yet another Beraisa, which discusses Shevu'as ha'Shomrim. If a Shomer Pikadon swears that he was not given a Pikadon to look after, and then admits that he swore falsely, he is Chayav - to pay the Keren plus a fifth and to bring a Korban Asham Me'ilos.

(b)Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili there learns from the Pasuk in Vayikra "u'Ma'alah Ma'al ba'Hashem" that the Shomer is Chayav on a Pikadon that comprises Kodshim Kalim. We would have thought that he is not - because he is only Chayav for swearing on the personal property of the owner, and not on Kodshim that do not belong to him (such as an Olah),

(c)ben Azai confines the same Limud to Shelamim. Aba Yossi ben Dustai says in his name - that it only applies to B'chor.

(d)The Beraisa cannot be speaking about ...

1. ... nowadays - because there are no Shelamim nowadays.

2. ... a Ba'al-Mum - for the same reason, because the fact is that Shelamim Temimim belong to the owner, and are not subject to Me'ilah until they have been Shechted.

7)

(a)We now think we have proved - that B'chor even at the time of the Beis-Hamikdash, belonged to the Kohen, who was therefore permitted to sell them to another Kohen.

(b)We cannot prove our point from B'chor directly - because it is possible that the Kohen only acquires it from Hash-m's Table (like Kodshei Kodshim [as Rav Nachman does indeed say]), a S'vara which is not applicable to a Shelamim whose owner is a Yisrael.

(c)Abaye refutes this proof too, by establishing the Beraisa by B'chor in Chutz la'Aretz, like Rebbi Shimon, who says in the third Perek - that if the owner so wishes, he may bring a B'chor (or shelamim) in Chutz la'Aretz to Yerushalayim, but that he is not obligated to do so (a clear indication that it is considered the owner's personal property (like Rav Nachman [see Tosfos DH 'v'Rebbi Shimon'])

8)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri in our Mishnah maintains that if one cannot be Meimar on a Chatas ve'Asham, it is because the Kohen has no portion in them as long as they are alive, whereas by a B'chor, in which he has, he can be Meimar. We know that he is speaking about a B'chor Tam in the time of the Beis-Hamikdash - similar to Chatas and Asham.

(b)To reconcile the Beraisa with Rav Nachman, Ravina establishes the Beraisa - by a B'chor in Chutz la'Aretz according to Rebbi Shimon, like we established the previous Beraisa.

(c)We cite another Machlokes Tana'im in this regard, where the Tana Kama draws a distinction between a B'chor in the house of the owner - who can declare a Temurah on it, and a B'chor in the house of the Kohen - who cannot.

(d)In view of Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar, who says 'Keivan she'Ba le'Yad Kohen Zeh ve'Zeh Ein Osin Temurah' like Rav Nachman), the Tana Kama must mean - that the owner cannot declare a Temurah in the house of the Kohen, but the Kohen can.

9)

(a)We re-establish the Machlokes without involving Rav Nachman - by establishing the Machlokes like that of Rebbi Akiva (Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar) and Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri (the Tana Kama), which we already established by a B'chor in Chutz la'Aretz, according to Rebbi Shimon.

(b)Both Tana'im however, will hold - that in Eretz Yisrael - the Kohen would not be able to declare a Temurah on a B'chor Tam (like Rav Nachman).

(c)In another Lashon, we extrapolate from the Tana Kama that once the B'chor reaches the domain of the Kohen, neither is permitted to make a Temurah on it. He may however sell it. Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar - prohibits him from selling it too (because of the principle that the latter Tana always comes to add to the words of the Tana Kama).

(d)Once again, we try to prove from here that Rav Nachman's ruling is subject to a Machlokes Tana'im, and that Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar conforms with his opinion.

(e)But we conclude yet again - that their Machlokes is the same as that of Rebbi Akiva and Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri.

10)

(a)Rav Chisda restricts the sale of a B'chor Tam (even nowadays) to a purchaser who is a Kohen. Even though, initially think, he forbids selling it to Yisrael because we are afraid that the Yisrael will make a Mum and say that the Kohen sold it to him like that, he is nevertheless permitted to sell it to a Kohen - because a Kohen who wants a Rav to permit a B'chor with a Mum, must bring with him witnesses that the blemish came by itself, as we learned in B'choros.

(b)We reject this explanation however, on the basis of a statement by Rav Yehudah, who said that a Yisrael who takes a blemished B'chor Beheimah to a Rav for inspection - must take with him the Kohen (who, he claims sold it to him with a Mum) to the Rav.

(c)Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua finally explains that the Chachamim forbid a Kohen to sell a B'chor to a Yisrael - because based on the fact that a B'chor remains forbidden until it obtains a Mum, the Kohen will sell it to the Yisrael cheap, and it looks like a case of a Kohen who assists in the granary, in the hope that he will receive the Terumah (not as a gift, but as payment for his services, which is forbidden).

11)

(a)When Mar Zutra came to pay Rav Ashi a visit - the latter served him meat of a B'chor ...

(b)... particularly the meat of a B'chor - because it is very healthy.

(c)When they (see Shitah Mekubetzes 14) informed Mar Zutra that Rav Ashi had purchased it from a Kohen, he objected - due to Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua's previous statement (comparing this to a Kohen who assists the Yisrael in the granary).

(d)They replied - that this did not resemble 'Kohen ha'Mesayei'a be'Veis ha'Geranos' - since Rav Ashi had paid for the animal (unlike the case of 'Kohen ha'Mesaye'a ... ', where the Kohen offers his services free of charge).

12)

(a)The Mishnah in B'choros obligates the owner to look after a small animal for thirty days, and a large animal - for fifty days before giving it to the Kohen.

(b)Rav Sheishes explains that the Tana forbids the Yisrael to comply with the Kohen, should he offer to take the B'chor off his hands earlier - because it resembles 'Kohen ha'Mesaye'a be'Veis ha'Geranos'.

(c)Rav Ashi reconciles his lenient ruling with that Mishnah - inasmuch as in the latter case, it is obvious that this is what the Kohen wants (whereas selling an animal is not).

(d)In the second Lashon, after informing Mar Zutra that Rav Ashi had purchased the B'chor, they added that one cannot even take into account the fact that the Kohen had given him a good deal (in order to ensure that he gets the Matanos) to forbid it - because 'a young gourd now is better than a fully ripe one tomorrow' ('a bird in the hand ... '). Likewise here, no Kohen will sell an animal cheap today on the off-chance that tomorrow, the purchaser might give him the Matanos.