Okay, we're going to hear at דף ו עמוד ב, the end of עמוד א in Bava Metzia. There was this bathhouse. דמינצו עליה בי תרי, two people arguing over it. האי אמר דידי הוא והאי אמר דידי הוא, each one says it's mine. קם חד מנייהו ואקדשה, so one got up and made it hekdesh. פרשו מינה רב חנניה ורב אושעיא וכולהו רבנן, all the chachamim stopped using it, because it's a safek if now maybe it's hekdesh. Now they can never פסקן yet whose it is, and the din is you can't be makdish something that's not yours. Nevertheless, when they were makdish it, when he was makdish, one guy, one of the two, the chachamim said, \"We don't know.\" And it says, אמר ליה רב אושעיא לרבה, רב אושעיא said to רבה, כי אזלת לקמיה דרב חסדא לכפרי, when you go to כפרי to רב חסדא, בעי מיניה, ask him the she'eilah, is it hekdesh or not? כי אזל לסורא, he didn't get to כפרי, but he happened to go to סורא, and אמר ליה לרב המנונא, so he spoke to Rav Hamnuna about it, and Rav Hamnuna said, מתניתין היא, it's a I have a re'ayah from a Mishnah to answer this question. What does it say in the Mishnah? It says like this: ספק פטר, אחד פטר חמור ואחד פטר בהמה, בין טהורה ובין טמאה, המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה. If you have a safek bechor, a safek bechor, if you have a behemah that gave birth to a calf, now you don't know if she ever gave birth before or not. Now if it didn't give birth before, then this is a bechor, and if it did, it's not a bechor. What's the din of a bechor? A bechor, we know you have to give to the kohen, and he has to bring it as a korban. There's a kedushah, it's a korban be'etzem. Okay. So here it's, what happens if it's a safek? Now, like I said, there are two things by a bechor: you have to give it to the kohen, and it comes, and it's kodesh. It has a kedushah means that you can't work with it, can't cut the wool. Now when it's a safek, what's the din? המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה. Now the question is does the kohen get it or not? So since it's a safek, what's the din by a ספק ממון? If there's a safek, I have something and it's a safek, maybe it's mine, maybe it's yours, המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה, so you don't get it. ותניא עלה, it said on another beraita: אסורין בגיזה ועבודה. That even though we said המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה, which means that you do not have to give it to the kohen, but still it's holy. Because of safek, right. It's holy because it's a safek, because maybe it's a bechor. Yeah. What does he want to bring out from this din? So he says like this: והכא, here, דאי תוקפא כהן אין מוציאין אותה מידו. In this case, what would be the din if the kohen would grab it? It says that it's a safek, so you don't have to give it to the kohen. What would be the din if the kohen comes and grabs it out of you and so he has it? אין מוציאין אותה מידו, we don't take it away from him. How do you know that's the din, where does it say that? So the Rashi so explains, because the lashon is המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה. Whoever takes out from the other guy he has to prove it, because the other guy who who has it keeps it. So we he learns, that means both ways: if the איד has it, the baal habayit, the owner originally has it, you don't have to give it to the kohen. Why? Because now the kohen is the motzi, he's trying to take it from you. From that we understand, what happens if the kohen grabbed it now, so now I'm the motzi, so he doesn't have to give it back to me. So it means that the case here is תוקפא כהן אין מוציאין אותה מידו. If the kohen would grab it, we wouldn't take it away from him. Can you use this case, for example, with the bathhouse? We'll see, I'm not finished yet. I'm not finished yet. So how do we know that we don't take it away? Because it says המוציא מחבירו, whoever the מוציא מחבירו is עליו הראיה. Nevertheless, וכי לא תוקפא, if he didn't grab it, the kohen, the kohen didn't grab it, and in whose hands does it stay? The baal habayit. Nevertheless, אסורין בגיזה ועבודה. It's still אסור בגיזה ועבודה, it's still kodesh, it's holy nevertheless. So what do we see from here? That's how we learned, that's how Rav Hamnuna learned peshat: that because the din is that if the kohen grabs it he keeps it, that means that be'etzem this ספק בכור has a connection to the kohen, because if it had no connection to him, if he grabs it he'd have to give it back. Obviously a connection. Therefore, because it has a connection to him, there is the din of kedushah. Because also so there's a connection to him, that's why it's kodesh. Because since the din is that if he grabs it he doesn't give it back, that's why the thing is kodesh. Therefore, he wanted to use it as a re'ayah to the case of the bathhouse. What is the din by the bathhouse? By the bathhouse, it's kol d'alim gavar. It's called what? Kol d'alim gavar. Whoever is stronger, the halachah over there would be, let's say they would not be no one would be makdish it. Stam they're fighting over it. What would בית דין פסק? They would פסקן כל דאלים גבר. Go fight it out, and whoever gets it, he keeps it. Can he get it back, though? So, there, at least he's kicked out right away, you know. If ever you beat your your chaver, your friends, and you push him out, why you take it? He would keep it. Tomorrow, he comes back to push the other... It's a continuous fight. He said yes, that could happen. But lema'aseh the din would be, if he would grab it, you would you would keep it. The she'eilah we had was, he was makdish it before he didn't grab it. Is that hekdesh? So, he wants the proof of this din. Because the din is that if you grab it, you keep it, that's why there's a kedushah here even if he didn't grab it. So, he wants to use the same logic by the case of the bathhouse, that because the din over there is that if you grab it, you keep it, so therefore, even if you didn't grab it, there's a kedushah if you're makdish it. By hekdesh? By the case by the case of By the bathhouse. By the bathhouse. And by the kohen, there is no kohen. Nothing to do with kohen. We're using a dugma, but the If the person who grabs it has no שייכות to it. Yeah, he has a שייכות. Because kol d'alim gavar. If he would If he would grab it, he would keep it. So who's it? Just like by the kohen. If the kohen would grab it, the kohen would keep it. After he was מקדיש it before, and And here the case was he was didn't grab it, but he was מקדיש it. So, we say, from there we see that it's a kedushah. Why is there a kedushah? So, he felt the reason why there was a kedushah because if the kohen would grab it, he would keep it. Umimeila, even if he didn't grab it, the fact that if he would grab it, he would keep it is a re'iyah that be'etzem it has a shaychut to him. And because it be'etzem has a shaychut to him, that's why the kedushah comes. So, he wants to use the same logic here by the bathhouse, that because the din is that if he would grab it, he would keep it, because כל דאלים גבר, so even if he didn't grab it, he could be מקדיש it. So, it's as if he grabbed it, too? Umimeila has hekdesh? Yeah. Yeah. And is it still called a bechor if it has kedushah, but can you still call it a bechor? Yeah, yeah. קדושת בכור. Whatever kedushah it doesn't have.

אמר ליה רבא, so רבא said to him, \"No. קדושת בכור קא אמרת? What kind of a ראיה are you bringing me from a בכור? לאו אי משום דאי תפס כהן לא מפקינן מיניה? Who says I could tell you that if the כהן grabbed it, we do take it away. And still, אפילו הכי אסור בגיזה ועבודה, and still it's אסור. You wanted to say that the reason why it's קדושה, because if the kohen grabs it, he keeps it. Who told you that? I'm telling you the pshat in the Mishnah is not like that. If the kohen grabs it, he does not keep it. And still the kedushah is there. Why? Because the קדושה, דקדושה הבאה מאליה שאני, because it's a kedushah that comes by itself. It's not like the case of the bathhouse where he's מקדיש it. It's a kedushah, has nothing to do with whether the kohen keeps it or not. It's a ספק בכור. A בכור is a korban, it's a ספק קרבן, so you have to be machmir, and you have to it's kadosh. How can it not be kadosh?\" But bathhouse has two equal guys who That's what I'm saying. Forget about the kohen. The kohen is an example. If somebody was makdish it. So, we want to use the logic of here, because the kohen could keep keep it if he grabbed, that's why קדושה חלה. You wanted to say the same thing here, also, that because if one of them this guy would grab it, he would keep it, that's why he could be makdish it. So, he said, \"It's no re'aya. Here, we're talking about being able to be makdish it. And there, it's a kedushah, it comes by itself.\" Okay. I thought he's holding the kohen is a shomer, so whoever what it was before, because if a kohen took grab it So now he's saying not like that. He's saying Right. Right. So, it comes out that before he held that if the kohen grabbed it, אין מוציאין מידו, you don't take it away. And then, we he changed, he said, \"No, if the כהן מוציאין מידו. The fact that you were medayek in the words, \"המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה,\" that you thought meant that first, if the owner has it, he doesn't have to give it to the other guy unless he brings a re'aya. The kohen has it, you don't take it away from you have to bring a re'aya. It's not true. המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה over there is the peshat that the first guy who has it got it, it's his. And doesn't go to the kohen, because he grabs it, we take it away. Ai, why is it kadosh? For a different reason. Because it's a kedushah, has nothing to do with who it belongs to. It's a kedushah by itself. So the Gemara continues.

אמר ליה רב חנניה לרבא, so Rav Chananya said to Rava, \"You claim that the din is if the kohen grabs it, מפקינן מיניה, we take away. You That's what you're ta'anah'ing? תניא דמסייע לך. I have a re'aya for you that if the kohen grabs it, we don't, who wouldn't keep it? I have a re'aya. Says the beraita, \"הספיקות נכנסות לדיר להתעשר.\" We know there's a din of מעשר בהמה. You have to take all your behemot every year, the new beheimos that were born, and every tenth, you have to put them all into the stable and they go out, and you count 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9. And the tenth one is מעשר בהמה. What do you do with מעשר בהמה? מעשר בהמה is yours, but it's a korban. It's a korban, it actually is type of korban, it's exactly like a korban. In the morning, we say הבכור והמעשר והפסח. They are all the same din except Pesach Why do you say every year? I mean if you have 20 if there's 20 of them born in one year, you're going to take from the tenth tenth one? No, you take from So, you take for two? Okay. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. From every 10th. Every year of מעשר בהמה. Every year. In other words, whatever is the new born of this year from all of them you take maaser.\" The year ends, then it stops and starts. Then it's a new, yeah. Yeah, it's not a whole Let's say you're left with five. The end of the year you're left with five, and then more born, these five are patur, because you can't count them inside of the next year. Yeah, but that's nothing to do with this topic. Tell me, when מעשר בהמה is is maaser, do they make a mark on them? Yes, they make a siman. All right, they paint them. They separate them, and then whoever Yeah, and then they know it's a korban. Okay. So he says like this: What happens if you have a ספק בכור? ספק בכור, if you know a for sure bechor, that doesn't go into maaser. When we say you have to take off מעשר בהמה, that's only chullin, only from the regular beheimos. A bechor is called holy, it's kodesh, and you don't take off, you don't put it into the maaser. But if you have a ספק בכור, yes, so you have to let him go amongst the ten, and it's even possible that that ספק בכור will come out, and then it'll be the tenth, and that'll be maaser. That's what it says here. So he says, אי סלקא דעתך תקפו כהן אין מוציאין אותו מידו, if your sevara would be that if the kohen grabs it you let him hold it, you don't take it back from him, אמאי מכניסן לדיר, how could you let him go into this table to be part of maaser? נמצא זה פוטר ממונו בממונו של כהן. If the kohen grabs it, it's his, that means a kohen has a certain ba'alus, a certain ownership over it. So now you're putting it in a maaser, and what happens if this comes out the tenth? You'll be giving this as maaser. So you're taking money that belongs to the kohen and using it to to save yourself money, that it shouldn't be yours. You can't do that. So therefore, he says, the only way I can explain it why you put him in the ספק בכור, because if the kohen grabs it, we take it back. That means the kohen has no hold on it, the money, it's not his money. So therefore, I could use that as maaser. This is the re'aya again. So again, first we said the first pshat is תקפו כהן אין מוציאין מידו. Rav Anan thought that the kohen grabs it you don't take it away. Came Rabbah and said, \"No, if the kohen grabs it you do take it away, and still it's kodesh.\" Came Rav Anan and brought a ra'ayah to Rabbah that תקפו כהן, if the kohen grabs it, מוציאין אותו מידו, you take it away, because if the din would be you don't take it away, we could never put this amongst maaser because it's taking away the Yeah, it's a good ra'ayah. Yeah, yeah. Why is he bringing a proof to the other guy? Why is he bringing a proof to the other opinion? Because when he answered him, he said So he's admitting that the other is right? Yeah. Well, whatever the word you're just pointing saying that he's admitting. Yes, he's admitting that he's right. He says, \"Yeah, I have a ra'ayah too.\" Uh-huh. A couple of It's like a it doesn't make sense. I'm I'm saying something you say different, and I say, \"Alright.\" \"No, alright, you're right.\" So, what's the problem? In the Gemara we have Abaye veRava they used to discuss all kinds of kushyot. So there's a kushya on Abaye, Abaye had no answer, and Rava said, \"I'll answer you.\" And Rava answered for him. And still had his own Still had his own opinion, yeah. Now How to keep How to keep the argument going אמר ליה אביי, אביי שלאגט אפ די ראיה. And what it's a nafka mina how? After אביי שלאגט אפ די ראיה, אמר אביי, אביי said, \"לאו מילתא היא דאמרי.\" My אפשלאג is no good אפשלאג, and the ra'ayah is a good ra'ayah. It's intellectual honesty, they Yeah, yeah, yeah. Oh, we're talking about honest people here. So he says my ra'ayah my אפשלאג is no אפשלאג, your ra'ayah is a ra'ayah. So it comes out that if the ra'ayah is back a ra'ayah, so what did we say there, תקפו כהן? Then he keeps it. No, it's מוציאין אותו מידו. If it's not a ra'ayah? Yeah, the ra'ayah was that we wanted to bring a ra'ayah that תקפו כהן you take away from him. So he wanted to שלאג אפ די ראיה, and then he brought back the ra'ayah. So the ra'ayah is back, so תקפו כהן מוציאין אותו מידו. What did they do with the one that in whose hands it is, he can he So we said that lashon doesn't mean that, it means just the first one. Since he has it, it stays with him, and that's it, the kohen can't take it. That's how you taytsh. We thought because the taytsh is whoever has it, the other guy can't take it. So if the kohen took it, then he keeps it. So he said that's wrong, that's not the peshat. And he brought a re'ayah from that that תקפו כהן מוציאין אותו מידו. Okay, I'm just skipping here around because that's only what's noge'a.

Comes the Gemara later, and the Gemara asks a שאלה בכלל. When it says the ספיקות, ספק בכור, you take him to make him maaser, so he asks a she'eilah: מאי ספיקות? אילימא ספק, does it mean, bechor, how could you take him maaser? יהיה קודש אמר רחמנא, ולא שכבר קודש. Since it might be a bechor, the Torah says by maaser, it has to be that the one that becomes maaser becomes kodesh, Right. but here, this is a bechor, and we said even if it's a safek, it has a kedushah, so how can this be maaser? It's nothing to do with the discussion before, but that's a she'eilah on that on that Mishnah. אלא, he said, I'll tell you what it means: ספק פדיון פטר חמור. Oh! Different din. There's a chamor, a firstborn donkey is also you have to redeem it for a taleh, you have to redeem it for a seh, for a sheep. The one you redeem for the sheep is not holy. It doesn't have kedushah. You have to give it to the kohen, but it doesn't have kedushah. That's what they mean. If you have a safek on a donkey, if it's a bechor or not, what do you have to do? So the din is: you redeem it, and keep the donk-, and keep the seh for yourself. You can't, don't give it to the kohen, because we don't know if it belongs to him. And he said, כי דאמר רב נחמן, אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה, נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה: ישראל שיש לו עשרה ספיקי פטרי חמורים. דער איד has, what do you call it, 10 donkeys which is a safek. מפריש עליהן עשרה? Huh? All 10? So it gives an example: מפריש עליהן עשרה שה, you have to redeem it for a שה, and what happens to all 10 שה? Don't give it to the Kohen. ומעשרן. It's pashut! Why? You have to use it for maaser, because it wasn't קדוש. The שה is not קדוש, even if by a real פטר חמור, not a ספק, the שה is not קדוש. So the only difference is, by a שה that's by a real פטר חמור, you can't keep the שה, you have to give it to the Kohen. But if it's by a ספק פטר חמור, you can keep it, and then you have to take, if you have 10 lemashel, you have to take them all maaser. Not holy, because you can keep it and do whatever you want with it. Right, right, because it has no קדושה. But you got to do the process of redeeming it out of a ספק הלכה. Umimeila he said, when it said in this ברייתא that the ספיקות go into the דיר, into the stable, and you are maaser them, what does it mean? Not a safek, regular ספק בכור, because then there's a different problem: that if it's already קדוש before, you can't use it. It means ספק פדיון פטר חמור, a safek on a sheep whether this is redemption for a פטר חמור. This is this. Rashi Chumash says. Actually, I think in the end of this week's parashah, Bo. Why only a donkey has a דין of a בכור? Rashi Chumash in this week's parashah. I think it's the end of the parashah, I didn't learn it yet, but I think it's somewhere in Beshalach, if you get it. Rashi says because when the אידן went out of Mitzrayim, the חמורים helped them carry all the stuff. But the dogs barked. But they also get their reward. Okay. When you learn this גמרא כפשוטו, the end of the Gemara seems to be saying, what's the maskana? תקפו כהן, מוציאין מידו or אין מוציאין מידו? If he grabs it, do you take it out or not? Motzi'in. So it comes out מוציאין מידו, because he brought a re'ayah, and then Abaye flatly shrugged off the re'ayah, and then he said, \"My off-shrug is no good.\" Okay, so מוציאין מידו.

Comes Tosafos, and Tosafos says, when it says that תקפו כהן מוציאין מידו, וכן הוא מסקנא. That's the end. תקפו כהן מוציאין מידו, that if the kohen grabs it, you take it away. That's the maskana. The Rambam says clearly: תקפו כהן אין מוציאין אותו מידו. That if the kohen grabs it, we don't take it out of his hand. It's a she'eilah: it doesn't make sense, because the Gemara's, we see the Gemara's maskana is not like that. The Gemara's maskana is that if the kohen grab- because we we Abaye brought back the re'ayah. He first shrugged off the re'ayah, brought back the re'ayah, so we have a re'ayah that תקפו כהן מוציאין אותו מידו. And again, what's the re'ayah? I'm I'm repeating it because it's nogea to know, because it says in in the ברייתא, הספיקות, the safek, you have the ספק בכור, you have to be ma'aser it, right? And if it would be תקפו כהן, if if the kohen grabs it, he keeps it, then it's ראוי לכהן, and there is If this has a kohen has a part of it, how could you give it as ma'aser? So it's a re'ayah that if the kohen grabs it, motzi'in, you take it away. וממילא, the כהן has no no monetary right over it, וממילא you can use it. And that's the ראיה. So how does the Rambam learn when the Gemara brought a clear ראיה, and the מסקנא is like that? So you have here, so the Tzemach Tzedek brings a Rashba, which is actually the Gra mentions, I'm not sure if the Tzemach Tzedek, but he mentions here, on Tosafot \"וכן המסקנא\", זאגט ער, נישט מוציאין, \"וכן דעת שאר פוסקים\". Most פוסקים hold that the הלכה is like פשט in the Gemara: תקפו כהן מוציאין מידו. אבל Rambam חולק, and argues. And you can't use it for מעשר, according to the Rambam? Huh? You can't use it for מעשר? So so we'll see. No, the the ברייתא said you could. וכתב הרשב״א דלמסקנא דמפרש ספיקות ספק פדיון חמור, אין ראיה, דבפדיון חמור לא זכה כהן, ובשה כבר התחזק בו אביו, אבי הבכור. Okay. So he says like this. I'll tell you So the Tzemach Tzedek brings this Rashba from a תשובה, and this is how the Rashba explains the Rambam: Number one, he says like this, from the word of the ברייתא, or the original משנה where it says that if you have a ספק בכור, המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה, makes more sense that if the כהן grabs it, we don't take it away. Like we had in the beginning, we thought תקפ- like Rav Hamnuna said that it doesn't say that the בעלים, the owner, keeps it. It says whoever has it keeps it. So it's much- so that's first משמעות. But then there is a מחלוקת is in Gemara whether that's the פשט or not. So that's the Raavad says: So, even if there's a מחלוקת, since we don't know what the הלכה is, so what's the דין by a ספק? ספק if whose, is his or not, misafeka lo mafkinan mamona, from a safek you don't take away. So if the kohen grabs it, now there's a safek if he had a right to it or not, you can't take it back. So mimela he says the Rambam looks at this and says, well, I think it's, if תפס כהן אין מוציאין מידו. The problem we have is from the from the maskana of the Gemara. So he comes up with this chidush, and he says what the Gemara used as a re'ayah, it was all before the next piece of Gemara. When we said הספיקות, the ספיקות go in, we thought that it's a ספק בכור. A ספק בכור, so when we said it's a ספק בכור, so if it's a ספק בכור, the she'eilah was, how could you use this as ma'aser if the kohen could grab it and keep it? So that's why we had a re'ayah that כולי סבר כהן מוציאין מידו. The end of the Gemara came and the Gemara explained that this is not a ספק בכור. What it means is ספק פדיון פטר חמור. It's a safek of whether the chamor is the donkey is is is a bechor. And what are we dealing with, not with the donkey. We're dealing now you redeemed it for a seh of your own seh, and that's the one we're saying goes in to take off at in ma'aser. So he says this is different. Now that we changed it, the whole re'ayah falls off, and he says why? Because by the seh there's a חזקת מרא קמא. Which means, who owned the seh till now? The owner. Now you have a safek whether that changed. That's called a חזקת מרא קמא. Why would you take each one's seh? Maybe maybe the chamor, the real chamor, uvmimela this seh really was an exchange for the chamor, and you have to give it to the kohen. You have you don't have to give it to the kohen. No, it's not kedushah, but you have to give it to the kohen. Yeah. So he says that's the peshat. When we thought this was a bechor, so by bechor there is no חזקת מרא קמא. The bechor was born lechatchilah as a safek. So there's no chazakah that the owner has that originally it was mine. Because the klal is, if something originally mine, then there's a safek, did it change or not? So we say, as long as we don't know it changed, it stays. And he says, when the that's the peshat in Rambam, that when did the when did the Gemara bring a re'ayah from this din that סבר כהן מוציאין מידו? Because otherwise we don't understand how come you could use it. That's all the way it was before when we thought we're talking about a bechor. Now we're saying that it's not a bechor, it's a פדיון פטר חמור, and פדיון פטר חמור has a separate din. It takeh stays it stays if פדיון אם ספק פטר חמור stays with the be'alim. Why does it stay with the owner? Because he's the original owner. But going back to a regular בכור, אין הכי נמי, אין מוציאין מידו, and this din, like you said, would not apply to a regular bechor. So he says according to this, a regular, actually the Gemara says it. The Gemara says clearly that this din that a ספק בכור would go into ma'aser is not true. The Gemara asked, it can't be, because it says it should become kadosh, not if it's kadosh before. So the Gemara says that this din only applies to a ספק פדיון פטר חמור. For the ספק בכור, טאקע this din is not applied. And therefore there's no more re'ayah that by a ספק בכור we take it away from the kohen. The whole re'ayah was for this din, but this din is not true anymore. Now we're saying it's only by ספק פדיון פטר חמור. And the logic behind it we understand: there's a big difference between a ספק פדיון פטר חמור and a ספק בכור. A ספק בכור has no חזקת מרא קמא, because it maybe it is, maybe not, but we don't know it wasn't the pshat originally yours, it was born as a בכור, as a ספק בכור. The שה is mine from before. Now I took that שה, and I exchanged it. Now it now there's a ספק, did the exchange mean that it goes to the Kohen? I don't know. So you have a חזקת מרא קמא. חזקת מרא קמא, that's why you don't give it to the Kohen, and if the Kohen would grab it, he wouldn't get it. So חזקת מרא קמא by a ספק פדיון פטר חמור takeh it's true that אין מוציאין and and מוציאין מידו, if the Kohen would grab this שה, we take it away, because this שה we pasken belongs to the owner. Why does it belong to the owner? Because it's a מרא חזקה. But in the case of a בכור, which has no חזקת מרא קמא, there the Rambam holds סבר כהן אין מוציאין מידו. Isn't that like money laundering? It's like you know you have a problem with your with your with your שה, so or your donkey, whatever it is. All you're going to do is you change it to a שה, boom, that petrified Kohen can't take it anymore. Not laundering. You don't No, you don't you don't owe anything to the Kohen, because it's a ספק. Ela mai? You have to be yotzei the mitzvah. There's two things here, there's He could have grabbed it, had you not made the exchange. What could he grab? He could have grabbed the original, whatever you changed. No, he can't grab the חמור ever. Ever? No, Kohanim don't ever ride on a חמור. No, the חמור is yours. You don't get the חמור, the din of חמור is it's yours. give it to the Kohen. You have to exchange it for a שה, and give a שה to the Kohen. Right. So he has no right over the חמור? So once you exchange it, why Once you exchange, you have to give it to him. Right. But we don't know if the if the exchange is a real exchange, because maybe it's not a not a פטר. So before the exchange happens, what what's the status of the חמור? ספק פטר. And then ספק, isn't it? So here No, he can't grab it. How could he grab it? He can't ever grab it. He can't grab even if it's a ודאי חמור פטר. So why is can we read these cases to prove anything? Because the the case we're trying to prove is that since it was an exchange, it changed the מצב, and now we have a special מצב, and therefore it was a So what are we talking about here in the exchange? Oh, since he exchanged it, Yeah. so now this is a ספק פדיון פטר חמור. Okay. It has no קדושה, but it doesn't go to the כהן. Right. This doesn't go to the כהן so much that if he grabs it he won't get it. And if you did exchange it and he grabbed it? That's my Grab what? So that's my point. Why are we saying it go it goes it doesn't go to the כהן so much that if he grabbed it he wouldn't get it? Right. And before the exchange if the כהן grabbed it, he wouldn't get it? No, obviously, but had this been a real פטר חמור then he could then you have to give it to him. So you're saying because Because it's a ספק פטר חמור, you don't you have to exchange it, but you don't have to give it to him. And not only don't you have to give it to him, the פסק דין is it's mine. All right, a כהן for a real, a real פטר חמור, can grab that that כהן can grab a sheep? Is that what it is? Yeah. The the sheep Yeah, yeah, if it would be Give him the חמור? The other כהן could have gotten it. Could have gotten it. The שאלה is, why can't I take it back and tell him I want to give it to a different כהן? That's a different שאלה. Tosafot speaks about it, it's a כהן which I always give my stuff to. Right, right, right. So if it would be a real פטר חמור, that שה belongs to the כהן. So I have to give it to him. If he grabs it, ודאי it's his. But because it's a ספק, I don't have to give it to him. And but so much I don't have to give it to him that he can't even grab it. If he grabs it, it doesn't help because there's a מרא קמא, because that שה was mine the whole time. What changed? A ספק, and ספק doesn't work. So this how the Rambam learns. What does This how the Rashba explains the Rambam. The question is, what does Tosafot learn? So the Tzemach Tzedek explains that the מחלוקת between Tosafot and the Rambam is this, interesting shtik: He says, the פטר, a regular פטר he says doesn't have a חזקת מרא קמא because it was born already a ספק a ספק פטר. But it's born as a ספק פטר coming from the mother, which belongs to him. So this is considered, he says, a ספק חזקת מרא קמא. Why? Why, because bepoal it's by him, and it was born from his. So we look at it, we say, is it really considered a חזקת מרא קמא or not? Because it's by him, and it's born from his, from his, his בהמה. So he says like this: The machloket between the Rambam and Tosafot is whether a ספק חזקת מרא קמא has a גדר of of a חזקת מרא קמא to a certain degree. And the Rambam holds that a ספק מרא חזקה is nothing. Mimela, there's a big difference between the two cases. Here, by the case of the ספק פדיון פטר חמור, is a ודאי חזקת מרא קמא. This has no חזקת מרא קמא, not even a ספק. Mimela, over here, the Kohen grabs it, he can't take it, because it was here, and here he could. And Tosafot learns that a ספק חזקת מרא קמא is also a שטיקל מרא קמא, at least it's a ספק, and if it's a ספק חזקת מרא קמא, so if he's a מרא, like any ספק, ממילא, the Kohen can't grab it. If he grabs it, it will be taken away. That's one way the Tzemach Tzedek explains it, and then the Tzemach Tzedek explains it a little bit different, and he says, I'll tell you a further step, what the machloket is. Could be they all hold that a ספק חזקת מרא קמא is not. Even Tosafot, no one holds. Everyone holds if it's only a ספק חזקת, that doesn't work. What is the machloket here? Bepoal, this was born from the mother. Does the חזקת מרא קמא of the mother transfer to the ולד, to the child? The mother, the בהמה is definitely חזקת מרא קמא, he's the owner. This came from there. Do we say that the חזקת מרא קמא of the mother goes on the child? The Rambam holds it doesn't go, mimela, this is not By the case of the ספק פטר, it's no חזקת מרא קמא, no חזקת מרא קמא, that's why if the Kohen grabs it, he keeps it. By the ספק פדיון פטר חמור, where there is in that שה, in that sheep, a חזקת מרא קמא, so he says there the Kohen can't take it. And Tosafot learns that it does transfer, memela, both cases we consider it a חזקת מרא קמא. So how could you make a difference? And that's what Tosafot says, that there is no difference, and therefore the re'aya remains, and תקף כהן מוציאין אותו מידו. How could Tosafot hold that a trans- something transfers from the mother that the mother never had it? The mother. The mother, meaning the the בהמה. A mother of a בהמה, a mother in general, never has the the issue of בכור, never has I know, but befo'al the בעלות, the ownership is there, and normally the child that comes from my thing is mine. So that's an extension of that chazakah. But the chazakah you're talking about is a חזקת חולין. You can't always bring No, watch, you'll see. One second, we're going to get to that in a second to see exactly. Does that change... I want to, I want to... do now is really exactly what I was thinking: explain the two sevarot of the Tzemach Tzedek. I want to say they both are based on the same thing, and they come out with two different peshtim, a little bit different peshtim, and it has to do with something that you were bringing out. And I would say like this: when it comes to a חזקת מרא קמא, or in truth, any chazakah, where we pasken according to a chazakah, there is a חקירה, שאלה, question: is it a berur or is it a din? Does chazakah mean, let's say, חזקת מרא קמא, the chazakah of of of that you were the original owner, because there it's a berur. We don't know if it's yours or not. But if it was yours before, we know it's yours. If someone will come and prove that it's not, somebody else, עדים will come, but as long as not, it's a berur. A berur means it's a verification. We don't know, now we verified it. Or you could say, no, it was yours till now, who knows if it's yours now, the Torah makes a din. There's a din that if you're the original owner, we give it to you. But it's not a, not a berur. We find this, so what's the, yeah, what the Torah says. But we find this in every chazakah. Now, get... huh? No, I mean, that's other side. There is a side it's a berur and a side it's a din. But every chazakah we could, could klap this tzad. Like if by edim we have the שאלה, and by by migo, it... But by chazakah,

I want to give an example where with where the Acharonim explain it. You find a Gemara in Ketubot, that if you see a woman that's pregnant and you don't know, she's single and you don't know who the guy is, so maybe the guy that she had relations with was a mamzer, a a goy, a, who knows what, a a chalal. So now, maybe she's pasul to kehunah or not? So, you go over to the woman and you ask the woman and you ask her: מאי טיביה דעובר זה? Who's the father of this child? Single. Yeah, because obviously if you have a husband, then we say, כל בעיל, רוב בעילות אחר הבעל, that if a woman is married and pregnant, we say, well, it's from her husband, right? But since she's not, so we know it's not from her husband, so who is it from? She's single. Huh? No, no, she wants to get married now. Can she marry a kohen now? Uh-huh. If she if she was with a goy, she can't marry a kohen. If she was with let's say with a chalal, with a mamzer, she and a mamzer can't marry either. Let's say, so we ask her and she says, \"What do you mean? This, heh, not only is a Yid, and he's a מיוחס. כהן הוא. A כהן מיוחס,\" she says. So, Rabban Gamliel says, \"We believe her.\" It's why? Yeah. With a migo, the Gemara goes into if we believe her, sure. It could be any kohen. No, but in this case, there's like a case where she's not pregnant and she's we saw, it's a lot, I don't get into this thing, but that's not the case here. Comes Rabbi Yehoshua, Rabbi Yehoshua says, \"לא מפי פיה אנו חיים. What, you're going to believe her? You can't believe her.\" And therefore, she's pasul. She's pasul and the child? Hold on, 1 second. She's pasul to marry a kohen. She can't marry a kohen because we don't know, we don't trust her. Rabban Gamliel says she's kasher. In Gemara there's a machloket. In the Gemara on the Mishnah. One sevara says, מָאן דְּמַכְשִׁיר בָּהּ מַכְשִׁיר בְּבִתָּהּ, מָאן דְּפוֹסֵל בָּהּ פוֹסֵל בְּבִתָּהּ. Rabban Gamliel who says that she's kasher, the child that's born, if it's a girl, is also kasher to marry a kohen. And the one that says that she's pasul, the child is pasul. The second opinion in the Gemara is, מָאן דְּמַכְשִׁיר, מַכְשִׁיר בָּהּ, פוֹסֵל בְּבִתָּהּ. That she's mutar and the daughter is pasul. And the Gemara asks, \"Why?\" That would happen here too. I know, why? Because she has a חזקת כשרות. She was till now kasher to the kohen. She was born kasher, she's kasher till now. Now became a safek. So there's a חזקת כשרות. The chazakah is she's kasher. So, we don't have enough raayot to make her pasul. The child that's born was lechatchilah born with a safek. The child wouldn't have had a chazakah of חזקת כשרות. So, the child is pasul. But the first opinion says, \"No.\" What's the nekudah of the machloket? I'll tell you what the nekudah is. Is this חזקה בירור or din? If the chazakah is birur, that means we're mevarer, that means like this: because she has the חזקה חזקת כשרות, that is a raayah that who was the guy? The guy was a kasherdiker guy. Now, if the guy had had relations with a kasherdiker guy, what's what's the child? Kasher. Kasher. So, מָאן דְּמַכְשִׁיר בָּהּ מַכְשִׁיר בְּבִתָּהּ. If she's kasher, the child is kasher. The other one says, \"No. Chazakah, the חזקת כשרות is a din. She has a חזקת כשרות, so the din is on her. The child has no חזקת כשרות, there is no din.\" So here we see a clear machloket whether the the chazakah the chazakah is a chazakah of birur or a din? No, it's not birur. According to this pshat, there's no, this is not a birur, it's a din that has חזקת כשרות, a din. Be'emet, you could say a step further in this pshat. We don't believe her? No, this case says, no, we do believe her, but not we believe her because be'emet we believe her. According to the one that says we believe her, it's because it's chazakah, because there's a חזקת כשרות. Ah. So the child has no חזקת כשרות, so it's nothing. If you say it's a birur, pshat is it's a re'ayah, we believe her. Yeah. If you believe her, then the child is kasher here. A din is not stronger than a re'ayah, than a birur? Huh? A din would not be stronger than a No, the din is very strong, but it's only on the person the din is. The din is on her. She has the chazakah. To this extent, as opposed to So then there's the other way to learn it, and then they both hold that it's din, so both hold birur impossible. Because if it's a birur, the child has to be kasher. You could say they both hold it's a din. The she'eilah is, do we look at the child as one metzi'ut with her? The child was part of her. So if there's a חזקת כשרות on her, there's a חזקת כשרות on the child also, or you look at the child as a separate entity. If you look at the child as the same with her, then she also the child also has a חזקת כשרות. If you say not, then the child doesn't have a חזקת כשרות because it's a separate entity. But the main thing I'm trying to say is that the חזקת כשרות that if it's a birur, then it works for the child, too. If it's not, it's not. This is the case of חזקת כשרות. Now the חזקת כשרות that we're talking about here is basically a חזקה דמעיקרא, a חזקת מרא קמא. What's a חזקת מרא קמא? The chazakah of the original owner, which a chazakah of the original owner means, which we call in other לשונות, חזקה דמעיקרא. It's chazakah from before. Whatever it is before, we assume it continues, unless you have a re'iyah that it changed. That's the טייטש חזקה of מרא קמא. What's a מרא קמא? You are the first owner, so you're the owner. The same thing here, also. The חזקת כשרות, which you remember here, is not the same חזקת כשרות we always talk about. We talk about a Yid we don't know if he's frum or not, so we say he has a חזקת כשרות. Could you trust him or not? חזקת כשרות. That's a חזקת כשרות, that's a different thing. There's some hold that that חזקת כשרות comes from rov, because rov Yidden are frum. Mimela, if you don't know, so stam is rov. There's another sevara why why we say חזקת כשרות, because a person a person is born frum. Yeah. Not everybody born frei? You're born frum. And as long as we don't know that that changed, we assume you're frum. But it's also the sevara that it's rov. What we're talking about now has nothing to do with rov. We're talking about חזקת כשרות of since she was kasher till now, nothing to do with rov. Since this woman was kasher to a kohen, and now we don't know whether it changed or not, so we assume as it was before, that's how it is. So the חזקת חזקת כשרות of this Gemara, where we have a machloket whether it's a birur or a din, we apply to the חזקת מרא קמא. We apply to the chazakah of the first owner. Same thing, why do we say it goes after the first chazakah of the first owner? Because it's from before, just like by her. So just like over here we find the two sides, whether it's a birur or a din, in a regular חזקת מרא קמא it's a birur or a din. And this is the yesod of what the Tzemach Tzedek says in both תשובות. Now, third, what was the first pshat? What was the machloket between the Rambam and the others when you have a chazakah a חזקת מרא קמא which is a safek? What did he say? The Rambam holds that in the case of a bechor, since the child was born as a ספק בכור, there's no חזקת מרא קמא. What did he say Tosafot holds? Sof kol sof, it's a ספק חזקת מרא קמא. Tosafot holds a חזקה ספק חזקת מרא קמא is also called a חזקת מרא קמא, and the Rambam holds it's not. What's the nekudah of their machloket? I'll tell you what it is. If חזקת מרא קמא is a birur, then by a safek it won't work. Know what a birur means? A birur means we know for sure. If you're going to say it's a we know for sure by safek, there's no such thing. Mimela, definitely maybe, there's no such thing. So if we say this is a safek, a safek, you can't have no more חזקת מרא קמא. There's nothing to So there's no מרא קמא. That's exactly what the Rambam holds. The Rambam says, in this case where it's a real חזקת מרא קמא because that sheep belonged to him originally, there's a חזקת מרא קמא, it is. In the case of the bechor, you're telling me it's a ספק חזקת מרא קמא? I'm telling you חזקת מרא קמא is a birur. There's no such thing as ספק בירור, בירור ספק. Mimela, that doesn't count. While Tosafot will hold that חזקת מרא קמא is a din. And if it's a din, it's like every din. You have a din which is vadai, and you have a din which is safek. A בכור is a בכור, and you have a safek. חזקת מרא קמא is a din, so a ספק חזקת מרא קמא is a din by safek. But it's something. So this owner has on the בהמה, on the בכור, on the ספק בכור, a ספק חזקת מרא קמא. The kohen has on this בכור nothing! No no מרא קמא, no ספק מרא קמא, it's only maybe it's a בכור. And that's why the Rambam says, אין לו. That's what Tosafot says that מוציאין מידו. That's why we take it away. Why do we take it away? Because the kohen has nothing, so he has something, because a little more. So well, zero and against five, five is winning, he's at a five. משא״כ the Rambam is saying holds that there's no such thing as a ספק חזקת מרא קמא, because there's no such thing as because it's birur. I want to say the same sevara is נוגע the second peshat of the of the Rambam, of the Tzemach Tzedek in peshat in the Rambam. What was the she'eilah? The she'eilah was, does the חזקת מרא קמא of the mother בהמה go over to the ולד? קמא, and memeila that חזקת מרא קמא should help for the ולד. So what did he say is the peshat? According to Tosafot, here it's by the בכור, a ספק בכור is also called a חזקת מרא קמא, because the mother had a חזקת מרא קמא. משא״כ the Rambam holds, no. And over there, משא״כ the Rambam holds it's not. So I want to say it's all based on the same thing. If we say חזקת מרא קמא is a birur, now let's apply that birur here. What are we trying to be mevarer here? We're not trying to be mevarer who it belongs to. We're trying to be mevarer, is it a בכור? And mimeila who it belongs to. Now what does the חזקת מרא קמא of the mother have to do with the birur to be mevarer whether this is a firstborn or not? חזקת מרא קמא means that this was originally owned by him. Does that have any verification to find out that this probably is not a בכור? Has nothing to do with this. So that's what the Rambam says, what are you telling me that the חזקת מרא קמא is here also? And the Tzemach Tzedek says, what was Tosefos' peshat? Why? Because the חזקת מרא קמא the mother and child and mother are one entity, so mimeila the חזקת מרא קמא went on the child. If it's a birur, that's not, that's not mevarer the safek here. So if it's a regular case of a safek, we don't know if it's his or not. So we say we don't know on two things. So this has a חזקת מרא קמא, this doesn't, but if they were originally one, it's a birur that this is also because it's all one. But here the safek is not whether it's his or not. That's the result. The safek is whether it's a בכור or not. So if it's a birur, what will it do? משא״כ if we hold חזקת מרא קמא is a din, so if we look at the two as the same entity, the din is it has a חזקת מרא קמא, whatever. It's not mevarer anything, we don't know anything better, but there's a she'eilah who do you give it to, to this guy or this guy. So חזקת מרא קמא is a din, and that's why Tosefos holds it goes on the ולד also. So it comes out that the, that the Tzemach Tzedek explains the מחלוקת Tosafos and the Rambam in two ways, but I'm saying they're all based back on the one sevara. What is the geder of this חזקת מרא קמא, which is like the sevara over there, what is the geder of the חזקת כשרות of this lady, is it a birur, is it a din, and mimela that applies to here. Okay, stop it. How do you apply that to the מסוכנת? By the מסוכנת? By the מסוכנת, no, that's just to bring how the Gemara brought it. מסוכנת has nothing to do with it. There the din is מעמידין אותו. Why? Because כל דאלים גבר. The question was... You can have a birur in a din, a birur by by it, if who it belongs to, and a din that it's a בכור. What will make that din? You have the חזקת, חזקת מרא קמא will make it? Okay, so then you have the din, then you have two birurs in the same case. Where do you have a birur? There is no birur whether it's a בכור or not. The birur of בכור is whether it's firstborn or not. Right. How do you know that? Because he's, because he's the original owner? So it's a safek, so it's a ספק בכורה, and with a birur that it's... A ספק בכורה has no birur. That has no birur, but it belongs to... No, we don't know who it belongs to. If it's, we don't know, we don't know if it belongs to the כהן or him. The שאלה is not who it belongs to. If it has חזקת כשרות, it belongs to him, and not the... חזקת מרא קמא. He said חזקת מרא קמא. Yeah, but it doesn't have a חזקת מרא קמא. The mother has a חזקת מרא קמא. That's what I mean, if that's... And if it's a birur, then what's that supposed to be מברר? Only that it belongs to him. But the belonging here is dependent on bechor, whether it's a firstborn or not, and that's no birur. Why would it depend on that? The only reason we give it to the, the Kohen has it is because it's firstborn, and that the birur of the מרא קמא will not be מברר. Has to, has to be... So then mimela that doesn't do any good. ...the bechor first before you... Right, right! If it's a din who you give it to, and the חזקת מרא קמא is to give it to him, okay. So that if it's all one entity, it goes on this. But if there's no birur... Yishar koach, yishar koach. Sounded like he stopped in the and left out a quarter of it. Or a third, or something. Left out three quarters. Yeah, because something else was coming. Yeah, yeah, right. Yeah. You didn't give the shoulder though, did you at all, no? Can he bring you also? No, you don't. Yeah. Yishar koach, yishar koach. Let me call, find out what's happened now. Yishar koach, Rabbi Shapira. I was at Moishe's Sheva Berachot, you know, he had a, he had a Mincha-Maariv at his house. They finish also, because he's a, he's the one from this morning, he was in yeshiva, so he davens... Yeah, yeah, yeah, he davens, so he davens Shacharit, and then Mincha-Maariv