easiest example is that if a בהמה gave birth, and the owner doesn't know if this is the first calf that gave birth or maybe it gave birth before. If it's the first one, then it's a bechor. If it was one before, it's not a bechor. And we don't know. So, the Mishnah, the Gemara brings a משנה, ספק בכורות המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה, which means that since it's a safek and the owner has it, so the Kohen doesn't get it, unless he proves it's a bechor, but otherwise המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה. And then the Gemara says, תני עלה, the beraita says, אסורים בגיזה ועבודה. Now, even though it's a ספק בכור, it has a kedushah. It's asur like a bechor which is kodashim, you can't cut the wool, and you can't work with it. It's a it's kodashim. And here, Rav Hamnuna is learning peshat in this Mishnah like this, that when the Mishnah says, המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה, doesn't only mean that since the Yisrael, the owner, has it, the Kohen doesn't get it, but it means both ways, that what happens if the Kohen grabs it, now the Kohen has it and the Yisrael becomes the מוציא, and the Kohen keeps it. So basically, Rav Hamnuna is trying to show you here that תקפו כהן, if the Kohen grabs it, אין מוציאין מידו. We don't take it away from him. And he wants to prove, and nevertheless it's אסור בגיזה ועבודה, so he's using it to prove whatever the case the Gemara is. But the ikar we have here the din that Rav Hamnuna holds that תקפו כהן, if the Kohen grabs the ספק בכור away from the Yisrael, so אין מוציאין מידו, we don't take it away from him.

Comes Rava, and Rava says it's no re'ayah from there. And Rava says, לעולם אימא לך תקפו כהן מוציאין אותו מידו. Could be not. Could be when it says המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה, does not go on the Kohen. It goes lechatchilah that when the Yisrael has it and it's a safek, the Kohen can't take it. If the Kohen takes it, we take it back from him. ואפילו הכי and still אסור בגיזה ועבודה of a safek, because it's קדושה הבאה מאליה, since the קדושת בכור has nothing to do with the fact whether the Kohen could keep it or not, it's kadosh anyway. Okay, so here it seems from the Gemara we have a machloket between Rav Hamnuna and Rava. Rav Hamnuna holds תקפו כהן אין מוציאין מידו, we don't take away. Comes Rava and Rava says תקפו כהן מוציאין מידו. Comes Rav Chananya and he says, \"I have a re'ayah to Rava.\" The re'ayah is, it says, \"הספיקות נכנסים לדיר להתעשר.\" A ספק בכור, you take into ma'aser, and if the din would be תקפו כהן אין מוציאין מידו, that means b'etzem it belongs to the Kohen, so how could you use it for ma'aser? Ma'aser, you have to give from your own. You can't give ma'aser something that belongs to the Kohen. So, he's bringing a re'ayah, since we do use it for ma'aser, is a ראיה תקפו כהן אין מוציאין מידו. The Kohen has a right over it. תקפו כהן מוציאין מידו, that the Kohen is is we take away from him, and that's why you could use it for ma'aser, because it has nothing to do with the Kohen. The Kohen has no בעלות over it at all. Comes Rava, Abaye שלוגד up the the raaya of Rava. Then

comes Abaye, and Abaye says, \"My אפשלאג is not a good אפשלאג.\" He changes his mind, which means if you שלוג up a raaya and then you שלוג up the אפשלאג, what happens? The raaya comes back. So, ממילא Abaye is backing again the raaya of Rava, the raaya that what? That תקפו כהן מוציאין מידו, because if the Kohen grabs it, we don't take it away from him, then how could you use that that for maaser? Because if the Kohen has a right to grab it, which means if he, so it's his to a certain degree, you can't use it for. The fact that you use a ספק בכור for maaser is a ראיה תקפו כהן מוציאין מידו. And Rava had the raaya, and Abaye seemingly from the Gemara agreed to the raaya. He tried to disagree with the raaya, and then finally he he שלוגד up his אפשלאג, and the raaya comes back. Therefore, Tosafos, even המנכש פטור ממעשר ומאי שנא כהן, says, וכן הוא מסקנא that in תקפו כהן מוציאין מידו. The maskana from the Gemara and this that's what he's focused with the Gemara. The maskana is that the Gemara brought a ראיה, תקפו כהן מוציאין מידו. We tried to שלוג up the raaya. Then we said the אפשלאג is not a good אפשלאג. We're back to the beginning. We're back to the raaya. So, the maskana of the Gemara is תקפו כהן מוציאין מידו. If you

see here the HaGra, the א on Tosafot, the HaGra writes here, when Tosafot says, \"וכן הוא מסקנא תקפו כהן מוציאין מידו,\" so the HaGra says, נכתב בצידו, וכן דעת שאר פוסקים. That's what all the poskim paskenen: תקפו כהן מוציאין מידו. אבל הרמב\"ם חולק. The Rambam argues. The Rambam is the one that says תקפו כהן אין מוציאין מידו. And the Rambam in two places, in הלכות בכורות פרק ב' הלכה ו' and פרק ה' הלכה ג', the Rambam פסקנ'ס תקפו כהן is is אין מוציאין מידו. Now the question is why? After all, we have a raaya in the Gemara. The Gemara brought a raaya that תקפו כהן מוציאין מידו, and the raaya remains. Abaye tried to show the raaya is not a raaya, but then Abaye himself changed his mind and said yeah, the raaya is a good raaya, so the Gemara has a clear raaya. So he says, וכתב הרשב\"א דלמסקנא דמפרש ספיקות, ספק פדיון חמור, אין ראיה, דפדיון חמור זכה בהן, ובספק כבר מוחזק בעל הבית. What does that Rashba explain? So the Tzemach Tzedek in the Piskei Dinim, the Tzemach Tzedek brings the Rashba, Teshuvot HaRashba, it's not the Rashba in the Gemara, it's the Teshuvot HaRashba, and the Rashba has a whole ביאור of peshat in Rambam. And the Tzemach Tzedek elaborates on the Rashba. What is the nekudah of what the Rashba says? This is what the nekudah is.

Later on in the Gemara on דף ז', the Gemara explains when it says in this ברייתא, הספיקות נכנסים לדיר להתעשר, that a ספק בכור you take to maaser, that was based the whole ra'ayah was based on that beraita, that if ספק בכור, you take to maaser. The Gemara asks later, what kind of ספק בכור is it? And the Gemara said, you could have a regular ספק? אילימא ספק בכורות, יהיה קדוש אמר רחמנא, ולא שכבר קדוש. A ספק בכור, you cannot take into maaser. You cannot בכלל, not because you'll patur your money mimah nafshach, okay, you can, there's a din that in order to take something to maaser has to be ודאי not בכור. So how could you even have a ספק בכור goes into maaser? So the Gemara answers, you know what we mean ספק בכור goes into maaser? ספק פדיון פטר חמור, not a ספק בכור. What's a פדיון פטר חמור? You have a firstborn donkey, what are you supposed to do with it? You're supposed to redeem it for a sheep. What happens to the sheep? Yeah, what happens to the sheep? What do you do with it? You give it to the kohen. Is the sheep a korban? Is it קדשים? No, the sheep has no kedushah. It's just a din, you have to פודה the פטר חמור for a sheep, and the sheep you give to the Kohen. What happens if it's a ספק פטר חמור? The same thing, we don't know if it's a firstborn donkey or not a firstborn donkey. So because it's a ספק, you got to פודה it. You got to take a שה from your herd and exchange it for the פטר חמור of a ספק, and what do you do with the שה? Don't give it to the Kohen, because it's a ספק. המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה, you keep it. So when it says in the ברייתא, הספיקות נכנסים לדיר להתעשר, we're only talking about ספק פדיון פטר חמור. That שה is called פדיון פטר חמור, a ספק פדיון פטר חמור, and that's what you take in. זאגט דער Rashba like this, that the Rambam learns that this that the Gemara brought a ראיה before, and Abaye agreed to the ראיה, that a ספק בכור is מוציאין מידו, that's all when we thought that the ברייתא is talking by a ספק בכור. And the ברייתא says take the ספק בכור, use it for מעשר. So obviously, we take away from the Kohen, because if the Kohen has a hold over it, you can't use it for מעשר. But now at the מסקנא of the Gemara, the Gemara says that that by a regular בכור, you takkeh don't take him for מעשר. Ein hachi nami, a regular ספק בכור you can't מעשר. The only thing you could מעשר, and what's the ברייתא talking about that you could use for מעשר is a ספק פדיון פטר חמור. And there's a big difference between a ספק פדיון פטר חמור, which is the שה, over a ספק בכור. And this is the difference. The difference is like this. The ספק פדיון פטר חמור, I'm not it's not the פטר חמור was the safek, but what we're dealing with is the seh that you exchange for the ספק פטר חמור, that's called ספק פדיון פטר חמור. Now that seh, who did it belong to the whole time? Till you did this exchange? To the בעל הבית. I have a פדיון פטר חמור, I have a פטר חמור, I have a ספק פטר חמור, so I go to my herd, that's why I said it before, I take a seh of mine, which is clearly mine, and I exchange it now for this פטר חמור. So if it's a ודאי פטר חמור, there's a halachah, I exchange it, I have to take this seh and give it to the kohen. If it's a ספק פדיון פטר חמור, I have to exchange it and keep it. This seh, you know why the kohen has no hold over it? The beraita says you can use it for says, you know why? Because there's a חזקת מרא קמא. There's a chazakah. This seh belonged to who till now? Who did it belong to? Till I did this pidyon, it belonged to me. That's called a מרא חזקה of חזקת מרא קמא, I'm the original owner. Now there's a she'eilah, does my ownership change? Because I exchanged it for the פטר חמור, maybe it belongs to the kohen now, maybe not. So I have a chazakah that it's mine, and now there's a safek whether I have to give it to the kohen. What's the din always? We follow a חזקת מרא קמא. It's a chazakah. So therefore, in this case, takeh is a re'ayah that תקפו כהן, which is is אין מוציאין is מוציאין מידו. If the kohen would grab it, we take it away from him. Why would we take it away? Because here we have a re'ayah that it belongs re'ayah, we pasaknu it belongs to the owners, because the owner has a מרא קמא. What about a regular ספק בכור? Not a safek by the שה, the pidyon, but a regular ספק בכור. A regular ספק בכור there is no חזקת מרא קמא. There's no chazakah that it belonged to the owner originally, and our שאלה is did it change? The בכור was born a ספק בכור, it was born לכתחילה על הספק. There's no chazakah that it's mine, I don't know if it's mine. So from the beginning on, this is a safek which has no chazakah. If it has no chazakah, then the din is, the Rambam says, תקפו כהן אין מוציאין מידו. By a regular ספק בכור, מוציאין מידו? אין מוציאין מידו. Why should I take it away? Why am I, the owner, better than him? It's a safek who it belongs to. I have no chazakah, he has no chazakah. So as long as I have it, he's the מוציא, המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה, I don't have to give it to him. The moment he grabs it, I'm the מוציא. I have no chazakah. So the whole re'ayah, that's what the Rashba says, the whole re'ayah that the Gemara brings that by ספק בכור מוציאין מידו, like Tosafot says the מסקנא is and Abaye agrees to it, that we have a re'ayah, the fact that you use the ספק בכור for ma'aser is a ראיה מוציאין מידו, because if he would be able to hold it, if if אין מוציאין מידו if he holds it and it's ממונא של כהן, that's only when we thought that that's talking about ספק בכור. But now that we decide the Gemara at the end says it's talking not about ספק, ספק פדיון פטר חמור, that פדיון פטר is a different din. There takeh we say תקפו כהן אין מוציאין if if מוציאין מידו, because I have a chazakah, חזקת מרא קמא. But by the case of a regular bechor I have no חזקת מרא קמא. This is the Rashba. And the Tzemach Tzedek continues, and he says, lefo'al, it's not so pashut. Lefo'al, could be that a bechor is also a chazakah, it's a ספק חזקה. It's a ספק חזקת מרא קמא. That's really what it is, because after all, the bechor was born from my behemah. So m'meila, maybe I do have a chazakah, because it's born with a safek, maybe it's mine, maybe it's not. So he says, this is a ספק חזקת מרא קמא. So he taytsh(t) just like this, the Tzemach Tzedek. What's the machloket, the bottom line, the machloket between Tosafot and the Rambam? Whether a ספק חזקת מרא קמא has a meaning or not. Is there such a thing as a ספק חזקת מרא קמא? Is it anything? And the Rambam says, a ספק חזקת מרא קמא is nothing. And therefore, like this: by the case of the פדיון פטר חמור, there's a ודאי חזקת מרא קמא. There's a vadai I had it before. Till this exchange took place, it was mine. Now we want to know that I made the exchange, did it change the status? That's the taytsh chazakah. חזקת מרא קמא means as long as you have no proof that it changed, it doesn't change. Mah she'ein kein by the case of the regular ספק בכור, there is only a ספק חזקת מרא קמא. A ספק חזקת מרא קמא is not a is not a chazakah. M'meila, I see the difference. So the beraita that

says that תקפו כהן מוציאין מידו is talking by a ספק פדיון פטר חמור. There you take it away from the kohen because the ba'alim have a חזקת מרא קמא, but it has nothing to do with a regular bechor. A regular bechor there is no חזקת מרא קמא, so you take so you don't take it away from the Kohen. Why? Because why is the baal habayit better? מה שאין כן Tosafos will learn that a ספק חזקת מרא קמא is אויך עפעס, is also something. So you can't make this chiluk. You wanted to make a chiluk that by regular ספק פדיון פטר חמור, by a ספק פדיון פטר חמור, then there's a חזקת מרא קמא, מה שאין כן by ספק בכור there is no חזקת מרא קמא. Tosafos holds there's also a חזקת מרא קמא. Ai, it's not as same as strong as over there, but it's still better than the Kohen. The baal habayit has some kind of chazakah over it. Not a ודאי מרא קמא, but it's a ספק מרא קמא. What does the Kohen have? Nothing. Uvmila they're both equal. So Tosafos says, you can't tell me like they say that Rambam holds that there's difference by a ספק פדיון פטר חמור is different, that's where אין מוציאין מידו, and by a regular ספק בכור מוציאין, we'll make a chiluk. Tosafos says you can't make a chiluk. Uvmila according to Tosafos, they're both the same. If they're both the same, what is the din? That the beraita says clearly מוציאין מידו, and you can't tell me there's a chiluk between these two, uvmila the halachah is מוציאין מידו. That's what Tosafos says, so the maskana is מוציאין מידו. מה שאין כן the Rambam holds that ספק חזקת מרא קמא is nothing, so there's an obvious difference. So the beraita is talking only by ספק פדיון פטר חמור, there takeh the din is מוציאין מידו, ספק בכור אין מוציאין מידו. Then the

Tzemach Tzedek continues, and the Tzemach Tzedek says that I could tell you the pshat a little bit different, that the machloket between Tosafot and the Rambam is a little bit different, based on the same gang. The mother of this ספק בכור has a חזקת מרא קמא. Sure, the mother is not a חזקת מרא קמא, it's mine even now. What's the case here? A man has a cow, the cow gave birth. The shailah is, is that calf that was born a בכור or not? The mother is definitely mine, no shaalot. I have a חזקת not even מרא קמא, I'm a חזקה, I'm baal habayit over it. Fine. This בכור that was born from the mother is like a המשך to the mother. Do we say the חזקה of מרא קמא of the mother also is transferred to the calf or not? That's the shailah, that's the machloket. So the Rambam holds And by a bought heifer? Huh? And by a bought heifer? You don't have to have a חזקה of anything. Then how do you take away from the mother's חזקה, I mean That's the shailah. You own something, you have a חזקה? Yeah. And then you sell it to me, what happens? How do I take it away with your חזקה? Yeah, but I'm not selling it. The Torah said a בכור belongs to the Kohen. The Torah said that if you own a בהמה and it gives birth to a בכור ספקא דאורייתא לחומרא. That's a different thing. לחומרא is by, that's קדושה, לגבי if it's like a ספק איסור, we're talking about the ממון now. The point is if it's a בכור, the Torah says a בכור that was born that's my בכור, the Torah says I want you to give it to the Kohen. Not only it belongs to the Kohen, the Torah could say it. Here it's a ספק, so we don't know the Torah said it. So the Rambam will hold like this, that we'll make a חילוק and say like this: by a ספק פדיון פטר חמור there's a חזקת מרא קמא. The שה that you're dealing with who it belongs to has a מרא I originally owned it, so as long as you don't bring a re'ayah that it changed, it's mine. The case of the ספק בכור, the mother's חזקת מרא קמא does not apply to the ולד. U'meila the Rambam says in the case of a ספק בכור there is no חזקת מרא קמא on the ולד at all. That's what the חילוק is. So by the case of ספק פדיון פטר חמור the din is מוציאין מידו because the owner has a חזקת מרא קמא. By a ספק בכור, there's no חזקת מרא קמא. איי the mother has a חזקת מרא קמא? The mother's chazakah has nothing to do with the ולד. מה שאין כן תוספות will say, no, we extend, since it came from that mother, we extend the חזקת מרא קמא of the mother to the ולד. So even by a ספק בכור, by a regular ספק בכור there is a חזקת מרא קמא. U'meila according to Tosafot, what's the difference between the two cases? There's a חזקת מרא קמא by a ספק פדיון פטר חמור, and there's a חזקת מרא קמא by a ספק בכור. They're both equal, so you can't tell me there's a חילוק in who it is, and therefore since we have a re'ayah from the ברייתא that תקפו כהן מוציאין מידו, so it has to go on all cases. That's why Tosafot says תקפו כהן the halachah is מוציאין מידו because we see it from the ברייתא. Mah she'ein kein the Rambam says from the ברייתא we only see the מסקנא, ספק פדיון פטר חמור, because there there's a חזקת מרא קמא, but by a ספק בכור there's no חזקת מרא קמא. So the Tzemach Tzedek gives us two ביאורים in the מחלוקת between Tosafot and the Rambam. One ביאור is whether a ספק חזקת מרא קמא has any value. The Rambam says no, and therefore by the case of ספק בכור there is no חזקת מרא קמא because it's only a ספק and a ספק doesn't count. By פדיון פטר חמור it does. And Tosafot says that a ספק is something, ובמילא they both have a חזקת מרא קמא. That's one ביאור, that the מחלוקת is what's the גדר of a ספק חזקה, חזקת מרא קמא, and Tosafot will hold that they're both the same, a ספק חזקה is also something, ובמילא they're both equal. And the second ביאור is that the מחלוקת is whether the חזקה of the mother also applies to the ולד. According to the Rambam, it does not apply, ממילא, in the case of ספק בכור, the חזקת, the מרא קמא, the mother, the ולד has no חזקת מרא קמא. אלא מאי? The mother. It's not נמשך, so there's a difference between that and ספק פדיון פטר חמור. And according to Tosafot, it is נמשך on the mother, mimela, they both have a ספק, a חזקת מרא קמא. So the din should be equal. If they only own like the ולדות, that the mother belongs to someone else, can you say that he doesn't have חזקת מרא קמא? If the he only owned, you must he bought it, only owned the ולדות. He bought it for the kids, but the mother belongs to someone else. And who did it belong to? To someone else. So it's all חזקת מרא קמא. We're not, we don't care whose his name is Reuven or Shimon. Did it belong to an Yisrael or belong to the Kohen? Unless it say it's a goy. The goy, he's so that guy will hold it. It's not a goy. We're talking about the, לגבי the Kohen, there's a chazakah that it belongs to the בעלים. It belongs to the בעלים also. It's nothing, in this case, does it matter if it's Reuven or Shimon? Is it the כהן, שבט הכהנים or or not? Ela mai, if it belongs to a goy, if a goy the חלות פוטר a bechor. What if it belongs to a Kohen? If it belongs to the the mother to a כהן, מסתמא would be patur also. No, it would be chayav, but then it would be the Kohen would be the בעלים probably, I would assume. Max? According to the second answer, even the Rambam holds a ספק a ספק מרא קמא, everyone agrees ספק מרא קמא is nothing. But in this case, it's a different she'eilah. The mother is a ודאי מרא קמא, and does that come over to the ולד? What about a bechor? Huh? What about a bechor? Yeah. That doesn't go over. Could go over, who cares it goes over? But it belongs to Kohen anyway. That's, he asked it before, the same she'eilah. If you if I buy something, it goes In which case? In the case of a bechor, then the, then the חזקת מרא קמא would trigger over. What do you mean trigger over? You don't, it's not a, it doesn't go over. You have a you

have a חזקת מרא קמא on the ולד itself, not by the mother. If it's not a בכור, it's yours. If it's a בכור, you don't have it. We don't know, so the shaila is, does the mother's work for it? Coming with that. Yeah, the shaila is that! That's why he's the whole שקלא וטריא of the Tzemach Tzedek. The shaila is not of it being safek, the shaila could be that the mother goes over, mimela, it's not a ספק מרא קמא. That's not a safek. If the mother and the ולד are בעצם originally one entity, know it was all one. Now that it's one, so the mother has a חזקת מרא קמא, and the ולד has. Now that the ולד is born, so the shaila is, is it continued the מרא קמא that it had before from the mother? Going backward, right. Yes, yes. There is? No, no, that's if it belongs to the כהנים. The shaila is, does it belong to any כהן בכלל. Here's a shaila, is it a בכור? Does it belong to שבט הכהנים? A what? A פטר, no, by the בכור, by the שה, now it's given to the כהן, till now the שה was mine, now I'm giving it to the כהן. I could give it to whatever כהן I want. So? Too bad! That's I have a חזקת מרא קמא, it's mine. By the בכור? Yeah. Nu, so? According to who it You have a choice to, but it doesn't belong to you. And on a regular בכור, how do you have a choice to give it to? It certainly doesn't belong to you. How do you, that's the whole דין of a בכור, you have a טובת הנאה, no, Tosafot That's the whole דין of a בכור, that you have, like מעשר, תרומה, you could have a choice to give it to whoever you want, even though it's not yours. תרומה is not yours, you have to give it away to the כהן, but you still have a choice, the Torah gave you that right, and then there's a shaila if טובת הנאה has a value of money or not. What I'd like to say is, that seems like two nekudot, two separate nekudot of what the machloket is between the Rambam and Tosafot is according to the Tzemach Tzedek, two ביאורים. The nekudah of both ביאורים are based on one nekudah, which after I explain the nekudah, you'll see this is the ביאור in the סברות behind the machloket. Because a machloket could go on and on, you can never finish. You say the machloket is, let's say, if a ספק חזקת מרא קמא is something or not. That's the machloket, fine. What is that machloket based on? Anytime you go, you could go weiter, or you say a second way, does the chazakah of the mother go over to the ולד? He says, yeah, he says not. Nu, why? Why does he say like this? And whatever you explain, you'll always go further. After you explain, because he holds like this, he holds like this, nu, why does he hold like this, like this? You can go on and on forever. But I want to explain a sevara what is the reason for the machloket in each of these two ways, and the bottom line will be that the nekudah, the machloket in both places is the same. Not the same, it's based on the same nekudah. And the nekudah is this: If חזקת מרא קמא a birur or a din? When we follow חזקת מרא קמא, when we say a חזקת מרא, this guy gets it because he has the original ownership, and as long as we don't know it changed, it sticks with him, is that a birur? A birur means this is a verification, now we know it's his. Since it was his till now, the Torah says, so we know it's his now too, as long as we don't figure out that it changed. If it changed, it's different. Or is it not? It's a safek, we don't know. חזקת מרא קמא doesn't mean we know it's his. The Torah gave us a din. The din is that when you have a safek and you have a מרא קמא, a חזקת מרא קמא, he gets it, because the Torah paskan't like that, not because it's a birur. And this thing is not דוקא by חזקת מרא קמא. This is a she'eilah as we do by any chazakah. There are so many cases of chazakah, and by all chazakot we always have this she'eilah. This she'eilah is by everything. A she'eilah even by shevuah, on and on spoken, is a shevuah is a birur or a din, and migo is a birur or a din, all these cases where the Torah says. Even by עדות, which seems certainly to be a birur, is a חקירה whether it's a birur or a din. But let's talk about chazakah, חזקת מרא קמא. And I'll show where we find the yesod to this inyan, whether חזקת מרא קמא or, not even by, you see, we're talking about mamon, so מרא קמא means who was the original owner, but it's all based on one vort, חזקה דמעיקרא. There's a chazakah of before, that's the taytsh. Whatever was before goes on, and that's how we say happened as long as we don't know it changed. So we find a חזקה דמעיקרא in the Gemara in Kesubos, and that's where we find a מחלוקת. The

Gemara there says היתה מעוברת. If a woman was מעוברת, she was a single woman, and you see she's מעוברת, and the she'eilah is now, who was she נבעל? Had she been married, so the kol is that she was מעוברת from her husband. He can move it back. From her husband. But what happens if she's single and we don't know? It's very possible that she was מעוברת from a mamzer, from who? From a goy. So the she'eilah now is, if she wants to marry a kohen, can she go ahead and marry a kohen? Because the din is, if she was ever with a גוי, or she was ever with a ממזר, or a נתין, or whatever, it makes her פסולה לכהונה, and we don't know. Comes Rabban Gamliel, Rabbi Elazar, they say, ask her. And if she will answer, \"I was נבעל from a כשר,\" not only a כשר, she says, he's noch a מיוחס, he's a כהן, ich veis, a groise mentsch. So a כהן whatever, this groise mentsch. But if she says נבעל, we believe her. Why do we believe her? Because she has a חזקת כשרות. Till now, she was כשר to a כהן. She was born as a girl כשר to a כהן, nothing happened, she's כשר, כשר, כשר. Now became a ספק is she כשר, so there's a חזקת כשרות, which is בעצם a חזקה דמעיקרא, it's a חזקה till now she was כשר, she continues being כשר. So, if she says it was כשר, not not a טענה that we trust her, we don't know, she could lie, but the חזקת כשרות means, believe her. Actually, I just seen the לשון, you have that? Take it on, the Gemara says it, ואמרה. I mean, because maybe she'll admit. What happens she'll admit that it was a ממזר? Then she admits she admits. But as long as she doesn't admit it's a ממזר or it's a גוי or whatever, she's כשרה לכהונה. Rabbi Yehoshua says, לא מפיה אנו חיין, you can't trust her, and she is בחזקת נבעלה לממזר ולנתין, and she's אסורה לכהן. And the Gemara goes in what's the סברא of Rabbi Yehoshua, why doesn't he believe her, but then in the Gemara there's a מחלוקת אמוראים. Till now we were talking about the mother, this lady herself. Is she allow allowed to marry a כהן? What about the child, if this child is going to be born and it'll be a girl? Is she kasher to a kohen or not? So one sevara in Gemara is מאן דמכשיר בה, מכשיר בבתה. If we pasken that she's mutar, what does that mean we pasken she's mutar? We're paskening that she was נבעל to a kasher. If she was נבעל to a kasher, so what's the child? Kasher! So if she's kasher, then the child is kasher. Then there's another דעה in גמרא, מאן דמכשיר בה, פוסל בבתה. She's kasher, and the child is pasul. Why? The Gemara gives a simple reason. The reason she's kasher, because she has a חזקת כשרות. The child never had a חזקת כשרות. She was kasher, she's now 40 years old. For 40 years she was kasher to a kohen. So now it continues unless you proved that it stopped. As long as you don't know for sure that it stopped, that חזקת כשרות continues. The child didn't have a חזקת כשרות. The child was born to begin with, right, was born in a ספק, מעוברת. No, one second, now that's what we're going to see. Now the child was born lechatchila with a safek whether she's kasher or not. So there is no חזקת כשרות. That's the sevara of the one that says the child is pasul. What's the sevara of the machloket, the one that says the child is kasher or not? Exactly what I said before: the machloket is, is this חזקה a בירור or a din? If the חזקה is a בירור, that means that when we pasken the mother, that there's a חזקת כשרות, she has a chazakah and that's why she's kasher, this is a בירור. It verifies that she was נבעלה לכשר. If it's a בירור, it means that we don't know whether it was נבעלה to a kasher or not, who was the man, and she has a חזקת כשרות, we pasken that we know, this is a בירור that she was נבעלה to a kasher. The moment we found out that she was נבעלה to a kasher, what should the child be? Of course to be kasher! If the mother we know was נבעלה to a kasher, what's the שאלה? The other one holds that the chazakah is a דין, not a בירור. We don't know. How does it, says that if you have a chazakah from before, is that re'iyah that this and this is what happened? No, we still don't know who the man was. But since it's a safek, there's a, the way the Torah says how you resolve the ספיקות, not how you verify the ספיקות. What the maskana, what halacha should be. So the Torah, if she has a chazakah from before of kasher, the Torah says she remains kasher. But the Torah never paskent, didn't tell us that we found out that she was נבעלה לכשר. So as far as we're concerned, it's very possible that she was נבעלה לפסול. We still don't know, she's still a safek. So the child doesn't have a חזקת כשרות. The mother has this חזקת כשרות, so the דין is she's kasher. The child doesn't have a חזקת כשרות, the דין is the child is pasul. הא? No. Yeah. Yeah, but there the דין is a birur, like I explained, that the edut... No, the din not a birur. No, if you say here din, by edut cuz the whole concept of edut is to find out what happened. So we say, how do you know this is what happened? That's the she'eilah. Is it a birur, a physical birur, or it's a din that after the עדים say you know what happened? But this is a different, this, if it's a din it's a complete din. Pashut a din, this is what you do. Not that we know what happened. Torah says, how should you behave? When you have a safek, how should you behave? It tells you, if you have a חזקת כשרות or a חזקה דמעיקרא, behave that way. But only to the one that has the chazakah. But the one that doesn't have the chazakah, you taka don't pas ken. That's why the child is pasul. Be'emet, you could say a little different. You could say everyone agrees that חזקת כשרות is only a din, you could say that. And the she'eilah is, since the mother and the child are one entity, so does the the חזקת כשרות of the mother transfer to the child? Mimela the child also has a חזקת כשרות. So the one that says the child is kasher says that it does transfer, and the other way is that it doesn't transfer. If it

doesn't transfer, the mother has a חזקת כשרות which is a din, pure din, not a birur, and the child doesn't have a חזקת כשרות. על כל פנים, the bottom line here we see that we're talking about a חזקת כשרות, and we have a she'eilah, is it a chazakah, is it a birur or a din? Now this חזקת כשרות, as I said before, is similar to our חזקה דמעיקרא. See, I want to just make it clear, this חזקת כשרות is not the regular case of חזקת כשרות. We always know, we always talk about Yidden, every Yid has a חזקת כשרות. Rambam says כל ישראל בחזקת כשרות הן. That's not what we're talking about. The חזקת כשרות we're talking here is כשר to be a kohen. Always חזקת כשרות means, is the guy a פרומער איד or not? You know a guy comes and says I'm a, wants to be מעיד, want to call a עדות up, you don't know he's a שומר שבת or not. So he says, חזקת כשרות. What's the חזקת כשרות based on? So there are two sevarot. There's one sevara that a חזקת כשרות always is based on חזקה דמעיקרא, there is a sevara like that. Every Yid is born frum. Every Yid is born כשר לעדות. You come and you say maybe this guy became פסול, prove it! As long as you don't, we assume the way it was before. But then there's another sevara in חזקת כשרות, that it's a חזקה מטעם רוב. Since most Yidden are frum, so the חזקה is mistama he's from the frume Yidden. The difference is בזמן הזה. בזמן הזה where most אידן, רחמנא ליצלן, are not frum, so there's no חזקת כשרות. If you learn חזקת כשרות מטעם because you were born frum, you're born כשר, then it would be nowadays too. Anyway, but that's not the חזקת כשרות we're talking here, we're talking about a different type of חזקה. חזקת, is she כשר to marry a kohen? It's not whether she's frum or not. Now what's the חזקת כשרות here? Since she was originally כשר to marry a כהן, so there's a chazakah goes that continues. And we have a chakirah, what does that chazakah do? A birur or... or a din? It's exactly like a חזקה דמרא, like חזקת מרא קמא. It's just the chiluk is, this is in חזקת being כשרה to a כהן, here it's ownership. But the same idea, it's a חזקה דמעיקרא. We take whatever happened before and we say it continues. And we go along as if we know for sure it continues unless you find out that it didn't. So just like here by the chazakah of חזקת כשרות of this lady, we have the שני צדדים and the machloket in Gemara, where staking the peshat in whether the chazakah is birur or a din, the same thing could be chazakah of of חזקת מרא קמא. If you know something, you say something we don't know if it's his or his, and this guy was the מרא קמא, so we say we have to follow the מרא קמא. Is it a birur? Since he was the original owner, we are mevarer, this is a birur verifying that he is still the owner, so we know for sure he's the owner, that's a birur, or it's a din. The truth is we don't know if he's the owner or not, but the Torah says the din is, behave as if he's the owner, give it back to him, that's what the din is. And this chakirah, whether חזקת מרא קמא דין or a birur, is the foundation of both biurim in the Tzemach Tzedek's peshat in the Rambam and Tosafot. And let's go see how. Let's start with the first one. The first biur the Tzemach Tzedek said was the machloket in Tosafot and the Rambam is whether a safek if is there such a thing as a ספק חזקת מרא קמא. And I'll explain whether how it fits with this. If

חזקת מרא קמא is a birur, what does a birur mean? That since he was the original owner, we know for sure as a birur that he is still the owner. If it's a ספק חזקת מרא קמא, there's no such thing. You ever hear of a ספק בירור? A ספק בירור! It's a birur that but we're not sure he's a מרא קמא! So the whole chazakah is a safek, so if it's a birur you can't use it at all. There's no such thing as you have a ספק בירור. If it's a din, like every din, there's a vadai, and there's certain cases which is a safek. A safek of a din is better than nothing, it's a safek. But if you say it's a birur, there's no such thing as a ספק בירור, ממילא it's nothing. If you remember I once explained before in the שיעור, בנוגע the מחלוקת אחרונים בנוגע a שבועה, remember we had a מחלוקת אחרונים, anybody remember? Whether a ספק חשוד is allowed to swear. A חשוד על השבועה you don't trust. If he's חשוד, you suspect that he's lying and he's a חשוד to be a גזלן, you can't let him swear. What happens if he's a ספק חשוד? So the מחלוקת אחרונים I mentioned, and I explained what's the מחלוקת, the same מחלוקת. If the שבועה is a birur, if he's a ספק חשוד, means is there's a safek if it's a birur. שבועה means if you swear, we trust you and mimela it's a birur that this and this is what happened, but if he's חשוד, we can't trust you, so we don't accept it. ספק חשוד means the guy swore, and we're still not sure it's a birur, because maybe he's a חשוד! So the שבועה is worthless. There's no such thing as a ספק חשוד, as a ספק a ספק בירור. If you hold שבועה is not a בירור, it's a דין, whatever you swear happened, okay, so a ספק, so could be it's like a when you speak in ספיקות, in לחומרא, לקולא, so it's a ספק, it could be something also. Same thing here: if you learn that the גדר of חזקת מרא קמא or rather any חזקה is a בירור, then there's no such thing as a ספק חזקת מרא קמא. There's no thing as a ספק בירור. And that's going to be the shita of the Rambam. Therefore he says that the ספק פדיון פטר חמור has a חזקת מרא קמא, cuz that שה has his. The ספק פטר has no חזקת מרא קמא. אי has a ספק חזקת מרא קמא, that's worthless, mimela we can make a חילוק between the two. מה שאין כן תוספות will learn that חזקת מרא קמא is a דין. So, Tosafos like this: so a שה by this ספק פדיון פטר חמור is a ודאי חזקת מרא קמא. The case of the ספק פטר is a ספק חזקת מרא, which is also something, it's better than the כהן. The כהן doesn't even have a ספק חזקת מרא קמא. Ah? Why? It makes... Yeah. But a ספק, ספק is better than the other one, so there's a ספק of מרא קמא is something. Why should we leave it? But he has no ספק either. The כהן has nothing. He has a ספק מרא קמא, so it's better than him. So Tosafos says in both cases, it's מוציאין מידו because the kohen has nothing to do with either one. Here by the שה he has more, and by this he has less, but something. According to the Rambam he has nothing to do with it, there's no חזקת מרא קמא at all, so we can make a chiluk between the case of פדיון פטר חמור שה and the case of the of the regular ספק פטר. The same nekudah, whether a חזקת מרא קמא is a בירור or a din, is the biur in the second pshat. What's the second pshat? Whether the חזקה of the mother helps the ולד? That the mother definitely has a חזקה דמעיקרא, so the ולד is also. So we said the Rambam holds that it doesn't help the ולד, because the ולד the חזקה of the mother doesn't go on the ולד, so there's no חזקה דמעיקרא by a ספק בכור, while by a ספק פדיון פטר חמור there is, and Tosafos says that it does go, so even by a regular ספק בכור there is a חזקה דמעיקרא because the mother's goes on. It's totally the same thing, I'll tell you how. If חזקה דמעיקרא is a בירור, here it's going to be complete opposite than the case of the מעוברת, by the case of the the ממזר, the shaila of the kohen. If חזקה דמעיקרא is a בירור, let's got to think, stop and think, we got to use our heads. If חזקה דמעיקרא is a בירור, is it possible to say in this case of the בכור that the the בירור of the חזקה דמעיקרא of the mother should be a בירור for the ולד? Make any sense? What's the ספק here? The Haflaah actually mentions the Pischei Devarim. What's the safek by the בכור? The safek was is the firstborn or not? How will the חזקה דמעיקרא of the mother be מברר that safek? If you have something that's a safek who it belongs to, that's the safek, so you say since the mother and the ולד are the same, are one entity, and the mother has a חזקה דמעיקרא, so mimela the ולד has the same בירור. It's מברר that the mother belongs to the this guy, so the ולד goes along. Here the safek has nothing to do with the mother. It's a safek not who the is it a safek who it belongs to? It's a safek whether it was born first or not born first. So we say like this, since the mother has a חזקה דמעיקרא and that's מברר, it's מברר that the this one was not a firstborn? Make any sense? It's מברר it's not a firstborn because the mother belongs to the father, to the to the owner, to the בעלים. מאי ענין שמיטה אצל הר סיני? What kind of קלפצער is that? Mimela if you hold that חזקה דמעיקרא is a din, ah! So then you could say, since the mother and the ולד go together, it's one, and the din is that when there's a safek, and there's a חזקה דמעיקרא, we pasken, we give it to the one that has the מעיקרא. Not we're not מברר any ספיקות, we just give it to the one that's the original owner. So here you could say a sevara: we could look at the ולד and the mother as the same entity, so whoever the Torah says you give the mother to, you give the ולד to, because it's really they started off as being one. But if you're saying, no, it's a din, there's no din on חזקה דמעיקרא that the Torah says do this, חזקה דמעיקרא is a שכל because it's מברר, so in this case can it be mevarer the ספק? See, the case of the כהן is farkert. If חזקה דמעיקרא חזקת כשרות there which is the the מעיקרא, חזקה דמעיקרא, is a בירור, it'll work for the child, too. Why? Because the same ספק that you're mevarer by the mother, that's the same ספק on the child. What's the ספק of the mother? Who the guy was. What's the ספק of the child? Who the guy was. So if you say we posken that the mother has a חזקת כשרות, so we're mevarer that this guy was a kashere guy, so you're mevarer that same, that's the

ספק on the child. Mah she-ein ken over here, the child has nothing to do with the mother. The ספק of the child has nothing to do with who the mother belongs to. The ספק of the child is: who, was this a firstborn or not? So are you going to say, since the mother belongs to this guy, it's a בירור that this was not a firstborn? Makes no sense. So if it's a בירור, then the חזקה דמעיקרא of the mother will not apply to the child. So the child has no has no חזקה דמעיקרא at all! That's the shita of the Rambam. By the seh, by the ספק פדיון פטר חמור there is a חזקה דמעיקרא, not by here. מה שאין כן Tosafot who learn it's a דין, אה! So a דין Tosafot says we could say that they both go together. Since חזקה דמעיקרא is a דין, not because we're mevarer any ספיקות, we don't care about ספיקות, we have a ספק who to give it to. So the Torah is a דין: if there's a מעיקרא, then give it to the מעיקרא. And the child and the mother are are together, we could say, and that makes sense because they were born within, child and mother are together, so you give it to the to the one that the mother is to. So mimela

according to Tosafot there is a חזקה דמעיקרא even by the case of ספק בכור. So according to Tosafot, ספק בכור and ספק פדיון פטר חמור are no different. So mimela you can't say that the re'iyah is only when you hold lechatchilah that it's ספק בכור, but later when we find out it's ספק פדיון פטר חמור there's no re'iyah, because they're both the same thing, and therefore Tosafot says from here we have a re'iyah, a clear as day re'iyah, that המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה. So this is the way we could explain peshat in the מחלוקת Tosafot and the Rambam according to the way the Rashba explains, the way the Tzemach Tzedek is mesabir peshat in the Rashba, and the way I'm explaining peshat in the Tzemach Tzedek, what the yesod of the two סברות are. Emet is there is another way you could explain, not to do with the Teshuvot HaRashba, another way to explain a מחלוקת between the Rambam and Tosafot. ובהקדם, בכלל, as we know, we have two דינים here by the case of בכור. בכור is a שאלה of ממונות, who it belongs to. פשוט, who's the owner? Then we have the קדושה of it, the קדושה. It's קודש, it's a קרבן, a בכור is a קרבן. The two דינים. Anytime we have two דינים like this, a דין ממון and a דין קדושה, דין איסור, there's always a question, do they go together, or they could be divided separately? And it's not only here. We have other places where we have two דינים, למשל, the famous example is by קידושין, that's why I wrote here, the Tzafnat Paneach, the Rogatchover and all of that, this is inyan of אשת איש. He

says, every אשת איש, when you give Kiddushin, you accomplish two things. You accomplish the ממון of it, she becomes yours, she's called קנין כספו, the Gemara calls it קנין כספו, and also you took different, the inyan of איסור, she becomes an אשת איש, and אסורה אכולי עלמא כהקדש, as the Gemara says. Actually, we know the famous shita of the Rogatchover, which is is a big problem nowadays, and that's why many poskim don't agree with it, is that civil marriage needs a get. A woman who's married civilly must have a get before she goes and marries another person, according to the Rogatchover, because civil marriage, he says, אגם it's no halacha, so it's kinyan without אישות. Since a marriage has two parts to it, there's a kinyan part and the אישות part, it's kinyan. If you go to court, and the the the judge marries you off legally, you are koneh your wife. Doesn't apply anything to אישות, but since there is a kinyan, which is part of being an אשת איש, she needs a get. Ah? No, a civil divorce will not to get rid of that kinyan, you need a get. A simple divorce will not. Now there was a big controversy and it's מגיע למעשה בפועל. You know how many people were married civilly and didn't get a get, and then they want to remarry, can you give him, can you remarry them? Probably teshuvah, that's baal teshuvah, it happens מעשים בכל יום.

According to the Rogatchover, you can't, you must get a get from the first husband. Rabbi Henkin paskens like this, l'maaseh. Rav Moshe paskens מפורש not. Rav Moshe says, you don't need a get. So b'diavad, if it happens, b'diavad, you could rely on this, but l'chatchilah, vadai, you have to get a get. But what is his reason? Because he's separating between the kinyan and the אישות, it's possible to be kinyan without אישות. The other example he gives a goy is משכל nothing, you know. A goy doesn't count. No, it's not a kinyan like a a goy, a goy can't marry a Jewish woman, there's no such thing as No, between goyim, not on a Jewish woman, on a goyah woman. But a Jewish woman can't ever be married to a goy, not even kinyan. The Torah doesn't allow it, there's no such thing. So there's no A goyah man or a goyah woman, there's no kinyan, not even kinyan. Talking about a Jewish woman by a goy. A Jewish woman by another yid. Ah? No, the Jewish marriage takes care of everything. Because again, most women, most people don't get married civilly, you have to get a marriage license, but you don't get married civilly. But if you got married civilly, according to him, you need a get. Swing it, for if Rav Moshe wouldn't, if Rav Moshe's pask would be a accepted decree, a lot of times it would be a big shailos, and then it would be shailos of mamzerim and things like that. Oh, okay, we're not going to go into Ah? No. She can't get another civil marriage. Even legally, she can't get a civil marriage if she had the first Okay, a civil divorce, okay. Then maybe she needs from two husbands, I don't know what the Rogatchover would say there. It's It's not so pashut, it's a complicated inyan. But anyway, this is all to show that there is kinyan without אישות. He gives an example of of of שחף, if the husband is a שחף, שחף is a sick guy, this, but it says also that she's an אשת איש, but if someone was מזנה with her, the Gemara says you're not חייב מיתה. So, the Rogatchover says, why? There's kinyan without אישות. I think he even brings the inyan of יעוד. We learned in Kiddushin last year, יעוד, if you מיעד if you're sold as an אמה עבריה, the the boss can be מיעד her. So according to one שיטה, he marries her, the owner, but she's not considered an אשת איש that someone who's מזנה gets חייב מיתה. And he said, according to that שיטה, why? Because he holds יעוד is kinyan without אישות. Whatever it is, but we have these two inyanim, and there's a shailah, are they two things separate, together? Same thing we have by עבד כנעני. When you buy an עבד, there are two dinim that happen. He's your property, but besides that, there are all kinds of dinim, he becomes מחוייב במצוות כאישה, certain dinim.

Same thing when you when you משחרר an עבד, you free an עבד, two things happen here. Number one, you make him free, now he's his own boss. You're not his boss anymore. And also, he becomes a Yid, a full-fledged, there's two dinim. בנוגע ארץ ישראל, the Rebbe חילק this sevara. He says there's two dinim. There's a din of בעלות that the Yidden have a בעלות, ownership of Eretz Yisrael, and there's a din of kedushah in Eretz Yisrael. בעלות, the Rebbe says, started from Avraham Avinu. The Eibershter told Avraham Avinu, \"I'm giving Eretz Yisrael to you.\" That's it belongs to the Yidden. The kedushah didn't happen until they went in and conquered Eretz Yisrael. In other words, they're two separate פרטים. And after the churban, after קדושה ראשונה, according to the Rambam, the kedushah left, and the בעלות stayed. I mean, they're two separate inyanim. Huh? No, they No, they They weren't an עבד כנעני. כנעני, only owned by a Yid. You can't be an עבד כנעני to a גוי. The Yidden in Mitzrayim? No. Oh, a regular עבד עברי, yeah? עבד כנעני, yeah? Which till he got, as long as he's an עבד כנעני, he's חייב במצוות כאישה. Then when he's meshuchrar, now he's a full-fledged Jew. And before that, he was like an עבד. An עבד doesn't have to get married. He doesn't need קידושין. There's no דין קידושין by an עבד. I'll give you even another example:

בנוגע נדה, there's two dinim by נדה. In other words, mamon and kedusha, but there's a similar thing. There's issur and tumah. A נדה is טמא פשוט, like a טמא מת. You touch a מת, a woman a נדה is טמאה, and then there's an issur, she's אסורה לבעלה. And the Rebbe brings the Beit Halevi who shows ראיות that they're two separate dinim. It's a possibility of a woman to be a נדה and she's אסורה לבעלה, and she's not טמאה. You could have a case where she will be טמאה and מותרת לבעלה. He shows a ראיה from a ספק ספיקא, and a whole all kinds of dinim. The same thing here we have here. We have here by the bechor, we have two dinim. We have the din of kedushah, and we have the din of mamon. B'pashtut, this seems to be the machloket between Rav Hamnuna and Rava. Rav Hamnuna said that you know why there's a din of kedushah? Because Rav Hamnuna held that תקפו כהן אין מוציאין מידו. So the בעלות, the fact that the kohen has a בעלות, is connected with the fact that it's kodesh. And what does Rava say? No, באמת מוציאין מידו. There is no בעלות to the kohen, and it's still kedushah. So according to Rav Hamnuna, the kedushah of the bechor has to do with the בעלות of the kohen. And therefore he says the only way it could be kodesh is because the kohen grabs it, אין מוציאין מידו, means he has a בעלות. And Rava says not. Be'emet you could say farkert, that it's not if you have בעלות, it's kodesh, just punkt farkert. Rav Hamnuna saw that there's a din that it's kodesh, so from that he brought a re'ayah, he holds that they're connected, they brought a re'ayah that since we see that it's אסור בגיזה ועבודה, it's kodesh, must be that תקפו כהן אין מוציאין מידו, because you can't have it

that it should be kodesh and it shouldn't be a בעלות. They go together. Mah she'ein kein Rava said no. Rava said that you could separate between the two, and it could be kodesh, and תקפו כהן מוציאין מידו. It's nothing to do with בעלות, it's קדושה הבאה מאליה. It's a separate kedushah that comes by itself, that has nothing to do with this. It's too late to go into the פרטים and how to work it out in the Gemara, but the bottom line what I want to say, the machloket between Tosafos and the Rambam is this: Whether the kedushah and the בעלות go together or not. And that would be and with that depends whether the Gemara's re'iyah that the Gemara brings, and Rava backs off and comes back to it, Rava's re'iyah, which first we were talking about בכור, and then the Gemara says we're talking about ספק פדיון פטר חמור, whether we could make and say that after the maskana of the Gemara, by a regular בכור the din would be different. The difference is just in mamash in one word: ספק פדיון פטר חמור, there is no kedushah there. What happens to the שה that you exchange? There is no kedushah, it's only בעלות. It belongs to the kohen. So maybe over there we're able to say that the בעלות belongs to the kohen. And if the בעלות belongs to the kohen, what is the din if תקפו כהן? אין מוציאין מידו. If בעלות belongs to the כהן, אין מוציאין מידו. He wanted to bring a re'iyah that מוציאין מידו, yeah, with the kohen it's מוציאין מידו, but that's only by the case of ספק פדיון פטר חמור. But by the case of a regular בכור, where the kedushah, there is a kedushah, the Rambam says, if there is a kedushah, how could you say that תקפו כהן מוציאין מידו? I'm putting it in without any details, just we said there are two ways. I tried to Forget Not forget, but let's put aside the way it's pshat in the Gemara, let's just look at the sevara itself. There are two sevarot: whether the kedushah and the בעלות of the kohen by בכור are connected or not. Now הכל מודים, everyone agrees that by ספק בכור it's kadosh. No? אסור בגיזה ועבודה. The she'elah is very simple: is it possible to be kadosh and not belonging to the kohen? Well, depends. If you hold the kedushah and the בעלות don't go together, sure, it's possible. You could say that it's kadosh, but תוקפו כהן מוציאין מידו. The kohen has nothing to do with the בעלות, and there's still, there is a kedushah, because the kedushah is a separate entity. If you hold the kedushah and the בעלות go together, it's impossible to say that it's kadosh and doesn't belong to the kohen. And that's the machloket. The Rambam says maskana is תוקפו כהן אין מוציאין מידו. Why? To the Rambam it was very pashut. Since there's a din for sure that it's אסור בגיזה ועבודה, everyone agrees that the בהמה, the ספק בכור is kadosh. The moment you say it's kadosh, you have to פסקן תוקפו כהן אין מוציאין מידו, right? Because if you say מוציאין מידו, it means he has no בעלות. If he has no בעלות, so then how is it kadosh? Memeila must be the maskana. I just tried to show you how it works out in the Gemara המשך, but that's, and Tosafot holds not like that. They're two separate entities. Memeila, there's no ראיה. So you could say תוקפו כהן מוציאין מידו, and there's no בעלות, and the kedushah is kedushah, because this, in this case, the kedushah and the בעלות are not connected.