Previous daf

1)

(a) Rav Yosef states that if there are no heirs, the son who stole from his father - should give the money to Tzedakah.

(b) According to Rav Papa, when handing the money to the Gabai of Tzedakah, he should say - 'Zeh Gezel Avi'.

(c) When the Torah writes "ve'Im Ein la'Ish Go'el" it is talking about - a Ganav who stole from a Ger (who has no relatives), ordering him to give the money to the Kohanim.

(a) The Beraisa speaks about a Ganav, who, after stealing and swearing to a Ger, hears that he has died and is taking the money to Yerushalayim, when he actually meets the Ger - who promptly transforms the theft into a loan and dies.

(b) Rebbi Yossi Hagelili rules that the Ganav is permitted to keep the money - whereas according to Rebbi Akiva - he has to give it away (in order to fulfill the Mitzvah of Hashavah).

(c) Consequently, we will establish ...

1. ... the Seifa of our Mishnah, which does not permit the Ganav to be Mochel himself - like Rebbi Akiva.
2. ... the Mishnah earlier in the Perek "Machal Lo al ha'Keren, ve'Lo Machal Lo al ha'Chomesh" - like Rebbi Yossi Hagelili.

(d) There is currently no difference between the Ganav being Mochel himself after the Ger or his father dies, and the owner being Mochel the Ganav, according to ...

1. ... Rebbi Yossi Hagelili - since both are permitted.
2. ... Rebbi Akiva - since both are prohibited.

(a) The significance of 'Zakfan Alav be'Milveh' - is that the owner is Mochel the Ganav (to create the new obligation of a loan).

(b) Despite the assumption that Rebbi Yossi Hagelili makes no distinction between whether 'Zakfan Alav be'Milveh' or not, the Tana inserts 'Zakfan Alav be'Milveh' - to teach us that, in spite of it, Rebbi Akiva obligates him to pay.

(c) The problem this poses on the Mishnos involved is - that the Tana should then have switched the opinions recorded there. In order to teach us the bigger Chidush, he should have taught in connection with ...

1. ... 'Machal Lo al ha'Keren ... ' - 'Einah Mechilah', according to Rebbi Akiva (and 'Kal va'Chomer' our Mishnah, where he is Mochel himself).
2. ... the thief who inherits his father (our Mishnah) - that he can be Mochel, according to Rebbi Yossi Hagelili (and 'Kal va'Chomer', 'Machal Lo al ha'Keren ... , which is a case of Mechilas Acheirim).

(a) Rav Sheishes therefore establishes the Seifa of our Mishnah, as well as the Mishnah of 'Machal Lo al ha'Keren', like Rebbi Yossi Hagelili - by changing the premise that Rebbi Yossi Hagelili does not differentiate between whether it was 'Zakfan Alav be'Milveh' or not. In fact, he specifically requires 'Zakfan Alav be'Milveh', because he only permits Mechilas Acheirim, but not Mechilas Atzmo.

(b) Rebbi Akiva still makes no distinction between 'Zakfan ... ' and 'Lo Zakfan' (both are forbidden, as we learned originally).

(a) According to Rava, the author of both Mishnos is Rabbi Akiva (who learns like Rebbi Yossi Hagelili learned according to Rav Sheishes) . Rebbi Yossi Hagelili will then hold - that either way, he can be Mochel.

(b) According to Rebbi Yossi Hagelili, the case of 'Gezel ha'Ger', which the Torah obligates the Ganav to pay to the Kohen - speaks when the Ganav admitted after the Ger's death, in which case, Hashem acquired the object and ordered it to be given to the Kohen.

(c) Whereas the case of Rebbi Yossi Hagelili (where the Ganav can be Mochel himself) speaks - when the admission took place during the lifetime of the Ger.

6)

(a) Ravina asks whether Gezel ha'Giyores has the same Din as Gezel ha'Ger. It might not - because the Torah writes "ve'Im Ein *la'Ish* Go'el" (to preclude a Giyores).

(b) The word "Ish", on the other hand, might not preclude Gezel Giyores - because it is the way of the Torah to use the masculine form, even when it incorporates the feminine too.

(c) We learn from the double Lashon " ... Lehashiv ... ha'Mushav" - that Gezel ha'Ger incorporates Gezel Giyores, too.

(d) The Torah writes "Ish" (not to preclude Gezel Giyores, but) - in order to preclude a Katan (i.e. from the need to enquire whether he has children or not, as one needs to do un the case of a Gadol). This teaches us the important principle - that a Katan cannot father children.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "la'Hashem la'Kohen" - that Hashem acquires the Gezel ha'Ger which the Ganav, after the Ger's death, confesses to having stolen and sworn falsely over, and gives it to the Kohen.
2. ... "Mil'vad Eil ha'Kipurim Asher Yechaper Bo Alav" - that just as the ram of the Asham must be given to a Kohen of the current Mishmar, so too, must the money be given to him.
3. ... "L'vad Mimkarav al ha'Avos" - that Korbanos may only be brought by a Kohen of the current Mishmar.

(b) According to the Tana Kama, we might have thought that if a Kohen acquires the Gezel ha'Ger that is brought by a Yisrael, he certainly ought to acquire his own.

(a) Rebbi Nasan reasons differently. His S'vara is based on the Din of a Kohen who brings a Korban, about whom Chazal say - that he may sacrifice it at any time (even when it is not his Mishmar), and the skin and flesh belong to him alone.

(b) Consequently, when he says ...

1. ... 'Davar she'Ein Lo Cheilek Bo ad she'Yika'nes bi'Reshuso, ke'she'Yika'nes li'Reshuso Eino Yachol Lehotzi'o mi'Yado' he means - that if the Kohanim of the current Mishmar have no portion in another Kohen's Korban before the owner gives it to one of them, yet once he does, he cannot take it away from the recipient ...
2. ... 'Davar she'Yesh Lo Cheilek Bo ad she'Lo Yika'nes bi'Reshuso, Eino Din she'Ein Yachol Lehotzi'o mi'Yado' he means - that Gezel ha'Ger, in which the recipient has a portion even before the owner gives it to him, should certainly be his exclusively, once the owner has given it to him.

(c) 'Davar she'Ein Lo Cheilek Bo' might also refer to - T'rumos u'Ma'asros.

(d) We repudiate Rebbi Nasan's S'vara - on the grounds that certainly the recipient of the Gezel ha'Ger had a portion in it before he received it, but then, so did all the other Kohanim of that Mishmar (which is not the case by the other Kohen's Korban).

(a) In fact, Gezel ha'Ger that is brought by a Kohen - is distributed among all the other members of the group serving that week.

(b) We currently learn from the Pasuk "ve'Ish es Kodoshav Lo Yiheyeh" - that a Kohen may sacrifice his own Korban at any time (even when it is not his Mishmar, as we explained above).

(c) We attempt to query the current Beraisa, which forbids a Kohen to keep his own Gezel ha'Ger, from here - on the basis of the fact that, due to the Hekesh of the *Asham* of Gezel ha'Ger to the *money*, since the Kohen is permitted to bring his own Korban and to take the skin and the flesh, he should also be able to keep the money.

(d) So in order to reconcile the Beraisa with this D'rashah - we establish it by a Kohen Tamei, who cannot eat the flesh of his Asham (therefore, he is not entitled to the money either.

(a) We reject the previous answer. The Tana cannot possibly be talking about a Tamei Kohen - because then, how could he state 'she'Yesh Lo Cheilek Bah' (with reference to Gezel ha'Ger), when we have learned that a Tamei Kohen is not entitled to a portion of any of the Matanos (that are distributed in the Beis Hamikdash).

(b) We finally derive the Din of Gezel ha'Ger with a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Kohen" "Kohen" - from a Sadeh Achuzah.

(c) The Tana suggests that a Kohen's Sadeh Achuzah might revert back to him in the Yovel (with a 'Kal va'Chomer similar to that of Gezel ha'Ger that the Tana Kama Darshened earlier). He counters this suggestion however with the Pasuk in Bechukosai "ki'S'dei ha'Cherem la'Kohen Tih'yeh *Achuzaso*", (which is superfluous and) - from which we extrapolate that it is only from the Sadeh Achuzah of a Yisrael that he receives a portion, but not from his own (and the same applies to Gezel ha'Ger).

(d) We did indeed just learn from "ve'Ish es Kodoshav Lo Yih'yu" that a Kohen can bring his own Korbanos and takes the skin and the flesh (incorporating Gezel ha'Ger). However - we partially retract from this D'rashah (as we shall now see).

(a) The Tana of a Beraisa learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "u'Va be'Chol Avas Nafsho ve'Sheireis" - that a Kohen may sacrifice his own Korban at any time (even when it is not his Mishmar, as we explained above).
2. ... "ve'Ish es Kodoshav Lo Yih'yu" - that even if he is a Ba'al-Mum (blemished), he appoints another Kohen to sacrifice his Korban in his place, but he still receives the skin and the flesh.

(b) The Beraisa goes on to say that if the Kohen is old or sick (and unable to eat the flesh) - then he appoints another Kohen to take his place, but the skin and the flesh go to all the Kohanim in that Mishmar.