Previous daf

1)

(a) We just learned 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 of the current Mishmar. The problem with this, assuming that he is ...

1. ... physically capable of performing the Avodah himself is - why then, does he not also take the skin and the flesh?
2. ... incapable of performing the Avodah himself - then how is he permitted to appoint a Sheli'ach to bring the Korban on his behalf?

(b) Consequently, Rav Papa establishes the Beraisa - where the Kohen is able to perform the Avodah and to eat the Korban, but only with great difficulty. In that case, he is permitted to appoint a Sheli'ach, seeing as his Avodah would be Kasher if he exerted himself and performed it; but he cannot appoint a Sheli'ach to eat it, since (based on the principle 'Achilah al-Yedei ha'D'chak Lo Sh'mah Achilah'), if he were to eat it in that way, he would not have fulfilled the Mitzvah.

(a) A Tamei Kohen - may bring a Korban Tzibur be'Tum'ah (because a Korban Tzibur overrides Tum'ah). He is not however, permitted to eat it.

(b) Rav Sheishes rules that if a Tamei Kohen is bringing a Korban Tzibur, he appoints another Kohen to bring it, and gives the skin and the flesh to the members of the Mishmar to eat. The problem with this, assuming that ...

1. ... there are Tahor Kohanim available to bring the Korban is - that, if so, Temei'im are forbidden to bring it, in which case, he cannot appoint a Sheli'ach either.
2. ... all the Kohanim in the Mishmar are Tamei - then what point is there in giving the flesh to the members of that Mishmar, seeing as they cannot eat it anyway?

(c) Rava subsequently amends the Mishnah to read - that the Tamei Kohen actually gives the skin and the flesh to blemished Kohanim who are Tahor ...

(d) ... and the Tana is speaking when there are no Tahor Kohanim other than them.

(a) A Kohen Gadol who is an Onan ...

1. ... may sacrifice Korbanos?
2. ... not eat the Korbanos that he brings?
3. ... does not receive a portion of the Korbanos when they are distributed in the evening.

(b) We might we have thought that he is permitted to eat Korbanos the following evening - because his Aninus (d'Oraysa) ends at nightfall (as we learn from the Pasuk in Amos "ve'Achariysah ke'Yom Mar").

(c) The principle regarding appointing a Sheli'ach to perform a Mitzvah on one's behalf is - that a person can appoint a Sheli'ach to perform whatever he himself can do (and the reverse is true as well).

(d) When Rav Ashi rules that a Kohen Gadol Onan can appoint a Sheli'ach to bring his Korban in his place, but that the skin and the flesh are distributed among the other Kohanim in the evening - he is coming to teach us that the Torah does not only permit him to bring the Korbanos as an Onan, but that he is even permitted to appoint a Sheli'ach.

(a) We already discussed the basic details of 'ha'Gozel es ha'Ger u'Meis', discussed in the opening section of our Mishnah. In the event that the Ganav dies on the way to Yerushalayim, with the money that he stole plus a Chomesh and with the Asham, the Tana says that ...

1. ... his children inherit the Keren ve'Chomesh?
2. ... the Asham - is sent into the meadow to graze until it becomes blemished, when it is sold, and the proceeds are placed in the box marked 'Nedavah' (whose contents are used to purchase 'Olos Kayitz ha'Mizbe'ach' during the long summer days).

(b) We learn that, once their father has already given the money to the members of the Mishmar, there is nothing they can do about it, should he die before he has had a chance to bring his Asham - from the Pasuk "Ish Asher Yiten la'Kohen Lo Yih'yeh"(whatever the Kohen receives, he keeps).

(a) The two Mishmaros Yehoyariv and Yedayah served - in that order.

(b) Consequently, if the Ganav ...

1. ... gave the money to Yehoyariv and the Asham to Yedayah - he has fulfilled his obligation, because he gave them in the correct order.
2. ... gave the Asham to Yehoyariv and the money to Yedayah, then, assuming that the Asham has not yet been brought - Yehoyariv must give the Asham to Yedayah.

(c) The reason for this is because Chazal penalized the Mishmar of Yehoyariv for accepting the Asham prematurely. The reason why they did not rather penalize the Mishmar of Yedayah (and allow Yehoyariv to bring the Asham) is - because the latter did nothing wrong in accepting the money first.

(d) In the case of a Ganav who returned the Keren but not the Chomesh, the Tana of our Mishnah rules - that the Chomesh does not prevent the Mitzvah from taking effect.

(a) The Beraisa explains that "ha'Asham" refers to the Keren of Gezel ha'Ger - and "ha'Mushav", to the Chomesh.

(b) We know that "ha'Asham" does not refer to the Korban - because the Pasuk adds "mi'L'vad Eil ha'Asham", which obviously refers directly to the Asham.

(c) The ramifications of referring to the Keren as "Asham" are twofold. Rava compares the Keren to an Asham with regard to - not having fulfilled one's duty if one paid at night (which by a Korban, is learned from the Pasuk in Tzav "be'Yom Tzavoso"), or if one paid in halves (which is simply not possible by a Korban.

(a) Another Beraisa suggests that we invert the two, that "ha'Asham" ought to refer to the Chomesh, and "ha'Mushav", to the Keren. This would negate the Din in our Mishnah - 'Nasan es ha'Keren ve'Lo Nasan es ha'Chomesh, Ein ha'Chomesh Me'akev' (since whatever we compare to the Asham is bound to prevent the Mitzvah from taking effect.

(b) The Pasuk "ve'Heishiv es Ashamo be'Rosho, va'Chamishiso" therefore teaches us - that "ha'Asham" refers to the Keren and not to the Chomesh.

(c) A third Beraisa suggests that the Pasuk is talking (not about Gezel ha'Ger, but) about Geneivas ha'Ger. The difference between the two is - that the former pays only Keren, whereas the latter also pays Kefel.

(d) We know that the Pasuk is not talking about Geneivas ha'Ger - because the Pasuk also writes "ve'Heishiv es Ashamo la'Hashem va'Chamishiso", from which we extrapolate 'Mamon ha'Mishtalem be'Rosh ha'Kasuv Medaber' (but not when he pays Kefel as well).

(a) Rava learns from the Pasuk "ha'Asham ha'Mushav" - that the minimum payment of Gezel ha'Ger is a P'rutah for each member of the Mishmar that is serving when the Gazlan pays. Otherwise, he must add what is missing from his own pocket.

(b) Rava asks what the Din will be if, in a case where the sum is sufficient to provide each member of Yedayah with a P'rutah, but not Yehoyariv, the Gazlan gives the money to Yedayah - during the term of Yehoyariv (and the She'eilah remains unanswered).

(c) Despite the fact that when he gives it to them it is not their turn to serve, he might nevertheless have fulfilled his duty - because since there is not sufficient to supply Yehoyariv, the money is initially destined for Yedayah.

9)

(a) Rava asks whether the Kohanim are permitted to swap their respective portions of Gezel ha'Ger with one another (e.g. Sunday's for Monday's). This might be forbidden because the Torah refers to it as "Asham". On the other hand, it might be permitted - because, when all's said and done, Gezel ha'Ger is a monetary obligation.

(b) Rava concludes - like the first side of the She'eilah.

(c) According to Rav Acha B'rei de'Rava - Rava did not ask a She'eilah, but made a statement, conforming with his previous conclusion.

(a) Rava asks whether the Kohanim are considered the heirs of the Ger, or recipients of a gift from Hashem. The ramifications of this She'eilah are - whether, someone who steals Chametz from a Ger before Pesach, the Ger died and Pesach passed, may return it as it is (like an heir takes whatever he receives), or not (because the Torah obligates the Gazlan to give a Matanah [which must be worth at least a P'rutah]), in which case, he will have to pay the original value of the Chametz out of his own pocket.

(b) Rav Ze'ira does not consider this a She'eilah. He holds - that even assuming that the Kohanim are considered recipients of a gift from Hashem, the Torah only obligates the Gazlan to give the article that he has (and not to pay out of his own pocket).

(c) He interprets the She'eilah in connection with the Mitzvah of Ma'aser Beheimah - whether a Kohen who inherits ten animals of Gezel ha'Ger is obligated to Ma'aser them or not. He might be Chayav, because Mar obligated heirs who inherited animals from their father to Ma'aser them.

(d) The reason that he might be Patur is connected with the Mishnah in Bechoros. The Tana there exempts from Ma'aser Beheimah - someone who buys or who receives a gift of ten animals.

(a) The Beraisa lists twenty four Matnos Kehunah, all of which were given with a 'Klal u'P'rat u'Ch'lal' ("le'Chol Kodshei B'nei Yisrael Lecha Nesatim le'Mashchah", "Zeh Yih'yeh Lecha mi'Kodesh ha'Kodashim min ha'Eish", "Kol T'rumos ha'Kodashim" respectively). The two other things listed by the Tana - are "B'ris" and "Melach".

(b) When the Tana states that if someone gives the Matanos, it is as if he had fulfilled ...

1. ... the 'K'lal u'P'rat u'Ch'lal', he means - that it is as if he had fulfilled the entire Torah, which can be Darshened with a 'K'lal u'P'rat u'Ch'lal'.
2. ... the covenant of salt - that it is as if he had brought all the Korbanos, which were given with a covenant of salt.

(c) We resolve Rava's She'eilah from this Beraisa - which refers to all the Matanos (including Gezel ha'Ger) as 'Matanos'.

(a) All ...

1. ... ten Kodshei Hamikdash - have to be eaten behind the Kela'im (the hangings that separated the Courtyard from the Har ha'Bayis), because they all fall under the category of Kodshei Kodshim.
2. ... four Kodshei Yerushalayim - had to be distributed inside the walls of Yerushalayim, and with the exception of the skins of Kodshei Kodshim, they had to be eaten there too.
3. ... ten Kodshei ha'Gevul - had to given to the Kohen within the borders of Eretz Yisrael.

(b) The ten Kodshei ha'Mikdash include Chatas Beheimah, Chatas ha'Of, Asham Vaday, Asham Taluy, Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur, Log Shemen shel Metzora, Mosar ha'Omer, the Sh'tei ha'Lechem, the Lechem ha'Panim and the Sheyarei Menachos. Asham Vaday incorporates five Ashamos - Asham Gezeilos, Me'ilos, Shifchah Charufah, Nazir and Metzora. They are all brought for definite sins or for specific obligations. An Asham Taluy is brought for any case of Ka'res that one is unsure of having transgressed.

(c) The four Kodshei Yerushalayim incorporate Bechorah, Bikurim, ha'Moram min ha'Todah ve'Eil Nazir and the skins of Kodshim. Included in 'Moram ...

1. ... min ha'Todah' is - the chest and the right calf, as well as one of each of the four different kinds of loaves that were brought together with the Todah.
2. ... me'Eil Nazir' is - the cooked right foreleg.

(d) The Tana is referring to - the skins of Kodshei Kodshim (since the skins of Kodshim Kalim belong to the owner).

(e) The ten Kodshei ha'Gevul include T'rumah, T'rumas Ma'aser, Chalah, Reishis ha'Gez ve'ha'Matanos, Pidyon ha'Ben, Pidyon Peter Chamor, Sadeh Achuzah, Sadeh Charamim and Gezel ha'Ger.

1. Matanos - incorporates the right fore-leg, the cheeks and the Keivah (stomach)
2. ... Sadeh Achuzah - an inherited field (as opposed to one that is purchased) which the owner declared Hekdesh, and, when he declined to redeem it, the treasurer of Hekdesh sold it to someone else. When the Yovel-year arrives, it is given to the Kohanim.
3. ... Sadeh Charamim - an inherited field which the owner declared Cherem, which goes to the members of the group of Kohanim that is serving that week in the Beis-Hamikdash.

(a) Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur consitute the two lambs that are brought on Shavu'os. They are the only Shelamim which fall under the category of Kodshei Kodshim.

(b)

1. Log Shemen shel Metzora is - the remains of the Log of oil after it has been poured into the left palm of the Kohen and the purification ritual had been completed.
2. Mosar ha'Omer is - the remains of the Omer (of barley) after the Kemitzah (the fistful) has been taken from it.
3. Sheyarei ha'Menachos - is the remains of the Menachos from which a Kemitzah is taken (the Minchas Nedavah, Chotei and Sotah. Other Menachos, such as a Minchas Kohen, from which no Kemitzah is taken, are not eaten).

(c) The Tana omits the Moram mi'Shelamim - because it is included in the Moram mi'Todah (only no loaves were brought with the Shelamim).

(a) We extrapolate from our Mishnah (which rules that if the Gazlan gave the Gezel ha'Ger to the members of the Mishmar and died ... , his heirs cannot reclaim the money from the Kohanim) - that the money itself must constitute half an atonement. Otherwise, the heirs would be able to reclaim it, since their father did not give the money for nothing.

(b) Nevertheless ...

1. ... a Chatas whose owner died, does not go out to Chulin. We do not say there too, that the owner did not declare his animal a Chatas for nothing - because the fact that a Chatas whose owner died, must die, is a 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai'.
2. ... an Asham whose owner died does not go out to Chulin, but is sent to graze - because the 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai' concludes that - whenever a Chatas has to die, the equivalent by an Asham, must be sent to graze.
3. ... a Yevamah who falls to a leper needs to make Chalitzah, and cannot argue that, had she known that she will fall to a leper, she would never have married his brother in the first place - because of Resh Lakish's principle, that a woman would rather be married to anyone than live as a spinster.