Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) CLAIMING THE "MATANOS"

(a) (Mishnah): If a Kohen told a Yisrael, "I sell my animal to you, except for the Matanos," Matanos need not be given.
(b) Contradiction (Beraisa #1): If a Kohen sold his animal to a Yisrael "on condition that I get the Matanos," the Yisrael may give to any Kohen he wants.
(c) Answer: Saying "except" is not like saying "on condition that";

1. "Except" limits the sale, "on condition that" does not limit the sale!

(d) Contradiction (to Beraisa #1 - Beraisa #2): If a Kohen sold his animal to a Yisrael, "On condition that I get the Matanos," he gets the Matanos.
(e) Resolution: This Tana holds that "On condition that" limits the sale (the Matanos were never sold), Tana #1 holds that it does not limit the sale.
(f) Version #1 (Mishnah): If Reuven bought the innards of Shimon's cow (by weight, he gives the stomach to a Kohen, and does not pay for its weight).
(g) Version #1A - Rashi - (Rav): This is only if Reuven weighed the meat for himself, but if Shimon weighed it, the Kohen may [claim from Reuven or] demand that Shimon [get the stomach back from Reuven and] give it to him.
(h) (Rav Asi): Even if Shimon weighed the meat, the Kohen's [only] claim is from Reuven.
(i) Version #1B - Tosfos - (Rav): This is only if Reuven weighed the meat for himself - but if Shimon weighed it, the Kohen's [only] claim is from Shimon;
(j) (Rav Asi): Even if Shimon weighed the meat, the Kohen may claim from Reuven (or demand that Shimon get the stomach from Reuven to give it to him). (End of Version #1B)
(k) Suggestion: They argue about Rav Chisda's law:

1. (Rav Chisda): If Levi stole from Yehudah, and before Yehudah despaired of getting it back, David stole it from Levi, Yehudah may collect from Levi or David.
2. (Rashi - Rav holds like Rav Chisda, Rav Asi does not; Tosfos - Rav Asi holds like Rav Chisda, Rav does not.)

(l) Rejection: No - both hold like Rav Chisda;

1. They argue whether or not (Halachah considers that) Matnos Kehunah can be stolen;
2. Rav holds that they can be stolen, Rav Asi does not (Tosfos - *now*, we explain like Rashi did - Rav allows the Kohen to claim from either, Rav Asi says that he can claim only from Reuven).

(m) Version #2 (Rav): Matnos Kehunah can be stolen (this was said explicitly, not inferred from his explanation of the Mishnah);
(n) (Rav Asi): They cannot be stolen.

(a) (Mishnah): If a Nochri converted, and he has a slaughtered cow:

1. If it was slaughtered before he converted, he is exempt from Matanos;
2. If it was slaughtered after he converted, he is obligated;
3. If we are unsure, he is exempt; to take from him, the Kohen must bring proof.

(b) Version #1 (Gemara - Reish Lakish) Question: Our Mishnah teaches that if we are unsure, he is exempt -- we are lenient;
(c) Contradiction (Mishnah): If grain was found in an anthole in a place that was not yet harvested, the landowner (Reuven) keeps it (Leket is only what falls during harvesting);

1. If it was found in an anthole in a place that was already harvested:

i. What rests on top must be left for the poor (Tosfos - *perhaps* it is Leket);
ii. Reuven keeps what is inside the holes (presumably, ants brought it there before the harvest);

2. R. Meir says, even what is inside must be left for the poor, because Safek Leket is considered Leket.
3. (Rashi - our anonymous Mishnah should be like R. Meir! Tosfos - even Chachamim are stringent about a Safek, when it is on top.)

(d) Answer (R. Yochanan): That Mishnah is the opinion of an individual - the proper version is like our Mishnah.

1. (Beraisa - R. Yehudah ben Agra citing R. Meir): Safek Leket is considered Leket; the same applies to Shichechah and Pe'ah.

(e) Question (Reish Lakish): No matter who taught it, he has a powerful support!

1. Question (Reish Lakish): "Ani va'Rash Hatzdiku" - what does this mean?

i. It cannot mean to vindicate the poor - "v'Dal Lo Sehedar b'Rivo"!

2. Answer: Rather, give to him what you were entitled to keep (if not for this verse).

(f) Answer (Rava): Chazakah says that Leket must be left from the grain, but [until the Nochri converts] the cow is exempt from Matanos.
(g) Question (Abaye - Mishnah): If a Nochri converted, and he has a dough:

1. If it was kneaded before he converted, he is exempt from taking Chalah;
2. If it was kneaded after he converted, he must take Chalah;
3. If we are unsure, he must take.

(h) Answer (Rava): It is forbidden to eat without taking Chalah - we must be stringent about a Safek Isur; Matanos are only a monetary privilege of the Kohen, they need not be given when in doubt.

1. (Rav Chisda): There are eight such doubts (whether something happened before or after conversion) - we are stringent in four (cases of Isurim), and lenient in four (cases involving only money):

i. If we are unsure whether a birth was before or after conversion, the mother must bring a Korban (she may not eat Kodshim before bringing it);
ii. If we are unsure whether a dough was kneaded before the owner converted, Chalah must be taken;
iii. If we are unsure whether a firstborn donkey was born before the owner converted, he may not benefit from it until he specifies a Seh to redeem it;
iv. If we are unsure whether a firstborn calf or Seh was born before the owner converted, it is a Safek Bechor, he must wait for it to get a blemish, then he may eat it.

2. In these four doubts we are lenient:

i. If we are unsure whether sheep were sheared or an animal was slaughtered before the owner converted, he need not give shearings/Matanos to a Kohen;
ii. If we are unsure whether a [firstborn] boy was born before the mother converted, he need not be redeemed;
iii. When a convert specifies a Seh to redeem a firstborn donkey (like above), he need not give the Seh to a Kohen.

(i) Version #2 (Ravin): Reish Lakish asked a contradiction between the Mishnah that obligates leaving Safek Leket, and a Beraisa that exempts (and R. Yochanan said that the Mishnah is only according to an individual, like above).

(a) Question (Levi): If there are no poor people in my area to take Leket from my field, what is the Halachah?
(b) Answer (Rav Sheshes): "l'Ani vela'Ger Ta'azov" - you need not leave it for birds (you may eat it yourself).
(c) Question (Beraisa): A Yisrael need not bring Terumah from the granary to the city, or from the wilderness to civilization;

1. If no Kohen is around, he sends it to a Kohen, lest it will spoil (the Kohen pays the expense).

(d) Answer #1: Terumah is different, because it is Tovel (forbids eating the produce until it is separated).

1. Question: Matanos are not Tovel, yet one cannot eat them for free in the absence of Kohanim!

i. Version #1 - Rashi - (Beraisa): In a place where people cook (and eat) meat in the skin, one must give the Zero'a to the Kohen in its skin (even though the Torah does not require giving the skin);
ii. Version #2 - Rif - (Beraisa): Even in a place where people cook (and eat) meat in the skin, one may not do this to the Zero'a, for this harms the skin (and the Torah obligates us to give the skin to a Kohen). (End of Version #2)
iii. In a place where people flay the head, one must give the jaw with its skin;
iv. If no Kohen is around, he sets aside the value of the Matanos and eats them (lest they spoil), and gives the money to the first Kohen he finds.

2. Answer: Matanos to a Kohen are different, for the Torah obligates one to *give* them.

(e) (This suggests another answer to Question (c).)
(f) Answer #2: Terumah is different, for the Torah obligates one to give it.
(g) Question: If one need not leave Leket where there are no Aniyim to take it, what do we learn from the extra "Ta'azov" in the Parshiyos of Leket, Shichechah and Pe'ah?
(h) Answer (Beraisa): If Reuven made his vineyard Hefker, then harvested it, he must leave Peret, Olelos, Shichechah and Pe'ah, he need not tithe the produce. (i) A bag of money was sent to support Rabanan; R. Ami acquired it.
(j) Question: "v'Nasan" - a person should not take for himself!
(k) Answer #1: He acquired it on behalf of the poor.
(l) Answer #2: The head (of the academy) may take for himself;

1. (Beraisa): "veha'Kohen ha'Gadol me'Echav" - he must be greater than the other Kohanim in beauty, Chochmah, and wealth;
2. Others say, "ha'Gadol me'Echav" - if he is not the wealthiest, the others make him the wealthiest (by giving him money).

(a) (Mishnah): The Zero'a is given - this is [the upper two bones of the foreleg,] from the lower knee to the shoulder;

1. The same is cooked and given to a Kohen from Eil Nazir;
2. The corresponding part of the hind leg is the Shok (given to a Kohen from a Shelamim).
3. R. Yehudah says, the Shok is only [the middle bone] between the lower knee and the upper knee.

(b) The jaw is given - this is from the joint (where the lower and upper jaw meet) until the Pikah (Rashi - covering on top; Tosfos - the top ring) of the Kaneh (windpipe).
(c) (Gemara - Beraisa): "ha'Zero'a" - this is the right Zero'a.
(d) Question: Perhaps it is the left!
(e) Answer #1: "*ha*'Zero'a."

1. Question: How does the extra "Hei" teach this?
2. Answer: This is like Rava taught (regarding Gid ha'Nasheh), "ha'Yerech" - the special (right) thigh - similarly, the special (right) Zero'a.
3. Question: What do we learn from "ve*ha*'Lechayayim"?
4. Answer: One must give even the wool on a sheep's head and the beard of a goat.
5. Question: What do we learn from "ve*ha*'Kevah"?
6. Answer: One must give the Chelev on and in the stomach.

i. (R. Yehoshua): Kohanim are generous, they allow Yisrael to keep the Chelev on and in the stomach.
ii. If not for their generosity, Yisraelim would have to give it.

(f) Answer #2: Expounders explain, the Matanos correspond to Pinchas' actions in killing Zimri and Kozbi:

1. The Zero'a is for taking a spear in his hand (surely, his right hand), the jaw is for praying, and the stomach is for stabbing them through their stomachs.

(g) Answer #3 (Beraisa): "Shok ha'Yamin" - the right hind leg (of a Shelamim is given to the Kohen).

1. Question: What is the source that the Zero'a of Kodshim (of Eil Nazir) is the right Zero'a?
2. Answer: "Titenu" (in the Parshah of Shok) is extra, to teach about the Zero'a of Kodshim.
3. Question: What is the source that the Zero'a of Chulin (Matanos) is the right Zero'a?
4. Answer: It says "Nesinah" (like it says regarding the Shok, we learn from there).

(h) (Mishnah): The jaw - one gives from the joint until the Pikah of the Kaneh.
(i) Contradiction (Beraisa): The Kohen gets the jaw, and the place of slaughter with it (this is past the Pikah)!
(j) Answer #1: The Beraisa is R. Chanina ben Antignus, who permits slaughter above the Pikah.

1. (Beraisa): Hagramah (cutting the Simanim outside the proper place) is invalid slaughter;
2. R. Chanina ben Antignus permits [what Chachamim call] Hagramah (cutting above the Pikah).

(k) Answer #2: The Beraisa is the Chachamim; it really means the *Yisrael* gets [the whole animal except for the Matanos], including the place of slaughter.