Previous daf

1)

(a) Our Mishnah obligates the Mitzvah of Matanos (Zero'a, Lechayayim ve'Keivah) under most circumstances, ba'Aretz u've'Chutz la'Aretz, bi'Fenei ha'Bayis ve'she'Lo bi'Fenei ha'Bayis. The one exception is - Kodshim.

(b) The Tana finds it necessary to mention 'ba'Aretz u've'Chutz la'Aretz' - because it is going to say 'be'Chulin Aval Lo be'Kodshim' (see Maharsha).

(c) 'she'Lo bi'Fenei ha'Bayis' means - when the Beis-Hamikdash is not standing.

(a) The Tana learns from the Pasuk "va'Etein *Osam* le'Aharon ha'Kohen ... " - that the Chazeh ve'Shok of Kodshim (Kalim) are given to the Kohanim, but not other things (such as the Matanos).

(b) Otherwise, we would have learned that Kodshim (which are Chayav Chazeh ve'Shok) are Chayav Matanos too 'Kal-va'Chomer' from Chulin (which are not Chayav Chazeh ve'Shok).

(c) A Kodshim animal which is a Ba'al-Mum is Chayav Bechorah (if it gives birth to a firstborn baby) and Matanos, and once redeemed, it goes out to Chulin to be shorn and worked with, and its babies and milk are permitted - provided the blemish preceded the Hekdesh.

(d) The Tana rules regarding the above animal that ...

1. ... if someone Shechts it ba'Chutz - he is Patur.
2. ... it is not subject to Temurah.
3. ... if it dies - it may be redeemed.

(a) The reason that is common to all these rulings is - that the animal is not really Hekdesh (in fact, it is like declaring wood and stones Hekdesh).

(b) The two exceptions to the rule are - Bechor and Ma'aser, the two categories of Kodshim which take effect even on a Ba'al-Mum.

(c) The Hekdesh takes effect on an animal with a blemish, even with regard to other types of Hekdesh - if the blemish is a temporary one.

(a) The Seifa of the Mishnah teaches us that where the Hekdesh precedes the blemish, all the above rulings are reversed.
The problem in the Seifa, with the ruling 've'ha'Shochtan ba'Chutz Patur' is - that it clashes with the principle that whatever is not fit be brought to the entrance of the Ohel Mo'ed, is not subject to Shechutei Chutz.

(b) We therefore establish this ruling specifically by the blemish of 'Dukin she'be'Ayin' (eyes-webb) - according to Rebbi Akiva, who holds that Bedi'eved, if it is brought on the Mizbe'ach, it remains three.

(c) The reason for the ruling in the Seifa 'P'turin mi'Bechorah u'mi'Matanos' is - because the Torah compares P'sulei ha'Mukdashin to a deer and a gazelle, which is Patur from both.

(d) With regard to P'sulei ha'Mukdashin, we learn from the "Rak be'Chol Avas Nafsh'cha ...

1. ... Tizbach" - that their wool is forbidden, and that one may not work with them.
2. ... v'Achalta" - that one may not feed them to the dogs.
3. ... Basar" - that the babies (with which they were pregnant before they were redeemed) and their milk are forbidden.

(a) And we learn from the Pasuk "Tov be'Ra *O Ra be'Tov*" - that they are subject to Temurah.

(b) The two reasons that govern the final Halachah that the animals in the Seifa must be buried should they die - are 1. that Kodshim require 'Ha'amadah and Ha'arachah' (standing and being assessed before being redeemed), and 2. because, as we already explained, P'sulei Hamukdashin may not be fed to the dogs.

(c) We learned in the Mishnah that, if not for "Osam", we would learn Matanos by Kodshim from Chulin. We refute the Pircha that Chulin are different, since they are subject to the Mitzvah of ...

1. ... Bechor - by establishing the Limud by male Kodshim (which are not).
2. ... Reishis ha'Gez (even the males) - by adding that it is also a goat (which does not produce wool).
3. ... Ma'aser Beheimah (even the goats) - by adding 'old', meaning that they have already been Ma'asered.

(d) And we refute the Pircha that even old Chulin goats ...

1. ... once entered the pen to be Ma'asered - by switching the last answer either to goats that were purchased or goats that are Yesomim (whose mothers died as they were born, both of which are not subject to Ma'aser.
2. ... that were purchased or that were born Yesomim are of the species that are subject to Ma'aser - by countering that in that case, so are Kodshim of the species that that are subject to Ma'aser (Chulin).

(a) We then ask why Chulin (which are Chayav Matanos), are not subject to the Mitzvah of Chazeh ve'Shok from a 'Kal-va'Chomer' - from Kodshim (which are Patur).

(b) We learn from the Pasuk (in connection with the Matanos) "*ve'Zeh* Yih'yeh Mishpat ha'Kohanim me'es ha'Am" - that they are only Chayav Matanos, but not Chazeh ve'Shok.

(c) The problem with the suggestion that Chulin should be Chayav Chazeh ve'Shok is - where they would then perform the prescribed Mitzvah of Tenufah; they cannot perform it outside the Azarah, since the Torah requires "Lifnei Hashem", whereas they cannot perform it inside, because they will then be guilty of bringing Chulin inside the Azarah ...

(d) ... since this is not part of the Avodas ha'Korban (for Hashem), but for the benefit of the Kohanim (since it permits them to eat the Chazeh ve'Shok).

(a) We therefore conclude that "Zeh" is needed to teach us Rav Chisda's Din - that someone who damages or eats Matnos Kehunah before having given them to the Kohen, is Patur from paying.

(b) We learn this from "Zeh" - which implies that one is only obligated to give the Matnos Kehunah to the Kohen as long as they are there (and he can point at them, as we commonly Darshen from the word "Zeh").

(c) He might also be Patur from paying, because it is money which has no claimants (since if any Kohen claims the money from him, he can always say that he will give it to somebody else).

8)

(a) The Beraisa describes the Matanos as 'Din'. If we interpreted this literally (a Kashya on Rav Chisda), it would mean - that he must pay the first Kohen who claims damages from him.

(b) We conclude however, that this is not the case. What he does mean is - that the Beis-Din will instruct the people to give their Matanos to a Kohen Chaver and not to a Kohen Am ha'Aretz.

(c) This is based on a statement of Rav Shmuel bar Nachmeni Amar Rebbi Yonasan who said, based on the Pasuk (in connection with Matnos Kehunah and Levi'ah) "Lema'an Yechezku be'Toras Hashem" - that only Kohanim and Levi'im who strengthen the Torah of Hashem deserve to receive a portion, and not Amei ha'Aretz.

(a) In another Beraisa, Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira reiterates that Matanos are Din, and the word "Zeh" comes to preclude - Chazeh va'Shok.

(b) We cannot now interpret Din to mean 'Lecholko be'Dayanim' - because then the Torah would not preclude Chazeh ve'Shok (which are also Matnos Kehunah).

(c) It must therefore means that he has to pay damages, and, to reconcile this with Rav Chisda, we establish it - by where the Yisrael damaged the Matanos after he had already given them to the Kohen.

(d) The problem with learning the Beraisa like this is - that it does then contain anything new.

(a) So we establish the Beraisa - where he gave to the Kohen the entire animal with the Matanos still inside.

(b) And the Chidush is - that we consider the Matanos as if they had been separated, and the Kohen acquires them from Hefker.

(c) Nevertheless, he will not be Chayav for destroying the Chazeh ve'Shok - because the Chazeh ve'Shok belong to the Beis Av that serves on that day, and no other Kohen has a right to take them.

(a) Rebbi Eliezer in the Mishnah in Pe'ah - permits a wealthy man to take Matnos Aniyim whilst he is traveling, though he is obligated to repay the Aniyim upon his return.

(b) Bearing in mind that there are no claimants, Rav Chisda explains - that this is Midas Chasidus (but not an obligation).

(c) We ask on this two Kashyos. One, how can Rav Chisda interpret 'Yeshalem' as 'Midas Chasidus'. The other - how can we ask on Rav Chisda from Rebbi Eliezer, when the Chachamim in the Seifa disagree with him.

(a) So we query Rav Chisda from the Rabbanan, who rule in the Seifa - that he is Patur from paying the Aniyim upon his return, because he was considered a poor man at the time.

(b) We now infer from their words - that if not for the fact that he was considered a poor man at the time he would be Chayav, (despite the fact that there are no claimants), a Kashya on Rav Chisda ...

(c) ... who answers - that this Beraisa too, is speaking when the Yisrael and the Levi gave the Tevel to the Kohen, to teach us the principle 'Matanos she'Lo Hurmu k'Mi she'Hurmu Damyan', as we explained earlier.

(a) The Beraisa exempts a Yisrael who ate his fruit, or a Levi his Ma'aser, whilst it was still in a state of Tevel, from the Pasuk "ve'Lo Yechalelu es Kodshei B'nei Yisrael Asher *Yarimu*", implying that the Kohen only acquires Terumah from the time that it is separated, but not before.

(b) By 'Ma'aser that is in a state of Tevel, the Tana is referring to the Terumas Ma'aser that the Levi is obligated to take from the Ma'aser that he receives.

(c) We can infer from the Beraisa - once the Terumah has been separated, it does belong to the Kohen, again a Kashya on Rav Chisda.

(d) Once again, we answer - by establishing the Beraisa when the Kohen received the Terumah whilst it was still Tevel, as we already explained, whereas the Pasuk is speaking about Tevel that is still in the possession of the owner.