Previous daf

1)

(a) The Beraisa rules that in a case where the king's men confiscated the corn from the owner's barn ...

1. ... in lieu of a debt - he remains Chayav to Ma'aser on what he gave them, from other crops.
2. ... without reason - then he is Patur.

(b) Bearing in mind that there are no claimants (for the Ma'asros), Rav Chisda will explain the first ruling - that he is morally obligated to replace the Ma'asros, based on the fact that he benefited from what the king's men confiscated (by virtue of the cancelation of his debt).

(c) The following Mishnah rules that if Reuven asks Shimon to sell him ...

1. ... the innards of a cow - he is obligated to give the Matanos to the Kohen, without deducting from the payment.
2. ... the innards of a cow at so much per kilo - then he must give them to the Kohen, but he may then deduct from the payment.

(d) Rav Chisda has no problem with the Mishnah, which obligates Reuven to pay the Kohen, even though there is no claimant - because the Matanos are still there.

(a) The Beraisa lists nine Matnos Kehunah. Altogether - there are fifteen.

(b) The Tana lists Terumah, Terumas Ma'aser, Terumas Ma'aser shel D'mai and Chalah under the heading of - Terumah.

(c) The Tana also lists Bikurim, Reishis ha'Gez, Matanos shel Chulin ve'shel Kodshim, the Keren (principal) of Gezel ha'Ger and the extra fifth, Sadeh Achuzah, Sadeh Charamim, Bechor (Ba'al-Mum), Pidyon ha'Ben and the lamb of Pidyon Peter Chamor, of which he counts two and three as two separate groups. The group of ...

1. ... two - comprises the Keren and the Chomesh of Gezel ha'Ger.
2. ... three - comprises Bechor (Ba'al-Mum), Pidyon ha'Ben and the lamb of Pidyon Peter Chamor.

(d) The Tana's intention is not to teach us that the Kohen can claim in Beis-Din any of these Matanos that a Yisrael eats or destroys (a Kashya on Rav Chisda), but - that they are all the personal property of the Kohen.

(a) The Tana lists four things that the Kohen may purchase with any of the above Matnos Kehunah. He includes in his list - Avadim, land, Beheimah Temei'ah and a Seifer-Torah.

(b) The problem with the Tana's insertion of Seifer-Torah is - that if the Kohen is permitted to purchase even a Beheimah Temei'ah, then it is obvious that he may also purchase a Seifer-Torah (bearing in mind that the list is anyway not comprehensive).

(c) The two items that he adds to his list of what may be done with the Matnos Kehunah is - that the Kohen's creditor may claim them for his debt, and his wife for her Kesuvah.

(a) When they told Rav about a certain Levi who would 'Chap' the Matanos from the Sheluchim who were carrying them to the Kohen, he commented - that not only do we exempt the Levi from having to give Matanos from his own animals, but he even gets away with grabbing the Matanos on their way to the Kohen.

(b) Based on the Pasuk (in connection with the Matanos) "me'es ha'Am Zovchei ha'Zevach"), we ask on Rav 'mi'Mah Nafshach' - if Levi'im are also included in the term 'Am', then why do we not force them to give the Kohen Matanos; whereas if they are not, then they are Patur min ha'Torah, and the Rabbanan were not doing them any favors by not claiming the Matanos from them.

(c) And we answer - that Rav was not sure whether the Levi'im are called 'Am' or not, and that we cannot therefore claim Matnos Kehunah from them, due to the principle 'ha'Motzi me'Chaveiro, Alav ha'Re'ayah'

(d) He was 'complaining' - that due to the same principle, the Levi was getting away with not giving Matnos Kehunah, and obtaining them unlawfully.

(a) Rav Idi bar Avin asked Rav Papa on Rav from the Beraisa which discusses the Matnos Aniyim that pertain to a vineyard, to a field and to a tree. Peret and Olelos - are the incomplete clusters of grapes (that lack either the bottom part of the cluster or the sidew ('its 'shoulders').

(b) After Shikchah, the fourth Matanah that pertains to a vineyard is - Pe'ah.

(c) The ...

1. ... three Matanos that pertain to a field are - Leket, Shikchah and Pe'ah.
2. ... two Matanos that pertain to a tree are - Shikchah and Pe'ah.

(d) The Beraisa states that regarding the four Matnos Aniyim in the vineyard, the three in the field and the two on a tree - the owner has no Tovas Hana'ah (he cannot choose which Aniyim to whom to give them), whereas regarding the Ma'aser Ani that is distributed in the house (see Tosfos DH 'Ma'aser Ani'), he has.

(a) The distinction that the Tana draws between the Matnos Aniyim of an Ani and the Matanos of a Kohen and a Levi respectively is - that whereas the former is obligated to give them to other Aniyim, the latter may keep them himself.

(b) We learn Peret and Olelos in the vineyard from an explicit Pasuk in Kedoshim. Rebbi Levi learns from the word "Acharecha" mentioned after Olelos - the prohibition of Shikchah (the prohibition of 'going back' to pick up a lost sheaf) with regsrd to olive-trees.

(c) And we learn from ...

1. ... the Pasuk "Ki Sachbot Zeisecha Lo Sefa'er Acharecha" - (not that one may not 'glorify' one's olive-trees, but) that one may may not 'remove all their glory', in other words, that one must leave Pe'ah, as Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael translates it.
2. ... '"Acharecha Acharecha" mi'Zayis' - that the Mitzvah of Pe'ah applies to a vineyard too.

(d) And from the fact that the Torah writes ...

1. ... 'Azivah' by all the Matnos Aniyim, we learn - that the owner has no Tovas Hana'ah (but he must simply leave them in the field for the poor to collect).
2. ... 'Nesinah' by Matnos Ma'aser Ani - that he does, and that he may harvest them and give them to any poor man he likes.
3. ... "ve'Leket Ketzircha Lo Selaket, *le'Ani ve'la'Ger* Ta'azov Osam", we learn - that the Mitzvah of giving the Matnos Aniyim extends to an Ani who owns a field.

(e) Rebbi Ila'a learns that this extends to Ma'aser Ani, too - from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "la'Ger" "la'Ger".

7)

(a) Rav Idi bar Avin now extrapolates from the Beraisa, which states (in connection with Matanos) 'Ein Motzi'in mi'Kohen le'Kohen u'mi Levi le'Levi' - 'Ha mi'Levi le'Kohen, Motzi'in' (a proof that they are called 'Am' [a Kashya on Rav]).

(b) Rav Papa replied that when the Beraisa said 'K'gon Matanos', it was referring, not to the actual Matanos, but to something like them, Ma'aser Rishon, a problem - in that 'Ma'aser Rishon goes to the Levi.

(c) And we answer by establishing the Beraisa like Rebbi Elazar ben Azarya in a Beraisa, where Rebbi Akiva says 'Terumah le'Kohen, Ma'aser Rishon le'Levi'. Rebbi Elazar ben Azarya says - 'also to the Kohen'.

(a) The question remains however. If Ma'aser Rishon goes *also* to the Kohen, why do we take it away from the Levi to give it to the Kohen, to which we answer - that the above statement pertains to before Ezra penalized the Levi'im for not returning to Eretz Yisrael from Bavel, in the time of the second B eis-Hamikdash. When he did, then the people began to give Ma'aser only to the Kohanim.

(b) We object to this interpretation of Ezra's Takanah - on the grounds that, even if he did institute giving Ma'aser Rishon to the Kohanim, that was from the Yisre'eilim, but he certainly did not institute that the Levi'im should give their own Ma'aser to the Kohanim.

(c) We therefore conclude that 'mi'Levi le'Kohen' refers (neither to Matanos nor to Ma'aser Rishon, but) to Reishis ha'Gez ...

(d) ... by which the Torah does not write 'Am', rendering a Levi obligated to give just like a Yisrael.

(a) Another Beraisa draws a distinction between 'Kol Davar she'bi'Kedushah' and 'Kol Davar she'Eino bi'Kedushah'. By 'Davar she'Kedushah', the Tana means - Terumah, Terumas Ma'aser and Chalah.

(b) He describes Davar she'Eino bi'Kedushah' as 'K'gon ha'Zero'a, ha'Lechayayim ve'ha'Keivah'. The distinction that he draws between them - is that we obligate a Levi to give the former (a Kashya on Rav), but not the latter.

(c) We solve the problem - by interpreting 'K'gon ha'Zero'a, ha'Lechayayim ve'ha'Keivah' to mean 'like Zero'a ... ', with reference to Ma'aser Rishon, after Ezra penalizes them.

(a) Another Beraisa states 'ha'Shochet le'Kohen u'le'Akum Patur min ha'Matanos', from which we infer - 'Ha le'le'Levi u'le'Yisrael, Chayav' (a Kashya on Rav).

(b) We raise two objections to the suggestion to change the inference to 'Ha le'Yisrael, Chayav'; the first, because why did the Beraisa not then insert the Levi together with the Nochri. The second - because another Beraisa specifically inserts 'Levi' together with 'Yisrael'.

(c) And we reconcile Rav with this Beraisa, which obviously disagrees with him - by citing another Beraisa where Tana'im dispute this matter (and he holds like the other opinion).

(a) With reference to the Avodah on Yom Kipur, the Beraisa Darshens the Pasuk "Ve'chiper es Mikdash ha'Kodesh" to Lifnai ve'Lifnim (the Kodesh Kodshim), "Ohel Mo'ed" to the Heichal, "Mizbe'ach", to the Mizbe'ach and "Yechaper" to the Azaros. The Avodah is coming to atone - for Tum'as Mikdash (or Mizbe'ach there where the Tamei did not remain on in the Azarah long enough to be Chayav for Tum'as Mikdash).

(b) "Kohanim" refers to the Kohanim, "Am ha'Kahal", to Yisrael, and the second "Yechaper" - to the Levi'im.

(c) According to a second Beraisa, the second "Yechaper" refers to Avadim. According to him, we learn the Kaparah of the Levi'im from "Am ha'Kahal", because, unlike the first Tana, he considers Levi to be included in "Am".

(d) Rav does not divulge like which Tana he holds - because he is himself uncertain how to rule.

(a) Mereimar rules like both Rav - that it is a Safek whether Levi is considered "Am", and a Levi is therfefore Patur from Matanos, and like Rav Chisda - in which case someone who damages or eats Matanos is Patur.

(b) Ula used to give Matanos to a bas Kohen. We would be wrong in assuming that she was not married to a Yisrael, because in fact, it makes no difference.

(c) We would be wrong in assuming that she was not married to a Yisrael - because in fact, it makes no difference.

(d) He did not also give *Terumah* to a Kohenes who was married to a Yisrael - because Terumah, which is Kodesh, is forbidden to a Zar, and a bas Kohen is considered a Zar in this regard.

(a) Rava queried Ula from a Beraisa - which requires the Minchah of a Kohen to be burned, but not that of a Kohenes.

(b) Ula refuted Rava's Kashya, based on the difference between the Lashon that the Torah uses by Matanos on the one hand, where it writes "Kohen" (incorporating a Kohenes), and by the Minchah of a Kohen, on the other, where it writes "Aharon u'Vanav" (which precludes a Kohenes).