Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) RAV PROHIBITED MEAT WHICH LEFT THE SIGHT OF A JEW

(a) Rav, upon coming to Bavel, ruled stringently regarding meat which was left unsupervised.
(b) In one case a person left the river into which his meat had fallen and Rav prohibited him from returning and netting it out (lest this is not his original piece of meat).
(c) Similarly in a case where a bird snatched the meat.
(d) In the cases of bottles and barrels of wine, they could be checked for identifiable seals by the vintners and used.
(e) Roasted meat in the public street of Gufsa:

1. Need not be returned (the owners have forfeited their claim since it is irretrievable, akin to a rushing river).
2. May be eaten (since the majority of passersby are Jews).
3. In such an incident their ruling was vindicated as the meat turned out to have been from the house of Rebbi.

(f) Cheese found in the Pundak of Levi was permitted on the same grounds as above (and their ruling was similarly vindicated).

(a) R. Mana reported to R. Yosi that the Rabbis would announce their find even from a public thoroughfare.
(b) R. Yosi responded that R. Mana's father, R. Yona, often taught that such a find would enrich him, not needing to be announced.
(c) Nevertheless, R. Yona, when confronted with such a find, did not take it for himself, but rather announced it.

(a) An animal found within a radius of Jerusalem to Migdal Eder, the males are brought as Olos; the females as Shelamim.
(b) (R. Yehudah) If the animal is fit as a Korban Pesach then it is brought as a Pesach [if found within 30 days before Pesach].
(c) Originally the finder had to put up collateral guaranteeing that he would bring the Nesachim for the found animal.

1. This practice was eliminated and the Nesachim were provided at public expense.
2. This was the first in a list of seven conditions instituted by Beis Din, as listed.

4) BRINGING FOUND MALES AS OLOS

(a) Question: But the Shelamim could also be from males?!
(b) Answer: The animal is not brought as an Olah, but its value provides for both an Olah and a Shelamim, if the finder wishes to address all of the doubts which surround it.

1. He is Mechalel the money on the animals, like R. Meir (who holds that Hekdesh b'Meizid is Mischalel).
2. He then brings Olos and Shelamim with the money.

(c) Question: But how can he be Mechalel b'Meizid!?

1. This ability is only according to R. Meir.
2. We hold like R. Yehudah would disagrees!

(d) Answer: Since it is a condition of Beis Din it is not considered Meizid.
(e) Question (R. Yochanan): But this instructs the finder to do Meilah!?
(f) Answer: The Mishnah means that we follow the Rov;

1. If the majority found are male, they are all Olos.
2. If the majority are females they are all brought as Shelamim.

(g) (R. Zeira) We are not worried about the males among the Shelamim since this, too, is a condition of Beis Din.
(h) R. Yasa reported having heard (in Bavel) R. Yehudah ask Shmuel regarding one who separated his Shekalim and died.
(i) Shmuel had taught that Shekalim (in the case where the owner designated the funds and then died) should go to Nedavah.
(j) Regarding leftover funds from the Minchas Kohen:

1. (R. Yochanan) The leftover funds must be destroyed.
2. (R. Eliezer) They go to Nedavah (as leftover Chatas).

(a) The Asiris HaEifah (which is brought as an Isaron and divided):

1. (R. Yochanan) An entire Isaron is brought, divided and then the half is sanctified in a Keli Shares.
2. (Resh Lakish) It is all sanctified in a Keli Shares and then divided.

(b) Question: The Mishnah in Menachos (51b) appears to disagree with R. Yochanan (the remaining half is destroyed, indicating that it was already sanctified).
(c) Answer: This is R. Yochanan's view that leftover funds from the Asiris HaEifah must be destroyed (4.j.1. above).
(d) Question: There is a Bereisa against R. Yochanan.

1. Where the Kohen Gadol died and his replacement brought a (whole) Minchah from his home, two halves are offered and two halves are destroyed.
2. The remaining half from the first (deceased) Kohen is destroyed along with the remaining half of the incoming Kohen, after waiting for it to become invalidated. 3. Why, according to R. Yochanan, should we have to wait?!

(e) Answer: It is a dispute over whether the utensil for the Isaron sanctifies it.

(a) All Kohanim bring a Minchas Chavitin before performing their Avodah.
(b) If a new Kohen was also becoming the Kohen Gadol, he brings two, one as a new Kohen, and one as the daily obligation of the Kohen Gadol.
(c) Tufinei (Vayikra 6:14) - Bake the Minchah only when it may be brought (on the same day).
(d) Question: But we learn that it was done a day earlier!?
(e) Answer: That was not the baking, it was heating the water.
(f) (R. Yasa) Tufinei - deep fried then baked.
(g) (R. Acha) Baked then deep fried.
(h) (Tana Kama) Tufinei - Bake it "Na" or not completely (but somewhat) cooked.
(i) (Rebbi) Bake it "Na'eh" (don't fry it first).
(j) (R. Dosa) Bake it more than once (before *and* after).
(k) The above interpretations of Tufinei are the bases for the dispute over baking/frying first.
(l) The laws taught here apply not only if the first Kohen died, but also if he became Tamei, or developed a blemish.

(a) (R. Yehudah) The inheritors.
(b) They must bring a complete Isaron (undivided).
(c) (R. Shimon) It is a communal expense (as indicated by the words "Chok Olam."