1)

(a)Rav Yosef states that if there are no other heirs, the son who steals from his father - must give the money to Tzedakah.

(b)Rav Papa obligates him to say, when handing the money to the Gabai of Tzedakah - 'Zeh Gezel Avi'.

(c)When the Torah writes "ve'Im Ein la'Ish Go'el" it is referring to - somebody who stole from a Ger (who has no relatives) ...

(d)... instructing him to give the money to the Kohanim.

2)

(a)The Beraisa speaks about a Ganav, who, after stealing and swearing to a Ger, hears that he died and is actually on the way to Yerushalayim with the money, when he meets him. The Ger - promptly transforms the theft into a loan ('Zakfan Alav be'Milveh') and dies.

(b)The significance of 'Zakfan Alav be'Milveh' - is that the owner is Mochel the Ganav (to create the new obligation of a loan).

(c)Rebbi Yossi Hagelili rules that the Ganav is permitted to keep the money - whereas according to Rebbi Akiva - he has to give it away (in order not to remain with the stolen money).

(d)Consequently, we will establish ...

1. ... the Seifa of our Mishnah, which does not permit the Ganav to be Mochel himself - like Rebbi Akiva.

2. ... the Mishnah earlier in the Perek "Machal Lo al ha'Keren, ve'Lo Machal Lo al ha'Chomesh" - like Rebbi Yossi Hagelili.

3)

(a)There is currently no difference between the Ganav being Mochel himself after the Ger or his father dies, and the owner being Mochel the Ganav, according to ...

1. ... Rebbi Yossi Hagelili - since both are permitted.

2. ... Rebbi Akiva - since both are prohibited.

(b)Assumping that Rebbi Yossi Hagelili makes no distinction between whether 'Zakfan Alav be'Milveh' or not, the Tana inserts 'Zakfan Alav be'Milveh' - to teach us that, in spite of it, Rebbi Akiva obligates him to pay.

(c)The problem this poses on the Mishnayos involved is - that the Tana should then have switched the opinions recorded there. In order to teach us the bigger Chidush, he should have taught in connection with ...

1. ... 'Machal Lo al ha'Keren ... ' - 'Einah Mechilah' (which is a case of Mechilas Acherim), according to Rebbi Akiva (and 'Kal va'Chomer' our Mishnah, where he is Mochel himself).

2. ... the thief who inherits his father (our Mishnah) - that he can be Mochel, according to Rebbi Yossi Hagelili (and 'Kal va'Chomer', 'Machal Lo al ha'Keren ... , which is a case of Mechilas Acheirim).

4)

(a)Rav Sheishes therefore establishes the Seifa of our Mishnah, as well as the Mishnah of 'Machal Lo al ha'Keren', like Rebbi Yossi Hagelili - by changing the premise that Rebbi Yossi Hagelili does not differentiate between whether it was 'Zakfan Alav be'Milveh' or not. In fact, he specifically requires 'Zakfan Alav be'Milveh', because he only permits Mechilas Acherim, but not Mechilas Atzmo.

(b)Rebbi Akiva still makes no distinction between 'Zakfan ... ' and 'Lo Zakfan' (both are forbidden, as we learned originally).

5)

(a)According to Rava however, the author of both Mishnayos is Rabbi Akiva (who learns like Rebbi Yossi Hagelili learned according to Rav Sheishes) . Rebbi Yossi Hagelili will then hold - that either way, he can be Mochel.

(b)According to Rebbi Yossi Hagelili, the case of 'Gezel ha'Ger', which the Torah obligates the Ganav to pay to the Kohen - speaks when the Ganav admitted after the Ger's death, in which case, Hash-m (Kevayachol) acquired the object and ordered it to be given to the Kohen.

(c)Whereas the case of Rebbi Yossi Hagelili (where the Ganav can be Mochel himself) speaks - there where the admission took place during the lifetime of the Ger.

6)

(a)Ravina asks whether Gezel ha'Giyores has the same Din as Gezel ha'Ger. It might not - because the Torah writes "ve'Im Ein la'Ish Go'el" (which would seem to preclude a Giyores).

(b)The word "Ish", on the other hand, might not preclude Gezel Giyores - because it is the way of the Torah to use the masculine form, even when it incorporates the feminine too.

(c)We learn from the double Lashon " ... Lehashiv ... ha'Mushav" - that Gezel ha'Ger incorporates Gezel Giyores, too.

(d)The Torah writes "Ish" (not to preclude Gezel Giyores, but) - in order to preclude a Katan (i.e. from the need to inquire whether he has children or not, as one needs to do in the case of a Gadol). This teaches us the important principle - that a Katan cannot father children.

7)

(a)We learn from the Pasuk...

1. ... in Naso "la'Hashem la'Kohen" - that Hash-m acquires the Gezel ha'Ger which the Ganav, after the Ger's death, confesses to having stolen and sworn falsely over, and gives it to the Kohen.

2. ... in Naso "Mil'vad Eil ha'Kipurim Asher Yechaper bo Alav" - that the money must be given to a Kohen of the current Mishmar, just like the ram of the Asham.

3. ... in Shoftim "L'vad Mimkarav al ha'Avos" - that Korbanos may only be brought by a Kohen of the current Mishmar.

(b)According to the Tana Kama of the Beraisa, we might have thought that if a Kohen acquires the Gezel ha'Ger that is brought by a Yisrael, he certainly ought to acquire his own.

8)

(a)Rebbi Nasan reasons differently. His S'vara is based on the Din of a Kohen who brings a Korban, about whom Chazal say - that he may sacrifice it at any time (even when it is not his Mishmar), and the skin and flesh belong to him alone.

(b)Consequently, when he says ...

1. ... 'Davar she'Ein lo Cheilek Bo ad she'Yika'nes bi'Reshuso, ke'she'Yika'nes li'Reshuso Eino Yachol Lehotzi'o mi'Yado' he means - that if the Kohanim of the current Mishmar have no portion in another Kohen's Korban before the owner gives it to one of them, yet once he does, he cannot take it away from the recipient ...

2. ... 'Davar she'Yesh lo Cheilek Bo ad she'Lo Yika'nes bi'Reshuso, Eino Din she'Ein Yachol Lehotzi'o mi'Yado' he means - that Gezel ha'Ger, in which the recipient has a portion even before the owner gives it to him, should certainly be his exclusively, once the owner has given it to him.

(c)'Davar she'Ein lo Cheilek bo' might also refer to - T'rumos u'Ma'asros.

(d)We refute Rebbi Nasan's S'vara however - on the grounds that certainly the recipient of the Gezel ha'Ger had a portion in it before he received it, but then, so did all the other Kohanim of that Mishmar (which is not the case by the other Kohen's Korban).

9)

(a)Gezel ha'Ger that is brought by a Kohen - is distributed among all the other members of the group serving that week.

(b)We currently learn from the Pasuk "ve'Ish es Kodoshav Lo Yih'yeh" - that a Kohen may sacrifice his own Korban at any time (even when it is not his Mishmar, as we explained above).

(c)We attempt to query the current Beraisa, which forbids a Kohen to keep his own Gezel ha'Ger, from here - on the basis of the fact that, due to the Hekesh of the Asham of Gezel ha'Ger to the money, since the Kohen is permitted to bring his own Korban and to take the skin and the flesh, he should also be able to keep the money.

(d)So in order to reconcile the Beraisa with this D'rashah - we establish it by a Kohen Tamei, who cannot eat the flesh of his Asham (therefore, he is not entitled to the money either.

10)

(a)We conclude however, that the Tana cannot possibly be talking about a Tamei Kohen - because then, how could he say 'she'Yesh lo Cheilek bah' (with reference to Gezel ha'Ger), when we have learned that a Tamei Kohen is not entitled to a portion of any of the Matanos (that are distributed in the Beis Hamikdash).

(b)We finally derive the Din of Gezel ha'Ger with a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Kohen" "Kohen" - from a Sadeh Achuzah.

(c)The Tana suggests that a Kohen's Sadeh Achuzah might revert back to him in the Yovel - with a 'Kal va'Chomer in that if he receives those belonging to others, he certainly ought to receive one that belongs to himself (similar to the 'Kal va'Chomer' that the Tana Kama tried to Darshen earlier with regard to Gezel ha'Ger).

(d)He counters this suggestion however, with the Pasuk in Bechukosai "ki'Sedei ha'Cherem, la'Kohen Tih'yeh Achuzaso", (which is superfluous and) - from which we extrapolate that it is only from the Sadeh Achuzah of a Yisrael that he receives a portion, but not from his own (and the same applies to Gezel ha'Ger).

11)

(a)The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... in Shoftim "u'Va be'Chol Avas Nafsho ve'Sheireis" - that a Kohen may sacrifice his own Korban at any time (even when it is not his Mishmar, as we explained above).

2. ... in Naso "ve'Ish es Kodoshav Lo Yih'yu" - that when he does, he is permitted to bring it himself skin.

(b)If the Kohen (owner) is a Ba'al-Mum, he gives his Korban to a Kohen in his Mishmar (like a Yisrael, since he is not eligible to bring the Korban himself]) but he receives the skin and the Avodah (meaning the Basar [S'char Avodasah]) ...

(c)... because he is eligible to eat it.

(d)According to the alternative text - the Avodah and the skin go to the Kohanim of the members of the Mishmar in which it is brought.

12)

(a)There where the Kohen (owner) is old or sick - then he gives any Kohen he pleases the Korban to bring, whilst the skin and the flesh go to all the Kohanim in that Mishmar ...

(b)... seeing as he is unable to eat it himself, in which case he cannot appoint a Shali'ach to do so either.