(Mishnah): If a Kohen told a Yisrael "I sell my animal to you, except for the Matanos," Matanos need not be given.

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.

Answer: Saying "except" is not like saying "on condition that";

"Except" limits the sale. "On condition that" does not limit the sale!

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.

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.

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).

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.

(Rav Asi): Even if Shimon weighed the meat, the Kohen's claim is (only) against Reuven.

Version #1B - Tosfos - (Rav): This is only if Reuven weighed the meat for himself. If Shimon weighed it, the Kohen's (only) claim is from Shimon;

(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)

Suggestion: They argue about Rav Chisda's law;

(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. (Rashi - Rav holds like Rav Chisda, and Rav Asi does not. Tosfos - Rav Asi holds like Rav Chisda, and Rav does not.)

Rejection: No. Both hold like Rav Chisda;

They argue about whether Matnos Kehunah can be (Halachically) stolen;

Rav holds that they can be stolen. Rav Asi disagrees. (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.)

Version #2 (Rav): Matnos Kehunah can be stolen. (He said so explicitly. We did not need to infer it from his explanation of the Mishnah);

(Rav Asi): They cannot be stolen.

(Mishnah #1): If a Nochri converted, and he has a slaughtered cow:

If it was slaughtered before he converted, he is exempt from Matanos;

If it was slaughtered after he converted, he is obligated;

If we are unsure, he is exempt. The Kohen must bring a proof in order to to take from him.

Version #1 (Gemara - Reish Lakish) Inference: If we are unsure, he is exempt. We are lenient;

Contradiction (Mishnah #2): 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);

If it was found in an anthole in a place that was already harvested --

What rests on top must be left for the poor. (Tosfos - perhaps it is Leket);

Reuven keeps what is inside the holes. (Presumably, ants brought it there before the harvest);

R. Meir says, even what is inside must be left for the poor, because Safek Leket is considered Leket. (Rashi - our anonymous Mishnah (#1) should be like R. Meir! Tosfos - even Chachamim are stringent about a Safek, when it is on top.)

Answer (R. Yochanan): Mishnah #2 is an individual's (R. Yehudah ben Agra's) opinion. The proper version is like our Mishnah;

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

Question (Reish Lakish): No matter who taught Mishnah #2, he has a powerful support!

Question (Reish Lakish): Question: What is the meaning of "Oni va'Rash Hatzdiku"?

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

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

Answer (Rava): The Chazakah is that Leket must be left from the grain, but (until the Nochri converts) the cow is exempt from Matanos.

Question (Abaye - Mishnah): If a Nochri converted, and he has a dough:

If it was kneaded before he converted, he is exempt from separating Chalah;

If it was kneaded after he converted, he must separate Chalah;

If we are unsure, he must separate.

Answer (Rava): One may not eat without separating Chalah. We must be stringent about a Safek Isur. Matanos are only a monetary privilege of the Kohen. One need not give them due to Safek.

(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):

If we are unsure whether a woman gave birth before or after she converted, she must bring a Korban. (she may not eat Kodshim before bringing it);

If we are unsure whether a dough was kneaded before or after the owner converted, Chalah must be separated;

If we are unsure whether a firstborn donkey was born before or after the owner converted, he may not benefit from it until he designates a Seh to redeem it;

If we are unsure whether a firstborn calf or Seh was born before or after the owner converted, it is a Safek Bechor. He must wait for it to get a blemish, and then he may eat it.

In these four doubts we are lenient:

If we are unsure whether sheep were sheared or an animal was slaughtered before or after the owner converted, he need not give shearings/Matanos to a Kohen;

If we are unsure whether a (firstborn) boy was born before or after his mother converted, he need not be redeemed;

When a convert specifies a Seh to redeem a firstborn donkey (like above), he need not give the Seh to a Kohen.

Version #2 (Ravin): Reish Lakish asked a contradiction between Mishnah #2, which obligates leaving Safek Leket, and a Beraisa that exempts. (R. Yochanan said that Mishnah #2 is an individual's opinion, like above.)

Question (Levi): If there are no poor people in my area to take Leket from my field, what is the Halachah?

Answer (Rav Sheshes): "Le'Oni vela'Ger Ta'azov" - you need not leave it for birds. (You may eat it yourself.)

Question (Beraisa): A Yisrael need not bring Terumah from the granary to the city, or from the wilderness to civilization;

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

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

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

Version #1 - Rashi (Beraisa): In a place where people are Moleg calves (pour boiling water over them, and eat them with the skin) one must give the Zero'a to the Kohen in its skin (even though the Torah does not require giving the skin);

Version #2 - Rif (Beraisa): Even in a place where people are Moleg calves, one may not be Moleg the Zero'a, for this harms the skin. (The Torah obligates us to give the skin to a Kohen). (end of Version #2)

In a place where people flay the head, one must give the jaw with its skin;

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.

Answer: Matanos to a Kohen are different, for the Torah obligates one to give them. (This suggests another answer to Question (c).)

Answer #2: Terumah is different, for the Torah obligates one to give it.

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?

Answer (Beraisa): If Reuven made his vineyard Hefker, and then harvested it, he must leave Peret, Olelos, Shichechah and Pe'ah. He need not tithe the produce.

A bag of money was sent to support Rabanan; R. Ami acquired it.

Question: "V'Nasan" teaches that one should not take for himself!

Answer #1: He acquired it on behalf of the poor.

Answer #2: The head (of the academy) may take for himself;

(Beraisa): "Veha'Kohen ha'Gadol me'Echav" - he must be greater than the other Kohanim in beauty, Chochmah, and wealth;

Others say, "ha'Gadol me'Echav" - if he is not the wealthiest, the others make him the wealthiest (through giving him money).

(Mishnah): The Zero'a is given. This is (the upper two bones of the foreleg,) from the lower knee to the shoulder;

The same is cooked and given to a Kohen from Eil Nazir;

The corresponding part of the hind leg is the Shok (given to a Kohen from a Shelamim).

R. Yehudah says, the Shok is only (the middle bone) between the lower knee and the upper knee.

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).

(Gemara - Beraisa): "Ha'Zero'a" is the right Zero'a.

Question: Perhaps it is the left!

Answer #1: It says "ha'Zero'a."

Question: How does the extra "Hei" teach this?

Answer: Rava taught (regarding Gid ha'Nasheh) that "ha'Yerech" denotes the special (right) thigh. Similarly, "ha'Zero'a" is the special (right) Zero'a.

Question: What do we learn from "veha'Lechayayim"?

Answer: One must give even the wool on a sheep's head and the beard of a goat.

Question: What do we learn from "veha'Kevah"?

Answer: One must give the Chelev on and in the stomach.

(R. Yehoshua): Kohanim are generous. They allow Yisrael to keep the Chelev on and in the stomach.

If not for their generosity, Yisraelim would have to give it.

Answer #2: Expounders explain that the Matanos correspond to Pinchas' actions to kill Zimri and Kozbi:

The Zero'a is for taking a spear in his hand. (Surely, it was his right hand). The jaw is for praying. The stomach is for stabbing them through their stomachs.

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

Question: What is the source that the Zero'a of Kodshim (of Eil Nazir) is the right Zero'a?

Answer: "Titenu" (in the Parshah of Shok) is extra, to teach about the Zero'a of Kodshim.

Question: What is the source that the Zero'a of Chulin (Matanos) is the right Zero'a?

Answer: It says "Nesinah" (like it says regarding the Shok. We learn from there.)

(Mishnah): One gives the jaw from the joint until the Pikah of the Kaneh.

Contradiction (Beraisa): The Kohen gets the jaw, and the place of Shechitah with it. (This is past the Pikah!)

Answer #1: The Beraisa is R. Chanina ben Antigonus, who permits Shechitah above the Pikah.

(Beraisa): Hagramah (cutting the Simanim outside the proper place) is invalid Shechitah;

R. Chanina ben Antigonus permits (what Chachamim call) Hagramah (cutting above the Pikah).

Answer #2: The Beraisa is Chachamim. It really means that the Yisrael gets (the whole animal except for the Matanos), including the place of Shechitah.