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 any 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 in 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 cancellation of his debt).

(c)The Mishnah (later in he Perek) rules that if Reuven asks Shimon to sell him ...

1. ... the innards of his cow - he is obligated to give the Matanos to the Kohen, without deducting from the payment.

2. ... the innards of his 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.

2)

(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 all 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 all become the personal property of the Kohen once he receives them.

3)

(a)The Tana lists four things that the Kohen may purchase with any of the above Matnos Kehunah - 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 Kesubah.

4)

(a)When they told Rav about a certain Levi who would grab 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 Shoftim (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.

5)

(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 Ol'los - are the incomplete clusters of grapes (that lack either the bottom part of the cluster or the sides (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 (the right to 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.

6)

(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 Ol'los in the vineyard from an explicit Pasuk in Kedoshim. Rebbi Levi learns from the word "Acharecha" (mentioned there after Ol'los) - the prohibition of Shikchah (the prohibition of going back to pick up a lost sheaf) with regard to olive-trees.

(c)We learn from ...

1. ... the Pasuk in ki Seitzei "Ki Sachbot Zeisecha Lo Sefa'er Acharecha" - (not that one may not glorify one's olive-trees, but) that one may not remove all their glory, in other words, that one must leave Pe'ah, as Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael translates it.

2. ... the Gezeirah-Shavah "Acharecha" "Acharecha" from Zayis that - the Mitzvah of Pe'ah applies to a vineyard as well.

(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 [posing 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 Ma'aser Rishon, which is similar to them; a problem - inasmuch as 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 - 'Af le'Kohen'.

8)

(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 - according to Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah, Ma'aser Rishon was initially given to the kohanim as well, since they too are from the tribe of Levi, but when most Levi'im failed to return to Eretz Yisrael from Bavel, Ezra penalized them by decreeing that from then on, Ma'aser may only be given 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 (the first of the wool) ...

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

9)

(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, T'rumas Ma'aser and Chalah.

(b)He describes Davar she'Eino bi'Kedushah as 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 penalized them.

10)

(a)Another Beraisa states 'ha'Shochet le'Kohen u'le'Akum Patur min ha'Matanos', from which we extrapolate - 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).

11)

(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 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, and he learns 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.

12)

(a)Mereimar rules like both Rav - that it is a Safek whether Levi is considered Am, and a Levi is therefore 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 - because, unlike Terumah, they have no Kedushah ...

(c)... for which reason they are permitted even if she is married to a Yisrael.

(d)She is not precluded from the Pasuk "Venasan la'Kohen ... " - since "le'Kohen" includes a Kohenes.

13)

(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 however, 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).