Question: Why does the Gemara not answer that one Beraisa goes like Rebbi Meir, the other, like Rebbi Yehudah?

Answer: If so, it ought to have said 'Kedoshah ve'Einah Kedoshah'; 'Mekablin ve'Ein Mekablin' implies that it is Kadosh, but that one does not accept it ...

Answer (cont.): In which case, both Beraisos hold like Rebbi Yehudah.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that initially Rifyon Yadayim is applicable, but not at the end.

Explanation #2: Alternatively, Rabeinu explains that 'Lechatchilah' - at the beginning of the construction, there is a suspicion that they will retract and lay claim to a portion in the Beis-ha'Mikdash (Ir'ur) ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): Whereas 'at the end', one may not accept from them anything specific - in case they boast about it; but something not specific one may accept, seeing as, since the Beis-ha'Mikdash has already been built, there is no reason for them to lay claim.

Conclusion: And what the Gemara therefore says shortly 'The king is different, since he does not retract', and one need not worry about him claiming a portion.

Implied Question: The Gemara does not establish it as a Machlokes Tana'im between Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah - where there is no Rifyon Yadayim - where for example, it comes from the king ...

Answer: Because if so, it ought to have said, not 'Mekablin ve'Ein Mekablin', but 'Kedoshah ve'Einah Kedoshah'

Mikdash Rishon: The Aruch explains as follows 'Since the Kedushah of the first Beis-ha'Mikdash spread over the entire community, and the Shechinah rested there, the birds did not fly over it ...

Mikdash Sheini: Whereas in the second Beis-ha'Mikdash, seeing as its Kedushah was not on a par with that of the first one, they were afraid that birds may fly over it and drop Tamei things on it ...

Kalya Oreiv: So they made a form (a scarecrow) to scare away the birds from the roof of the Heichal, and called it 'Kalya Oreiv' - as if to say 'His should prevent the ravens from flying over the roof of the Heichal

Kalya Oreiv (cont.): In the same way as the guards of plants do nowadays (up to here is the wording of the Aruch).

Introduction to Question: Some commentaries query this from the Gemara in Mo'ed Katan (Daf 9a), which in answer to the question that Sh'lomoh ha'Melech should have waited with the Kalya Oreiv, that the Kalya Oreiv is also part of the Binyan ...

Question: From which we see that it also existed in the first Beis-ha'Mikdash?

Answer: Sh'lomoh was afraid that perhaps the Kedushah would not pervade there, and when he saw that it did, he removed the Kalya Oreiv.

Explanation #1: 'This was at the beginning of the building, when he took for Bedek ha'Bayis from Coresh (Rashi's wording).

Refutation: This is not correct however, since the entire building was done by Coresh? ...

Source: And there are many Pesukim to this effect - including the Pasuk "And whatever is missing - as well as oxen, rams and sheep".

Explanation #2: Tosfos therefore explains that this was not a problem, since it was decreed by Yeshayah (Yeshayah 45) - "And he (Coresh) will build My city" ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): But Asaf the guardian of the orchard was far from Coresh; it did not actually belong to him, only he decreed that they should give for the needs of the Beis-ha'Mikdash ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): Since he placed on them an obligation, seeing as he ruled over the entire area (See Rashash) ...

Explanation #2 (concl.): This is where one has to take into account either Rifyon Yadayim or Ir'ur, as the Gemara explained.

Inference: This implies that a Nochri is subject to his own T'rumah ...

Support: And it is also implied in the second Perek of Gitin (Daf 23b).

Implied Question: And although the Gemara says in Perek Beis Shamai (Zevachim, Daf 45a) that he is not ...

Answer: That is nopt a problem, since it is a Machlokes Tana'im in the second Perek of Kidushin (Daf 41b), where the Tana Kama states 'The T'rumah of a Nochri is Medam'as (forbids Chulin into which it falls and renders a Zar who eats it Chayav to pay an extra fifth; and Rebbi Shimon declares it Patur'.

Clarification: This implies that one must cut away the beam and not benefit from the piece that is next to the Shem

Reason: Because the Shem sanctified at least, the location of the beam.

Halachah: One should therefore take care, when writing a Seifer Torah or Tefilin that, after scraping away the Shem (See Avodah Berurah), not to write on the location where it was.

Clarification: This implies that it is speaking irrespective of whether one said 'Zu\' or Alai'.

Halachah: Similarly, we Pasken like Rav Nachman, who declares 'Sela Zu li'Tzedakah', to change it, both for himself and for someone else, irrespective of whether he said 'Alai' or whether he said 'Zu'.

Clarification (cont.): And by 'changing it' the Gemara means borrowing it.

Clarification: This refers specifically to an individual, but a community may

Source: As is implied in Bava Basra (Daf 8b) - 'And the townspeople are permitted to change a soup-kitchen into a charity-fund or into whichever they please' ...

Clarification (cont.): But only for the need of a Mitzvah, as the Gemara here will say (on Amud Beis), in connection with 'A Yisrael who donated a Menorah or a lamp to the Shul'.

Implied Question: When the Gemara in 'ha'Socher es ha'Umnin' (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 78b) rules that 'Mageves Purim le'Purim, u'Mageves Osah ha'Ir le'Osah ha'Ir ...

Answer: It is specifically outside the town that it forbids to change it, but for the needs of the town, one may ...

Answer (cont.): And it is referring to the Gabai.

Sugya in Bava Kama: According to the Gemara's answer, we can explain the Gemara at the beginning of Shor she'Nagach (Bava Kama, Daf 36b) - in connection with Reuven who slapped Shimon's face, where Beis-Din ordered him to pay half a Zuz ...

Sugya in Bava Kama (cont.): To which Reuven responded 'Since it is only half a Zuz, I don't want it; Give it to the poor'. Then he changed his mind and said 'I will go and purchase a cure for myself' ...

Sugya in Bava Kama (concl.): But Rav Yosef told him that the poor had already acquired it.

Question: How could he have retracted, even had the poor not already acquired it, seeing as the Gemara says in the first Perek of Rosh ha'Shanah (Daf 6a) states "be'Ficha", 'Zu Tzedakah'?

Answer #1: In fact, he wanted to borrow it, to use it for himself and to pay it back later, only Rav Yosef informed him that it had already reached his hand - and he was the Gabai, and that it was therefore forbidden to change it.

Answer #2: Alternatively, he thought that it was n ot Tzedakah in the first place, since the poor did not have it, until Rav Yosef informed him that the poor had already acquired it - like the Din of 'Ma'amad Shelashtan' (See also Tosfos Bava Kama, Daf 36b DH 'Yad').

Explanation #1: Rabeinu explains that one is actually permitted to change from one Mitzvah to another.

Explanation #1 (cont.): And someone who makes a Neder to give a Sela to Tzedakah for the poor, may perform another Mitzvah with it, as long as it has not reached the hand of the Gabei.

Question #1: The Lashon 'Leshanosah' however, does not imply this' - So Tosfos found in the Tosfos of Rebbi Moshe from Avira, who cites the writings of his brother .

Question #1 (cont.): And he says that it does not imply changing it to another Mitzvah - because when the Gemara said earlier that 'Both he and someone else are permitted to change it', they were talking about borrowing it ...

Question #2: Moreover, since the Gemara says that Rav Yosef 'borrowed', it indicates that it is talking about borrowing.

Explanation #2: It therefore seems that the Tana is talking about borrowing, but to change it is definitely forbidden - even if it has not yet reached the hands of the Gabai ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): Only to borrow it, and one it reaches the hands of the Gabai, even borrowing it is prohibited.

Implied Question: And when the Gemara says in the first Perek of Bava Basra (Daf 8b) that 'The citizens are permitted to turn the Tzedakah-fund into a soup-kitchen' ...

Answer: It means with the consent of the people, but the Gabai himself may not do so.

Additional Chidush: The Ri explains that 'the permission to change it' there is even for something that is not a Mitzvah, but is for the needs of the community.

Halachah: One must therefore take care not to borrow the town's Tzedakah-money once it reaches the hands of the Gabai ...

Reason: Since it is not for the needs of the community.

Clarification: The Gemara could just as well have said 'Why mention where the owner's name has not been forgotten, when it is forbidden to change it for a Davar ha'Reshus even if it has?'

Implied Question: Nor can one preclude him on the grounds that he has no value ...

Answer: Since earlier (on Daf 2a) the Gemara included a Menuval and a Mukeh Sh'chin.

Clarification: They do not argue over 'Im Hikdish', seeing as the Hekdesh takes effect as soon as it is declared Hekdesh (and the heirs are therefore Chayav to pay Hekdesh), unlike Milveh (which is to spend) ...

Question: One can ask however, why they do not argue over 'Im Nadar ve'He'erich'?

Answer: The Gemara mentions 'Hizik', because the Tana mentions 'Chiyuv'

Answer (cont.): Noder and Ma'arich may well take effect immediately, in which case they can be claimed from the heirs.

Implied Question: And the reason that the Tana needs to mention them is ...

Answer: Because, since the Goseis is not subject to Nidar and Ne'erach, we would have thought that he is not subject to Noder and Ma'arich either ...

Answer (cont.): So he teaches us that he is, just like anybody else.