(a)What does the Mishnah say about money that is found between 'Shekalim' and 'Nedavah', assuming ...
1. ... one of them is closer?
2. ... they are equidistant?
(b)What is the reason for the latter ruling?
(c)Which Pasuk in Shoftim serves as the source for going after Karov?
1)
(a)The Mishnah rules that if is found between 'Shekalim' and 'Nedavah', assuming ...
1. ... one of them is closer - then that is where the money goes.
2. ... they are equidistant - then it goes to 'Nedavah' ...
(b)... because we go Lechumra, and whereas 'Shekalim' is sometimes used for Chata'os,which are eaten by the Kohanim, and Mosar Shekalim even towards building the walls of Yerushalayim ... . Nedavah is used for Olos (which go directly on the Mizbe'ach) exclusively.
(c)The Pasuk in Shoftim that serves as the source for going after Karov is - "Vehayah ha'Ir ha'Kerovah el he'Chalal" (in connection with Ir ha'Nidachas [a city that worshipped idols]).
2)
(a)Why, if money is found halfway between ...
1. ...'Eitzim' and 'Levonah', does it go to Levonah?
2. ... 'Kinin' and 'Gozlei Olah' does it go to 'Gozlei Olah' (See Tiferes Yisrael)?
(b)Assuming that the money really fell from 'Kinin', what happens to the woman who brought the money for her 'Kaparah'?
(c)What special ruling will then pertain to the bird that is brought as her Chatas?
2)
(a)If money is found halfway between ...
1. ...'Eitzim' and 'Levonah', it goes to Levonah - because Levonah is itself a Korban, whereas wood is only a Machshir (which enables the Korban to be burned).
2. ... 'Kinin' and 'Gozlei Olah' does it go to 'Gozlei Olah' - since it is then used for Olos, which are all burned on the Mizbe'ach, unlike 'Kinin', part of which is used for Chata'os (See Tiferes Yisrael), which are eaten by the Kohanim.
(b)Assuming that the money really fell from 'Kinin', to compensate the woman who brought the money for her 'Kaparah' - the Beis-Din that is responsible for Kinim purchases a pair of birds from public funds, and offers it on her behalf.
(c)... in which case the bird that is brought for her Chatas - is not eaten by the Kohanim.
3)
(a)And what does the Mishnah say about money that a person finds between his Chulin money and his Ma'aser-Sheini money?
(b)What dual principle does the Tana present explain the current rulings?
(c)Assuming that the text reads 'Holchin Achar ha'Karov Lehakeil', what does he mean (See Tos. Yom-Tov)?
3)
(a)The Mishnah rules that money which a person finds between his Chulin money and his Ma'aser-Sheini money - has the same Din as the previous cases; and if the two are equidistant, it is considered Ma'aser.
(b)The dual principle that the Tana presents tp explain the current rulings is - 'Holchin Achar ha'Karov (Lehakeil); Mechtzah le'Mechtzah, Lehachmir'.
(c)Assuming that the text reads 'Holchin Achar ha'Karov Lehakeil' (See Tos. Yom-Tov), he means -even Lehakeil.
Mishnah 2
4)
(a)What is the status of money that is found in the vicinity of the cattle merchants (in Yerushalayim)?
(b)How does one understand this, bearing in mind that one is permitted to purchase any food with one's Ma'aser money?
(c)Why does this ruling extend throughout the year (seeing as people generally deal with their Ma'aser Sheini on Yom-Tov, when they come to be Oleh Regel)?
(d)What makes us assume that the money fell from the purchaser and not from the merchants (in which case the sale would have rendered it Chulin)?
4)
(a)Money that is found in the vicinity of the cattle merchants is - considered Ma'aser-Sheini.
(b)Despite the fact that one is permitted to purchase any food with one's Ma'aser money - because the main Mitzvah is to purchase Shelamim with it.
(c)This ruling extends throughout the year (even though people generally deal with their Ma'aser Sheini on Yom-Tov, when they come to be Oleh Regel) - because they generally do manage to finish all the money by the time they depart for home, so they leave the whatever remains with their relatives and friends, to purchase with it Shelamim after they have left (See Tos. Yo,-Tov).
(d)We assume that the money fell from the purchaser and not from the merchants (in which case the sale would have rendered it Chulin) - because there are more purchasers that sellers (seeing as many purchasers buy from one seller).
5)
(a)Why in that case, do we consider money that is found on Har ha'Bayis (even on Yom-Tov) to be Chulin?
(b)And what is the status of money found in Yerushalayim?
(c)Why do we not go after the majority of the year there too, and consider it Chulin? What is the difference in this regard, between Har ha'Bayis and Yerushalayim?
(d)Besides the fact that the Har ha'Bayis is higher than Yerushalayim, in which case the wind tends to blow away the dust, what other reason is there that obviates the need to sweep there?
5)
(a)Nevertheless we consider money that is found on Har ha'Bayis (even on Yom-Tov) to be Chulin - because there we go after the majority of the year, and assume that perhaps, the owner lost it before Yom-Tov (See Tos. Yom-Tov).
(b)Whereas money that is found in Yerushalayim - on Yom-Tov, is Ma'aser; during the rest of the year - is Chulin ...
(c)... because they tend to sweep the streets of Yerushalayim every day, in which case had it fallen 'yesterday', it would have been found. Consequently, whatever is found is assumed to have been lost today.
(d)Besides the fact that the Har ha'Bayis is higher than Yerushalayim, in which case the wind tends to blow away the dust, the other reason that obviated the need to sweep there - is the fact that one is not allowed to enter it with the dust of one's feet (i.e. must wash one's feet before entering).
Mishnah 3
6)
(a)On what basis does Basar that is found in the Azarah, assuming that it consists of entire limbs (Evarim), have the status of Olah?
(b)What if one finds limbs that are cut into pieces ...
1. ... in the Azarah?
2. ... or entire limbs in Yerushalayim?
(c)What is the reason for the last ruling?
(d)What is the reason for the previous ruling?
6)
(a)Basar that is found in the Azarah, assuming that it consists of entire limbs (Evarim), has the status of Olah - because that is the way that Olos are cut up.
(b)If one finds limbs that are cut into pieces ...
1. ... in the Azarah - they have the status of Chatas (or Asham [See Tosfos Yom-Tov)
2. ... or entire limbs, in Yerushalayim - they have the status of Shelamim ...
(c)The reason for the last ruling is because the majority of meat that is eaten in Yerushalayim is Shelamim.
(d)The reason for the previous ruling is - because the only meat that is eaten in the Azarah is Basar Chatas and Basar Asham.
7)
(a)What does the Mishnah say that one subsequently does with the Basar that one finds?
(b)What renders it Pasul?
(c)Why is 'Ibur Tzurah' necessary?
(d)Seeing as either way, the Basar has to be burned, what is then the difference between Basar that is found in the Azarah and Basar that is found in Yerushalayim?
7)
(a)The Mishnah rules that one subsequently leaves the Basar that one finds overnight ('Te'ubar Tzurasan') rendering it Pasul be'Linah, before burning it
(b)'Hesech ha'Da'as' (the Kohanim having taken their minds off it) renders it Pasul.
(c)'Ibur Tzurah' is necessary - because it is degrading to burn Kodshim unless they become Vaday Pasul (in this case be'Nosar).
(d)Despite the fact that either way, the Basar has to be burned, the difference between Basar that is found in the Azarah and Basar that is found in Yerushalayim is - whereas the former becomes Nosar the following day, the latter becomes Nosar only in two days time (See Tos. Yom-Tov).
8)
(a)What does the Mishnah finally say about Basar that is found elsewhere, assuming it consists of ...
1. ... whole limbs?
2. ... cut-up pieces?
(b)What is the reason for the difference?
(c)Why then, does the Tana permit even whole limbs that are found on Yom-Tov?
(d)On what condition is the Basar always forbidden?
8)
(a)The Mishnah finally rules that Basar that is found elsewhere, assuming it consists of ...
1. ... whole limbs is - Neveilah.
2. ... cut-up pieces - may be eaten.
(b)The reason for the difference is - because on the one hand, it is the way to throw whole limbs of a Neveilah into the street to feed the dogs, whereas on the other, one does not cut up Neveilah into pieces.
(c)The Tana permits even whole limbs that are found on Yom-Tov however - since, seeing as a lot of meat is cooked on Yom-Tov, one tends to cook the limbs whole, wuthout cutting it up into small pieces.
(d)The Basar is always forbidden - in a town where Nochrim, as well as Jews, live (See Tos. Yom-Tov).
Mishnah 4
9)
(a)What does the Tana say about a live animal that one finds from Yerushalayim to Migdal Eider and the equivalent distance surrounding Yerushalayim?
(b)What is 'Migdal Eider' (See Tiferes Yisrael)?
(c)What is the reason for this dual ruling?
(d)What does Rebbi Yehudah say about an animal that is eligible to be brought as a Korban Pesach?
9)
(a)The Tana rules that a live animal that one finds from Yerushalayim to Migdal Eider and the equivalent distance surrounding Yerushalayim - is an Olah if it is a male, and a Shelamim if it is a female (See Tos.Yom-Tov).
(b)'Migdal Eider' is - the name of a town not far from Yerushalayim.
(c)The reason for this dual ruling is - because a. we assume that the animal came from Yerushalayim, and b - the majority of male animals there are Olos (See Tos. Yom-Tov), and of females, Shelamim.
(d)According to Rebbi Yehudah, an animal that is eligible to be brought as a Korban Pesach - the finder in fact, brings the animal as a Korban Pesach.
10)
(a)To which animal is Rebbi Yehudah referring?
(b)How close to Pesach does this apply?
(c)Why is that?
(d)What happens if the owner subsequently turns up?
(e)Like whom is the Halachah?
10)
(a)Rebbi Yehudah is referring - to a male lamb or he-goat in its first year ...
(b)...within thirty days of Pesach ...
(c)... when one starts to get involved in the Dinim of Pesach.
(d)If the owner subsequently turns up - then the finder must reimburse him (See Tos. Yom-Tov).
(e)The Halachah is - not like Rebbi Yehudah.
Mishnah 5
11)
(a)What is the Tana referring to when he says that initially they used to take a security from whoever found a male or female animal in the vicinity of Yerushalayim?
(b)How much flour does that entail regarding a bull, a ram and a lamb, respectively?
(c)What caused them to rescind that institution?
(d)So what did they do instead?
11)
(a)When the Tana says that initially they used to take a security from whoever found a male or female animal in the vicinity of Yerushalayim, he is referring to - forcing the finder to provide the Nesachim (incorporating the Minchah) from his own pocket.
(b)That entails - three Isronos )tenths of an Eifah) for a bull, two for a ram and one for a lamb (plus the appropriate amount of wine and oil.
(c)What caused them to rescind that institution was - the reaction of the finders, who would simply leave the animals that they found and run away.
(d)So they instituted - for the Nesachim to be purchased with public funds (See Tos. Yom-Tov).
Mishnah 6
12)
(a)The previous ruling was one of a number of Takanos of Beis-Din listed by Rebbi Shimon (that the Mishnah is currently presenting). How many Takanos does he list?
(b)What did they institute with regard to a Nochri who sends his Olah from overseas (See Tos. Yom-Tov) without the accompanying Minchah?
(c)What did they say about a Ger who dies and leaving Korbanos that need to be brought on the Mizbe'ach?
(d)Besides these, whose Korban does the Tana Kama rule that it must be brought from communal funds?
(e)How does he learn this from the Pasuk in Tzav (in connection with the Korban Chavitin) "Chok Olam"?
12)
(a)The previous ruling was one of - seven Takanos of Beis-Din listed by Rebbi Shimon (that the Mishnah is currently presenting).
(b)They instituted that if a Nochri sends his Olah (See Tos. Yom-Tov) from overseas (See Tos. Yom-Tov) without the accompanying Minchah - then it must be purchased from communal funds (T'rumas ha'Lishkah).
(c)And they said the same about a Ger (See Tos. Yom-Tov) who dies leaving Korbanos that need to be brought on the Mizbe'ach - assuming he did not leave Nesachim (See Tos. Yom-Tov) himself.
(d)Besides these, the Tana Kama rules - that the Chavitei Kohen Gadol who died must be purchased with communal funds.
(e)He learns this from the Pasuk in Tzav (in connection with the Korban Chavitin) "Chok Olam" - which he interprets to mean that the law of bringing the Minchas Chavitin, must come from the public.
13)
(a)What does Rebbi Yehudah say?
(b)What does the Mishnah mean when it concludes 'u'Sheleimah Haysah K'reivah'?
(c)According to which opinion does the Tana say this?
13)
(a)According to Rebbi Yehudah - it is the Kohen Gadol's heirs who are obligated to bring their deceased father's Minchas Chavitin.
(b)When the Mishnah concludes 'u'Sheleimah Haysah K'reivah', it means - that it is then brought in its entirety (and not half in the morning and half in the afternoon, in the way that the Kohen Gadol brought it in his lifetime [See Tos. Yom-Tov]) ...
(c)... according to both of the opinions cited earlier.
14)
(a)How does Rebbi ...
1. ... Shimon learn this latter ruling from the Pasuk there "Kalil Taktar"?
2. ... Yehudah learn it from the Pasuk there "mi'Banav Ya'aseh Osah"?
(b)Seeing as Rebbi Shimon learns his ruling from a Pasuk, on what grounds does he refer to it as a T'nai Beis-Din?
(c)Why did they issue the ...
1. ... first Takanah?
2. ... second Takanah?
(d)Like whom is the Halachah?
14)
(a)How does Rebbi ...
1. ... Shimon learns this latter ruling from the Pasuk there "Kalil Taktar" - which he interprets to mean that it is burned in its entirety.
2. ... Yehudah learns it from the word "Osah" (in the Pasuk there "mi'Banav Ya'aseh Osah)" - implying that one burns it in one go and not in two.
(b)Even though Rebbi Shimon learns his ruling from a Pasuk, he nevertheless refers to it as a T'nai Beis-Din - because initially, they followed the Torah's ruling, before the Chachamim made a Takanah obligating the Kohen Gadol's heirs to purchase the Minchah (See Tos. Yom-Tov), then they issued a second Takamah (reinstating Torah law).
(c)They issued the ...
1. ... first Takanah - because it was a strain on the Lishkah.
2. ... second Takanah - when they saw how the children were simply not bringing their father's Minchah, so they reinstated the Torah law.
(d)The Halachah is - like Rebbi Yehudah (See Tos. Yom-Tov).
Mishnah 7
15)
(a)The fifth Takanah listed by Rebbi Shimon concerned the salt and the wood for the Korbanos. What did they institute?
(b)To what extent did the Chachamim permit it? Where did they forbid it?
(c)The sixth Takanah concerned the ashes of the Parah Adumah. What do we learn from the Pasuk in Chukas "Chatas Hi"?
(d)What does Rebbi Shimon then mean when he says 've'Al ha'Parah she'Lo Yih'yu Mo'alin be'Afrah'?
15)
(a)The fifth Takanah listed by Rebbi Shimon concerned the salt and the wood for the Korbanos - from which they permitted the Kohanim to benefit ...
(b)... to cook the Korbanos that they ate in the Azarah, but not Chulin (even the Chulin that they ate together with the Korbanos [See Tos. Yom-Tov]).
(c)The sixth Takanah concerned the ashes of the Parah Adumah. We learn from the Pasuk in Chukas "Chatas Hi" - that one is Mo'el for benefiting from the Parah, but not from its ashes.
(d)When Rebbi Shimon says 've'Al ha'Parah she'Lo Yih'yu Mo'alin be'Afrah', he means - that the Chachamim rescinded their subsequent Takanah placing Me'ilah on the ashes.
16)
(a)Why did the Chachamim initially place Me'ilah on the ashes of the Parah Adumah?
(b)What caused them to rescind the Takanah?
16)
(a)The Chachamim initially placed Me'ilah on the ashes of the Parah Adumah - because the people were treating it with disrespect (See Tos. Yom-Tov).
(b)They rescinded the Takanah - when they saw that the Kohanim declined to get involved in sprinkling it.
17)
(a)The seventh Takanah concerned Kinin that became Pasul (or lost). What exactly is the case?
(b)What was the Takanah?
17)
(a)The seventh Takanah concerned Kinin that became Pasul (or lost). The case is - where someone who is Chayav ro brings birds placed money in the appropriate 'Shofar' in the Azarah, and left (See Tos. Yom-Tov), relying on the Beis-Din to purchase the birds, which they did. But the birds either flew away or were found to be Pasul.
(b)The Takanah was - to purchase birds with money from the Lishkah, and to bring them on behalf of the owner of the original birds.
18)
(a)What does Rebbi Yossi say about Kinin that became Pasul (or lost)?
(b)What is his reason, based on what he said earlier in the fourth Perek?
(c)Like whom is the Halachah?
(d)The source for this ruling lies in the Yerushalmi. What does the Yerushalmi say?
18)
(a)According to Rebbi Yossi - whoever undertakes to supply birds to the Beis-ha'Mikdash, was obligated to replace them ...
(b)... as he learned earlier (in the fourth Perek) - regarding the Nesachim - that whoever undertakes to supply them does not receive his money until they have been brought on the Mizbe'ach ... (and the same applies to whoever undertakes to supply the Kinin).
(c)The Halachah is - like Rebbi Yossi ...
(d)... based on the Yerushalmi, which, citing a T'nai Beis-Din, says - whoever the Kinin, must also provide any birds that are lost or that have become Pasul.
