Perek Ma'os she'Nimtze'u
(a)What does one do with money that was found between the box of Shekalim and that of Nedavah and why - if it was ...
1. ... closer to the box of Shekalim?
2. ... closer to the box of Nedavah?
(b)Why, if the money was found exactly half way between the box of Eitzim and that of Levonah, did it go to Levonah?
(c)Considering that it was the box of Kinin that was next to that of Shekalim (whereas the boxes of Nedavah are listed as being the furthest away from it), why does our Tana speak about money that was found between Shekalim and Nedavah?
(a)If money that was found between the box of Shekalim and that of Nedavah was ...
1. ... closer to the box of Shekalim - it went to Shekalim, because we learn from the Parshah of Eglah Arufah that one must contend with that which is nearest.
2. ... closer to the box of Nedavah - it went to Nedavah, for the same reason.
(b)If the money was found exactly half way between the box of Etzim and that of Levonah, it went to Levonah - because Levonah is itself a Korban, whereas Etzim is no more than Machshirei Korban.
(c)Our Tana speaks about money that was found between Shekalim and Nedavah (even though they are listed as being the furthest apart) - because the boxes were actually placed in a circle, in which case Shekalim and Nedavah would be next to each other, full circle apart.
(a)Why would we have thought that if the money is found half way between Shekalim and Nedavah, that it should rather go to Shekalim?
(b)The Gemara gives two reasons why, in fact, it goes to Nedavah. The second reasonis because Mechtzah le'Mechtzah, Ke'mi She'Mes'. What does this mean?
(c)What is the first reason?
(d)Why does the Tana not also tell us what to do with money that is found between Ketores and Eitzim, and between Levonah and Zahav le'Kapores?
(a)We would have thought that if the money was found half way between Shekalim and Nedavah, that it should rather go to Shekalim - from which the regular Korbanos are bought, rather than to Nedavah, which is only used to buy irregular Korbanos for Kayitz ha'Mizbe'ach.
(b)In the second reason, the Gemara explains that in fact, it goes to Nedavah because Mechtzah l'Mechtzah, k'Mi she'Mes' - and a half Shekel whose owner died, goes to Nedavah anyway.
(c)The first reason is due to the likelihood of the money ending up in the Sheyarei ha'Lishkah, which went towards the rebuilding of the walls of Yerushalayim. Consequently, Nedavah, which was used for the Korbanos themselves, took precedence.
(d)The Tana does not tell us what was done with money that was found between Ketores and Etzim, and between Levonah and Zahav l'Kapores - because it is self-understood from the cases already mentioned in the Mishnah.
(a)Everyone agrees that if someone died after having designated his half-Shekel, it goes to Nedavah. According to Rebbi Elazar, the same happens to the Asiris ha'Eifah of the Kohen Gadol if he died. What does Rebbi Yochanan say in that case?
(b)If the money was found between the Kinin (incorporating money for Chata'os) and the Gozlei Olah, it goes to Gozlei Olah - even if it was half-way. Why?
(c)What is the precedent for this?
(d)Assuming that it was a woman (e.g. a Yoledes) who placed the money in the box, how will she fulfil her obligation of bringing a Chatas ha'Of?
(a)According to Rebbi Elazar, if the Kohen Gadol died, the Asiris ha'Eifah (like the half-Shekel) went to Nedavah. According to Rebbi Yochanan, it was thrown into the Yam ha'Melach.
(b)If the money was found between the Kinin (incorporating money for Chata'os) and the Gozlei Olah, it went to Gozlei Olah, even if it was half-way - because of a T'nai Beis-Din (an automatic stipulation of Beis-Din).
(c)The precedent for this is the Mosar Chatas that is brought as an Olah - because of T'nai Beis-Din.
(d)Assuming it was a woman (e.g. a Yoledes) who placed the money in the box, how she would fulfill her obligation of bringing a Chatas ha'Of - because of a second T'nai Beis-Din, which obligated whoever supplied the birds etc. to make up for all the Sefeikos (such as the Chata'os in our Sugya). Note: Safek Chata'os ha'Of were brought, but not eaten.
(a)Why was money that one found in Yerushalayim in front of the animal merchants, Ma'aser-Sheni - even not during Yom-Tov?
(b)If money was found in the streets of Yerushalayim, it would depend upon whether it was found on Yom-Tov (when it would be Ma'aser) or during the rest of the year (when it would be Chulin)? Why should this Din be different than money found on Har Habayis, which was always Chulin?
(c)If one finds whole limbs of animals in the Azarah, one treats them as Olos, whereas pieces of flesh, one treats as Chata'os. Why the difference?
(d)And why do pieces of flesh found in Yerushalayim considered Shelamim?
(a)Money that one found in Yerushalayim in front of the animal merchants, was always Ma'aser-Sheni - because most of the money found there was Ma'aser money, since the people who had brought their Ma'aser money on Yom-Tov, could not possibly finish all of it on Yom-Tov. Consequently, they would leave the remainder with their relatives in Yerushalayim to purchase Shelamim throughout the year. Neither would we assume that it was the merchants who had lost the money (which became Chulin when it reached their hands) - because the purchasers were in the majority.
(b)If money was found in the streets of Yerushalayim, it would depend upon whether it was found on Yom-Tov (when it would be Ma'aser) or during the rest of the year (when it would be Chulin) - because the streets of Yerushalayim tended to be swept every day; whereas money found on Har Habayis was always Chulin - because, due to the strong winds that prevail at high altitudes, it did not need to be swept manually.
(c)Limbs of animals that were found in the Azarah, were treated as Olos - because Olos tended to be cut up into whole limbs, before being placed on to the Mizbe'ach. Pieces of flesh, on the other hand, were treated as Chata'os, because it was only Chata'os and Ashamos (which had the same Din as Chata'os) that were eaten in the Azarah, and which would therefore have been cut into pieces.
(d)Pieces of flesh that were found in Yerushalayim were considered Shelamim - because the majority of meat eaten in Yerushalayim was that of Shelamim.
(a)What does one do with both the flesh found in the Azarah and that found in Yerushalayim, and why is that?
(b)What does one do if one finds elsewhere in Eretz Yisrael ...
1. ... whole limbs of animals?
2. ... cut pieces of flesh?
(c)How would this Din differ on Yom-Tov?
(a)Both the flesh found in the Azarah and that found in Yerushalayim - had to be left overnight (to become Pasul b'Linah - otherwise known as Ibur Tzurah), before being burned in their respective Beis-ha'Sereifos.
(b)If one found elsewhere in Eretz Yisrael ...
1. ... whole limbs of animals - they were considered to be Neveilos (which people would throw into the street for the dogs.
2. ... cut pieces of flesh - they could be eaten, since one only tended to cut them into small pieces either to sell or to place in the pot (and could therefore be assumed to be Kasher).
(c)If one found even whole limbs on Yom-Tov, they would be permitted, because on Yom-Tov, when one eats far more meat, one tends to cook even whole limbs. Consequently, even the majority of whole limbs were Kasher, and were permitted.
(a)We learnt in our Mishnah that money that is found on Har ha'Bayis is Chulin. Why do we not assume it to be money that fell from the Terumas ha'Lishkah and is therefore Kodesh?
(a)We learnt in our Mishnah that money that was found on Har ha'Bayis was Chulin. We do not assume it to have been money that fell from the Terumas ha'Lishkah and was therefore Kodesh - because of the Chazakah that the Kohen who took the money from the Terumas ha'Lishkah would buy the animals (for the Korbanos) immediately, transferring the Kedushah from the money on to the animals.
(a)Rebbi Elazar quoting Rebbi Hoshaya, says that Kodshim which became Pasul through Hesech ha'Da'as require Ibur Tzurah. Is there a proof for this from our Mishnah, which rules that flesh that is found in the Azarah requires Ibur Tzurah? Is that not because of Hesech ha'Da'as?
(b)Rebbi Yossi bar Chanina is quoted as saying that someone who eats whole limbs that he found outside Yerushalayim, receives Malkos for eating Neveilah. What is the proof for this from our Mishnah, which says 'Evrei, Neveilos, va'Chatichos Mutaros'?
(c)What does he say with regard to someone who finds limbs of meat that are tied together?
(a)There is no proof from our Mishnah (which rules that flesh found in the Azarah required Ibur Tzurah) for Rebbi Elazar quoting Rebbi Hoshaya, who says that Kodshim which became Pasul through Hesech ha'Da'as required Ibur Tzurah - because as long as the animal remained in the Azarah, there was no Hesech ha'Da'as (but where there was Hesech ha'Da'as, it may well not require Ibur Tzurah). The reason that the flesh was Pasul in our Mishnah is because of the Safek that it was left overnight - in which case, had they discovered that it was not, it would be Tahor (like any other Safek), and would therefore be considered a regular Pesul Tum'ah.
(b)Our Mishnah, which says 'Evrei, Neveilos, va'Chatichos Mutaros' - is comparing the limbs to the pieces: just as the latter were completely Mutar, so were the former, completely Neveilos (and one would receive Malkus for eating them) - a proof for Rebbi Yosi bar Chanina, who is quoted as saying that someone who ate whole limbs that he found outside Yerushalayim, received Malkus for eating Neveilah.
(c)He permits however, limbs of meat that one found tied together - because they were definitely Kasher limbs that someone dropped inadvertently (since people did not tend to throw limbs that were tied together, to the dogs).
(a)Does one receive Malkos for eating a piece of meat that he bought from one of ten shops, nine that sold Neveilah and one, Shechutah, but he cannot remember from which one he bought it?
(b)What will be the Din if he finds the meat on the street?
(c)What will happen in the reverse case (if there are nine shops that sell Kasher meat, and one that sells Neveilah)?
(d)What will be the Din in the latter case if he found the meat in the hands of a gentile? Is he permitted to eat it?
(a)If someone purchased a piece of meat that he bought from one of ten shops, nine that sold Neveilah and one, Shechutah, but he cannot remember from which one he bought it, he may not eat the meat. However, he will not receive Malkus for doing so, because then it is a case of 'Kol Kavua k'Mechtzah al Mechtzah' (whenever the Safek began in its original location, it is considered like fifty-fifty - a regular Safek), for which there is no Malkus.
(b)If he found the meat on the street - it becomes a case of 'Kol d'Parish, me'Ruba Parish (when the Safek originates elsewhere, then we go after the majority) - and he will receive Malkus.
(c)In the reverse case, when nine shops sell Kasher meat, and one sells Neveilah - then if the Safek originated in the shop (as in a.), he too will be forbidden to eat it, but will not receive Malkus; whereas if it originated elsewhere (as in b.) - then he will be permitted to eat it.
(d)If he found the meat in the hands of a gentile - it is as if he found it in the street, and provided the majority of shops in that town sell Kasher meat, he is permitted to eat it.
(a)How do we reconcile the previous case with the episode where they saw a gentile leaving a non-Kasher shop with a piece of horse-meat which he had himself cut off from a dead horse?
(b)What did that man do when the butcher in Tzipori refused to sell him meat?
(c)What did the butcher reply, when the man boasted that he could not stop him from purchasing from his shop?
(d)They asked Rebbi whether the meat from that butcher's shop was prohibited (because he had admitted to possessing and selling Neveilah). What was his reply?
(a)The Gemara asks on the previous case from the episode where they saw a gentile leaving a non-Kasher shop with a piece of horse-meat which he had himself cut off from a dead horse - and answers that we only permit meat in the hands of a gentile when we saw him coming out of a Kasher butcher shop.
(b)When the butcher in Tzipori refused to sell a certain man meat - he sent a gentile to purchase meat from there on his behalf.
(c)When the man boasted that the butcher could not stop him from purchasing from his shop, the butcher replied that he had supplied the gentile Sheliach with Neveilah.
(d)When they asked Rebbi whether the meat from that butcher's shop had become prohibited - he replied that, since there had been no announcement that day that there was non-Kasher meat in the shop, all the meat was assumed to be Kasher, and the butcher was not believed to render the meat of Tzipori, Tereifah.
(a)What was Rav's reaction when he arrived in Bavel and saw how careless they were in leaving their meat with gentiles to look after (with the obvious consequences)?
(b)And what did he tell that man when the piece of meat that he was washing in the river fell into the water, and he left intending to return later to fish it out?
(a)When Rav arrived in Bavel and saw how careless they were in leaving their meat with gentiles to look after - he issued a decree forbidding all meat that was left even momentarily out of sight and to which non-Jews had access ('Basar she'Nis'alem min ha'Ayin').
(b)When the piece of meat that the man was washing in the river, fell into the water, and he left, intending to return later to fish it out - Rebbi told him that his meat was forbidden, because of the possibility that the river would sweep it away and replace it with a piece of Neveilah (Note: Our Gemara does not discuss a case where the actual piece was clearly recognizable, but a similar Halachah will be discussed in the next Sugya.)