(Mishnah): 'The roads and Mikvaos were repaired from the damage of the winter, general community needs were arranged'.

(Beraisa): These are considered community needs - Judging monetary cases, life and death cases and cases of lashes and redeeming Erchin, Charamim and Hekdeshos.

(Beraisa continues): They give a Sota to drink, they burn the Parah Aduma, they break the neck of the Eglah Arufah, they pierce the ear of a Jewish slave, they purify the Metzorah and they remove the lock from the water cistern (for the winter) and do not replace it (until the winter).

(Mishnah in Moed Katan): They water the irrigated fields and they mark the graves.

Question: Did they not already mark them in Adar?

Answer: Rainfall washed away the markings.

(Mishnah): (On the 15th of Adar) they would go out to inspect the Kil'ayim.

Question: Did they not already go out (at the beginning of Adar)?

Answer: It was a year in which the crops grew late, so at the beginning of Adar, the growths were not yet visible.

Question: What is the source for marking graves?

Answer (R. Berachia and R. Yaakov bar bas Yaakov citing R. Chunya of Beras Chavran and R. Yosa and some say R. Yaakov bar Acha citing R. Chunya of Beras Chavran and R. Chizkiyah and R. Uziel son of Rav Chunya of Beras Chavran citing Rav Chunya of Beras Chavran): The Pasuk says (Vayikra 13:45), "And he will proclaim (I am ) Tameh! (I am) Tameh!".

It teaches that it is in order that the Tumah should call out to you with its mouth and tell you - 'Stay away'!

(R. Ila citing R. Shmuel bar Nachman): The Pasuk says (Yechezkel 39: 15), "And when they shall pass through the land and they will the see the bone of a man and build next to it a marking."

'Bone' - this teaches that we mark bones. 'A man' - this teaches that we mark a spine and a skull.

'And build' - this teaches that they mark on top of a fixed stone. If you would say that it is on top of a detached stone, it will go and cause another place to be mistakenly considered Tameh.

'Next to it' - You mark in a place that itself is Tahor. 'A marking' - this teaches the requirement to mark.

If a person found one single marked stone, even though one should not mark with one single stone, one who passed over it becomes Tameh - we say that a corpse was underneath the stone.

If there were two stones, one who passes over either of them remains Tahor; but one who passes between them becomes Tameh.

If the area between them was plowed, they are viewed as individual stones, so between them is Tahor and around them is Tameh.

(Beraisa): One does not mark flesh (of a corpse), lest it decompose and will later be mistakenly considered Tameh.

Question (R. Yusta bar Shunam to R. Mana): If there are no markings for flesh, will that not cause Taharos to become Tameh?

Answer (R. Mana): It is better that there be temporary damage rather than permanent damage.

(Mishnah) R. Yehuda: Originally the agents of Beis Din would uproot Kil'ayim and throw it down in front of the owners.

When the number of sinners increased, they would throw them into the roads.

They later enacted that they would declare the entire field ownerless.

Gemara (Beraisa, R. Yehuda): Originally, they would uproot them and throw them down in front of the owners.

The owners were doubly happy - firstly that they were weeding their field and furthermore, they were benefitting from Kil'ayim (as it could now be used to feed their animals).

When the number of sinners increased, they would throw them into the roads. The owners were still happy as their fields were being weeded. Chazal enacted that they would render ownerless the entire field.

What is the source that the declaration of Hefker by Beis Din is valid? The Pasuk states (Ezra 10:8), "And whoever shall not come within three days according to the counsel of the officers and the elders, all his property shall be forfeited, and he shall be separated from the congregation of the exile."

Question: From where do we learn that such a Hefker field is exempted from tithes (like all Hefker produce)?

Answer (R. Yonasan son of Rav Yitzchak bar Acha): We can learn it from the following Beraisa;

(Beraisa): One does not declare a leap year in Sheviis or the year after Sheviis, but if they did, it is valid.

Regarding that extra month (that was added to Sheviis), is not the produce exempt from Maaseros? (This shows that Beis Din have the ability to make produce Hefker and exempt from Maaseros.)

Question: We understand why they cannot make Sheviis a leap year, but why not in the year that follows it?

Answer (R. Bun): It is in order not to increase the prohibition of Chadash.

(R. Zeira citing R. Elazar): This (prohibition to make the year that follows Shemitta a leap year) was before Rebbi permitted bringing vegetables from Chutz LaAretz to Eretz Yisrael, but once he permitted it, Sheviis is the same as any other year (as there is no concern for starvation).

The Beraisa earlier stated (see above (c)) that one does not declare a leap year in Sheviis or the year after Sheviis, but if they did, it is valid. R. Mana said that the Beraisa was referring to originally, when the seasons of the years were according to their proper way (that the new grain was ripe in time and could be eaten immediately), but now that the seasons are not according to their proper way (and the grains are not ripe until later), Nisan may be delayed, so Sheviis is like all other years.

(Beraisa): The House of Rabban Gamliel extended the year that immediately followed Sheviis.

Rejection (R. Avun against R. Yonasan's proof in (c)): You can't prove anything from there.

When the Torah says (Devarim 16:1), "Guard the month of the spring" - it means that you should ensure that Nisan occurs in the spring (by making a leap year if necessary).

There is another Mishnah (in Maseches Peah 5:1) that does not say this Halacha - 'a stack of grain from which the Leket had not been gathered by the poor, whatever is touching the ground belongs to the poor.'

(R. Ami cited from Reish Lakish): It was said by Beis Shammai (who said that one can make Hefker something specifically for the poor).

As if it was Beis Hillel, the poor could eat but must separate Maaser.

(R. Yosi to R. Ami): We have heard that all agree that it is exempt from Maaser - Beis Din imposed a penalty on one who was careless with his Leket and covered it with his own grain (and they declare it Hefker to the poor).

(Mishnah): On the 15th of Adar, the money changers would sit at tables set up throughout the country. On the 25th, they would sit in the Mikdash. Once they began sitting there, Beis Din would begin to seize collateral (from those who hadn't given their half-shekel.)

From whom would they take collateral? Leviim, Yisraelim, converts and freed slaves; but not women, slaves and children. If a father began to give for his child, he may not stop. They do not take collateral from the Kohanim to keep the peace.

(R. Yehuda): Ben Buchri testified in Yavneh that any Kohen who donates the half shekel is not a sinner. R. Yochanan ben Zakai said to him - No, it should be, any Kohen who does not donate is a sinner.

But the Kohanim expounded this Pasuk for themselves (Vayikra 6:16), 'And every meal offering of a Kohen must be completely burned up; it is not eaten.'

The Kohen will claim - since the Omer, the two breads of Shavuos and the Lechem HaPanim are ours, (and if we would contribute the half shekel, we will have partial ownership in these communal offerings; how then can they be eaten? They would need to be viewed as Mincha of Kohen which would have to be fully burned!)

Gemara: The Mishnah taught that they do not take collateral from minors.

Inference: But we do claim the half shekel from minors. This is only when he has grown two pubic hairs (which shows that he is actually an adult).

However, if he has not grown hairs, it does not apply (as he has no obligation to give). But as for taking collateral, they do not do so even when he has grown hairs.

The Mishnah's law is taught in the Beraisa as follows - Out of respect for Kohanim, we do not seize collateral from them.

In the Mishnah, R. Yehuda taught that Ben Buchri testified (in Yavneh that any Kohen who donates the half shekel is not a sinner. R. Yochanan ben Zakai disagreed and said that it should be that any Kohen who doesn't donate is a sinner.)

(R. Berachya): R. Yochanan ben Zakkai's source is the Pasuk (Shemos 30:13), "Zeh" - 'this' they shall give. The 12 tribes shall give (as 'Zeh' has a gematria of 12).

(Rav Tavi citing Rav Hamnuna): This is the way the Chachamim answered R. Yehuda - A Chatas of an individual must be left to die, but not a communal one. An individual's is completely burned whereas a communal one is not.

Question: Can one raise a difficulty for a person in a matter about which he doesn't agree? As it says in a Mishnah (in Maseches Yoma), 'A communal Chatas isn't left to die; R. Yehuda says that it is left to die'? (So according to R. Yehuda, this is not a distinction between a communal and an individual's Chatas.)

Answer: R' Yehuda responds that the half shekel given by a Kohen is an individual donation and the Rabbanan respond to him that since it is given over to the community, it is considered part of the communal donation.

The Pasuk says (Shemos 30:13), "Everyone who passes among them that are numbered" - R. Yehuda and R. Nechemya disagreed. One said that the Pasuk means that those who passed through the Yam Suf must give a half shekel. (This would include the tribe of Levi.)

The other said that whoever passed before Moshe to be numbered must give a half shekel. (This would exclude the tribe of Levi, who were counted differently.)

The one who said that all who passed through the Yam Suf must give, is a support for R. Yochanan ben Zakkai and the one who said that all who passed to be counted must give is a support for Ben Buchri.