brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
& Revach l'Neshamah - http://www.revach.net
1. The Mishnah discusses giving Matanos Kehunah from the animal of a convert.
2. If an gives a good reason for his proposed Halachah, it cannot be dismissed easily.
3. Abaye comments that the law above (#1) seemingly contradicts a similar law regarding taking Challah from the dough of a convert.
4. Rava answered that there is no contradiction, as Matanos Kehunah is a monetary law, while Challah is a prohibition.
5. The foreleg referred to in Matanos Kehunah is the right foreleg.
A BIT MORE
1. If it was (properly) slaughtered before he converted, he is not obligated to give Matanos Kehunah. If it was slaughtered after he converted, he is obligated to give Matanos Kehunah.
2. After Rebbi Yochanan stated that a certain law was a minority opinion, Reish Lakish countered that while this is so, it is a minority opinion with solid reasoning and, therefore, cannot be easily dismissed.
3. While our Mishnah states that if it is unclear whether the convert’s animal was slaughtered before or after he converted, the Kohen does not receive Matanos Kehunah from the animal. In the same case regarding Challah (it was unclear whether he became obligated in Challah before or after he converted) we say he is obligated to take Challah.
4. It is prohibited to eat dough (or whatever it is baked into) if it was obligated in Challah, and Challah was never taken. However, it is not prohibited to eat from an animal that did not have Matanos Kehunah taken (and it is therefore an issue of monetary law, on which we can rule leniently as the Kohen has no proof that the convert must give him the Matanos).
5. This is derived from the word, "ha’Zeroa" - "the foreleg" indicating the more dominant leg (presumably the right leg).
Next Daf Index to Revach for Maseches Chulin