1)

(a)Our Mishnah obligates the Mitzvah of Matanos (Zero'a, Lechayayim ve'Keivah) in almost all cases; ba'Aretz u've'Chutz la'Aretz, bi'Fenei ha'Bayis ve'she'Lo bi'Fenei ha'Bayis. The one exception is - Kodshim.

(b)The Tana finds it necessary to mention ba'Aretz u've'Chutz la'Aretz - because it is going to say be'Chulin Aval Lo be'Kodshim (see Maharsha).

(c)she'Lo bi'Fenei ha'Bayis means - when the Beis-Hamikdash is not standing.

2)

(a)The Tana learns from the word "Osam" (in the Pasuk in Tzav [in connection with the Chazeh va'Shok] "va'Etein Osam le'Aharon ha'Kohen ... ") that - the Chazeh ve'Shok of Kodshim (Kalim) are given to the Kohanim, but not other gifts (such as the Matanos).

(b)Otherwise, we would have learned that - Kodshim (which are Chayav Chazeh ve'Shok) are Chayav Matanos too Kal-va'Chomer from Chulin (which are not Chayav Chazeh ve'Shok).

(c)A Kodshim animal which is a Ba'al-Mum is Chayav B'chorah (if it gives birth to a firstborn baby) and Matanos, and once redeemed, it goes out to Chulin to be shorn and worked with, and its babies and milk are permitted - if the blemish preceded the Hekdesh.

(d)The Tana rules, regarding the above animal that ...

1. ... if someone Shechts it ba'Chutz - he is Patur.

2. ... it is not subject to Temurah.

3. ... if it dies - it may be redeemed.

3)

(a)The underlying reason that is common to all these rulings is that - the animal is not really Hekdesh (in fact, it is like declaring wood and stones Hekdesh).

(b)The two exceptions to the rule are - Bechor and Ma'aser, the two categories of Kodshim which take effect even on a Ba'al-Mum.

(c)Hekdesh takes effect on an animal with a blemish, even with regard to other types of Hekdesh however - if the blemish is a temporary one.

4)

(a)The Seifa of the Mishnah teaches us that where the Hekdesh precedes the blemish, all the above rulings are reversed. The problem in the Seifa, with the ruling ve'ha'Shochtan ba'Chutz Patur is that - it clashes with the principle that whatever is not fit be brought to the entrance of the Ohel Mo'ed, is not subject to Sh'chutei Chutz.

(b)We therefore establish this ruling specifically by the blemish of Dukin she'be'Ayin (a minor eye ailment called eye's-webb) - according to Rebbi Akiva, who holds that Bedi'eved, if it is brought on the Mizbe'ach, it ot taken down.

(c)The reason for the ruling in the Seifa Peturin mi'Bechorah u'mi'Matanos is - because the Torah compares P'sulei ha'Mukdashin to a deer and a gazelle, which are Patur from both.

(d)With regard to P'sulei ha'Mukdashin, we learn from the Pasuk in Shoftim "Rak be'Chol Avas Nafsh'cha ... ", from the word ...

1. ... "Tizbach" that their - wool is forbidden, and that one may not work with them.

2. ... "ve'Achalta" that - one may not feed them to the dogs.

3. ... "Basar" that - the babies (with which they were pregnant before they were redeemed) and their milk are forbidden.

5)

(a)And we learn from the Pasuk in Bechukosai "Tov be'Ra O Ra be'Tov" - that they (P'sulei ha'Mukdashin) are subject to Temurah.

(b)The two reasons that govern the final Halachah that the animals in the Seifa must be buried should they die - are ...

1. ... that Kodshim require 'Ha'amadah and Ha'arachah' (standing and being assessed before being redeemed), and ...

2. ... they cannot be fed to the dogs - as we just learned from the Pasuk "ve'Achalta".

(c)We learned in the Mishnah that, if not for "Osam", we would learn Matanos by Kodshim from Chulin. We refute the Pircha that Chulin are different, since they are subject to the Mitzvah of ...

1. ... Bechor - by establishing the Limud by male Kodshim (which are not).

2. ... Reishis ha'Gez (even the males) - by adding that males incorporates goats (which do not produce wool).

3. ... Ma'aser Beheimah (even the goats) - by adding old, meaning that they have already been Ma'asered.

(d)And we refute the Pircha that even old Chulin goats ...

1. ... once entered the pen to be Ma'asered - by switching the last answer either to goats that were purchased or goats that are Yesomim (whose mothers died as they were born, both of which were never subject to Ma'aser.

2. ... that were purchased or that were born Yesomim are of the species that are subject to Ma'aser - by countering that in that case, so are Kodshim of the species that that are subject to Ma'aser.

6)

(a)We then ask why Chulin (which are Chayav Matanos), are not subject to the Mitzvah of Chazeh ve'Shok from a Kal-va'Chomer - from Kodshim (which are Patur).

(b)We learn from the word "ve'Zeh" (in the Pasuk in Shoftim [in connection with the Matanos] "ve'Zeh Yih'yeh Mishpat ha'Kohanim me'es ha'Am") - that they are only Chayav Matanos, but not Chazeh ve'Shok.

(c)The problem with the suggestion that Chulin should be Chayav Chazeh ve'Shok is - where they will then perform the prescribed Mitzvah of Tenufah; they cannot perform it outside the Azarah, since the Torah requires "Lifnei Hash-m", whereas they cannot perform it inside, because they will then be guilty of bringing Chulin inside the Azarah ...

(d)... since this is not part of the Avodas ha'Korban (for Hash-m), but for the benefit of the Kohanim (since it permits them to eat the Chazeh ve'Shok).

7)

(a)We therefore conclude that "Zeh" is needed to teach us Rav Chisda's Din that - someone who damages or eats Matnos Kehunah before having given them to the Kohen, is Patur from paying.

(b)We learn this from "ve'Zeh" - which implies that one is only obligated to give the Matnos Kehunah to the Kohen as long as they are there (and he can point at them, as we commonly Darshen from the word "Zeh").

(c)He might also be Patur from paying - because it is money that has no claimants (since if any Kohen claims the money from him, he can always say that he will give it to somebody else).

8)

(a)The Beraisa describes the Matanos as Din. If we interpreted it literally, it would mean that - he must pay the first Kohen who claims damages from him (a Kashya on Rav Chisda).

(b)We conclude however, that this is not the case, and what he means is that - the Beis-Din will instruct the people to give their Matanos to a Kohen Chaver and not to a Kohen Am ha'Aretz.

(c)This is based on a statement of Rav Shmuel bar Nachmeni Amar Rebbi Yonasan who said, based on the Pasuk in Divrei Hayamim (in connection with Matnos Kehunah and Levi'ah) "Lema'an Yechezku be'Toras Hash-m" that - only Kohanim and Levi'im who strengthen themselves in the Torah of Hash-m deserve to receive a portion, and not Amei ha'Aretz.

9)

(a)In another Beraisa, Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira reiterates that Matanos are Din, and the word "ve'Zeh" comes to preclude - Chazeh va'Shok.

(b)We cannot now interpret Din to mean to distribute it via Beis-Din (Lecholko be'Dayanim - because then the Torah would not preclude Chazeh ve'Shok (which are also Matnos Kehunah).

(c)It must therefore means that he has to pay damages, and, to reconcile this with Rav Chisda, we establish it - by where the Yisrael damaged the Matanos after he had already given them to the Kohen.

(d)The problem with learning the Beraisa like this is that - it does not then contain anything new.

10)

(a)So we establish the Beraisa - where he gave to the Kohen the entire animal with the Matanos still inside.

(b)And the Chidush is that - we consider the Matanos as if they had been separated, and the Kohen acquires them from Hefker.

(c)Nevertheless, he will not, by the same token, be Chayav for destroying the Chazeh ve'Shok - because the Chazeh ve'Shok belong to the Beis Av that serves on that day, and no other Kohen has a right to take them.

11)

(a)Rebbi Eliezer in the Mishnah in Pe'ah - permits a wealthy man to take Matnos Aniyim whilst he is traveling, though he is obligated to repay the Aniyim upon his return.

(b)Bearing in mind that there are no claimants, Rav Chisda explains that - this is Midas Chasidus (and not an obligation).

(c)We ask on this two Kashyos. One, how can Rav Chisda interpret Yeshalem as Midas Chasidus. The other - how can we query Rav Chisda from Rebbi Eliezer, when the Chachamim in the Seifa agree with him.

12)

(a)So we query Rav Chisda from the Rabbanan, who rule in the Seifa that - he is Patur from paying the Aniyim upon his return, because he was considered a poor man at the time.

(b)We now extrapolate from their words that - if not for the fact that he was considered a poor man at the time, he would be Chayav, (despite the fact that there are no claimants), a Kashya on Rav Chisda ...

(c)... who answers that - this Beraisa too, is speaking where the Yisrael and the Levi gave the Tevel to the Kohen, to teach us the principle Matanos she'Lo Hurmu k'Mi she'Hurmu Damyan, as we explained earlier.

13)

(a)The Beraisa exempts a Yisrael who eats his fruit, or a Levi his Ma'aser, whilst it is still in a state of Tevel, from the Pasuk "ve'Lo Yechalelu es Kodshei B'nei Yisrael asher Yarimu", implying that the Kohen only acquires Terumah from the time that it is separated, but not before.

(b)By Ma'aser that is in a state of Tevel, the Tana is referring to the T'rumas Ma'aser that the Levi is obligated to take from the Ma'aser that he receives.

(c)We can infer from the Beraisa that - once the Terumah has been separated, it belongs to the Kohen, again a Kashya on Rav Chisda.

(d)And once again, we answer - by establishing the Beraisa where the Kohen received the Terumah whilst it was still Tevel, as we already explained, whereas the Pasuk is speaking about Tevel that is still in the possession of the owner.