Implied Question: If it would not be for this Kal v'Chomer the Torah would not have had to say anything in the Pasuk, despite the fact that when the obligation to give the Zeroa etc. is stated by the Torah it does not differentiate between Chulin and Kodshim. (Why does the Mishnah indicate that a Pasuk would not be required without the Kal v'Chomer?)

Answer: This is because I would have thought to derive this topic from its context. The Pasuk regarding Zeroa etc. is referring to Chulin, as the previous Pasuk states, "your grain, grapes, and olives...the shearing of your sheep." The first shearings given to the Kohen do not apply to Kodshim animals, as stated later (135a). (We would therefore think even without a Pasuk that giving the Zeroa etc. does not apply to Kodshim just as it does not apply to the first shearings of sheep.)

Observation: The Gemara could also have said to learn this from Kilayim, Treifah, and many other types of animals that do not go into the pen since they are exempt from the taking of Ma'aser, as stated in Bechoros (57a).

Question: This is difficult. The Pasuk is referring to Matanos, yet it is excluding Chazeh v'Shok. On the contrary, we should exclude Kodshim from Matanos from here!

Answer: Kodshim were already excluded from "Osam." I gave a similar explanation earlier (24a) regarding the Pasuk, "And this is for the Levites."

Explanation: This is because it is forbidden to offer any Chulin in the Azarah according to Torah law.

Proof #1: This is also what is stated in Bava Basra (81b) regarding Bikurim.

Question: This is not a logical proof, as the Gemara (ibid.) was discussing bringing the birds, that some brought together with the Bikurim, into the Azarah. This is especially because it is possible beforehand to proclaim that they should be sacrifices (and thereby avoid bringing Chulin into the Azarah).

Proof #2: Similarly, in Menachos (80b) regarding a Todah that was mixed up with Temuros, the Gemara asks why we don't offer more bread etc. The Gemara answered that this would mean bringing Chulin into the Azarah. Since the Gemara says there is no way to help the situation there, we see that this is a Torah law.

Question: This is difficult, as in Zevachim (90b) we say that the Kohanim can eat the Korbanos anyway they want, including roasted or cooked, and they may put spices of Chulin on the Korban meat.

Question (cont.): The Gemara in Menachos (21b) says that the Pasuk, "they should eat it" means that they can eat Chulin and Terumah together with their Kodshim in order that it can be eaten when one is (mostly) full.

Answer: It appears that the prohibition (against bringing Chulin to the Azarah) is specifically regarding the Chazeh v'Shok and Bikurim, which is brought to the Beis Hamikdash in a holy fashion (as it is a Mitzvah that is being done, as opposed to a regular mundane item brought to the Azarah such as ketchup and mustard put on a Korban because this is what the Kohen likes to put on his meat), as we see that Tenufah is done.

Answer (cont.): Similarly, offering more bread for the Todah in order to cause the Korban to be valid is prohibited when it is not actually needed.

Explanation: According to this version, the Pasuk, "And this should be" is extra in order to teach that Matanos is a monetary law (that a Kohen can demand) as opposed to Chazeh v'Shok.

Explanation (cont.): According to the first version it is possible to say that we derive both lessons from the Pasuk. The teaching regarding Matanos being a monetary law is derived from it being stated next to the word "Mishpat - law." This implies that Matanos is a monetary law, as opposed to Chazeh v'Shok.

Observation: The difference between these two versions is that according to the version that Matanos is considered not to be able to be claimed, while a Kohen cannot have judges force a person to give him Matanos, the person may be obligated to give it to him according to the law of Heaven. According to the first version that this is derived from, "And this" he is not even obligated to give it to this Kohen by the law of Heaven.

Explanation: This is specifically when there is a Kohen Chaver present. However, if there is no Kohen Chaver present and there is only an Am ha'Aretz, he should give it to the Am ha'Aretz and not wait until a Chaver comes by.

Proof: This is as the Mishnah states in Chalah (4:9), "These give to anyone (i.e. any Kohen) who wants them: Charamim, Bechoros, Pidyon ha'Ben, Peter Chamor, Zeroa, Lechayayim, Keivah, Reishis ha'Gez etc."

Implied Question: One cannot explain that any Kohen means whether it is one of the people from the current Mishmar or not. (Why isn't this a valid explanation?)

Answer: This is because the Yerushalmi in Chalah (ch.4) says that some things are given to any Kohen and some are given to the people of the Mishmar. It would seem that "any Kohen" means whether he is a Chaver or an Am ha'Aretz. This is where there is no Chaver, or there is and he does not want to accept the Matanos, as I explained earlier (104b).

Implied Question: However, one should not answer that Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeini here holds like Rebbi Yehudah. This is as the Yerushalmi states, "Rebbi Yehudah says that one should only give it to a Chaver." (Why can't we say Rebbi Shmuel holds like Rebbi Yehudah?)

Answer: The Yerushalmi is referring to Bikurim, as stated there earlier that Rebbi Ada forbids regarding Bikurim.

Explanation: According to the second version that one cannot demand Matanos because it is money that cannot be demanded the Gemara's question is very understandable. "He should pay" implies that judges will make him pay.

Explanation (cont.): According to the first version that said he was exempt because the Pasuk says "This" the question is as follows. Since one is exempt because the Pasuk states "This," it is illogical to say there is a difference between Matanos and Leket, Shichichah, and Pe'ah.

Observation: The Gemara later (134a) asks a question from the law that one is liable to give doubtful Leket due to, "A poor and downtrodden one should be justified" on the law that doubtful Matanos do not go to a Kohen.

Text: The text is "Amar Rava" and not "Amar Ley Rava," as this would imply that Rava said this to Rav Chisda.

Proof: If this would be the case, what would he mean when Rav Chisda concluded, "A Midas Chassidus was taught here?" He already heard the answer. Why would Rav Chisda have more to say? Rather, Rava heard the question and answer in the Beis Medrash in the name of Rav Chisda regarding the first part of the Mishnah, and he said that one cannot answer nor ask from the first part. Rather, the second part of the Mishnah caused difficulty for Rav Chisda, and Rav Chisda's answer was regarding this second part of the Mishnah.

Text (cont.): Some Sefarim have the text, "And Rav Chisda said" with a Vav after Rava's statement.

Proof: This is indeed implied, as if he was speaking to Rav Chisda, he would not say, "And you say" but rather "And Mar said that a Midas Chassidus was taught here."

Question #1: The Gemara in Bava Kama (7a) states that Abaye said, "Does the Pasuk say Yeshulam? It is written Yeshalem, implying that it is because he wants to pay (to fulfill his Heavenly obligation, though he is not obligated by judges to pay - Maharam)!

Question #2: In Bava Metzia (91a), regarding muzzling a bull and threshing with it, he receives lashes and he pays its owner four Kav etc. The Gemara wants to say that he pays to fulfill an obligation from Heaven.

Question #2 (cont.): According to the first version earlier that he is even exempt from Heavenly obligation, this question is understandable. However, according to the version that the money has no claimants but he must fulfill his Heavenly obligation, it is possible to say that this is specifically regarding one who damages Matnos Kehunah or eats them, as he is taking them in a prohibited fashion.

Question #2 (cont.): However, here that he took them in a permitted fashion as he was poor, he should not even be obligated to fulfill any Heavenly obligation. This is why the Gemara's question, "And you say this is a Midas Chassidus?!" is valid. He should not even be obligated to repay the money as a Heavenly obligation!

Question #2 (cont.): However, the Gemara later is difficult. It says that the reason is because he was poor. This implies that if he was rich he would be obligated to pay! Why is this difficult? Why don't we say that a poor person does not even have to fulfill a Heavenly obligation, but a rich person does?

Answer: Rabeinu Tam answers that Rava means as follows. The Tana says that he should pay according to Rebbi Eliezer, meaning that the Rabbanan argue. And you say this is a Midas Chassidus etc.?! The Rabbanan would not have argued regarding a Midas Chassidus!

Question: The Pasuk is not after the separating of Terumos, rather it is regarding what is going to be taken.

Proof: This is evident from the fact that we derive in Sanhedrin (83a) from this Pasuk that one who eats Tevel is liable to be killed. This is because we derive a Gezeirah Shaveh of Chilul from Terumah, as the Pasuk states, "And they will not desecrate the Kodshim of Bnei Yisrael that they will take etc." This implies it is referring to what they will take!

Answer #1: It is possible to answer that the Gemara derives from the fact that the word "they will take" is close to the word "for Hash-m." This teaches that Heaven only has a portion in it when it is taken.

Answer #2: Alternatively, this Pasuk is referring to the next Pasuk, "And when a man will eat Kodesh" which is referring to after he has already taken Terumos etc.