Explanation: "When he tithes it and on" means when it came to his hand, even when it is not yet tithed.

Question: Why doesn't the Gemara answer that the simple explanation of the Beraisa that says he is exempt from payment means that the Kohen received it when it was not yet tithed? This Tana could hold that Matanos that were not yet taken are not as if they were already taken and this is why he is exempt, as the Kohen only has his Matanos from when they are actually taken. This would be a better answer, as the term "taken" would be literal.

Answer: If we would establish that this is the meaning of the Beraisa, there would be no novelty in saying that if one would actually take the Matanos he would be liable. He would obviously pay, since the Kohen received it and it was tithed. However, now the main point of the Beraisa is that if someone damages Matnos Kehunah or eats them he is exempt. It is making us deduce that even though the Kohen got it when it was not yet tithed he is liable, since it is as if it was tithed.

Explanation: In the place of the tithes, the king let him keep other monies.

Question: When a person eats Matnos Kehunah he similarly benefits, as instead of this he did not eat other food in his possession. Why, then, is he exempt?

Answer: This is unlike the king forcing him to give him from his silo, as the landowner did not take something instead from his own grain. However, when he eats Matnos Kehunah, it is possible he would not have eaten something else in its place, as he might have fasted.

Implied Question: The Beraisa did not list all twenty four Matanos of Kehunah that are stated later (133b). (Why not?)

Answer: It only listed the Matanos that are forbidden to non Kohanim and that are considered the money of the Kohen.

Implied Question: The Beraisa mentioned Matanos even though they are permitted to non Kohanim because they cause Tevel and they are compared to Terumah as stated later (132b). This is despite the fact that this is not the Halachah. (Why are they mentioned?)

Answer #1: We do not rule like this insofar as they do not cause one who eats from the animal to be like someone who is eating Tevel. However, it is still forbidden to eat from an animal that did not have Matanos taken.

Answer #2: Alternatively, the Beraisa is only listing Matanos that are eaten.

Implied Question: Why, then, isn't Bechor included in this list?

Answer: This is because it is not yet edible when it is given, as it requires slaughtering.

Observation: The Gemara specifically said that it is divided in the house, as there are two different laws of Ma'aser. One set of laws is for Ma'aser divided in the house, and one set of laws for what is divided by the silo, as implied in Nedarim (84b). The owners cannot choose to whom they would like to give the Ma'aser taken in the silos. However, they can choose to whom they would like to give the Ma'aser taken in their house.

Observation (cont.): The Sifri explains that this law comes from the Pesukim. One Pasuk says, "At the end of three years you should bring out all of the Ma'aser of your produce and you will put etc." This implies that you have to put it in the silo, at which time poor people come and take it.

Observation (cont.): Another Pasuk states, "When you will finish taking Ma'aser...and you will give to the Levi etc." This implies dividing the tithes in the house, as the Pasuk states, "And you will put down." How can we reconcile both Pesukim? It must be that until Pesach it is a time of rain, and if he puts it outside it will get ruined. Therefore, until Pesach he puts it down in his house. This is the Ma'aser Ani that is being divided in the house. Afterwards it is summer, at which time he puts the produce outside the house and the poor people come and take the Ma'aser Ani.

Explanation: It seems that if the owner has the right to decide who receives this tithe, even if a different poor person takes it we will take it out of his hand. If he does not have the right to decide who receives it, we do not take it out of the hand of whoever took it.

Explanation (cont.): However, if nobody took it yet and a poor person asked him for it, he does not have to give it to him if he does not want to. This is because it is called money that does not have claimants. If he would have to give it to whoever asked him for it, it would be called money that does have claimants.

Implied Question: This Gezeirah Shaveh is derived, despite the fact that the words had to be stated and they are not open for derivation. (How can we derive from these words if they are not open for derivation?)

Answer #1: This is just informing us that just like Pe'ah applies to olives, it also applies to grapes. It is not an actual Gezeirah Shaveh.

Answer #2: Alternatively, since Shichichah is referred to by the word "Acharecha" - "after you," it must mean that it should be used in a Gezeirah Shaveh (with another "Acharecha," as otherwise the Torah would have merely stated "Shichichah").

Question: It requires study to understand why we do not derive from the word "Acharecha" that Peret should apply to olives just as it applies to grapes.

Observation: There is no question regarding deriving that Olalos applies to fruit from trees, as Olalos is inapplicable to anything that does not have a bunch of fruit coming out of a small branch or a branch that is not covered by fruit (character traits that are specific to grapes, as opposed to other fruits).

Explanation: If it would truly be discussing the Zeroa, why would it say "like (the Zeroa)?" It should merely say, "And the other Matnos Kehunah are the Zeroa etc." Rather, since it said, "like" it is not discussing a Zeroa, but rather something similar, namely Ma'aser Rishon.

Implied Question: The Beraisa still had to say, "like the Zeroa." (Why did it say this when it really meant Ma'aser Rishon?)

Answer: If it would explicitly state Ma'aser Rishon, I would think that the same would apply regarding Matnos Kehunah. This is why it said, "like the Zeroa." This is what it means to say: "Other Matnos Kehunah that are similar to the Zeroa, like Ma'aser Rishon, can be taken away. However, the Zeroa itself cannot be taken due to the doubt of Rav."

Question: This is difficult. What is the question on Rav from here? Perhaps the reason one cannot taken it away is because the Tana is unsure whether or not they are called a nation!

Answer: He does not understand that the Tana has this doubt.

Text: Rabeinu Chananel's text is, "Let us support his position (from the following Beraisa). Anything that is holy (cannot be eaten by a non Kohen) etc."