What is the word "ve'Zeh Yih'hyeh Mishpat ha'Kohanim" coming to preclude?
Chulin, 130b: It implies as long as the Matnos are intact, to exempt someone who damages or eats them from having to pay. 1
Chulin, 130b: It precludes Chazeh ve'Shok from the Din of "Mishpat" - in which case the Kohanim cannot claim them in Beis-Din. 2
What are the ramifications of the fact that the Torah calls the Matanos "Mishpat"?
Chulin, 130b: As a result, if someone steals Matanos from Kohen, the Kohen can take the Ganav to Beis-Din. 1
See Torah Temimah, note 6
What is "me'eis ha'Am" coming to preclude?
What are the implications of "me'Eis Zovchei ha'Zevach"?
Ramban: It implies that this Mitzvah only takes effect upon their entry into Eretz Yisrael and they are allowed to Shecht Chulin, 1 because as long as they were in the desert, they were only permitted to Shecht Kodshim, which are not subject to these Matanos.
Chulin 136a: It implies that the Kohen claims the Matanos directly from the Shochet 2 even if he is a Kohen, 3 and not from the owner.
Sifri: It precludes an animal that is a T'reifah from the Din of Matanos. 4
Da'as Zekenim and Rosh: It refers to Chulin, since Kodshim are not subject to Zero'a, Lechayayim ve'Keivah.
Why did the Torah not include the current Matanos and Reishis ha'Gez in Korach, together with the Matnos Kehunah, alongside Terumah and Bikurim?
Ramban #1: Because the Torah there only included the Matnos Kehunah which are Kadosh, but not these Matanos and Reishis ha'Gez which are pure Chulin.
Ramban #2 (citing the Sifri): It did include them. 1
Refer to Bamidbar, 18:12:1:2.
Why does the Torah specify "Im Shor Im Seh"?
Rashi: To preclude a Chayah from the Din of Matanos.
Chulin, 132b: "Im Shor" includes Kil'ayim (whose one parent is a goat, the other, a sheep) and "Im Seh", a Koy (which is neither a Beheimah nor a Chayah). 1
Chulin, 135a: To teach us that, as opposed to Reishuis ha'Gez, which is confined to a sheep, it applies to both sheep (and goats) and cattle. 2
Chulin, 132a: To teach us that even an animal that is a partial lamb - if its mother is a lamb and its father, a deer, it is subject to half the Matanos. 3
What are the implications of "Venasan la'Kohen"?
Chulin, 33b: It implies that the owner must give it to the Kohen, but the Kohen is not permitted to take it. 1
Sifri: It implies that the owner must give it to the Kohen himself - (meaning that the Kohen must eat it, and not give it to his animal to eat - Torah Temimah). 2
What do "Zero'a, Lechayayim and Keivah", respectively, incorporate?
Rashi, Targum Onkelos and Targum Yonasan: "Zero'a" incorporates the right foreleg from the knee down to the foot; "Lechayayim", the two jaw-bones (the lower-jaw and the upper-jaw
Why are specifically these three parts given to the Kohen?
Rashi and Ramban #1 (both citing the Dorshei Reshumos, Chulin 134b) and Targum Yonasan (in Pinchas, 25:13): "Zero'a" corresponds to Pinchas' arm, which killed Zimri and Kozbi, "Lechayayim", to his Tefilah (see Tehilim, 106:30), and "Keivah", to their stomachs, which he pierced with his spear. See Bamidbar 25:8. (And the Mitzvah of Matanos was instituted on behalf of the Kohanim on the merit of Pinchas when he joined them in the Kehunah
What are the implications of the 'Hey' in "ha'Zero'a" and in "ha'Lechayayim"?
Why does the Torah write "ha'Lechayim" (plural)?
Sifri: To confine Matanos to the lower jaw, which comprises two bones. 1
Chulin, 134b: Refer to 18:3:7:1**.
See Torah Temimah, note 19.
What is the 'Hey' in "ve'ha'Keivah" coming to include?
Chulin, 134b: It incorporates both the Cheilev that is on the stomach and the milk that is inside the stomach in the Din of Matanos. 1
See Torah Temimah, note 20, citing the S'mag,
Why are the the Zero'a" the Lechayayim and the Keivah not mentioned together with the Matnos Kehunah in Korach?
Rashi: Because they were only given to the Kohanim on the merit of Pinchas - after the episode of Korach. 1
Refer to 18:3:6:1, and see Torah Temimah in Bamidbar, 25:7, note 19.