1)

(a)On what basis does the Mishnah in Shekalim rule that if one finds an animal at a distance equivalent to Migdal Eider from Yerushalayim and does not know its status, one must treat it as if it was Kodshim?

(b)One considers a male animal an Olah. What does one consider a female?

(c)We ask how one knows that a male is an Olah, seeing as it could also be a Shelamim. To help solve the problem, how does Rebbi Oshaya establish the Mishnah?

(d)Why must the author of the Mishnah then be Rebbi Meir, and not Rebbi Yehudah?

(e)What would the finder then need to do?

1)

(a)The Mishnah in Shekalim rules that if one finds an animal at a distance equivalent to Migdal Eider from Yerushalayim and does not know its status, one must treat it as if it was Kodshim because the majority of animals that come from Yerushalayim are Kodshim.

(b)One considers a male animal an Olah, and a female a Shelamim.

(c)We ask how one knows that a male is an Olah, seeing as it could also be a Shelamim. Rebbi Oshaya helps solve the problem by establishing our Mishnah where the finder wants to remedy the problem and bring the value of the animal as whatever Korban it was meant to be.

(d)The author of the Mishnah must then be Rebbi Meir who holds 'Hekdesh b'Mezid Mis'chalel.

(e)The finder would then need to bring two sets of money and declare that if the found animal was an Olah, then its Kedushah should be transferred on to one set of money and the other set he hereby designates for a Shalmei Nedavah; whereas if it was a Shelamim, then it would be the reverse.

2)

(a)According to the Mishnah in Me'ilah, there are only two things belonging to Hekdesh that do not go out to Chulin when they are used. One of them is an animal that is designated as a Korban. Why is that?

(b)What is the other thing?

(c)According to what we have just learned, if two people ride on an animal that is designated as a Korban, or drink from a Kos of Hekdesh (one after the other), who would then be Mo'el?

(d)How do we reconcile this Mishnah with Rebbi Meir, who, we just concluded, holds that Hekdesh does go out to Chulin b'Mezid?

2)

(a)According to the Mishnah in Me'ilah, there are only two things belonging to Hekdesh that do not go out to Chulin when they are used. One of them is an animal that is designated as a Korban which cannot go out to Chulin without a blemish.

(b)The second thing is a Kli Shares (a holy vessel used in the Beis-Hamikdash).

(c)According to what we have just learned, if two people ride on an animal that is designated as a Korban, or drink from a Kos of Hekdesh (one after the other) both of them are Mo'el.

(d)We reconcile this Mishnah with Rebbi Meir, who, we just concluded, holds that Hekdesh does go out to Chulin b'Mezid by establishing the author as Rebbi Yehudah.

3)

(a)If, according to Rebbi Yehudah, 'Hekdesh b'Shogeg Mis'chalel' does not extend to Kedushas ha'Guf, why should it do so according to Rebbi Meir by Mezid?

(b)Rebbi Meir said his Din ('Hekdesh b'Mezid Mis'chalel') by Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, which is Kodshei Kodashim. How does Rebbi Oshaya know that he extends it to the Shelamim in the Mishnah in Shekalim, which are Kodshim Kalim?

(c)What did Rebbi Chama bar Ukva Amar Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina say about this?

3)

(a)Even though, according to Rebbi Yehudah, 'Hekdesh b'Shogeg Mis'chalel' does not extend to Kedushas ha'Guf, according to Rebbi Meir by Mezid it does because his specific intention to take it out of Hekdesh (which is absent by the Shogeg of Rebbi Yehudah) is effective.

(b)Rebbi Meir said his Din ('Hekdesh b'Mezid Mis'chalel') by Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, which are Kodshei Kodashim. Rebbi Oshaya extends it to the Shelamim in the Mishnah in Shekalim, which are Kodshim Kalim, Rebbi Yakov explains from a 'Kal va'Chomer' (if Kodshei Kodashim go out to Chulin, how much more so Kodshim Kalim)?

(c)Rebbi Chama bar Ukva Amar Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina explained Rebbi Meir in the same way (thereby substantiating Rebbi Yakov's explanation).

55b----------------------------------------55b

4)

(a)What problem does Rebbi Yochanan have with Rebbi Oshaya's explanation (requiring the finder to transfer the Kedushah of the found animal on to money to bring as an Olah and a Shelamim)?

(b)What do we learn from the Pasuk in Bechukosai "v'Im ba'Beheimah ha'Teme'ah, u'Fadah b'Erkecha"? What does "ha'Teme'ah" refer to in this context?

(c)How does he therefore amend Rebbi Oshaya's explanation to explain the Mishnah in Shekalim?

4)

(a)The problem Rebbi Yochanan has with Rebbi Oshaya's explanation (requiring the finder to transfer the Kedushah of the found animal on to money to bring as an Olah and a Shelamim) is that it is forbidden to redeem unblemished Kodshei Mizbe'ach ...

(b)... which we learn from the Pasuk "v'Im ba'Beheimah ha'Teme'ah (with reference to blemished), u'Fadah b'Erkecha".

(c)To explain the Mishnah in Shekalim, he therefore amends Rebbi Oshaya's explanation adding that the finder must first wait until the animal receives a permanent blemish, before redeeming it on the money in the manner that we explained.

5)

(a)We learned above that if the finder of a male animal in Yerushalayim wishes to redeem it, he must redeem it on an Olah, as well as on a Shelamim. Why do we not contend with the possibility that it is a Todah, which will require an additional animal, as well as forty loaves?

(b)And how do we know that it is not ...

1. ... an Asham Gezeilos, Me'ilos or Shifchah Charufah?

2. ... an Asham Metzora or Nazir?

(c)Why do we not answer that he does indeed bring an Asham with a fourth set of money (like we answered by Todah)?

(d)And why do we not contend with the possibility that it is a Pesach ...

1. ... in its time?

2. ... after its time?

3. ... a Bechor or Ma'asar Beheimah?

5)

(a)We learned above that if the finder of a male animal in Yerushalayim wishes to redeem it, he must redeem it on an Olah, as well as on a Shelamim. In fact we contend with the possibility that it is a Todah, and he has to bring an additional animal together with the forty loaves.

(b)We do not however, contend with the possibility that it is ...

1. ... an Asham Gezeilos, Me'ilos or Shifchah Charufah because these Ashamos consist of a ram (in its second year), whereas the Mishnah is speaking where he found a sheep (in its first year).

2. ... an Asham Metzora or Nazir because they are extremely uncommon.

(c)We cannot answer that he does indeed bring an Asham with a fourth set of money (like we answered by Todah) because one cannot bring a voluntary Asham (and, as we learned earlier, the money is designated on condition, and is used to purchase a voluntary Korban, which the finder is not Chayav to bring).

(d)Nor do we contend with the possibility that it is a Pesach ...

1. ... in its time because people take great care not to lose their Korban Pesach (in which case it too, is uncommon).

2. ... after its time because that becomes a Shelamim, which he is already bringing.

3. ... a Bechor or Ma'asar Beheimah because these cannot be redeemed, but are eaten as Chulin when they become blemished, which is precisely what he does with them anyway.

6)

(a)We also learned that if he finds a female animal, he redeems it on an Olah, as well as a Shelamim. Why do we not contend with the possibility that it is ...

1. ... a Chatas?

2. ... a Chatas that has already entered its second year?

(b)Chananya bar Chachinai in a Beraisa states that if one did find a female animal in its first year, it is a Chatas. What is the problem with that?

(c)So what did he really say?

(d)What does this mean in practical terms?

6)

(a)We also learned that if he finds a female animal, he redeems it on a Shelamim. We do not contend with the possibility that it is ...

1. ... a Chatas because a Chatas consists of a goat in its first year, whereas the one the Mishnah is talking about is in its second year.

2. ... a Chatas that has already entered its second year because it is not common.

(b)Chananya bar Chachinai in a Beraisa states that if one did find a female animal in its first year, it is a Chatas. The problem with this statement is that it might be a Shelamim, and as for redeeming it and bringing a Chatas with the money, one cannot bring a Chatas Nedavah (as we explained earlier).

(c)So what he really said was one gives it the Din of a Chatas.

(d)Practically, this means that it must be set aside (possibly inside an archway ['a Kipah']) and deprived of food until it dies.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF