(R. Chisda): The surplus is Nedavah if the last Korban he brought was his Chatas; but if it was his Shelamim, then the surplus is Shelamim.

(R. Zeira): The surplus of a Nazir is always Nedavah.

There is a Beraisa to support each position:

In support of R. Zeira we learn that even where the funds of Chatas are mixed in with unspecified Nazir funds, the funds remain unspecified (and they are Nedavah).

In support of R. Chisda we learn from the silence of the Beraisa which teaches that the remaining funds may be used as Shelamim, not that the balance goes to Nedavah.

(R. Chisda): Surplus funds for the Nazir's Matzos are left to spoil.

R. Yosi agrees that there is no other option since:

Bread cannot be offered alone nor can another Nazir use it.

It was assumed that the same Din would apply to Nesachim.

(R. Yosi b. R. Bun): As Kodshei Kodshim, Nesachim go to Nedavah.

Three Amoraim agree that surplus Kodshei Kodshim go to Nedavah.

Surplus of funds designated for redeeming captives is retained for that Mitzvah.

However if they were designated for a particular captive, the surplus is given to that captive.

The same is true for funds collected for the poor, or for a poor person.

The same for burial funds (the surplus goes to the inheritors).

(R. Meir): The surplus for that deceased await Eliyahu.

(R. Noson): The surplus is used for his tombstone.

If funds were collected under the mistaken assumption that the deceased did not have money:

(R. Yirmiyah): They are surplus as in our Mishnah.

(R. Idi): The donors intended the deceased, not his Yorshim!

(R. Yirmiyah): I never taught you such a response!

In addition to the tombstone, fragrance may be purchased.

Funds may not be changed from one cause to the other.

The Gabbai Tzedakah are permitted to switch the funds, as this was the understanding of the donor.

It is not necessary to build monuments to the righteous and their words and deeds are their memorial.

R. Yochanan commented to R. Chiya (upon whom he leaned when he walked) that R. Eliezer, from Bavel, conducted himself with two practices.

He does not greet me.

He hides from me.

R. Yakov explained that in Bavel the lesser scholar does not greet the greater one, as per the Pasuk in Iyov (Zeira did not greet Rabah).

Question (R. Yakov of R. Yochanan): Is one permitted to walk past an idol.

Answer: You do not give it honor by walking past it, nor should you show fear of it by avoiding it!

Question: Then R. Eliezer has done well in avoiding you!

R. Yochanan further complained that R. Eliezer does not cite him.

R. Ami and R. Asi related the tragedy which can result from anger over matters in a Beis ha'Medrash.

R. Yochanan responded that those scholars were peers and should not have been angered, but R. Eliezer is my student!

R. Yakov b. Idi said that it is understood that R. Eliezer is relating the teachings of his teacher, R. Yochanan, just as it was clear that Yehoshua was relating the teachings of Moshe.

R. Yochanan was pleased with this response.

Question: Why was R. Yochanan so anxious that his teachings be cited by name?

Answer: Dovid ha'Melech prayed similarly.

He seems to have requested to live forever (!?).

He requested that his prayers (Tehilim) and Halachos endure.

The lips of the scholar who is cited move in his grave.

Question: Of what benefit is this to the scholar?

Answer: Like Konditon or like old wine (see Korban ha'Eidah) whose flavor endures even after it is drunk.

One who cites another should image the cited scholar standing before him.

The Pasuk which refers to one who faithfully recalls the sources of his teaching is R. Zeira.

He said of R. Sheshes (who could not see) that one may not reliably depend on his citations.

Since he is relying on voice identification alone.

Here we see here, and from two other incidents, how careful R. Zeira was regarding citations.

The scoffers in the generation of Dovid ha'Melech were the worst.

They would ask him when will the Beis ha'Mikdash be built.

They did this knowing that it will only be built after Dovid's passing (his son would build it).

Dovid was actually pleased with their scorn.

Hash-m told Dovid that He will not shorten Dovid's days since the Tzedakah and Mishpat of Dovid is more precious than the offerings to be brought in the Beis HaMikdash which Shlomo will build.

Three times annually funds would be taken from the Lishkah.

With the arrival of Pesach ("P'ras").

With the arrival of Shavuos.

With the arrival of Sukkos.

(R. Akiva): The same times are granary dates also used for Ma'aser Beheimah.

(Ben Azai): The dates are 29 Adar, 1 Sivan and 29 Av.

(R. Elazar and R. Shimon): 1 Nisan, 1 Sivan and 29 Elul.

Question: Why did they use 29 Elul (and not 1 Tishrei)?

Answer: 1 Tishrei is Rosh ha'Shanah, and the markings of the Ma'aser animal cannot be done on that day.

The term "P'ras" always means half (in this case, half of 30 days which are preparatory to the Chag).