1)

(a)Rebbi Yitzchak b'Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Yirmeyahu respectively, ruled that the barrels of wine that were lost and later found were permitted, provided those who marked the barrels recognized the markings as their's.

(b)The finder was permitted to keep the roasted kid found on a main road - because, since may people passed there, the owner would have despaired of finding his article ('Yi'ush'), and once there has been Yi'ush, the finder is permitted to pick up the article and keep it.

(c)Neither was there a problem that perhaps it was a Neveilah - because the majority of travelers along that road were Jews, so we assume that it was a Jew who lost it.

(d)It later transpired that the roasted kid had belonged to the household of Rebbi.

2)

(a)With regard to the round cheese that was found in Levi's inn - they issued the same two rulings as they did in the previous case (i.e. that the finder was permitted to keep the cheese, and that he was permitted to eat it) - and for the same two reasons.

(b)When Rebbi Mana queried Rebbi Yosi on the previous ruling, from the many Rabanan whom he had seen announcing articles that they had found in similar circumstances - he replied that he (Rebbi Mana) too, would keep a lost article that he found in a public place, and that even his own father, Rebbi Yonah, had actually expressed the wish that he would find something in a public place, so that he too, would be able to retain it.

(c)When Rebbi Yonah actually found something in a public place - he acted beyond the letter of the law and announced it.

3)

(a)If outside Yerushalayim as far as Migdal Eider, they found ...

1. ... a male animal - it was considered an Olah.

2. ... a female - it was considered a Shelamim.

(b)Rebbi Yehudah says that if the animal was fit to be brought as a Korban Pesach - then the finder was permitted to bring it as a Korban Pesach.

(c)Initially, Beis-Din would take a security from the person who found such an animal - to ensure that he brought the appropriate Nesachim together with the Korban.

(d)They stopped doing that when people reacted by not bothering to take the animals that they found and bring them as Korbanos (i.e. they allowed them to continue straying). So they instituted that the Nesachim should come out of public money (from the Terumas ha'Lishkah).

4)

(a)They also decreed that ...

1. ... if a gentile sent his Olah from overseas - without a Nesech, or a convert died, leaving sacrifices that needed to be brought (and who had no Nesachim) - the Nesachim would come out of public funds.

2. ... the Minchah of a Kohen Gadol who died (according to the Tana Kama) - were to come out of public funds.

(b)Rebbi Yehudah holds that it was the heirs who were obligated to bring the Minchah of a Kohen Gadol who died.

5)

(a)Both Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi Yehudah agree that when the Minchah of the Kohen Gadol was brought after his death - it was brought whole (and not half in the morning and half in the afternoon, like it was when he was alive).

(b)They decree ...

1. ... that Kohanim were permitted to benefit from the salt and the wood of the Korbanos - though only to use with Korbanos, but not with Chulin.

2. ... someone who used the ashes of the Parah Adumah was not Chayav Me'ilah.

3. ... that any birds that became Pasul were replaced with money from the Terumas ha'Lishkah.

(c)According to Rebbi Yosi, whoever undertook to supply Hekdesh with birds, was also obligated to replace all the birds that became Pasul.

6)

(a)Our Mishnah obligates someone who found a male animal, to bring it as an Olah. Rebbi Hoshaya interprets this to mean that he had to sell the animal and with the proceeds, to purchase another animal which he then brought as an Olah.

(b)Rebbi Yochanan explains the Mishnah literally - because he objects to selling an unblemished animal that is Kadosh Kedushas Mizbe'ach and transferring its Kedushah on to a Chulin animal.

(c)The problem with his explanation (and subsequently, Rebbi Hoshaya's reasoning) is the fact that even a male animal is just as likely to be a Shelamim as it is an Olah - so how could one bring what is possibly a Shelamim as an Olah?

(d)So 'Keitzad Hu Oseh' (What must he do -according to Rebbi Yochanan?) He has no option other than 'Motzi'in l'Chulin' (to sell them), transferring their Kedushah on to money (which is not forbidden, under the circumstances, since his intention is) 've'Chozer v'Oseh Osan Olos' (to re-sanctify them as Olos). In that case, why can we not say the same according to Rebbi Hoshaya - namely, that it is not forbidden to sell the animal, since it is his intention to sanctify the proceeds and use it for Olos.

7)

(a)The reason that one is permitted to transfer the Kedushah of the male animal, according to Rebbi Yochanan, in order to re-sanctify it as an Olah - is because it is a T'nai Beis-Din regarding lost animals.

(b)It is not considered as if he had deliberately redeemed an unblemished Kodshim animal (from a Shelamim to an Olah) - because part of their Takanah was that the lost animal is considered never to have been Kadosh (this is presumably a form of Hataras Nedarim - i.e. that they released the owner's original Neder that rendered the animal a Shelamim).

8)

(a)According to Rebbi Yochanan (who says that the Kohen Gadol declares his Asiris ha'Eifah Kodesh only after he has divided it into two halves), the Asiris ha'Eifah does not become Kadosh automatically in the Kli in which he measured it - because he measures it in a Kli Chol.

(b)Resh Lakish holds that the Kohen Gadol divides the Asiris ha'Eifah only after he has declared it Kadosh.

(c)When the Mishnah in Menachos says 'Makriv Mechtzah, u'Mechtzah Avad' - it means that if the second half of the Asiris ha'Eifah became Tamei, the Kohen Gadol nevertheless proceeded with the first half (i.e. the morning half), and the second half was destroyed. Now if he had not yet declared the second half Hekdesh, why did it have to be destroyed (i.e. why could he not simply use it as Chulin)?

(d)We answer this with Rebbi Yochanan's own statement, in which he says that even the money that was leftover from the Asiris ha'Eifah money (which was certainly not sanctified) went to the Yam ha'Melach - so certainly, the Asiris ha'Eifah itself did.

9)

(a)If the Kohen Gadol died after bringing the first half of his Minchah, and they then appointed a new Kohen Gadol, the second half of the first Kohen Gadol's Minchah and the first half of the second Kohen Gadol's - had to be left overnight (to attain the status of Ibur Tzurah) and were then burned.

(b)According to Rebbi Yochanan, it is already a Chidush to say that something which was not even Hekdesh had to be destroyed, but since when did it have it be burned?

(c)Rebbi Yochanan establishes that Beraisa like Rebbi Yishmael, in whose opinion the Isaron (the measure in which it was a Mitzvah to place the Isaron of flour in order to halve it) was a Kli Kodesh, which automatically sanctified whatever one placed inside it (provided of course, it was fit to become sanctified).

10)

(a)A Kohen Hedyot brought an Asiris ha'Eifah - on the day that he was initiated (usually when he turned thirty).

(b)The Kohen who was being initiated brought his own Asiris ha'Eifah.

(c)If a Kohen was appointed Kohen Gadol on the same day as he was initiated, he brought two Asiris ha'Eifah, one as a Kohen Hedyot, and the other, as a Kohen Gadol. If he or the Kohen Gadol performed the Avodah before bringing his Minchah - his Avodah was Pasul.

(d)We learn from the words "Murbeches Tevi'enah Tufinei" - that they could only be baked at the time when they were brought, but not in the night. The Mishnah in Tamid, which specifically permits him to begin preparing the Chavitin as soon as he got up (even before dawn-break) - refers to the other preparations (such as kneading the dough) but not to the actual baking.

11)

(a)Some say that the Chavitin was first fried in a pan and then baked. According to others - it had to be baked first and then fried.

(b)The above Machlokes is connected to the two acronyms of Te'afenah quoted in the Beraisa in the following way:

1. 'Te'afeh Na' (according to the Tana Kama) - implies that it should be partially cooked (i.e. fried) and then baked.

2. 'Te'afeh Na'eh' according to Rebbi) - that it should look nice when it is baked (and not all black from the oil and the pan).

(c)Rebbi Dosa says 'Te'afeh Ribah' (or 'Rakah') - which means that it should be baked and fried many times.

12)

(a)We learnt earlier that if the Kohen Gadol died, the second Kohen Gadol must bring a complete Isaron, of which he only sacrifices half. The same will apply if the first Kohen Gadol became Tamei - and the same will also apply if he became a Ba'al Mum.

(b)Rebbi Yehudah learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "mi'Banav Ya'aseh ..." - that when the Kohen Gadol dies, it is his heirs who are obligated to bring the Asiris ha'Eifah until the next Kohen Gadol is appointed.

2. ... "Osah" - that when they do, they bring a whole Asiris ha'Eifah, and not in two halves, as the Kohen Gadol did when he was alive.

(c)Rebbi Shimon learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Chok Olam" (according to the Hagahos ha'Gra) - that it comes from the One to whom the world belongs (i.e. Terumas ha'Lishkah).

2. ... "Kalil Taktar" - that it is all brought together (and not in two halves).

(d)Rebbi Shimon holds that min ha'Torah the Asiris ha'Eifah of the Kohen Gadol after his death came from the Tzibur (i.e. from Terumas ha'Lishkah). When they saw however, that the Lishkah was short of funds, they initiated that the heirs should bring it from their own pockets. And when they then saw how the heirs were lax, they re-instituted the Torah-law.