POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
by Rabbi Ephraim Becker
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous dafShekalim 20
1) RAV PROHIBITED MEAT WHICH LEFT THE SIGHT OF A JEW
(a) Rav, upon coming to Bavel, ruled stringently regarding meat
which was left unsupervised.
2) ATTITUDE TOWARDS FOUND ARTICLES
(b) In one case a person left the river into which his meat had
fallen and Rav prohibited him from returning and netting it
out (lest this is not his original piece of meat).
(c) Similarly in a case where a bird snatched the meat.
(d) In the cases of bottles and barrels of wine, they could be
checked for identifiable seals by the vintners and used.
(e) Roasted meat in the public street of Gufsa:
1. Need not be returned (the owners have forfeited their
claim since it is irretrievable, akin to a rushing
(f) Cheese found in the Pundak of Levi was permitted on the same
grounds as above (and their ruling was similarly
2. May be eaten (since the majority of passersby are
3. In such an incident their ruling was vindicated as the
meat turned out to have been from the house of Rebbi.
(a) R. Mana reported to R. Yosi that the Rabbis would announce
their find even from a public thoroughfare.
3) HALACHAH 3: THE STATUS OF FOUND ANIMALS
(b) R. Yosi responded that R. Mana's father, R. Yona, often
taught that such a find would enrich him, not needing to be
(c) Nevertheless, R. Yona, when confronted with such a find, did
not take it for himself, but rather announced it.
(a) An animal found within a radius of Jerusalem to Migdal Eder,
the males are brought as Olos; the females as Shelamim.
(b) (R. Yehudah) If the animal is fit as a Korban Pesach then it
is brought as a Pesach [if found within 30 days before
(c) Originally the finder had to put up collateral guaranteeing
that he would bring the Nesachim for the found animal.
1. This practice was eliminated and the Nesachim were
provided at public expense.
2. This was the first in a list of seven conditions
instituted by Beis Din, as listed.
4) BRINGING FOUND MALES AS OLOS
(a) Question: But the Shelamim could also be from males?!
5) THE MINCHAH OF THE KOHEN GADOL
(b) Answer: The animal is not brought as an Olah, but its value
provides for both an Olah and a Shelamim, if the finder
wishes to address all of the doubts which surround it.
1. He is Mechalel the money on the animals, like R. Meir
(who holds that Hekdesh b'Meizid is Mischalel).
(c) Question: But how can he be Mechalel b'Meizid!?
2. He then brings Olos and Shelamim with the money.
1. This ability is only according to R. Meir.
(d) Answer: Since it is a condition of Beis Din it is not
2. We hold like R. Yehudah would disagrees!
(e) Question (R. Yochanan): But this instructs the finder to do
(f) Answer: The Mishnah means that we follow the Rov;
1. If the majority found are male, they are all Olos.
(g) (R. Zeira) We are not worried about the males among the
Shelamim since this, too, is a condition of Beis Din.
2. If the majority are females they are all brought as
(h) R. Yasa reported having heard (in Bavel) R. Yehudah ask
Shmuel regarding one who separated his Shekalim and died.
(i) Shmuel had taught that Shekalim (in the case where the owner
designated the funds and then died) should go to Nedavah.
(j) Regarding leftover funds from the Minchas Kohen:
1. (R. Yochanan) The leftover funds must be destroyed.
2. (R. Eliezer) They go to Nedavah (as leftover Chatas).
(a) The Asiris HaEifah (which is brought as an Isaron and
6) THE INAUGURAL MINCHAH FOR A KOHEN
1. (R. Yochanan) An entire Isaron is brought, divided and
then the half is sanctified in a Keli Shares.
(b) Question: The Mishnah in Menachos (51b) appears to disagree
with R. Yochanan (the remaining half is destroyed,
indicating that it was already sanctified).
2. (Resh Lakish) It is all sanctified in a Keli Shares and
(c) Answer: This is R. Yochanan's view that leftover funds from
the Asiris HaEifah must be destroyed (4.j.1. above).
(d) Question: There is a Bereisa against R. Yochanan.
1. Where the Kohen Gadol died and his replacement brought
a (whole) Minchah from his home, two halves are offered
and two halves are destroyed.
(e) Answer: It is a dispute over whether the utensil for the
Isaron sanctifies it.
2. The remaining half from the first (deceased) Kohen is
destroyed along with the remaining half of the incoming
Kohen, after waiting for it to become invalidated.
3. Why, according to R. Yochanan, should we have to wait?!
(a) All Kohanim bring a Minchas Chavitin before performing their
7) WHO PAYS FOR THE MINCHAS CHAVITIN OF A DECEASED KOHEN?
(b) If a new Kohen was also becoming the Kohen Gadol, he brings
two, one as a new Kohen, and one as the daily obligation of
the Kohen Gadol.
(c) Tufinei (Vayikra 6:14) - Bake the Minchah only when it may
be brought (on the same day).
(d) Question: But we learn that it was done a day earlier!?
(e) Answer: That was not the baking, it was heating the water.
(f) (R. Yasa) Tufinei - deep fried then baked.
(g) (R. Acha) Baked then deep fried.
(h) (Tana Kama) Tufinei - Bake it "Na" or not completely (but
(i) (Rebbi) Bake it "Na'eh" (don't fry it first).
(j) (R. Dosa) Bake it more than once (before *and* after).
(k) The above interpretations of Tufinei are the bases for the
dispute over baking/frying first.
(l) The laws taught here apply not only if the first Kohen died,
but also if he became Tamei, or developed a blemish.
(a) (R. Yehudah) The inheritors.
(b) They must bring a complete Isaron (undivided).
(c) (R. Shimon) It is a communal expense (as indicated by the
words "Chok Olam."