Previous daf

1)

(a) The Mishnah in Mo'ed Katan, which adds to a long list of what is considered public needs that are permitted on Chol ha'Mo'ed that one may *mark graves* and send out inspectors to check the fields for Kil'ayim - speaks in a case when a storm blotted out the lime markings, which now needed to be re-done.

(b) And with regard to sending out inspectors to check the fields for Kil'ayim - it speaks when the seeds were late in growing, and were not recognisable in Adar (otherwise they would have gone out already then).

(a) The source for marking graves is the Pasuk in Tazri'a "ve'TameTamei Yikra" - that when someone is Tamei, it is imperative to warn everyone to keep away.

(b) The need to mark human *bones* speaks when *the flesh* has already decomposed.

(c) A Rova ha'Kav of bones is required for a person to become Tamei through Ohel ha'Mes.

(a) The Gemara learns from ...

1. ... "Etzem" - that one needs to mark a Rova ha'Kav of bones.
2. ... "Adam" - the spinal cord and the skull.
3. ... "Etzlo" - that one pours lime, not only on the actual grave, but even around it (to give the Kohen warning before he reaches the grave) (See Tiklin Chadtin, who explains this Gemara, and subsequently, the Sugya that follows, differently.)
4. ... "Tziyun" - that one has to make a mark (i.e. without this word, the entire Derashah would be senseless).

(b) From "u'Banah", we learn that a *fixed* grave-stone must also be marked - a fixed stone, but not a *loose* one, because this will cause problems if it is moved to another location, where there is no Tum'ah.

(c) Even a marked stone whose markings do not extend beyond the stone is Tamei.

(d) We assume that the corpse that is buried underneath the stone is buried in a cramped position, in such a way that the stone does in fact, protrude beyond it. Consequently, if someone were to touch the edge of the stone, before he realized that it was marked, he would not be Ma'ahil over the corpse.

(a) If there are *two* marked stones a distance apart from each other - then the ground in between them is Metamei be'Ohel, but not the stones themselves.

(b) If the ground in between the two stones is plowed - the ground in between is not Metamei be'Ohel, and we treat the stones as individual ones.

(c) One does not mark human flesh (when there are no bones) - because eventually, they will decompose, and one will come to treat Tahoros as if they were Tamei.

(d) It is better to permit a *short-term* situation where someone will walk over human flesh without realizing it and then work with Taharos, than create what will ultimately become a *permanent* one whereby one will come to treat Tahoros as if they were Tamei.

5)

(a) At first, the inspectors used to dig up the Kil'ayim and throw it in front of the culprits, much to their delight, since a. their fields were now weeded, and b. their animals enjoyed the benefit of the inspector's work. So they began throwing it on to the paths.

(b) Nevertheless, the culprits were content with the fact that their fields were weeded free of charge, and saw no reason to relent.

(c) So the inspectors began penalizing them by rendering their fields Hefker.

(d) We learn from the Pasuk in Ezra "ve'Chol Asher Lo Yavo ... Yochoram Kol Rechusho" - that 'Hefker Beis-Din Hefker'.

(a) Beis-Din ha'Gadol should not declare a leap-year ...

1. ... in the Shemitah-year - because it prolongs the prohibition of working the land, with the result that there will be no crops available for the Omer and the Shtei ha'Lechem.
2. ... in the eighth year - because there is no more Yashan to eat, and by declaring a leap-year, they are delaying the time-period for Chadash to become permitted.

(b) Even assuming that, when they did declare either of these two years a leap-year (thereby rendering its crops Hefker), what grows is also exempt from Ma'asros, there is no proof from here that what the Beis-Din declare Hefker is even Patur from Ma'asros - because the Beis-Din's declaration is based on a *Pasuk* "Shamor es Chodesh ha'Aviv" (Re'ei - from which we learn that Pesach must fall in the spring - and that, the only way of ensuring this is by declaring a leap-year whenever necessary). Consequently, the decree is not purely de'Rabbanan.

(c) From the time that Rebbi permitted the import of vegetables (and certainly crops) from Chutz la'Aretz, the decree prohibiting the declaration of the seventh and eighth years as leap-years, became obsolete - because the people now had food to eat, leaving the wild crops that had grown in the Shmitah (and which are permitted min ha'Torah) available for the Omer and the Shtei ha'Lechem.

(d) In addition, the decree only applied to the times of the Beis Hamikdash, when we lived in our land and the problem of Chadash and Omer and Shtei ha'Lechem existed. But nowadays (in the times of the Gemara that is) when we live in Chutz la'Aretz, all this is not a problem, and it is permitted to declare a leap-year even in the seventh or the eighth years.

7)

(a) If someone made a hay-stack over an area where the poor had not yet collected 'Leket', all the grains that are touching the ground belong to the poor (and are Patur from Ma'aser). Rebbi Ami quoting Resh Lakish, establishes this Beraisa like Beis Shamai - who says that 'Hefker la'Aniyim, Hefker'. Consequently, it is not due to a penalty that the grains belong to the poor, but 'min ha'Din'.

(b) According to Rebbi Yossi, it is because Chazal penalized him for depriving the poor of their right to collect Leket, and declared the entire area Hefker) - even according to Beis Hillel (who says that, strictly speaking, 'Hefker la'Aniyim, Eino Hefker'.

8)

(a) On the fifteenth of Adar, the money-changers sat in Yerushalayim (or in the other towns of Eretz Yisrael) - in order to exchange the people's money from the local currency into half-Shekalim.

(b) On the twenty-fifth, they sat in the Beis-Hamikdash (or in Yerushalayim) - That is when Beis-Din began demanding a security from those people who had not yet handed in their half-Shekel (since time was running out).

(c) They would they take a security from - Levi'im, Yisraelim, Geirim and slaves who had been set free.

(d) We learn to exempt from half a Shekel ...

1. ... women - from the Pasuk in Ki Sisa "ve'Nasnu *Ish* Kofer Nafsho".
2. ... slaves - because whenever women are exempt from a Mitzvah, slaves are exempt, too.

(a) A child is considered a Katan with regard to taking a security from him, until he reaches the age of twenty.

(b) A 'Katan' who is over Bar-Mitzvah, *is* obligated to give a half-Shekel annually (but not women and Avadim. The Korban Eidah includes women and Avadim in this Din, but this is very difficult to understand, since we just exempted them from a Pasuk).

(c) Once the father gives on behalf of his son, he becomes Chayav to give every year.

(a) According to the Tana Kama of our Mishnah, one does not claim a security from Kohanim because of Darkei Shalom. This cannot be understood literally - because why should there be any difference between Kohanim and Yisraelim in this regard (Tiklin Chadtin)? What he must therefore have meant is not 'Darkei Shalom', but 'Mipnei Derech ha'Kavod' (either because they bring the sacrifices - and taking a security from them will inevitably cause them to get annoyed; or because of the Mitzvah of "ve'Kidashto" (Emor).

(b) Rebbi Yehudah testifies in the name of Ben Buchri in Yavneh - that a Kohen (although he was not obligated to give a half-Shekel) would not have sinned if he *did*.

(c) Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai disagrees - according to him, Kohanim are *obligated* to give a half-Shekel, no less than Yisraelim. Only they misinterpreted the Pasuk in Tzav to suit themselves.

(d) "ve'Chol Minchas Kohen Kalil Tihyeh ... Lo Sei'achel" - is written in connection with the Kohen's private sacrifices. But they went further, and applied it even to public sacrifices, in which they had a share.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai derives the obligation of Kohanim to give half a Shekel, from the Pasuk in Ki Sisa "Zeh Yitnu" - because "Zeh" is the numerical value of twelve, hinting that all twelve tribes are obligated to give half a Shekel.

(b) The Chachamim attempt to prove that there is a distinction between a Korban Yachid and a Korban Tzibur with regard to the Din of Chatas Meisah, which is confined to a Chatas *Yachid*, but not to a Chatas *Tzibur*. Similarly, they maintain, it is only the Korban *Yachid* of a Kohen that must be completely burned, but not the Korban *Tzibur* (even though they *are* partners).

(c) The Gemara rejects this proof. How can one possibly disprove someonewrong by using an argument with which he disagrees? Consequently, this is no proof against Rebbi Yehudah (in our Mishnah), since he holds that a Chatas Tzibur too, must die.

(d) In fact, Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai's reason here is - because whenever one donates towards a Korban Tzibur, one hands it to the Tzibur to the point that one loses personal ownership of the money completely, and it becomes theirs.

(a) "Kol ha'Over Al ha'Pekudim" - either means those who passed by the counted ones (as would appear obvious), or those who crossed through the Yam-Suf.

(b) According to the former explanation, the Kohanim will be precluding from having to give half a Shekel (like Ben Buchri) - since *they* did not come to *Moshe* to be counted (only *he* went to *them*); whereas according to the latter explanation, the Kohanim too, crossed the Yam-Suf, so they will also be included in the Mitzvah.

13)

(a) If women, slaves and children donated a half-Shekel - it is accepted, not so the half-Shekel donated by gentiles and Kutim.

(b) The five obligatory offerings that one cannot accept from gentiles or from Kutim - are Kinei Zavin, Kinei Zavos, Kinei Yoldos, Chata'os and Ashamos. Kinei Zavin, Kinei Zavos - apply only to Kutim but not to gentiles, since (min ha'Torah) gentiles are not subject to Zivus.

(c) We learn from "Ish Ish" (which speaks about Nedarim and Nedavos) - that gentiles may bring voluntary offerings, but not obligatory ones.

(d) The Tana brings a proof for this from Ezra - who rejected the offer of the Kutim to help build Yerushalayim and the Beis Hamikdash, informing them that they could have no part in it.