ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafShekalim 20
(a) Rebbi Yitzchak b'Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Yirmiyah 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
(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 Yossi on the previous ruling, from the
many Rabbanan 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.
(a) If outside Yerushalayim as far as Migdal Eider, they found ...
(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.
- ... a male animal - it was considered an Olah.
- ... a female - it was considered a Shelamim.
(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
(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).
(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.
(b) Rebbi Yehudah holds that it was the heirs who were obligated to bring
the Minchah of a Kohen Gadol who died.
2. ... the Minchah of a Kohen Gadol who died (according to the Tana Kama) -
were to come out of public funds.
(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.
(c) According to Rebbi Yossi, whoever undertook to supply Hekdesh with
birds, was also obligated to replace all the birds that became Pasul.
2. ... someone who used the ashes of the Parah Adumah was not Chayav
3. ... that any birds that became Pasul were replaced with money from the
(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
(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 le'Chulin' (to sell them, transferring
their Kedushah on to money (which is not forbidden, under the circumstances,
since his intention is) 've'Chozer ve'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.
(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).
(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 K'li in which he
measured it - because he measures it in a K'li 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.
(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
(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 K'li Kodesh, which automatically
sanctified whatever one placed inside it (provided of course, it was fit to
(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
(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.
(c) Rebbi Dosa says 'Te'afeh Ribah' (or 'Rakah') - which means that it
should be baked and fried many times.
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).
(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'l 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.
(c) Rebbi Shimon learns from the Pasuk ...
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.
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).
(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.
2. ... "Kalil Taktar" - that it is all brought together (and not in two