Today's Daf Yomi
March 24, 2021 | י״א בניסן תשפ״א
Masechet Shekalim is sponsored by Sarene Shanus and Harold Treiber in memory of their parents, “who taught us the value of learning and of being part of the Jewish community.”
-
This month's learning is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.
Shekalim 3
Today’s Daf is sponsored by Jill Shames in memory of her mother, and teacher, Seena Baker, שפרה בת זאלה וברכה on her yahrzeit. “Mom, thank you for the love of learning you instilled in us and in so many, many others over the years.” And by Josh Wilkenfeld “in honor of the Chevy Chase Parking Lot Hashkamah Minyan for providing a quality and efficient davening experience during these challenging times.”
The gemara describes the need for the preparations they would do from mid-Adar and how exactly they set up markers on the graves. Originally the courts would send people to uproot diverse kinds if people didn’t do it themselves. But over time, they changed their policy. How and why? Ultimately, they would make the fields hefker, ownerless. How did that resolve the issue? From where do we learn that the courts have the right to declare someone’s possessions to be ownerless? Once they do that, the field is exempt from tithes. Can one declare a leap year in the shmita year or the year after shmita? Why would it be an issue? From the 25th of Adar, if people didn’t give the half shekel, the court would take collateral from them. From which groups of people are they not allowed to demand collateral? Are kohanim allowed to give but not obligated or are they obligated? Why did kohanim think that they were not allowed to give the half-shekel? What are the rules regarding children? What is the difference in the law for those who have two hairs but are not yet aged 20 and those who do not yet have two hairs? The gemara brings a discussion between Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis regarding different approaches to the kohanim and whether or not they are obligated or permitted to bring the half-shekel. Gentiles and Kutim cannot give a half-shekel. What are they allowed to bring to the Temple?
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Podcast (דף יומי לנשים - עברית): Play in new window | Download
מְתַקְּנִין אֶת הַדְּרָכִים וְאֶת הָרְחוֹבוֹת וְאֶת מִקְווֹת הַמַּיִם וְעוֹשִׂין כָּל־צוֹרְכֵי הָרַבִּים. אֵילּוּ הֵן צוֹרְכֵי הָרַבִּים. דָּנִין דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת וְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת דִּינֵי מַכּוֹת וּפוֹדִין עֲרָכִין וַתֲרָמִין וְהֶקְדֵּישׁוֹת §
The mishna taught that on the fifteenth of Adar they repaired the roads that were damaged in the winter, and the streets, and the cisterns. And they did all that was necessary for public welfare. The Gemara explains: These are the matters necessary for public welfare: They judge monetary cases, capital cases, and cases that involve the punishment of lashes. And the court also redeems valuations, consecrations of articles for Temple or priestly use, and consecrations for Temple maintenance or as offerings.
וּמַשְׁקִין אֵת הַסּוֹטָה וְשׂוֹרְפִין אֶת הַפָּרָה וְעוֹרְפִין עֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה וְרוֹצְעִין עֶבֶד עִבְרִי וּמְטָהֲרִין אֵת הַמְּצוֹרָע וּמְפָֽרְקִין אֶת הַמִּנְעָל מֵעַל גַּבֵּי הָאֵימוּם וְאֵין מַחֲזִירִין אוֹתוֹ.
And they give the sota to drink, and they burn the red heifer, to use its ashes for the ritual purification of those rendered impure by contact with the dead, and they break the neck of the heifer whose neck is broken, and they pierce the ear of a Hebrew slave, and they render the leper ritually pure. And they remove the locks that were placed over the water cisterns during the winter, as this water was for public use in the summer, and they do not replace them until the winter.
וּמְצַייְּנִין עַל הַקְּבָרוֹת. וְלֹא כְבָר צִייְנוּ מֵאֲדָר. תִּפְתָּר שֶׁיָּרַד שֶׁטֶף שֶׁלְגְּשָׁמִים וּשְׁטָפוֹ.
We learned in a baraita there that although it is prohibited to perform unnecessary work on the intermediate days of a Festival, during these days one may water an irrigated field, and one may mark the graves by painting lime on them. The Gemara asks: But didn’t the court already mark the graves in Adar, as stated in the mishna here? Why was it necessary to mark them again during the Festival? The Gemara answers: It can be explained as referring to a situation where a downpour rained down after the graves were initially marked in Adar, and washed away the previous markings.
וְיוֹצְאִין אַף עַל הַכִּלְאָיִם: לֹא כְבָר יָֽצְאוּ מֵאֲדָר. תִּפְתָּר שֶׁהָֽיְתָה הַשָּׁנָה אֲפֵילָה וְאֵין הַצְּמָחִין נִיכָּרִין. The mishna further taught that on the fifteenth of Adar, agents of the court would also go out to inspect the fields for diverse kinds of food crops. The Gemara asks: But didn’t they already go out in the beginning of Adar to examine the fields for diverse kinds, as the mishna previously stated? The Gemara answers: It can be explained that the year was late [afila], i.e., the crops had not yet sprouted by the beginning of Adar, and the plants are not perceptible until later.
מְנַיִין לְצִיּוּן. רִבִּי בֶּרֶכְיָה רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר בַּת יַעֲקֹב בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חוּנְייָא דִבְרַת חַווְרָן רִבִּי יוֹסֵה אָֽמְרֵי לָהּ רִבִּי יָעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חוּנְייָא דִבְרַת חַווְרָן רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה רִבִּי עוּזִּיאֵל בְּרֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי חוּנְייָה דִבְרַת חַווְרָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי חוּנְייָא דִבְרַת חַווְרָן. טָמֵא טָמֵא֭ יִקְרָֽא. §
The Gemara asks: From where is the obligation of marking graves derived? Rabbi Berekhya said in the name of Rabbi Ya’akov bar bat Ya’akov in the name of Rabbi Ḥunya of Berat Ḥavrin, Rabbi Yosei said it was Rabbi Ya’akov bar Aḥa, in the name of Rabbi Ḥunya of Berat Ḥavrin, while Rabbi Ḥizkiya and Rabbi Uziel, son of Rabbi Ḥunya of Berat Ḥavrin, said it in the name of Rabbi Ḥunya of Berat Ḥavrin. These Sages said that the proof is from a verse: “And the leper in whom the plague is, his clothes shall be rent, and the hair of his head shall go loose, and he shall cover his upper lip, and shall cry: Unclean, unclean” (Leviticus 13:45).
כְּדֵי שֶׁתְּהֵא הַטּוּמְאָה קוֹרְאָה לָךְ בְּפִיהָ וְאוֹמֶרֶת לָךְ. פְּרוֹשׁ.
The Gemara explains: This teaches that one must take measures in order that the ritually impure object, in this case the leper, calls to you verbally, as it were, and tells you: Separate yourself from it. Just as the leper warns everyone that he is ritually impure, one must likewise mark graves to warn passersby of their impure status.
רִבִּי אִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן. וְעָֽבְר֤וּ הָעוֹבְרִים בָּאָ֔רֶץ וְרָאָה֙ עֶ֣צֶם אָדָ֔ם וּבָנָ֥ה אֶצְל֖וֹ צִיּ֑וּן.
Rabbi Ila in the name of Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman cited a different verse in this regard: “And when they that pass through shall pass through the land, and anyone sees a man’s bone, then shall he set up a sign by it, till the buriers have buried it in the valley of Hamon-gog” (Ezekiel 39:15). This verse explicitly states that there is a need to mark graves.
מִיכָן שֶׁמְצַייְנִין עַל הָעֲצָמוֹת. אָדָ֔ם. מִיכָן שֶׁמְצַייְנִין עַל הַשִּׁזְרָה וְעַל הַגּולְגּוֹלֶת.
The Gemara adds that further halakhot can be derived from this verse. “Bone”: from here it is derived that one marks bones. “A man”: From here it is derived that one marks a spine and skull that were found.
וּבָנָ֥ה. מִיכָן שֶׁמְצַייְנִין עַל גַּבֵּי אֶבֶן קְבוּעָה. אִם אוֹמֵר אַתְּ עַל גַּבֵּי אֶבֶן תְּלוּשָׁה. אַף הִיא הוֹלֶכֶת וּמְטַמֵּא בְמָקוֹם אַחֵר.
“Then shall he set up”: From here it is derived that one marks the sign of ritual impurity on a fixed stone, for if you say that one may mark on a detached stone, that very stone is likely to move from that spot, and it will incorrectly mark another place as ritually impure. It is therefore necessary to use a stone that will not be moved.
אֶצְל֖וֹ. בִּמְקוֹם טַהֲרָה. צִיּ֑וּן. מִיכָן לְצִיּוּן.
The verse further states: “By it”: This is referring to a place of ritual purity. In other words, the marking should not be placed on the spot of ritual impurity itself, but in a nearby, ritually pure location. “A sign”: From here we learn of the obligation to mark.
וּמָצָא אֶבֶן אַחַת מְצוייֶנֶת. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין מְקַייְמִין כֵּן הַמַּאֲהִיל עָלֶיהָ טָמֵא. אֲנִי אוֹמֵר. מֵת מְצוּייָן הָיָה נָתוּן תַּחְתֶּיהָ.
It was further taught with regard to the same issue: And if one found one marked stone, even though one should not establish it in this manner, i.e., one should not mark a place of ritual impurity with a single stone ab initio, but with two stones in order to delineate the extent of the impurity, nevertheless, one who covers it, i.e., places some part of his body in the space above it, is rendered ritually impure. In such a case I say, i.e., one ought to assume: There was a dead body marked here, and it was located underneath this stone.
הָיוּ שְׁתַיִם. הַמַּאֲהִיל עָלֶיהֶן טהוֹר וּבֵינֵיהֶן טָמֵא.
However, if there were two marked stones, the one who covers them with part of his body remains ritually pure, as the source of impurity is typically located between, not underneath, the two markers. And consequently, if he covered the space between the stones, he is ritually impure.
אִם הָיָה חוֹרֶשׁ בֵּיְנְתַּייִם הֲרֵי הֵן כִּיחִידִיּוֹת. בֵּינֵיהֶן טָהוֹר וּסְבִיבוֹתֵיהֶן טָמֵא
And if there were plow marks between these two stones, they are considered like isolated stones with regard to this halakha. Therefore, if he covered the area between the stones with part of his body he is ritually pure, and if he covered the space surrounding the area where they are set he is impure, as it can be assumed there was a source of impurity under each stone.
תַּנֵּי אֵין מְצַייְנִין עַל הַבָּשָׂר שֶׁמָּא נִתְאַכֵּל הַבָּשָׂר. It was taught in a different baraita that one does not mark on the location of the flesh of a corpse without any bones. Why not? Perhaps the flesh has decomposed, leaving less than the minimum size that confers ritual impurity by covering, which is an olive-bulk. If the mark is left there, the spot will permanently be treated as ritually impure.
רִבִּי יוּסְטָא בַּר שׁוּנֵם בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא. וְלֹא נִמְצָא מְטַמֵּא טַהֲרוֹת לְמַפְרֵעַ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. מוטָּב שֶׁיִּתְקַלְקְלוּ בוֹ לְשָׁעָה וְאַל יִתְקַלְקְלוּ בוֹ לְעוֹלָם.
Rabbi Yusta bar Shunem wondered in the presence of Rabbi Mana: And doesn’t he thereby render pure items ritually impure retroactively? If the flesh is not marked at all, pure items might pass over the spot before the flesh has decayed, rendering them ritually impure. He said to him: It is preferable that people are harmed by it temporarily, while the flesh is still there, and are not harmed by it permanently, by wrongly thinking that their pure foods contracted ritual impurity from this source.
משנה אָמַר רִבִּי יְהוּדָה בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיוּ עוֹקְרִין וּמַשְׁלִיכִין לִפְנֵיהֶן. מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ עוֹבְרֵי עֲבֵירָה הָיוּ עוֹקְרִין וּמַשְׁלִיכִין לַדְּרָכִים. הִתְקִינוּ שֶׁיְּהוּ מַבְקִירִין אֶת כָּל־הַשָּׂדֶה.
Halakha 2 · MISHNA At the end of the last mishna it was stated that the court sends out agents on the fifteenth of Adar to inspect whether the owners of fields had indeed uprooted any diverse kinds of crops as instructed. Rabbi Yehuda said: At first those agents would uproot the diverse kinds of crops and cast them in front of the owners of the fields. When the number of transgressors who would not uproot diverse kinds in their fields increased, and the Sages saw that this tactic was ineffective, they would cast the uprooted crops onto the roads. Ultimately, they instituted that the entire field should be declared ownerless.
הלכה רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר. תַּנֵּי אָמַר רִבִּי יְהוּדְה. בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיוּ עוֹקְרִין וּמַשְׁלִיכִין לִפְנֵיהֶן וְהָיוּ שְׂמֵחִין שְׁתֵּי שְׂמָחוֹת. אַחַת שֶׁהָיוּ מְנַכְשִׁין שָׂדוֹתֵיהֶן וְאַחַת שֶׁהָיוּ נֶהֱנִין מִן (הַגֶּזֶל) [הַכִּלְאַיִם.].
GEMARA: With regard to what Rabbi Yehuda said in the mishna, i.e., that there were three stages of the Sages’ decree, the Gemara elaborates as it was taught in a baraita. Rabbi Yehuda said: At first the agents of the court would uproot the diverse kinds of crops and cast them in front of the owners, and those owners would doubly rejoice. One reason for their happiness was that others were weeding their fields for them, and the other reason was that they would derive benefit from these diverse kinds, which they would feed to their animals.
מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ עוֹבְרֵי עֲבֵירָה הָיוּ עוֹקְרִין וּמַשְׁלִיכִין עַל הַדְּרָכִים. אַף עַל פִּי כֵן הָיוּ שְׂמִחִים שֶׁהָיוּ מְנַכְשִׁין שָׂדוֹתֵיהֶן. הִתְקִינוּ שֶׁיְּהוּ מַבְקִירִין אֶת כָּל־הַשָּׂדֶה.
The baraita continues: When the number of transgressors who maintained diverse kinds in their fields increased, they would cast the uprooted crops onto the roads, so that passersby should trample on them and render them unfit for any use. Even so, the owners still rejoiced that those agents were weeding their fields. Therefore, the Sages instituted that the entire field should be declared ownerless, which would deter people from maintaining diverse kinds in their fields.
מִנַיִיִן שֶׁהֶבְקֵר בֵּית דִּין הֶבְקֵר. כָּתוּב וְכֹל֩ אֲשֶׁ֨ר לֹֽא־יָבֹא לִשְׁל֣שֶׁת הַיָּמִ֗ים כַּֽעֲצַ֤ת הַשָּׂרִים֙ וְהַזְּקֵנִ֔ים יָֽחֳרַ֖ם כָּל־רְכוּשׁ֑וֹ וְה֥וּא יִבָּדֵ֖ל מִקְּהַ֥ל הַגּוֹלָֽה׃
The Gemara asks: From where is it derived that property declared ownerless by the court is in fact ownerless? As the mishna states that the court rendered the fields ownerless, clearly they had the power to do so. What is the source for their having this power? The Gemara answers: As it is written, with regard to the proclamation of Ezra and his court to all the people to gather in Jerusalem, where he instructed those who had married foreign women to divorce them: “And that whosoever came not within three days, according to the counsel of the princes and the elders, all his substance should be forfeited, and himself separated from the congregation of the captivity” (Ezra 10:8). This shows that the court has the power to render ownerless the property of anyone who violates its commands.
מְנַיִין שֶׁהִיא פְטוּרָה מִן הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת. רִבִּי יוֹנָתָן בְּרֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יִצְחָק בַר אָחָה שָׁמַע לָהּ מִן הָדָא. אֵין מְעַבְּרִין אֶת הַשָּׁנָה לֹא בַשְּׁבִיעִית וְלֹא בְמוֹצָאֵי שְׁבִיעִית. וְאִם עִיבְּרוּהָ הֲרֵי זוֹ מְעוּבֶּרֶת.
The Gemara further asks: From where is it derived that this ownerless field is exempt from tithes, like a field rendered ownerless by its owner? Rabbi Yonatan, son of Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Aḥa, learned the halakha of this case from this baraita: One may not intercalate the year, by adding the month of Second Adar, neither in the Sabbatical Year nor in the year after the Sabbatical Year. And if they transgressed and intercalated it, the year is intercalated.
וְחוֹדֶשׁ אֶחָד שֶׁהוּא מוֹסִיף לֹא פָטוּר מִמַּעְשְׂרוֹת הוּא.
Rabbi Yonatan explains how exemption from tithes of a field that was declared ownerless by the court can be derived from this baraita: And yet with regard to that one month that he adds, i.e., the month to intercalate the year, which is added to the Sabbatical Year, aren’t the crops harvested in that additional month exempt from tithes? These crops are Sabbatical produce and as such exempt from tithes, but that status is only a result of the decree of the court to extend the year. This proves that the court has the power to render a field exempt from tithes.
עַד כְדוֹן שְׁבִיעִית. מוֹצָאֵי שְׁבִיעִית [מַאי]. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבוּן. שֶׁלֹּא לְרַבּוֹת בְּאִיסּוּר חָדָשׁ.
The Gemara continues to analyze the baraita. Until here it is clear why the Sabbatical Year should not be intercalated, as it extends the prohibitions of the Sabbatical year. However, what is the reason that the year after the Sabbatical Year should not be intercalated? Rabbi Bun said: The reason is so as not to increase the period of the prohibition of new grain. In the year after the seventh year people are still relying on the produce of the sixth year until the new crop sprouts in the spring of the eighth year. Since the food supply is liable to run out, the sooner the new grain can be eaten, the better. It is only permitted after the bringing of the omer offering on the sixteenth of Nisan, and therefore it is preferable not to extend the year, which would delay the beginning of Nisan.
רִבִּי זְעוּרָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. הָדָא דְאַתְּ אָמַר. עַד שֶׁלֹּא הִתִּיר רִבִּי לְהָבִיא יָרָק מֵחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ לָאֲרֶץ. אֲבָל מִשֶּׁהִתִּיר רִבִּי לְהָבִיא יָרָק מֵחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ לָאֲרֶץ הִיא שְׁבִיעִית הִיא שֶׁל שְׁאָר שְׁנֵי שָׁבוּעַ.
Rabbi Ze’eira says in the name of Rabbi Elazar: That which you say, that one may not intercalate the Sabbatical Year or the following year, applied until the time that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted one to import vegetables from outside Eretz Yisrael to Eretz Yisrael. Beforehand there was a danger of insufficient food, and the court needed to refrain from lengthening either year. However, from the time when Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted one to import vegetables from outside Eretz Yisrael to Eretz Yisrael, and there was enough food for all, the Sabbatical Year is like other years of the Sabbatical cycle, i.e., it is permitted to intercalate any year.
תַּנֵּי. אֵין מְעַבְּרִין אֶת הַשָּׁנָה בַשְּׁבִיעִית [וְלֹא בְמוֹצָאֵי שְׁבִיעִית] אֶלָּא בִשְׁאָר שְׁנֵי שָׁבוּעַ. [וְ]אִם עִיבְּרוּהָ הֲרֵי זוֹ מְעוּבֶּרֶת. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. הָדָא דְאַתְּ אָמַר. בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה כְּשֶׁהָיוּ הָשָּׁנִים כְּתִיקֻנָן. אֲבָל עַכְשָׁיו שֶׁאֵין הָשָּׁנִים כְּתִיקֻנָן הִיא שְׁבִיעִית הִיא שְׁאָר שְׁנֵי שָׁבוּעַ.
It was taught in the baraita that one may not intercalate the year following the Sabbatical Year. Rabbi Mana said: This matter which you say: It applied at first, when the seasons of the years proceeded in their proper manner, i.e., the new grain was ripe in time and could be eaten immediately after the sixteenth of Nisan. However, now, when the seasons of the years do not proceed in their proper manner, and the grain is not ready until later anyway, there is no problem delaying Nisan, so the Sabbatical Year is like other years of the Sabbatical cycle.
תַּנֵּי. שֶׁלְבֵּית רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל עִיבְּרוּהָ בְמוֹצָאֵי שְׁבִיעִית מִיָּד.
The Gemara adds: It was taught in a baraita that the court of the house of Rabban Gamliel intercalated the year immediately after the Sabbatical Year, in the first month of that year.
אָמַר רִבִּי אָבוּן. אִין מִן הָדָא לֵית שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ כְלוּם.
Rabbi Yonatan previously proved from the court’s ability to extend the Sabbatical year that the court has the power to declare property ownerless, to the extent that its produce is exempt from tithes. With regard to this, Rabbi Avun said: If your proof is from this, you cannot learn anything from it.
שָׁמוֹר֙ אֶת־חוֹדֶשׁ הָֽאָבִ֔יב. שָׁמְרֵיהוּ שֶׁיָּבוֹא בְחִידּוּשׁוֹ.
Rabbi Avun explains: The Torah says: “Observe [guard] the month of the spring, and keep the Passover unto the Lord your God; for in the month of the spring the Lord your God brought you forth out of Egypt by night” (Deuteronomy 16:1). This means that one should guard it so that the month of Nisan arrives in the spring of the new year, i.e., in Nisan of the lunar year, which is roughly eleven days shorter than the solar year. If the festival of Passover is scheduled to arrive too early, due to the difference between the solar and lunar years, that year must be intercalated. Since the intercalation of the year is a Torah requirement, the extra month added to a Sabbatical Year is exempt from tithes by Torah law. Therefore, the extension of the year by intercalation is not merely a power of the court, and therefore cannot function as a source for the court’s power to declare property ownerless and exempt it from tithes.
וַהַיי דָא אָֽמְרָה דָא. גָּדִישׁ שֶׁלֹּא לוּקַּט תַּחְתָּיו כָּל־הַנּוֹגְעוֹת בָּאָרֶץ הֲרֵי הֵן שֶׁלְעֲנִיִּים. וְאָמַר רִבִּי אִמִּי [דף ג:] בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שׁמְעוֹן בֵּן לָקִישׁ. דְּבֵית שַׂמַּי הִיא.
But this other mishna (Pe’a 5:1) does state this halakha, that a field declared ownerless by the court is exempt from tithes. With regard to a pile of grain under which gleanings have not been gathered by the poor, who are entitled to the lone stalks that fall during a harvest, all the kernels that are touching the ground belong to the poor. And about this mishna Rabbi Ami said [3b] in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: It is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, who maintain that it is possible to declare an article ownerless exclusively with respect to the poor (see Pe’a 6:1).
וְאָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. שָׁמַעְנוּ שֶׁהוּא פָטוּר מִמַּעְשְׂרוֹת דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מִשּׁוּם קְנָס. וּכְבֵית הִלֵּל עֲנִייִם מְעַשְּׂרִין וְאוֹכְלִין.
In defense of the attribution of the mishna to Beit Shammai the Gemara continues: For if the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, who maintain that the court cannot declare something ownerless only for the poor, then the poor would be allowed to eat the kernels touching the ground only after tithing. And Rabbi Yosei said to him, Rabbi Ami: We learned a different explanation whereby it is not necessary to attribute the mishna to Beit Shammai, i.e., that everyone agrees that this produce is exempt from tithes because the Sages imposed a fine [kenasa] on one who was careless enough to pile his grain on top of gleanings. He forfeits any stalks touching the ground, as they are rendered ownerless, and ownerless food is exempt from tithes. Since some of the kernels touching the ground are from the pile, not the gleanings, the ruling that they are all exempt from tithes depends upon the Sages’ power to declare them ownerless. If the mishna in Pe’a is understood in accordance with Rabbi Yosei’s opinion, it serves as evidence that the Sages can in fact declare property ownerless to the extent that its produce is exempt from tithes.
משנה בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׁר בּוֹ שׁוּלְחָנוֹת יוֹשְׁבִין בַּמְּדִינָה. בְּעֶשְׁרִים וַחֲמִשָּׁה בוֹ יָֽשְׁבוּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ. מִשֶּׁיָּֽשְׁבוּ בַּמִּקְְדָּשׁ הִתְחִילוּ לְמַשְׁכֵּן.
Halakha 3 · MISHNA On the fifteenth of Adar, money changers would sit at tables set up in the rest of the country, outside the Temple, to handle the collection of shekels. On the twenty-fifth of Adar, the money changers sat in the Temple. From the time when the money changers sat in the Temple, the court began to seize collateral from those who had yet to donate the half-shekel.
אֶת מִי מְמַשְְׁכְּנִין לְוִייִם וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִים וְגֵרִים וַעֲבָדִים מְשׁחְרָרִין אֲבָל לֹא נָשִׁים וְלֹא עֲבָדִים וְלֹא קְטַנִּים. וְכָל־קָטָן שֶׁהִתְחִיל אָבִיו לִשְׁקוֹל עַל יָדוֹ אֵינוֹ פּוֹסֵק. אֵין מְמַשְׁכְּנִין אֶת הַכֹּהֲנִים מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵּי שָׁלוֹם:
From whom did they seize collateral? From Levites, Israelites, converts, and emancipated slaves. However, they did not seize collateral from women, slaves, or minors. And any minor whose father began one year to contribute a half-shekel on his behalf, despite the fact that he was not obligated to do so, he may not cease to do so in subsequent years. The court does not seize collateral from priests, although they are legally obligated to give a half-shekel like all other Jews, because of the ways of peace.
אָמַר רִבִּי יְהוּדָה הֵעִיד בֶּן כּוּכְרִי בְּיַבְנֶה שֶׁכָּל־כֹּהֵן שֶׁהוּא שׁוֹקֵל אֵינוֹ חוֹטֵא. אָמַר לוֹ רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי לֹא כִּי אֶלָּא כָּל־כֹּהֵן שֶׁאֵינוֹ שׁוֹקֵל חוֹטֵא.
The mishna goes on to explain the status of priests with regard to the contribution of the half-shekel. Rabbi Yehuda said that ben Bukhri testified in Yavne: Any priest who contributes the half-shekel is not considered a sinner, despite the fact that he is not obligated to do so. Rabbi Yehuda added that Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said to ben Bukhri: Not so; rather, any priest who does not contribute the half-shekel is considered a sinner, as they are obligated like all other Jews.
אֶלָּא שֶׁהַכֹּהֲנִים דּוֹרְשִׁין מִקְרָא זֶה לְעַצְמָן וְכָל־מִנְחַת כֹּהֵן כָּלִיל תִּהְיֶה לֹא תֵאָכֵל
However, Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai continued, the priests who do not contribute interpret this verse to their own advantage: “And any every meal-offering of the priest shall be wholly made to smoke; it shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 6:16).
הוֹאִיל וְהָעוֹמֶר וּשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם וְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים שֶׁלָּנוּ הֵיאָךְ הֵם נֶאֱכָלִין:
Those priests claim as follows: Since the omer offering and the two loaves, i.e., the public offering of two loaves from the new wheat brought on the festival of Shavuot, and the shewbread placed on the sacred table in the Sanctuary each Shabbat, which are all meal-offerings, are ours, then if we contribute shekels we will have partial ownership of these communal offerings, as they are purchased with the shekels. How, then, can they be eaten? They ought to be regarded as priests’ meal-offerings, which must be wholly burnt. But since these offerings are eaten, the priests concluded that they are not obligated to contribute the half-shekel. This argument does not, however, take into account the fact that communal offerings belong to the public, which is understood as its own entity, and are not regarded as shared offerings of all who contribute to the public purse.
הלכה בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר בּוֹ כול׳. הָא לִתְבּוֹעַ תּוֹבְעִין. הָדָא דְתֵימַר בְּשֶׁהֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת.
GEMARA: The mishna taught that the court does not seize collateral from minors for the half-shekel. The Gemara infers: This indicates that with regard to claiming the half-shekel from minors, the court does claim the money. The Gemara adds: This halakha that you say, i.e., that the court does not claim the money, applies to a young person who has grown two pubic hairs and therefore is legally an adult in other respects, but is not yet twenty years old. Before he is twenty he is obligated to donate the half-shekel only by rabbinic law, and for that the court does not seize collateral.
אֲבָל אִם לֹא הֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת לְֹא בְדָא. וּלְמַשְׁכֵּן אֵין מְמַשְׁכְּנִין עַד שֶׁיָּבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת.
However, if he did not grow two hairs, the halakha does not apply to this case and he has no obligation at all to contribute a half-shekel. The Gemara continues: And as for seizing collateral, the court does not seize collateral from a minor, even if he grew two hairs, until the age of twenty.
כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָה. אֵין מְמַשְׁכְּנִין אֶת הַכֹּהֲנִים מִפְּנֵי דֶּרֶךְ הַכָּבוֹד.
The mishna taught that no collateral is taken from priests because of the ways of peace. The Gemara adds that this is how the halakha of this mishna is taught in a baraita: One may not seize collateral from priests because of the way of honor, i.e., priests must be treated with respect. This is also the meaning of the ways of peace mentioned in the mishna.
אָמַר רִבִּי יְהוּדָה הֵעִיד כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי בֶּרֶכְיָה. טַעֲמֵיהּ דְּרַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי. זֶ֣ה ׀ יִתְּנ֗וּ. שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר שְׁבָטִים יִתְּנוּ.
The mishna further taught that Rabbi Yehuda said that ben Bukhri testified that any priest who contributes the half-shekel is not considered a sinner, to which Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai retorted that any priest who does not contribute is a sinner. Rabbi Berekhya said: Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Zakkai’s source is the following verse: “This [zeh] they shall give, everyone who passes among them that are numbered, half a shekel after the shekel of the Sanctuary…” (Exodus 30:13). The word zeh has a numerical value of twelve, from which it is derived: Twelve tribes shall give, including the tribe of Levi, of which the priests are members.
רִבִּי טָבִי בְשֵׁם רַב הַמְנוּנָא. כֵּן מֵשִׁיבִין חֲכָמִים לְרִבִּי יְהוּדָה. חַטָּאת יָחִיד מֵתָה. אֵין חַטָּאת הַצִּיבּוּר מֵתָה. מִנְחַת הַיָּחִיד קְרֵיבָה כָלִיל וְאֵין מִנְחַת צִיבּוּר קְרֵיבָה כָלִיל.
Rabbi Tavi said in the name of Rav Hamnuna that the Rabbis respond in this way to Rabbi Yehuda, who quoted Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Zakkai’s criticism of ben Bukhri’s opinion: The halakha is that the sin-offering of an individual, which for some reason cannot be sacrificed, must be left to die, by confining the animal in an enclosure and withholding food and drink from it. However, a communal sin-offering is not left to die (see Temura 16a). A similar distinction applies to meal-offerings: The meal-offering of an individual may be entirely sacrificed on the altar, e.g., when it belongs to a priest. But a communal meal-offering, i.e., the omer, the two loaves, and the shewbread, all of which come from the collection of shekels, is not entirely sacrificed, but is always eaten. If the priests are obligated to contribute the half-shekel, these meal-offerings will partly belong to them, and it is prohibited to eat the meal-offering of a priest.
וְקַשְׁיָא. מֵשִׁיבִין לָאָדָם דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוֹדֶה בוֹ. שֶׁאֵין חַטָּאת צִבּוּר מֵתָה. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר תָּמוּת.
The Gemara asks: But this is difficult. How could this question be presented against the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? Can one raise a difficulty against a person from a matter with which he does not agree? As we learned in a mishna (Yoma 62b) that a communal sin-offering is not left to die, and yet Rabbi Yehuda says: It is left to die. According to Rabbi Yehuda there is no distinction between a communal sin-offering and an individual sin-offering in this regard. If so, there should likewise be no difference between communal and individual meal-offerings, and it should be possible to sacrifice the communal meal-offerings in their entirety.
וְהוּא מוֹתִיב לוֹן תוּ. לֹא נִדְבַת יָחִיד הִיא. וְאִינּוּן מֵתִיבִין לֵיהּ. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּמְסְרָה לַצִּיבּוּר כְּמִי שֶׁהִיא נִדְבַת צִיבּוּר.
The Gemara adds: And he, Rabbi Yehuda, responds to the difficulty of the Rabbis against his opinion: Isn’t this half-shekel given by a priest an individual donation? Since he is not obligated to donate the half-shekel, the contribution of a priest may be considered an individual donation, which separates it from the money of the rest of the community. For that reason, the communal offerings are not considered the property of the priests. And the Rabbis respond to him that since the priest’s half-shekel has been handed over to the community, it is considered part of the communal donation.
כְּתִיב כֹּ֗ל הָֽעֹבֵר֙ עַל־הַפְּקוּדִים. רִבִּי יוּדָה וְרִבִּי נְחֶמְיָה. חַד אָמַר. כָּל־דַּעֲבַר בָּיַּמָּה יִתֵּן. וְחֳרָנָה אָמַר. כָּל־דַּעֲבַר עַל פִּקּוּדַייָא יִתֵּן.
The Gemara notes that there is another dispute of tanna’im along the same lines as this one. It is written: “This they shall give, everyone who passes among them that are numbered, half a shekel after the shekel of the Sanctuary” (Exodus 30:13). Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Neḥemya disputed the meaning of this verse. One of them said that the verse means that all who passed through the Red Sea must give a half-shekel, i.e., the entire Jewish people. And the other said that all who passed before Moshe to be numbered must give the donation, whereas those who were not counted with the rest of the Jewish people, i.e., priests and Levites, need not provide a half-shekel.
מָאן דַאֲמַר כָּל־דַּעֲבַר בָּיַּמָּא יִתֵּן. מְסַייֵעַ לְרַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי. מָאן. כֹּ֗ל דַּעֲבַר עַל פִיקוּדַייָא יִתֵּן. מְסַייֵעַ לְבֶן כּובְרִי.
The Gemara comments: The one who said that all who passed through the Red Sea must give a half-shekel supports the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Zakkai, who maintains that the priests must also contribute, whereas the one who said that all who passed to be numbered must give the donation supports the opinion of ben Bukhri.
משנה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָֽמְרוּ אֵין מְמַשְׁכְּנִין נָשִׁים וַעֲבָדִים וּקְטַנִּים אֲבָל אִם שָֽׁקְלוּ מְקַבְּלִין מִיָּדָם. הַנָּכְרִי וְהַכּוּתִי שֶׁשָּֽׁקְלוּ אֵין מְקַבְּלִין מִיָּדָן. וְאֵין מְקַבְּלִין מִיָּדָן קִינֵּי זָבִין וְקִינֵּי זָבוֹת וְקִינֵּי יוֹלְדוֹת וְחַטָּאוֹת וַאֲשָׁמוֹת.
Halakha 4 · MISHNA Although the Sages said, as stated in the previous mishna, that the court does not seize collateral from women, slaves, and minors, as they are not obligated to contribute, however, if they contributed a shekel of their own accord, the Temple treasurers accept from them. Conversely, in the case of a gentile or a Samaritan [Kuti] who contributed a shekel to participate in the communal offerings, they do not accept it from them. And likewise, they do not accept from a gentile or a Samaritan pairs of birds sacrificed in the purification ritual of a zav, pairs of birds of a zava, or pairs of birds of a woman who gave birth, all of which are brought for ritual purification, or sin-offerings or guilt-offerings.
זֶה הַכְּלָל כָּל־שֶׁהוּא נִידָּר וְנִידָּב מְקַבְּלִין מִיָּדָן. כָּל־שֶׁאֵין לֹא נִידָּר וְלֹא נִידָּב אֵין מְקַבְּלִין מִיָּדָן. וְכֵן מְפוֹרָשׁ עַל יְדֵי עֶזְרָא לֹא לָכֶם וְלָנוּ לִבְנוֹת בַּיִת לֵאלֹהֵינוּ:
This is the principle: With regard to anything that can be brought to the altar as a vow or as a free-will offering, the priests accept it from gentiles and Samaritans, and with regard to anything that cannot be brought as a vow or as a free-will offering, they may not accept it from them. And this principle was similarly articulated by Ezra, when he recorded the Jewish leadership’s rejection of the Samaritans’ request to assist the Jews in the construction of the Second Temple, as it is stated: “But Zerubbabel, and Joshua, and the rest of the heads of fathers’ houses of Israel, said unto them: You have nothing to do with us to build a house unto our God; but we ourselves together will build unto the Lord the God of Israel, as King Cyrus the king of Persia has commanded us” (Ezra 4:3).
Masechet Shekalim is sponsored by Sarene Shanus and Harold Treiber in memory of their parents, “who taught us the value of learning and of being part of the Jewish community.”
-
This month's learning is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.
Subscribe to Hadran's Daf Yomi
Want to explore more about the Daf?
See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners
Shekalim First Three Chapters – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time
Shekalim 3
The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria
מְתַקְּנִין אֶת הַדְּרָכִים וְאֶת הָרְחוֹבוֹת וְאֶת מִקְווֹת הַמַּיִם וְעוֹשִׂין כָּל־צוֹרְכֵי הָרַבִּים. אֵילּוּ הֵן צוֹרְכֵי הָרַבִּים. דָּנִין דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת וְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת דִּינֵי מַכּוֹת וּפוֹדִין עֲרָכִין וַתֲרָמִין וְהֶקְדֵּישׁוֹת §
The mishna taught that on the fifteenth of Adar they repaired the roads that were damaged in the winter, and the streets, and the cisterns. And they did all that was necessary for public welfare. The Gemara explains: These are the matters necessary for public welfare: They judge monetary cases, capital cases, and cases that involve the punishment of lashes. And the court also redeems valuations, consecrations of articles for Temple or priestly use, and consecrations for Temple maintenance or as offerings.
וּמַשְׁקִין אֵת הַסּוֹטָה וְשׂוֹרְפִין אֶת הַפָּרָה וְעוֹרְפִין עֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה וְרוֹצְעִין עֶבֶד עִבְרִי וּמְטָהֲרִין אֵת הַמְּצוֹרָע וּמְפָֽרְקִין אֶת הַמִּנְעָל מֵעַל גַּבֵּי הָאֵימוּם וְאֵין מַחֲזִירִין אוֹתוֹ.
And they give the sota to drink, and they burn the red heifer, to use its ashes for the ritual purification of those rendered impure by contact with the dead, and they break the neck of the heifer whose neck is broken, and they pierce the ear of a Hebrew slave, and they render the leper ritually pure. And they remove the locks that were placed over the water cisterns during the winter, as this water was for public use in the summer, and they do not replace them until the winter.
וּמְצַייְּנִין עַל הַקְּבָרוֹת. וְלֹא כְבָר צִייְנוּ מֵאֲדָר. תִּפְתָּר שֶׁיָּרַד שֶׁטֶף שֶׁלְגְּשָׁמִים וּשְׁטָפוֹ.
We learned in a baraita there that although it is prohibited to perform unnecessary work on the intermediate days of a Festival, during these days one may water an irrigated field, and one may mark the graves by painting lime on them. The Gemara asks: But didn’t the court already mark the graves in Adar, as stated in the mishna here? Why was it necessary to mark them again during the Festival? The Gemara answers: It can be explained as referring to a situation where a downpour rained down after the graves were initially marked in Adar, and washed away the previous markings.
וְיוֹצְאִין אַף עַל הַכִּלְאָיִם: לֹא כְבָר יָֽצְאוּ מֵאֲדָר. תִּפְתָּר שֶׁהָֽיְתָה הַשָּׁנָה אֲפֵילָה וְאֵין הַצְּמָחִין נִיכָּרִין. The mishna further taught that on the fifteenth of Adar, agents of the court would also go out to inspect the fields for diverse kinds of food crops. The Gemara asks: But didn’t they already go out in the beginning of Adar to examine the fields for diverse kinds, as the mishna previously stated? The Gemara answers: It can be explained that the year was late [afila], i.e., the crops had not yet sprouted by the beginning of Adar, and the plants are not perceptible until later.
מְנַיִין לְצִיּוּן. רִבִּי בֶּרֶכְיָה רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר בַּת יַעֲקֹב בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חוּנְייָא דִבְרַת חַווְרָן רִבִּי יוֹסֵה אָֽמְרֵי לָהּ רִבִּי יָעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חוּנְייָא דִבְרַת חַווְרָן רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה רִבִּי עוּזִּיאֵל בְּרֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי חוּנְייָה דִבְרַת חַווְרָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי חוּנְייָא דִבְרַת חַווְרָן. טָמֵא טָמֵא֭ יִקְרָֽא. §
The Gemara asks: From where is the obligation of marking graves derived? Rabbi Berekhya said in the name of Rabbi Ya’akov bar bat Ya’akov in the name of Rabbi Ḥunya of Berat Ḥavrin, Rabbi Yosei said it was Rabbi Ya’akov bar Aḥa, in the name of Rabbi Ḥunya of Berat Ḥavrin, while Rabbi Ḥizkiya and Rabbi Uziel, son of Rabbi Ḥunya of Berat Ḥavrin, said it in the name of Rabbi Ḥunya of Berat Ḥavrin. These Sages said that the proof is from a verse: “And the leper in whom the plague is, his clothes shall be rent, and the hair of his head shall go loose, and he shall cover his upper lip, and shall cry: Unclean, unclean” (Leviticus 13:45).
כְּדֵי שֶׁתְּהֵא הַטּוּמְאָה קוֹרְאָה לָךְ בְּפִיהָ וְאוֹמֶרֶת לָךְ. פְּרוֹשׁ.
The Gemara explains: This teaches that one must take measures in order that the ritually impure object, in this case the leper, calls to you verbally, as it were, and tells you: Separate yourself from it. Just as the leper warns everyone that he is ritually impure, one must likewise mark graves to warn passersby of their impure status.
רִבִּי אִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן. וְעָֽבְר֤וּ הָעוֹבְרִים בָּאָ֔רֶץ וְרָאָה֙ עֶ֣צֶם אָדָ֔ם וּבָנָ֥ה אֶצְל֖וֹ צִיּ֑וּן.
Rabbi Ila in the name of Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman cited a different verse in this regard: “And when they that pass through shall pass through the land, and anyone sees a man’s bone, then shall he set up a sign by it, till the buriers have buried it in the valley of Hamon-gog” (Ezekiel 39:15). This verse explicitly states that there is a need to mark graves.
מִיכָן שֶׁמְצַייְנִין עַל הָעֲצָמוֹת. אָדָ֔ם. מִיכָן שֶׁמְצַייְנִין עַל הַשִּׁזְרָה וְעַל הַגּולְגּוֹלֶת.
The Gemara adds that further halakhot can be derived from this verse. “Bone”: from here it is derived that one marks bones. “A man”: From here it is derived that one marks a spine and skull that were found.
וּבָנָ֥ה. מִיכָן שֶׁמְצַייְנִין עַל גַּבֵּי אֶבֶן קְבוּעָה. אִם אוֹמֵר אַתְּ עַל גַּבֵּי אֶבֶן תְּלוּשָׁה. אַף הִיא הוֹלֶכֶת וּמְטַמֵּא בְמָקוֹם אַחֵר.
“Then shall he set up”: From here it is derived that one marks the sign of ritual impurity on a fixed stone, for if you say that one may mark on a detached stone, that very stone is likely to move from that spot, and it will incorrectly mark another place as ritually impure. It is therefore necessary to use a stone that will not be moved.
אֶצְל֖וֹ. בִּמְקוֹם טַהֲרָה. צִיּ֑וּן. מִיכָן לְצִיּוּן.
The verse further states: “By it”: This is referring to a place of ritual purity. In other words, the marking should not be placed on the spot of ritual impurity itself, but in a nearby, ritually pure location. “A sign”: From here we learn of the obligation to mark.
וּמָצָא אֶבֶן אַחַת מְצוייֶנֶת. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין מְקַייְמִין כֵּן הַמַּאֲהִיל עָלֶיהָ טָמֵא. אֲנִי אוֹמֵר. מֵת מְצוּייָן הָיָה נָתוּן תַּחְתֶּיהָ.
It was further taught with regard to the same issue: And if one found one marked stone, even though one should not establish it in this manner, i.e., one should not mark a place of ritual impurity with a single stone ab initio, but with two stones in order to delineate the extent of the impurity, nevertheless, one who covers it, i.e., places some part of his body in the space above it, is rendered ritually impure. In such a case I say, i.e., one ought to assume: There was a dead body marked here, and it was located underneath this stone.
הָיוּ שְׁתַיִם. הַמַּאֲהִיל עָלֶיהֶן טהוֹר וּבֵינֵיהֶן טָמֵא.
However, if there were two marked stones, the one who covers them with part of his body remains ritually pure, as the source of impurity is typically located between, not underneath, the two markers. And consequently, if he covered the space between the stones, he is ritually impure.
אִם הָיָה חוֹרֶשׁ בֵּיְנְתַּייִם הֲרֵי הֵן כִּיחִידִיּוֹת. בֵּינֵיהֶן טָהוֹר וּסְבִיבוֹתֵיהֶן טָמֵא
And if there were plow marks between these two stones, they are considered like isolated stones with regard to this halakha. Therefore, if he covered the area between the stones with part of his body he is ritually pure, and if he covered the space surrounding the area where they are set he is impure, as it can be assumed there was a source of impurity under each stone.
תַּנֵּי אֵין מְצַייְנִין עַל הַבָּשָׂר שֶׁמָּא נִתְאַכֵּל הַבָּשָׂר. It was taught in a different baraita that one does not mark on the location of the flesh of a corpse without any bones. Why not? Perhaps the flesh has decomposed, leaving less than the minimum size that confers ritual impurity by covering, which is an olive-bulk. If the mark is left there, the spot will permanently be treated as ritually impure.
רִבִּי יוּסְטָא בַּר שׁוּנֵם בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא. וְלֹא נִמְצָא מְטַמֵּא טַהֲרוֹת לְמַפְרֵעַ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. מוטָּב שֶׁיִּתְקַלְקְלוּ בוֹ לְשָׁעָה וְאַל יִתְקַלְקְלוּ בוֹ לְעוֹלָם.
Rabbi Yusta bar Shunem wondered in the presence of Rabbi Mana: And doesn’t he thereby render pure items ritually impure retroactively? If the flesh is not marked at all, pure items might pass over the spot before the flesh has decayed, rendering them ritually impure. He said to him: It is preferable that people are harmed by it temporarily, while the flesh is still there, and are not harmed by it permanently, by wrongly thinking that their pure foods contracted ritual impurity from this source.
משנה אָמַר רִבִּי יְהוּדָה בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיוּ עוֹקְרִין וּמַשְׁלִיכִין לִפְנֵיהֶן. מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ עוֹבְרֵי עֲבֵירָה הָיוּ עוֹקְרִין וּמַשְׁלִיכִין לַדְּרָכִים. הִתְקִינוּ שֶׁיְּהוּ מַבְקִירִין אֶת כָּל־הַשָּׂדֶה.
Halakha 2 · MISHNA At the end of the last mishna it was stated that the court sends out agents on the fifteenth of Adar to inspect whether the owners of fields had indeed uprooted any diverse kinds of crops as instructed. Rabbi Yehuda said: At first those agents would uproot the diverse kinds of crops and cast them in front of the owners of the fields. When the number of transgressors who would not uproot diverse kinds in their fields increased, and the Sages saw that this tactic was ineffective, they would cast the uprooted crops onto the roads. Ultimately, they instituted that the entire field should be declared ownerless.
הלכה רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר. תַּנֵּי אָמַר רִבִּי יְהוּדְה. בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיוּ עוֹקְרִין וּמַשְׁלִיכִין לִפְנֵיהֶן וְהָיוּ שְׂמֵחִין שְׁתֵּי שְׂמָחוֹת. אַחַת שֶׁהָיוּ מְנַכְשִׁין שָׂדוֹתֵיהֶן וְאַחַת שֶׁהָיוּ נֶהֱנִין מִן (הַגֶּזֶל) [הַכִּלְאַיִם.].
GEMARA: With regard to what Rabbi Yehuda said in the mishna, i.e., that there were three stages of the Sages’ decree, the Gemara elaborates as it was taught in a baraita. Rabbi Yehuda said: At first the agents of the court would uproot the diverse kinds of crops and cast them in front of the owners, and those owners would doubly rejoice. One reason for their happiness was that others were weeding their fields for them, and the other reason was that they would derive benefit from these diverse kinds, which they would feed to their animals.
מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ עוֹבְרֵי עֲבֵירָה הָיוּ עוֹקְרִין וּמַשְׁלִיכִין עַל הַדְּרָכִים. אַף עַל פִּי כֵן הָיוּ שְׂמִחִים שֶׁהָיוּ מְנַכְשִׁין שָׂדוֹתֵיהֶן. הִתְקִינוּ שֶׁיְּהוּ מַבְקִירִין אֶת כָּל־הַשָּׂדֶה.
The baraita continues: When the number of transgressors who maintained diverse kinds in their fields increased, they would cast the uprooted crops onto the roads, so that passersby should trample on them and render them unfit for any use. Even so, the owners still rejoiced that those agents were weeding their fields. Therefore, the Sages instituted that the entire field should be declared ownerless, which would deter people from maintaining diverse kinds in their fields.
מִנַיִיִן שֶׁהֶבְקֵר בֵּית דִּין הֶבְקֵר. כָּתוּב וְכֹל֩ אֲשֶׁ֨ר לֹֽא־יָבֹא לִשְׁל֣שֶׁת הַיָּמִ֗ים כַּֽעֲצַ֤ת הַשָּׂרִים֙ וְהַזְּקֵנִ֔ים יָֽחֳרַ֖ם כָּל־רְכוּשׁ֑וֹ וְה֥וּא יִבָּדֵ֖ל מִקְּהַ֥ל הַגּוֹלָֽה׃
The Gemara asks: From where is it derived that property declared ownerless by the court is in fact ownerless? As the mishna states that the court rendered the fields ownerless, clearly they had the power to do so. What is the source for their having this power? The Gemara answers: As it is written, with regard to the proclamation of Ezra and his court to all the people to gather in Jerusalem, where he instructed those who had married foreign women to divorce them: “And that whosoever came not within three days, according to the counsel of the princes and the elders, all his substance should be forfeited, and himself separated from the congregation of the captivity” (Ezra 10:8). This shows that the court has the power to render ownerless the property of anyone who violates its commands.
מְנַיִין שֶׁהִיא פְטוּרָה מִן הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת. רִבִּי יוֹנָתָן בְּרֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יִצְחָק בַר אָחָה שָׁמַע לָהּ מִן הָדָא. אֵין מְעַבְּרִין אֶת הַשָּׁנָה לֹא בַשְּׁבִיעִית וְלֹא בְמוֹצָאֵי שְׁבִיעִית. וְאִם עִיבְּרוּהָ הֲרֵי זוֹ מְעוּבֶּרֶת.
The Gemara further asks: From where is it derived that this ownerless field is exempt from tithes, like a field rendered ownerless by its owner? Rabbi Yonatan, son of Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Aḥa, learned the halakha of this case from this baraita: One may not intercalate the year, by adding the month of Second Adar, neither in the Sabbatical Year nor in the year after the Sabbatical Year. And if they transgressed and intercalated it, the year is intercalated.
וְחוֹדֶשׁ אֶחָד שֶׁהוּא מוֹסִיף לֹא פָטוּר מִמַּעְשְׂרוֹת הוּא.
Rabbi Yonatan explains how exemption from tithes of a field that was declared ownerless by the court can be derived from this baraita: And yet with regard to that one month that he adds, i.e., the month to intercalate the year, which is added to the Sabbatical Year, aren’t the crops harvested in that additional month exempt from tithes? These crops are Sabbatical produce and as such exempt from tithes, but that status is only a result of the decree of the court to extend the year. This proves that the court has the power to render a field exempt from tithes.
עַד כְדוֹן שְׁבִיעִית. מוֹצָאֵי שְׁבִיעִית [מַאי]. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבוּן. שֶׁלֹּא לְרַבּוֹת בְּאִיסּוּר חָדָשׁ.
The Gemara continues to analyze the baraita. Until here it is clear why the Sabbatical Year should not be intercalated, as it extends the prohibitions of the Sabbatical year. However, what is the reason that the year after the Sabbatical Year should not be intercalated? Rabbi Bun said: The reason is so as not to increase the period of the prohibition of new grain. In the year after the seventh year people are still relying on the produce of the sixth year until the new crop sprouts in the spring of the eighth year. Since the food supply is liable to run out, the sooner the new grain can be eaten, the better. It is only permitted after the bringing of the omer offering on the sixteenth of Nisan, and therefore it is preferable not to extend the year, which would delay the beginning of Nisan.
רִבִּי זְעוּרָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. הָדָא דְאַתְּ אָמַר. עַד שֶׁלֹּא הִתִּיר רִבִּי לְהָבִיא יָרָק מֵחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ לָאֲרֶץ. אֲבָל מִשֶּׁהִתִּיר רִבִּי לְהָבִיא יָרָק מֵחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ לָאֲרֶץ הִיא שְׁבִיעִית הִיא שֶׁל שְׁאָר שְׁנֵי שָׁבוּעַ.
Rabbi Ze’eira says in the name of Rabbi Elazar: That which you say, that one may not intercalate the Sabbatical Year or the following year, applied until the time that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted one to import vegetables from outside Eretz Yisrael to Eretz Yisrael. Beforehand there was a danger of insufficient food, and the court needed to refrain from lengthening either year. However, from the time when Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted one to import vegetables from outside Eretz Yisrael to Eretz Yisrael, and there was enough food for all, the Sabbatical Year is like other years of the Sabbatical cycle, i.e., it is permitted to intercalate any year.
תַּנֵּי. אֵין מְעַבְּרִין אֶת הַשָּׁנָה בַשְּׁבִיעִית [וְלֹא בְמוֹצָאֵי שְׁבִיעִית] אֶלָּא בִשְׁאָר שְׁנֵי שָׁבוּעַ. [וְ]אִם עִיבְּרוּהָ הֲרֵי זוֹ מְעוּבֶּרֶת. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. הָדָא דְאַתְּ אָמַר. בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה כְּשֶׁהָיוּ הָשָּׁנִים כְּתִיקֻנָן. אֲבָל עַכְשָׁיו שֶׁאֵין הָשָּׁנִים כְּתִיקֻנָן הִיא שְׁבִיעִית הִיא שְׁאָר שְׁנֵי שָׁבוּעַ.
It was taught in the baraita that one may not intercalate the year following the Sabbatical Year. Rabbi Mana said: This matter which you say: It applied at first, when the seasons of the years proceeded in their proper manner, i.e., the new grain was ripe in time and could be eaten immediately after the sixteenth of Nisan. However, now, when the seasons of the years do not proceed in their proper manner, and the grain is not ready until later anyway, there is no problem delaying Nisan, so the Sabbatical Year is like other years of the Sabbatical cycle.
תַּנֵּי. שֶׁלְבֵּית רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל עִיבְּרוּהָ בְמוֹצָאֵי שְׁבִיעִית מִיָּד.
The Gemara adds: It was taught in a baraita that the court of the house of Rabban Gamliel intercalated the year immediately after the Sabbatical Year, in the first month of that year.
אָמַר רִבִּי אָבוּן. אִין מִן הָדָא לֵית שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ כְלוּם.
Rabbi Yonatan previously proved from the court’s ability to extend the Sabbatical year that the court has the power to declare property ownerless, to the extent that its produce is exempt from tithes. With regard to this, Rabbi Avun said: If your proof is from this, you cannot learn anything from it.
שָׁמוֹר֙ אֶת־חוֹדֶשׁ הָֽאָבִ֔יב. שָׁמְרֵיהוּ שֶׁיָּבוֹא בְחִידּוּשׁוֹ.
Rabbi Avun explains: The Torah says: “Observe [guard] the month of the spring, and keep the Passover unto the Lord your God; for in the month of the spring the Lord your God brought you forth out of Egypt by night” (Deuteronomy 16:1). This means that one should guard it so that the month of Nisan arrives in the spring of the new year, i.e., in Nisan of the lunar year, which is roughly eleven days shorter than the solar year. If the festival of Passover is scheduled to arrive too early, due to the difference between the solar and lunar years, that year must be intercalated. Since the intercalation of the year is a Torah requirement, the extra month added to a Sabbatical Year is exempt from tithes by Torah law. Therefore, the extension of the year by intercalation is not merely a power of the court, and therefore cannot function as a source for the court’s power to declare property ownerless and exempt it from tithes.
וַהַיי דָא אָֽמְרָה דָא. גָּדִישׁ שֶׁלֹּא לוּקַּט תַּחְתָּיו כָּל־הַנּוֹגְעוֹת בָּאָרֶץ הֲרֵי הֵן שֶׁלְעֲנִיִּים. וְאָמַר רִבִּי אִמִּי [דף ג:] בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שׁמְעוֹן בֵּן לָקִישׁ. דְּבֵית שַׂמַּי הִיא.
But this other mishna (Pe’a 5:1) does state this halakha, that a field declared ownerless by the court is exempt from tithes. With regard to a pile of grain under which gleanings have not been gathered by the poor, who are entitled to the lone stalks that fall during a harvest, all the kernels that are touching the ground belong to the poor. And about this mishna Rabbi Ami said [3b] in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: It is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, who maintain that it is possible to declare an article ownerless exclusively with respect to the poor (see Pe’a 6:1).
וְאָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. שָׁמַעְנוּ שֶׁהוּא פָטוּר מִמַּעְשְׂרוֹת דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מִשּׁוּם קְנָס. וּכְבֵית הִלֵּל עֲנִייִם מְעַשְּׂרִין וְאוֹכְלִין.
In defense of the attribution of the mishna to Beit Shammai the Gemara continues: For if the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, who maintain that the court cannot declare something ownerless only for the poor, then the poor would be allowed to eat the kernels touching the ground only after tithing. And Rabbi Yosei said to him, Rabbi Ami: We learned a different explanation whereby it is not necessary to attribute the mishna to Beit Shammai, i.e., that everyone agrees that this produce is exempt from tithes because the Sages imposed a fine [kenasa] on one who was careless enough to pile his grain on top of gleanings. He forfeits any stalks touching the ground, as they are rendered ownerless, and ownerless food is exempt from tithes. Since some of the kernels touching the ground are from the pile, not the gleanings, the ruling that they are all exempt from tithes depends upon the Sages’ power to declare them ownerless. If the mishna in Pe’a is understood in accordance with Rabbi Yosei’s opinion, it serves as evidence that the Sages can in fact declare property ownerless to the extent that its produce is exempt from tithes.
משנה בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׁר בּוֹ שׁוּלְחָנוֹת יוֹשְׁבִין בַּמְּדִינָה. בְּעֶשְׁרִים וַחֲמִשָּׁה בוֹ יָֽשְׁבוּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ. מִשֶּׁיָּֽשְׁבוּ בַּמִּקְְדָּשׁ הִתְחִילוּ לְמַשְׁכֵּן.
Halakha 3 · MISHNA On the fifteenth of Adar, money changers would sit at tables set up in the rest of the country, outside the Temple, to handle the collection of shekels. On the twenty-fifth of Adar, the money changers sat in the Temple. From the time when the money changers sat in the Temple, the court began to seize collateral from those who had yet to donate the half-shekel.
אֶת מִי מְמַשְְׁכְּנִין לְוִייִם וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִים וְגֵרִים וַעֲבָדִים מְשׁחְרָרִין אֲבָל לֹא נָשִׁים וְלֹא עֲבָדִים וְלֹא קְטַנִּים. וְכָל־קָטָן שֶׁהִתְחִיל אָבִיו לִשְׁקוֹל עַל יָדוֹ אֵינוֹ פּוֹסֵק. אֵין מְמַשְׁכְּנִין אֶת הַכֹּהֲנִים מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵּי שָׁלוֹם:
From whom did they seize collateral? From Levites, Israelites, converts, and emancipated slaves. However, they did not seize collateral from women, slaves, or minors. And any minor whose father began one year to contribute a half-shekel on his behalf, despite the fact that he was not obligated to do so, he may not cease to do so in subsequent years. The court does not seize collateral from priests, although they are legally obligated to give a half-shekel like all other Jews, because of the ways of peace.
אָמַר רִבִּי יְהוּדָה הֵעִיד בֶּן כּוּכְרִי בְּיַבְנֶה שֶׁכָּל־כֹּהֵן שֶׁהוּא שׁוֹקֵל אֵינוֹ חוֹטֵא. אָמַר לוֹ רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי לֹא כִּי אֶלָּא כָּל־כֹּהֵן שֶׁאֵינוֹ שׁוֹקֵל חוֹטֵא.
The mishna goes on to explain the status of priests with regard to the contribution of the half-shekel. Rabbi Yehuda said that ben Bukhri testified in Yavne: Any priest who contributes the half-shekel is not considered a sinner, despite the fact that he is not obligated to do so. Rabbi Yehuda added that Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said to ben Bukhri: Not so; rather, any priest who does not contribute the half-shekel is considered a sinner, as they are obligated like all other Jews.
אֶלָּא שֶׁהַכֹּהֲנִים דּוֹרְשִׁין מִקְרָא זֶה לְעַצְמָן וְכָל־מִנְחַת כֹּהֵן כָּלִיל תִּהְיֶה לֹא תֵאָכֵל
However, Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai continued, the priests who do not contribute interpret this verse to their own advantage: “And any every meal-offering of the priest shall be wholly made to smoke; it shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 6:16).
הוֹאִיל וְהָעוֹמֶר וּשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם וְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים שֶׁלָּנוּ הֵיאָךְ הֵם נֶאֱכָלִין:
Those priests claim as follows: Since the omer offering and the two loaves, i.e., the public offering of two loaves from the new wheat brought on the festival of Shavuot, and the shewbread placed on the sacred table in the Sanctuary each Shabbat, which are all meal-offerings, are ours, then if we contribute shekels we will have partial ownership of these communal offerings, as they are purchased with the shekels. How, then, can they be eaten? They ought to be regarded as priests’ meal-offerings, which must be wholly burnt. But since these offerings are eaten, the priests concluded that they are not obligated to contribute the half-shekel. This argument does not, however, take into account the fact that communal offerings belong to the public, which is understood as its own entity, and are not regarded as shared offerings of all who contribute to the public purse.
הלכה בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר בּוֹ כול׳. הָא לִתְבּוֹעַ תּוֹבְעִין. הָדָא דְתֵימַר בְּשֶׁהֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת.
GEMARA: The mishna taught that the court does not seize collateral from minors for the half-shekel. The Gemara infers: This indicates that with regard to claiming the half-shekel from minors, the court does claim the money. The Gemara adds: This halakha that you say, i.e., that the court does not claim the money, applies to a young person who has grown two pubic hairs and therefore is legally an adult in other respects, but is not yet twenty years old. Before he is twenty he is obligated to donate the half-shekel only by rabbinic law, and for that the court does not seize collateral.
אֲבָל אִם לֹא הֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת לְֹא בְדָא. וּלְמַשְׁכֵּן אֵין מְמַשְׁכְּנִין עַד שֶׁיָּבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת.
However, if he did not grow two hairs, the halakha does not apply to this case and he has no obligation at all to contribute a half-shekel. The Gemara continues: And as for seizing collateral, the court does not seize collateral from a minor, even if he grew two hairs, until the age of twenty.
כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָה. אֵין מְמַשְׁכְּנִין אֶת הַכֹּהֲנִים מִפְּנֵי דֶּרֶךְ הַכָּבוֹד.
The mishna taught that no collateral is taken from priests because of the ways of peace. The Gemara adds that this is how the halakha of this mishna is taught in a baraita: One may not seize collateral from priests because of the way of honor, i.e., priests must be treated with respect. This is also the meaning of the ways of peace mentioned in the mishna.
אָמַר רִבִּי יְהוּדָה הֵעִיד כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי בֶּרֶכְיָה. טַעֲמֵיהּ דְּרַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי. זֶ֣ה ׀ יִתְּנ֗וּ. שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר שְׁבָטִים יִתְּנוּ.
The mishna further taught that Rabbi Yehuda said that ben Bukhri testified that any priest who contributes the half-shekel is not considered a sinner, to which Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai retorted that any priest who does not contribute is a sinner. Rabbi Berekhya said: Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Zakkai’s source is the following verse: “This [zeh] they shall give, everyone who passes among them that are numbered, half a shekel after the shekel of the Sanctuary…” (Exodus 30:13). The word zeh has a numerical value of twelve, from which it is derived: Twelve tribes shall give, including the tribe of Levi, of which the priests are members.
רִבִּי טָבִי בְשֵׁם רַב הַמְנוּנָא. כֵּן מֵשִׁיבִין חֲכָמִים לְרִבִּי יְהוּדָה. חַטָּאת יָחִיד מֵתָה. אֵין חַטָּאת הַצִּיבּוּר מֵתָה. מִנְחַת הַיָּחִיד קְרֵיבָה כָלִיל וְאֵין מִנְחַת צִיבּוּר קְרֵיבָה כָלִיל.
Rabbi Tavi said in the name of Rav Hamnuna that the Rabbis respond in this way to Rabbi Yehuda, who quoted Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Zakkai’s criticism of ben Bukhri’s opinion: The halakha is that the sin-offering of an individual, which for some reason cannot be sacrificed, must be left to die, by confining the animal in an enclosure and withholding food and drink from it. However, a communal sin-offering is not left to die (see Temura 16a). A similar distinction applies to meal-offerings: The meal-offering of an individual may be entirely sacrificed on the altar, e.g., when it belongs to a priest. But a communal meal-offering, i.e., the omer, the two loaves, and the shewbread, all of which come from the collection of shekels, is not entirely sacrificed, but is always eaten. If the priests are obligated to contribute the half-shekel, these meal-offerings will partly belong to them, and it is prohibited to eat the meal-offering of a priest.
וְקַשְׁיָא. מֵשִׁיבִין לָאָדָם דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוֹדֶה בוֹ. שֶׁאֵין חַטָּאת צִבּוּר מֵתָה. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר תָּמוּת.
The Gemara asks: But this is difficult. How could this question be presented against the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? Can one raise a difficulty against a person from a matter with which he does not agree? As we learned in a mishna (Yoma 62b) that a communal sin-offering is not left to die, and yet Rabbi Yehuda says: It is left to die. According to Rabbi Yehuda there is no distinction between a communal sin-offering and an individual sin-offering in this regard. If so, there should likewise be no difference between communal and individual meal-offerings, and it should be possible to sacrifice the communal meal-offerings in their entirety.
וְהוּא מוֹתִיב לוֹן תוּ. לֹא נִדְבַת יָחִיד הִיא. וְאִינּוּן מֵתִיבִין לֵיהּ. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּמְסְרָה לַצִּיבּוּר כְּמִי שֶׁהִיא נִדְבַת צִיבּוּר.
The Gemara adds: And he, Rabbi Yehuda, responds to the difficulty of the Rabbis against his opinion: Isn’t this half-shekel given by a priest an individual donation? Since he is not obligated to donate the half-shekel, the contribution of a priest may be considered an individual donation, which separates it from the money of the rest of the community. For that reason, the communal offerings are not considered the property of the priests. And the Rabbis respond to him that since the priest’s half-shekel has been handed over to the community, it is considered part of the communal donation.
כְּתִיב כֹּ֗ל הָֽעֹבֵר֙ עַל־הַפְּקוּדִים. רִבִּי יוּדָה וְרִבִּי נְחֶמְיָה. חַד אָמַר. כָּל־דַּעֲבַר בָּיַּמָּה יִתֵּן. וְחֳרָנָה אָמַר. כָּל־דַּעֲבַר עַל פִּקּוּדַייָא יִתֵּן.
The Gemara notes that there is another dispute of tanna’im along the same lines as this one. It is written: “This they shall give, everyone who passes among them that are numbered, half a shekel after the shekel of the Sanctuary” (Exodus 30:13). Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Neḥemya disputed the meaning of this verse. One of them said that the verse means that all who passed through the Red Sea must give a half-shekel, i.e., the entire Jewish people. And the other said that all who passed before Moshe to be numbered must give the donation, whereas those who were not counted with the rest of the Jewish people, i.e., priests and Levites, need not provide a half-shekel.
מָאן דַאֲמַר כָּל־דַּעֲבַר בָּיַּמָּא יִתֵּן. מְסַייֵעַ לְרַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי. מָאן. כֹּ֗ל דַּעֲבַר עַל פִיקוּדַייָא יִתֵּן. מְסַייֵעַ לְבֶן כּובְרִי.
The Gemara comments: The one who said that all who passed through the Red Sea must give a half-shekel supports the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Zakkai, who maintains that the priests must also contribute, whereas the one who said that all who passed to be numbered must give the donation supports the opinion of ben Bukhri.
משנה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָֽמְרוּ אֵין מְמַשְׁכְּנִין נָשִׁים וַעֲבָדִים וּקְטַנִּים אֲבָל אִם שָֽׁקְלוּ מְקַבְּלִין מִיָּדָם. הַנָּכְרִי וְהַכּוּתִי שֶׁשָּֽׁקְלוּ אֵין מְקַבְּלִין מִיָּדָן. וְאֵין מְקַבְּלִין מִיָּדָן קִינֵּי זָבִין וְקִינֵּי זָבוֹת וְקִינֵּי יוֹלְדוֹת וְחַטָּאוֹת וַאֲשָׁמוֹת.
Halakha 4 · MISHNA Although the Sages said, as stated in the previous mishna, that the court does not seize collateral from women, slaves, and minors, as they are not obligated to contribute, however, if they contributed a shekel of their own accord, the Temple treasurers accept from them. Conversely, in the case of a gentile or a Samaritan [Kuti] who contributed a shekel to participate in the communal offerings, they do not accept it from them. And likewise, they do not accept from a gentile or a Samaritan pairs of birds sacrificed in the purification ritual of a zav, pairs of birds of a zava, or pairs of birds of a woman who gave birth, all of which are brought for ritual purification, or sin-offerings or guilt-offerings.
זֶה הַכְּלָל כָּל־שֶׁהוּא נִידָּר וְנִידָּב מְקַבְּלִין מִיָּדָן. כָּל־שֶׁאֵין לֹא נִידָּר וְלֹא נִידָּב אֵין מְקַבְּלִין מִיָּדָן. וְכֵן מְפוֹרָשׁ עַל יְדֵי עֶזְרָא לֹא לָכֶם וְלָנוּ לִבְנוֹת בַּיִת לֵאלֹהֵינוּ:
This is the principle: With regard to anything that can be brought to the altar as a vow or as a free-will offering, the priests accept it from gentiles and Samaritans, and with regard to anything that cannot be brought as a vow or as a free-will offering, they may not accept it from them. And this principle was similarly articulated by Ezra, when he recorded the Jewish leadership’s rejection of the Samaritans’ request to assist the Jews in the construction of the Second Temple, as it is stated: “But Zerubbabel, and Joshua, and the rest of the heads of fathers’ houses of Israel, said unto them: You have nothing to do with us to build a house unto our God; but we ourselves together will build unto the Lord the God of Israel, as King Cyrus the king of Persia has commanded us” (Ezra 4:3).
