Today's Daf Yomi
March 26, 2021 | י״ג 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 shiurim are sponsored by Bill Futornick in memory of Rabbi David Teitelbaum Z"L, who led Congregation Beth Jacob in Redwood City, CA for 38 years. He was an extraordinary leader, teacher, moral exemplar and family man who truly fought for equality and deeply embraced ahavat tzion.
-
This month’s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.
-
This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. “And with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.”
Shekalim 5
Today’s Daf is sponsored by Mona and David Schwartz and family in honor of the 27th yahrzeit of their mother and Bubby – Mary Horowitz a”h bat Aharon Halevi & Mirel. “A woman who’s home epitomized the mitzvah of Hachnasat Orchim” And by Sara Berelowitz “in honor of our new grandson, son of Aliza and Ashi Harow.”
Where would they set up boxes to collect the money for the shekels? Can you transfer the money into larger valued coins or other items valued at the same price? Who is responsible if something happens to the money on the way to the Temple? On what does it depend? If someone took money given to him to bring for them to the Temple and he used it for himself, at what point does he transgress the sin of meila, misuse of consecrated property?
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Podcast (דף יומי לנשים - עברית): Play in new window | Download
[דף ה.] וּפְעָמִים שֶׁהֵן פְטוּרִין מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָא. חִלְקוּ אֶת הַנְּכָסִים וְאַחָר כָּךְ חִלְקוּ אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה. חַייָבִין בָּזֶה וּבָזֶה. חִלְקוּ אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה וְאַחָר כָּךְ חִלְקוּ אֶת הַנְּכָסִים. פְטוּרִין מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה.
The mishna spoke of two cases, one in which brothers are obligated in the animal tithe and exempt from the premium, and the other in which they are obligated in the premium and exempt from the animal tithe. In this regard, Rabbi Ḥiyya said that Rabbi Yirmeya raised a dilemma: And why do we not say that there are also times when they are obligated in both of them, [5a] and there are times when they are exempt from both of them? How is that? If they divided the property but did not divide the animals, they are obligated in both. The brothers are considered regular partners with regard to the property, and they are therefore obligated in the premium. However, the livestock is still regarded as under the single ownership of their father’s estate, and they are therefore obligated in the animal tithe. Conversely, if they divided the animals between them but did not divide the property, they are exempt from both. With regard to the animals, the brothers are considered regular partners and are therefore are exempt from the animal tithe. The rest of the property remains under unified ownership, and they are therefore exempt from the premium as well.
אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. הָדָא דְאַתּ אָמַר. בְּשֶׁלֹּא הָֽיְתָה הַבְּהֵמָה רוֹב. אֲבָל אִם הָֽיְתָה הַבְּהֵמָה רוֹב הֵן הֵן עִיקַּר נְכָסָיו.
In this regard, Rabbi Mana said: This statement you, Rabbi Yirmeya, are saying, that brothers who divided the property but not the animals are obligated in a premium, applies only in a case where the animals were not the majority of the property. However, if the animals were the majority of the property, they are considered the principal property. In this case, if the brothers have not divided the animals, even if they have divided the rest of the assets, it is as though they have not divided the estate at all, and they are therefore exempt from the premium.
רִבִּי אָבּוּן אָמַר. רִבִּי שַׁמַּי בָעֵי. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁעֲשִׂיתָן [כְּאָדָם אֶחָד] (כְּאֶחָד אָדָם) אֶצֶל מַעֲשֵׂר בְהֵמָה אַתְּ פוֹטְרוֹ מִן הַקּוֹלָּבוֹן.
The mishna stated that if the brothers have not divided their inheritance between them, they are obligated in the animal tithe and exempt from the premium. Rabbi Avin said that Rabbi Shimi raised a dilemma: Because you have been stringent and made them as one man with regard to the animal tithe, by treating the estate as though it were under single ownership, will you also be lenient with them and exempt them from the premium? In this case too the stringent ruling should be accepted, and they should be treated as the owners of separate entities, who are obligated in the premium.
אָמַר לֵיהּ לֹא. שַׁנְייָה הִיא שֶׁהוּא נוֹתֵן סֶלַע אַחַת שְׁלֵימָה.
Rabbi Avin said to Rabbi Shimi in response: Is it not different? There is a distinction here: As he, one of the brothers, gives one whole sela from the estate on behalf of both of them, and as the inheritance has not yet been divided, the coin is still considered the legal property of the father. Consequently, they are exempt from the premium, despite the fact that this results in a leniency.
מֵעַתָּה אֲפִילוּ חִלְּקוּ וְהָֽזְרוּ וְנִשְׁתַּתְּפוּ חַייָבִין בְּמַעֲשַׂר בְּהֵמָה וּפְטוּרִין מִן הַקָּלָבּוֹן. וְתַנִּינָן. חַייָבִין בַּקּוֹלָּבּוֹן וּפְטוּרִין מִמַּעֲשַׂר בְּהֵמָה.
The Gemara asks: According to the ruling that the undivided estate is considered under single ownership, now one could claim that even if the brothers divided the inheritance and subsequently reestablished it again, the inheritance should revert to its original state as their father’s property, and they should be obligated in the animal tithe and exempt from the premium. And yet we learned in the mishna that in this case they are obligated in the premium and exempt from the animal tithe.
רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם אַבָּא בַּר רַב הוּנָא. הִיא שְׁנֵי אַחִין שֶׁיָּֽרְשׁוּ אֶת אֲבִיהֶן הִיא שְׁנֵי גִיסִין שֶׁיָּֽרְשׁוּ אֶת חֲמֵיהֶן.
Rabbi Ba answered in the name of Abba bar Rav Huna: It is the same with two brothers who inherited their father, as is the halakha with regard to two brothers-in-law who inherited their father-in-law. If a father had only two daughters and their husbands inherited him, proceeded to divide up the inheritance, and later formed a partnership, they are considered like regular partners, who are obligated in a premium but exempt from the animal tithe. The same halakha applies to two sons.
לְאֵיכָן הָיוּ הַקּוֹלָּבּוֹנוֹת נוֹפְלִין. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר. לַשְּׁקָלִים. רִבִּי לָזָֽר אוֹמֵר. לִנְדָבָה.
The Gemara cites a baraita with regard to the additional premium: To where would the premiums fall, i.e., what was done with them? Rabbi Meir says: They would add them to the shekels themselves, for the daily and additional offerings. Rabbi Elazar says: They would be allocated to free-will offerings, i.e., the money would go toward the burnt-offerings that were sacrificed when the altar was idle.
רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הַשְּׁזוּרִי אוֹמֵר. רִיקּוּעֵי זָהָב וְצִיפּוּי לְבֵית קוֹדֶשׁ הַקָּדָשִׁים. בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹמֵר. שׁולְחָנִין הָיוּ נוֹטְלִין אוֹתָן בִּשְׂכָרָן. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים. לְהוֹצָאַת דְּרָכִים.
Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: They would use the premiums to buy gold plating, and this served as covering for the inner walls of the house of the Holy of Holies. Ben Azzai says: The money changers responsible for collecting the shekels would take them as their payment for their services, as they had to take time off from their regular work. And some say that the premiums were spent on transportation expenses, i.e., the cost of moving the shekels from their collection sites to Jerusalem.
הדרן עלך פרק באחד באדר
משנה מְצָֽרְפִין שְׁקָלִים דַּרְכּוֹנוֹת מִפְּנֵי מַשּׂוֹי הַדֶּרֶךְ. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהָיוּ שׁוֹפָרוֹת בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ כָּךּ הָיוּ בַּמְּדִינָה.
Halakha 1 · MISHNA When people who live far from Jerusalem wish to send to Jerusalem the shekels that have been levied from their community, they may combine their shekels and exchange them for darics [darkonot], which are large gold coins, due to the burden of the way. Instead of carrying large amounts of shekels, the agents who deliver the funds will bring a much lighter burden of gold coins with them. The mishna adds: Just as there were collection horns in the Temple to receive the half-shekel contributions, so too there were collection horns in the rest of the country, i.e., areas outside of Jerusalem. The local inhabitants placed their half-shekels in these horns, which were later brought to Jerusalem.
בְּנֵי הָעִיר שֶׁשִּׁילְחוּ אֶת שִׁקְלֵיהֶן וְנִגְנְבוּ אוֹ שֶׁאָֽבְדוּ אִם נִתְרְמָה הַתְּרוּמָה נִשְׁבָּעִין לַגִּזְבָּרִים §
With regard to the residents of a town who sent their shekels to the Temple and they were stolen from the agent on the way or were lost, if the collection of the chamber had already been collected before these shekels arrived, the agents must take the oath of a bailee to the treasurers [gizbarin]. After the collection of the chamber, all the shekels that have been contributed become the property of the Temple, so the Temple treasurers who are in charge of this property become the opposing litigants of the agents.
וְאִם לָאו נִשְׁבָּעִין לִבְנֵי הָעִיר וּבְנֵי הָעִיר שׁוֹקְלִין תַּחְתֵּהֶן. נִמְצָאוּ אוֹ שֶׁהֶחֱזִירוּם הַגַּנָּבִים אֵילּוּ וָאֵילּוּ שְׁקָלִים וְאֵין עוֹלִין לָהֶן לְשָׁנָה הַבָּאָה:
If the ceremony has not yet been performed and the contributions have not yet been collected into the baskets, the shekels are considered the property of the residents of the town, and therefore the agents must take an oath to absolve themselves to the residents of the town. Since those shekels are still considered the property of the residents of the town because the shekels never reached the Temple, they have not fulfilled their obligation. Therefore, the residents of the town must contribute other shekels in their place. If, after the residents of the town contributed other shekels, the original shekels were found or the thieves returned them, both these original shekels and those newly contributed ones have the status of consecrated shekels and belong to the Temple. However, they do not count for the following year. The people cannot claim that since they contributed twice in one year they are exempt from contributing the next year.
הלכה מְצָֽרְפִין שְׁקָלִים דַּרְכּוֹנוֹת כול׳. וְיַעֲשׂוּ אוֹתָן מַרְגָּלִית. שֶׁמְּא תָזִיל הַמַּרְגָלִית וְנִמְצָא הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ מַפְסִיד.
GEMARA: It is taught in the mishna that residents of a town can exchange their half-shekels with gold darics in order to ease their burden on the way to Jerusalem. The Gemara asks: If the goal is to ease the agents’ burden by combining the coins into a more valuable commodity, let them make them, i.e., exchange them with, gems [margaliot], which are more valuable than darics and much lighter to carry. The Gemara answers: They do not do this due to concern lest the price of the gems decrease, since, like all commodities, their price can decrease and the Temple treasury of consecrated property will lose.
כַּהִיא דְתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. וְכוּלָּן נִפְדִּין בְּכֶסֶף וּבְשָׁוֶה כֶסֶף חוּץ מִן הַשְּׁקָלִים: [וְאֵין פּוֹדִין בְּכֵלִים]. אָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק. שֶׁמָּא יָזִילוּ הַכֵּלִים וְנִמְצָא הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ מַפְסִיד. וְהָכָא שֶׁמָּא תָזִיל הַמַּרְגָלִית וְנִמְצָא הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ מַפְסִיד.
Like that which we learned in a mishna there, in tractate Bekhorot: All of them, all items that can be redeemed, such as different types of consecrated items and the firstborn male who is redeemed from the priest, may be redeemed with money or with an equivalent value of money in commodities, except for shekels, which may be redeemed only with money. The question remains: Why is it that one may not redeem the shekels with vessels or any other type of equivalent value of money in commodities? Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said that it is due to concern lest the price of vessels decreases and the Temple treasury of consecrated property will lose. This is not the case with money, whose price remains fixed. So too here, they do not exchange shekels with gems out of concern lest the price of the gems decreases and the Temple treasury of consecrated property will lose.
מַתְנִיתָא בִתְקֵלִין תַדְּתִין. אֲבָל בִּתְקֵלִין עַתִּיקִין לָא בְדָא. וְתַנֵּי כֵן. עַתִּיקִין בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ. אֵין עַתִּיקִין בַּמְּדִינָה. §
It is taught in the mishna that just as there were collection horns in the Temple to receive the shekels, there were also collection horns in the areas outside Jerusalem. The Gemara comments: The mishna refers to new shekels, which are contributed for the new year commencing in Nisan. However, with regard to old shekels, which are brought by people who did not contribute in the previous year and are only now bringing their contribution for that year, the mishna is not addressing this. The collection horns for old shekels were located only in the Temple and not in other places. And it was taught similarly in a baraita: Collection horns for old shekels exist in the Temple, but there are no collection horns for old shekels in the rest of the country.
מַתְנִיתָא בִשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם. אֲבָל בְּשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר לֹא בְדָא. אָמַר רַב אַבָּא. וַאֲפִילוּ תֵימַר בְּשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר. נִגְנְבוּ. בְּלֵיסְטֵיס מְזוּייָן. אָֽבְדוּ. כְּמִי שֶׁטָּֽבְעָה סְפִינָּתוֹ בַיָּם.
It is taught in the mishna that if the shekels were lost or stolen from the agent on his way to Jerusalem, he must take the oath of a bailee and is exempted. The Gemara comments: The mishna is referring to a case where the agent was an unpaid bailee. However, with regard to a paid bailee, it is not addressing this sort of case, since only an unpaid bailee is exempt through his oath from payment for loss or theft. Rabbi Abba said: Even if you say that our mishna is referring to a paid bailee, he is still exempt through oath, since the term stolen used in the mishna is referring to armed robbers [listim], and such a case is deemed an unavoidable accident for which even a paid bailee is exempt. The term lost means like one whose ship sank in the sea; he was saved, but the money he brought with him belonging to the residents of the town was lost with the ship. This too is deemed an unavoidable accident, for which even a paid bailee is exempt.
אָמַר רִבִּי יוּסְטָא בֵּירִבִּי סִימוֹן. אַתְייָא כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר. תּוֹרְמִין עַל הַגָּבוּי וְעַל הֶעָתִיד לְהִיגָּבוֹת.
It is taught in the mishna that if the shekels were stolen or lost by the agent after the collection of the chamber, the agent takes an oath to the Temple treasurer to prove that he was not negligent. Rabbi Yustai, son of Rabbi Simon, said that the mishna is in accordance with the one who says that they perform the collection of the chamber with the intention that the ceremony apply to money that has already been gathered but has not yet been brought to the Temple, as well as to money that will be gathered in the future. Therefore, any money that was in the agent’s hands at the time of the collection is considered the property of the Temple treasury.
בְּרַם כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר. אֵין תּוֹרְמִין לֹא עַל הַגָּבוּי וְלֹא עַל הַמְמוּשְׁכָּן. לֹא בְדָא.
However, according to the one who said that they do not perform the collection of the chamber with the intention to include money that has already been gathered but has not yet reached the Temple, nor money that will be gathered in the future, but rather only money that is already in the Temple, not with regard to this did the mishna say that the agents take an oath to the Temple treasurers and are exempt. Since these shekels did not yet reach the Temple, it is as though they were not contributed at all, and all those whose shekels were lost or stolen must contribute another half-shekel in their place.
בְּנֵי הָעִיר שֶׁשִּׁילְחוּ אֶת שִׁקְלֵיהֶן. נִגְנְבוּ אוֹ שֶׁאָֽבְדוּ. §
It is taught in the mishna that if the residents of the town sent their shekels and they were stolen or lost, if the collection of the chamber had not yet been collected, the agents take an oath to the residents of the town; and if they have already been collected, they take an oath to the Temple treasurers.
אָמַר רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא. דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אָמַר. קֳדָשִׁים שֶׁהוּא חַייָב בַּאֲחֵרִיּוּתָן כִּנְכָסָיו הֵן.
Rabbi Elazar said: The mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as Rabbi Shimon says that consecrated items for which one is responsible are considered like his own property. If a person consecrates an item as a vow, he takes on himself the responsibility to replace it if it is lost or stolen. Rabbi Shimon considers this responsibility to be a type of ownership, and therefore the agent who lost it must take an oath to the person who consecrated the lost item, who remains in some sense the owner. Similarly, the agent who lost shekels must swear to the residents of the town. The Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Shimon maintain that consecrated items belong to the Temple, and therefore no oath is relevant, in accordance with the principle that one does not take an oath on consecrated items.
אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא. מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּעַת תַּקָּנָה.
Rabbi Yoḥanan disagreed with R. Elazar and said: The mishna is in accordance with all opinions. It is not limited to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, due to the fact that it is a rabbinically instituted oath not required by Torah law. Since people may claim that they have no responsibility for these items, the Sages instituted taking an oath on consecrated items as well.
עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן נִיחָא. נִשְׁבָּעִין לִבְנֵי הָעִיר וּבְנֵי הָעִיר שׁוֹקְלִין [דף ה:] תַּחְתֵּיהֶן. הָדָא הִיא דְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. מִשֵּׁם שְׁבוּעַת תַּקָּנָה. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקִּיבְּלוּ בְנֵי הָעִיר לְשַׁלֵּם אֵין הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ יוֹצֵא בְלֹא שְׁבוּעָה.
The Gemara asks: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who holds that the oath mentioned in the mishna is a rabbinic ordinance, it works out well that if the shekels were stolen or lost by the agent after the collection of the Temple chamber was completed, the agent takes an oath to the Temple treasurers. And if not, if they were stolen or lost before the collections were collected, he takes an oath to the residents of the town. And the residents of the town give other shekels [5b] in their place. Although by Torah law one does not take an oath on consecrated items belonging to the Temple treasury, and therefore there is no need to take an oath to the Temple treasurers, this oath is required due to the fact that it is a rabbinically instituted oath, as the Sages required the agent to take an oath as the bailee of the consecrated property that was deposited with him.
אָמַר רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא. דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֶ׳. קֳדָשִׁים חַייָב בַּאֲחֵרִיּוּתָן הֲרֵי הֵן כִּנְכָסָיו. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. כְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא. מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּעָה מִתַּקָּנָה. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן נִיחָא. נִשְׁבָּעִין דְּגִּזְבָּרִין מִשּׁוּם תְּקַנְתָּ׳ אֶלָּא דְרִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר גִּזְבָּרִין מַאי עֲבִידְתַּייהוּ.
However, according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, there is a difficulty. It is reasonable that when the shekels are lost before the collection of the chamber ceremony, the agents must take an oath to the residents of the town, as this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. As long as the collection of the chamber has not taken place, the residents of the town are held responsible for their shekels, since they are considered to be their property. But why does the agent take an oath to the Temple treasurers if the shekels are lost after the ceremony? With regard to the treasurers, what is their purpose in this discussion? One does not take an oath on consecrated items.
וְנִשְׁבָּעִין לִבְנֵי הָעִיר בְּמַעֲמַד גִּזְבָּרִין כִּי הֵיכִי דְלָא נִיחְשָׁדִינְהוּ אִי נַמֵּי דְלָא נִשׁווּ לְהוּ פּוֹשְׁעִים.
The Gemara answers: The mishna means that the agents take an oath to the residents of the town in the presence of the Temple treasurers so that the treasurers will not suspect the residents of the town of not having given their shekels. Alternatively, even if the town residents are considered to be honest people who would not be suspected of withholding their shekels, the agents must take an oath in the presence of the Temple treasurers so that the treasurers will not regard the residents to be negligent people who failed to properly watch over the shekels.
שֶׁאֲפִילוּ קִבְּלוּ עֲלֵיהֶן בְּנֵי הָעִיר לְשַׁלֵּם אֵין הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ יוֹצֵא בְלֹא שְׁבוּעָה.
Rabbi Yoḥanan said that the oath mentioned in the mishna is a rabbinic ordinance. The Gemara comments: According to this opinion, the mishna’s statement that if the shekels were lost before the collection of the chamber ceremony, the agents must take an oath to the residents of the town applies even if the residents of the town took upon themselves to pay other shekels in place of the first ones that were lost or stolen. In such a case, the residents relinquished their right to an oath from the agent, but since it is in reality consecrated property, there is still a rabbinic ordinance that the agent cannot discharge his obligations toward consecrated property without an oath.
הִפְרִישׁ שִׁקְלוֹ וְאָבַד. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. חַיּיָּב בָּאַחֵרָיוּתוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּמְסוֹר לַגִּיזְבָּר. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. הֶקְדֵּשׁ בִּרְשׁוּת הַגָּבוֹהַּ בְּכָל־מָקוֹם שֶׁהוּא.
Until this point the Gemara has dealt with a situation where the shekels were lost or stolen from the agent. With regard to a case where one set aside his shekel and subsequently lost it before the collection of the chamber ceremony took place, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Since the collection of the chamber had not yet taken place, the shekel is considered to be the property of the donor, and he is held responsible for it until he hands it to the Temple treasurer. Therefore, he must replace the lost shekel. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: Consecrated items are considered to be in the possession of the Temple treasury wherever they are, whether or not they have actually reached the hands of the Temple treasurer. Therefore, the donor is not responsible for replacing the lost shekel.
מַתְנִיתָה פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. נִשְׁבָּעִין לִבְנֵי הָעִיר וּבְנֵי הָעִיר שׁוֹקְלִין תַּחְתֵּיהֶן. [עוֹד] הִיא מִשֵּׁם שְׁבוּעַת תַּקָּנָה.
The Gemara asks: The mishna disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, as it teaches that the agents who lost the shekels take an oath to the residents of the town, and the residents of the town contribute shekels in place of those lost. Apparently, as long as the funds have not yet been collected, the shekels are considered to be in the possession of their owners. The Gemara answers: Isn’t this also because it is a rabbinically instituted oath? This oath is not by Torah law, but rather instituted by the Sages to encourage people to look after the shekels until they are brought to the Temple. According to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, no oath is required by Torah law because the shekels belong to the Temple.
תַּנֵּי הָרִאשׁוֹנִים נוֹפְלִין לְתְקְלִין חַדְּתִין וְהַשְּׁנִייִם נוֹפְלִים לְתִקְלִין עֲתִיקִין.
It is taught in the mishna that if the shekels were stolen or lost by the agents and the residents of the town set aside other shekels as required, and then the first shekels were found or returned by the thief, both sets are considered to be consecrated shekels. It was taught in a baraita: The first ones are allocated to the collection of the new shekels, from which the sacrifices of the coming year will be brought, and the second ones are allocated to the collection of old shekels, which are used to repair and maintain the Temple.
אֵילּוּ הֵן הָרִאשׁוֹנִים וְאֵילּוּ הֵן הַשְּׁנִייִם. רִבִּי פִּינְחָס בֵּירִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה וְרִבִּי אַבָּא מָרִי. חַד אָמַר. אֵילּוּ שֶׁשִּׁילְחוּ בְנֵי הָעִיר תְּחִילָּה. וְחוֹרָנָה אָמַר. אֵילּוּ שֶׁהִגִּיעוּ לִידֵי גִיזְבָּרִין תְּחִילָּה.
The Gemara asks: Which are the first ones and which are the second ones? Are the first ones those that were lost, since they were contributed first, or are the first ones those that were contributed in place of the lost ones, and they are deemed so because they reached the Temple first? Rabbi Pineḥas, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, and Rabbi Abba Mari disagreed. One of them said that the first shekels are those that the residents of the town first sent to the Temple, and the other one said that those that reached the hands of the Temple treasurers first are considered the first shekels.
משנה הַנּוֹתֵן שִׁקְלוֹ לַחֲבֵירוֹ לִשְׁקוֹל עַל יָדוֹ וּשְׁקָלוֹ עַל יְדֵי עַצְמוֹ אִם נִתְרְמָה הַתְּרוּמָה מָעַל.
Halakha 2 · MISHNA With regard to one who gives his shekel to his fellow to contribute on his behalf by placing it in the collection horn for him, and the fellow instead contributed it for himself, if at the time that he placed the shekel in the collection horn the collection of the chamber had been collected, the fellow is guilty of misuse of consecrated property. When they perform the collection of the chamber, the treasurers also have in mind the shekels that have been contributed but are not yet in the possession of the Temple treasury, so that all those who have contributed shekels will have a part in the communal sacrifices. Therefore, when the agent gives this shekel for himself, he is considered to be deriving benefit from a consecrated item and is guilty of unintentional misuse of consecrated property.
הַשּׁוֹקֵל שִׁקְלוֹ מִן הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ וְנִתְרְמָה הַתְּרוּמָה וְקָֽרְבָה הַבְּהֵמָה מָעַל. מִמַּעֲשֵׁר שֵׁנִי וּמִדְּמֵי שְׁבִיעִית יֹאכַל כְּנֶגְדָּן: With regard to one who mistakenly contributes his shekel from consecrated money, and then the collection of the chamber was collected and an animal purchased with those funds was sacrificed as a communal offering, he is guilty of misuse of consecrated property once the animal has been offered. This is because at that point the money used to purchase the animal is transferred to non-sacred status. However, before that point, merely contributing consecrated money is not considered misuse. If one mistakenly contributed his shekel from money used to redeem the fruits of the second tithe or from money from the permitted sale of produce grown during the Sabbatical Year, he must eat non-sacred fruits besides the ones he already possesses, corresponding to the value of the shekel, and he must treat them with the sanctity of second tithes or Sabbatical Year fruits.
הלכה הַשּׁוֹקֵל כול׳. אֲנָן תַּנִּינָן. אִם נִתְרְמָה הַתְּרוּמָה. GEMARA: It is taught in the mishna that one who contributes his shekel from consecrated money, when the collection of the chamber ceremony takes place and the animal has been offered, he is guilty of misuse of consecrated property. The Gemara records two different versions of this halakha. We learned in the mishna: If the animal was offered, indicating that if the animal had not been offered, even if the collection of the chamber ceremony has taken place, he has not misused consecrated property. The school of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught: If the collection of the chamber had been collected, indicating that he is guilty of misuse of consecrated property even before the animal was offered.
וְתַנֵּיי דְבֵית רִבִּי אִם קָֽרְבָה הַבְּהֵמָה. אָמַר רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. מָאן תַּנָּת. אִם קָֽרְבָה הַבְּהֵמָה. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר. מִיַּד הָיָה מְקַבֵּל מָעוֹתָיו. הַכֹּהֲנִים זְרִיזִין הֵן.
The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna from Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s school who taught: If the collection had been collected? It is Rabbi Shimon, as Rabbi Shimon said: When one sold items to the Temple treasurers for use in communal sacrifices, such as fine flour for meal-offerings or wine for libations, he would immediately receive his money from the treasurers, and the priests, who are vigilant with regard to mitzvot, would ensure that the relevant items would not become disqualified. Since the items sold became consecrated right away, the money became non-sacred at the time of the purchase; there was no need to wait until the items were actually offered. Similarly with regard to the shekels, the moment the Temple treasury purchases an animal for communal sacrifices, the shekels used become non-sacred and the person who contributed his shekel from consecrated money is guilty of misuse consecrated items.
וְקַשְׁיְא. אִילּוּ הַגּוֹנֵב עוֹלָתוֹ שֶׁלְחֲבֵירוֹ וּשְׁחָטָהּ סְתָם. סְתַמָּהּ לֹא לְשֵׁם הַבְּעָלִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים מְכַפֶּרֶת.
The mishna taught that if one gave his shekel to an agent to place into the collection horns and the agent placed it in for himself, if the collection of the chamber ceremony has taken place, the agent has misused consecrated property. The Gemara comments: This is difficult. If one steals his fellow’s burnt-offering, and slaughtered it without specifying for whom he was offering it, isn’t the unspecified offering considered to be in the name of the original owners, and doesn’t it atone for them? The same principle should apply here. Since the treasurer performs the ceremony of the collection of the chamber without having anyone particular in mind, this shekel should be attributed to the one to whom the shekel belonged and not to the one who stole the shekel for himself. If the agent receives no benefit from it, why is he considered to have misused consecrated property?
אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן. תִּיפְתָּר בִּמְסוּייָם. מִשֶּׁלְבֵּית רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל שֶׁהָיָה מִתְכַּוֵּין וּדְחָפוֹ לַקּוּפָּה.
Rabbi Yudan said: It should be explained as referring to a case where this shekel was a particular coin that stood out among the other coins in the collection basket, and the Temple treasurer noticed it and removed this coin in the name of the agent, just as the members of the house of Rabban Gamliel were accustomed to do. When one brought a half-shekel from the house of Rabban Gamliel to the Temple, he would intentionally push it into the basket in such a way that the treasurer would notice it and place it among the collected half-shekels.
וְחָשׁ לוֹמַר. שֶׁמָּא לַשְּׁייֵרִים הֵן נוֹפְלִין. וְכִי יְשׁ מְעִילָה לִשְׁייֵרִים.
The Gemara comments why it must be the case that the person who illicitly contributed the shekel in his own name is liable for misuse of consecrated funds only if that particular coin is identifiably among those collected. Otherwise, wouldn’t one be concerned and say that perhaps the half-shekel given was not used to purchase offerings and instead fell among the remaining contributions in the chamber? And if this is the case, is there misuse of consecrated property with regard to the remaining contributions? According to the majority of the Sages, one is not liable for misuse of consecrated property for the remaining funds of the Temple treasury chamber.
אֶלָּא כְרִבִּי מֵאִיר. דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר אָמַר. מוֹעֲלִיץ בִּשְׁייֵרִים. עוֹד הִיא בִּמְסוּייָם. מִשֶּׁלְבֵּית רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל שֶׁהָיָה מִתְכַּוֵּין וְתוֹרְמוֹ לִשְׁמוֹ.
Should one rather explain the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir? As Rabbi Meir says: One is liable for misuse of consecrated property with regard to the remaining contributions of the chamber. The halakha is clearly not in accordance with R. Meir, as the majority rule otherwise, and the mishna does not indicate that it is reflecting a minority opinion. Therefore, this too is reasonable only if the mishna is addressing a noticeable coin like the particular coin of the house of Rabban Gamliel, which the treasurer would intentionally collect in his name. It is certain that it was included in the contributions collected for offerings, and therefore the agent is liable for misuse of consecrated property.
מַה נֶהֱנֶה. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבִּין בְּשֵׁם רַבָּנִן דְּתַמָּן. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁבֵּית דִּין רְאוּיִין לְמשְׁכֵּן וְלֹא מִישְׁכֵּינוֹ כְּמִי שֶׁנֶּהֱנֶה.
The Gemara asks: How did the agent who placed the coin in the basket for himself benefit, that he should be liable for misuse? His goal was to perform a mitzva, and there is a principle that mitzvot were not given to derive benefit from them. We do not consider actions performed to fulfill a mitzva as personally beneficial to those who performed them. Rabbi Avin said in the name of the Rabbis from there, i.e., from Babylonia: Since the court is liable to seize collateral from him and does not seize collateral from him, it is as if he benefited personally from his action.
כָּתוּב אַךְ־בְּכ֞וֹר אֲשֶׁ֨ר יְבֻכַּ֤ר לַֽיי בִּבְהֵמָ֔ה לֹֽא־יַקְדִּ֥ישׁ אִ֖ישׁ אוֹתוֹ. כָּל־שֶׁהוּא קוֹדֶשׁ אֵין קְדושָּׁה חָלָה עָלָיו. כֵּיצַד הוּא עוֹשֶׂה.
The mishna seems to indicate that one who brings his half-shekel from second-tithe money has fulfilled his obligation, although he must eat non-sacred fruits in place of the second-tithe money. The Gemara asks: Since the money was already consecrated for a different purpose, it is not possible for a new sanctity to extend to it, as it is written: “But the firstling which is born first to God among animals, no man shall sanctify it” (Leviticus 27:26), and the Sages learn from the wording of this verse: That which is already sanctified, no other sanctity can extend to it. If so, what does he do so that the second-tithe money he contributed should count as his half-shekel?
מֵבִיא סֶלַע שֶׁלְחוּלִין וְאוֹמֵר. מָעוֹת מַעֳשֵׂר שֵׁינִי בְּכָל־מָקוֹם שֶׁהֵן מְחולָלִין עַל סֶלַע זוֹ וְאוֹתָן נִתְפַּסִּין לְשֵׁם שֵׁינִי וְהַשְּׁאָר נַעֲשִׂין שְׁקָלִים.
The Gemara answers: He brings a sela, i.e., a coin of non-sacred money, and says: The second-tithe money, already contributed, wherever it may be, should be redeemed upon this sela. That sela assumes the status of second tithe, which is transferred from the half-shekel that had been placed in the collection horn. The rest, i.e., the original contribution, becomes consecrated with the sanctity of shekels.
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 shiurim are sponsored by Bill Futornick in memory of Rabbi David Teitelbaum Z"L, who led Congregation Beth Jacob in Redwood City, CA for 38 years. He was an extraordinary leader, teacher, moral exemplar and family man who truly fought for equality and deeply embraced ahavat tzion.
-
This month’s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.
-
This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. “And with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.”
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 5
The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria
[דף ה.] וּפְעָמִים שֶׁהֵן פְטוּרִין מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָא. חִלְקוּ אֶת הַנְּכָסִים וְאַחָר כָּךְ חִלְקוּ אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה. חַייָבִין בָּזֶה וּבָזֶה. חִלְקוּ אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה וְאַחָר כָּךְ חִלְקוּ אֶת הַנְּכָסִים. פְטוּרִין מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה.
The mishna spoke of two cases, one in which brothers are obligated in the animal tithe and exempt from the premium, and the other in which they are obligated in the premium and exempt from the animal tithe. In this regard, Rabbi Ḥiyya said that Rabbi Yirmeya raised a dilemma: And why do we not say that there are also times when they are obligated in both of them, [5a] and there are times when they are exempt from both of them? How is that? If they divided the property but did not divide the animals, they are obligated in both. The brothers are considered regular partners with regard to the property, and they are therefore obligated in the premium. However, the livestock is still regarded as under the single ownership of their father’s estate, and they are therefore obligated in the animal tithe. Conversely, if they divided the animals between them but did not divide the property, they are exempt from both. With regard to the animals, the brothers are considered regular partners and are therefore are exempt from the animal tithe. The rest of the property remains under unified ownership, and they are therefore exempt from the premium as well.
אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. הָדָא דְאַתּ אָמַר. בְּשֶׁלֹּא הָֽיְתָה הַבְּהֵמָה רוֹב. אֲבָל אִם הָֽיְתָה הַבְּהֵמָה רוֹב הֵן הֵן עִיקַּר נְכָסָיו.
In this regard, Rabbi Mana said: This statement you, Rabbi Yirmeya, are saying, that brothers who divided the property but not the animals are obligated in a premium, applies only in a case where the animals were not the majority of the property. However, if the animals were the majority of the property, they are considered the principal property. In this case, if the brothers have not divided the animals, even if they have divided the rest of the assets, it is as though they have not divided the estate at all, and they are therefore exempt from the premium.
רִבִּי אָבּוּן אָמַר. רִבִּי שַׁמַּי בָעֵי. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁעֲשִׂיתָן [כְּאָדָם אֶחָד] (כְּאֶחָד אָדָם) אֶצֶל מַעֲשֵׂר בְהֵמָה אַתְּ פוֹטְרוֹ מִן הַקּוֹלָּבוֹן.
The mishna stated that if the brothers have not divided their inheritance between them, they are obligated in the animal tithe and exempt from the premium. Rabbi Avin said that Rabbi Shimi raised a dilemma: Because you have been stringent and made them as one man with regard to the animal tithe, by treating the estate as though it were under single ownership, will you also be lenient with them and exempt them from the premium? In this case too the stringent ruling should be accepted, and they should be treated as the owners of separate entities, who are obligated in the premium.
אָמַר לֵיהּ לֹא. שַׁנְייָה הִיא שֶׁהוּא נוֹתֵן סֶלַע אַחַת שְׁלֵימָה.
Rabbi Avin said to Rabbi Shimi in response: Is it not different? There is a distinction here: As he, one of the brothers, gives one whole sela from the estate on behalf of both of them, and as the inheritance has not yet been divided, the coin is still considered the legal property of the father. Consequently, they are exempt from the premium, despite the fact that this results in a leniency.
מֵעַתָּה אֲפִילוּ חִלְּקוּ וְהָֽזְרוּ וְנִשְׁתַּתְּפוּ חַייָבִין בְּמַעֲשַׂר בְּהֵמָה וּפְטוּרִין מִן הַקָּלָבּוֹן. וְתַנִּינָן. חַייָבִין בַּקּוֹלָּבּוֹן וּפְטוּרִין מִמַּעֲשַׂר בְּהֵמָה.
The Gemara asks: According to the ruling that the undivided estate is considered under single ownership, now one could claim that even if the brothers divided the inheritance and subsequently reestablished it again, the inheritance should revert to its original state as their father’s property, and they should be obligated in the animal tithe and exempt from the premium. And yet we learned in the mishna that in this case they are obligated in the premium and exempt from the animal tithe.
רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם אַבָּא בַּר רַב הוּנָא. הִיא שְׁנֵי אַחִין שֶׁיָּֽרְשׁוּ אֶת אֲבִיהֶן הִיא שְׁנֵי גִיסִין שֶׁיָּֽרְשׁוּ אֶת חֲמֵיהֶן.
Rabbi Ba answered in the name of Abba bar Rav Huna: It is the same with two brothers who inherited their father, as is the halakha with regard to two brothers-in-law who inherited their father-in-law. If a father had only two daughters and their husbands inherited him, proceeded to divide up the inheritance, and later formed a partnership, they are considered like regular partners, who are obligated in a premium but exempt from the animal tithe. The same halakha applies to two sons.
לְאֵיכָן הָיוּ הַקּוֹלָּבּוֹנוֹת נוֹפְלִין. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר. לַשְּׁקָלִים. רִבִּי לָזָֽר אוֹמֵר. לִנְדָבָה.
The Gemara cites a baraita with regard to the additional premium: To where would the premiums fall, i.e., what was done with them? Rabbi Meir says: They would add them to the shekels themselves, for the daily and additional offerings. Rabbi Elazar says: They would be allocated to free-will offerings, i.e., the money would go toward the burnt-offerings that were sacrificed when the altar was idle.
רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הַשְּׁזוּרִי אוֹמֵר. רִיקּוּעֵי זָהָב וְצִיפּוּי לְבֵית קוֹדֶשׁ הַקָּדָשִׁים. בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹמֵר. שׁולְחָנִין הָיוּ נוֹטְלִין אוֹתָן בִּשְׂכָרָן. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים. לְהוֹצָאַת דְּרָכִים.
Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: They would use the premiums to buy gold plating, and this served as covering for the inner walls of the house of the Holy of Holies. Ben Azzai says: The money changers responsible for collecting the shekels would take them as their payment for their services, as they had to take time off from their regular work. And some say that the premiums were spent on transportation expenses, i.e., the cost of moving the shekels from their collection sites to Jerusalem.
הדרן עלך פרק באחד באדר
משנה מְצָֽרְפִין שְׁקָלִים דַּרְכּוֹנוֹת מִפְּנֵי מַשּׂוֹי הַדֶּרֶךְ. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהָיוּ שׁוֹפָרוֹת בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ כָּךּ הָיוּ בַּמְּדִינָה.
Halakha 1 · MISHNA When people who live far from Jerusalem wish to send to Jerusalem the shekels that have been levied from their community, they may combine their shekels and exchange them for darics [darkonot], which are large gold coins, due to the burden of the way. Instead of carrying large amounts of shekels, the agents who deliver the funds will bring a much lighter burden of gold coins with them. The mishna adds: Just as there were collection horns in the Temple to receive the half-shekel contributions, so too there were collection horns in the rest of the country, i.e., areas outside of Jerusalem. The local inhabitants placed their half-shekels in these horns, which were later brought to Jerusalem.
בְּנֵי הָעִיר שֶׁשִּׁילְחוּ אֶת שִׁקְלֵיהֶן וְנִגְנְבוּ אוֹ שֶׁאָֽבְדוּ אִם נִתְרְמָה הַתְּרוּמָה נִשְׁבָּעִין לַגִּזְבָּרִים §
With regard to the residents of a town who sent their shekels to the Temple and they were stolen from the agent on the way or were lost, if the collection of the chamber had already been collected before these shekels arrived, the agents must take the oath of a bailee to the treasurers [gizbarin]. After the collection of the chamber, all the shekels that have been contributed become the property of the Temple, so the Temple treasurers who are in charge of this property become the opposing litigants of the agents.
וְאִם לָאו נִשְׁבָּעִין לִבְנֵי הָעִיר וּבְנֵי הָעִיר שׁוֹקְלִין תַּחְתֵּהֶן. נִמְצָאוּ אוֹ שֶׁהֶחֱזִירוּם הַגַּנָּבִים אֵילּוּ וָאֵילּוּ שְׁקָלִים וְאֵין עוֹלִין לָהֶן לְשָׁנָה הַבָּאָה:
If the ceremony has not yet been performed and the contributions have not yet been collected into the baskets, the shekels are considered the property of the residents of the town, and therefore the agents must take an oath to absolve themselves to the residents of the town. Since those shekels are still considered the property of the residents of the town because the shekels never reached the Temple, they have not fulfilled their obligation. Therefore, the residents of the town must contribute other shekels in their place. If, after the residents of the town contributed other shekels, the original shekels were found or the thieves returned them, both these original shekels and those newly contributed ones have the status of consecrated shekels and belong to the Temple. However, they do not count for the following year. The people cannot claim that since they contributed twice in one year they are exempt from contributing the next year.
הלכה מְצָֽרְפִין שְׁקָלִים דַּרְכּוֹנוֹת כול׳. וְיַעֲשׂוּ אוֹתָן מַרְגָּלִית. שֶׁמְּא תָזִיל הַמַּרְגָלִית וְנִמְצָא הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ מַפְסִיד.
GEMARA: It is taught in the mishna that residents of a town can exchange their half-shekels with gold darics in order to ease their burden on the way to Jerusalem. The Gemara asks: If the goal is to ease the agents’ burden by combining the coins into a more valuable commodity, let them make them, i.e., exchange them with, gems [margaliot], which are more valuable than darics and much lighter to carry. The Gemara answers: They do not do this due to concern lest the price of the gems decrease, since, like all commodities, their price can decrease and the Temple treasury of consecrated property will lose.
כַּהִיא דְתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. וְכוּלָּן נִפְדִּין בְּכֶסֶף וּבְשָׁוֶה כֶסֶף חוּץ מִן הַשְּׁקָלִים: [וְאֵין פּוֹדִין בְּכֵלִים]. אָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק. שֶׁמָּא יָזִילוּ הַכֵּלִים וְנִמְצָא הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ מַפְסִיד. וְהָכָא שֶׁמָּא תָזִיל הַמַּרְגָלִית וְנִמְצָא הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ מַפְסִיד.
Like that which we learned in a mishna there, in tractate Bekhorot: All of them, all items that can be redeemed, such as different types of consecrated items and the firstborn male who is redeemed from the priest, may be redeemed with money or with an equivalent value of money in commodities, except for shekels, which may be redeemed only with money. The question remains: Why is it that one may not redeem the shekels with vessels or any other type of equivalent value of money in commodities? Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said that it is due to concern lest the price of vessels decreases and the Temple treasury of consecrated property will lose. This is not the case with money, whose price remains fixed. So too here, they do not exchange shekels with gems out of concern lest the price of the gems decreases and the Temple treasury of consecrated property will lose.
מַתְנִיתָא בִתְקֵלִין תַדְּתִין. אֲבָל בִּתְקֵלִין עַתִּיקִין לָא בְדָא. וְתַנֵּי כֵן. עַתִּיקִין בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ. אֵין עַתִּיקִין בַּמְּדִינָה. §
It is taught in the mishna that just as there were collection horns in the Temple to receive the shekels, there were also collection horns in the areas outside Jerusalem. The Gemara comments: The mishna refers to new shekels, which are contributed for the new year commencing in Nisan. However, with regard to old shekels, which are brought by people who did not contribute in the previous year and are only now bringing their contribution for that year, the mishna is not addressing this. The collection horns for old shekels were located only in the Temple and not in other places. And it was taught similarly in a baraita: Collection horns for old shekels exist in the Temple, but there are no collection horns for old shekels in the rest of the country.
מַתְנִיתָא בִשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם. אֲבָל בְּשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר לֹא בְדָא. אָמַר רַב אַבָּא. וַאֲפִילוּ תֵימַר בְּשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר. נִגְנְבוּ. בְּלֵיסְטֵיס מְזוּייָן. אָֽבְדוּ. כְּמִי שֶׁטָּֽבְעָה סְפִינָּתוֹ בַיָּם.
It is taught in the mishna that if the shekels were lost or stolen from the agent on his way to Jerusalem, he must take the oath of a bailee and is exempted. The Gemara comments: The mishna is referring to a case where the agent was an unpaid bailee. However, with regard to a paid bailee, it is not addressing this sort of case, since only an unpaid bailee is exempt through his oath from payment for loss or theft. Rabbi Abba said: Even if you say that our mishna is referring to a paid bailee, he is still exempt through oath, since the term stolen used in the mishna is referring to armed robbers [listim], and such a case is deemed an unavoidable accident for which even a paid bailee is exempt. The term lost means like one whose ship sank in the sea; he was saved, but the money he brought with him belonging to the residents of the town was lost with the ship. This too is deemed an unavoidable accident, for which even a paid bailee is exempt.
אָמַר רִבִּי יוּסְטָא בֵּירִבִּי סִימוֹן. אַתְייָא כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר. תּוֹרְמִין עַל הַגָּבוּי וְעַל הֶעָתִיד לְהִיגָּבוֹת.
It is taught in the mishna that if the shekels were stolen or lost by the agent after the collection of the chamber, the agent takes an oath to the Temple treasurer to prove that he was not negligent. Rabbi Yustai, son of Rabbi Simon, said that the mishna is in accordance with the one who says that they perform the collection of the chamber with the intention that the ceremony apply to money that has already been gathered but has not yet been brought to the Temple, as well as to money that will be gathered in the future. Therefore, any money that was in the agent’s hands at the time of the collection is considered the property of the Temple treasury.
בְּרַם כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר. אֵין תּוֹרְמִין לֹא עַל הַגָּבוּי וְלֹא עַל הַמְמוּשְׁכָּן. לֹא בְדָא.
However, according to the one who said that they do not perform the collection of the chamber with the intention to include money that has already been gathered but has not yet reached the Temple, nor money that will be gathered in the future, but rather only money that is already in the Temple, not with regard to this did the mishna say that the agents take an oath to the Temple treasurers and are exempt. Since these shekels did not yet reach the Temple, it is as though they were not contributed at all, and all those whose shekels were lost or stolen must contribute another half-shekel in their place.
בְּנֵי הָעִיר שֶׁשִּׁילְחוּ אֶת שִׁקְלֵיהֶן. נִגְנְבוּ אוֹ שֶׁאָֽבְדוּ. §
It is taught in the mishna that if the residents of the town sent their shekels and they were stolen or lost, if the collection of the chamber had not yet been collected, the agents take an oath to the residents of the town; and if they have already been collected, they take an oath to the Temple treasurers.
אָמַר רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא. דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אָמַר. קֳדָשִׁים שֶׁהוּא חַייָב בַּאֲחֵרִיּוּתָן כִּנְכָסָיו הֵן.
Rabbi Elazar said: The mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as Rabbi Shimon says that consecrated items for which one is responsible are considered like his own property. If a person consecrates an item as a vow, he takes on himself the responsibility to replace it if it is lost or stolen. Rabbi Shimon considers this responsibility to be a type of ownership, and therefore the agent who lost it must take an oath to the person who consecrated the lost item, who remains in some sense the owner. Similarly, the agent who lost shekels must swear to the residents of the town. The Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Shimon maintain that consecrated items belong to the Temple, and therefore no oath is relevant, in accordance with the principle that one does not take an oath on consecrated items.
אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא. מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּעַת תַּקָּנָה.
Rabbi Yoḥanan disagreed with R. Elazar and said: The mishna is in accordance with all opinions. It is not limited to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, due to the fact that it is a rabbinically instituted oath not required by Torah law. Since people may claim that they have no responsibility for these items, the Sages instituted taking an oath on consecrated items as well.
עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן נִיחָא. נִשְׁבָּעִין לִבְנֵי הָעִיר וּבְנֵי הָעִיר שׁוֹקְלִין [דף ה:] תַּחְתֵּיהֶן. הָדָא הִיא דְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. מִשֵּׁם שְׁבוּעַת תַּקָּנָה. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקִּיבְּלוּ בְנֵי הָעִיר לְשַׁלֵּם אֵין הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ יוֹצֵא בְלֹא שְׁבוּעָה.
The Gemara asks: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who holds that the oath mentioned in the mishna is a rabbinic ordinance, it works out well that if the shekels were stolen or lost by the agent after the collection of the Temple chamber was completed, the agent takes an oath to the Temple treasurers. And if not, if they were stolen or lost before the collections were collected, he takes an oath to the residents of the town. And the residents of the town give other shekels [5b] in their place. Although by Torah law one does not take an oath on consecrated items belonging to the Temple treasury, and therefore there is no need to take an oath to the Temple treasurers, this oath is required due to the fact that it is a rabbinically instituted oath, as the Sages required the agent to take an oath as the bailee of the consecrated property that was deposited with him.
אָמַר רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא. דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֶ׳. קֳדָשִׁים חַייָב בַּאֲחֵרִיּוּתָן הֲרֵי הֵן כִּנְכָסָיו. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. כְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא. מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּעָה מִתַּקָּנָה. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן נִיחָא. נִשְׁבָּעִין דְּגִּזְבָּרִין מִשּׁוּם תְּקַנְתָּ׳ אֶלָּא דְרִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר גִּזְבָּרִין מַאי עֲבִידְתַּייהוּ.
However, according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, there is a difficulty. It is reasonable that when the shekels are lost before the collection of the chamber ceremony, the agents must take an oath to the residents of the town, as this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. As long as the collection of the chamber has not taken place, the residents of the town are held responsible for their shekels, since they are considered to be their property. But why does the agent take an oath to the Temple treasurers if the shekels are lost after the ceremony? With regard to the treasurers, what is their purpose in this discussion? One does not take an oath on consecrated items.
וְנִשְׁבָּעִין לִבְנֵי הָעִיר בְּמַעֲמַד גִּזְבָּרִין כִּי הֵיכִי דְלָא נִיחְשָׁדִינְהוּ אִי נַמֵּי דְלָא נִשׁווּ לְהוּ פּוֹשְׁעִים.
The Gemara answers: The mishna means that the agents take an oath to the residents of the town in the presence of the Temple treasurers so that the treasurers will not suspect the residents of the town of not having given their shekels. Alternatively, even if the town residents are considered to be honest people who would not be suspected of withholding their shekels, the agents must take an oath in the presence of the Temple treasurers so that the treasurers will not regard the residents to be negligent people who failed to properly watch over the shekels.
שֶׁאֲפִילוּ קִבְּלוּ עֲלֵיהֶן בְּנֵי הָעִיר לְשַׁלֵּם אֵין הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ יוֹצֵא בְלֹא שְׁבוּעָה.
Rabbi Yoḥanan said that the oath mentioned in the mishna is a rabbinic ordinance. The Gemara comments: According to this opinion, the mishna’s statement that if the shekels were lost before the collection of the chamber ceremony, the agents must take an oath to the residents of the town applies even if the residents of the town took upon themselves to pay other shekels in place of the first ones that were lost or stolen. In such a case, the residents relinquished their right to an oath from the agent, but since it is in reality consecrated property, there is still a rabbinic ordinance that the agent cannot discharge his obligations toward consecrated property without an oath.
הִפְרִישׁ שִׁקְלוֹ וְאָבַד. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. חַיּיָּב בָּאַחֵרָיוּתוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּמְסוֹר לַגִּיזְבָּר. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. הֶקְדֵּשׁ בִּרְשׁוּת הַגָּבוֹהַּ בְּכָל־מָקוֹם שֶׁהוּא.
Until this point the Gemara has dealt with a situation where the shekels were lost or stolen from the agent. With regard to a case where one set aside his shekel and subsequently lost it before the collection of the chamber ceremony took place, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Since the collection of the chamber had not yet taken place, the shekel is considered to be the property of the donor, and he is held responsible for it until he hands it to the Temple treasurer. Therefore, he must replace the lost shekel. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: Consecrated items are considered to be in the possession of the Temple treasury wherever they are, whether or not they have actually reached the hands of the Temple treasurer. Therefore, the donor is not responsible for replacing the lost shekel.
מַתְנִיתָה פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. נִשְׁבָּעִין לִבְנֵי הָעִיר וּבְנֵי הָעִיר שׁוֹקְלִין תַּחְתֵּיהֶן. [עוֹד] הִיא מִשֵּׁם שְׁבוּעַת תַּקָּנָה.
The Gemara asks: The mishna disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, as it teaches that the agents who lost the shekels take an oath to the residents of the town, and the residents of the town contribute shekels in place of those lost. Apparently, as long as the funds have not yet been collected, the shekels are considered to be in the possession of their owners. The Gemara answers: Isn’t this also because it is a rabbinically instituted oath? This oath is not by Torah law, but rather instituted by the Sages to encourage people to look after the shekels until they are brought to the Temple. According to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, no oath is required by Torah law because the shekels belong to the Temple.
תַּנֵּי הָרִאשׁוֹנִים נוֹפְלִין לְתְקְלִין חַדְּתִין וְהַשְּׁנִייִם נוֹפְלִים לְתִקְלִין עֲתִיקִין.
It is taught in the mishna that if the shekels were stolen or lost by the agents and the residents of the town set aside other shekels as required, and then the first shekels were found or returned by the thief, both sets are considered to be consecrated shekels. It was taught in a baraita: The first ones are allocated to the collection of the new shekels, from which the sacrifices of the coming year will be brought, and the second ones are allocated to the collection of old shekels, which are used to repair and maintain the Temple.
אֵילּוּ הֵן הָרִאשׁוֹנִים וְאֵילּוּ הֵן הַשְּׁנִייִם. רִבִּי פִּינְחָס בֵּירִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה וְרִבִּי אַבָּא מָרִי. חַד אָמַר. אֵילּוּ שֶׁשִּׁילְחוּ בְנֵי הָעִיר תְּחִילָּה. וְחוֹרָנָה אָמַר. אֵילּוּ שֶׁהִגִּיעוּ לִידֵי גִיזְבָּרִין תְּחִילָּה.
The Gemara asks: Which are the first ones and which are the second ones? Are the first ones those that were lost, since they were contributed first, or are the first ones those that were contributed in place of the lost ones, and they are deemed so because they reached the Temple first? Rabbi Pineḥas, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, and Rabbi Abba Mari disagreed. One of them said that the first shekels are those that the residents of the town first sent to the Temple, and the other one said that those that reached the hands of the Temple treasurers first are considered the first shekels.
משנה הַנּוֹתֵן שִׁקְלוֹ לַחֲבֵירוֹ לִשְׁקוֹל עַל יָדוֹ וּשְׁקָלוֹ עַל יְדֵי עַצְמוֹ אִם נִתְרְמָה הַתְּרוּמָה מָעַל.
Halakha 2 · MISHNA With regard to one who gives his shekel to his fellow to contribute on his behalf by placing it in the collection horn for him, and the fellow instead contributed it for himself, if at the time that he placed the shekel in the collection horn the collection of the chamber had been collected, the fellow is guilty of misuse of consecrated property. When they perform the collection of the chamber, the treasurers also have in mind the shekels that have been contributed but are not yet in the possession of the Temple treasury, so that all those who have contributed shekels will have a part in the communal sacrifices. Therefore, when the agent gives this shekel for himself, he is considered to be deriving benefit from a consecrated item and is guilty of unintentional misuse of consecrated property.
הַשּׁוֹקֵל שִׁקְלוֹ מִן הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ וְנִתְרְמָה הַתְּרוּמָה וְקָֽרְבָה הַבְּהֵמָה מָעַל. מִמַּעֲשֵׁר שֵׁנִי וּמִדְּמֵי שְׁבִיעִית יֹאכַל כְּנֶגְדָּן: With regard to one who mistakenly contributes his shekel from consecrated money, and then the collection of the chamber was collected and an animal purchased with those funds was sacrificed as a communal offering, he is guilty of misuse of consecrated property once the animal has been offered. This is because at that point the money used to purchase the animal is transferred to non-sacred status. However, before that point, merely contributing consecrated money is not considered misuse. If one mistakenly contributed his shekel from money used to redeem the fruits of the second tithe or from money from the permitted sale of produce grown during the Sabbatical Year, he must eat non-sacred fruits besides the ones he already possesses, corresponding to the value of the shekel, and he must treat them with the sanctity of second tithes or Sabbatical Year fruits.
הלכה הַשּׁוֹקֵל כול׳. אֲנָן תַּנִּינָן. אִם נִתְרְמָה הַתְּרוּמָה. GEMARA: It is taught in the mishna that one who contributes his shekel from consecrated money, when the collection of the chamber ceremony takes place and the animal has been offered, he is guilty of misuse of consecrated property. The Gemara records two different versions of this halakha. We learned in the mishna: If the animal was offered, indicating that if the animal had not been offered, even if the collection of the chamber ceremony has taken place, he has not misused consecrated property. The school of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught: If the collection of the chamber had been collected, indicating that he is guilty of misuse of consecrated property even before the animal was offered.
וְתַנֵּיי דְבֵית רִבִּי אִם קָֽרְבָה הַבְּהֵמָה. אָמַר רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. מָאן תַּנָּת. אִם קָֽרְבָה הַבְּהֵמָה. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר. מִיַּד הָיָה מְקַבֵּל מָעוֹתָיו. הַכֹּהֲנִים זְרִיזִין הֵן.
The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna from Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s school who taught: If the collection had been collected? It is Rabbi Shimon, as Rabbi Shimon said: When one sold items to the Temple treasurers for use in communal sacrifices, such as fine flour for meal-offerings or wine for libations, he would immediately receive his money from the treasurers, and the priests, who are vigilant with regard to mitzvot, would ensure that the relevant items would not become disqualified. Since the items sold became consecrated right away, the money became non-sacred at the time of the purchase; there was no need to wait until the items were actually offered. Similarly with regard to the shekels, the moment the Temple treasury purchases an animal for communal sacrifices, the shekels used become non-sacred and the person who contributed his shekel from consecrated money is guilty of misuse consecrated items.
וְקַשְׁיְא. אִילּוּ הַגּוֹנֵב עוֹלָתוֹ שֶׁלְחֲבֵירוֹ וּשְׁחָטָהּ סְתָם. סְתַמָּהּ לֹא לְשֵׁם הַבְּעָלִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים מְכַפֶּרֶת.
The mishna taught that if one gave his shekel to an agent to place into the collection horns and the agent placed it in for himself, if the collection of the chamber ceremony has taken place, the agent has misused consecrated property. The Gemara comments: This is difficult. If one steals his fellow’s burnt-offering, and slaughtered it without specifying for whom he was offering it, isn’t the unspecified offering considered to be in the name of the original owners, and doesn’t it atone for them? The same principle should apply here. Since the treasurer performs the ceremony of the collection of the chamber without having anyone particular in mind, this shekel should be attributed to the one to whom the shekel belonged and not to the one who stole the shekel for himself. If the agent receives no benefit from it, why is he considered to have misused consecrated property?
אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן. תִּיפְתָּר בִּמְסוּייָם. מִשֶּׁלְבֵּית רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל שֶׁהָיָה מִתְכַּוֵּין וּדְחָפוֹ לַקּוּפָּה.
Rabbi Yudan said: It should be explained as referring to a case where this shekel was a particular coin that stood out among the other coins in the collection basket, and the Temple treasurer noticed it and removed this coin in the name of the agent, just as the members of the house of Rabban Gamliel were accustomed to do. When one brought a half-shekel from the house of Rabban Gamliel to the Temple, he would intentionally push it into the basket in such a way that the treasurer would notice it and place it among the collected half-shekels.
וְחָשׁ לוֹמַר. שֶׁמָּא לַשְּׁייֵרִים הֵן נוֹפְלִין. וְכִי יְשׁ מְעִילָה לִשְׁייֵרִים.
The Gemara comments why it must be the case that the person who illicitly contributed the shekel in his own name is liable for misuse of consecrated funds only if that particular coin is identifiably among those collected. Otherwise, wouldn’t one be concerned and say that perhaps the half-shekel given was not used to purchase offerings and instead fell among the remaining contributions in the chamber? And if this is the case, is there misuse of consecrated property with regard to the remaining contributions? According to the majority of the Sages, one is not liable for misuse of consecrated property for the remaining funds of the Temple treasury chamber.
אֶלָּא כְרִבִּי מֵאִיר. דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר אָמַר. מוֹעֲלִיץ בִּשְׁייֵרִים. עוֹד הִיא בִּמְסוּייָם. מִשֶּׁלְבֵּית רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל שֶׁהָיָה מִתְכַּוֵּין וְתוֹרְמוֹ לִשְׁמוֹ.
Should one rather explain the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir? As Rabbi Meir says: One is liable for misuse of consecrated property with regard to the remaining contributions of the chamber. The halakha is clearly not in accordance with R. Meir, as the majority rule otherwise, and the mishna does not indicate that it is reflecting a minority opinion. Therefore, this too is reasonable only if the mishna is addressing a noticeable coin like the particular coin of the house of Rabban Gamliel, which the treasurer would intentionally collect in his name. It is certain that it was included in the contributions collected for offerings, and therefore the agent is liable for misuse of consecrated property.
מַה נֶהֱנֶה. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבִּין בְּשֵׁם רַבָּנִן דְּתַמָּן. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁבֵּית דִּין רְאוּיִין לְמשְׁכֵּן וְלֹא מִישְׁכֵּינוֹ כְּמִי שֶׁנֶּהֱנֶה.
The Gemara asks: How did the agent who placed the coin in the basket for himself benefit, that he should be liable for misuse? His goal was to perform a mitzva, and there is a principle that mitzvot were not given to derive benefit from them. We do not consider actions performed to fulfill a mitzva as personally beneficial to those who performed them. Rabbi Avin said in the name of the Rabbis from there, i.e., from Babylonia: Since the court is liable to seize collateral from him and does not seize collateral from him, it is as if he benefited personally from his action.
כָּתוּב אַךְ־בְּכ֞וֹר אֲשֶׁ֨ר יְבֻכַּ֤ר לַֽיי בִּבְהֵמָ֔ה לֹֽא־יַקְדִּ֥ישׁ אִ֖ישׁ אוֹתוֹ. כָּל־שֶׁהוּא קוֹדֶשׁ אֵין קְדושָּׁה חָלָה עָלָיו. כֵּיצַד הוּא עוֹשֶׂה.
The mishna seems to indicate that one who brings his half-shekel from second-tithe money has fulfilled his obligation, although he must eat non-sacred fruits in place of the second-tithe money. The Gemara asks: Since the money was already consecrated for a different purpose, it is not possible for a new sanctity to extend to it, as it is written: “But the firstling which is born first to God among animals, no man shall sanctify it” (Leviticus 27:26), and the Sages learn from the wording of this verse: That which is already sanctified, no other sanctity can extend to it. If so, what does he do so that the second-tithe money he contributed should count as his half-shekel?
מֵבִיא סֶלַע שֶׁלְחוּלִין וְאוֹמֵר. מָעוֹת מַעֳשֵׂר שֵׁינִי בְּכָל־מָקוֹם שֶׁהֵן מְחולָלִין עַל סֶלַע זוֹ וְאוֹתָן נִתְפַּסִּין לְשֵׁם שֵׁינִי וְהַשְּׁאָר נַעֲשִׂין שְׁקָלִים.
The Gemara answers: He brings a sela, i.e., a coin of non-sacred money, and says: The second-tithe money, already contributed, wherever it may be, should be redeemed upon this sela. That sela assumes the status of second tithe, which is transferred from the half-shekel that had been placed in the collection horn. The rest, i.e., the original contribution, becomes consecrated with the sanctity of shekels.
