Shekalim 6

^{[דף ו.]} משנה הַמְכַנֵּס מָעוֹת וְאָמַר הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ לְשִׁקְלִי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים מוֹתָרָן נְדָבָה. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים מוֹתָרָן חוּלִין. ^[6a]

Halakha 3 · MISHNA With regard to one who gathers together small coins and said: These are for my shekel, and subsequently discovered that it amounted to more than a half-shekel. Beit Shammai say: The leftover coins are placed in the collection horn designated for a free-will offering, as the money is consecrated property but it does not have the status of a shekel. Beit Hillel say: The leftover money is non-sacred property since, ab initio, he had in mind to consecrate a half-shekel and no more. An item that was consecrated by mistake does not have the status of consecrated property.

שֶׁאָבִיא מֵהֶן שִׁקְלִי שָׁוִין שֶׁמּוֹתָרָן חוּלִין. אֵילּוּ לְחַטָּאת שָׁוִין שֶׁהַמּוֹתָר נְדָבָה. שֶׁאָבִיא מֵהֶן חַטָּאתִי שָׁוִין שֶׁהַמּוֹתָר חוּלִין:

However, if he originally said: I am gathering together this money so that I will bring my shekel from these, they agree that the leftover money is non-sacred property. If one who was obligated to bring a sin-offering gathered together coins and said: These are for my sin-offering, then if he had accumulated more than was needed, they agree that the leftover money must be designated as a free-will offering. However, if he originally said: That I will bring my sin-offering from these, they agree that the leftover money is non-sacred property.

אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַה בֵּין שְׁקָלִים לְחַטָּאת. אֶלָּא שֶׁל שְׁקָלִים יֵשׁ לָהֶן קִיצְבָה וּלְחַטָּאת אֵין לָהּ קִצְבָה.

Rabbi Shimon said: What is the difference between shekels and a sin-offering? Why do Beit Hillel say that the leftover money is non-sacred property in the case of shekels, while with regard to a sin-offering they say that the leftover money is consecrated for a free-will offering? Rather, the issue is that shekels have a fixed value, a half-shekel and no more. Therefore, there is a clear amount beyond which one did not intend the money to become consecrated property. However, a sin-offering has no fixed value. Since the entire sum that one collected could have been used to purchase a sin-offering, whatever he didn’t use must at least be designated for a free-will offering.

רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר אַף לִשְׁקָלִים אֵין לָהֶן קִיצְבָה שֶׁכְּשֶׁעָלוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל מִן הַגּוֹלָה הָיוּ שׁוֹקְלִין דַּרְכּוֹנוֹת חָזְרוּ לִשְׁקוֹל סְלָעִים חָזְרוּ לִשְׁקוֹל טִבְעִים בִּקְּשׁוּ לִשְׁקוֹל דִּינָרִין.

Rabbi Yehuda says: Even for shekels there is no real fixed value. For when the Jewish people ascended from the exile, they would contribute darics, which are Median coins worth two shekels by Torah law. They brought these coins with them and would give a half of one to fulfill their half-shekel obligation. Later on, when the Median Empire was dissolved, they reverted to contributing with a sela, a silver coin of equal weight to the the shekel mentioned in the Torah. People would contribute a half-sela for their half-shekel requirement. When the value of this currency changed later on, they reverted to contributing with a tiva, a different coin which is worth a half-shekel. Some people wished to contribute only dinars, which are half the value of the tiva, i.e., one quarter shekel in value. The Sages refused to accept it and required them to contribute at least the half-shekel mentioned in the Torah. Nevertheless, it is clear that the obligation of contributing shekels does not have a fixed value.

אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אַף עַל פִּי כֵן יַד כּוּלָּם שָׁווָה. אֲבָל חַטָּאת זֶה מֵבִיא בְּסֶלַע וְזֶה מֵבִיא בִּשְׁתַּיִם וְזֶה מֵבִיא בְּשָׁלֹשׁ:

Rabbi Shimon said in response: Even so, despite the fact that during different periods there were different amounts used to fulfill the obligation of the half-shekel, everyone has equal standing, i.e., at any particular time, everyone contributes the same amount. Therefore, any sum collected beyond that amount was not intended to be consecrated. However, a sin-offering has no fixed amount whatsoever; this person may bring an animal worth a sela, and that one may bring one worth two, and this one may bring one worth three. Therefore, it cannot be supposed that there was no intention to consecrate the whole sum.

הלכה הַמְכַנֵּס מָעוֹת כול׳. רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. מַה פְליגִין. בִּמְכַנֵּס פְּרוֹטְרוֹט.

GEMARA: It is taught in the mishna: One who gathers together coins and says: These are for my shekel, if he finds that he has more than a half-shekel, then according to the opinion of Beit Shammai, the remainder is designated for a free-will offering, and according to Beit Hillel the remainder is non-sacred property. Rabbi Yosei said in the name of Rabbi Elazar: With regard to what do they disagree? With regard to one who gathers coin by coin [peroterot], adding small coins bit by bit until they amount to a large sum. It is assumed that he intended to contribute only a half-shekel but did not pay attention to the fact that a larger sum had accumulated. According to Beit Hillel, an item that was consecrated by mistake does not become consecrated, and thus the leftover money is non-sacred property.

אֲבָל בָּאוֹמֵר. אֵילּוּ [לְשִׁקְלִי]. כָּל־עַמָּא מוֹדֵיי שֶׁהַמּוֹתָר נְדָבָה.

However, with regard to one who takes a stack of coins and says: These are for my shekel, everyone agrees that he must have intended to consecrate the entire sum. Therefore, the leftover coins are designated for a free-will offering.

רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה רִבִּי בֵּיבַי בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. מַה פְלִיגִין. בִּמְכַנֵּס פְּרוֹטְרוֹט. אֲבָל בָּאוֹמֵר. אֵילּוּ. כָּל־עַמָּא מוֹדֵיי שֶׁהַמּוֹתֶָר חוּלִין.

Rabbi Ḥiyya and Rabbi Beiva said in the name of Rabbi Elazar: With regard to what do they disagree? When one gathers coin by coin. In that case Beit Shammai maintain that the leftover money is designated for a free-will offering. Since they hold that an item consecrated by mistake is in fact consecrated, all the money that he accumulated becomes consecrated property and must be designated as a free-will offering. However, with regard to one who takes a stack of coins and says: These are for my shekel, everyone agrees that the leftover coins are non-sacred property. Even Beit Shammai agree that he did not intend to consecrate a sum of money so beyond the requirement of the half-shekel ab initio.

אָמַר רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַייְעָא לְרִבִּי בֵּיבַי. [דִּתְנָן.] אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. מַה בֵּין שְׁקָלִים לְחַטָּאת. אֶלָּא שֶׁהַשְּׁקָלִים יֵשׁ לָהֶן קִצְבָה וּלְחַטָּאת אֵין לָהּ קִיצְבָה. מַה אֲנָן קַייָמִין. אִם בָּאוֹמֵר. שֶׁאָבִיא מֵהֶם שִׁקְלִי. כָּל־עַמָּא מוֹדֵיי שֶׁהַמּוֹתָר חוּלִין. אִם בָּאוֹמֵר. שֶׁאָבִיא מֵהֶן חַטָּאתִי כָּל־עַמָּא מוֹדֵיי שֶׁהַמּוֹתָר נְדָבָה.

Rabbi Ḥiyya said: The mishna supports the opinion of Rabbi Beivai, as we learned in the mishna that Rabbi Shimon said: What is the difference between the leftover money from the half-shekel contribution, which is non-sacred property, and the leftover money for sin-offerings, which is designated for a free-will offering, other than that shekels have a fixed value and a sin-offering has no fixed value? The Gemara asks: What case are we addressing? If Rabbi Shimon is addressing the case of one who collects money in small amounts and says before he starts: I will bring my shekel from these coins, everyone agrees that the leftover coins are non-sacred property. And if he is addressing the case of one who says: I will bring my sin-offering from these coins, here too, everyone agrees that the leftover money is non-sacred property, as explained in the mishna.

אֶלָּא כֵן אֲנָן קַייָמִין. בָּאוֹמֵר. אֵילּוּ שְׁקָלִים. עַל יְדֵי שֶׁקִצְווָתָן מִן הַתּוֹדָה. מוֹתָרָן חוּלִין. חַטָּאת עַל יְדֵי שֶׁאין קִצְבָתָהּ מִן הַתּוֹרָה. מוֹתָרָהּ נְדָבָה.

Rather, this is the case we are addressing: when one takes a stack of coins and says: These are for my shekel. Rabbi Shimon holds that with regard to shekels, since their fixed value is explicitly from the Torah, the leftover coins are non-sacred property, because even when he held all the money he intended only to take the value of a half-shekel from it. However, with regard to a sin-offering, since it has no fixed value from the Torah, as each person brings an animal of whatever value he wants, it is possible that one intended to bring an animal worth the entire value of the coins he took ab initio. Therefore, the leftover money is consecrated for a free-will offering. This is a proof for Rabbi Beivai’s opinion that when one takes a stack of coins and says: These are for my shekel, everyone agrees that the leftover money is non-sacred property.

מַה עֲבַד לָהּ רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֵּן לָקִישׁ. פָּתַר לָהּ בִּמְכַנֵּס פְּרוֹטְרוֹט כְּבֵית הִלֵּל.

Rabbi Yosei understood the mishna such that when he says: These are for my shekel, everyone agrees that the leftover money is consecrated property. The Gemara asks: What does Rabbi Yosei, in the name of Rabbi Elazar, do with this proof? The Gemara answers: He explains Rabbi Shimon’s opinion in the mishna as referring to one who collects coin by coin, and it is in accordance only with the opinion of Beit Hillel.

וְהָא תַנִּינָן. מוֹתַר שְׁקָלִים חוּלִּין. פָּתַר לָהּ בִּמְכַנֵּס פְּרוֹטְרוֹט וּכְבֵית הִלֵּל. וְהָא תַנִּינָן. עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵפָה [חוּלין]. עוֹד הוּא בִּמְכַנֵּס פְּרוֹטְרוֹט וּכְבֵית הִלֵּל.

The Gemara challenges Rabbi Yosei’s version of Rabbi Elazar’s opinion: Didn’t we learn in the mishna: The leftover shekels are non-sacred property? This implies that in all situations where one consecrates shekels, including those where one said: These are for my shekel, the leftovers are non-sacred, which is in accordance with Rabbi Beivai’s explanation. The Gemara answers: There is no such implication. Rabbi Yosei explained it as limited to the case of one who collects coin by coin, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel. In such a case, the leftover money is non-sacred property.

הַמַּפְרִישׁ שִׁקְלוֹ וְסָבוּר שֶׁהוּא חַייָב וְנִמְצָא שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַייָב. לֹא קָדַשׁ. הַמַּפְרִישׁ שְׁנַיִם וְסָבוּר שֶׁהוּא חַייָב שְׁנַיִם וְנִמְצָא שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַייָב אֶלָּא אֶחָד. אוֹתוֹ הַשֵּׁינִי מָה אַתְּ עֲבַד לֵיהּ.

The Gemara discusses a different issue. When a person sets aside his shekel and thought at that point that he is obligated to contribute it, and it turns out that he is not obligated to contribute it,as he had contributed it already, the shekel that he separated is not consecrated, just as other mistakenly consecrated items do not become consecrated. With regard to one who sets aside two shekels simultaneously and thought that he is obligated to contribute two, one for the current year and one for the previous year, and it turns out that he is obligated to contribute only one, as he had in fact contributed the previous year’s shekel, what do you do with the second one that was mistakenly set aside?

[נִשְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. הִפְרִישׁ חַטָּאתוֹ] סָבוּר שֶׁהוּא חַייָב וְנִמְצָא שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַייָב. לֹא קָֽדְשָׁה. הַמַּפְרִישׁ שְׁתַּיִם וְסָבוּר שֶׁהוּא חַייָב שְׁתַּיִם וְנִמְצָא שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַייָב אֶלָּא אַחַת. אוֹתָהּ הַשְּׁנִייָה מָה אַתְּ עֲבַד לָהּ.

The Gemara answers. Let us hear the halakha from this baraita: If one set aside his sin-offering, and at that point he thought that he was liable, as he had unwittingly sinned in such a manner requiring him to bring a sin-offering, and it turns out that he was not liable, the animal is not consecrated. If one set aside two animals and thought at the time that he had unwittingly transgressed two prohibitions and was therefore liable to sacrifice two sin-offerings, and it turns out that he was liable to sacrifice only one, what do you do with that second animal?

(בָּאוֹמֵר) [אֶלָּא רוֹעָה. הָכָא נַמֵּי אֵלּוּ לִנְדָבָה.

It must rather be left to graze. On the one hand, it is consecrated with the sanctity of a sin-offering, but on the other hand, since the person who consecrated it is not obligated in another sin-offering, it cannot be sacrificed. Therefore, it must be left to graze until it develops a blemish and is disqualified from being offered. It can then be sold, with the proceeds used to purchase free-will offerings. So too, these mistakenly set aside half-shekels, i.e., in the case of one who set aside two half-shekels and in the end was obligated only to contribute one, are designated for a free-will offering.

הֵיאַךְ אַתָּה אוֹמֵר] אֵילּוּ.

The Gemara rejects this comparison between the case of the extra shekel and the case of the extra sin-offerings. Here, in the case of extra shekels, how can you say: These are designated for a free-will offering? The mishna distinguishes between the leftover money when collecting shekels, which is considered non-sacred property, and the leftover money when collecting for a sin-offering, which is considered consecrated for a free-will offering.

שֶׁכְּשֶׁעָלוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל מִן הַגּוֹלָה הָיוּ שׁוֹקְלִין דַּרְכּוֹנוֹת. דֵּינָרִין. חָזְרוּ לְשְׁקוֹל סְלָעִים. כִּשׁמוּעָן. חָזְרוּ לִשְׁקוֹל טִיבְעִין. פַּלְגֵי סִלְעִין. בִּיקְּשׁוּ לִשְׁקוֹל דִּינָרִין. קָרָטִין. §

It was taught in the mishna: Rabbi Yehuda says that even the half-shekel does not have a fixed value, as over the course of history the exact sum of a half-shekel varied. Rabbi Yehuda then describes the coins used for the half-shekel during various periods. The Gemara first explains the mishna’s terminology. Darics are golden dinars. The phrase: They reverted to contributing with a sela, is as it sounds; i.e., the equivalent of the shekel mentioned in the Torah, which is four silver dinar. The phrase: They reverted to contributing with a tiva, refers to a half-sela coin, the equivalent of two silver dinar. The phrase: They wished to contribute only dinars, refers to a karat, i.e., a quarter of a sela, or one dinar.

וְלֹא קִיבְּלוּ עֲלֵיהֶן. מִן הָדָא. וְהֶֽעֱמַ֤דְנוּ עָלֵ֨ינוּ֙ מִצְוֹ֬ת לָתֵ֥ת שְׁלִשִׁ֥ית הַשֶּׁ֖קֶל בַּשָּׁנָה֑ לַעֲבוֹדַת בֵּ֥ית אֱלֹהֵֽינוּ׃

The mishna continues: They refused to accept it from them. The Sages did not agree to accept dinars in place of the half-shekel. From where did the Sages derive this? From this verse: “We made ordinances for us, to charge ourselves yearly with the third part of a shekel for the service of the House of our God” (Nehemiah 10:33). The third of a shekel cited in this verse is one-third of a daric, the prevalent coin of the time. Until that time, the custom was to contribute a half of the prevalent coin of the time. The Sages of that generation were concerned that over time the value of the prevalent coin would be reduced to the extent that people would no longer be contributing the value of the half-shekel of the Torah. The verse reports that they therefore set a minimum for the collection, which is the precedent for the Sages of the mishna not accepting the request to lower the fixed amount to a dinar.

רִבִּי חִלְקִיָּה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אָחָא. מִיכָּן שֶׁאָדָם צָרִיךְ לְשַׁלֵּשׁ שִׁקְלוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה פְעָמִים בַַּשָּׁנָה. מִיכָּן שֶׁאֵין מַטְרִיחִין עַל הַצִּיבּוּר יוֹתֵר מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה פְעָמִים בַּשָּׁנָה. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבִּין. מִיכָּן לְשָׁלֹשׁ סְאִין. מִיכָּן לְשָׁלֹשׁ קוּפּוֹת. מִיכָּן לְשָׁלֹשׁ אַפְרָשׁוֹת.

Once this verse is mentioned, the Gemara discusses other halakhot that are derived from it. Rabbi Ḥilkiya said in the name of Rabbi Aḥa: This verse is about with the mitzva of charity. The term shelishit, one-third, used in this verse contains superfluous letters, as it could have been written shelish and maintained its meaning. From here one may derive that a person must donate his shekel three times a year, meaning that he must give a shekel to charity three times a year. One may also derive from here that one may not burden the community by asking them for charity more than three times a year. Rabbi Avin said: From here, there is also support for the fact that the baskets into which the collection of the chamber was collected were three se’a in size; and from here, there is a hint to the three collection baskets and the three collections of the chamber during the year.

כְּתִיב זֶ֣ה ׀ יִתְּנ֗וּ כָּל־הָֽעוֹבֵר עַל־הַפְּקוּדִים וגו׳. רִבִּי יודָה וְרִבִּי נְחֶמְיָה. חַד אָמַר. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁחָֽטְאוּ בְמַחֲצִית הַיּוֹם יִתְנוּ מַחֲצִית הַשֶּׁקֶל. וְחָרָנָה אָמַר. לְפִי שֶׁחָטְאוּ בְשֵׁשׁ שָׁעוֹת יִתְנוּ מַחֲצִית הַשֶּׁקֶל דַּעֲבַד שִׁיתָּא גְרַמָּסִין.

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 disagree with regard to the reason for the mitzva. One said: Because they sinned with the Golden Calf at the midpoint of the day, they should give a half-shekel. And one said: Because they sinned at the sixth hour of the day, they should give a half-shekel, whose sum is equal to six garmisin, a small coin that was prevalent in that period.

רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֵּירִבִּי נְחֶמְיָה בְשֵׁם רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּיי. לְפִי שֶׁעִיבְּרוּ עַל עֲשֶׂרֶת הַדִּיבְּרוֹת יְהֵא נוֹתֵן כָּל־אֶחָד וְאֶחָד עֲשָׂרָה גֵּרָה.

Rabbi Yehoshua of the house of Rabbi Neḥemya said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Zakkai: Because the Jewish people transgressed the Ten Commandments at the time of the Golden Calf, each one of them shall give ten gera, which equals a half-shekel, as it is written: “This they shall give, half a shekel after the shekel of the Sanctuary; the shekel is twenty gera” (Exodus 30:13). Since the Jewish people violated the first commandment, it was as if they transgressed all ten (Sifrei, Shelaḥ).

רִבִּי בֶּרֶכְיָה רִבִּי לֵוִי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. לְפִי שֶׁמָּֽכְרוּ בְכוֹרָהּ שֶׁל רָחֵל בְּעֶשְׂרִים כֶּסֶף יְהֵא כָל־אֶחָד וְאֶחָד [פוֹדֶה אֶת] בְּנוֹ בְכוֹרוֹ בּעֶשְׂרִים כֶּסֶף.

The Gemara cites an additional reason for the obligation to give a half-shekel: It atones for the sin of the sale of Joseph. First, it introduces this topic. Rabbi Berekhya and Rabbi Levi said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: Since the sons of Jacob sold Joseph, the firstborn of Rachel, for twenty silver dinar, the nation was commanded that each of them must redeem his firstborn son with twenty silver dinar, which is five sela, as there are four dinar in a sela.

רִבִּי פִּינְחָס בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי לֵוִי. לְפִי שֶׁמָּֽכְרוּ בְכוֹרָהּ שֶׁל רָחֵל בְּעֶשְׂרִים כֶּסֶף וְנָפַל לְכָל־אֶחָד וְאֶחָד מֵהֶן טִבַּע לְפִיכַךְ יְהֵא כָל־אֶחָד וְאֶחָד מֵהֶן נוֹתֵן שִׁקְלוֹ טִבַּע.

The Gemara returns to the subject of the obligation to contribute a half-shekel: Rabbi Pineḥas said in the name of Rabbi Levi: Since ten of Jacob’s sons sold Joseph, Rachel’s firstborn, for twenty silver dinars, each of them received two dinars, which amounts to a tiva or a half-sela; therefore, each and every man must give a tiva for his shekel every year.

^{[דף ו:]} משנה מוֹתַר שְׁקָלִים חוּלִין. מוֹתַר עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵפָה מוֹתַר קִינֵּי זָבִים קִיינֵּי זָבוֹת קִינֵּי יוֹלְדוֹת חַטָּאוֹת וַאֲשָׁמוֹת מוֹתָרָן נְדָבָה. ^[6b]

Halakha 4 · MISHNA The leftover money from what was set aside for shekels is non-sacred property, in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel in the previous mishna. The mishna now discusses similar cases for other sacred items: However, with regard to the leftover money from what one set aside to purchase the tenth of an ephah of fine flour for a meal-offering and the leftover money from what one set aside to purchase offerings that he is liable to sacrifice due to ritual impurity or a sin, such as the pairs of birds of a zav, the pairs of birds of a zava, and the pairs of birds of a woman after childbirth, sin-offerings, or guilt-offerings, in these cases, its leftover money must be used for free-will offerings that are offered as repletion of the altar, i.e., burnt-offerings sacrificed at times when the altar was idle.

זֶה הַכְּלָל שֶׁהוּא בָּא לְשֵׁם חֵטּ ומִשֵּׁם אַשְׁמָה מוֹתָרָן נְדָבָה. מוֹתַר עוֹלָה לָעוֹלָה. מוֹתַר מִנְחָה לַמִּנְחָה. מוֹתַר שְׁלָמִים לַשְּׁלָמִים.

This is the principle: Whatever money is designated for a sin-offering or for a guilt-offering, its leftover money must be used for a free-will offering. The leftover money from what one set aside to purchase a burnt-offering that he owes, due to a vow or to volunteering, must be used for another burnt-offering that he will bring in the future. The leftover money from what one set aside to purchase fine flour for a meal-offering must be used for another meal-offering. The leftover money from what one set aside to purchase a peace-offering must be used for another peace-offering.

מוֹתַר פֶּסַח לַשְּׁלָמִים. מוֹתַר נְזִירִים לַנְּזִירִים. מוֹתַר נָזִיר לַנְּדָבָה.

The leftover money from what one set aside to purchase a lamb for his Paschal lamb is not used for another Paschal lamb, such as for the following year. Rather, it is used for purchasing a peace-offering. The leftover money from what one set aside to purchase sacrifices for a number of nazirites must be used to purchase sacrifices for other nazirites. The leftover money from what a single nazirite set aside for his own offering must be used for a free-will offering.

הלכה מוֹתַר שְׁקָלִים חוּלִין כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסָה. עַד דַּאֲנָא תַמָּן שְׁמָעִית קָל רַב יְהוּדָה שְׁאַל לִשְׁמוּאֵל. הִפְרִישׁ שִׁקְלוֹ וָמֵת. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה. מוֹתַר עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵפָה שֶׁלּוֹ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. יוֹלִיכֵם לְיַם הַמֶּלַח. רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר אָמַר. יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה.

GEMARA: Rabbi Yosei said: While I was still there, in Babylonia, I heard the voice of Rav Yehuda ask his teacher Shmuel: If one set aside his shekel and died before he contributed it to the Temple treasurer, what is to be done with this money? Shmuel said to him: It must be allocated for communal free-will offerings. Rabbi Yosei asked: If a High Priest set aside money to purchase fine flour for his meal-offering and then discovered that he had separated more than was necessary, what should be done with the leftover money from his tenth of an ephah? Shmuel answered that this is a matter of dispute, as Rabbi Yoḥanan said that he must cast it into the Dead Sea and dispose of it there. Rabbi Elazar said it must be allocated for communal free-will offerings.

מַתְנִיתָה פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מוֹתַר שְׁקָלִים חוּלִין. מוֹתַר עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵפָה מוֹתַר קִינֵּי זָבִים קִינֵּי זָבוֹת קִינֵּי יוֹלְדוֹת חַטָּאוֹת וַאֲשָׁמוֹת מוֹתָרָן נְדָבָה.

The Gemara comments. The mishna disagrees with Rabbi Yoḥanan, as it is taught: The leftover money from the shekel is non-sacred property. However, with regard to the leftover money from the tenth of an ephah, the leftover money from the pairs of birds of a zav and from the pairs of birds of a zava, the leftover money from the pairs of birds of a woman after childbirth, from sin-offerings and guilt-offerings, all of this leftover money must be used for free-will offerings. The mishna did not distinguish between different types of meal-offerings, so the High Priest’s meal-offering must also be included. However, according to the mishna, its leftover money is used for a free-will offering and not cast into the Dead Sea, as Rabbi Yoḥanan requires.

מַה עֲבַד לָהּ רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. פָּתַר לָהּ מוֹתַר עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵפָה שֶׁלְמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא שֶׁלְכָּל־יִשְׂרָאֵל.

The Gemara asks: What does Rabbi Yoḥanan do with the mishna? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yoḥanan explains that it is not referring to the leftover money of a High Priest’s meal-offering. Rather, it is referring to the leftover money of the tenth of an ephah of the meal-offering of a sinner among the entire Jewish people. Everyone agrees that the leftover money of this type of meal-offering must be used for a free-will offering; however, the leftover money of a High Priest’s meal-offering is cast into the Dead Sea.

רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. עַל דָּעֲלִי אָבָּא בַּר בָּא. דְּאִינּוּן אָֽמְרִין. מְנַיִין שֶׁהַפֶּסַח מִשְׁתַּנֶּה לְשֵׁם שְׁלָמִים. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר. אִם מִן־הַצֹּ֧אן קָרְבָּנ֛וֹ לְזֶ֥בַח שְׁלָמִ֖ים. כָּל־שֶׁהוּא מִן הַצֹּאן בָּא שְׁלָמִים.

Rabbi Yosei said: On this point Abba bar Ba raised a difficulty. As they, the Sages of Babylonia, said: From where is it derived that an animal that was designated for use as the Paschal lamb, ab initio, and was ultimately slaughtered before its proper time as a peace-offering is valid, as it is transformed and designated as a peace-offering? The verse states: “If his offering for the sacrifice of the peace-offering is from the flock” (Leviticus 3:6). This verse indicates that any offering that comes from the flock, i.e., sheep or goats, may come as a peace-offering. The verse is referring to a Paschal lamb, about which it is written: “You shall take it from the sheep or from the goats” (Exodus 12:5), and it must refer to one that was offered before its proper time; however, if it were offered on the eve of Passover as a peace-offering it would clearly be an invalid.

הָתִיבוּן. הֲרֵי עוֹלָה מִן הַצֹּאן. דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָא אֶלָּא מִן הַצֹּאן. יָצָאת עוֹלָה שֶׁהִיא בָאָת אֲפִילוּ מִן הַבָּקָר.

Rabbi Abba bar Ba raised an objection with regard to this source: A burnt-offering also comes from the flock, and yet its leftover money is not used for a peace-offering; it is used for a burnt-offering. The Gemara answers: The verse is referring to items that may come only from the flock; this excludes burnt-offerings, which may come even from cattle, as it is written: “From the cattle or from the flock you may bring your offering” (Leviticus 1:2).

הָתִיבוּן. הֲרֵי אָשָׁם. אָמַר רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר כַּהֲנָא. מִן־הַצֹּ֧אן. דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא בָּא מִכָּל־הַצֹּאן. יָצָא אָשָׁם שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָא אֶלָּא מִן הָאֵילִים בִּלְבַד.

Rabbi Abba bar Ba raised another objection: A guilt-offering comes only from the flock, and the mishna taught that its leftover money is used for a free-will offering. However, according to this explanation, it too should be able to be sacrificed as a peace-offering. Rabbi Bun bar Kahana said that the phrase “From the flock” indicates that which comes from all kinds in the flock, i.e., sheep and goats. This excludes a guilt-offering, which may come from only rams.

בְּכָל־אָתָר אַתְּ אָמַר. (מִלְּרַבּוֹת) [מִן לְמָעֵט.]. וְהָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר. (מִלְּמָעֵט) [לְרַבּוֹת]. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. (מִיעֲטוֹ) [הָכָא נַמֵּי מִן לְמָעֵט. מִיעוט שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָא בֶּן שְׁנֵי שָׁנִים. מִיעוט שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָא נְקֵבָה.

The Gemara challenges Rabbi Bun. In every other place you say that the word from comes to exclude items from a particular category, and here you say that the word from comes to include the Paschal lamb, as “from” indicates all kinds of animals that can be considered part of a flock. The Gemara answers. Rabbi Mana said: In this verse too, “from” comes to exclude. One exclusion is that the Paschal lamb may not come from a lamb that is two years old, but rather from a lamb that is in its first year. There is an additional exclusion that a Paschal lamb may not come from a female animal, but only from a male. Accordingly, Rabbi Bun bar Kahana’s explanation that the verse: “If his offering is from the flock” is referring to the Paschal lamb, as it may come from any of the animals of the flock, is not based on the word “from” but rather on the superfluous letter heh, which adds the definite article to the phrase “the flock,” as opposed to the verse simply writing “a flock.”

וְגַבֵּי אָשָׁם נַמֵּי מִן לְמָעֵט הוּא.] שֶׁאֵנוֹ בָא אֶלָּא מִן הָאֵילִים בִּלְבַד.

Rabbi Mana adds: And furthermore, even if Rabbi Bun bar Kahana would interpret the verse “If his offering is from the flock” with regard to a guilt-offering and not to a Paschal lamb, the word “from” would also come to exclude. It would teach that guilt-offerings may come only from rams and not from goats or female sheep.

הָתִיבוּן. וְהָֽכְתִיב וְאִם־מִן־הַצֹּ֨אן קָרְבָּנ֧וֹ מִן־הַכְּשָׂבִ֛ים א֥וֹ מִן־הָֽעִזִּי֭ם לְעוֹלָה. מֵעַתָּה מוֹתַר הַפֶּסַח בָּא עוֹלָה.

Rabbi Abba bar Ba raised another objection on the source of the Babylonian Sages. Isn’t it written: “If his offering is from the flock, whether from the sheep or from the goats for a burnt-offering” (Leviticus 1:10)? According to your opinion, this verse could just as easily be interpreted to indicate that in the case of any offering that comes from sheep or from goats, the leftover money must be used for a burnt-offering. However, if so, the leftover money of the Paschal lamb, which may come from sheep or from goats, must then come as a burnt-offering and not as a peace-offering. What indication is there that the concerning a peace-offering is the preferred one?

אָמַר רִבִּי אָבּוּן. מְשַׁנִּין דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא לַאֲכִילָה לְדָבָר שֶׁהוּא לַאֲכִילָה וְאֵין מְשַׁנִּין דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא לַאֲכִילָה לְדָבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ לַאֲכִילָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. מְשַׁנִּין קֳדָשִׁים קַלִּים לְשֵׁם קֳדָשִׁין קַלִּין וְאֵין מְשַׁנִּין קֳדָשִׁים קַלִּין לְשֵׁם קָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים.

The Gemara answers. Rabbi Avun said: An item that is designated for eating, e.g., the Paschal lamb, which is eaten by its owners, may be transformed into another item that is designated for eating, e.g., a peace-offering. However, an item that is designated for eating, like the Paschal lamb, may not be transformed into another item that is not designated for eating, such as the burnt-offering, which is completely consumed on the altar. Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Bun said another answer: The status of offerings of minor sanctity may be transformed and designated as other sacrifices of minor sanctity. Therefore, the Paschal lamb, which is of minor sanctity, can be transformed and designated as a peace-offering, which is also of minor sanctity. However, the status of offerings of minor sanctity may not be transformed and designated as offerings of the most sacred order, such as a burnt-offering.

רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. עַל דָּאעֲלִי רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. דְּאִינּוּן אָֽמְרִין. אֵין הַפֶּסַח מִשְׁתַּנֶּה לְשֵׁם שְׁלָמִים אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן שְׁחָטוֹ לְשֵׁם שְׁלָמִים. וַאֲנִי אוֹמֵר. אֲפִילוּ שְׁחָטוֹ לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: On this point, Rabbi Ḥanina raised an issue that they, the Sages of Babylonia, said that the status of a Paschal lamb that is not offered at the proper time is not transformed and designated as a peace-offering, unless it was slaughtered as a peace-offering; but if it was slaughtered for another offering, such as a burnt-offering, it is disqualified. However, I say that even if he slaughtered it as a burnt-offering, it may be transformed and designated as a peace-offering.

אָמַר רִבִּי אִילָא. טַעֲמֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וְאִם־מִן־הַצֹּ֧אן קָרְבָּנ֛וֹ לְזֶ֥בַח שְׁלָמִ֖ים. כֹּל שֶׁהוּא זֶבַח בָּא שְׁלָמִים.

Rabbi Ila said: The reason, i.e., the source, for the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina quoted by Rabbi Yoḥanan is the redundancy in the verse, as it is written: “If his offering for the sacrifice of the peace-offering is from the flock” (Leviticus 3:6). It could have simply written: If his offering of the peace-offering is from the flock. The extra phrase “for the sacrifice” indicates that a Paschal lamb slaughtered as any kind of offering, including a burnt-offering, it comes to be a peace-offering.

וּמִשְׁתַּנֶּה לְמַחֲשֶׁבֶת פְּסוּל.

The Gemara asks: According to this opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, may a Paschal lamb that was sacrificed as a burnt-offering be transformed and designated as a peace-offering even it was slaughtered with a disqualifying intention? If, during one of the services involved in an offering’s sacrifice, i.e., slaughter, receiving the blood, bringing it to the altar, or sprinkling it on the altar, the priest or the one bringing the offering entertains the thought of performing any of the other services or eating the offering at a time that is unfit, the offering is thereby invalidated [piggul].

הֵיךְ עֲבִידָה. שְׁחָטוֹ לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה עַל מְנָת לִזְרוֹק דָּמוֹ לְמָחָר. מִכָּל־מָקוֹם פָּסוּל הוּא.

The Gemara asks: How was it done? If one slaughtered the Paschal lamb as a burnt-offering in order to sprinkle the blood the following day, in any case, whether it is transformed and designated as a burnt-offering or as a peace-offering it is disqualified. The intention to sprinkle the blood at an improper time disqualifies the offering, so it does not matter whether it is transformed and designated as a peace-offering or not. The issue is whether one who eats an olive-bulk from the meat of this offering is liable to receive karet, like one who eats piggul meat, or whether he is not liable, like one who eats a regular disqualified offering. The principle is that an offering becomes piggul only when one slaughters an otherwise valid offering with an intention that disqualifies it. However, when the offering is disqualified for some other reason, the improper intention does not render the offering piggul.

אִין תֵּימַר. מִשְׁתַּנֶּה לְמַחֲשֶׁבֶת פְּסוּל. פִּיגּוּל. אִין תֵּימַר. אֵינוֹ מִשְׁתַּנֶּה לְמַחֲשֶׁבֶת פְּסוּל. פָסול.

Therefore, if you say that even if one offers the Paschal lamb with a disqualifying intention, such as to sprinkle the blood the following day, it is transformed and designated as a peace-offering, and if not for the disqualifying intention it would be a valid offering, it is deemed piggul and one who eats the meat is liable to receive karet. However, if you say that when the Paschal lamb is offered with a disqualifying intention, it is not transformed and designated as a peace-offering, since it remains a Paschal lamb and it was sacrificed at the wrong time, then it is simply a disqualified offering, but not one that is piggul. In that case, one who eats the meat is not liable to receive karet. This question remains unresolved.

לִשְׁמוֹ וְשֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ בִּשְׁאָר יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה.

If one slaughters the Paschal lamb on Passover eve as a peace-offering, before the proper time for the Paschal lamb, it is transformed and designated as a peace-offering, and it is valid. However, if one slaughters it as a Paschal lamb, then it is disqualified, since it is not the proper time. The Gemara asks: What is the halakha if one slaughters it for itself and not for itself, meaning that at the beginning of the act of slaughtering one intends to slaughter it as a Paschal lamb, but at its conclusion he does so as a peace-offering, and it is not on Passover eve but during the rest of the days of the year?

רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִייָה בְשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אַבָּא. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁאֵין לוֹ שֵׁם נַעֲשֶׂה כְשׁוֹחְטוֹ לִשְׁמוֹ וְשֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ בִשְׁתִיקָה וְהוּא כָשֵׁר.

Rabbi Bun bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Shmuel bar Abba: During the rest of the year it has no name; it is not a Paschal lamb, as it is not its proper time, nor is it a peace-offering, as he did not consecrate it for that purpose ab initio. Despite this, if one slaughters it without specifying for which offering he is doing so, it becomes a peace-offering. Since it has no name in that case, then, by the same reasoning, even if one begins to slaughter it as a Paschal lamb, it becomes as one who slaughters it for itself, a Paschal lamb, and not for itself, a peace-offering, silently, without specifying his intention, and it is valid as a peace-offering. Just as total silence determines that it is meant to be for a peace-offering, so too, the explicit change of intention at the end of the slaughtering is sufficient to accomplish the same.

אָֽמְרוּ לֵיהּ. וְאִם כֵּן הוּא אֲפִילוּ שְׁחָטוֹ לִשְׁמוֹ לִזְרוֹק דָּמוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ יֵעָשֶׂה מִשָּׁעָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה כְשׁוֹחְטוֹ לִשְׁמוֹ וְשֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ וִיהֵא כָשֵׁר.

One of the disciples said to Rabbi Bun: If this is so, that even when one begins to slaughter the animal with specific intent as a Paschal lamb it is transformed and designated as a peace-offering, then even if one slaughters it for itself in order to sprinkle its blood not for itself, but rather for a peace-offering, it should become, from the first moment, as if he slaughtered it for itself and not for itself silently, and it too should be valid as a peace-offering.

אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּא מָרִי. מָאן אָמַר בִּשְׁתִּיקָה כָשֵׁר. אוֹ נֹאמַר. בִּשְׁתִּיקָה פָּסוּל.

Rabbi Abba Mari said: What, shall we say, i.e., is it so clear, that when one slaughters for itself and not for itself silently, without specifying his intention to sprinkle the blood for a peace-offering, that it is considered a valid peace-offering? Or, perhaps, shall we say that even when one slaughters silently with the intent to sprinkle its blood for a peace-offering, it is as if he specified that he is slaughtering for the Paschal lamb, in which case it is transformed and designated as a peace-offering and it is disqualified? The difference is that in the previous case there is not one entire part of the service that is completed for the Paschal lamb. However, in this case, the slaughtering is completed. It is only the intent with regard to a later stage, i.e., the sprinkling of the blood, that could possibly transform it and designate it as a peace-offering. That is not a sufficiently compelling logical extension.

רַב חִסְדָּא