Previous daf

1)

(a) If the father left property and animals, it is possible to be Chayav both Kalbon and Ma'aser Beheimah, or to be Patur from both. One is ...

1. ... Chayav both - if they divided the property i.e. the money and then entered into partnership, but not the animals.
2. ... Patur from both - if they divided the animals and then went into partnership, but not the property.

(b) According to Rebbi Mana, one would sometimes be Patur from Kalbon, even in the former case - if the animals comprised the majority of the property.

(c) Rebbi Avin Amar Rebbi Shimi queries Rebbi Mana - when all's said and done, they *did* divide the money, which therefore did not come from from Tefusas ha'Bayis. So why should they be Patur from Kalbon, on the basis of not having divided the animals (What has the money got to do with the animals)?

(d) Rebbi Mana answers - since he gives a whole Shekel from the money that was originally destined to be his, it is as if the money had never been divided (and was still in Tefusas ha'Bayis).

(a) But in that case, asks the Gemara, why should we not say the same thing by 'Chazru ve'Nishtatfu'? Why did our Mishnah say there that he is Chayav be'Kalbon?

(b) This Kashya remains unanswered.

(a) There is no difference between Yerushah d'Oraysa and Yerushah de'Rabbanan - i.e. whether it is two sons inheriting from their father or two brothers-in-law from their father-in-law - in both cases, they are Patur from Kalbon.

(b) Rebbi Meir holds that the Kalbonos went where the Shekalim went - according to Rebbi Elazar, they went to Nedavah.

(c) Rebbi Shimon Shezuri holds that they were melted down and used to overlay the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim - according to Ben Azai, it went to pay the bankers their commision.

(d) Others (Rebbi Nasan) say that it was used to pay for the transportation of the Shekalim from the towns to Yerushalayim.

Halachah 1

4)

(a) 'Metzarfin Shekalim le'Darkonos' means - that if the townspeople wish to change their combined half-Shekalim into Darkonos (the name of a gold coin), in order to facilitate transport, they may do so.

(b) The Shofros were gigantic collecting boxes, wide at the bottom and narrow on top (so that it was easy to put money *in*, but difficult to take it *out*). They were placed in the Azarah, and throughout Yerushalayim (according to the Rambam - Medinah incorporates the other cities, too).

(c) If, *after* money had been withdrawn from the Lishkah (the room in the Beis Hamikdash into which all the half-Shekalim were stored), the money of the town's half-Shekalim was stolen from the Shelichim on the way to Yerushalayim, the Shelichim would have to swear to the treasurers that they had not been careless and that they had not taken the money themselves. The reason that they swore to the treasurers and not to the townspeople who had sent them - is because, once the Terumas ha'Lishkah has taken place, it is as if the money belongs to Hekdesh; consequently, it is to Hekdesh that they are answerable.

(d) If the same thing happened *before* the money was drawn - then the Sheli'ach would have to swear to the people in order to be exempt from apaying, and the people would then be obligated to pay their half-Shekel again.

(a) If the money or the thief was found, both lots of money retained the Din of half-Shekel.

(b) Nor is it in place of next year's half-Shekel, which they remain obligated to give.

(a) The townspeople are not permitted to transfer their half-Shekalim into jewels, because of the fear that the jewels might depreciate in value, causing Hekdesh a loss.

(b) The Shofros in the Beis-Hamikdash were restricted to the *current* year's Shekalim - they were not for the benefit of people bringing *last* year's.

(c) According to the Rambam, the Mishnah in Bechoros reads 'Atikin ba'Mikdash, ve'Atikin bi'Medinah' - and the Gemara is actually quoting this Mishnah in order to *disprove* the previous statement, not to *prove* it.

(a) The Gemara confines the Din of a Sheliach to a Shomer Chinam - because it is only *he* who is Patur for theft and loss, a Shomer Sachar would be Chayav, so what would be the point of swearing?

(b) According to Rebbi Aba, our Mishnah might even be speaking about a Shomer Sachar - in which case, 'theft' would specifically mean through an armed robber, and 'loss', that his ship sunk in the sea (both of which are pure accidents beyond his control, and would therefore be considered O'nes), for which a Shomer Sachar too, is Patur.

(c) The Tana of our Mishnah, which differentiates between whether the Terumah has been taken or not, must hold 'Tormin al ha'Gavuy ve'Al he'Asid Ligavos', which is why, once the Terumah has been taken, the half-Shekalim are considered the possession of Hekdesh, the Sheli'ach swears to the treasurers, and the townspeople are exempt from paying - According to those who hold 'Ein Tormin Al ha'Gavuy ve'Al he'Asid Ligavos', the money will remain in the possession of the towspeople even *after* the Terumah has been taken, and the Din will therefore be the same as when when the money was stolen or lost *before* the Terumah was taken.

(a) Rebbi Elazar maintains that the author of our Mishnah, which exempts Sheli'ach and the townspeople from having to pay a second time through an oath, must be Rebbi Shimon - who holds that 'Kodshim for which one is responsible, are considered his property (according to the Rabbanan, the property belongs to Hekdesh, and one never swears on property belonging to Hekdesh.

(b) According to Rebbi Yochanan, this oath is mi'de'Rabbanan (min ha'Torah, the Sheli'ach is Patur from swearing and is not required to pay).

(c) According to Rebbi Elazar, why, in the Reisha does the Sheli'ach swear to the treasurers, even though they are not responsible for the half- Shekalim?

9)

(a) Rebbi Elazar will explain the Mishnah 'Nishba'in le'Gizbarin' to mean that he swears to the townspeople in the presence of the treasurers (in order to receive his remuneration - should he be a Shomer Sachar).

(b) The reason that the treaurers should be present when the Sheli'ach swears is so that they do not suspect the townspeople of witholding their half-Shekel (or the Sheli'ach of stealing the money), or the Sheli'ach of losing the money through negligence.

(c) According to Rebbi Yochanan (in whose opinion the oath is a Takanas Chachamim), the Sheli'ach needs to swear even if the townspeople undertake to pay anyway.

(a) One is held responsible for one's half-Shekel, according to Rebbi Yochanan - until he has handed it over to the treasurer.

(b) This applies even after the the money for the Korbanos has already been drawn from the Lishkah.

(c) Resh Lakish exempts one from responsibility from the moment one sets aside the money - because whatever is Hekdesh is in the domain of Hekdesh wherever it is.

(d) According to Resh Lakish, our Mishnah, which obligates the Sheli'ach to swear to the townspeople (if the money was not yet drawn from the Lishkah), and the townspeople to pay, is part of the Takanas Chachamim that we learnt above. Chazal instituted this oath in order to discourage people from sending their half-Shekalim through a Sheli'ach (because it is preferable to perform a Mitzvah oneself than through a Sheli'ach).

(a) If the money or the thief is found, both sets of money remain in the domain of Hekdesh. The original money goes into the box marked 'Tiklin Chadtin' - the second set, into the box marked 'Tikln Atikin'.

(b) Some say that the original set refers to the one that the townspeople sent first; others, to the money that reached the hands of the treasurer first.

(c) If a Sheli'ach who was given Machtzis-ha'Shekel money to put into the Shofar for somebody else, placed it there for himself, he will be Mo'el only if the Terumas ha'Lishkah was already taken.

(d) If someone takes money which he designated for Bedek ha'Bayis, and, mistaking it for Chulin-money, he placed it in the Shofar, he is also Mo'el - but only if the Terumas ha'Lishkah had been taken, and the Korban had been purchased and sacrificed.

(a) In the Reisha of the Mishnah, the Tana writes 'Im Nisremah ha'Terumah, Ma'al - according to Tana de'Bei Rebbi, this speaks only after they had actually sacrificed the animals, too - just like in the Seifa.

(b) Rebbi Shimon says that the storekeeper who supplied the commodities for the Korbanos was paid immediately (as opposed to the Chachamim, in whose opinion, he was only paid when the relevant Korban had been sacrificed on the Mizbei'ach) - because the Kohanim were keen, and one need have no fears that they would delay until the animal became blemished. From here we see that, according to Rebbi Shimon, the money goes out to Chulin (and one is Mo'el on it), even before the animal has been sacrificed.

(c) If someone steals an Olah and sacrifices it, it is the original owner who receives the atonement.

(d) That being the case, why is the Sheli'ach Mo'el in our Mishnah when he places the Shekel in the box on his own behalf?

(a) The Gemara therefore establishes the Mishnah by a Shekel Mesuyam - meaning a specific Shekel which is recognisably the second person's (the Sheli'ach's), and as a result of which the treasurers purchase the Korban - on his behalf.

(b) But the half-Shekel, asks the Gemara, may have been taken from the Shirayim - and if it was, we have a principle 'Ein Mo'alin be'Shirayim' - so why would there be Me'ilah at all?

(c) The author of our Mishnah, answers the Gemara, might well be Rebbi Meir - who holds 'Mo'alin be'Shirayim'.

(d) Or it might even be the Rabbanan, answers the Gemara - when we know that the Korban was bought with this half-Shekel (and that it did not go into the Mosar ha'Terumah) - like the story with Raban Gamliel, who made certain that his Shekel went straight into the box, and not into the Lishkah.

(a) Only someone who benefits from Hekdesh brings a Korban Me'ilah. The benefit that the two people in our Mishnah who are Mo'el, receive - is that, now that they have ostensibly given their half-Shekel, the treasurers will not take a security from them.

(b) We cannot ascribe the benefit to the Mitzvah of bringing a Korban - becauses of the principle 'Mitzvos La'v Lehanos Nitnu' (the benefit that one receives from a Mitzvah is not considered benefit).

(c) If someone used Ma'aser-Sheini or Shevi'is money to pay his half-Shekel, he is not Mo'el - because Kedushah cannot become effective on something that is already Kadosh.

(d) If someone gave such a coin for his Machtzis ha'Shekel - he must bring another coin and declare that wherever the Ma'aser Sheini or Shevi'is coin is, its Kedushah is now transferred on to this new coin, and the first one (which is now lying in the Lishkah) adopts the Kedushah of the half- Shekalim).