Previous daf

1)

(a) According to Beis Shamai, if someone said 'Eilu le'Shikli' on money that he was setting aside for his Half-Shekel, Perutah by Perutah, all excess money would go into the Nedavah-boxes in the Beis-Hamikdash marked accordingly. The proceeds of these boxes were used to purchase Olos, which were brought as voluntary public burnt-offerings whenever the Mizbei'ach was not in use (particularly in the long summer-days - hence the name). Beis Shamai follow their reasoning elsewhere, that Hekdesh that is declared in error is considered Hekdesh.

(b) Beis Hillel holds that the excess money remains in the domain of the owner (because, in their opinion, Hekdesh that is declared in error is considered Chulin).

(c)

1. ...Beis Shamai will agree that the money remains Chulin - if he said 'she'Avi Meihen Shikli'.
2. ... Beis Hillel will agree that the money goes to Nedavah - if he said 'Eilu le'Chatasi'.

(d) If he said 'she'Avi Meihen Chatasi' - the excess money is Chulin.

(a) Rebbi Shimon explains Beis Hillel's distinction between 'Eilu le'Shikli' (in 1b.) and 'Eilu le'Chatasi' (1c. 2.) - inasmuch as the half-Shekel is fixed (so he definitely intended to give only a half-Shekel, and no more; whereas by a Chatas which has no fixed price, the Kedushah becomes effective on *all* the money, and Mosar Chatas goes to Nedavah (as we shall see in Amud Beis).

(b) Rebbi Yehudah proves from the various occasions when they changed the amount to Darchonos, Sela'im and Teva'im - that the Shekel is not fixed.

1. ... a Darchon - is a golden Sela worth one and a half ordinary Sela'im.
   
2. ... a Teva - is half a Sela.

(c) Chazal did not permit changing to a Dinar - because it is only permitted to *add* to the Chatzi-Shekel (which is the equivalent of two Dinrim), but not to *subtract* from it.

(d) Rebbi Shimon counters Rebbi Yehudah's argument by pointing out that although they were permitted to change the amount of the half-Shekel, that was only if everyone did so, but as far as the community is concerned, they all gave the same amount.

(a) According to Rebbi Chiya and Rebbi Bibi, what Rebbi Elazar really said was that if one were to say on a pile of money 'Eilu le'Shikli', then even Beis Shamai will agree that the money goes to Chulin.

(b) Rebbi Yossi establishes Rebbi Shimon in our Mishnah - by someone who is collecting his half-Shekel Perutah by Perutah, according to Beis Hillel.

(a) If someone designates a half-Shekel on the understanding that he is Chayav, and it turns out that he is Patur, the half-Shekel is not Kodesh.

(b) The Beraisa says that if someone designates two Chata'os, thinking that he is Chayav *two*, and it then transpires that he is in fact, only Chayav *one*, the second Chatas must be sent to graze until it receives a blemish, when it is brought as a Nedavah. Exactly the same will apply to someone who designates two half-Shekalim thinking that he is Chayav *two*, but it turns out that he is only Chayav *one* - the second half-Shekel will go to Nedavah.

(c) The Gemara concludes that this case should be no different than someone who says on a pile of money 'Eilu le'Shikli', where, according to Beis Hillel, the Mosar is Chulin (and according to Rebbi Bibi, even Beis Shamai will agree here).

(a) We learn from the Pasuk in Nechemyah "*ve'He'emadnu* Aleinu Mitzvos Lases Shelishis ha'Shekel ba'Shanah la'Avodas Beis Elokeinu" - that if the half-Shekel (i.e. any coin that is half of a larger one - of that currency) - weighs less than the half-Shekel of the Torah (e.g. a modern half-Shekel which weighs less than the original half-Shekel that they gave in the desert, one is not permitted to give it in lieu of a half-Shekel, but must rather give a coin that is for example, a third of that currency - which *does* amount to the equivalent or more of the original half-Shekel of the Torah. That is why *they* gave a third of a Shekel (which was equivalent to half a Shekel of the time of the Beis Hamikdash.

(b) The Lashon "Shelishis ha'Shekel" used by Nechemyah is a hint that one should give at least *one Shekel* annually, though one may divide it into three donations (as opposed to those who maintain in the first chapter of Bava Basra, that the minimum amount of Tzedakah that one needs to give each year is a *third of a Shekel*.

(c) Chazal derive from here - that when it comes to donating for communal requirements, one should not trouble the community to give more than three times annually.

(d) Each of the three boxes contained three Sa'ah. The source for all these threes is the above-mentioned Pasuk "Lases Shelishis ha'Shekel ba'Shanah ' ... .

(a) Some say that the reason for the *half*-Shekel was because of the sin of the Golden Calf which took place at *mid-day*; whereas according to others, the half-Shekel (consisting of *six* Geramsin - a small coin in the days of Moshe) was to atone for the sin of the Golden-Calf which took place after *six* hours.

(b) Nor is it a coincidence that a Shekel equals twenty Geirah - because, in that case, half a Shekel equals ten Geirah, corresponding to the ten commandments which they nullified when they served the Golden Calf.

(c) Every first-born must be redeemed for twenty Dinrim - because that is how much the brothers received for selling Yosef, Rachel's first-born son.

(d) Bearing in mind that Binyamin and Reuven were not present at the sale, and seeing that the brothers sold Yosef for *twenty* Dinrim, each of the ten remaining sons will have received *two* Dinrim - Yosef is also counted in the sale, since it was *he* who was responsible for the sale - by speaking Rechilus about his brothers to his father).

7)

(a) If someone says, concerning a handful of money 'Eilu le'Shikli' - then whatever is more than half a Shekel remains Chulin (like Beis Hillel).

(b) Mosar Kinei Zavin ve'Zavos, ve'Yoldos, Chata'os and Ashamos, all go to Nedavah - because Mosar Chatas or Asham goes to Nedavah.

(c)

1. ... Mosar Olah - goes for an Olah.
2. ... Mosar Minchah - for a Minchah.
3. ... Mosar Shelamim - for a Shelamim.
4. ... Mosar ha'Pesach - for a Shelamim.

(d) Mosar Nezirim (the left-overs from money that was collected for the Korbanos of Nezirim) must be used for Nezirim, whereas Mosar Nazir (the left-overs from money that was collected for the Korbanos of a specific Nazir - where that is not possible) goes to Nedavah.

(a) When Rav Yehudah asked Shmuel what happened to the half-Shekel of someone who designated his coin and then died - he answered that the money goes to Nedavah.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan says that the Mosar Asiris ha'Eifah of the Kohen Gadol must be thrown into the Reed Sea (so that it should not come to abuse).

(c) Rebbi Yochanan establishes the Beraisa, 'Mosar Asiris ha'Eifah ... Mosran Nedavah' - by the Minchas Chotei of a very poor man, which was also a tenth of an Eifah (and not of a Kohen Gadol).

(d) The basic difference between the Minchas Chavitin and the Minchas Chotei in this regard - is that, whereas the latter, which comes to replace a Chatas, *is* itself considered a Chatas (and Mosar Chatas li'Nedavah), the former is *not*.

(a) Aba bar Ba was Shmuel's father.

(b) The Pasuk "ve'Im min ha'Tzon Korbano le'Zevach Korbano"cannot be speaking about ...

1. ... a Pesach in its time - because we learned above that a Pesach in its time cannot be brought as a Shelamim.
2. ... a Mosar Olah - since an Olah can also be brought from cattle, and the Torah writes here "min ha'*Tzon*", implying a type of Korban that can only be brought from the flock.
3. ... a Mosar Asham - which is restricted to rams (the sheep family), but not to goats, whereas the Pesach can be brought from either.

(c) *"min* ha'Tzon" - implies a type of Korban that can be brought from all kinds of 'Tzon' (i.e. sheep or goats).

(d) In spite of the Pasuk "ve'Im min ha'Tzon Korbano, min *ha'Kevasim ... le'Olah*" - it is more logical to say that Mosar Pesach should be brought as a *Shelamim* - because firstly, a Shelamim, like a Pesach, is eaten, and secondly, they are both Kodshim Kalim (unlike an Olah, which is Kodshei Kodshim and cannot be eaten).

(a) But how can we learn from *"min* ha'Tzon" - a kind of Korban which can be brought both from the sheep and from the goats, when the word "Min" always comes to *exclude*, not to *include*?

(b) In fact, the Gemara concludes, from "Min" we preclude a female animal or a male that is more than one year from being brought as a Korban Pesach.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan learns from the extra word "le'Zevach" in the Pasuk "Im min ha'Tzon Korbano le'Zevach Shelamim" - that whichever Korban he has in mind when he Shechts the Mosar Pesach, it becomes a Shelamim.

(b) The Gemara initially thinks that the Sha'leh (whether, if the Kohen Shechted the Mosar ha'Pesach with a Machsheves Pesul of an Olah, it will be Pasul even as a Shelamim) cannot be with regard to someone who Shechted it as an Olah, having in mind to sprinkle its blood tomorrow - because even if he would have had such a thought by the Shelamim itself, it would have been Pasul, so how can it possibly be Kasher?

(c) If the Machsheves Pigul renders it an Olah, then the Shelamim is Pasul, and the stringent Din of Pigul does not take effect (since Pigul is only effective when the Korban is otherwise Kasher); whereas if the Machshavah of Olah is *not* effective, then that of Pigul, *is*.

(a) A Pesach during the rest of the year is Pasul if it is Shechted Lishmo, and Kasher, she'Lo Lishmo (See Tiklin Chadtin). Therefore, the Gemara wants to know what the Din will be if he expressed both thoughts with regard to the same Mossar ha'Pesach.

(b) The Gemara replies that, since he had two contradictory thoughts, they cancel each other, and it is as if he Shechted S'tam, it which case, the Korban is automatically a Shelamim (since the Gemara currently holds that a Pesach does not require an Akirah - to be Shechted *specifically* as a Shelamim).

(c) According to this, there is no reason why, if one Shechted a Mosar Pesach Lishmo in order to sprinkle the blood the following day, it should be Pasul - because there too, the two thoughts will cancel each other.

(d) The Gemara retracts from its original answer because: who says that its initial presumption - that a Pesach does *not* require an Akirah - to be Shechted *specifically* as a Shelamim, is correct? - Perhaps it *does*, in which case, we will say exactly the opposite: that the two thoughts cancel each other, rendering the Korban Pasul.