ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafShekalim 7
SHEKALIM 6-8 (1-3 Teves) - the Dafyomi study for the last days of Chanukah
and 3 Teves has been dedicated to the memory of Hagaon Rav Yisrael Zev
Gustman ZaTZaL (author of "Kuntresei Shiurim") and his wife (on her
Yahrzeit), by a student who merited to study under him.
(a) If the Mosar *was* the Shelamim - then it will be a Shelamim.
(b) The third Korban of a Nazir is an Olah.
(c) According to Rebbi Zeira, even the Mosar *Shelamim* of a Nazir goes to
Nedavah, because it is a Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai that all of a Nazir's
Korbanos go Nedavah.
(a) 'Kol she'Demei Chatas Me'uravos Bahen, Ma'os Setumin Hein' - speaks
about a Nazir who designated the money for his three Korbanos and died. If
the money for the Shelamim and the Olah remain Stam (mixed and *not* yet
designated), even though the money for the Chatas *was* designated, it all
goes to Nedavah. So we see, that, because the money for the Chatas was once
mixed together with them, 'Mosar Nazir li'Nedavah' (even of the Shelamim and
(b) The second Beraisa speaks when he designated the money for his Chatas
separately, and the money for the two other Korbanos mixed together.
(c) 'Mo'alin be'Chulan ve'Ein Mo'alin be'Miktzasan' - means that if he uses
only *some* of the unspecified money, he is not Mo'el (because it may be the
money of the Shelamim, for which there is no Me'ilah). He is only Mo'el when
he uses all of it, when he is bound to have used the money of the Olah.
(Note: It is not clear why one needs to use *all* of it in order to be
Mo'el. Why should it not suffice to use a little more than half?)
(d) Should the Nazir then die, the Chatas-money is thrown into the Yam-
ha'Melach, whereas the other money is divided into two, half for an Olah and
half for a Shelamim. Clearly then, the Olah and the Shelamim of a Nazir do
not necessarily follow the Chatas.
(a) According to Rav Chisda, the Mosar ha'Lechem of the Nazir must be left
to rot. The bread ...
1. ... cannot be brought on its own - because nowhere do we find the bread
of the Nazir being brought on its own, without the accompanying Korbanos.
(b) The Mosar Nesachav of the Nazir is sold and its proceeds go to Nedavah -
because it is Kodesh Kodoshim, whose Mosar goes to Nedavah (whereas the
bread is not).
2. ... cannot be used for someone else's Korban Nazir - because every Nazir
is obligated to bring bread together with his Korban.
(c) According to Rebbi Yossi bar Rebbi Bun - Mosar Nesachim li'Nedavah;
according to Shmuel - Mosar Machtzis ha'Shekel li'Nedavah, and according to
Rebbi Elazar - Mosar Asiris ha'Eifah li'Nedavah.
(d) Rebbi Yochanan holds that Mosar Asiris ha'Eifah must be thrown into the
(b) According to the Tana Kama, 'Mosar ha'Mes le'Yorshav'.
- ... 'Mosar Shevuyim - li'Shevuyim'.
- ... 'Mosar Shavuy - le'Oso Shavuy'.
- ... 'Mosar Aniyim - la'Aniyim'.
- ... 'Mosar Ani - le'Oso Ani'.
- ... 'Mosar ha'Meisim - le'Meisim'.
(c) According to Rebbi Nasan, 'Mosar ha'Mes Bonin lo Nefesh al Kivro'.
(a) Rebbi Idi from Chutra holds that, if, after the money has been collected
for the burial needs of a man who died, it is discovered that the money is
not needed, the money should be returned to the donors - since it was only
collected for the deceased man, and if *he* does not need it, how will the
heirs acquire it?
According to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, one does not build a tomb-stone over
the grave of a Tzadik - because the words of Torah that he leaves behind as
a legacy, perpetuate his memory, and no tombstone is necessary.
(b) A tomb-stone is called a Nefesh - because it perpetuates the Soul of the
(c) The Tana of the Beraisa adds to 'Bonin Lo Nefesh' - 've'Ye'aseh Lo Ziluf
al Gabei Mitaso'.
(d) Although the money that is collected to redeem a specific captive should
not be used to redeem a more important one - one does not however, stop the
Gaba'im from doing so (or from changing any Tzedakah to one that they
consider more important - because it is with that in mind that people donate
(a) When Rebbi Eliezer (presumably this refers to Rebbi Elazar ben Pedas - the Amora) saw Rebbi Yochanan coming towards him leaning on Rebbi Chiya bar
Aba, he hid. Rebbi Yochanan was cross with him for two reasons - firstly,
because he failed to greet him; secondly, because he hid.
(b) Rebbi Ya'akov bar Idi defended Rebbi Eliezer - by pointing out that,
based on the Pasuk in Iyov "Ra'uni Ne'arim Nechba'u", (and as a mark of
respect) it was the custom in Bavel not to greet someone greater than
oneself (and Rebbi Eliezer was from Bavel).
(c) Rebbi Chiya bar Aba then asked Rebbi Yochanan whether one is permitted
to honour an idol by walking in front of an it. When he replied that *that*
was not considered an honour, and that one may as well show one's contempt
by just ignoring it and walking past, Rebbi Chiya retorted that, if that was
so, seeing as the custom in Bavel was not to greet someone greater than
oneself, then Rebbi Eliezer would have gained nothing by walking in front of
him, and that consequently, there was nothing wrong with hiding before him.
(a) Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Asi cited the episode that took place in the Beis
Hakenesses of the Tarsi'im where Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yossi argued so
vehemently that, in their anger, a Sefer-Torah was burnt. Subsequently,
Rebbi Yossi ben Kisma commented that it seemed to him that they were guilty
of idolatry (because of the principle 'Kol ha'Ko'es, Ke'ilu Oved Avodah-
Zarah'). They were hinting to him that anger, even when it is linked with
Torah, is undesirable.
(b) Rebbi Yochanan remained unimpressed - because by a Talmid who does have
full respect for his Rebbi, anger is fully justified.
(c) Rebbi Ya'akov bar Idi pacified Rebbi Yochanan by quoting the Pasuk in
Yehoshua "Ka'asher Tzivah Hashem es Moshe, Kein Tzivah Moshe es Yehoshua",
which demonstrates that everything that Yehoshua ever taught, he received
from Moshe. Now is it plausible that he actually quoted Moshe each and every
time he taught a Halachah? The truth is that this was not necessary, since
everybody knew that whatever he said came from Moshe. Similarly, everybody
knows that whatever Rebbi Eliezer Darshens, he received from Rebbi Yochanan,
and it is not therefore necessary to quote him directly.
(d) Rebbi Yochanan made an issue out of Talmidim repeating his sayings in
his name - even in his life-time). The proof for this is from the Pasuk in
Tehilim "Agurah be'Ohalecha Olamim Echeseh be'Seiser Kenafecha Selah". Did
David really think that he would live forever? What he must really have
meant is that he wanted his Divrei Torah to be repeated in the Shuls and the
Batei-Medrash even after his death. And if people would not do so in his
life-time, what chance did he have that they would do it after his death!
(a) The Gemara proves from the Pasuk "ve'Chikech ke'Yein ha'Tov ... Dovev
Sifsei Yesheinim" - that in the same way as the vat in which the wine is
fomenting, begins to bubble when one places one's finger on it, so too, do a
Tzadik's lips begin to move in his grave when someone repeats his Divrei
Torah after his death.
(b) The Gemara describes the pleasure that a dead man experiences when his
Divrei Torah are quoted - like the lingering taste of spiced wine or old,
(c) The difference between the two descriptions is that, according to the
former description, he will also need to have performed exceptionally
outstanding deeds, just like the spices, which are added to the wine.
(d) A person can ensure that he quotes his Rebbe's sayings correctly - by
picturing him in his mind as he speaks.
(a) Rebbi Zeira was special inasmuch as he would quote someone only if he
knew for sure that he had really said it.
(b) He not take the rulings of Rav Sheshes too seriously - either because
Rav Sheshes was blind, and he could never be certain that he was quoting the
person he thought he was, or because, since he had not seen the person who
taught him, he was never able to picture him in his mind, and was therefore
easily capable of misquoting him.
(c) Rebbi Asi was certain that the quotations that he heard in the name of
1. ... Bar Pada really came from Bar Pada and were not fabrications -
because *Rebbi Yochanan* (who was completely reliable) quoted him.
2. ... Rav really came from Rav and were not fabrications - because Rav Ada
bar Ahavah quoted him.
(a) David's statement in Tehilim "Samachti be'Omrim Li Beis Hashem Neilech"
is truly incredible - because this followed the snide comments of his
enemies, who would pass his window and announce 'David, when will the Beis
Hamikdash be built? When will be able to go and visit it'? They did this, in
the full knowledge that *David* was not permitted to build it, and that it
was *his son* who would do so - after his father's death! In spite of that,
David was happy that people were expressing a desire to go up to the Beis
Hamikdash, or because it reminded him of its imminent construction, even it
did mean that he had to die first. In this point, David Hamelech is compared
to Moshe Rabeinu, who immediately sent soldiers to fight with the Midianim
(to avenge the honor of Yisrael) - even though he knew that his death would
***** Hadran Alach 'Metzarfin Shekalim'! *****
(b) The significance of the Pasuk ...
1. ... in Shmuel "ve'Hayah Ki *Yimle'u Yamecha* ve'Shachavta es Avosecha" is
- that in spite of the importance of the Beis Hamikdash, Hashem promised
that he would not detract one iota from David's life (that he would even
live the full year from day to day - to die on his birthday - that Tzadikim
merit) even if it meant that the Beis Hamikdash has to wait.
2. ... in Mishlei "Asei Tzedakah u'Mishpat, Nivchar la'Hashem mi'Zevach" is
- that Hashem preferred the Tzedakah and Chesed that were the hallmark of
David, to the Korbanos that Shlomoh would bring in the Beis-Hamikdash.
***** Perek 'bi'Sheloshah Perakim' *****
(a) According to Rebbi Akiva, they draw from the Lishkah on P'ros ha'Pesach
(fifteen days before Pesach), on P'ros ha'Atzeres (fifteen days before
Shavu'os) and on P'ros ha'Chag (fifteen days before Sukos).
(b) These dates corresponded to the dates on which Chazal instituted taking
(c) From these three dates and onwards, it becomes forbidden to eat the new-
born animals (mi'de'Rabbanan) until they are Ma'asered.
(d) Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon give the three dates for Ma'aser Beheimah
as the first of Nisan, the first of Sivan and the twenty-ninth of Elul.
Strictly speaking, the last date should have been on the first of Tishri.
However, since one cannot Ma'aser on Yom-Tov, they brought it forward by one
(a) '*P'ros* ha'Pesach means *half* of the thirty-day period which Chazal
fixed before each Yom-Tov to study the Halachos.
(b) When Rebbi Yochanan gives the reason for the three dates of Ma'aser
Beheimah as being that these are the birth-seasons - he means that the first
date corresponds to the early births, the second, to the regulars and the
third, to those who give birth late.
1. ... 'Kedei she'Tihye ha'Beheimah Metzuyah le'Olei Regalim' - means that
there should be animals available to them for Yom-Tov, both for Korbanos and
for personal use. Towards this end, Chazal fixed these dates (close to the
Yamim-Tovim), even placing a prohibition on the people to eat their new-born
(d) Rebbi Yossa says that, once the fixed time for Ma'asering his new-born
animals falls due, someone who refrains from Ma'asering them (in spite of
the fact that one is permitted to sell and even to Shecht animals before
they have been Ma'asered) transgresses Bal Te'acher mi'de'Rabbanan.
2. ... 'she'Lo Yavo Liyedei Bal Te'acher' means that - since they have just
Ma'asered their animals, they will remember to sacrifice them on Yom-Tov
(otherwise, they may well forget to do so). Alternatively, this is the
reason that Chazal instituted the obligation to Ma'aser three times
annually. Had they just Ma'asered once a year, they would have remained with
too many animals to take to Yerushalayim on the following Yom-Tov, and, once
the animals remain at home, we are afraid that they may transgress Bal