ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafShekalim 15
(a) We learn from ...
1. ... "Kachah Ye'asah *la'Shor ha'Echad* - that there is no difference
between the Nesech of a calf and that of a ox.
(b) Otherwise, we would have taken our cue from the distinction that the
Torah makes between the Nesech of a lamb and that of a ram, and made the
same distinction by all the different species.
2. ... "O la'Ayil" - that there is no difference between the Nesech of a ram
in its second year and one in its third year.
3. ... "O la'Seh ba'Kevasim" - that there is no difference between the
Nesech of a female lamb and a ewe.
4. ... "O ba'Izim" - that there is no difference between the Nesech of a
kid-goat and a fully-grown one.
(c) We learnt in our Mishnah that, in order to avoid someone using a disc
that he had not paid for, or that he had paid for when the animals were
cheap, and then use it later in the week when the price went, the day of the
week appeared on the disk. They would ensure that he did not use it ...
1. ... the same day of the following week - by also writing the name of the
Mishmar on it.
2. ... the following month - by adding which number week of the month it
3. ... the following year - by also writing the name of the month (since
such a combination is unlikely to occur for many years to come).
1. ... the 'Lishkas Chasha'im' - was a room where G-d-fearing people would
place Tzedakah, from which needy people of good stock would be fed. It was
called by that name because (Chasha'i means discreetly and) the neither did
the donors know who received it, nor did the recipients t know who gave it
(the ideal way of giving Tzedakah).
(b) Every thirty days, they would sort out its contents: Any vessel that
they found useful, was adopted for usage in the Beis-Hamikdash, whereas
vessels for which they had no use were sold, and their proceeds went to
2. ... the 'Lishkas ha'Keilim' - was a room into which people could throw
the vessels that they had donated.
(c) Rebbi Ya'akov bar Idi and Rebbi Yitzchak bar Nachman used to give a
Dinar to Rebbi Chama bar Hoshay'a to give to a poor man - because they were
Gaba'im (officers of Tzedakah), and the poor people were embarrassed to
receive Tzedakah directly from the Gaba'im.
(d) People used to talk about Rebbi Zecharyah, the son-in-law of Rebbi Levi
- because he used to take from Tzedakah-funds even though he did not need
the money. After his death, they discovered that he used the money for
charitable purposes, and not for himself.
(a) The chief demon quoted the Pasuk in Shoftim "Lo Sasig Gevul Re'acha" -
because Rav Chinena bar Papa used to go around at night-time (the time which
the chief-demon considered to be the domain of the demons) distributing
Tzedakah to the poor. He was accusing him of Masig Gevul (encroaching).
(b) In reply, Rebbi Chanina bar Papa quoted the Pasuk "Matan be'Seiser
Yichpeh Af" - meaning that he was busy with the Mitzvah of Tzedakah, and
that he was performing it in the best possible manner (since, at night-time,
the poor would not see who was giving them the alms, and would be spared
(c) The demon chief became scared and ran away.
(d) The Pasuk in Tehilim writes "Ashrei Maskil el Dal" - to teach us that
one does not just give Tzedakah, but that one put a lot of thought into how
to give it in a way that will embarrass him the least.
(a) Rebbi Yonah applied the above Pasuk - by approaching a man of refined
character who had suffered financial misfortune, and offering to lend him
money, on the pretext that he had information that he had just inherited a
large sum of money, and that he was welcome to pay it back when he received
(b) Some poor elders accepted Tzedakah between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kipur -
because they received sufficient Tzedakah in the course of those ten days to
sustain them for the whole year.
(c) When Nechemyah Ish Sichin cried out 'Come and eulogize the man whom
Nechemyah killed - he was referring to that poor man who asked him for a
chicken (which is what he generally ate). Rebbi Nechemyah however, gave him
money instead, with which he bought ox-meat, which he ate and died.
Nechemyah Ish Sichin blamed himself for his death for not giving him a
chicken, as asked.
(a) Nachum Ish Gamzu was taking a gift to his father-in-law. When a Mukeh
Shechin (leper) stopped him and asked him for some food, he asked him to
wait until his return, when he would bring him some.
(b) In the meantime, the poor man died.
(c) Nachum Ish Gamzu then decreed upon himself that the eyes which saw him
(the poor man) and did not give him food should be blinded, the hands which
did not stretch out to give him should be cut off, and the legs which did
not run to give him should be broken.
(d) When Rebbi Akiva said to him ...
1. ... 'Woe to me that I see you like this!' - he replied 'Woe to me that I
do not see you like this'! (Rebbi Akiva was a Ba'l Teshuvah, and Nachum Ish
Gamzu was telling him that suffering was the only true atonement for all of
his past sins. Otherwise, he would have to suffer in Olam ha'Ba -
Presumably, the painful death that he suffered when he died achieved the
2. ... 'Why are you cursing me?' - he replied 'Why do you reject the concept
of suffering' - (Suffering is not a just a curse. Sometimes it is necessary,
as we just explained. Then, it is a blessing.)
(a) Rebbi Hoshaya Raba once excused himself for having omitted to invite his
son's blind Rebbe, who was a daily guest at his table - because he had other
guests (and he was afraid that he would not have treated him with due
respect in their presence).
(b) When Rebbi Hoshaya went to placate him - he replied 'You appeased
someone who is visible but who cannot see. May the One who can see but who
is invisible accept your appeasement'. He learnt that beautiful saying from
the blind man in the following story.
(c) Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov sat below the blind visitor who came to his
town for the first time - so that people would consider him to be a very
important person, and give him Tzedakah liberally.
(d) Rebbi Eliezer's ruse worked, and people treated the blind man with
profound respect. When he expressed surprise, and they told him what Rebbi
Eliezer ben Ya'akov had done, he said to his benefactor: 'You performed
kindness with someone who is visible but who cannot see. May the One who can
see but who is invisible perform kindness with you'.
(a) Rebbi Hoshaya was not impressed when Rebbi Chama b'Rebbi Chanina told
him how much money his fathers had invested in a certain Shul-building. It
would have been a far greater Mitzvah, he informed him, to have spent the
money on the poor men of good stock who had to give up their Torah-studies
on account of their poverty.
***** Hadran Alach Perek Eilu Hein ha'Memunin! *****
(b) Taking ...
1. ... an unblemished animal from Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis to use for the
Mizbei'ach, if necessary - is permitted.
(c) The Mishnah 'K'li she'Matz'u Bo Tzorech, le'Bedek ha'Bayis Menichin Oso'
- implies that vessels *cannot* be taken from Bedek ha'Bayis for the
Mizbe'ach (as fire-wood) - which clashes with what we just said.
2. ... a blemished animal from Kodshei Mizbei'ach, to use for Kodshei Bedek
ha'Bayis - is prohibited. It will have to be sold, and the proceeds may then
go to Bedek ha'Bayis.
(d) 'K'li she'Matz'u Bo Tzorech, le'Bedek ha'Bayis Menichin Oso' - does not
mean that the vessel are used exclusively for Bedek ha'Bayis, replies the
Gemara, but that it is placed in the Lishkas Bedek ha'Bayis, from where it
is taken to be used for whatever it is needed, either for Bedek ha'Bayis or
for the Mizbe'ach.
***** Perek Sheloshah-Asar Shofros. *****
(a) There were thirteen collecting-boxes and thirteen tables in the Beis
Hamikdash, and they used to prostrate themselves in thirteen locations.
(Note: The number thirteen often represents the unity of Hashem - as the
numerical value of Echad = thirteen. Consequently, it can be no coincidence
that thirteen figures so prominently in the Beis Hamikdash, the house which
represents the oneness of Hashem, and the unity of Klal Yisrael.)
(b) The families of Raban Gamliel and of Rebbi Chanina S'gan ha'Kohanim used
to prostrate themselves in one extra location - next to the Lishkas Dir
ha'Eitzim (the room where the wood was stored).
(c) They prostrated themselves at that spot - because of the tradition that
the Aron ha'Kodesh was buried there. It happened once that a Kohen noticed
that one of the stone-slabs was raised (Tiklin Chadtin). When he began
pointing this out to his friend, he died.
(d) The Kohen was inspecting the wood for the Ma'arachah for worms at the
time, because he was a Ba'l Mum, who was disqualified from performing any
(a) Rebbi Eliezer learns from the Pasuk in Melachim "Lo Yivaser *Davar*,
Amar Hashem" - that nothing will remain in Eretz Yisrael (i.e. it will all
go into Galus), even the Luchos which contained the '*Dibros*'. And he
proves it from the Pasuk in Divrei Hayamim "ve'li'Teshuvas ha'Shanah,
Shalach Nevuchadnetzar Vayevi'eha Bavelah Im *K'lei Chemdas* Beis Hashem" -
because *K'lei Chemdas* (the precious objects) refers to the Aron ha'Kodesh,
which is the most precious object that we possess (perhaps the plural form
comes to include the lid with the Keruvim, the Keruvim which Shlomoh made or
the Aron's accessories - e.g. the Torah and the Luchos.
According to the Beraisa quoted by Rebbi Hoshai'a - the Kohen in the Dir
ha'Eitzim actually began banging on the floor with a hammer (to straighten
it), and fire came out and burned him.
(b) Rebbi Yehudah ben Lakish explains that, whereas, on the one hand, the
actual staves could not be seen from outside the Kodesh Kodshim, they
nevertheless protruded through the Paroches (like a woman's breasts - a
symbol of the love that Hashem bore K'lal Yisrael).
(c) He derives from the same Pasuk that it remained hidden in its place
after the Churban - because that Pasuk ends "Vayihyu Sham Ad ha'Yom ha'Zeh.
(a) According to Rebbi Yehudah ben Lakish, Yisrael had *two* Aronos in the
desert - one which contained the second Luchos, the other, into which they
placed the first (broken) Luchos, and which went out to war with them.
(b) We know that the Aron with the second Luchos did not go out to war with
Yisrael - from the Pasuk in Sh'lach-Lecha "ve'Aron B'ris Hashem u'Moshe Lo
Mashu mi'Kerev ha'Machaneh".
(c) According to the Rabbanan, there was only *one* Aron - which should not
have been taken out to war. Once it was, in the days of Eli ha'Kohen, and it
(a) The P'lishtim's comment "Oy Lanu, Mi Yatzilenu Miyad ha'Elokim ha'Adirim
ha'Eileh"? implies that they had never seen the Aron before - is a proof for
the Rabbanan (that this was the only time that the Aron was taken to war).
(b) According to the Rabbanan, the Aron Elokim which King Shaul asked Achya
to bring near, was not the Aron ha'Kodesh, but another Aron which contained
the garments of the Kohen Gadol (the Gemara mentions the Tzitz, because it
is the most important of them all).
(c) According to the Rabbanan, the Pasuk in Shmuel does not mean that
Yisrael, Yehudah and the Aron were in the place called Sukos, but that they
were all housed in temporary quarters (since Sukos can also mean huts).
(d) Uri'ah refused to go home to Bas-Sheva his wife - because of a
combination of two reasons 1. because Yisrael were at war and 2. the Aron
was housed in temporary quarters.