Reference for Shekalim 2:2

הַנּוֹתֵן שִׁקְלוֹ לַחֲבֵרוֹ לִשְׁקֹל עַל יָדוֹ, וּשְׁקָלוֹ עַל יְדֵי עַצְמוֹ, אִם נִתְרְמָה תְּרוּמָה מָעַל. הַשּׁוֹקֵל שִׁקְלוֹ מִמְּעוֹת הֶקְדֵּשׁ, אִם נִתְרְמָה תְרוּמָה וְקָרְבָה הַבְּהֵמָה מָעַל. מִדְּמֵי מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי, מִדְּמֵי שְׁבִיעִית, יֹאכַל כְּנֶגְדָּן:

If one gave his shekel for his friend to give for him, and he went and gave it for himself — if the contribution (for offerings) had been made [before the shekel were given to the treasurer], he [the messenger, who gave it for himself] has profaned (Temple property). [For as soon as the contribution was made on account of what would be collected, this shekel that his friend had given him to give for him, was in the possession of the Temple, so that when he gave it for himself, he benefited from Temple property. For had he not given it, they would have taken a pledge from him, as we learned above (1:3): "From the time they sat in the Temple, they began to take pledges. He is found, then, to be benefitting from Temple property and he is liable for a me’ilah (profanation) offering.] If one gave his shekel from the monies of hekdesh (Temple property) [If he had in his hand monies dedicated to Temple maintenance, and, thinking that they were chullin (non-consecrated), he gave his shekel from them], and the contribution were made and a beast [bought from that contribution and] sacrificed — then he [who gave the shekel] is liable for a me’ilah offering, [but not before. For this hekdesh remained hekdesh as it was wherever it was without changing. And when the beast was sacrificed and he (the Temple treasurer) intended that it be from the money of all who had given the shekel to the lishkah (the fund for sacrifices), it is as if he (the giver) acquired the beast with those monies of hekdesh and sacrificed it. He benefits, then, in that they did not take a pledge from him for his shekel and he is liable for a me’ilah offering. And in the first instance, too, where his friend gave him the shekel to give for him and he gave it for himself, and he is liable for a me’ilah offering, this, too, is when the beast has been sacrificed after the contribution has been made. The reason this was not stated in the first instance is that it was anticipated for the latter instance, in which the me’ilah in both instances is explicated. The reason there is no me’ilah immediately even though he already benefits (by not having a pledge exacted of him) is that me’ilah obtains only when one converts hekdesh to chullin; but if he converts (one variety of) hekdesh to (a different variety of) hekdesh, even though he benefits thereby, there is me’ilah only after an act is performed in the second hekdesh. This is borne out in the Yerushalmi.] If (one gave his shekel) from the monies of ma’aser sheni or from the monies of shevi’ith, he eats against them. [He brings a shekel and says: "Wherever the ma’aser sheni or shevi’ith are, they are to be redeemed against this shekel. For shevi’ith "takes" in its monies as hekdesh does. And he eats fruits bought with that money in Jerusalem against ma’aser sheni; or he eats them in the sanctity of shevi’ith if the fruits redeemed were those of shevi’ith.]

Explore reference for Shekalim 2:2. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.