Shekalim 2

מְצָרְפִין שְׁקָלִים לְדַרְכּוֹנוֹת מִפְּנֵי מַשּׂוֹי הַדֶּרֶךְ. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהָיוּ שׁוֹפָרוֹת בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, כָּךְ הָיוּ שׁוֹפָרוֹת בַּמְּדִינָה. בְּנֵי הָעִיר שֶׁשָּׁלְחוּ אֶת שִׁקְלֵיהֶן וְנִגְנְבוּ אוֹ שֶׁאָבָדוּ, אִם נִתְרְמָה הַתְּרוּמָה, נִשְׁבָּעִין לַגִּזְבָּרִים. וְאִם לָאו נִשְׁבָּעִין לִבְנֵי הָעִיר, וּבְנֵי הָעִיר שׁוֹקְלִין תַּחְתֵּיהֶן. נִמְצָאוּ, אוֹ שֶׁהֶחֱזִירוּם הַגַּנָּבִים, אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ שְׁקָלִים, וְאֵין עוֹלִין לָהֶן לְשָׁנָה הַבָּאָה:

Shekalim may be exchanged for darkonoth because of the burden of the way. [The men of the city, who collected their shekalim, may exchange them for darkonoth, gold coin, viz. (Ezra 2:69): "gold darkemonim," to lighten the burden of the way (to Jerusalem)]. Just as there were shofroth in the Temple, [("shofroth":) chests, whose mouths were narrow on top, like a shofar, whose mouth is narrow on top, and which "broadens out" (this, so that nothing could be taken from them), viz. (II Kings 12:10): "And Yehoyada the priest took a chest and bored a hole in its lid, etc." They stood in the azarah and they would all bring their shekalim and deposit them there], so there were shofroth in the medinah [Jerusalem. (According to Rambam, the other cities of Israel)]. If the men of the city sent their shekalim[with a messenger to take them to the lishkah (the Temple treasury)] and they were stolen or lost — if the contribution had already been taken [(It was the practice to contribute from the (money) chests for the offerings. They would contribute from what had been collected and on account of what would be collected, so that even those who had not yet given their shekalim would have a portion in the offerings.)], they [the messengers] would swear to the (Temple) treasurers. [For since the contribution had been made on account of these monies before they had been lost, it is as if they had been in the possession of the treasurers from the time the contribution had been made — so that when they were stolen or lost, it is from the possession of the treasurers that they were stolen or lost, for which reason the messengers swear (that they were not remiss) and they exempt themselves. And even though oaths are not administered for hekdeshoth (Temple dedications), this oath was instituted by the sages so that hekdeshoth not be treated lightly.] And if not [i.e., If at the time they were lost, the contribution had not yet been made and monies had not been taken from the chests on account of what would be collected, then they had gone lost from the possession of the owners (and not from the Temple treasurers). Therefore,] they [the messengers] swear to the men of the city [and exempt themselves]. And the men of the city give [other] shekalim in their stead, [for the first shekalim that were lost are not accredited them.] If they were found or the thieves returned them, both are shekalim and they are not accredited them for the following year.

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.]

הַמְכַנֵּס מָעוֹת וְאָמַר, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ לְשִׁקְלִי, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, מוֹתָרָן נְדָבָה. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, מוֹתָרָן חֻלִּין. שֶׁאָבִיא מֵהֶן לְשִׁקְלִי, שָׁוִין שֶׁמּוֹתָרָן חֻלִּין. אֵלּוּ לְחַטָאת, שָׁוִין שֶׁהַמּוֹתָר נְדָבָה. שֶׁאָבִיא מֵהֶן לְחַטָאת, שָׁוִין שֶׁהַמּוֹתָר חֻלִּין:

If one puts away money [little by little, p’rutah after p'rutah, for his shekel ], saying, [ when he begins doing so:] "This is for my shekel," [and when he counts it, he finds that he has more than his shekel], Beth Shammai say: The surplus is a gift. [It goes to the shofroth in the Temple, whose monies are used for "summer burnt-offerings" for the altar. Beth Shammai here is consistent with his view that "hekdesh in error is hekdesh."] And Beth Hillel say: The surplus is chullin, [his intent having been to dedicate only the amount of his shekel]. (If he said:) "I shall take from them for my shekel," [which is like saying explicitly: "If I find more than a shekel, I will take the shekel from them and the rest will be chullin"], they agree that the surplus is chullin. [If he put away money and said:] "This is for my sin-offering," they agree [i.e., Beth Hillel concede] that the surplus is a gift (to hekdesh). (If he said:) "I shall take from them for my sin-offering," they agree that the surplus is chullin.

אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, מַה בֵּין שְׁקָלִים לְחַטָאת. שְׁקָלִים יֵשׁ לָהֶם קִצְבָה, וְחַטָאת אֵין לָהּ קִצְבָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אַף לִשְׁקָלִים אֵין לָהֶן קִצְבָה, שֶׁכְּשֶׁעָלוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל מִן הַגּוֹלָה הָיוּ שׁוֹקְלִים דַּרְכּוֹנוֹת, חָזְרוּ לִשְׁקוֹל סְלָעִים, חָזְרוּ לִשְׁקוֹל טְבָעִין, וּבִקְּשׁוּ לִשְׁקֹל דִּינָרִים. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, אַף עַל פִּי כֵן, יַד כֻּלָּן שָׁוָה. אֲבָל חַטָאת, זֶה מֵבִיא בְּסֶלַע וְזֶה מֵבִיא בִּשְׁתַּיִם וְזֶה מֵבִיא בְּשָׁלשׁ:

R. Shimon said: What is the difference between shekalim and a sin-offering? [Why do Beth Hillel say that if one puts money away, saying: "This is for my shekel," the surplus is chullin, whereas if he says: "This is for my sin-offering," they concede to Beth Shammai that it is a gift (to hekdesh)?] Shekalim have a fixed amount, [it being written (Exodus 30:15): "The rich shall not give more and the poor shall not give less." Therefore, he must have intended only a shekel, and the rest is "hekdesh in error"], but a sin-offering has no fixed amount. [If he wishes, he can bring a sin-offering for a ma’ah of silver, and if he wishes he can bring one for a large sum. Therefore, the monies "take," and the surplus is a gift.] R. Yehudah says: Even shekalim have no fixed amount! When Israel went up from the exile, they would give darkonoth as the shekel. [The darkon was a coin of the Medean kingdom. It was of gold and worth two selaim and it was the standard coin of trade. And just as in the time of the first Temple, when their coin was a shekel, they would give a half-shekel; now, too, when it was a darkon, they would give a half-darkon.] Then they reverted to selaim. [After the Medean reign, the darkon was voided and they reverted to trading with selaim, their original currency minted at the time of the first Temple, and they gave a half-shekel as in the beginning.] Then they reverted to tevain. [The standard currency became tevain, i.e., a half-shekel.] They desired to give dinars [i.e., they desired to give half of that coin, one dinar, (the sela being two dinars); but this was not accepted from them. For it is permitted to add to the shekel of Scripture according to the difference in the currency minted at the time, but not to detract from it. We see, then, that shekalim, too, have no fixed amount, sometimes being more, sometimes less, their giving always the half-shekel of that time.] R. Shimon rejoined: In spite of that, each gave equally [i.e., Shekalim still cannot be compared to a sin-offering. For at all times, the half-shekel was equal for all — each gave the half-shekel of that time.] But (the amount for) the sin-offering [is never equal for all:] This one brings (a sin-offering) for a sela; that one, for two (selaim) and that one, for three. [And here we conclude that the rationale of Beth Hillel is as per R. Shimon.]

מוֹתַר שְׁקָלִים, חֻלִּין. מוֹתַר עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵפָה, מוֹתַר קִנֵּי זָבִין, קִנֵּי זָבוֹת, קִנֵּי יוֹלְדוֹת, וְחַטָאוֹת וַאֲשָׁמוֹת, מוֹתְרֵיהֶן נְדָבָה. זֶה הַכְּלָל, כָּל שֶׁהוּא בָּא לְשֵׁם חַטָאת וּלְשֵׁם אַשְׁמָה, מוֹתָרָן נְדָבָה. מוֹתַר עוֹלָה, לָעוֹלָה. מוֹתַר מִנְחָה, לַמִּנְחָה. מוֹתַר שְׁלָמִים, לַשְּׁלָמִים. מוֹתַר פֶּסַח, לַשְּׁלָמִים. מוֹתַר נְזִירִים, לַנְּזִירִים. מוֹתַר נָזִיר, לַנְּדָבָה. מוֹתַר עֲנִיִּים, לָעֲנִיִּים. מוֹתַר עָנִי, לְאוֹתוֹ עָנִי. מוֹתַר שְׁבוּיִים, לַשְּׁבוּיִים. מוֹתַר שָׁבוּי, לְאוֹתוֹ שָׁבוּי. מוֹתַר הַמֵּתִים, לַמֵּתִים. מוֹתַר הַמֵּת, לְיוֹרְשָׁיו. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, מוֹתַר הַמֵּת, יְהֵא מֻנָּח עַד שֶׁיָּבֹא אֵלִיָּהוּ. רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר, מוֹתַר הַמֵּת בּוֹנִין לוֹ נֶפֶשׁ עַל קִבְרוֹ:

The surplus of shekalim is chullin. [If one puts away money, saying: "This is for my shekel," and then, when he counts it, finds he has a surplus, that surplus is chullin. This anonymous Mishnah is as per Beth Hillel.] The surplus of the tenth of an ephah, the birds of zavin, the birds of zavoth, the birds of yoldoth, sin-offerings and guilt-offerings (the surplus is) a gift (to hekdesh). [("the tenth of an ephah,") which is offered (in a state of) abject poverty. If money was laid aside for this, and there was a surplus, that surplus is a gift. For all surpluses of sin-offerings and guilt-offerings are gifts towards the acquisition of "summer burnt-offerings" for the altar, as per the medrash of Yehoyada Hakohen (6:6); and the tenth of the ephah is in place of a sin-offering.] This is the rule: The surplus of all that comes as a sin-offering or as a guilt-offering is a gift (for burnt-offerings). The surplus of a burnt-offering is a burnt-offering. [If he set aside money with which to buy a burnt-offering and there was a surplus, he purchases another burnt-offering with it.] The surplus of a meal-offering is a meal-offering. The surplus of a peace-offering is a peace-offering. The surplus of a Pesach is a peace-offering, [it being written (Deuteronomy 16:2): "And you shall sacrifice a Pesach to the L rd your G d, sheep and cattle." Now does the Pesach come from cattle? The meaning, then, is that the surplus of the Pesach is for what comes from sheep and cattle, namely, peace-offerings.] The surplus of Nazirites is for Nazirites. [If they collected money for Nazirite offerings and there was a surplus, the moneys are kept for the acquisition of offerings for other Nazirites. The surplus of a Nazirite is a gift. [If an individual Nazirite laid aside money for his offerings and there was a surplus, the surplus is a gift for summer burnt-offerings for the altar.] The surplus of (monies collected for) the poor is for the poor. The surplus of a poor man is for that poor man. [If they collected money to buy him clothing and there was a surplus, that surplus is given him.] The surplus of captives is for captives. The surplus of a captive is for that captive. [If they collected charity for the redemption of captives and there was a surplus, it is kept for the redemption of other captives. But if the monies were expressly given for a particular captive, the surplus goes to that captive.] The surplus of the dead is for the dead. [If they collected for the burial of the dead, in general, the surplus goes towards the burial of others.] The surplus of a (particular) dead man is for his heirs, [the assumption being that one waives his "cheapening" after death in favor of his heirs.] R. Meir says: The surplus of a (particular) dead man is to be put aside until Eliyahu comes. [R. Meir is in doubt as to whether or not he waives his "cheapening" in favor of his heirs, for which reason it is put aside until the advent of Eliyahu.] R. Nathan says: The surplus of a (particular) dead man is used for building a monument over his grave. [It is obvious to R. Nathan that he does not waive his "cheapening," for which reason a monument is built over his grave with the surplus, which had already reverted to him. The halachah is in accordance with the first tanna. In an instance where they collected for the (burial) requirements of a particular dead person, thinking he was without means, and then they discovered that this was not the case, we do not say that the surplus goes to the heirs, since the collection was in error. This is borne out in the Yerushalmi. And it also follows from the Yerushalmi and from our gemara that where there are seven city caretakers or where there is one, in charge of all community affairs, he may allocate the surplus of captives or of the poor or of the dead as he sees dictated by the exigencies of the time and he is not to be interfered with. And this is always the ruling in practice.]