R. Shimon a dit: Quelle est la différence entre shekalim et un sacrifice pour le péché? [Pourquoi Beth Hillel dit-elle que si l'on met de l'argent de côté en disant: "Ceci est pour mon shekel", le surplus est chullin, alors que s'il dit: "Ceci est pour mon offrande pour le péché", ils concèdent à Beth Shammai que cela est un don (à hekdesh)?] Les Shekalim ont un montant fixe, [il est écrit (Exode 30:15): "Les riches ne donneront pas plus et les pauvres ne donneront pas moins." Par conséquent, il doit avoir voulu seulement un sicle, et le reste est «hekdesh par erreur»], mais une offrande pour le péché n'a pas de montant fixe. [S'il le souhaite, il peut apporter une offrande pour le péché pour une ma'ah d'argent, et s'il le souhaite, il peut en apporter un pour une grosse somme. Par conséquent, l'argent «prend», et le surplus est un cadeau.] R. Yehudah dit: Même les shekalim n'ont pas de montant fixe! Quand Israël sortait de l'exil, ils donnaient darkonoth comme shekel. [Le darkon était une pièce du royaume méditerranéen. C'était en or et valait deux selaim et c'était la pièce de monnaie standard du commerce. Et tout comme au temps du premier Temple, quand leur pièce était un sicle, ils donnaient un demi-sicle; maintenant aussi, quand c'était un darkon, ils donnaient un demi-darkon.] Puis ils revenaient à selaim. [Après le règne de la Méditerranée, le darkon a été annulé et ils sont retournés au commerce avec selaim, leur monnaie d'origine frappée au moment du premier Temple, et ils ont donné un demi-sicle comme au début.] Puis ils sont revenus au tevain. [La monnaie standard est devenue le tevain, c'est-à-dire un demi-shekel.] Ils voulaient donner des dinars [c'est-à-dire qu'ils voulaient donner la moitié de cette pièce, un dinar, (le sela étant deux dinars); mais cela n'a pas été accepté de leur part. Car il est permis d'ajouter au sicle de l'Écriture en fonction de la différence de la monnaie frappée à l'époque, mais pas de l'enlever. Nous voyons donc que les shekalim, eux aussi, n'ont pas de montant fixe, étant parfois plus, parfois moins, leur donnant toujours le demi-sicle de cette époque.] R. Shimon a répondu: Malgré cela, chacun a donné également [c'est-à-dire, Shekalim ne peut toujours pas être comparé à une offrande pour le péché. Car en tout temps, le demi-shekel était égal pour tous—chacun a donné le demi-sicle de ce temps.] Mais (le montant pour) l'offrande pour le péché [n'est jamais égal pour tous:] Celui-ci apporte (un sacrifice pour le péché) pour un sela; celui-là, pour deux (selaim) et celui-là, pour trois. [Et ici, nous concluons que la justification de Beth Hillel est celle de R. Shimon.]
Bartenura on Mishnah Shekalim
מה בין שקלים לחטאת – what is the difference that regarding Shekalim when one collects/gathers monies and says, “these are for my [half-]Shekel, that the School of Hillel states that the excess is non-holy and that regarding Sin-offerings, that they agree with the School of Shammai that the excess is a free-will offering?
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Shekalim
Introduction
This mishnah explains the difference between shekels and a sin-offering such that Bet Hillel holds that the surplus of coins set aside for a sin-offering are sacred whereas the surplus of coins set aside for a shekel are not.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Shekalim
שקלים יש להן קצבה – as it is written (Exodus 30:15): “the rich shall not pay more and the poor shall not pay less,” therefore, he definitely did not intend other than the [half-]shekel, and the excess is an errant dedication to the Temple, but the sin-offering has no limit. If he wants, he should bring a sin-offering of silver M’ah, and if he desires, he can bring greater sums. Therefore, the monies are seized but the excess is a donation.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Shekalim
Rabbi Shimon says: what is the difference between shekels and a sin-offering? Shekels have a fixed value, but a sin-offering has no fixed value. Shekels have a fixed value. Hence one who says, “These coins are for my shekel” intends to make sacred only the value of a shekel. On the other hand, a sin-offering has no fixed value and therefore, one who says, “These coins are for a sin-offering” may have intended for all of the coins to be sacred, even the surplus.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Shekalim
היו שוקלים דרכונות – coinage of the Persian kingdom that came up with them from the Diaspora and it was of gold. It was worth two Selaim, and people were accustomed to do business with that coin, and like the time of the First Temple when their coin was the Shekel, they would give the one-half Shekel. So, now, when their coin was a Darkon/daric, they would give one-half daric.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Shekalim
Rabbi Judah says: shekels also have no fixed value. For when the Israelites came up out of the diaspora they used to pay the shekel in darics, then they paid the shekel in selas, then they paid it in tibs, and finally they wanted to pay it in dinars. Rabbi Judah says that the shekel also doesn’t have a fixed value. When the people of Israel first returned from the Babylonian exile they brought coins called “darics” (see above, mishnah one). A daric is a Persian coin worth four shekels. They then began to bring selas, which are worth two shekels. They then began to bring tibs, which are worth a shekel, which is equivalent to the half-shekel of the Torah. Finally, the people wanted to pay in dinars. According to the Talmud, the rabbis did not let them pay in dinars because this is less than the mandated half-shekel of the Torah. It seems like we have in this mishnah a record of different coins that were in use in different periods. According to one commentary, in each period they would give half of the coin that was commonly used. In any case, since the value of the shekel changed over time, Rabbi Judah says that the shekel too has no fixed value.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Shekalim
חזרו לשקול סלעים – after the Kingdom of Persia passed on, the coinage of the daric was cancelled, they returned to do business with Selaim which was their first coinage that was in usage at the time of the First Temple and they gave one-half shekel as at the first.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Shekalim
But Rabbi Shimon said: nevertheless they are all of the same value for everyone, whereas [in the case of] a sin-offering one man may bring it of the value of one sela, another may bring it of the value of two selas, and another in the value of three selas. Rabbi Shimon responds that when he said that the shekel has a fixed value he meant that at any given time everyone brings the same value, and not that that value could not change over time. If people were bringing darics, everyone brought the same daric. In contrast, people can bring animals worth different amounts as sin-offerings. This explains Bet Hillel in the previous mishnah.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Shekalim
חזרו לשקול טבעין – the coin in usage returned to be the Tevaim which is the one-half shekel that they desired to give was one-half of that coinage, that is one Dinar. For a Selah is four dinars and they did not accept it from them for they had to supplement to the Shekel of the Torah because they changed the going currency at that time but not to decrease from it. Therefore, we see that the Shekel also had no definite limit for sometimes the Shekels were large and at other times, the Shekels were small, for they would not give ever other than one-half shekel according to the currency in vogue at the time.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Shekalim
אעפ"כ יד כולן שוה – that is to say, that still the Shekalim are not similar to the sin-offerings, for in each and every time period, the one-half Shekel was equivalent for all. This [person] would donate according to that [person] – each individual one-half Shekel according to the going rate of that time period. But sin-offerings are not equivalent ever, for this one brings a Selah and the other brings two or three Selaim, and in this, the rationale of the School of Hillel agrees with that of the School of Shammai.
