פירוש על שקלים 2:6

מצרפין שקלים לדרכונות – the people of the city that gathered together their Shekels can exchange them for Darics (i.e., a Persian gold coin) and this is a gold coin as it is written in Ezra (2:69): “[In accord with their means, they donated to the treasury of the work:] gold-6,100 drachmas, [silver -5,000 minas, and priestly robes – 100],” to ease from upon them the burden/weight of the way.

Introduction This mishnah contains several laws about the journey that the shekalim will make from the provinces from where they are collected to the Temple in Jerusalem.

שופרות – chests whose openings from the top were narrow like a Shofar whose top is narrow from the top and continues to widen in order that people would not be able to take from them anything, as it is written regarding Jehoiada (II Chronicles 24:8): “[The king (Jehoash) ordered that] a chest be made and placed [outside of the gate of the House of the LORD],” (II Kings 12:10): “[And the priest Jehoiada took a chest] and bored a hole in its lid….” They were standing in the Temple courtyard, and everyone was bringing his Shekel and giving it.

They may change shekels into darics because of the load of the journey. If people don’t want to shlepp their individual shekels all the way to the Temple, they may pool them together and turn them into larger coins called “darics.” “Darics” are mentioned in Ezra 8:27 and I Chronicles 1:29.

כך היו במדינה – in Jerusalem, and according to the words of Maimonides, in the rest of the cities of Israel.

Just as there were shofar-shaped chests in the Temple so there were shofar-shaped chests in the provinces. When the shekels were brought to their deposit points, they were put into chests that were shaped like a shofar, wide at the bottom and thin at the top. This was to prevent people from being able to pull coins out (like mailboxes, for those of you who remember when we used to send real letters). Just as they had these types of chests in the Temple, they also had them outside the Temple in the provinces. This made collection much easier.

בני העיר ששלחו שקליהם – by the hand of an agent to bring them to the Temple treasury (for congregational sacrifices).

The townspeople who had sent their shekels and they were stolen or lost: If the appropriation had already been made [the messengers] swear an oath to the treasurers; But if the appropriation had not yet been made they swear to the townspeople, and the townspeople must pay [new] shekels in the place of the [lost] shekels. [If the lost shekels] were found, or if the thieves restored them, then both [the first shekels and their substitutes] are [sacred] shekels and they cannot be credited [to the account] of the coming year. The mishnah now discusses a scenario in which people’s shekels get lost on their way to the Temple. Three times a year the Temple treasurers would count up the shekels that had already been collected and they would start spending them on buying sacrifices (see below 3:1). When reckoning the shekels, they would also count shekels which they knew were on their way from the provinces (called creative accounting). So if the messenger loses the shekels after this appropriation has already been made, the townspeople who sent their money get credit. The messenger then must make an oath to the treasurers that he did not steal the money himself. However, if the money is lost or stolen before the appropriation is made then the townspeople do not get credit and they must send new shekels. In this case, the messenger swears to them that he did not steal the money himself. If the coins are found or if the thieves are found and return the stolen coins, both the new coins and the original coins go to the Temple. The townspeople who twice had to send shekels do not get credit for the following year.

אם נתרמה התרומה – as they were accustomed to donate from the baskets for the needs of the sacrifices, they would donate on what was collected and what would in the future be collected, in order hat there would be a part of a the sacrifices, even for those who had yet not given their Shekels.

נשבעין – the messengers.

לגזברים – to the treasurers, for since the Terumah had been appropriated on these monies, before they were lost, they are made as if they were in the domain of the treasurers from the time that the Terumah had been appropriated, for if they were stolen or lost, they were stolen or lost while in the domain of the treasurers; therefore, the agents swear to the treasurers and they are exempted/dismissed, for even though they don’t take an oath on the sacred property of the Temple, it is a decree of the Sages in order that they not disregard the sacred property of the Temple.

ואם לאו – that at the time when they were lost, the Terumah had not yet been appropriated, and they had not removed the monies from the baskets for what would be collected in the future, it was in the domain of the owners that they were not, therefore, the agents swear to the men of the city and are exempted, and the men of the city go back and collect [for donation] other Shekels in their place, for the first Shekalim that were lost don’t count for them.

הנותן שקלו לחבירו לשקול על יד – for him, and the agent went and paid the Shekel (i.e., half-shekel) on his own behalf.

Introduction This mishnah deals with various scenarios in which a person paid his shekel from money which did not belong to him.

אם נתרמה התרומה – prior to his giving the Shekel to the treasurer.

One who gave his shekel to his fellow to pay it on his behalf, but [his fellow] paid it on behalf of himself: if the appropriation had already been made [his fellow] is guilty of sacrilege. A person received a shekel from his friend to pay his friend’s shekel but then used this money to pay his own shekel. If the shekel had already been counted in the Temple’s appropriation (and an animal purchased with that money and sacrificed, see below), then he is guilty of sacrilege. Sacrilege means that one has misappropriated funds or property which belongs to the Temple. Since this shekel had already been counted as belonging to the Temple and indeed had already been used, his action counts as sacrilege. He must now bring a special sacrifice and restore the value of that which he misappropriated (a shekel) plus another fifth.

מעל – he who paid it (i.e., the Shekel) in on his own behalf, for as soon as the Terumah was appropriated on that which would be collected in the future, that specific Shekel that his fellow gave him to pay on his behalf was [already] in the sacred domain [of the Temple] and when he gave on his behalf, he benefitted from the sacred donations, for if he had not given this Shekel on his behalf, they would have exacted a pledge from him, as is taught in the Mishnah above in the first chapter (Mishnah 3), for from when they sat in the Temple, they began to take pledges and it was found that he benefitted from what belonged to the Temple, and he is liable for a sacrifice of sacrilege.

One who paid his shekel out of money belonging to the sanctuary: If the appropriation had already been made and an animal [bought out of the appropriation] had already been offered, he is guilty of sacrilege. In this case the person had in his possession money which he had previously donated to the Temple. He then tried to use that money to pay his shekel. Again the mishnah teaches that if the appropriation had already been made and if the shekel had been used to buy a sacrifice then he is guilty of sacrilege. We should note that according to the Talmud, in the previous section as well an animal had to have been sacrificed for it to be considered sacrilege.

השוקל שקלו מן ההקדש – the monies that were in his hand which were sanctified for the repair of the House, and when he thought that they were non-holy and donated his Shekel from them, and the Terumah had been appropriated, and they bought an animal with that Terumah and sacrificed it or obligated the person who made his donation a sacrifice of sacrilege but not before, because that which is sanctified [and belongs to the Temple] remains sanctified as it was in every place where he is and did not change. And when the animal was sacrificed, and he intended that it be from money, everyone who gave his Shekel in the Terumah of the Temple treasury is made as if he purchased the animal with those monies of Hekdesh/belonging to the Temple and sacrificed it and benefited because they did not have him take a pledge for his Shekel and he became liable for a sacrifice of sacrilege. But the first part of the Mishnah also as it is taught – when his fellow gave him his Shekel on his behalf and he gave the Shekel for himself that he committed sacrilege, that is, also when the animal was sacrificed after the Terumah had been appropriated, for if it had not been taught in the first part of the Mishnah because it relied upon the concluding part of the Mishnah which explains the sacrilege of both of them. And this is the reason that he doesn’t commit sacrilege immediately, even though he already benefitted, because there is no sacrilege other than removing from that which is sanctified [and belonging to the Temple] to that which is non-holy. But someone who removes [funds] from one sanctified area to [another] sanctified area, even though he benefitted, he does not commit sacrilege other than when something is done with the second sanctified [monies]. And this is proven in the Jerusalem Talmud.

[If he paid his shekel with] money that had been used to redeem the second tithe or the value of seventh year produce, he must eat food equal to its value. Second tithe is usually redeemed with money and then the money is brought to Jerusalem and used there to buy food. If one sells seventh year produce, the proceeds from the sale have the same rules and restrictions that the produce itself has any food which is purchased from this money must be used before seventh year produce must be removed from one’s house (which is when that type of food is no longer found in the field). In the case in this mishnah someone uses this money (second tithe or seventh year produce proceeds) to pay his shekel. What he must now do is take another shekel and use it as if it was second tithe or seventh year produce money. This is sufficient to restore the shekel that he used to pay his shekel tax.

יאכל כנגדן – He must bring a Shekel and state that every place which is Second Tithe or Seventh year produce will be redeemed by this Shekel, for the Seventh year – its additional worth is like that which is dedicated to the Temple and the produce purchased with that Shekel should be eaten in Jerusalem for the sake of Second Tithe or eat them in the holiness of the Seventh year if the produce that was redeemed was seventh year produce.

המכנס מעות – he collects/gathers bit by bit, penny by penny for his [one-half] shekel and states when he began to collect/gather that these are for his [one-half] shekel. But when he comes to consider what he has gathered and found that there was excess to his shekel.

Introduction This mishnah discusses various scenarios in which a person set aside some money to use for his shekel or for another sacrifice and after he counted up the money he had set aside there was a surplus. The question is whether or not the surplus money is sacred and therefore must be used for a free-will offering.

ב"ש אומרים מותרן נדבה – they would fall to the horn-shaped chests in the Temple, that stand to offer with their monies burnt offerings of the summer for the altar. And the School of Shammai, according to the reasoning, hold that whatever is dedicated to the Temple property, in error, is called dedicated to Temple property.

One who gathered some coins and said: “Behold, these are for my shekel.” Bet Shammai say: the surplus [is used to purchase] freewill-offerings. But Bet Hillel say: the surplus is non-sacral property. The person gathered some coins together and declared that he would use them to bring his shekel. It turned out that there was more than a shekel’s worth of coins there. Bet Shammai say that since they had been set aside to give to the Temple, they are sacred and therefore they must be used to purchase free-will offerings. Bet Hillel, on the other hand, hold that the surplus is not sacred because when he collected the money his intention was that only a shekel’s worth of the coins should be given to the Temple.

ובה"א מותרן חולין – for they did not intend this to be sanctified, but only up to their [obligatory one-half] Shekel.

[If he said:] “From them I shall bring my shekel,” they agree that the surplus is non-sacral property. In this case, instead of saying “These are for my shekel” he says “From them I shall bring my shekel”. It is clear that his intention is to use only whatever adds up to a shekel and therefore Bet Shammai agree that the surplus is not sacred.

שאביא מהן שקלי שוין שמותר חולין – for it is like saying explicitly – that if I bring in more than a Shekel, I will bring from them a Shekel and the remainder will be non-holy produce.

[If he said]: “These [coins] are for a sin-offering, they agree that the surplus [goes to the chests of] freewill-offerings. In this case Bet Hillel agree with Bet Shammai that the surplus is sacred. Tomorrow’s mishnah will explain the difference between shekels and sin-offerings such that Bet Hillel agrees in the case of the latter.

אלו לחטאתי – and if he gathered/collected monies and said, “these are for my sin-offering,” the School of Hillel agrees that the remainder is a free-will offering.

[If he said]: “From these I shall bring a sin-offering, they agree that the surplus is non-sacral property. This is the same rule as in section two as long as he says “From these I will bring ….” the surplus is not sacred.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

מותר שקלים חולין – The person who collects/gathers money and says, “these are for my [one-half] Shekel, and when he comes to calculate what he had gathered, he found that there was excess and what was left over was Hullin/non-holy, and the anonymous teaching is according to the School of Hillel.

The surplus of [money set aside for] shekels is non-sacred property.
The surplus of [money set aside for the] tenth of the ephah, and the surplus of [money set aside for] bird-offerings of zavim, for bird-offerings of zavot, for bird-offerings of women after childbirth, and sin-offerings and guilt-offerings, their surplus [is used to purchase] freewill-offerings. This is the general rule: all [money set aside] for a sin-offering or for a guilt-offering, the surplus [is used to purchase] freewill-offerings.
The surplus of [money set aside for] a burnt-offering [must be used] for a burnt-offering.
The surplus of [money set aside for] a meal-offering [must be used] for a meal-offering.
The surplus of [money set aside for] a peace-offering [must be used] for a peace-offering.
The surplus of [money set aside for] a pesach [must be used] for a wellbeing offering.
The surplus of [money set aside for] the offerings of nazirites [must be used] for the offerings of other nazirites. The surplus of [money set aside for] the offerings of a [particular] nazirite [is used to purchase] freewill-offerings.
The surplus of [money raised for] the poor [must be used] for other poor. The surplus of [money raised for] a [particular] poor person [must be given] to that [poor person].
The surplus of [money raised for the ransom of] captives [must be used] for [the ransom of other] captives. The surplus of [money raised for the ransom of] a [particular] captive [must be given] to that captive.
The surplus of [the money raised for the burial of] the dead [must be used] for [the burial of other] dead. The surplus of [the money raised for the burial of] a [particular] dead person [must be given] to his heirs. Rabbi Meir says: the surplus of [money raised for the burial of] a [particular] dead person must be laid aside until Elijah comes. Rabbi Natan says: the surplus of [money raised for the burial of] a [particular] dead person [must be used] for building a monument for him over his grave.
In the previous mishnayot we dealt with the subject of what surplus money is used for. This mishnah discusses surpluses left over from money set aside for various other uses, mostly sacrifices or charity.
Section one: This halakhah is according to Bet Hillel’s opinion in mishnah three.
Section two: The tenth of the ephah (a measure of grain) is the sin-offering of a poor person. The bird-offerings mentioned here are brought by men or women who have had abnormal genital discharge (zavim and zavot, see above 1:5) or by women after childbirth. Money set aside for any of these offerings or for a sin-offering or a guilt-offering must be used to purchase freewill offerings. They can’t be used for other bird-offerings, sin-offerings or guilt-offerings because these can only be purchased for the sake of a specific sin or abnormal discharge. However, the surplus is still sacred because these offerings don’t have a fixed amount (see above mishnah 2).
Sections three-five: In all of these cases the extra money is used to buy another of the same type of sacrifice.
Section six: The extra money which was set aside for a pesah cannot be used as a pesah, because the surplus is only created when the holiday is already over. Rather the surplus is used to buy a wellbeing offering. In Pesahim we saw that the pesah is a type of wellbeing offering (see Pesahim 9:6-7).
Section seven: If charity collectors set aside money to buy nazirite offerings for nazirites who cannot afford to pay their offerings, then the surplus is used to buy other nazirite offerings. However, if the money is set aside for a specific nazirite it cannot be used to buy an offering for a different nazirite. Rather the surplus is used to purchase freewill offerings.
Section eight: Obviously, surplus charity should be used for more charity. However, if there is money set aside for a particular poor person, and there is surplus from that money, it too must go to that poor person. The charity collector may not say to himself, “That poor person doesn’t need all of that money. I’ll give the rest to someone else.” Rather, if the donor directed it to one person, the entire amount must be given to that person.
Section nine: Surplus from money collected to redeem captives is used to redeem other captives. However, if money was collected to redeem a specific captive, the surplus goes directly to that captive.
Section ten: Surplus money collected to bury the dead is used to bury other dead people. However, if the money was collected to bury a specific dead person there are three different opinions as to what to do with it. According to the first opinion, the money goes to the dead person’s inheritors. According to Rabbi Meir, it is forbidden to use it at all it must go untouched until Elijah comes. Finally, Rabbi Natan says it is used to build a tombstone over his grave.

עשירית האיפה – that the poorest of the poor offer, if he separated out money, and there was excess, they go for a free-will donation, for all excess of sin-offerings and guilt-offerings, the excess is a free-will offering, to purchase with them burnt-offering for the altar’s summer time (a time when the alter was unemployed for private offerings, and free-will burnt-offerings had to be supplied form the Temple fund – see Mishnah Shekalim, Chapter 4, Mishnah 4), according to the Midrash of Jehoiada the Priest, and the tenth of an Ephah was in place of a sin-offering.

מותר עולה עולה – if he separated monies to purchase a burnt-offering and there was excess, he should bring that excess for another burnt-offering.

מותר הפסח לשלמים – as it is written (Deuteronomy 16:2): “You shall slaughter the Passover sacrifice for the LORD your God from the flock and the herd,” but the Passover sacrifice comes from the herd, but the excess of the Passover sacrifice should come from the flock and herd, that is peace-offerings.

מותר נזירים – if they collected money for the Nazirite sacrifices and there was excess, they should preserve them until they purchase other Nazirite sacrifices. But if one Nazirite separated monies for his sacrifices, and there was excess, the excess should go as a free-will offering to the altar’s summer offerings.

מותר שבוים – if they collected tzedakah for the redemption of captives, and there was excess remaining, he should preserve them (i.e., the monies) until they redeem other captives, but if they explicitly did so for this captive, that captive takes possession of it.

מותר המתים למתים – if they collected for the needs of merely burying the dead, the excess is for the burial of other dead people, but, for this specific dead person, the excess goes to his inheritors, for the dead they forgive as it is a disgrace for his inheritors.

יהא מונח עד שיבא אליהו – he is doubtful if the dead pardons his disgrace to his inheritors or not. Therefore, it should like until Elijah comes.

בונים לו נפש על קברו – it is obvious to Rabbi Natan that he does not pardon. Therefore, we build for him a tombstone on his grave from that same excess that the dead person gained. But the Halakha is according to the first Teacher [of the Mishnah] and where they collect for the needs of the burial of the dead because they would think that he didn’t have [funds] and it was found that he did have [funds], we don’t say that in this case, the excess of the dead person goes to his inheritors, since the collection was done in error, and this is proved in the Jerusalem Talmud. And furthermore, it is proven in the Jerusalem Talmud and in our Gemara [i.e., the Babylonian Talmud) (Tractate Megillah 27a) that where there are seven representatives of the town or a town organization where all the business of the community is decided by his mouth, and it appears in his eyes to change [what is done with] the excess of [monies for] captives or the excess of [monies for] the poor or the excess of [monies for] the dead to what appears in his eyes he can change and remove what appears in his eyes for the needs of the hour and they cannot stop him from doing so. And similarly, we always teach practical Halakha.