ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafShekalim 4
(a) Kalbon is the little bit extra that everyone had to add (according to
some Tana'im - as will be clarified later) when giving their half-Shekel.
Kohanim, women, slaves and children were exempt from Kalbon.
(b) If someone who was Patur from paying Kalbon, borrowed from someone who
was Chayav, he did not need to pay Kalbon (Note: Had the latter paid
directly to the treasurer of Hekdesh, he would have been Patur even if he
had done so on behalf of someone who would have been *Chayav*.
(c) According to the Tana Kama, someone who paid one Shekel on behalf of
himself and his friend (in the form of a loan) is obligated to pay only
*one* Kalbon, because he gave a whole Shekel (but someone who gave a half-
Shekel, according to this Tana, does not need to give a Kalbon).
(d) Rebbi Meir holds that any Bar Chiyuva who pays his half-Shekel, is
obligated to pay Kalbon. Consequently, if he pays a whole Shekel on behalf
of himself and his friend, he must pay *two* Kalbonos.
(a) The Reisha of the Mishnah, which states that we claim the half-Shekel
from a Katan, speaks about one who is over thirteen and who has grown two
hairs, whereas the Seifa, which exempts him completely, speaks when he has
(b) We learn from "Daber el *B'nei Yisrael* ve'Yikchu Li Terumah" - that
even though gentiles are permitted to donate *voluntary* sacrifices,
*obligatory* ones are confined to B'nei Yisrael.
(c) The author of our Mishnah, replies Rebbi Elazar, could well be Raban
Shimon ben Gamliel, who considers Kutim, Jews (albeit poor ones). It is only
*gentiles* that the Tana of our Mishnah exempts, not *Kutim*.
(d) We see from the Beraisa ("Adam" - 'Lerabos es ha'Geirim; "Mikem" -
'Lema'et es ha'Mumarin') that although we preclude Mumarin (*Jewish*
apostates) from bringing Korbanos, we do not
preclude converts (e.g. Kutim, even if they are apostates).
(a) How can we possibly establish the Seifa of the Mishnah by gentiles -
when gentiles are not subject to Zivus in the first place?
(b) The Gemara concludes that it is perfectly acceptable to establish the
Reisha by gentiles and the Seifa by Kutim.
(c) Rebbi Yochanan explains that with regard to the initial building of the
Beis Hamikdash, one accepts nothing from the Kutim. Once it is built
however, and it is only a matter of maintenance (known as Bedek ha'Bayis),
they may donate things that cannot be pinpointed (such as water and salt) -
according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel (The reason for this is because a. it
is degrading to be able to point out that such and such was donated by a
Kuti, and b. because we suspect that he is only donating it in order to
(d) According to Rebbi Yochanan, the Beraisa: 'Ein Mekablin Meihen Hekdesh
u'Nedavah le'Bedek ha'Bayis' - speaks about donating something specific,
even if it only for the maintenance of the Beis Hamikdash.
(a) According to Resh Lakish, who maintains that one may not even accept
something that is *not* specific, the Reisha of our Mishnah includes Kutim,
and the author is Rebbi, who considers Kutim like gentiles.
(b) Resh Lakish will establish the Mishnah in Erchin ('ha'Kol Shavin
she'Hein [Nochrim] Nodrin [ve'Nidarin])' by Olos, but not by Bedek ha'Bayis
(It is unclear why the Gemara asks specifically on Resh Lakish, and not on
Rebbi Yochanan, who agrees that a gentile cannot donate anything to Bedek
ha'Bayis? Nor is it clear why, from now on, the Gemara appears to assume
that gentiles too, have the same Din that, until now, we ascribed to Kutim
(c) Resh Lakish interprets 'Nidarin' with reference to a gentile who
overheard a Jew making a Neder to bring an Olah, and he said that he would
do the same. (Note: there would have been no problem in the first place had
the Beraisa been speaking about Bedek ha'Bayis, because then we could have
explained Nidarin to mean that a Jew made a Neder to give the value of a gentile to Bedek ha'Bayis.)
(d) The Kashya remains on Resh Lakish however, from the fact that every
Neder and Nedavah requires Nesachim - and 'Mosar Nesachim li'K'lei Shares'
(which is Bedek ha'Bayis)?
(a) The above Kashya (that every Neder and Nedavah requires Nesachim - which
goes towards purchasing K'lei Shares) is just as much a Kashya on Rebbi
Yochanan as it is on Resh Lakish - because K'lei Shares are specific, and we
just learned that even according to Rebbi Yochanan, we do not accept from
gentiles (Kutim?) something specific.
(b) The Mishnah in Erchin says: 'Ne'erachin ve'Orchin' - which also goes to
Bedek ha'Bayis. What does Rebbi Yochanan do with that?
(c) We must therefore say that since he is donating with a full heart (not
directly to Bedek ha'Bayis *directly* - we cannot suspect him of donating in
order to brag), the fact that we take the money and use it for Bedek
ha'Bayis doesn't matter. Similarly, according to Resh Lakish, the gentile
brings his Olah together with his drink-offering. The fact that Mosar
Nesachim later goes to Bedek ha'Bayis, doesn't matter.
(a) Resh Lakish confines the Pasuk in Ezra "Lo Lachem ve'Lanu Livnos es Beis
Elokeinu" (implying that one may accept nothing at all from gentiles) to the
actual construction of the Beis Hamikdash itself, but not to Bedek ha'Bayis,
where one may accept from them indirectly, as we just explained.
(b) The maintenance of the walls of Yerushalayim (etc.) has the same Din as
the construction of the Beis Hamikdash, from which gentiles are completely
(a) 've'Eilu Chayavin be'Kalbon' implies that whoever is Chayav Machtzis
ha'Shekel is also Chayav to pay Kalbon - that is the opinion of Rebbi Meir.
(b) "Zeh Yitnu" - 'ka'Zeh Yitnu', says Rebbi Meir, just as pure as the half-
Shekel made of fire that Hashem showed Moshe. To ensure that one gives a
full half-Shekel of silver (devoid of impurities) one needs therefore to
give a little more than half a Shekel.
(a) According to Rebbi Elazar, the author of our Mishnah: 'ha'Nosen Sela
ve'Notel Shekel, Chayav Sh'tei Kalbonos' is Rebbi Meir - since it is Rebbi
Meir who holds that whenever one pays one's half-Shekel, he is Chayav to
add Kalbon, and, in addition, he has to pay the Kalbon that, even according
to the Rabbanan, he must pay whenever he receives change.
(b) According to Rav, even the Rabbanan will agree that, in *this* case, one
gives two Kalbonos - one for giving Hekdesh a Sela instead of a Shekel
(thereby forcing Hakdesh to make a transaction), and the other, for changing
money through the auspices of Hekdesh (just like one would have to pay one
Kalbon to a money-changer for either of these two services).
(c) Rebbi Meir holds that, in this case, he would have to pay three
Kalbonos, the two under discussion plus the one that we learn from "Zeh
(a) If a father dies and leaves his sons animals - they are Chayav to be
Ma'asered and Patur from Kalbon (like a father who pays for his sons).
(b) They become Patur from Ma'aser Beheimah when they divide the property
and then go into partnership (because partners are Patur from Ma'aser
Beheimah (but Chayav Kalbon).
(c) Rebbi Elazar confines this to when they divide kids against goats
(because then they become purchasers, and when they later go into
partnership, it is like a new transaction); whereas when they divide kids
against kids and goats against goats - they retain the Din of heirs (because
he holds 'Yesh Bereirah'). Consequently, when they subsequently go into
partnership, they revert to the original state - known as Tefusas ha'Bayis
(in which case, they are once again Chayav Ma'aser and Patur from Kalbon).
(d) Rebbi Yochanan establishes the Petur from Ma'aser even if they divide
kids against kids and goats against goats - because he holds that brothers
who divide their inheritance, have the Din of buyers and not heirs (since he
holds 'Ein Bereirah'), and a buyer is Patur from Ma'ser (but Chayav Kalbon).