ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafShekalim 6
SHEKALIM 6-8 (1-3 Teves) - the Dafyomi study for the last days of Chanukah
and 3 Teves has been dedicated to the memory of Hagaon Rav Yisrael Zev
Gustman ZaTZaL (author of "Kuntresei Shiurim") and his wife (on her
Yahrzeit), by a student who merited to study under him.
(a) According to Beis Shamai, if someone said 'Eilu le'Shikli' on money that
he was setting aside for his Half-Shekel, Perutah by Perutah, all excess
money would go into the Nedavah-boxes in the Beis-Hamikdash marked
accordingly. The proceeds of these boxes were used to purchase Olos, which
were brought as voluntary public burnt-offerings whenever the Mizbei'ach was
not in use (particularly in the long summer-days - hence the name). Beis
Shamai follow their reasoning elsewhere, that Hekdesh that is declared in
error is considered Hekdesh.
(b) Beis Hillel holds that the excess money remains in the domain of the
owner (because, in their opinion, Hekdesh that is declared in error is
(d) If he said 'she'Avi Meihen Chatasi' - the excess money is Chulin.
- ...Beis Shamai will agree that the money remains Chulin - if he said 'she'Avi Meihen Shikli'.
- ... Beis Hillel will agree that the money goes to Nedavah - if he said 'Eilu le'Chatasi'.
(a) Rebbi Shimon explains Beis Hillel's distinction between 'Eilu le'Shikli'
(in 1b.) and 'Eilu le'Chatasi' (1c. 2.) - inasmuch as the half-Shekel is
fixed (so he definitely intended to give only a half-Shekel, and no more;
whereas by a Chatas which has no fixed price, the Kedushah becomes effective
on *all* the money, and Mosar Chatas goes to Nedavah (as we shall see in
(b) Rebbi Yehudah proves from the various occasions when they changed the
amount to Darchonos, Sela'im and Teva'im - that the Shekel is not fixed.
(c) Chazal did not permit changing to a Dinar - because it is only permitted
to *add* to the Chatzi-Shekel (which is the equivalent of two Dinrim), but
not to *subtract* from it.
- ... a Darchon - is a golden Sela worth one and a half ordinary Sela'im.
- ... a Teva - is half a Sela.
(d) Rebbi Shimon counters Rebbi Yehudah's argument by pointing out that
although they were permitted to change the amount of the half-Shekel, that
was only if everyone did so, but as far as the community is concerned, they
all gave the same amount.
(a) According to Rebbi Chiya and Rebbi Bibi, what Rebbi Elazar really said
was that if one were to say on a pile of money 'Eilu le'Shikli', then even
Beis Shamai will agree that the money goes to Chulin.
(b) Rebbi Yossi establishes Rebbi Shimon in our Mishnah - by someone who is
collecting his half-Shekel Perutah by Perutah, according to Beis Hillel.
(a) If someone designates a half-Shekel on the understanding that he is
Chayav, and it turns out that he is Patur, the half-Shekel is not Kodesh.
(b) The Beraisa says that if someone designates two Chata'os, thinking that
he is Chayav *two*, and it then transpires that he is in fact, only Chayav
*one*, the second Chatas must be sent to graze until it receives a blemish,
when it is brought as a Nedavah. Exactly the same will apply to someone who
designates two half-Shekalim thinking that he is Chayav *two*, but it turns
out that he is only Chayav *one* - the second half-Shekel will go to
(c) The Gemara concludes that this case should be no different than someone
who says on a pile of money 'Eilu le'Shikli', where, according to Beis
Hillel, the Mosar is Chulin (and according to Rebbi Bibi, even Beis Shamai
will agree here).
(a) We learn from the Pasuk in Nechemyah "*ve'He'emadnu* Aleinu Mitzvos
Lases Shelishis ha'Shekel ba'Shanah la'Avodas Beis Elokeinu" - that if the
half-Shekel (i.e. any coin that is half of a larger one - of that currency)
- weighs less than the half-Shekel of the Torah (e.g. a modern half-Shekel
which weighs less than the original half-Shekel that they gave in the
desert, one is not permitted to give it in lieu of a half-Shekel, but must
rather give a coin that is for example, a third of that currency - which
*does* amount to the equivalent or more of the original half-Shekel of the Torah. That is why *they* gave a third of a Shekel (which was equivalent to
half a Shekel of the time of the Beis Hamikdash.
(b) The Lashon "Shelishis ha'Shekel" used by Nechemyah is a hint that one
should give at least *one Shekel* annually, though one may divide it into
three donations (as opposed to those who maintain in the first chapter of
Bava Basra, that the minimum amount of Tzedakah that one needs to give each
year is a *third of a Shekel*.
(c) Chazal derive from here - that when it comes to donating for communal
requirements, one should not trouble the community to give more than three
(d) Each of the three boxes contained three Sa'ah. The source for all these
threes is the above-mentioned Pasuk "Lases Shelishis ha'Shekel ba'Shanah '
(a) Some say that the reason for the *half*-Shekel was because of the sin of
the Golden Calf which took place at *mid-day*; whereas according to others,
the half-Shekel (consisting of *six* Geramsin - a small coin in the days of
Moshe) was to atone for the sin of the Golden-Calf which took place after
(b) Nor is it a coincidence that a Shekel equals twenty Geirah - because, in
that case, half a Shekel equals ten Geirah, corresponding to the ten
commandments which they nullified when they served the Golden Calf.
(c) Every first-born must be redeemed for twenty Dinrim - because that is
how much the brothers received for selling Yosef, Rachel's first-born son.
(d) Bearing in mind that Binyamin and Reuven were not present at the sale,
and seeing that the brothers sold Yosef for *twenty* Dinrim, each of the ten
remaining sons will have received *two* Dinrim - Yosef is also counted in
the sale, since it was *he* who was responsible for the sale - by speaking
Rechilus about his brothers to his father).
(a) If someone says, concerning a handful of money 'Eilu le'Shikli' - then
whatever is more than half a Shekel remains Chulin (like Beis Hillel).
(b) Mosar Kinei Zavin ve'Zavos, ve'Yoldos, Chata'os and Ashamos, all go to
Nedavah - because Mosar Chatas or Asham goes to Nedavah.
(d) Mosar Nezirim (the left-overs from money that was collected for the
Korbanos of Nezirim) must be used for Nezirim, whereas Mosar Nazir (the
left-overs from money that was collected for the Korbanos of a specific
Nazir - where that is not possible) goes to Nedavah.
- ... Mosar Olah - goes for an Olah.
- ... Mosar Minchah - for a Minchah.
- ... Mosar Shelamim - for a Shelamim.
- ... Mosar ha'Pesach - for a Shelamim.
(a) When Rav Yehudah asked Shmuel what happened to the half-Shekel of
someone who designated his coin and then died - he answered that the money
goes to Nedavah.
(b) Rebbi Yochanan says that the Mosar Asiris ha'Eifah of the Kohen Gadol
must be thrown into the Reed Sea (so that it should not come to abuse).
(c) Rebbi Yochanan establishes the Beraisa, 'Mosar Asiris ha'Eifah ...
Mosran Nedavah' - by the Minchas Chotei of a very poor man, which was also a
tenth of an Eifah (and not of a Kohen Gadol).
(d) The basic difference between the Minchas Chavitin and the Minchas Chotei
in this regard - is that, whereas the latter, which comes to replace a
Chatas, *is* itself considered a Chatas (and Mosar Chatas li'Nedavah), the
former is *not*.
(a) Aba bar Ba was Shmuel's father.
(b) The Pasuk "ve'Im min ha'Tzon Korbano le'Zevach Korbano"cannot be
speaking about ...
1. ... a Pesach in its time - because we learned above that a Pesach in its
time cannot be brought as a Shelamim.
(c) *"min* ha'Tzon" - implies a type of Korban that can be brought from all
kinds of 'Tzon' (i.e. sheep or goats).
2. ... a Mosar Olah - since an Olah can also be brought from cattle, and the
Torah writes here "min ha'*Tzon*", implying a type of Korban that can only
be brought from the flock.
3. ... a Mosar Asham - which is restricted to rams (the sheep family), but
not to goats, whereas the Pesach can be brought from either.
(d) In spite of the Pasuk "ve'Im min ha'Tzon Korbano, min *ha'Kevasim ...
le'Olah*" - it is more logical to say that Mosar Pesach should be brought as
a *Shelamim* - because firstly, a Shelamim, like a Pesach, is eaten, and
secondly, they are both Kodshim Kalim (unlike an Olah, which is Kodshei
Kodshim and cannot be eaten).
(a) But how can we learn from *"min* ha'Tzon" - a kind of Korban which can
be brought both from the sheep and from the goats, when the word "Min"
always comes to *exclude*, not to *include*?
(b) In fact, the Gemara concludes, from "Min" we preclude a female animal or
a male that is more than one year from being brought as a Korban Pesach.
(a) Rebbi Yochanan learns from the extra word "le'Zevach" in the Pasuk "Im
min ha'Tzon Korbano le'Zevach Shelamim" - that whichever Korban he has in
mind when he Shechts the Mosar Pesach, it becomes a Shelamim.
(b) The Gemara initially thinks that the Sha'leh (whether, if the Kohen
Shechted the Mosar ha'Pesach with a Machsheves Pesul of an Olah, it will be
Pasul even as a Shelamim) cannot be with regard to someone who Shechted it
as an Olah, having in mind to sprinkle its blood tomorrow - because even if
he would have had such a thought by the Shelamim itself, it would have been
Pasul, so how can it possibly be Kasher?
(c) If the Machsheves Pigul renders it an Olah, then the Shelamim is Pasul,
and the stringent Din of Pigul does not take effect (since Pigul is only
effective when the Korban is otherwise Kasher); whereas if the Machshavah of
Olah is *not* effective, then that of Pigul, *is*.
(a) A Pesach during the rest of the year is Pasul if it is Shechted Lishmo,
and Kasher, she'Lo Lishmo (See Tiklin Chadtin). Therefore, the Gemara wants
to know what the Din will be if he expressed both thoughts with regard to
the same Mossar ha'Pesach.
(b) The Gemara replies that, since he had two contradictory thoughts, they
cancel each other, and it is as if he Shechted S'tam, it which case, the
Korban is automatically a Shelamim (since the Gemara currently holds that a
Pesach does not require an Akirah - to be Shechted *specifically* as a
(c) According to this, there is no reason why, if one Shechted a Mosar
Pesach Lishmo in order to sprinkle the blood the following day, it should be
Pasul - because there too, the two thoughts will cancel each other.
(d) The Gemara retracts from its original answer because: who says that its
initial presumption - that a Pesach does *not* require an Akirah - to be
Shechted *specifically* as a Shelamim, is correct? - Perhaps it *does*, in
which case, we will say exactly the opposite: that the two thoughts cancel
each other, rendering the Korban Pasul.