Shekalim 2b — the Talmud in English

He said to him:

That is not as you said. You said that there is a special time for each place to contribute its shekels to the Chamber.

Rather,

it all comes at one time.

The time for all of them is the first of Nisan.

For immediately, at the beginning of the month of Nisan, the offerings must belong to all Israel, so that everyone will attain atonement through them.

And

why did they say, “At three times

the Chamber is collected,” rather than collecting it all at once, since the time for all of them is the same?

The reason is

to publicize

[to make the matter known]

the matter.

For at these three times all Israel gathered to make the pilgrimage, and then they collected the money, to inform everyone that every Israelite has a share in all the communal offerings brought each day.

Rabbi Yehuda bar Pazi in the name of Rabbi

said:

How

[can we]

read

the verses that will be cited below

without being shaken

[horrified]? For if we compare the conduct of the people of Israel mentioned in these verses—their good conduct with their bad conduct—we will learn how great the power of the evil inclination is.

1. For when the Israelites volunteered

for good,

for the construction of the Tabernacle, it is written [Exodus 35:22]: “The men came together with the women;

every generous-hearted person

brought.”

Thus, it was the generous-hearted who brought a donation for the Tabernacle of God, and not the entire people.

But when they volunteered

for evil,

for the purpose of making the calf, it is written [Exodus 32:3]:

“And all the people

removed the gold rings that were in their ears and brought them to Aaron.” Even those who were not generous-hearted brought their rings for the making of the calf.

2. We find another difference between the Israelites’ going out for good and their going out for evil.

When they went out

for good,

to receive the Torah, it is written

“Moses brought the people out,”

for they did not go out on their own to receive the Torah; Moses had to bring them out.

But when they went out

for evil,

in the sin of the spies, it is written

“You all drew near to me,”

for they drew near on their own.

3. Likewise,

for good

it is written:

“Then Moses and the Israelites sang.”

Only because Moses began to sing were the Israelites also inspired and joined in the song.

But

for evil,

when the spies arrived, it is written

“The entire assembly

raised its voice, and the people wept that night”—they raised their voices in weeping on their own, without anyone arousing them to do so.

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said:

The prophet Zephaniah had already rebuked the Israelites for this differing conduct in matters of good and evil.

As it is written [Zephaniah 3:7]:

“Indeed, they rose early and corrupted

all their deeds.” He rebuked them because

every act of corruption that they committed

they committed early in the morning.

As it is written concerning the calf: “They rose early the next day.” But concerning the donation for the Tabernacle it is written: “They brought him an additional donation, morning by morning,” and not literally at daybreak.

Rabbi Abba bar Aha said: You cannot understand the character

[their nature and conduct]

of this nation.

Whenever they are called upon to give money, they give it, whether for good or for evil.

They are called upon for the calf, and they give. They are called upon for the Tabernacle, and they give.

Rabbi Hiyya bar Yosef taught this beraita

[Rabbi Hiyya bar Yosef taught the following beraita], which disagrees with Rabbi Abba, who says that their giving for the Tabernacle resulted from their general nature and practice of giving to anyone who asks them, whether for good or for evil.

Rather, they did so knowingly, in order to atone for the sin of the calf.

As it was taught in a beraita: It is written

“You shall make a cover of pure gold”—

let the gold of the cover come and atone for the gold of the calf.

Likewise, everything they gave for the Tabernacle was given to atone for the sin of the calf.

Rabbi Haggai in the name of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel

said:

Three “donations” are mentioned in this passage,

“And they shall take for Me a donation.”

Since the word “donation” is written three times, we learn that they were commanded regarding three types of donations. They are: 1.

The donation for the socket-bases—

this was the donation of a half-shekel per person, from which the socket-bases of the Tabernacle were made, as explained in the passage of Pekudei [39:26–27].

2.

The donation of shekels—

the donation used for bringing the offerings.

3.

The donation for the Tabernacle—

the donation that each person gave voluntarily for the construction of the Tabernacle and its vessels.

The Gemara explains how these three donations are learned from the verses:

1.

“Speak to the Israelites, and they shall take for Me a donation”—

this is the donation for the socket-bases.

2.

“From every person whose heart moves him you shall take My donation”—

this is the donation of shekels.

For the other two donations are stated simply with the word “donation,” whereas here it says “My donation.” We may infer from this wording that it refers to the donation of the half-shekel, since with these shekels they purchased offerings for the sake of Heaven.

3.

“And this is the donation that you shall take from them:

gold, silver, copper, and blue wool and purple wool”—

this is the donation for the Tabernacle.

For all these materials were needed only for the construction of the Tabernacle.

Since the latter two donations must be the donation of shekels and the donation for the Tabernacle, we know that the first “donation,” written in the verse “And they shall take for Me a donation,” is the donation for the socket-bases.

The Gemara now explains the laws of these donations:

1.

The donation for the Tabernacle,

intended

for

the construction of the

Tabernacle—

whatever

the donors wish

they may bring.

2.

The donation of shekels,

intended

for

the needs of a

communal offering

—

whatever

the community wishes

they shall do.

They would take from these shekels for whatever communal offering was needed. Likewise, the inspectors who examined animals for disqualifying defects would receive their wages from this money.

But

with this donation,

everyone has an equal share

[according to the version of the Vilna Gaon]:

the wealthy may not contribute more, and the poor may not contribute less than a half-shekel.

This differs from the donation for the Tabernacle, in which each person brought according to the generosity of his heart.

3.

The donation for the socket-bases—

it goes only

to the socket-bases.

Here too everyone has an equal share:

the wealthy may not contribute more, and the poor may not contribute less

than a half-shekel.

Rabbi Avin said: Also in this passage,

the passage about the shekels mentioned in the passage of Ki Tisa,

there are mentioned

by implication

three donations,

the ones mentioned in the passage of Teruma. For it is written there: 1.

“A half-shekel, a donation to God.”

2. “Everyone who passes among those counted”

“shall give the donation of God.”

3.

“To give the donation of God.”

We learned in our Mishna:

“On the fifteenth of it”

[of Adar]

“they read the Scroll in the walled cities.”

[The Gemara’s discussion here is explained according to the interpretation of Tikkelin Hadetin; see Korban HaEdah, which explains it differently.]

And we raise a difficulty: Is that so?

Did Rabbi Helbo not say

that

Rav Huna said in the name of Rabbi Hiyya the Great

the following:

Everyone

fulfills the obligation

of reading the Scroll

on the fourteenth

of Adar, even the inhabitants of the walled cities, for whom the primary enactment of reading the Scroll is on the fifteenth of Adar,

because that

is the primary

time for its reading?

According to his words, there is a difficulty: Why did Rabbi, in the Mishna, mention only the reading time for the inhabitants of the walled cities, and not mention the primary time for reading the Scroll, on the fourteenth, on which everyone fulfills the obligation?

It must be that according to Rabbi, not everyone fulfills the obligation by reading on the fourteenth. Therefore, he taught in the Mishna the time for the inhabitants of the walled cities, on the fifteenth, to teach you that the time for reading the Scroll in walled cities is specifically on the fifteenth of Adar, just as the time for the other matters mentioned in our Mishna is specifically the fifteenth of Adar.

This presents a difficulty to Rabbi Hiyya the Great, who said that everyone fulfills the obligation by reading on the fourteenth.

And we answer: The fact that the Mishna mentioned the fifteenth of Adar, which is the reading time for the inhabitants of the walled cities, and did not mention the fourteenth of Adar, is not because the inhabitants of the walled cities do not fulfill the obligation by reading on the fourteenth.

Rather,

the tan nay did not come

to teach

anything other than that all the mitzvot

mentioned in our Mishna, such as repairing the roads and similar matters,

that apply in the second Adar do not apply in the first Adar.

This is because all the mitzvot mentioned were instituted to repair the damage caused by the winter rains, and in the first Adar the rains are still falling.

The tan nay mentioned the reading time for the walled cities in order to include the mitzva of reading the Scroll with the other matters whose time is the fifteenth of Adar.

We learn their law from the law of the Scroll: Just as the Scroll is read only in the second Adar, so too these matters apply only in the second Adar.

From now on, there is no longer any difficulty with the statement of Rabbi Hiyya the Great, who said that everyone fulfills the obligation of reading the Scroll on the fourteenth of Adar.

Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Aha were sitting

[together].

Rabbi Yose said to Rabbi Aha: It is reasonable

that what we said—that inhabitants of walled cities who read the Scroll on the fourteenth of Adar fulfilled their obligation—applies

only after the fact,

when the fifteenth of Adar has already passed. In that case we say that, since the inhabitants of the walled cities heard the reading on the fourteenth after the fact, and the fifteenth has already passed, they fulfilled their obligation.

But for the future

[as the proper initial procedure], if they read on the fourteenth and the fifteenth has not yet passed,

no,

we do not say that they have already fulfilled their obligation and need not read it again. Rather, they should read it again on the fifteenth, as is proper for them initially.

The proof for this is:

For it was taught

in tractate Megilla:

“In a place where the custom is to read it on two days,

because of uncertainty whether their city was walled from the days of Joshua son of Nun, in which case its reading time is the fifteenth, or whether its wall was not from the days of Joshua, in which case its time is the fourteenth—

they read it on two days.”

If we say that a resident of a walled city who read on the fourteenth fulfilled his obligation even initially and need not read again on the fifteenth, why do inhabitants of cities of uncertain status read on both days because of the doubt? They have already read it on the fourteenth, and even if their city was walled from the days of Joshua, they fulfilled their obligation.

It follows that only after the fact, if they read on the fourteenth and the fifteenth has passed, have they fulfilled their obligation. But initially they must read again on the fifteenth.

Rav Aha said to him,

Rabbi Aha:

I also hold so

[I too hold as you do]: although a resident of a walled city who reads on the fourteenth fulfills the obligation after the fact, he must nevertheless initially read it again on the fifteenth.

Rabbi Mana said: And rightly so—

Rabbi Yose spoke correctly!

For

if a resident of a city whose reading is on the fifteenth read it on the fourteenth and did not read it on the fifteenth—

would we perhaps accept this

[according to the version of the Vilna Gaon]!?

But

if you say so,

that he need not read it again on the fifteenth,

you will have uprooted the time of the walled cities with your own hands,

since everyone would read it on the fourteenth and that would be sufficient.

Rather, certainly, initially even one who reads it on the fourteenth must read it again on the fifteenth.

Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel taught: The mitzvot that apply in the second Adar,

such as reading the Scroll, gifts to the poor, and reading the sections of Shekalim, Zakhor, and Para,

do not apply in

Adar

the first.

Except for eulogies and fasting, which are the same in both,

for the fourteenth and fifteenth of the first Adar are also days on which eulogies and fasting are forbidden.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagrees here with the first tan nay, cited in the Babylonian Talmud, tractate Megilla 6a, who holds that even the reading of the series of Torah passages customarily read in Adar is valid if they read it in the first Adar.

He

Rabbi Ba

said

Rabbi Yirmeya in the name of Rav, and Rabbi Simon

said

in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: The g halakhic ruling is in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel,

so the series of passages should not be read in the first Adar. And if they read them then, they did not fulfill their obligation.

And Rav Huna the Great of Tzippori said: Rabbi Hanina instituted in Tzippori in accordance with the view of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel,

that these passages are read only in the second Adar.

And we examine his wording:

He said only, “instituted,”

meaning that Rabbi Hanina followed the view of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and instructed those who came to ask him accordingly.

But

to expound this publicly

“as the halakhic ruling”—

he did not

expound it!

Although we do not publicly expound the halakhic ruling that follows Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, namely, that the primary Adar is the second Adar,

nevertheless, regarding documents,

the unspecified “Adar” means the second Adar.

For when one writes the date on a document, if it is the first Adar,

one writes “first Adar,” but

if it is

the second Adar,

one does not write “second Adar,” but simply “Adar”

without qualification.

Rabbi Yehuda

disagrees and

says:

It is not so.