Shekalim 3b — the Talmud in English

And Rabbi Ami said ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish:

This ruling—that all the ears of grain touching the ground have the status of leket, and the poor eat them without having to tithe—is

that of Beit Shammai!

For Beit Shammai hold [in tractate Pe'a, chapter six]: When one declares his property ownerless only to the poor, the declaration of ownerlessness takes effect, and it is ownerless only to the poor.

Therefore, the ears of grain touching the ground are given to the poor under the law of leket, and they are exempt from tithes, even though the property has not been declared ownerless to everyone, but only to the poor.

For it is clear that some of the ears of grain belonged to the owner of the field.

However, since the Sages penalized him by requiring him to leave all the ears of grain touching the ground for the poor, they have the status of “ownerless property for the poor,” which is considered ownerless property and is exempt from tithes, as is the law with ownerless property.

However,

if

we say that this is

according to Beit Hillel,

who hold that a declaration of ownerlessness does not take effect until one declares the property ownerless to everyone, poor and rich alike, then all the ears of grain touching the ground do not become ownerless.

Rather,

the poor eat

them,

and tithe them!

Accordingly, it is reasonable to say that the Sages did not penalize the owner by requiring him to give all the ears of grain touching the ground to the poor, lest this lead to a mishap, as the poor might think that they have the full status of leket and are exempt from tithes.

Therefore, our mishna is in accordance with Beit Shammai and not with Beit Hillel.

[The explanation of the sugya was prepared according to the Rash in tractate Pe'a.]

And Rabbi Yose said to him: We have heard that it is exempt from tithes

according

to everyone,

even according to Beit Hillel,

because of the penalty!

Since property declared ownerless by the court is completely ownerless, even their “ownerless property for the poor” is completely ownerless, including according to Beit Hillel, and it is exempt from tithes.

Therefore, the owner of the field can be penalized with regard to all the ears of grain touching the ground, and all of them can be given to the poor, who may eat everything without tithing.

And we learn from this that property declared ownerless by the court is considered ownerless even for the purpose of exempting it from tithes.

Halakha 3 — Mishna:

On the fifteenth of it

[in Adar],

the money-changers

["Money-changers" are the money changers who sit before tables, with the money placed on the table before them; here the collectors of the funds are called “money-changers” after the tables before them]

would sit in the province—

in Jerusalem [according to Rambam, “the province” means all the cities of Israel]—in order to collect the half-shekel and to exchange coins for half-shekel coins for anyone who needed such a coin for the contribution of the shekels.

On the twenty-fifth

of Adar,

the money-changers would sit

the money-changers

in the Temple

[according to Rambam, “the Temple” here means Jerusalem and not the Temple proper], because the time of the first of Nisan was approaching, when offerings from the new contribution were already brought. Therefore, they would sit in the Temple rather than in the province, so that the people would hasten to bring their contributions when they saw that the money-changers had already completed their work.

—

began to seize collateral

[that is, to take collateral] from those who had not brought their shekels on their own. For the law is that anyone who does not fulfill the mitzva of the half-shekel has his property entered against him, and collateral is taken from him.

The Ra'avad and the Rash of Sens disagreed as to whether the community is compelled to fulfill the mitzva of the communal offerings [in Torat Kohanim, Parashat Emor, section 7, subsection 10]:

According to the Ra'avad, the community is compelled until its members say, “We wish to do so,” and included in the compulsion to fulfill the mitzva is the taking of collateral for the collection of the shekels.

The Rash of Sens, however, holds that it is disgraceful for the community’s offering to be brought under compulsion, even if, as a result of the compulsion, they say, “We wish to do so.”

He explained that collateral is taken only to encourage them in a mitzva that they wish to fulfill, but not when they refuse to fulfill it.

From whom do they take collateral

for not having brought their shekels?

Levites, Israelites, converts, and emancipated slaves.

But not

do they take collateral from

women,

since they are exempt from the half-shekel.

As it is written: “Each man shall give an atonement for his soul”—man, but not woman.

Likewise, they do not take collateral from

slaves,

for they too are not obligated in the shekels, as we derive by a gezera shava: “for her” and “for her,” from a woman.

Nor from

minors,

even if they have produced two pubic hairs.

For the Torah obligation of the shekels applies only from the age of twenty and upward, as it is written in the verse.

And any minor whose father began

one year

to contribute a shekel on his behalf

[for him], although he is not obligated,

his father may no longer desist

from contributing on his behalf until he comes of age.

They do not take collateral from the priests

who have not brought their shekels, even though they are obligated in the contribution of the shekels,

because of the ways of peace.

As the Gemara explains, it is not respectful to the priests to take collateral from them; we rely on them to bring their contributions on their own.

Rabbi Yehuda said: Ben Bukri testified in Yavne: Any priest who contributes a shekel

for the communal offerings

does not sin!

According to Ben Bukri, the priests are exempt from the contribution of the shekels as an initial matter, as it is written: “For everyone who passes among those counted,” and the tribe of Levi was not counted.

It would therefore have been possible to prohibit priests from participating in the half-shekel, because if a priest contributes despite being exempt, he thereby participates in all the communal meal-offerings, including those that are eaten.

If so, all the meal-offerings would be considered also a “priest’s meal-offering,” and a priest’s meal-offering is not eaten but burned!

Nevertheless, he is permitted to contribute and is not considered to have sinned by doing so, as will be explained.

Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said to him: It is not so

as you say.

Rather, any priest who does not contribute a shekel

is

a sinner,

since the priests too are obligated in the shekels [and the Gemara derives from where this follows].

Rather, the priests interpret this verse

below

for themselves,

improperly and for their own benefit.

And this is how they interpret it: It is written,

“And every meal-offering of a priest—

it shall be entirely burned; it shall not be eaten,”

but shall be burned in its entirety upon the altar.

The priests say:

Since

the meal-offering of the

omer and the two loaves,

which are brought on the festival of Shavuot,

and the showbread—

are ours

if we contribute the half-shekel, since we too are partners in them, as they too are brought from the contribution of the shekels, like all communal offerings—

if so,

how

are they

eaten,

when they are a priest’s meal-offering?

In truth, however, this interpretation is incorrect, since only a meal-offering that belongs exclusively to a priest must be burned in its entirety. A communal meal-offering, whose owners are for the most part not priests, is not considered a “priest’s meal-offering,” and may properly be eaten.

Gemara:

We learned in our mishna:

They do not take collateral from minors.

And we infer: They do not take collateral from them בלבד,

but to demand

shekels from minors—

they do demand.

And we say:

That statement applies

[what you said, that shekels are demanded from minors] specifically

when he has produced

already

two pubic hairs,

for although by Torah law he is exempt from the mitzva of the shekels until the age of twenty, nevertheless, by rabbinic law he is obligated in the shekels once he has reached majority through the production of two pubic hairs.

But if he has not produced two pubic hairs—

that is not the case

[he is not included in this law]. Rather, the shekels are not demanded from him, since a genuine minor is exempt from the mitzva of the shekels even by rabbinic law.

However,

to take collateral—

they do not take collateral even if he has produced two pubic hairs,

until he is twenty years old, as it is written in the Torah: “From the age of twenty years and upward he shall give the contribution of the Lord.”

It follows that there are three distinctions in this matter:

a.

A minor who has not produced two pubic hairs: nothing is demanded from him at all.

b.

If he has produced two pubic hairs, they demand that he give his shekel, since he has become obligated in the mitzva of the shekels by rabbinic law; however, they do not take collateral from him.

c.

Once he reaches the age of twenty, he becomes obligated in the mitzva of the shekels by Torah law, and therefore collateral is also taken from him.

We learned in our mishna: They do not take collateral from the priests because of the ways of peace.

And we explain:

This is how the mishna should be understood

[this is how our mishna must be interpreted], which says

they do not take collateral from the priests

because of the ways of peace—that is,

because of the way of respect.

We find that respect is accorded to priests, because it is written concerning them, “And you shall sanctify him,” and also because the Temple service is entrusted to them. Therefore, their property is not entered against them in order to take collateral.

We learned in our mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda said: Ben Bukri testified

that a priest who does not contribute a shekel is a sinner.

Rabbi Berekhya said: The reason of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Zakkai,

who holds that the priests are obligated to contribute a shekel, is derived from what is written: “This shall they give, everyone who passes among those counted, a half-shekel.” And he derives it from the words

“This shall they give.”

The numerical value of “this” (zeh) is twelve. This teaches you that

the twelve tribes shall give

a half-shekel, and the tribe of Levi is included among them. From here we learn that the priests too contribute shekels.

Rabbi

Tavi said in the name of Rav Hamnuna: Thus

[so]

the Sages respond to Rabbi Yehuda,

who testified in the name of Ben Bukri that the priests do not contribute shekels because a priest’s meal-offering is not eaten, whereas the omer and the two loaves are eaten; if the priests have a share in the funds used for these meal-offerings, how can they be eaten, when a priest’s meal-offering is not eaten?

And this is how the Sages respond to his argument:

A communal offering is not comparable to an individual offering, for we find a distinction between them with regard to offerings that must die, as explained in tractate Temura.

An individual sin-offering

that was lost before it was offered, whose owner designated another sin-offering in its place, and then the first offering was found,

must die!

This is one of the “five sin-offerings that must die,” a law transmitted as a halakha to Moses from Sinai.

But a communal sin-offering

that was lost, for which another was designated in its place, and the first was then found,

does not die.

Thus, individual offerings and communal offerings differ in their laws. If so, the same should be said here:

Only

an individual’s meal-offering

belonging to a priest

is burned in its entirety

and is not eaten. But

a communal meal-offering is not burned in its entirety,

even if it belongs to priests.

Accordingly, even if the priests have a share in the communal meal-offerings, they may eat them; consequently, there is no reason to exempt the priests from the mitzva of the half-shekel.

And we challenge this:

But this is difficult:

Is it so that

one responds to a person with an argument that he does not accept!?

For Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that priests do not contribute shekels, also holds that a communal sin-offering must die.

As we learned in tractate Yoma: The Sages say,

a communal sin-offering

that was lost and then found

does not die,

whereas

Rabbi Yehuda says: It must die.

Since Rabbi Yehuda himself holds that even a communal sin-offering must die, we find no distinction between a communal offering and an individual offering, and Rabbi Yehuda’s argument that priests do not contribute shekels remains valid.

Although according to Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Zakkai, who disagrees with him and holds that priests do contribute shekels, Rabbi Yehuda’s question is not difficult, since he agrees with the Sages, who distinguish between an individual offering and a communal offering, nevertheless, this is not an answer to Rabbi Yehuda himself.

And they respond to him

[this is the reading of the early authorities]:

The Sages challenge Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that priests do not contribute shekels, yet nevertheless holds that a priest who contributes a shekel does not sin and that his shekels are accepted:

Why? Is

this not an individual’s donation!?

Since priests are not obligated, like the rest of the community, to bring shekels, when they donate voluntarily, how can communal offerings be brought from those shekels? It is an individual’s donation, and it would be chullin in the Temple courtyard.

And he—

Rabbi Yehuda—

responds to us

[answers us]:

Once the contribution

of the priests

has been transferred

to the community, it is considered

a communal donation, not an individual donation. Once a person transfers his contribution to the community, it becomes communal funds, and communal offerings can properly be brought from them.

It is written: “Everyone who passes among those counted

from the age of twenty years and upward shall give the contribution of the Lord.”

And

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Neḥemya

disagreed concerning the interpretation of this verse.

One said: “Everyone who passes” means

“everyone who crossed”—

everyone who crossed the sea

[everyone who crossed the Red Sea]

“shall give.”

The priests and Levites too crossed the Red Sea, and therefore they are included in the mitzva of the shekels.

[As for what is written, “all those counted,” even though the tribe of Levi was not counted together with the tribes of Israel, its meaning is: both those who were counted separately and those who were counted together with Israel.]

And the other

[the second]

said:

“Everyone who passes” means

everyone who passed over the counting: ‘shall give.’

That is, those who were counted together with the rest of Israel, excluding the priests and Levites, who were not counted together with Israel.

The one who says, ‘Everyone who crossed the sea shall give’—

supports Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Zakkai,

who holds that priests and Levites contribute shekels, since they too crossed the Red Sea.

But

the one who says, ‘Everyone who passed over the counting shall give’—

supports Ben Bukri,

who holds that priests do not contribute shekels, since they were not counted together with Israel.

Halakha 4 — Mishna:

a.

Although they said

[in the preceding mishna] that

they do not take collateral from women, slaves, or minors

for the mitzva of the shekels,

nevertheless,

even so,

if they contributed,

we accept it from them,

provided that they transfer it entirely to the community, as we said above concerning the priests. b.

A gentile or a Samaritan who contributed a shekel—

we do not accept it from them.

And

yes,

they do not accept from their hands the nests of zavim and zavot

turtledoves and young pigeons that zavim and zavot bring as an offering after counting the clean days, one for a sin-offering and one for a burnt-offering,

and the nests of women after childbirth,

which a poor woman after childbirth brings for her offering after the days of her purity have been completed,

and sin-offerings and guilt-offerings.

3.

This is the general rule:

Every

offering

that is vowed and donated

for the altar—that can be brought as a donation, like burnt-offerings and peace-offerings,

they accept from their hands.

For it was taught: “‘Any man’ includes non-Jews, who make vows and donations like Israelites.”

And everything that is not vowed and donated

for the altar, such as sin-offerings and guilt-offerings, and all those mentioned above,

they do not accept from their hands,

even if they are fit for Temple maintenance.

And so it is explicitly stated by Ezra,

that even what is vowed and donated for Temple maintenance, they do not accept from them.

As it is stated

in Ezra, when he was building the building of the Temple, and the gentiles dwelling in the land wished to assist them and participate in the building, and he answered them:

“It is not for you and us to build a House

in partnership

for our God.

And you have no share, right, or memorial in Jerusalem.”

It follows that they do not accept donations from them for Temple maintenance.