Shekalim 5a (ה.) — the Talmud in English

And at times they are exempt from both this and that?

And how is this the case

[and in what situation is this said]?

They are liable for both this and that—if

they divided

the

property

they inherited

but did not divide the animals.

For the animals still remain as though they were in their father's possession, since they have not divided them; therefore they are

liable for both this and that.

Since they divided their property, with regard to this matter they are like purchasers. Therefore, when they contribute together, they are liable for a kalbon, like other partners.

On the other hand, with regard to the animal tithe as well they are liable and do not have the exemption of purchasers, since with regard to the animals they are not like purchasers, as they have not yet divided them.

Exempt from both this and that—if

they divided

only

the animals

[the animals] they inherited

and did not

divide

the property, they are exempt from both this and that.

With regard to the property, they are not like purchasers; therefore, they are exempt from the kalbon. And with regard to the animal tithe, they are exempt because with regard to the animals they are like purchasers, since they divided them.

Rav Mana said: This that you say

—[what you said, that when they divided only the property and not the animals they are liable for the kalbon] applies specifically

when the animals were not the majority

of the value of his property.

But if the animals were the majority

of his property, and were worth more than the other property that they divided—

they are themselves the principal property!

Therefore, even if they divided the property but not the animals, they are exempt from the kalbon, since we follow the majority. They are not considered purchasers at all.

Rabbi Avin said: Rabbi Shimi raised the following difficulty

: He found it difficult to understand what Rav Mana had said: that when the majority of their property consists of animals, they are exempt from the kalbon:

Is it

because you treated them as one person with regard to the animal tithe

because they did not divide the animals,

that you exempt them from the kalbon

even though they did not contribute their half-shekels from the estate's jointly held property!?

What difference does it make that the majority of his property consists of animals? The shekels that they contributed were their own money.

He said to him

Rav Mana:

Do not

find this difficult.

It is different

[the case here is different],

for he contributes one complete sela

from the money that fell to his share. Therefore, it is as though they had not divided the property, and he is exempt from the kalbon.

And we challenge this:

If so,

since the fundamental reason that they are exempt from the kalbon is that he contributes the complete sela from what fell to his share, then

even if they divided the property and then reentered into a partnership

they should be

liable for the animal tithe and exempt from the kalbon!

Yet we learned the opposite:

as we learned: “

They divided the property and then reentered into a partnership—

they are liable for the kalbon and exempt from the animal tithe.”

Rabbi Ba said in the name of Abba bar Rav Huna

: This statement that we have said—that heirs who are brothers, so long as they have not divided the property, remain in the estate's jointly held property and are not considered partners—does not apply only to two brothers who inherit from their father. Rather,

it applies equally to two brothers-in-law who inherit from their father-in-law

through their wives. For anything that comes by virtue of inheritance is considered estate property. [So explained the Korban HaEdah.]

[See also the Or Sameaḥ, in the additions to the laws of firstborn animals at the end of the section on the Zemanim, which explains how two brothers-in-law inherit from their father-in-law.]

Where

[where]

did the kalbonot fall?

[That is, what use was made of them?]

Rabbi Meir says: For the shekels,

that is, the kalbonot go to the same destination as the shekels, namely, the communal offerings. And Rabbi Meir follows his own reasoning, for he holds that giving a kalbon is a Torah obligation for everyone who contributes a half-shekel; therefore, their status is the same.

Rabbi Elazar says: For

voluntary offerings.

Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says:

The money from these kalbonot was used to make

gold plating and to overlay the Holy of Holies. Ben Azzai says: The treasurers

who collected the shekels

would take them as their wages. And some say: For travel expenses

the money would be used to cover the travel expenses of those bringing the shekels to Jerusalem.

We have completed the tractate for you, chapter “On the First of Adar.”

Halakha 1 - Mishna:

A. Residents of distant countries who collected their shekalim and wish to send them to the Temple,

may combine the shekalim into darikons.

That is, they exchange their shekalim for gold coins called darikons.

They were permitted to do so

because of the burden of the journey,

so that it would not be burdensome for the messengers to carry a large quantity of silver shekalim.

B.

Just as there were shofar-shaped collection boxes [

boxes shaped like shofars]

in the Temple,

into which the shekalim were contributed [and they were made in the shape of a shofar, narrow at the mouth and broad below, so that fraudsters would be unable to take money from the shekalim],

so there were shofar-shaped collection boxes in the provinces,

in every city, to collect the shekalim that had been gathered into them and then send them to the Temple.

C.

If the townspeople sent their shekalim

with a messenger to the Temple

and they were stolen or lost

from him on the way,

if

already

the contribution

had been made—for there was a chamber in the Temple into which all the shekalim were gathered, and three times a year shekalim were taken from the collection boxes and placed into chests; this is called the “contribution of the chamber” [all this will be explained below, in the third chapter].

From these chests money was allocated for the sacrifices.

When the contribution was made, the treasurers intended it to include both the money that had already been collected and was in the hands of the messengers, and the money that would in the future be collected from those who had not yet contributed, so that all Israel would have a share in the sacrifices, even those who had not yet given their shekalim. Everything was therefore considered as though it had already been collected and as though their shekalim had reached the chamber, and this contribution had been made from them.

Accordingly, if the shekalim were stolen from the messenger after the contribution had already been made, it is considered as though they had been stolen from the treasurer, and the Israelites who had given the shekalim were already exempt at the time the contribution was made; they are no longer liable for the shekalim.

Therefore, the treasurer’s claim is against the messengers. Accordingly,

the messengers swear

that

to the treasurers

these coins were stolen and that they were not negligent with them, and they are exempt.

But if not—

if they were stolen from the messenger before the contribution was made, when the shekalim were still in the possession of the townspeople, who remained liable for them—

the messengers swear

to

the townspeople,

and the messengers are exempt from paying.

And the townspeople

then return and

weigh

other shekalim

in place of them,

the stolen shekalim, since the first shekalim did not discharge their obligation as long as they had not reached the hand of a treasurer.

And if

the lost

shekalim

are found,

or the thieves return them after the townspeople have weighed other shekalim in their place—

both these and those,

the first shekalim and the second ones, have the status of

shekalim

for all purposes.

Neither of them is counted

one of these shekalim

toward

the account of

the following year.

Rather, the first shekalim are counted as the shekalim of this year, while the latter ones are assigned to the surplus of the chamber, whose laws are explained below.

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna: Shekalim may be combined into darikons because of the burden of the journey.

And we raise an objection: Why do they exchange the shekalim for gold darikons? Surely it would be preferable that they

make them

that is, exchange them for

pearls,

whose value is greater, thereby reducing the burden even further.

And we answer: The reason they do not exchange them for pearls is that we are concerned

lest the value of

the

pearls decline, with the result that the Temple treasury will suffer a loss. Therefore, they exchange them only for gold darikons, which are coins, and the value of a coin does not ordinarily decrease.

Therefore, they exchange them only for gold darconot, which are coins, and it is not common for a coin to decrease in value.

And this is like that which we learned there

in Bekhorot: Five sela for the redemption of the firstborn, and thirty sela for a slave.

And all of them may be redeemed with money or with an equivalent of money, except for shekalim,

for which one may not bring an equivalent of money.

And

concerning this

Rabbi Shmuel bar Yitzchak

said: What is the reason that one may not bring shekalim with an equivalent of money? It is because we are concerned

lest the value of the utensils decline, with the result that the Temple treasury will suffer a loss.

Here too, [

and the same law applies here,] they do not exchange the shekalim for pearls

lest the value of the pearls decline, with the result that the Temple treasury will suffer a loss.

We learned in the Mishna: Just as there were shofar-shaped collection boxes in the Temple, so there were shofar-shaped collection boxes in the provinces.

And we say:

The beraita

that teaches that there were shofar-shaped collection boxes in the provinces refers specifically to

new shekalim.

That is, they were for the new shekalim collected for the sacrifices of the following year.

But with regard to old shekalim [

old shekalim, for one who did not give his shekel the previous year and wishes to discharge his debt,]

this was not so—

there was no shofar-shaped collection box in the provinces.

Rather, only in the Temple was there a chest marked “old shekalim,” into which anyone who had not given a shekel the previous year would place his contribution. There was no need to do this in the provinces as well, since such a case was not very common.

And

so

it is taught

in the beraita:

So

the chest of

“old shekalim”

is found only

in the Temple, and there is no

chest of

old shekalim

found

in the provinces.

We learned in the Mishna: If the townspeople sent their shekalim and they were stolen or lost, if the contribution had been made, the messengers swear to the treasurers.

And we say:

The beraita,

which teaches that when the shekalim were stolen or lost the messengers swear and are exempt from paying, is speaking of a case in which the messengers were

unpaid bailees.

Therefore, they are exempt from paying for what was stolen or lost from them, and an oath is sufficient for them.

But

if the messengers were

paid bailees—

this is not so [

the law is not this], since the law governing a paid bailee is that he must pay for theft or loss and is not exempt through an oath.

Rabbi Abba said: And even if you say

that our Mishna is speaking of a case

in

which the messengers were

paid bailees,

it can also be properly understood that they swear and are exempt.

For one can explain that the theft and loss mentioned in the Mishna refer to circumstances beyond their control, such as when

they were stolen by armed bandits. And

they

were lost

through

the messenger’s ship sinking

of the messenger

at sea. Theft or loss under such circumstances is considered an unavoidable accident. Since it is an unavoidable accident, the messenger is exempt through an oath, for a paid bailee is exempt from liability for circumstances beyond his control.

Rabbi Yosti bar Rabbi Simon said:

Our Mishna, which says that if the shekalim were stolen after the contribution had been made the messengers swear to the treasurers and are exempt, and the townspeople are not liable for the shekalim,

follows the opinion of the one who says that the contribution is made

from

the chamber both on money already collected and on money that will be collected in the future.

Therefore, when the contribution is made, all the money in the hands of the messengers is considered as though it had reached the chamber, and the townspeople are no longer liable for it, as explained in the Mishna.

However, [

but]

according to the one who says that the contribution is not made either on money already collected or

not

on money that will be collected in the future—

this is not so [

the law is not this]. According to him, even if the contribution was made before the townspeople’s shekalim were lost, the townspeople did not fulfill their obligation. Since the contribution is not made on money collected and in the hands of the messenger, this money did not enter the treasurer’s domain; it remains in the possession of the townspeople. The messengers swear to the townspeople, and the townspeople weigh other shekalim in their place.

Rabbi Elazar said:

Our Mishna, which teaches that the messengers swear to the townspeople that they were not negligent with the shekalim entrusted to them,

is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon,

as his position is explained below.

For according to the Rabbis, the messengers are exempt without an oath, since the law is that “one does not swear concerning consecrated property.” Necessarily, our Mishna is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon.

For Rabbi Shimon says

in tractate Shevuot:

Consecrated property for which one is liable is like his own property,

and one swears concerning it, for he maintains that “anything that causes a monetary liability is considered money.” Therefore, with regard to consecrated property for which the consecrator is liable, although the animal itself belongs to the Temple treasury, nevertheless, since if it is lost he must provide another in its place, it is considered his property, and the bailee must then take an oath, as the law requires a bailee to swear concerning the property of an ordinary person.

The same applies here with regard to shekalim: Although they belong to the Temple treasury, since if they are lost the townspeople must weigh other shekalim in their place, the shekalim are considered their property, and it is entirely appropriate for the messengers to swear to the townspeople.

Rabbi Yohanan said:

The statement that the messengers swear to the townspeople

is accepted by everyone; it was not taught only in accordance with Rabbi Shimon.

And although by Torah law one does not swear concerning consecrated property, here they swear

Although by Torah law one does not swear with regard to sacred funds, here they swear

because of an enacted oath.

The Sages enacted this oath so that the bailees would not come to treat consecrated funds lightly.

And we challenge Rabbi Elazar, who says that our Mishna follows Rabbi Shimon.

According to the view [

according to the view of]

Rabbi Yohanan,

who maintains that this oath is rabbinic, instituted as a safeguard,

it is understandable

that the Mishna teaches that if the contribution of the chamber had been made, they

swear to the treasurers.

And if not, they swear to the townspeople, and the townspeople weigh other shekalim

in their place,