Shekalim 5a — the Talmud in English

And sometimes they are exempt from this and from that?

And how is this so

and what case is being discussed?

They are liable for this and for that—if

they divided

the

property

that they inherited

but did not divide the animal.

For the animals still remain as though they are in their father’s possession, since they did not divide them; therefore,

they are liable for this and for that.

Since they divided their property, with regard to this they are like purchasers. And therefore, when they give the shekels together, they are liable for a kalbon, like other partners.

On the other hand, with regard to maaser behema, they are likewise liable and do not have the exemption of a purchaser, since with regard to the animals they are not like purchasers, for they have not yet divided them.

They are exempt from this and from that—if

they divided

among themselves only

the animal

the animals that they inherited

and did not

divide the

property; they are exempt from this and from that.

For with regard to the property they are not like purchasers; therefore, they are exempt from a kalbon. And with regard to maaser behema, 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 the property alone, without the animals, they are liable for a 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 they were worth more than the rest of the property that they divided—

they themselves are the principal property!

And therefore, even if they divided the property and not the animals, they are exempt from a kalbon, for we follow the majority. And they are not considered purchasers at all.

Rabbi Avin said: Rabbi Shimi raised the following difficulty

He had difficulty with what Rav Mana said, that when the majority of his property is animals, he is exempt from the kalbon:

But

Because you made them like one person with regard to maaser behema

because they did not divide the animals,

do you exempt him from the kalbon

even though they did not give their shekels from the common estate!?

And what difference does it make that the majority of his property consists of animals? The shekels that they gave—surely they are their own money.

He said to him

Rav Mana:

It will not

be difficult for you.

It is different

here,

for he gives one whole sela

from those coins that were due to his share. Therefore, it is as though they did not divide, and he is exempt from the kalbon.

And we object:

From now on,

since the principal reason that they are exempt from the kalbon is that he gives the whole sela from what is due to his share, if so,

even if they divided and then became partners again

they should be

liable for maaser behema and exempt from the kalbon!

But we learned the opposite:

for we learned "

they divided and then became partners again—

they are liable for a kalbon and exempt from maaser behema."

Rabbi Ba said in the name of Abba bar Rav Huna

He said: This that we stated, that inheriting brothers, as long as they have not divided the property, are in the common estate and are not considered partners, does not apply specifically to two brothers who inherit their father. Rather,

it is the same whether they are two brothers who inherited their father or two brothers-in-law who inherited their father-in-law

]]through the power of their wives. For anything that comes by virtue of inheritance is like the common estate. [Thus explained in Korban HaEdah.]

And see Or Sameach, in the omissions to the Laws of Firstborns at the end of the section of Times, where he explained how two brothers-in-law inherit their father-in-law.

Where

to where

did the kalbonot fall?

That is, what use would they make of them?

Rabbi Meir says: for the shekels,

that is, wherever the shekels go, the kalbonot go; namely, for the communal offerings. And Rabbi Meir follows his reasoning, for he holds that giving the kalbon is a Torah obligation for everyone who gives half a shekel; therefore, their law is the same.

Rabbi Leazar says: for

offerings

of freewill. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says:

With these kalbonot they would make

gold plating and a covering for the Holy of Holies. Ben Azzai says: the moneychangers

who collected the shekels

would take them as their wages. And some say: for the expenses of the roads

the money would go for those bringing the shekels to Jerusalem.

We shall return to you, chapter “On the first of Adar.”

Halakha A - Mishna:

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

combine shekels into darconot.

That is, they exchange their shekels for gold coins called darconot.

And they were permitted to do so

because of the burden of the road,

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

B.

Just as there were collection boxes [

boxes shaped like horns]

in the Temple,

into which they contributed the shekels [and they were made in the shape of a horn, narrow at the mouth and wide below, so that swindlers would not be able to take from the shekels],

so there were collection boxes in the provinces,

in every city and city, to collect into them the shekels that had been collected and afterward send them to the Temple.

C.

The residents of the city who sent their shekels

by 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 they gathered all the shekels, and three times a year they would remove shekels from the collection boxes and place them into coffers, and this is called the “contribution of the chamber” [all this will be explained below, in the third chapter].

And from these coffers they would provide funds for sacrifices.

And when they made the contribution, they intended to contribute also on behalf of the collected money that was found in the hands of the messengers, and on behalf of what would in the future be collected from those who had not yet contributed, so that there would be a portion in the sacrifices for all Israel, even for those who had not yet weighed [their shekels]. For everything was considered as though it had already been collected, and as though their shekels had reached the chamber, and this contribution had been made from them.

And since this is so, if the shekels 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 weighed [the shekels] had already been exempted at the time the contribution was made, and they are no longer liable for the shekels.

Therefore, the treasurer’s claim is against the messengers. And therefore

the messengers

swear

to the treasurers

that this money was stolen and that they were not negligent with it, and they are exempt.

But if not—

if they were stolen from the messenger before the contribution was made, when the shekels were still in the possession of the residents of the city, and they were liable for them—

the messengers

swear

to the residents of the city,

and the messengers are exempt from paying.

And the residents of the city

return and

weigh

other shekels

in their place,

of the shekels that were stolen, for the first shekels did not count toward their obligation so long as they had not reached the hand of a treasurer.

And if

the lost

shekels

were found, or the thieves returned them

after the residents of the city had weighed other shekels in their place—

both these and those,

the first and the second shekels, have the status of

shekels

upon them.

And neither of them counts for them

one of these shekels

toward

the account of

the coming year,

but the first shekels count toward the shekels of this year, and the latter count toward the remainder of the chamber, whose law is explained below.

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna: They combine shekels into darconot because of the burden of the road.

And we raise an objection: Why do they exchange the shekels for gold darconot? After all, it would be preferable that they

make them

that is, exchange them for

pearls,

whose value is greater, with the result that they lighten the burden even more.

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

lest the value decline

of

the pearls, with the result that the Temple treasury suffers a loss.

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

And it is like that which we learned there

in Bekhorot: Five selaim for the redemption of the son, thirty for a slave.

And all of them are redeemed with money and with an object of equal monetary value, except for shekels,

for one may not bring an object of equal monetary value.

And

concerning this

Rabbi Shmuel bar Yitzhak

said: What is the reason that one may not bring shekels with an object of equal monetary value? Because we are concerned

lest the vessels become cheaper, with the result that the Temple treasury suffers a loss.

Here too [

and the same law applies here], one does not exchange the shekels for pearls

lest the pearls become cheaper, with the result that the Temple treasury suffers a loss.

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

And we say:

The beraita

that we learned, that there were collection boxes in the provinces, was specifically for

new shekels.

That is, for the new shekels collected for the needs of the sacrifices of the coming year.

But for old shekels [

old shekels] for one who did not weigh [his shekel] in the previous year and wishes to complete his debt,

it was not so—

there was no collection box in the province.

Rather, only in the Temple was there a coffer upon which “old shekels” was written, and anyone who had not weighed [his shekel] in the previous year placed it into that coffer. And it was not necessary to do so also in the provinces, since this was not so common.

And

so

it was taught

in a beraita,

so:

a coffer of

“old [shekels]”

is found only

in the Temple, and there is no

coffer of

old [shekels]

found

in the province.

We learned in the Mishna: The residents of the city who sent their shekels and they were stolen or lost—if the contribution had been made, they swear to the treasurers.

And we say:

The beraita,

which teaches that when the shekels were stolen or lost the messengers swear and are exempt from paying, deals with a case in which the messengers were

unpaid bailees,

and therefore they are exempt from paying for what was stolen or lost from them, and a vow suffices for them.

But

if the messengers were

paid bailees—

it was not so [

this is not the law], since the law of a paid bailee is that he must pay for theft and loss and is not exempt through a vow.

Rabbi Abba said: And even if you say

that our Mishna deals

with

messengers who were

paid bailees,

it also works out properly that they swear and are exempt.

For it can be explained and said that that which it teaches, “they were stolen and lost,” means through unavoidable circumstances. For example,

they were stolen by an armed bandit. And

they

were lost

through

his ship sinking

the messenger’s

in the sea. Theft or loss in such a case is considered an unavoidable circumstance. And since it is an unavoidable circumstance, the messenger is exempt through a vow. For a paid bailee is exempt from an unavoidable circumstance.

Rabbi Yosti son of Rabbi Simon said:

Our Mishna, which says that if the shekels were stolen after the contribution had been made, they swear to the treasurers and are exempt, and the residents of the city are not liable for the shekels,

follows the one who says that they contribute

the chamber

on behalf of what has been collected and what will in the future be collected.

Therefore, at the time the contribution is made, all the money in the hands of the messengers is considered to have reached the chamber, and the residents of the city are no longer liable for it, as was explained in the Mishna.

However [

but]

according to the one who says that they do not contribute on behalf of what has been collected or

not

on behalf of what will in the future be collected—

it was not so [

this is not the law]. For according to him, even if the contribution was made before the shekels of the residents of the city were lost, the people of the city have not fulfilled their obligation. Since one does not contribute on behalf of what is in the hands of the messenger, this money has not entered the authority of the treasurer; it remains in the authority of the residents of the city, and the messengers swear to the residents of the city, and the residents of the city weigh others in their place.

Rabbi Elazar said:

Our Mishna, which states that the messengers swear to the residents of the city that they were not negligent regarding the shekels entrusted to them,

is according to Rabbi Shimon,

and as his position is explained below.

For according to the Rabbis, they are exempt without a vow, since the law is that “one does not swear regarding consecrated property.” Necessarily, our Mishna is Rabbi Shimon.

For Rabbi Shimon says

in tractate Shevuot:

Consecrated animals for which he is liable are like his property,

and one swears concerning them, for he holds that “a matter that causes monetary liability is considered money.” Therefore, consecrated animals for which the consecrator is liable—even though the animal itself belongs to the Temple treasury, nevertheless, since if it is lost he must provide another in its place, it is considered like his property, and the bailee must again swear a vow according to the law of one who guards the property of an ordinary person.

And the same law applies here regarding shekels: although they belong to the Temple treasury, since if they are lost the residents of the city must weigh other shekels in their place, the shekels are considered their property, and the messengers properly swear to the residents of the city.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

That which it teaches, that the messengers swear to the residents of the city,

is the view of everyone,

and it does not teach this only according to Rabbi Shimon.

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

because of an enacted oath.

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

And we raise an objection against Rabbi Elazar, who says that our Mishna follows Rabbi Shimon.

According to the view [

according to his view]

of Rabbi Yoḥanan,

who holds that this oath is rabbinic because of the enactment,

it is satisfactory that which is taught in our Mishna, that if the contribution of the chamber had been made,

the messengers

swear to the treasurers.

And if not, they swear to the residents of the city, and the residents of the city weigh other shekels ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

in their place,