Shekalim 5b — the Talmud in English

Since this oath is

because of an enacted oath,

it is properly the case that they swear to the treasurers when the contribution of the chamber had been made, and swear to the residents of the city when the contribution of the chamber had not yet been made.

But according to Rabbi Elazar,

who holds that the oath of our Mishna is by Torah law, and according to Rabbi Shimon, who holds that liability for consecrated property makes one liable for an oath—

Granted, that which

they swear to the residents of the city

is satisfactory, for

this is Rabbi Shimon’s view [

which follows from Rabbi Shimon’s reasoning]: since the residents of the city are liable for the shekels, they swear according to Rabbi Shimon.

But that which we learned, that if the contribution had been made,

the messengers swear

to the

to the treasurers—

what business is it of the treasurers!?

For once the contribution has been made, the shekels are in the authority of the treasurers, and the treasurers are not liable for them. And since this is so, even according to Rabbi Shimon they do not swear, according to the law of consecrated property for which one is not liable.

Rather, necessarily, the oath of our Mishna does not refer to the lost shekels, to exempt the messengers from payment for losing the shekels—for regarding this they need not be made to swear, since one does not swear concerning consecrated property.

Rather, it deals with messengers who were paid bailees [and the theft or loss that it teaches in the Mishna means through unavoidable circumstances. For if not, they would be liable for theft and loss, as above].

And the subject of our Mishna is the payment of the messengers, who come to take their payment from the residents of the city, and must swear that the money is not in their possession but was stolen or lost through an unavoidable circumstance, and then they take their payment. And in this the Mishna distinguished between a case in which the contribution had been made and a case in which it had not been made.

For where the contribution had already been made and the residents of the city are not liable for the shekels, they swear to the treasurers—and this means that they

swear to the residents of the city in the presence of the treasurers, so that they would not suspect them,

the treasurers, that they had taken the money for themselves, since the loss belongs to the Temple treasury.

Alternatively,

the reason that they swear in the presence of the treasurers is

so that they would not label them negligent [

so that the treasurers would not call them negligent].

However, where the contribution had not yet been made and the residents of the city are obligated to weigh other shekels, there is no longer any loss to the Temple treasury through the loss of the shekels, and the messengers swear to the residents of the city that the money is not in their possession, and they take their payment, and there is no need to swear in the presence of the treasurers.

And we say: According to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who holds that the oath of our Mishna is because of the enactment, that which we learned, that if the contribution had not been made the messengers swear to the residents of the city, does not refer specifically to a case in which the residents of the city do not believe the messengers that they were not negligent and are unwilling to weigh other shekels until the messengers swear that they were not negligent.

Rather,

even though the residents of the city accepted

upon themselves

to pay,

and do not desire an oath from the messengers, for they trust them, even so they are not heeded, and they obligate them to swear. For the Sages enacted that

the Temple treasury does not leave without an oath,

so that they would not come to treat consecrated money lightly.

Therefore, the messengers are not exempt from paying without an oath.

An individual who

separated his shekel and it was lost

his shekel—

Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

Although the shekel has already become consecrated, he is

liable for it until he delivers it to the treasurer.

Therefore, if it was lost before it came into the hand of the treasurer, he must bring another in its place.

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says:

He is not liable for it even before the chamber’s contribution was made, for since he separated it, it became consecrated, and

the consecrated property is in the authority of the One on High

and is

wherever it is,

even before it actually reached the hand of the treasurer. And for this reason it is no longer his responsibility.

And we raise an objection:

The beraita

of ours

disagrees with Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish.

For we learned in our Mishna: If the shekels were stolen or lost from the messengers before the chamber’s contribution was made,

the messengers

swear

to the residents of the city, and the residents of the city weigh [shekels] in their place.

It follows that the residents of the city are liable for the consecrated shekels, and only when the contribution was made did their liability cease, since it is considered as though they had been delivered into the hand of a treasurer—and this accords with Rabbi Yoḥanan. This is difficult for Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, who holds that immediately upon separation they are no longer liable for them.

And we answer: Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish could say to you:

It is still so,

this oath,

because of an enacted oath

it is!

And just as they swear not because of the law but because of an enactment, so you can say that even the payment obligation for which the residents of the city are liable to pay so long as the contribution has not been made is not according to the law, but is an enactment, so that the owners will be careful in guarding them and will not hand them over to a messenger, but each one will bring them himself.

And therefore they obligated them to weigh a second time if their shekel was lost by the agent.

But where he set aside his shekel but did not deliver it to the agent, and it was lost or stolen from him, he is not responsible for it. For in such a case they did not institute this, since he did not deliver it to the agent; and this is the case with which Resh Lakish is dealing.

We learned in the Mishna: If they were found, or the thieves returned them—both these and those are shekels.

And

the tanna taught

about this in a beraita: The shekels

the first ones fall into the new shekalim

for the shekels of the new year.

And the second ones fall into the old shekalim—

into the collection for the old shekels, which were given into it by one who had not weighed in the previous year.

The status of the money in this collection is like the status of the surplus of the Chamber, whose status is set out below. And the second shekels of the townspeople likewise fall into this collection.

And we raised an objection to it:

Which are the first ones and which are the second ones?

Rabbi Pinḥas son of Rabbi Ḥiyya and Rabbi Abba Mari

disagreed about this matter.

One said: Those which the townspeople sent first

and which were lost and then found—these are the first ones. And they go to the new shekalim.

And the other

the second

said: Those which reached the treasurers’ hands first.

That is, those shekels which the townspeople again set aside in place of the first ones and delivered to the treasurers—they are called the first ones, since they were delivered into the treasurer’s hands; they are the first ones. And only afterward were the shekels that had been lost found.

Halakha 2—Mishna

One who gives his shekel to his fellow

to make him his agent

to weigh on his behalf

for him, and his fellow took his shekel

and weighed it on his own behalf

[for himself]:

If

already

the contribution had been taken,

that they had contributed and placed the money from the Chamber into the collection boxes from which they take for the needs of the offerings, then

he has committed sacrilege

the agent. For when they take the contribution, they take it also on behalf of the shekels weighed by those distant from Jerusalem who have not yet brought them to the Chamber, and through the contribution that shekel which the sender weighs becomes in the possession of the Sanctuary. It follows that when the agent gave it on his own behalf, he benefited from the property of the Sanctuary, and therefore he has committed sacrilege.

One who weighs his shekel from property of the Sanctuary

for example, there was in his possession money belonging to the Temple repairs, and he thought that it was unconsecrated and weighed his shekel from it:

If

the contribution was taken

afterward, and they purchased an animal with that contribution,

and the animal was sacrificed—

then

he has committed sacrilege

the one who weighed it, and became obligated to bring a sacrifice for sacrilege.

But he is not obligated beforehand, even though he removed this shekel from the money for the Temple repairs and used it to weigh his shekel. Since he did not remove this shekel into unconsecrated status, but returned and gave it to the Sanctuary. And one who transfers money from one consecrated property to another consecrated property, as here, where he removed it from the money for the Temple repairs and gave it to the contribution of the Chamber, does not commit sacrilege even if he benefited from this, but only after an act has been performed with the second consecrated property. That is, they used the money and sacrificed an offering from it; then he commits sacrilege through having benefited from the consecrated property with which he weighed his shekel.

One who weighs his shekel

from

money

of Second Tithe and from the money of the Sabbatical year—

shall eat opposite them

from other money possessing sanctity.

That is, with Second Tithe, he shall transfer the sanctity of the Second Tithe from the shekel which he weighed onto other money in his possession, and that shekel which he weighed will leave the sanctity of the Tithe.

And the money in his possession, upon which the sanctity of Tithe has taken effect, he shall bring to Jerusalem and eat it there.

And with the money of the Sabbatical year, he shall redeem the shekel which he weighed from the sanctity of the Sabbatical year in it with other money, and he shall treat that money with the sanctity of the Sabbatical year.

Gemara:

We learned in the first part of our Mishna: One who gives his shekel to his fellow to weigh on his behalf, and he weighed it on his own behalf, if

the contribution was taken

he has committed sacrilege.

And we do not have in the version of the Mishna in the first part, “If the contribution was taken and the animal was sacrificed, he has committed sacrilege,” as we have in the latter part.

And

if

the school of Rabbi’s tanna

read in his Mishna also in the first part:

If

the contribution was taken and

the animal was sacrificed,

then he has committed sacrilege.

They do not disagree.

For even the tanna of our Mishna agrees that he commits sacrilege only after the animal was sacrificed, and this is for the reason that we explained in the latter part of the Mishna: Since the money belonged to the Sanctuary, and the agent removed it and gave it to the Sanctuary, it follows that he transfers from one consecrated property to another consecrated property, and one who transfers from one consecrated property to another consecrated property does not commit sacrilege until an act is performed and they use that money.

Therefore, according to everyone, he does not commit sacrilege until the animal was sacrificed.

And the reason that the tanna of the Mishna did not teach this also in the first part is that he relied upon the latter part of the Mishna, where the law of the sacrilege of both of them, the first part and the latter part, was explained: The agent does not commit sacrilege until the animal that comes from the money of the contribution was sacrificed.

Rabbi Elazar said:

The Mishna, which says that he did not commit sacrilege even though they purchased the animal with the money of the contribution until the animal was sacrificed, is

not in accordance with

the view of

Rabbi Shimon.

For we learned below [the end of chapter four] that one who accepts upon himself to supply the Sanctuary with the fine flour, wine, and oil for the meal-offerings accepts responsibility for them, so that if they become spoiled he brings others in their place.

And there we say the reason: Because he does not receive his money for them until the altar has effected acceptance, and therefore the acquisition has not yet taken effect. Accordingly, if they become spoiled, responsibility for them is his. And this is the view of the tanna of the Mishna: The agent who weighed the shekel on his own behalf does not commit sacrilege until the animal was sacrificed, for only then is it considered that the Sanctuary used this money. But beforehand, even though they purchased an animal with his money, he did not commit sacrilege, for this is not use, since the acquisition did not take effect until the altar effected acceptance, that is, until the animal was sacrificed.

But Rabbi Shimon disagrees,

for Rabbi Shimon says: Immediately they would receive

those supplying the

money.

For we are not concerned that perhaps the fine flour, wine, and oil will become spoiled, since

the priests are diligent

to guard them.

It follows that in Rabbi Shimon’s view the acquisition takes effect immediately, and the same is true here: when they purchased the animal, the acquisition took effect immediately according to his view. Therefore, as soon as they purchased the animal, the agent committed sacrilege, since they used his money.

And we raise an objection against that which we learned in our Mishna: One who gives his shekel to his fellow to weigh on his behalf, and he weighed it on his own behalf—if the contribution was taken, the one who weighed it committed sacrilege.

And the difficulty is: If one stole his fellow’s burnt-offering and slaughtered it

in the Temple

without specification,

and did not specify in whose name he slaughtered it,

is it not, without specification, for the

first

owners

it

effects atonement!?

If so, why, when one weighs with his fellow’s shekel, does he commit sacrilege? After all, the shekel is not recognizable as belonging to anyone, and it should be credited to the name of the first owner, even though his fellow brought it for his own name. As with one who steals his fellow’s burnt-offering?

And we answer: [Explained according to the version of the Vilna Gaon:]

Rabbi Yudan said: It can be resolved

[it can be answered] that it is dealing

with

a shekel that was

designated,

and it was recognizable that it was given for the second one, and the treasurer intended, when taking the shekel, that this shekel should be credited on his behalf.

And similarly we find below in the third chapter, that those who gave the shekels on behalf of the household of Rabban Gamliel would give their shekels to the treasurer, and he would intend that the shekel should be credited on their behalf [the manner in which they acted and the reason they needed to do so will be explained shortly].

Therefore it is not like one who robs his fellow’s animal and sacrifices it without specification.

And he challenges:

And

do you not

have to say: Perhaps

these shekels

fall to the surplus?

For all the shekels were initially given in the large Chamber, and three times a year they would take the contribution from the Chamber: they would take boxes holding three se'a and fill them with money from the shekels of the Chamber until they were filled. Through this contribution they would confer the money contributed to the boxes upon all those who had not yet brought their shekels to the Temple, so that they too would have a portion in the offerings.

And with that money they would purchase the offerings.

And the shekels that remained in the Chamber and did not enter the boxes were the surplus of the Chamber, and with them they would carry out the repairs of the city, as explained below.

And every one who gives his shekel to the Temple may have his shekel be part of the contribution, and with that very money they will purchase offerings; but it is also possible that his shekel will remain as surplus of the Chamber, and his portion in the offerings will be through the fact that they conferred the contribution also on his behalf.

And since this is so, the question must again be raised: Why does one who weighs his fellow’s shekel for himself commit sacrilege? For although we established him as dealing with a designated shekel, nevertheless there is concern that this shekel will remain as surplus—

and is there sacrilege with surplus?

But Rabbi Judah said above that there is no sacrilege with the shekels in the surplus of the Chamber.

Rather,

it is necessarily to say that our Mishna is

in accordance with Rabbi Meir.

For Rabbi Meir

disagrees with Rabbi Judah and

says

that

there is sacrilege

even

with the surplus.

It can be resolved in another way [that is, and if you wish, say], our Mishna is indeed according to everyone, and there is no difficulty concerning why he committed sacrilege, since there is no sacrilege with surplus.

For it can be said that it is dealing with a case where his fellow weighed

a designated shekel, as in this

[in such a manner]: the members of his household

contributed

of the household of Rabban Gamliel,

for they wanted the offerings to come from their very shekels, and that their shekels should not remain in the surplus of the Chamber. They would bring their shekels when the contributor came to take the contribution from the Chamber into the boxes, and they would throw the shekel into the hand of the contributor, and the contributor

would intend

to give them on their behalf,

and he would push it into

the interior of the

box

into which he was contributing; and through this they ensured that their money would not fall into the surplus of the Chamber, but rather into the contribution of the Chamber for the purpose of purchasing the offerings,

and here too, the case is that the agent who contributed on his own behalf with his fellow’s shekel did this. Therefore the agent committed sacrilege, since he did not weigh it without specification; rather, the contributor intended to weigh it on his behalf, and it is also certain that this shekel went for the purpose of sacrificing the offerings and not to the surplus of the Chamber. Accordingly, he committed sacrilege when he removed the shekel for his own use.

And we raise an objection: Why did this one who weighed his fellow’s shekel for himself commit sacrilege and become obligated to bring a sacrifice for sacrilege?

And

what

benefit

did he benefit

from the property of the Sanctuary?

If it is because through this he performed a mitzva, that he contributed his shekel, this is not considered benefit, for “mitzvot were not given for benefit.” And since he did not benefit from the property of the Sanctuary, although he used it, there is no obligation of sacrilege in this!

Rabbi Avin said in the name of the Sages there

[the Sages of Babylonia]:

Since the court is entitled to distrain

one who did not weigh his shekel, and this one who contributed for himself with his fellow’s shekel saved himself from the fact that

they did not distrain

him—the court, this is considered

as though he benefited

from the property of the Sanctuary. For he saved himself through the property of the Sanctuary, and therefore he committed sacrilege.

We learned in the Mishna: One who weighs

from

money

of Second Tithe ...

shall eat opposite them.

And the Gemara explains: What is the reason that the sanctity of shekels may not be imposed upon something sanctified with the sanctity of Second Tithe?

For it is written

concerning the firstborn:

“But the firstborn that shall be born of an animal to the Lord

a man shall not sanctify it.”

And we learn from this verse

that anything which is sanctified, no sanctity

other

takes effect upon it.

And here too, he may not bring his shekel from Second Tithe. Since it is already sanctified on account of Second Tithe, the sanctity of shekels for the offerings does not again take effect upon it.

[And this reason is merely a support; the essential reason that one does not bring shekels from Second Tithe is that an obligatory matter comes only from unconsecrated property.]

The Mishna teaches that if he weighed his shekel from money of Second Tithe or from the money of the Sabbatical year, he shall eat opposite them.

And the Gemara explains:

How does he act?

He brings a sela of unconsecrated money and says: “The money of Second Tithe, wherever it is,

in the Temple

shall be transferred onto this sela,”

of unconsecrated money.

And that sela

of unconsecrated money

is seized

by it sanctity

for the sake of Second Tithe, and the first ones—

that is, what he initially gave for his shekel from money of Second Tithe—

become

now

shekels.

For since he had already transferred their sanctity and the sanctity of Second Tithe departed from them, they again became unconsecrated property and are fit for shekels. [Version of the Vilna Gaon]