Shekalim 6a — the Talmud in English

Halakha 3 — Mishna:

One who collects

gathers

money,

coin by coin or peruta by peruta,

and says: “These are for my shekel,”

and there was money there in excess of half a shekel.

Beit Shammai say: The surplus

goes

to freewill offerings,

to the “summer of the altar,” when offerings are brought from this money when the altar is not occupied with other offerings. For he consecrated this money as well when he said: “These are for my shekel.”

And Beit Hillel say: The surplus is unconsecrated.

Since he intended to consecrate only the amount of the shekel that he was obligated to give, and no more.

But if he said: “I am collecting money”

that I will bring some of it for my shekel—

Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai agree

that

the surplus

of the half-shekel is

unconsecrated.

For he did not say, “These are for my shekel,” but rather, “From it I will bring for my shekel”; his intention was that the money required for the half-shekel would be consecrated, while the surplus would remain unconsecrated.

One who collects money and says: “These are”

for the

offering of

my sin-offering

that I am obligated to bring—

Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree

that

the surplus goes to freewill offerings,

as the reason is explained later in the Mishna.

And if he said: “I am collecting money”

from which I will bring

an animal for

my sin-offering—

they agree that the surplus is unconsecrated.

For this wording indicates that he intended to consecrate only the amount required for his offering, as stated above regarding shekalim.

The Mishna explains:

What

is the distinction

between shekalim and a sin-offering?

Why, with regard to shekalim, if he said, “These are for my shekel,” Beit Hillel hold that the surplus is unconsecrated, whereas with regard to a sin-offering, when one says, “These are for my sin-offering,” and money remains, that money goes to freewill offerings?

Rather, shekalim have a fixed amount.

As it is stated: “The wealthy shall not increase, and the poor shall not decrease, from half a shekel.” Therefore, we say that he certainly intended to consecrate only what he needed for his shekel, and the surplus is unconsecrated.

In contrast,

a sin-offering,

which

does not have a fixed amount,

since one may bring a sin-offering with a small sum or a large sum. Consequently, all the money that he collected acquires sanctity. We say that this was his intention: that everything he collected should be for the sin-offering. Therefore, the surplus goes to freewill offerings, in accordance with the law of the surplus of a sin-offering, which is brought below.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

This reason cannot be stated. For

even shekalim do not have a fixed amount,

since although one may not weigh less than half a shekel, one may weigh more than half a shekel. For we find that there were times when they gave more.

When Israel came up from the exile

from the Babylonian exile, when they were few in number,

they gave darconot [

gold dinars, whose value was two sela, or four half-shekels], because half a shekel was insufficient for their offerings.

And afterward, when the population had increased somewhat,

they returned to giving sela [

a sela is worth two half-shekels]. And afterward

they returned to giving tinei [

half-sela coins, which are the shekalim mentioned in the Mishna and whose value is equivalent to the half-shekel prescribed in the Torah],

And later

they sought to give dinarim [

a quarter of the half-shekel prescribed by the Torah]

but they did not accept them.

For the community is permitted to add to the shekel prescribed by the Torah, but not to reduce it.

In any event, we learn that shekalim do not have a fixed amount, since one may add to it as much as one wishes. The difficulty therefore returns to its original place: What is the distinction between shekalim and a sin-offering? Why does the surplus of the latter go to freewill offerings, whereas the surplus of the shekalim is unconsecrated?

Rabbi Shimon said:

It is indeed possible to add to half a shekel, but

nevertheless

there must be

equal giving by all.

All Israel always give an equal amount, rich and poor alike. Once the court has agreed on the amount to be given, a wealthy person may not add to it, nor may a poor person give less. It follows that shekalim do have a fixed amount. Therefore, when one says, “These are for my shekel,” the money becomes consecrated only up to the amount that they agreed to give.

But a sin-offering

does not involve equal giving by all. For

this one brings

a sin-offering

with one

sin-offering

with two

sela,

and this one brings one with three.

Each person brings a sin-offering with whatever amount of money he wishes. Therefore, the surplus money that he collected for his sin-offering is consecrated, and it goes to freewill offerings, to provide the “summer of the altar” with offerings.

Gemara

We learned in the Mishna:

One who collects

money and says, “These are for my shekel”: Beit Shammai say, the surplus goes to freewill offerings, and Beit Hillel say, the surplus is unconsecrated.

Сказал

Rabbi Yosei said in the name of Rabbi Elazar:

In

what case do

Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree, whether the surplus goes to freewill offerings or is unconsecrated?

In a case where he collects it peruta by peruta [

peruta by peruta], and when he began collecting it he said: “Everything that I collect here will be for my shekel.”

For it is specifically in such a case that Beit Hillel maintain that the surplus is unconsecrated, because when he said this he intended only to collect the amount of half a shekel; it was only at the end that he calculated and found that more than half a shekel had been collected.

But

if he took money in his hand and

said: “

These

are for my shekel,”

and found that there was excess money,

everyone agrees [

everyone agrees]

that the surplus goes to freewill offerings.

For there is no error here: since he did not calculate the money beforehand, he certainly intended that all the money should be consecrated.

Rabbi Hiyya and Rabbi Biva

said

in the name of Rabbi Elazar

otherwise:

In

what case do

Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree?

In a case where he collects it peruta by peruta.

In this case, Beit Shammai hold that the surplus goes to freewill offerings because they maintain that consecration made in error is nevertheless valid consecration. Here too, this is consecration made in error, since he thought that no more than the amount of half a shekel prescribed by the Torah would be collected.

But when he says “

These

are for my shekel,”

there is no error here; he certainly intended that one shekel from the money in his possession should be consecrated and the rest remain unconsecrated.

Everyone agrees that the surplus is unconsecrated. [

This passage is explained according to the version of the Gaon of Vilna.]

Rabbi Hiyya said: Our Mishna

Но

supports Rabbi Biva

in the name of Rabbi Elazar.

As we learned

in our Mishna:

Rabbi Shimon said: What is the distinction between shekalim

whose surplus is unconsecrated

and a sin-offering

whose surplus goes to freewill offerings?

Rather, shekalim have a fixed amount, whereas a sin-offering does not have a fixed amount.

The Gemara now understands that Rabbi Shimon is speaking of a case in which everyone—both Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel—agrees that the surplus money set aside for shekalim is unconsecrated.

He is giving a reason for the distinction between shekalim, whose surplus is unconsecrated according to everyone, and the surplus of a sin-offering, which goes to the community’s freewill offerings. Therefore, it is impossible to establish Rabbi Shimon’s statement in a case where the money is collected peruta by peruta, since in that case Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree whether the surplus is unconsecrated.

Rather,

in what case are we dealing

in which we find the distinction between shekalim and a sin-offering for which Rabbi Shimon is providing a reason?

If

he is speaking

of one who says: I am collecting this money

“from which I will bring”

some of it,

then in such a case

the surplus is unconsecrated in both cases,

whether with regard to shekalim or with regard to a sin-offering.

Rather,

necessarily,

we are dealing with one who says: “

These

are.”

For in this way Rabbi Shimon explains the distinction between one who says, “These are for my shekel,” in which case the surplus is unconsecrated, and one who says, “These are for my sin-offering,” in which case the surplus goes to freewill offerings:

With regard to shekalim, because

of

the fact that their amount is fixed by the Torah, the surplus is unconsecrated.

Since he intended to consecrate only the amount fixed by the Torah.

With regard to a sin-offering, because its amount is not fixed by the Torah,

we say that he intended to consecrate everything; therefore

the surplus

goes to

freewill offerings,

for the “summer of the altar.”

The Gemara now finds support for Rabbi Biva in the name of Rabbi Elazar, and raises a difficulty against Rabbi Yosei in the name of Rabbi Elazar. For our Mishna clearly indicates, as stated, that when one says, “These are for my shekel,” everyone agrees that the surplus is unconsecrated. This is what Rabbi Shimon came to explain, the distinction between shekalim and a sin-offering.

This is explicitly in accordance with Rabbi Biva, who maintains that when one says, “These are,” everyone agrees that the surplus is unconsecrated, and not in accordance with Rabbi Yosei, who maintains that when one says, “These are,” everyone agrees that the surplus goes to freewill offerings. According to his position, there is no distinction at all between shekalim and a sin-offering.

The difficulty is:

What can Rabbi Yosei in the name of Rabbi Elazar do with

this beraita? How can he explain it?

And we answer:

He explains it,

saying that Rabbi Shimon is not speaking at all about one who says, “These are.” Rather, he is speaking

of one who collects it peruta by peruta, and in accordance with Beit Hillel,

who disagree with Beit Shammai in that case whether the surplus goes to freewill offerings or is unconsecrated.

According to Beit Shammai, Rabbi Shimon had no need to state his explanation, because in their view there is no distinction between a sin-offering and shekalim.

Rabbi Shimon came only to explain the position of Beit Hillel, who maintain that with regard to shekalim the surplus goes to freewill offerings, whereas with regard to a sin-offering the surplus is unconsecrated.

There is further support for Rabbi Biva’s statement and a difficulty against Rabbi Yosei:

But we learned

below:

The surplus of shekalim—

unconsecrated.

This Mishna is stated anonymously, implying that even Beit Shammai agree with it. If so, there must be some case in which Beit Shammai agree that the surplus of shekalim is unconsecrated.

According to Rabbi Biva, this is understandable: we find such a case according to Beit Shammai when one says, “These are for my shekel,” since according to his view everyone agrees in this case that the surplus is unconsecrated.

But according to Rabbi Yosei in the name of Rabbi Elazar, who maintains that when one says, “These are,” everyone agrees that the money goes to freewill offerings, we do not find any possible case in which Beit Shammai hold that the surplus is unconsecrated. For according to them, even when he collects the money peruta by peruta, the surplus goes to freewill offerings.

It is impossible to explain that the Mishna is speaking of one who says, “From it I will bring for my shekel,” in which case even Beit Shammai agree that the surplus is unconsecrated, because this Mishna also teaches that the surplus of a sin-offering goes to freewill offerings. If it were speaking of one who says, “From it I will bring,” then with regard to a sin-offering as well the surplus would be unconsecrated.

And we answer: Rabbi Yosei

explains it

as referring to

one who collects it peruta by peruta, and in accordance with Beit Hillel,

who hold that the surplus is unconsecrated. The anonymous Mishna follows Beit Hillel and not Beit Shammai.

The Gemara now explains the laws of an error in consecration.

One who sets aside his shekel, thinking that he is obligated

and therefore set it aside,

and it turns out that he is not obligated—

in this case it is obvious that

the shekel did not become consecrated,

because since he was not obligated to give it, the designation of “shekalim” does not take effect upon his setting it aside.

However, there is a question:

One who sets aside two

half-shekels because he erred

and thought that he was obligated to give two

half-shekels,

and it turns out [

and it becomes clear to him]

that he is obligated to give only

one half-shekel

—,

that

half-shekel

second—

what is done with it?

Can we say that its law is like that of one who mistakenly set aside a single half-shekel because he thought that he was obligated to give it, in which case it did not become consecrated?

Or perhaps there, it did not become consecrated because he was not obligated to give it at all. But here, since he is obligated to give one half-shekel, perhaps it is like one who says, “These are for my shekel,” concerning which there is a dispute whether the money remains unconsecrated or not.

And we resolve the matter:

Let us derive it from this,

from what we learned:

One who sets aside

an animal for

his sin-offering, thinking that he is obligated to bring a sin-offering,

and therefore set it aside,

and it turns out that he is not obligated—

it does not become consecrated

at all.

But if he

sets aside two

animals for his sin-offering,

thinking that he is obligated to bring two,

and it turns out that he is obligated to bring only one—

the second one,

which he set aside in error, becomes consecrated, but it may not be offered. Rather, it

grazes

in the herd until it develops a defect. It is then sold, and the proceeds go to freewill offerings, for the “summer of the altar.”

We learn from this that in the case of a sin-offering, one who sets aside two animals for his sin-offering and it turns out that he is obligated to bring only one—that is, one who says, “These are for my sin-offering”—the surplus goes to freewill offerings.

However, all this applies to a sin-offering, concerning which everyone agrees that when one says, “These are for my sin-offering,” the surplus goes to freewill offerings.

But

here,

with regard to shekalim,

what can be done with it?

Even if we compare one who sets aside two shekalim to one who says, “These are for my shekel,” it is not agreed that the surplus goes to freewill offerings, since there is a dispute even concerning one who says, “These are.”

Rather, the law of one who sets aside two shekalim depends upon this dispute. Therefore:

According to the one who says

that when one says, “

These”

the surplus goes

to freewill offerings—

so too here,

the surplus of one who sets aside two shekalim

goes to freewill offerings.

And according to the one who says

that the surplus is

unconsecrated—

so too here,

the second one set aside for his shekel is

unconsecrated

.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda says:

Even shekalim do not have a fixed amount. When Israel came up from the exile, they gave darconot; they returned to giving sela; they returned to giving tinei; they sought to give dinarim, but they did not accept them.

In the time of the Sages there were various silver coins, such as sela, shekalim, dinarim, maot, and gera.

A sela is worth two shekalim, which are four dinarim; consequently, each shekel is worth two dinarim.

A ma’a is one-sixth of a shekel.

Six maot equal one gera, which is one-twentieth of a shekel, since a shekel is worth twenty gera, as the verse states: “Twenty gera is the shekel.”

These coins mentioned in the Mishnayot and in the Talmud are ordinary coins. However, the sacred coins mentioned in the Torah are double their value. Thus, the half-shekel of the sacred shekel that each person is obligated to give is equal in value to an ordinary shekel.

The Gemara explains which coins are meant by those mentioned in Rabbi Yehuda’s statement, the coins that Israel gave when they came up from the exile: “

They gave

darconot”—

that is,

gold

.

“They returned to giving sela”—

as it sounds [

as it means].

That is double the amount required by the Torah: the sela that they gave was worth two ordinary shekalim, and one ordinary shekel was equivalent in value to half a shekel of the Torah.

“They returned to giving tinei”—

half-sela coins [

half-sela coins], meaning that an ordinary shekel was equivalent to the amount of half a shekel prescribed by the Torah.

“They sought to give dinarim”—

quarters [

quarters], that is, a quarter of a sela, which is half an ordinary shekel.

“But they did not accept them”

because they were not permitted to reduce the amount stated in the Torah.

And the fact that they were not permitted to reduce the amount of half a shekel is derived

from this.

For it is written in Nehemiah:

“And we established upon ourselves commandments, to give a third of a shekel each year

for the service of the House of our God.” A third of a shekel is the half-shekel prescribed by the Torah [in the days of Ezra they increased the value of the coins by one-third. Thus, one-third of a new shekel was equivalent to the original half-shekel—Ramban, Exodus 30:12].

Since it says “we established,” this implies that Nehemiah and his court had to establish the matter, so that they would give a third of a shekel, which was the half-shekel prescribed by the Torah, and would not reduce it.

Thus, although it is possible to add to half a shekel, one may nevertheless not give less than it.

Сказал

Rabbi Ḥilkiya said in the name of Rabbi Aḥa:

Since it does not say “a third of a shekel,” but rather “a third of the shekel,” this implies that one must give a full shekel during the year, in three installments, one-third of a shekel each time.

This is not speaking about the collection of the shekalim, but about charity, as this is the amount of charity that every person is obligated to give.

From here, one must divide his shekel into three parts three times a year,

one-third each time.

From here, the community is not to be burdened

with bringing its donations

more than three times a year.

Rabbi Avin said: From here, for three se’a.

From here, for three collection boxes.

From here, for three collections.

That is, three times a year they would transfer the money of the shekalim from the collection boxes into three large collection chests, each of which held three se’a. From there they would take the money for the needs of the offerings, as explained at length below, in the third chapter.

And that they would collect and separate money from the shofrot three times a year, we learned from the fact that a person must divide his shekel into three.

It is written in the portion of Ki Tisa, in the mitzva of the half-shekel

:

“This shall they give, everyone who passes among those counted

half a shekel according to the sacred shekel, twenty gera the shekel”.

And

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Nehemiah

disagreed concerning the reason for this mitzva, that one must give specifically “half a shekel”.

One said: Because they sinned

Israel in the matter of the Calf

at midday,

as we expound in tractate Shabbat from the verse, “for Moses delayed.” “Boshesh” — “the sixth [hour] came”: for at the sixth hour of the day, which is midday, they sinned with the Calf.

Therefore

they shall give “half” a shekel

to atone for their souls.

And one said: Because they sinned

Israel in the matter of the Calf

at six hours of the day —

they shall give half a shekel, for it makes six gramasin.

For the value of a shekel is six maot.

And according to him, the principal exactness of the verse is concerning a coin in which there is the number six, to atone for their sin, which they committed at six hours.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Rabbi Nehemiah in the name of Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai

said: This that we require one to give half a shekel is

because they transgressed the Ten Commandments

by worshipping the Calf, concerning which they had been warned in the Ten Commandments.

Therefore

each and every one shall give

half a shekel, which is

ten gera.

A shekel is twenty gera, as it is written in the verse, “twenty gera the shekel.” It follows that half a shekel is ten gera.

Rabbi Berakhya

said:

Rabbi Levi in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: Because they sold

the tribes Joseph their brother, who was

Rachel’s firstborn, for twenty pieces of silver

silver, that is, a dinar], therefore

each and every one shall redeem his firstborn son for twenty pieces of silver

dinars.

For the redemption of the son is five selaim, as it is written in the Torah, and each sela is four dinars; it follows that five selaim are twenty dinars.

And this mitzva came to atone for the sale of Joseph, which was carried out in exchange for twenty dinars.

Rabbi Pinhas in the name of Rabbi Levi

said:

Because they sold

the tribes Joseph, who was

Rachel’s firstborn, for twenty

dinars

of silver,

and it turns out that

a coin fell to each and every one of them

a shekel] which is two dinars, for ten brothers participated in Joseph’s sale [besides Benjamin]],

therefore each and every one

of Israel

shall give his shekel, a coin

— an ordinary shekel, which is half the sacred shekel, to atone for the sale of Joseph.