Shekalim 7a — the Talmud in English

And concerning this

Rav Hisda

Exact page location")

said:

The law stated in the Mishna, that the surplus of a nazirite goes to voluntary offerings, applies specifically in a certain manner:

when his sin-offering was sacrificed last,

for then the remaining money has the status of “the surplus of a sin-offering,” whose law is that it goes to voluntary offerings.

But if the peace-offering was sacrificed last—

the money has the status of the surplus of a peace-offering, and the law of

their surplus is

that they are sacrificed as

peace-offerings.

Rabbi Zeira said: Even if the peace-offerings were sacrificed last

and money remained, the law of the remaining coins is that they go to voluntary offerings.

Because

the halakha

given to Moses at Sinai

is regarding

the laws of

the nazirite, that its surplus

goes and is sacrificed as

voluntary offerings.

And it is a Mishna in Tractate Nazir, chapter 4: A woman who vowed to be a nazirite, and her husband annulled her vow, and now she does not bring her offerings—if she had money that she set aside for her offerings, but she did not specify, “These are for a sin-offering, these are for a burnt-offering, and these are for peace-offerings,” their law is that they fall to voluntary offerings for burnt-offerings for the summer of the altar.

And Rav Hisda also agrees with this. Rather, they disputed the case where the money no longer contains the value of a sin-offering, as in the case where the nazirite has already offered his sin-offering: whether even in this manner we say that the surplus of the nazirite’s offering money will go to voluntary offerings.

And there is

a matnita supporting this law

on this side,

and

there is

a matnita supporting this law

on this side.

The tannaim disputed in beraitot whether the surplus of the nazirite’s money, after there is no longer the value of a sin-offering among it, will go to voluntary offerings.

And the Gemara explains: There is

a matnita

that

supports Rabbi Zeira:

For it was taught: One who sets aside money for his naziriteship and dies—and he had unspecified money, meaning that when he set it aside he did not specify, “This is for this offering and that is for that offering”—it shall fall to voluntary offerings.

And the beraita explains:

What is unspecified money

that shall fall to voluntary offerings?

Any money whose sin-offering funds

are mixed within it.

For initially, when he set it aside, he did not specify which money would go for the sin-offering, and consequently the sin-offering funds are mixed within it.

And even

already

set aside the sin-offering funds from within it,

and said, “These coins are for my sin-offering, and the rest are for the other offerings of my naziriteship,” nevertheless the remaining money

is unspecified money

and shall fall to voluntary offerings.

And this is in accordance with Rabbi Zeira, for the halakha concerning a nazirite is that the surplus of the nazirite’s money, from which his offerings are not sacrificed, falls to voluntary offerings, even when the money for the sin-offering is no longer among it.

And there is

a matnita

that

supports Rav Hisda:

For it was taught in another beraita: One who set aside money for the offerings of his naziriteship, but did not specify for which offering, and afterward set aside money from among it and said:

“These are for my sin-offering, and the rest for the other

offerings

of my naziriteship.”

And he died.

One is liable for misuse [he brings a misuse-offering]

if he derived benefit

from all of it, but one is not liable for misuse [and he does not bring a misuse-offering]

if he derived benefit only

from part of it.

Because a burnt-offering is most-holy sacrificial food, whereas a peace-offering is lesser sacrificial food; and one who derives benefit from most-holy sacrificial food brings a misuse-offering, while one who derives benefit from lesser sacrificial food does not bring a misuse-offering. Here, since the nazirite did not specify whether the money was for a burnt-offering or for peace-offerings, it stands for both, and if he derived benefit only from part of it, we say that perhaps he derived benefit from the money of peace-offerings, and therefore he does not bring a misuse-offering.

And he did not say

the tanna in this beraita:

“If he dies, it shall fall

the money

to voluntary offerings.”

And it is proven that it does not fall to voluntary offerings.

For if their law were that burnt-offerings for voluntary offerings are sacrificed from them, all the money would be the value of burnt-offerings, and there would be no value of peace-offerings among it. Why, then, did one who derived benefit from part of it not commit misuse? Rather, certainly this beraita holds in accordance with Rav Hisda: only where the value of a sin-offering was not separated from the unspecified money do we say that its surplus falls to voluntary offerings.

Rav Hisda said: The surplus

of the money that remained from the funds he set aside in order to bring from them

“the bread of the nazirite” [which is brought together with the peace-offerings that the nazirite brings] has no remedy, as he explains. Rather,

it shall rot [it shall be left to rot].

Rabbi Yose said: It is fitting [he has said well]!

For

to sacrifice it

this bread

by itself you cannot, for you have no bread

that

is sacrificed by itself,

and the bread is brought only together with the peace-offerings.

And here, since he has already sacrificed the peace-offerings together with the bread, and money for additional bread remained for him, it is impossible to sacrifice it by itself.

And likewise,

to sacrifice it with

the peace-offerings of

another naziriteship,

as an offering for another nazirite, also

you cannot.

Because

you have no

peace-offering of a naziriteship that

comes without bread.

Therefore, that nazirite, when he set aside the peace-offerings, necessarily also set aside bread with them. Consequently, this bread has no possibility of joining and being sacrificed with the peace-offerings of another nazirite.

And therefore,

necessarily,

it is necessary to say [and for this reason one must say]:

“The surplus of the bread of the nazirite—

it shall rot.”

And we say:

The Rabbis thought [they thought]

to say

that

that the

same law stated concerning

same law stated concerning

the bread of a nazirite, whose surplus shall rot,

is

the same law also concerning the

surplus

of money that he set aside for

the libations

of a nazirite: it shall rot, and he may not bring another offering with this money.

Rabbi Yose son of Rabbi Bun said:

That is not so! Rather, since

the surplus of his libations is most-holy sacrificial food [they are],

and

therefore their law is that

they fall to voluntary offerings.

For he holds that any surplus remaining from money designated for most-holy sacrificial food has the law that it falls to voluntary offerings.

And we say:

According to the view [according to the words]

of Rabbi Yose son of Rabbi Bun,

who says in the name of Rav Hisda that the surplus of libations falls to voluntary offerings because they are most-holy sacrificial food, it follows that

Samuel, Rav Hisda, and Rabbi Eleazar—

all three said the same thing,

that the surplus of most-holy sacrificial food is used to sacrifice voluntary burnt-offerings. And he explains:

Rav Hisda—

this

which we said, that since the surplus of libations is most-holy sacrificial food, the surplus goes to voluntary offerings.

that since the surplus of libations is of the highest degree of sanctity, the surplus is used for voluntary offerings.

And

Samuel

also held this, as we see

that Rabbi Yose said: “While I was there,”

when I was there in Babylonia, before I went up to the Land of Israel,

I heard

the

the voice

of Rabbi Judah,

when he

asked

this question before

Samuel:

One who

set aside his shekel

for the voluntary contribution of shekels to the Temple

and died—

what shall they do with his shekel?

Samuel said to him:

Shmuel:

It shall fall to voluntary offerings.

We see, then, that Samuel also held that the surplus of shekels, since they are most-holy sacrificial food, therefore falls to voluntary offerings.

And

Rabbi Eleazar

also held this,

as it was stated: A High Priest who set aside money with which to purchase flour for the daily meal-offering [which he brought in the morning and in the evening, and which consisted of a tenth of an ephah of flour divided into two, and he sacrificed half an ephah in the morning and half in the evening]. If he set aside money, and after he purchased the flour money remained in his possession, the amoraim disputed what should be done with

A High Priest who set aside money with which to purchase flour for his daily meal-offering [A0172]which he brought in the morning and evening and which consisted of one-tenth of an ephah of flour, divided into two parts, half an ephah being sacrificed in the morning and half in the evening—if he set aside money and, after purchasing the flour, money remained in his possession, the amoraim disagreed about what should be done with

the surplus of his tenth of an ephah:

Rabbi Yohanan said: He shall take it to the Dead Sea,

and it is forbidden to derive benefit from it, but if he derived benefit from it, he does not bring a misuse-offering.

Rabbi Eleazar says: It shall fall to voluntary offerings.

Thus, he too holds that what remains from that which was set aside for most-holy sacrificial food goes to voluntary offerings.

Halakha 5 — Mishna

a.

The surplus

of the money that remained from what they collected for the redemption of

captives—

they shall give it

for

the purpose of redeeming

other captives.

.

b.

But

the surplus

that remained from what they collected explicitly for the sake of

a certain captive—that captive acquires the surplus, and they shall give it

that captive acquires the surplus, and they shall give it

to

that

captive.

c.

The surplus

of the money that remained from what they collected for

the poor—

they shall give it

for the purpose of

the needs of

other poor.

.

d.

But

the surplus

that remained from what they collected for

a certain poor person shall go

shall go

to that poor person.

e.

The surplus

of the money that remained from what they collected for the burial of

the dead

shall remain

for

the needs of

the dead.

And

but

the surplus of

the money

that remained from what they collected for the burial of

a certain dead person shall be given

shall be given

to his heirs.

Rabbi Meir says: The surplus of the

money that they collected for the sake of

a certain dead person—

—

shall be placed until Elijah comes.

Because of the uncertainty. And as follows.

Rabbi Natan says: The surplus of the dead—

they build for him [for that dead person]

a monument [a structure]

over his grave.

And in the Babylonian Gemara [Sanhedrin 48a], Rava explains their dispute. Rabbi Natan holds that since the dead person was disgraced through this money, which they collected in his name, the dead person does not waive his disgrace for the benefit of his heirs. Therefore, they should make a monument from the surplus over his grave. And the first tanna holds that it is pleasing for the dead person to be disgraced after his death for the benefit of his heirs, and therefore the surplus goes to the heirs.

And Rabbi Meir was uncertain about this, and therefore he said that the money should be placed until Elijah comes, and he will resolve the uncertainty.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: The surplus of the dead belongs to his heirs,

and we raise a question: What is the law if

they collected for him, for the dead person, because he was

because he was

presumed not to have

money of his own for his burial,

and it was found that he did have [money]—

what shall they do with that money which they collected?

Rabbi Jeremiah thought to say:

Just as we say in the Mishna that

the surplus of the dead belongs to his heirs,

so too this money that they collected for him has the status of the surplus of the dead, and it goes to his heirs.

Rav Idi of Hutra [a place-name] said to Rabbi Jeremiah:

Consider!

For this is not comparable.

For

here, when they collected,

they intended only for him [they intended to collect the money only for him].

And since it was found that he did not need it, it is thereby established that he never acquired it at all. This is not comparable to the case in the Mishna, where, when they collected the money, the money was fitting for him, but it remained over. And since he had already acquired it, it goes to his heirs.

Rav Idi was Rabbi Jeremiah’s student, and therefore Rabbi Jeremiah became angry with him and

said to him:

Surely you know only what you learned from me. And

I

indeed

did not say

this matter—that if they collected under the presumption that he had money and it was found that he did not have money, the money would not go to the heirs.

And if so,

you—

from where do you know

to disagree with me and say this?

It was taught

in a beraita

in the name of Rabbi Natan: The surplus

of the money that remained from what they collected for the sake of

a certain dead person

—

they shall build a monument for him over his grave, and they shall perform sprinkling for him

of spices

upon his bier

for a pleasant fragrance.

It was taught in a beraita, concerning the laws of surpluses remaining from a collection:

One may not redeem a captive with

money remaining from a collection made for the sake of

another captive.

.

And they do not collect

and purchase

a prayer shawl

for one poor person

with

the surplus of the money remaining from what they collected for the purchase of

a prayer shawl

for another poor person.

But

one does not protest against the administrators concerning this,

for if they did so, one does not protest against them.

It was taught: Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: They do not make monuments [a structure over the grave as a monument]

for the righteous

as a memorial for them.

Rather,

their words

that are said in their name—

they themselves are their memorial.

Rabbi Yohanan was leaning and walking upon Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba [when he walked, he leaned upon him, because he was corpulent].

And Rabbi Eliezer would see him and hide himself from before him [when Rabbi Eliezer saw Rabbi Yohanan walking, he would hide from him].

And

concerning this

Rabbi Yohanan said: “These

two

evils this Babylonian has done to me [this Babylonian has done these two bad things]:

One, that he did not ask about my welfare.

And one, that he hides,

so it appears that I am not worthy of speaking with him, and therefore he hides from me.

Rabbi Jacob bar Idi said

to Rabbi Yohanan:

“This is how they conduct themselves among them: The junior does not ask about the welfare of the senior” [this is their practice, that the junior does not precede the senior in offering greetings].

“For they practice and fulfill,

they conduct themselves according to and fulfill this verse [Job 29]:

‘Young men saw me and hid themselves, and old men rose and stood.’”

And from here [it follows] that out of honor for the senior, it is proper that those below him hide themselves from before him.

Rabbi Jacob bar Idi saw that Rabbi Yohanan was still angry, and wished to appease him further,

and therefore he asked him and

said to him: “What is [the law] concerning passing before the image of Adora?”

Is it permitted to pass before an image whose name is Adora?

He said to him

Rabbi Yohanan:

“Why do you accord it honor?!” [What honor do you accord it by not passing before it]?

On the contrary,

“Pass before it, and blind its eye” [pass before it and blind its eye]. That is, demonstrate by this that you are not afraid of it or of its honor.

.

Rabbi Jacob bar Idi said to him

to Rabbi Yohanan: If so,

it is fitting [well that]

Rabbi Eliezer acted by not passing

before you,

for since you have revealed that refraining from passing before the image is a way of showing honor, the same applies to the fact that Rabbi Eliezer did not pass before you: it is a way of showing honor and not a way of showing contempt, and he acted properly.

Rabbi Yohanan said to Rabbi Jacob:

“And furthermore,

another improper

thing he did

to

me, this Babylonian [this Babylonian]: he stated a halakhic matter that he heard from me,

,

and he did not say

that this

that this teaching

was

was in my name [from me].

Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi entered before him

to appease him.

They said to him: “Rabbi,”

surely

“was this not the incident in the synagogue of the metalworkers,”

where there was a discussion concerning an object set aside on Shabbat,

“concerning a bolt whose head has a glostera,”

a bolt whose head is thick and suitable for grinding garlic,