Laws of Shekalim Chapter 3 (Auto Translated)

Laws of Shekalim Chapter 3 – Kolbon and Detailed Laws of Giving the Half-Shekel

Overview of Chapter 3

Three, we are learning the holy Rambam, the holy Torah, Laws of Shekalim, Chapter 3. Okay, we are going to continue learning. We have already learned the essential mitzvah, that was in the first chapter, and also what a shekel is. In the second chapter we learned the order of how it is collected, and what is done with the money, and how one separates terumah for the Beit HaMikdash, meaning how the gabbai takes it down.

Here we are going to learn additional detailed laws of when one gives, various detailed laws of giving the half-shekel. Two detailed laws that I know of, one is, or perhaps there are more. One, when one gives there is some law called a kalbon or a kolbon, the Rambam calls it kolbon, I don’t know the exact word. But anyway, afterwards there are a few types, if one gives it for two people or partners, what are the laws of kolbon. And afterwards there is a whole bunch of laws if the shekalim are lost, who is obligated to give again. And afterwards there is what happens when a person had set aside money for the half-shekel and he was left with extra money. That is approximately two or three topics in this chapter.

Law 1 – The Law of Kolbon

The Foundation of Kolbon

The Rambam says, Law 1: “Half-shekalim, everyone needs them”. Everyone needs the half-shekel. So when the month of Adar comes there is a huge demand for half-shekalim, the bank becomes empty. Just as the bank becomes empty before Purim, the banks become empty, all the fives and twos and twenties are no longer available in the bank. So in the time when the Beit HaMikdash existed it was hard to find half-shekalim. Therefore, so the gabbaim, the money changers who sat and exchanged for people, people could come bring larger shekalim, and he would give them back a bunch of half-shekalim, and you would give back a half-shekel for the terumat half-shekel.

So because there is such a need, “everyone needs them so that each and every one can give the half-shekel that he is obligated in”, because everyone wants it at that time in order to be able to give, “therefore” the price of the half-shekel went up, and therefore, “anyone who gives goes to the money changer”, when a person went to the money changer, the exchanger, the banker, to whom he went to give the half-shekel, “and exchanges a shekel for two halves”, and he gives him a shekel and he gets back change of a half-shekel, two. He gets back half change, or he gets back two, he needs to give him two and he should give him… because why does one need to give so much? So since now the shekel is worth more, the money changer had to now obtain half-shekalim, he had to pay, he gives him an addition on the shekel, he should give, he gives an extra addition, he gives more in addition to what the half-shekel is.

What does it say, the addition is called kalbon. The addition is a small coin called a kalbon, to cover the extra cost of exchanging, so that the cost should not come from hekdesh. Because one could think that the money changer will afterwards take down what it cost him, but we don’t want hekdesh to have any loss. So they added a kalbon that people must give.

Question: The Addition of the Sages

It’s interesting, because we learned earlier that the Sages had already added a bit, so actually perhaps the addition of the Sages would already perhaps cover that. But that already became the new law of the half-shekel. If one wants to cover it, one must cover it from one’s own money.

Digression: Practical Moral Lesson for Charity

But from here one can perhaps see a law, that I know, many times people have complaints that beggars come for charity, and part of the money goes for their driver. Perhaps on the contrary, you should additionally pay to cover their driver. You gave money for charity? Cover the extra expenses. Okay, I hear. It also costs credit card processing. I mean to say that that’s life. That is the Rambam.

Two Who Give a Shekel – Two People Who Give Together

Therefore, regarding this, once we understand that the obligation of kolbon is a practical obligation that comes because it costs to exchange, therefore, two who gave a shekel for both, if two people together come and give a whole shekel, don’t they need to give two kolbonot? They are obligated in kolbon. There was one kolbon, as I understand it. It seems to be so, that if one gives a half-shekel, okay, you need to obtain a half-shekel, pay for it. What if two people give to make a partnership? One doesn’t need to exchange, but they are still obligated in kolbon. Yes, it’s not clear why, it’s not a “therefore”. “Therefore” is yet another law. And why?

Discussion: Why Are Two People Obligated in Kolbon?

The answer is, because he says that… Yes, I need now, we will soon see more details about this. Not clear. It could be the reason is because if not, everyone would join together with his neighbor and save a shekel. Then the shekel would become hard to find. The same thing would happen with the shekel that one thought to find. Okay, I will charge then for the shekel. What is the… It’s interesting.

And therefore, once the Sages already made the law of kolbon, it already remained something that already remained such a common thing, it already remained such a law. Not clear. Ah, in short, it’s a law on each and every one, every Jew. But does he need to give one kolbon or two? One, well. Seemingly one, because it doesn’t cost here the extra. Or perhaps not? Obligated in kolbon, each one of them is obligated with an extra kolbon. It could be that obligated in kolbon, each one of them is obligated in kolbon. Because once the law of kolbon was made, each one already received the law. I don’t know. He doesn’t say. Not yet.

It could be the point is that it’s not l’chatchila that two people bring together a shekel, rather the l’chatchila is that each should bring alone a half. Therefore one doesn’t want him to benefit from the trick that he made, from what he outsmarted the system. Okay. Anyway, further.

Deepening in the Topic of Kolbon

Something I need to understand the topic of the kolbon. There is the foundation. I saw, there is what they learn that the money changer himself needs to make some money. It’s not just the… because… it starts with the concerns. Therefore, he makes the kolbonot, he makes it so that the money changer’s cost should be covered by the end user, by the givers, not by hekdesh. Meaning, they made it that even when there isn’t the practical cost of… it basically already became like a thing, that one must pay a half-shekel plus a kolbon, so it comes out rabbinically or with the… Not clear.

He brings a good explanation, he brings from Rashi one thing why one gives a kolbon, because of a concern perhaps the half-shekel is not full weight, it’s missing a bit. You know, sometimes there is a coin that is a bit scratched off, in order to… it’s such a safeguard so as not to stumble and give less. One gives the kolbon in addition, or to cover the cost of the money changer. Okay.

Law 1 (Continued) – Those Exempt from Kolbon

Women and Slaves

The law continues to say, “Anyone who is not obligated in shekalim”, we learned earlier that there are those who are not obligated in shekalim, but if they give it is a good thing, “such as women and slaves”, so since… no, if it’s not a shekel, if it didn’t actually cost them to exchange, and we are exempt, and it didn’t cost, then “they are exempt from the kolbon”.

It means like this: Once a woman takes upon herself the obligation, she must give a full half-shekel. So if it costs money to exchange, you must also cover the cost. But if there are two things, one you are not obligated, and two, and then it doesn’t cost hekdesh to exchange, then you are exempt from the kolbon. This also gives the explanation for the previous law, that once you are indeed obligated they already made the obligation for each one.

A Man Who Gave for His Wife

“And so if there was one obligated and one exempt, and the obligated one gave for the exempt one, such as a man”, a man gave a shekel for himself and for his wife, then “he is exempt from the kolbon”, because from his wife’s portion he is not obligated. So what is enough that he gives only a kolbon for his side, for his half? That’s how I would learn it, exempt from the extra kolbon.

Kohanim

“And so the Kohanim”, we learned earlier that regarding the Kohanim one is more lenient because the Kohanim held that they are not obligated in the half-shekel, “they are exempt from the kolbon”, they are exempt from the addition. The same thing “one who gives a shekel on behalf of the Kohen”, one who gives instead of the Kohen, one who gives to make the Kohen meritorious, “is exempt from the kolbon”.

Discussion: Completely Exempt or Only from the Second?

Perhaps the point is different. You are giving a whole shekel anyway. You are giving for one who is exempt. If that one is exempt, look, for me I need to give a half-shekel. I gave you not just a kolbon, but a whole one. Okay, and I’m already saying that it’s for a second one also, but… then one is not obligated in a kolbon also not for one’s own half. But then it says that for the wife you don’t give a full half-shekel. If it was with a half-shekel, it must be a full half-shekel. It doesn’t say exempt from the second kolbon. It seems that it’s completely exempt.

But it turns further. The “two who gave a shekel for two are obligated in kolbon”, there are those who learned “obligated”, each one of them is obligated in kolbon. They had to give a total of two more kolbonot. So according to that explanation, here it will be “obligated in kolbon”, meaning they are only obligated in one kolbon. And what I know, perhaps nowadays. It depends on how one learns the previous and the current one. If it says one is one, but I can’t ask. But “obligated in kolbon” means they are both obligated, because the kolbon is not “obligated in kolbon”. “Obligated in kolbon”. But “obligated in kolbon”. Okay.

Law 1 (Continued) – One Who Gives a Shekel for a Poor Person

The Rambam continues to say, one who gives a shekel for a poor person. They learned earlier that a poor person must also give, and it already pained us then, poor thing, one makes him take off his shirt. Now we know that wealthy Jews gave for themselves and for the poor. or for his neighbor, or for his fellow townsman, he gives for another Jew. So, we don’t take a gift for free, if he gives for the poor person just like that, as a gift instead of the poor person, exempt from the kolbon, for he gave a half-shekel and a gift in order to increase the shekalim, he will already add. Like your explanation, very good.

But if he gave them the half-shekel through them as a loan until they return it to him when they have the means, but if he gives it only as a loan, not as a loan. Ah, that is indeed implied by borrowing. Ah, then he is indeed obligated in kolbon, because he is not giving extra. He will take the kolbon also from the loan. Yes, fine, but the point is that you are not now giving extra for the hekdesh, you are giving a loan to your friend. Okay. You are actually like two people, who give one who are obligated?

There is still a bit of a novelty, because one could have thought, he is doing a favor here, he is helping so that the poor person can give when he doesn’t have money. But still… but still… but it’s interest. Interest is already a discussion in itself, I’m even talking… the poor person doesn’t give up the kolbon. Yes, okay.

Law 1 (Continued) – Brothers Who Haven’t Divided / Partners

The Rambam continues like this, such a law, brothers who have not yet divided what they inherited from their father. There is what we learned earlier by etrog, partnership in the house. Money still lies in the safe, and they haven’t yet divided it, and they take a shekel from the… from the money that lies in the inheritance money, or like partners, partners who have a safe or company money, money that has not yet been divided between the two partners.

Law 4 (Continued) – Partners Who Give from Partnership Money

Speaker 1:

But this is different from two people, because earlier we spoke about two partners who stood as partners in what? Two people give in partnership. Here we speak when the money is in partnership, they give the money from the partnership money. But he says, when does this apply? With partners who gave from the partnership money, and the appearance of the money changed. It’s not the money… I’m not clear.

Speaker 2:

And what is the difference?

Speaker 1:

Yes. They are partners only on money, they don’t have anything, each one still has his dollar.

Speaker 2:

Yes, when two partners, each put in a thousand dollars into the business, and now there are two thousand, that is still, he takes from that safe, he still takes a dollar from him and a dollar from him. But we speak here when it’s money that belongs to the company, because this is revenue that both made together, and their investment, their investment is no longer there, and now there are the profits that they made from the business, meaning their extra money. Abraham, Avi, this is additional, this is additional, mixed together, if they both brought extra money it is mixed. If they have no details and no expenses, then it means the same dollar that he puts there. So yes, they should be obligated in kolbon, as we learned earlier when two people bring together. They are not true partners still.

The Raavad’s Dispute on Partners

Speaker 1:

The Raavad sees, go up a bit earlier. Earlier already, the Raavad argues about the partners. He doesn’t see why partners should be exempt. The Raavad looks at partners as meaning always like two separate ones, even if they took from the partnership money. Therefore he reads “the brothers the partners”, which then is completely mixed money, yes.

Law 5 – Brother Partners Who Have Partially Divided

Speaker 1:

Okay, the Rambam continues, Law 5: The brother partners who had an animal and money, brothers or partners who had together an animal, they were partners with an animal, and they were together partners in money, and they divided the money, they divided the money, and now they bring one shekel, but the one shekel is for both of them, and the money is actually already divided, they are obligated in kolbon, they are obligated in kolbon, even though they did not divide the animal, even if they are still partners with the animal. Because in practice regarding the money they are already separate, meaning it’s like two people giving together a shekel, which then one is indeed obligated in kolbon.

But if they divided the animal and did not divide the money, they are exempt from the kolbon until they divide the money. And we don’t say since they are standing to divide, we don’t say that since they have already started to divide, and by the animals they have already gone through and already divided, it is only lacking an action, but we look at it as if they have already divided. No, they are still completely together.

Law 6 – One Who Gives a Whole Shekel and Takes Back Change

Speaker 1:

The Rambam continues like this: One who gives a shekel to hekdesh so that it should be counted for him as the half-shekel that he is obligated in, and takes a half-shekel from the collected money from the halves, one gives a shekel to hekdesh, he gives a whole shekel and he takes back change, he gives a shekel and he asks back change of a half-shekel, he is obligated in two kolbonot, then he needs two kolbonot: one kolbon to cover the half-shekel that he gives, and one kolbon to cover for the half-shekel that he gets back. Because each shekel costs money for the money changer or for hekdesh to exchange, because you make the shekel is now, as we discussed, an expensive thing, it costs money. So it costs here money for hekdesh to give him back in change. So one must give him once because the money changer exchanges it for him for a half-shekel, and once because he gets back a half-shekel.

Discussion: Why Two Kolbonot?

Speaker 2:

Yes, because the whole shekel was not for shekalim. As you say, everyone gives a shekel.

Speaker 1:

Ah, giving a shekel, a half-shekel costs first of all, he needs to buy the half-shekel and give it. Now he wants to buy another half-shekel that he takes for himself. Both sides he buys, if both he must pay for the change that he gives and for the change that remains with him.

Speaker 2:

What does a kolbon mean?

Speaker 1:

Ah, how much is the kolbon? For the kolbon is not a coin. Kolbon is the name for some sort of thing.

The Amount of the Kolbon

Speaker 1:

The Rambam says, how much is the amount of the kolbon? At the time when one would give for a half to a shekel two dinars, the kolbon was half a ma’ah which is one of twelve in a dinar. A small coin. And they never gave a kolbon less than this. But one never goes less than this. It’s less than one and four and twenty, yes? It can sometimes be more than this.

Speaker 2:

So what is like 7% on something?

Speaker 1:

It can be more than the… more it can indeed be, yes.

Speaker 2:

But it depends on the rate of how much the change costs?

Translation

Speaker 1:

No, it changes because sometimes it was larger. That is, if the shekel became worth more than two dinar, as we learned earlier that the shekel can become worth like four dinar, then the kolbon must become twice as much. According to the exchange rates.

What is Done with the Kolbonot

Speaker 1:

So. Vehakalbonot, says the Rambam, vehakalbonot eino k’shekalim. The kolbonot don’t go into the boxes of the shekalim, into the collection box. Manihin otam hashulchanim bifnei atzman. The money changers put it aside, ad shetitztar’chu min hahekdesh, until it will be needed for the hekdesh.

Discussion: What is Done with the Kolbonot?

Speaker 2:

And what is it used for?

Speaker 1:

Ah, there’s a dispute about… There are many opinions about what the kolbonot are used for. It’s also interesting, because earlier it seemed that it was used for the exchange.

Speaker 2:

What does the money changer mean…

Speaker 1:

No, he doesn’t pocket it himself, the money changer. That’s how it appears here. And the money changer doesn’t get paid for his work. Later we’ll see who gets paid.

Speaker 2:

Maybe he gets paid separately. I don’t know. A problem could be that he gets a payment. It’s not that he gets a payment according to how many shekalim he brought.

Speaker 1:

So in the Yerushalmi, in tractate Shekalim there is no Bavli, there’s only Yerushalmi. About this, by the way, there’s no Rif. The Rambam here, unlike usually where the Rambam based his book a lot on the Rif, the Rambam here ruled directly from the Yerushalmi.

In any case, he brings here below many opinions about what “profited from the hekdesh” means, what the hekdesh does with the kolbonot. Rabbi Meir says that in the end it went into the terumas halishka. But separately, yes, because it says that it wasn’t put in together. Rabbi Elazar says that they made voluntary offerings with it when there were few offerings. Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai says that they made from it – it says in the halacha that they covered the altar with the kodshei kodashim with layers of gold. Ah, and ben Azzai says the thing that the money went for the money changers to cover their expenses.

In short, there are several approaches, and it’s not clear. He says that Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky claims that the Rambam doesn’t rule, because perhaps there’s no dispute, perhaps it changes that a year when more is needed for this, it’s used for this. It’s not that there’s such a law that it must be given for one of these things. It’s all money. Everyone knows that money, there’s no difference which money, all money is the same, right? If money is earned here, it goes there. There’s nothing specific about what’s used for what really.

Halacha 7-8 — Responsibility for the Shekalim: Who Bears Responsibility When Shekalim are Lost

Speaker 1:

So, the Rambam says like this, here begins a question, that such a large operation is happening that money is being brought from everywhere to Jerusalem, so things also happen that the money gets lost. When is a person obligated to give again a machatzis hashekel? And when is it the treasurer’s problem?

The Rambam says like this, mi she’avad shkalo, a person who… he held at home a collection box to collect for machatzis hashekel, chayav ba’acharayuso ad sheyimsrenu lagizbar. Until he hasn’t handed it over to the treasurers of the hekdesh, to the money changers, he’s responsible. We don’t say that it was an unavoidable accident. An unavoidable accident doesn’t help for this.

But what happens in such a case? The shekel was already given to the messenger to send to Jerusalem. Bnei ha’ir sheshalchu shikleihem beyad shaliach, they sent a messenger with money to bring to the Beis Hamikdash, to the chamber, venignvu o avdu, on the way the money was stolen or lost. It turns out like this: im shomer chinam hu, a shomer chinam is exempt from theft and loss, harei zeh nishba lahem, he must swear to the townspeople that it was an unavoidable accident, that it was theft or loss, veniftar, and he is exempt, kedin kol shomrei chinam. And since he’s exempt, they unfortunately must give again, because it hasn’t yet reached the treasurer. The messenger is not a treasurer, that’s the point.

Speaker 2:

Ah, messenger. The messenger is only a messenger for the people. He works for them.

Speaker 1:

Yes, if not he wouldn’t be exempt. Vehem chozrin venosnin shekalim pa’am sheniya, again.

Enactment of the Sages: Hekdesh Doesn’t Go Out Without an Oath

Speaker 1:

Ve’im amru anshei ha’ir… What happens if the townspeople, they don’t gain anything from his oath, because he has to give anyway. So if the townspeople, there’s a fear of an oath, that an oath is not something one seeks to do. So the townspeople say, we’re going to pay anyway, we don’t want him to have to swear. Generally, a person can forgive the other person the oath, but here we’re talking about the oath for hekdesh, to make sure that he wasn’t me’il with hekdesh. So if they say hevi anenu sham, we’re going to pay anyway, we don’t want him to have to swear. We believe him. Ein shom’in lahem. They don’t believe him. Why? Takanas chachamim hi she’ein hekdesh yotzei belo shevua. When it comes to hekdesh money, there is indeed a possibility that he took it, they do believe him, but there’s a law that hekdesh never believes. Hekdesh must always be very strict about this, ve’ein hekdesh yotzei belo shevua he must swear anyway.

The First Shekalim Were Found

Speaker 1:

What happens in such a case? Nimtze’u hashekalim harishonim, after he already swore, and they already gave new money. We found the original shekalim, it’s no longer with a messenger. What happens? Elu va’elu shekalim. We don’t say that the second shekalim they gave in error. Once they gave it for hekdesh they already gave it. Ve’ein olin lahem leshana acheres. Not that they can say hold it for next year, it doesn’t work. Ve’ein olin lahem leshana acheres. Rather? Barishonim, it’s the new one, the new money,

Halacha 9 (Continued) – A Messenger from Whom the Shekalim Were Stolen

The first shekalim were found, after he already swore and they already gave new money, we found the original shekalim, not with the messenger. What happens? So, elu va’elu shekalim, we don’t say that the second shekalim they gave in error. No? Once they gave it for hekdesh they already gave it. Ve’ein olin lahem leshana acheres. Not that they can say, hold it for next year, it doesn’t work. Ve’ein olin lahem leshana acheres. Rather? The new money is shekalim. And the money that was found, that was lost that was found, veharishonim yiplu leshiklei hashana. The acharonim means the old ones? Not clear. One would see, ah, the Rambam doesn’t know what shekalim rishonim means. Veha’acharonim yiplu leshiklei hashana she’avra. Anyway, one of them goes for today, one goes for last year. Next year one can’t, but last year we learned that one can pay for last year if one didn’t pay.

The Difference Between Shomer Sachar and Shomer Chinam

What if he’s a paid guardian? What happens if he’s a paid guardian who is indeed liable for theft and loss? Shalchu es shikleihem beyad shomer sachar, sheharei hu chayav bigeneva va’aveida. Ve’avdu mimenu be’ones, but it’s still, when it’s an unavoidable accident he is indeed exempt, kegon shelakchum listim mezuyanin shehu patur, so it is, ro’in.

If after shenirma hateruma — nishba hashaliach lagizborin, uvnei ha’ir peturim. Why? Why? Shehatorem, the one who is torem there in the Beis Hamikdash, the one who takes down from the money that lies in the chamber, terumos we learned earlier that he is torem for the… he takes down the money for the offerings, so torem al hagavuy ve’al he’asid ligavos, so it’s simple that they’ve essentially already taken offerings on account of the money that lies with the messenger. Uvirshus hekdesh hen, uvnei ha’ir ma haya lahem la’asos? The townspeople are exempt because harei lo mesarum ela leshomer sachar shehu chayav bigeneva va’aveida, aval ha’ones eino matzuy.

It means like this: When it’s given to a shomer chinam, it means the townspeople saved money, and in such a case they took the risk, they must hand over the money again. But the people here did the right thing, they paid extra money for a guardian. And the guardian, if it had been theft or loss which happens, he would have been liable, and they were safe. But what then, this time something happened that happens rarely, an unavoidable accident. Always something unavoidable and not common, they did the right thing, and in practice they already did teruma on their account, offerings were already given on account of al hagavuy, so they’re exempt, but they need to make an oath.

But when avdu kodem shenirma hateruma, still before Rosh Chodesh Nisan, it’s adayin birshus bnei ha’ir, no offerings have yet been taken down for them. Then what, hashaliach nishba le’anshei ha’ir, vehem meshalmin, they must pay again the machatzis hashekel.

When Bandits Return the Money

What happens in such a case again? Nishba vegavu shekalim shnit, they gave again a machatzis hashekel, ve’achar kach hechzirum halistim, and afterwards the bandits came and returned the money. It’s also the same law, elu va’elu shekalim, ve’ein olin lahem leshana acheres, it can’t be used for next year. It appears the law is that one must give every year, one can’t give for the next year, one can give for the previous year that one still owes, but one can’t give for next year. Vehashnayim yiplu leshiklei hashana she’avra, for the box where the shekalim of the previous year are placed, and in the later chapter we’ll learn what is done with the box of the shekalim of the previous year.

Dispute in the Interpretation of “First Shekalim” and “Last Shekalim”

He says, the Rambam, what does the first shekalim and last shekalim mean? He says, yesh mi she’omer shehashkalim harishonim sheyiplu leshiklei hashana hen shekalim shenigvu batchila. What was originally given, and the others are second. Their reasoning is that this is the main thing, this is what they gave the first time. Yesh mi she’omer exactly the opposite, shekalim harishonim is hashekalim shehigi’u leyad hagizbar techila means the second shekalim, which they now separated, because the earlier ones would have arrived.

Halacha 10 — One Who Gives Machatzis Hashekel to His Friend and Paid on His Own

Hanosen chatzi shekel lachavero, one gives for his friend, he should be his messenger, leholicho leshulchani to the treasurers, the half machatzis hashekel, lishkol oso al yado bishmo to give instead of him. Vehalach, the person went veshkalo al yedei atzmo, he gave it for himself. Why? Why did he do it kedei shelo yimashkenuhu oso? Kedei… We learned earlier that one is forced for machatzis hashekel, a pledge is taken, valuable things are taken from the person, his slave is taken so he should pay the machatzis hashekel, then he gets back the pledge. What is the halacha? Yes.

Discussion: When Does the Shekel Become Hekdesh?

Speaker 1: So it is, the halacha is like this, im nitrema hateruma, if when the… the person who gave it, the first one, the sender, already did teruma, he said this should be machatzis hashekel?

Speaker 2: No, nitrema doesn’t mean the terumas halishka?

Speaker 1: Because always it’s already good. Yes, yes. Okay. But when? We’re talking here presumably in a case when the first one hasn’t yet made it machatzis hashekel, because perhaps if yes the second one’s action wouldn’t help. The second one’s action what? It already stands like this, if the first one already said this should be my machatzis hashekel, it doesn’t help what the second one does. So the second one is still obligated in machatzis hashekel. That would mean the first person’s machatzis hashekel. He is indeed still obligated, that’s a second problem. He still becomes exempt from the pledge thing. The treasurer doesn’t know, yes. Okay.

Innovation: Terumas Halishka Makes the Shekel Hekdesh

So it is, im nitrema hateruma, if already… We learned earlier that afterwards later they take down, not later, that in the chamber they take down from the boxes and they buy offerings with it, because it’s still going for collection of machatzis hashekel in the distant cities. So the whole point is, if when this thing happens they already did teruma, they already took down money for offerings in the name of all Israel, so ma’al hashokel, that the messenger who did the theft bit… not the messenger, the messenger. Ah, sorry, the thief. Yes, the thief. Besides what he did a simple wrong to his friend, he transgressed me’ila. And he must do whatever the laws of me’ila are, that he must pay for hekdesh, and if he was shogeg he must pay principal and a fifth, and with a korban me’ila.

Why? How is there me’ila? So the point is like this, shezeh hashekel birshus hekdesh hu. The shekel is already in the possession of hekdesh, because already, against that shekel they already took down shekvar tarmu al he’asid ligavos, because the possession of hekdesh, the chamber, already spent money, already gave out the shekel even before it arrived. So it’s simple that the shekel was already, one is already obligated, the shekel is already… obligated from hekdesh. Not obligated. The teruma must be for the future is a real thing, it’s not some segula for Israel.

Discussion: How Does Teruma Al Asid Ligavos Work?

Speaker 2: But asid ligavos means apparently already separated. So the shekel was already a shekel that the hekdesh already used as it were. They used another shekel, not any hekdur, also not. They don’t remain owing, because teruma means that one takes a portion from the chamber and puts it away for offerings. Now you have to start again.

Speaker 1: To credit the money that was laid out for you, as if a korban tamid was brought in the name of all Israel, and in that your shekel was included. Now you must… It was included, right. It’s as if included, because the teruma is as if one takes a piece, and it’s against all the other pieces that also lie there. When the other one pays it comes out… It’s not that something will be missing, because the teruma was, they didn’t remain owing anything for teruma. There’s no difference in reality whether teruma was already done or not. But in the halachic landscape of… that the machatzis hashekel was already hekdesh. Then it becomes sanctified.

It appears, it’s interesting, then it’s called me’ila, he’ll have to serve me’ila, he’ll have to bring a korban me’ila. It appears here a new innovation that we didn’t know until now, that the teruma makes it kodesh. It’s interesting. Or, earlier it was learned when it fell into the treasurer’s hand, other levels. Do you understand like this? When it becomes kodesh in terms that it’s already called money of kodesh is when it was handed over to the treasurers. But here is the point of… No, earlier is the treasurer. Apparently, when he fulfilled the mitzva of machatzis hashekel, it’s simple that the money became his name, it became kodesh money. It appears that he fulfills perhaps immediately when he separates it. Soon we’ll see it. No, we’ll soon see in the next column that if he separated too much, it remains chullin. As if that means handing over shekalim.

It could be that… It could be that it’s a law in me’ila. Me’ila is only something where an offering was already brought, or something that’s already fit to be an offering. It’s not anything that’s me’ila. One doesn’t make it directly. Does it become wanted for me’ila. Is there me’ila? There’s a question. It appears something that perhaps there’s the innovation differently. There’s the innovation that it hasn’t yet arrived. That is, the other one stole from his friend, he didn’t steal from the hekdesh out. But since teruma was already done, the teruma sanctified. But otherwise, if he gives yes, perhaps yes it becomes sanctified when it comes to the decree. I’m not sure. You understand? I don’t know the basic…

It’s said like this, in the minute the friend took a machatzis hashekel and he said this should be a machatzis hashekel and he handed it over, and in that Beis Hamikdash at that time an offering was already brought. And on whose account was an offering brought? Among all of Klal Yisrael an offering was also brought for the first Jew, for Reuven. And when Shimon stole it, he stole from hekdesh, because hekdesh already as it were laid out on account of that shekel. He was me’il with hekdesh.

Yes, I’ll tell you exactly, the word “laid out” makes it sound funny. I would have said, it already became kodesh, because kodesh it becomes at the time of the teruma. Here there’s an innovation that it becomes even on what’s standing to come, not only on what’s already here. It becomes already… But it appears that… That’s how I think, that the chamber, something appears that everything that lies in the chamber before the teruma is not yet really hekdesh. That is, it’s taken together, one doesn’t know exactly. Do you understand what I’m saying? I have the sound. Perhaps I’m not sure, but perhaps there are other… No, no, no. I’m not… I’m not existent not now. A good leader. Who’s calling me?

The Rambam’s Explanation: The Benefit of Me’ila

Translation

It appears that the terumah does something. So it comes out that you’re already stealing from something that’s already hekdesh. And it turns out he saved himself with the money of hekdesh and benefited from this shekel. What does this mean? The Rambam explains, and he brings down the simple meaning in Mishnayos, that the very act of giving the mitzvah of machatzis hashekel itself is only a mitzvah, and a mitzvah has no benefit. But the fact that he saved himself from being pledged, from having things taken from his house, is certainly a benefit. And that is the meilah. It’s as if it was already terumah.

Halacha 10 (continued) – Stealing Machatzis Hashekel from One’s Friend

The Rambam’s words: And so one who steals from his friend his half shekel and gave it as his own — he has fulfilled his obligation, and is obligated to pay the owner double, or to add a fifth.

His friend doesn’t need to bring machatzis hashekel again, because he already gave. He used money that’s already machatzis hashekel. For two reasons it’s already machatzis hashekel: because the friend already was terem, and because the chamber already was terem on account of that shekel. So that makes it kodesh. He committed meilah by saving himself from the mashkenin oso.

“And if the terumah was not taken,” but if not yet, the chamber hasn’t yet been terem, it’s still before that, “he didn’t commit meilah,” because it’s not yet completely hekdesh. It’s not at all.

Why isn’t it completely? Because you rule that it was given from hekdesh? No, you say that it’s given, it only becomes so at the terumah. That’s how it appears in this halacha. I don’t know, are there other halachos that contradict this?

Because look what he says: “And he is obligated to give to his friend half a shekel.” You have to pay him back, it was stolen. The question is further, from whom did you steal? If you stole from hekdesh, you’re a mo’el. If you stole from your friend, you’ll pay half a shekel for your friend.

Do you see anywhere that we see that at the time of separation it becomes hekdesh? All matters of hekdesh, the minute it was made hekdesh, “amarta legavo’ah mesura lehedyot.” But the making hekdesh… perhaps the making hekdesh is… yes, I don’t know. Perhaps… I tried to understand. Perhaps it doesn’t mean made hekdesh because you still need to give? I don’t know.

Connection to the Previous Halacha of Shaliach

In the previous halacha it deals with the shomer chinam and with the shomer sachar, yes, the whole discussion. There I thought it’s only a question of responsibility, but there’s no way, yes? If it would be immediately hekdesh, yes, for example, okay, it could still be that he has responsibility for the hekdesh, perhaps there is such a thing. In the previous halacha, halacha 9, I think. I don’t know, it’s not clear.

And so, says the Rambam, and so one who steals from another his half shekel, half shekel, and gave it as his own, just a thief, someone is just a thief and he took the other person’s machatzis hashekel and he gave it for himself, he has fulfilled his obligation, that the thief fulfilled the mitzvah of machatzis hashekel, because he’s the one who actually handed it over to the gabbai, it seems, and is obligated to pay the owner double, and he must return to the owner, he must pay like the law of a thief, he must pay kefel, or to add a fifth, or if he’s a gazlan and he denied it, then one pays principal and a fifth. Here he’s called only a thief.

Yes, it was the laws of theft from his friend. Yes, it wasn’t meilah from hekdesh? No, certainly not. He simply stole from the friend. He simply stole from the friend.

Question: Why Is He Yotzei? Mitzvah Haba’ah Ba’aveira

But there’s a question, there’s another question. That is, seemingly it’s like a mitzvah haba’ah ba’aveira, something of that sort, the Almighty hates robbery in an offering. Why don’t we say that it shouldn’t be yotzei at all? It’s not your money.

For two reasons I want to ask why one is yotzei at all. First of all, it’s a mitzvah haba’ah ba’aveira, we learned in hilchos lulav, there are all kinds of mitzvos where one is not yotzei this way. Secondly I want to ask, what does it mean that you didn’t give your money?

Rather what, it means, indeed when he gave it was in a manner of sin, but the hekdesh actually benefited. It means, here we’re also talking, if the terumah was taken will indeed seemingly be the problem. You ask like this, if the terumah was taken he already took it was. No, if not the terumah was taken, then one can say that he must pay for his friend, and now there lie in hekdesh properly two machatzis hashekel, he already did teshuvah. Right, that makes sense.

Yes, but I say, why when it’s already the terumah was taken don’t we say that… No, the terumah was taken makes it that it’s already not the other person’s, it’s hekdesh entirely. That it didn’t go from a friend that it’s hekdesh.

Right, but why shouldn’t we say that besides having to give meilah, he must still give a… he must still give a machatzis hashekel because what he gave was a mitzvah haba’ah ba’aveira. Ah, no, it’s implied there that he was yotzei, right? How can it be?

Question: How Can Two People Be Yotzei with One Machatzis Hashekel?

It was lost, he only received one shekel? It’s actually funny, the language “and so” implies that also the previous one, perhaps not, perhaps the first one didn’t give. No, why when the friend becomes aware that the other one went, must the friend go give machatzis hashekel? No, it was already machatzis hashekel, they already were terem on that. Why? He was already yotzei, he already brought a korban from his machatzis hashekel, no? So he must… That is, the thief must certainly give again another machatzis hashekel.

I don’t know, we need to know what the “and so” means. That is, they saw earlier that sometimes when the Rambam says “and so,” not always does it mean the same halacha. That is, it could be that the previous one, certainly the sender was yotzei, but not the thief, what does it mean a thief? The thief only the sender was yotzei, he was basically only indeed the pledge, they didn’t pledge him, but the mitzvah he didn’t have.

But others say that yes, he says that indeed a person, he says that he says yes yotzei. On this a question is asked, that he said an answer, mitzvah lav leihanos nitna, yes? So it’s implied that he was yes yotzei. So how can it be two people were yotzei with one machatzis hashekel? It’s very strange.

Explanation: The Shaliach Is Like a Shomer

Rather it means to say that the person is like a shaliach, a shomer chinam. We learned that if there was theft or loss the sender is liable. Yes? That’s how we learned it? Well, how… the previous halacha, let’s go back to the previous halacha. The previous halacha says, previous two halachos, yes?

He sent… this isn’t multiple people, this is one person. A shaliach was sent, so the halacha is that as long as it’s a shomer chinam, if it was broken or lost, and he must give again. He wasn’t yotzei, right? A shomer sachar they are exempt, but that’s already enough. That already means that… It means, a shomer sachar he is liable. Unless it arrives at the treasurer, right?

But here is a shomer chinam, let’s say, even a shomer sachar, and he himself stole, unless it arrives, he must pay, but they weren’t yotzei. That’s what it says in the previous halacha. So it comes out that this halacha is a detail in the previous halacha. The previous thousands stood that the bad one must bring, it becomes the shomer’s in a manner when… right.

Innovation: The Thief Is Also Mo’el

And indeed, here we learn that it sometimes happens that the thief, what becomes the thief is. For example, that thief, let’s say not the shomer is a thief, there was a theft or loss, a shomer sachar is liable, whatever it is, or a shomer chinam that he is exempt, that thief is also a mo’el if they already were terem. A new thing. Besides being a thief, he’s also a mo’el for free. That’s how it appears in the commentators of…

On this he said the answer that something mitzvos lav leihanos nitnu, I don’t know. No, that wouldn’t help for mitzvah haba’ah ba’aveira. No. That is the money is repulsive, no mitzvah haba’ah ba’aveira is indeed only directly when one brings an olah, hates robbery in an offering, but it could be when it’s only money that one is terem on it.

“This one is obligated exile above, and on the totality for us mitzvos lav leihanos nitnu.” I really don’t understand. That is, it’s implied on the Rambam that he was yotzei the mitzvah, and the previous one, the sender, must indeed bring again. He says an answer, mitzvos lav leihanos nitnu.

Okay, I think that the question of mitzvah haba’ah ba’aveira we’ll be able to clarify later, as it says when one did other sins, one gave machatzis hashekel from money that’s already hekdesh, or from ir hanidachas, let’s see there. Okay, true.

Conclusion: The Sender Must Bring Again

In general, here it is yes implied that the sender must bring again, because it wasn’t a shomer sachar where there was theft. And nevertheless, the shaliach is effective. Okay. 11? Yes.

Halacha 11 — Gave from Hekdesh

Yes, so it comes out to me perhaps… let’s see indeed there the halacha and think about… in the end, right? End of the halacha. Okay. 11.

The Rambam’s words: One who gives machatzis hashekel from hekdesh.

Money that he already made hekdesh. He made hekdesh money for, let’s say, to bring a korban or for any hekdesh. And he went and he gave from that machatzis hashekel. So it’s simple that he stole from hekdesh, because he should have now given his own machatzis hashekel. He went and he took from the hekdesh money machatzis hashekel, and the terumah was taken, they already were terem terumah. So again the same halacha, when it is used from it.

Why “When It Is Used From It”?

What does “when it is used from it” mean? When one goes to bring a korban, and the hekdesh goes to bring a korban. What obligated in meilah he will become obligated in meilah, because… because he used hekdesh money to get out of the pledge thing, like before.

Interesting, why is the word “when it is used from it” still needed? Why isn’t the terumah was taken itself enough? The terumah was taken says that then the money that you were terem became machatzis hashekel. So he brings, as long as it’s only money that’s part hekdesh, there’s perhaps a part, but it doesn’t mean meilah, the money lies, the money lies in the chamber. Or even after the terumah they bought a korban, they took it from whatever other hekdesh that this could have been, and now the machatzis hashekel became an animal. So now he committed meilah.

Note About Mitzvah Haba’ah Ba’aveira

Ah, you see the top note, it talks about the mitzvah haba’ah ba’aveira. Yes yes, I saw from there, but he didn’t answer my question. It’s not clear. Yes yes. Further. Aha.

Halacha 11 (continued) — Gave from Money of Ma’aser Sheni

The Rambam’s words: He gave from money of ma’aser sheni.

What happens if a person took from money that he has from ma’aser sheni that he was terem? Ma’aser sheni money is eaten in Jerusalem, and he took from that a bit for hekdesh, for the machatzis hashekel. On this there is yes a solution, on this he’s not mo’el, but it can be fixed. He should eat its equivalent in Jerusalem, he should take another machatzis hashekel, he should as if pay back for the ma’aser sheni. One can still redeem ma’aser sheni, so this is as if the redemption. Yes. It can still be fixed.

Halacha 11 (continued) — From Money of Shevi’is

It’s the same thing with ma’aser shevi’is, the same thing, if he took from money that is holy with the holiness of shevi’is, money for example that… what money from sefichei shevi’is or such a thing. He says, with this they bought fruits of shevi’is, and the money receives the holiness. Shevi’is takes hold of its value. So also the same thing, there’s no meilah on this,

Halacha 11 (continued) – Separated from Money of Shevi’is and Ir Hanidachas

But what then? He’s now obligated for shevi’is, he took away from money of shevi’is. Can he continue to exchange, yes? “He should eat its equivalent in the holiness of shevi’is”, the same amount that he spent for machatzis hashekel, and eat that as if to redeem back, to complete back for shevi’is what was taken from shevi’is.

But if it was from ir hanidachas, if he took money from ir hanidachas and gave machatzis hashekel, he has done nothing, he has accomplished nothing. He hasn’t yet given any machatzis hashekel, he must complete machatzis hashekel.

Why? Because money from ir hanidachas is like… because it’s destined for burning, we look at it as if it’s already burned, and it has no measure of machatzis hashekel.

Interesting, machatzis hashekel is indeed a measure, yes? A machatzis hashekel, half a shekel. It’s an interesting thing, because in practice the hekdesh uses the money. Yes, the money entered, it became nullified in the majority, and the hekdesh uses it. But in law, in a legal view, he didn’t give any machatzis hashekel, he gave something that’s destined to be burned.

Yes, agreed, the hekdesh… machatzis hashekel is so that the hekdesh should have money, but the mitzvah is that you should give, it must come from your money, and this isn’t your money, this is nothing at all. Yes.

Halacha 12: One Who Separates His Shekel in Error

Okay. The Rambam continues, One who separates his shekel… no, yes, another halacha. So until now we learned when there’s theft and so on. Now we learn when a person thinks he’s obligated in machatzis hashekel, he makes a mistake. He didn’t remember for example that he already gave machatzis hashekel, or he doesn’t know that he’s exempt, he knows that he’s a… and thought that he is obligated, he thinks that he’s obligated in machatzis hashekel, and it turns out that he is not obligated, it turns out that he’s not obligated in machatzis hashekel. For example, the simplest is that he simply already gave.

You shouldn’t think that it’s now become anyway kodesh because he separated it. So the halacha is it’s not holy, because when one makes something hekdesh in error it doesn’t mean hekdesh. When one does in error it’s void.

The same thing, he separated two. Not the same thing. What is the halacha like this? He separated two, he separated two machatzis hashekel. Because he thought for example that he must give also for his wife, or I know why. Or that he thinks he didn’t give for a year, he must now give for two years. It turns out that he is only obligated for one.

So like this, if one after the other, if he gave one and then another one, it means the new one, the first one he gave for his obligation of this year, and one he gave to complete an old one. So the second is not holy, because it was made hekdesh in error.

But when at the same time he gave both at once, then we don’t say that one becomes chulin, because there’s no, perhaps we don’t say in such a case there is choice or what, but since both have a doubt whether they’re in kodesh, the first goes for the obligation of the new shekalim, because the second means leftover shekalim. The second in doubt goes into the law of leftover shekalim, that it also goes for hekdesh with other laws, that it should be collected another time, and so on.

Yes, it’s not clear what leftover shekalim means. The Ra’avad disagrees with this halacha, or the Ra’avad says no. One is chulin. What didn’t he like in the thing that… whatever the Rambam has no problem with him, one can’t say choice or perhaps to be exact. Not clear. Further, perhaps to be exact is said later.

He separated and died. What happens in such a thing? A person separated his shekel, and then died before it arrived where it needs to arrive. So he’s exempt as if, because a dead person is exempt. Yes, a dead person is exempt from all the Torah entirely, and also from the korbanos on his money.

So in general, every year Jews die and korbanos are brought on them. Well, that’s the innovation only before it came to the treasurers. Just so, people die, it’s not a wonder. There’s a law that the public doesn’t die. It means, you see? When it already comes to the hand of the treasurer, it already means like a part of the public. The public lives. And before it arrived at the treasurer, you’re the individual who was unfortunately a shlimazl and died. So your money is out of the equation.

So what does one do with the money? It falls to voluntary offerings. It’s not taken back. With this korbanos nedavah are made. It’s not taken back for the heirs or something, but… it goes into the box that goes for korbanos nedavah.

And the Rambam explains, what does nedavah mean? Because… wait, already before. The Rambam says, leftover shekalim… later he’ll say this, yes. Before, he says the Mishnah, there’s halacha 13. But nedavah means basically that it’s offered… not a korban tzibur that’s obligatory, but the extra olos, that is kayitz hamizbe’ach, which is offered when there are few korbanos on the altar, extra olos are brought from the nedavah money.

Halacha 13: One Who Takes Money for His Shekel

What happens with such a halacha? We learned earlier, **”v’lakachta me’os b’yadecha”**, one gives all at once a whole shekel, just like the halacha of machatzis hashekel, one gives a whole one. So the person collects together from his money, he accumulates a bunch of quarters, he took a silver dollar, whatever it is. He takes **me’os b’yado**, **v’omer “elu l’shkali”**, that this should go for my shekel.

Or another case, where he has by himself a small pushke (charity box), and he collects together little by little, prutah by prutah joins together until he will have for a shekel. But k’shehitchil l’laket, when he began to collect, he already said “hareini m’laket me’os l’shkali”.

One might have thought that each time when he put money into the pushke, he gave it for machatzis hashekel, and now it must have a kedushah (sanctity) of machatzis hashekel. The halacha says, not so, afilu liket m’lo kis, he collected together a full purse more than machatzis hashekel, then nosein bahem chatzi shekel she’hu chayav, he gives only the half shekel that he is obligated, v’hasha’ar chulin, the remainder is chulin (non-sacred), she’mosar hashekalim chulin, what remains from machatzis hashekel that he had set aside.

I think it’s very similar to what we learned earlier, that when one sets aside something in error, the person had set aside because he didn’t know that he had begun, but the whole time he put in small change to be able to make a shekel.

Now, let’s understand. There is something called mosar chatas, yes? Which we learned earlier by the thirteen shofros (collection boxes). If someone had set aside from his chatas (sin offering) twenty dollars, it turns out that a chatas costs nineteen dollars, he cannot use the dollar for chulin.

It’s very different, because the person doesn’t need to know what a korban (sacrifice) costs now in Jerusalem, because machatzis hashekel is a specific amount. Okay, very good. So that is the difference, so he says about this. That machatzis hashekel is a davar she’yesh lo ketzavah (something that has a fixed measure), that means, exactly. When you are makdish (consecrate) for a behemah (animal), it could be the behemah will cost more, it succeeded, today the price of animals went down, he’s left with money with kedushas damim (sanctity of monetary value).

But mosar shekalim, a shekel is a half shekel, therefore the remainder stays like an error, it stays like the halacha as before, that if someone makes something hekdesh (consecrated) in error. His error is, he miscalculated, he put too much money in the pushke, he didn’t look each time.

Halacha 14: Money Found Between Box and Box

Very good. The Rambam says further, now we’re going to learn, until now we learned about the people who set aside, now we’re going to deal with halachos based on reality, basically, right? When one finds money, and one doesn’t know… one finds money for the machatzis hashekel lying around, where the gabbaim (treasurers) collect together machatzis hashekel. How does one know if it’s a machatzis hashekel?

Me’os she’nimtze’u, we learned that there is by each table there are a few boxes, there is a box for machatzis hashekel, and there is a box for another nedavah (donation) for hekdesh. What happens me’os she’nimtze’u bein teivah shel shekalim u’vein teivah shel nedavah? It’s lying between the two pushkes. One goes according to the close one. Karov l’shekalim, we have an umdena (assessment) that it fell from the nearby pushke, that the person meant to put it in the pushke and it fell out, yiplu l’shekalim. Karov l’nedavah, yiplu l’nedavah.

What happens mechetzah l’mechetzah? What does one do in such a case? It’s a safek hashakul (equal doubt), we don’t know which one. What else should one do? The Rambam says such a chiddush (novel ruling): one should give it to nedavah. Why? Because the nedavah is a greater level of kodesh (sanctity), it goes for a greater purpose.

Why? You can say that it’s more limited. That is, generally nedavah shekalim but not generally shekalim nedavah. Why? Mipnei she’nedavah kulah olos l’ishim. Nedavah goes for olah (burnt offering), which is entirely l’ishim, one burns it entirely, and one has no benefit from it. V’ilu shekalim mistapakin bahem olos u’dvarim acherim. From the shekalim one takes also olos and also other things, shelamim (peace offerings), it’s other korbanos from which the… not regular shelamim, but types of korbanos, shalmei tzibur (communal peace offerings), yes, which the kohanim do eat from.

So we cannot… we must go l’chumra (stringently), because if one would have taken something, perhaps it’s nedavah, and nedavah is holier than this, the kohanim don’t eat from it, and it goes entirely l’gavoha (to the Most High). Therefore one goes here l’chumra, that one gives it to nedavah.

Discussion: Has the person who tried to give machatzis hashekel fulfilled his obligation?

And Chaim, and doesn’t one say about this that as if the person who perhaps tried to give machatzis hashekel, his machatzis hashekel still hasn’t come. Also if one was already. Yes, and also the nedavah is also. Sometimes there is machatzis hashekel that goes to nedavah, so machatzis hashekel is not against nedavah. I think one will see soon, there are times when machatzis hashekel is also nedavah.

Halacha 15: All Money Found Between Each Box and Box

The Rambam says, and Chaim, kol hame’os hanimtza’im bein kol teivah v’seivah. Will the same halacha be by every type of tzedakah (charity)? Does this stand by between all boxes by all other boxes? Or does he mean here in the chamber? Ani tzur, yes, in any case. Between any two pushkes.

The thirteen pushkes in the Beis HaMikdash (Temple), not by the table of the city. First we learned about the two. The table of the city has the option of two, but by the Beis HaMikdash there were more. The table of the city also learned earlier. Yes, by the words, the table of the city doesn’t have nedavah, right? It only has shekel for this year and shekel for last year, I remember. Yes? Beginning of chapter 2.

So nedavah must already be Beis HaMikdash, and there are thirteen, there is the whole list. No, but what is called shirei lashkah (remainder of the chamber) one also gives for other purposes. Okay, what comes in shirei lashkah now? No, the second table, the two pushkes, one is… is one good. True, shekalim for the same shekalim. I agree, it could be the same question there. Okay.

So here we’re speaking now about the area of the Temple Mount, where there are pushkes for nedavah. There are thirteen pushkes, each one a type. And if one can apply between box and box, one always goes according to the close one. If it’s mechetzah l’mechetzah, then im bein etzim l’levonah nimtze’u… if it lies between the pushke that goes for a korban of wood and the pushke that goes for levonah (frankincense), yipnu l’levonah, one always goes l’chumra.

Levonah is a higher level, because wood, the wood itself is not a korban, the wood is made to burn the meat. But the levonah is itself a korban. The frankincense one puts in the ketores (incense), one puts it on the lechem hapanim (showbread) and on the minchah (meal offering).

Halacha 15 (continued): Money Found on the Temple Mount

Words of the Rambam:

V’chol hame’os hanimtza’os b’Har HaBayis — chulin, she’ein hagizbar motzi me’os miterumas halishkah ad shehu m’challan al habehemos shelokei’ach l’korbanos.

Explanation of the Rambam

When it’s between kinim (bird nests) and gozlei olah (young birds for burnt offering), the kinim itself is olah and shelamim. Yiplu l’gozlei olah, which is entirely olah, which is higher the level which is kulo lashamayim (entirely for Heaven).

Zeh haklal, holchin achar hakarov b’chulan, mechetzah l’mechetzah — l’hachmir.

The Rambam says further: V’chol hame’os hanimtza’os b’Har HaBayis — what happens with all money that one finds on the Temple Mount? Generally, not near the boxes, one finds simply on the Temple Mount. Now the question is that perhaps one should be concerned that it’s money that fell out from a pushke.

But the halacha is not so, the halacha is chulin — that the money is chulin.

Why? She’ein hagizbar motzi me’os miterumas halishkah. When the gizbar (treasurer) takes money from the terumas halishkah (chamber collection), to carry it to the azarah (Temple courtyard) to buy animals on the Temple Mount — there are the animal merchants who operate on the Temple Mount, and they do business with the treasurers of the chamber — one doesn’t need to be concerned that it fell out from the hands of the treasurer, therefore it’s kodesh (holy).

Why? Because it’s already taken effect then. Because she’ein hagizbar motzi me’os miterumas halishkah ad shehu m’challan al habehemah shelokei’ach l’korbanos.

Explanation of the Mechanism

The animal would become — no, no, that’s only later. The moment that he stands by the door of the chamber, as I understand it, the treasurer says that now I’m already buying the money. So he does such a thing, that it’s already now mechubal (exchanged) — that means it’s already now exchanged with the animals the money, that the money is already going out to chulin, even before he comes to the Temple Mount where he actually takes the animal. It’s something like that.

It turns out that on the Temple Mount all money is already chulin.

The Ritva actually, he’s afraid that it will be lost, it will become a problem, so he makes sure that one doesn’t leave any holy money on the Temple Mount — one buys it already beforehand. He speaks this way with the animal sellers, like this, something like that. Yes.

Reason of Tosafos — and the question on it

Others say differently, because it’s one differently. According to the Rambam it fits very well, but Tosafos says the reason is because we think that it fell out from one of the people who operate on the Temple Mount.

And on this Tosafos asks: what does majority mean? Presumably one goes according to the majority, the majority are not people. Seemingly on the Temple Mount there were also the animal merchants who sold on the Temple Mount animals to the Jews, and they certainly held money.

And also when the money — what is said that one may not go up on the Temple Mount with money — doesn’t mean the money that he needs now to buy an animal. But at least that if one bought the animal outside of Jerusalem, one bought the animals.

Discussion: “One may not enter the Temple Mount with money”

He brings a simple matter: it says in the Mishnah in Berachos that one doesn’t go on the Temple Mount with his staff and his shoes and his purse and the dust on his feet. But it doesn’t mean that one may not have any money in one’s pocket. It means some way, some worldly way.

I don’t know, it could be it says somewhere — whether the animal merchants who sold animals to the Jews sold on the Temple Mount or outside the Temple Mount?

On the Temple Mount it’s certain that one must take money to buy korbanos. I just need — but I think it’s simple that there’s no prohibition to go with money in pockets to the Temple Mount. It means that one doesn’t bring with the backpack, whatever. I don’t know exactly what it was in those times.

Proof from the Mishnah in Shekalim

And it says in the — no, animal merchants, ah, you see? That’s the Mishnah in Shekalim. It says: What is found before animal merchants — ma’aser (tithe), and on the Temple Mount — chulin.

That is, are there animal merchants on the Temple Mount? This needs to be checked. It looks like there were indeed merchants on the Temple Mount.

I don’t know, it’s two things. What is found before animal merchants is one thing, and what is found on the Temple Mount — but yes, but he says — why did I think of this about this? Because it says here that the treasurer is already then taking out.

No, no, no.

In short, a case: one finds money on the Temple Mount. That’s the fact. Everywhere money circulates. How do Jews circulate money? One finds every and much money. Already.

—

Wonderful. We have finished chapter 3.