(a)According to Beis Shamai, if someone designated the money he set aside Perutah by Perutah, for his Half-Shekel, any excess money goes to Nedavah. What is Nedavah? What is Beis Shamai's reason?
(b)What do Beis Hillel hold?
(c)In which case will ...
1. ...Beis Shamai agree that the money remains Chulin?
2. ... Beis Hillel agree that the money goes to Nedavah?
(d)What will be the Din if he said 'she'Avi Meihen Chatasi'?
(a)According to Beis Shamai, if someone said 'Eilu l'Shikli' on money that he was setting aside for his Half-Shekel, Perutah by Perutah, all excess money would go into the Nedavah-boxes in the Beis-Hamikdash marked accordingly. The proceeds of these boxes were used to purchase Olos, which were brought as voluntary public burnt-offerings whenever the Mizbe'ach was not in use (particularly in the long summer-days - hence the name). Beis Shamai follow their reasoning elsewhere, that Hekdesh that is declared in error is considered Hekdesh.
(b)Beis Hillel holds that the excess money remains in the domain of the owner (because, in their opinion, Hekdesh that is declared in error is considered Chulin).
1. ...Beis Shamai will agree that the money remains Chulin - if he said 'she'Avi Meihen Shikli'.
2. ... Beis Hillel will agree that the money goes to Nedavah - if he said 'Eilu l'Chatasi'.
(d)If he said 'she'Avi Meihen Chatasi' - the excess money is Chulin.
(a)What reason does Rebbi Shimon give for Beis Hillel's distinction between 'Eilu l'Shikli' and 'Eilu l'Chatasi'?
(b)Rebbi Yehudah disagrees. The Shekel is not fixed, he argues, and he goes on to prove it from the various occasions when they changed the amount to Darchonos, Sela'im and Teva'im. How much is ...
1. ... a Darchon?
2. ... a Teva?
(c)Why did Chazal not permit changing to a Dinar?
(d)And how does Rebbi Shimon counter Rebbi Yehudah's argument?
(a)Rebbi Shimon explains Beis Hillel's distinction between 'Eilu l'Shikli' (in 1b.) and 'Eilu l'Chatasi' (1c. 2.) - inasmuch as the half-Shekel is fixed (so he definitely intended to give only a half-Shekel, and no more; whereas by a Chatas which has no fixed price, the Kedushah becomes effective on all the money, and Mosar Chatas goes to Nedavah (as we shall see in Amud Beis).
(b)Rebbi Yehudah proves from the various occasions when they changed the amount to Darchonos, Sela'im and Teva'im - that the Shekel is not fixed.
1. ... a Darchon - is a golden Sela worth one and a half ordinary Sela'im.
2. ... a Teva - is half a Sela.
(c)Chazal did not permit changing to a Dinar - because it is only permitted to add to the Chatzi-Shekel (which is the equivalent of two Dinrim), but not to subtract from it.
(d)Rebbi Shimon counters Rebbi Yehudah's argument by pointing out that although they were permitted to change the amount of the half-Shekel, that was only if everyone did so, but as far as the community is concerned, they all gave the same amount.
(a)According to Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina quoting Rebbi Elazar, Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argue specifically by someone who is saving his Shekel, Perutah by Perutah, but if he says on a pile of money 'Eilu l'Shikli', then even Beis Hillel will agree that the money goes to Nedavah. How do Rebbi Chiya and Rebbi Bibi quote Rebbi Elazar?
(b)Rav Bibi establishes Rebbi Shimon in our Mishnah (who says that by 'Eilu l'Shikli' the Mosar is Chulin - by a pile money according to everyone. How does Rebbi Yosi establish Rebbi Shimon?
(a)According to Rebbi Chiya and Rebbi Bibi, what Rebbi Elazar really said was that if one were to say on a pile of money 'Eilu l'Shikli', then even Beis Shamai will agree that the money goes to Chulin.
(b)Rebbi Yosi establishes Rebbi Shimon in our Mishnah - by someone who is collecting his half-Shekel Perutah by Perutah, according to Beis Hillel.
(a)What will be the Din if someone designates a half-Shekel on the understanding that he is Chayav, and it turns out that he is Patur? Is the half-Shekel Kodesh?
(b)The Gemara asks what the Din will be if someone designates two half-Shekalim thinking that he is Chayav two, but it turns out that he is only Chayav one. The She'eilah is resolved from a Beraisa regarding a similar case of someone who is Chayav a Chatas. What does the Beraisa say?
(c)On what grounds does the Gemara reject this proof? What is the Gemara's conclusion ?
(a)If someone designates a half-Shekel on the understanding that he is Chayav, and it turns out that he is Patur, the half-Shekel is not Kodesh.
(b)The Beraisa says that if someone designates two Chata'os, thinking that he is Chayav two, and it then transpires that he is in fact, only Chayav one, the second Chatas must be sent to graze until it receives a blemish, when it is brought as a Nedavah. Exactly the same will apply to someone who designates two half-Shekalim thinking that he is Chayav two, but it turns out that he is only Chayav one - the second half-Shekel will go to Nedavah.
(c)The Gemara concludes that this case should be no different than someone who says on a pile of money 'Eilu l'Shikli', where, according to Beis Hillel, the Mosar is Chulin (and according to Rebbi Bibi, even Beis Shamai will agree here).
(a)What do we learn from the Pasuk in Nechemyah "v'He'emadnu Aleinu Mitzvah Lases Shelishis ha'Shekel ba'Shanah l'Avodas Beis Elokeinu" (see Tiklin Chadtin's explanation to this Sugya)?
(b)And what do we learn from the fact that the Pasuk uses the Lashon "Shelishis ha'Shekel" (instead of 'Shlish')?
(c)What lesson in communal ethics do Chazal derive from here?
(d)They would draw money three times annually from the Lishkah, using three boxes. How much did each box contain and what is the source for all these threes?
(a)We learn from the Pasuk in Nechemyah "v'He'emadnu Aleinu Mitzvos Lases Shelishis ha'Shekel ba'Shanah la'Avodas Beis Elokeinu" - that if the half-Shekel (i.e. any coin that is half of a larger one - of that currency) - weighs less than the half-Shekel of the Torah (e.g. a modern half-Shekel which weighs less than the original half-Shekel that they gave in the desert, one is not permitted to give it in lieu of a half-Shekel, but must rather give a coin that is for example, a third of that currency - which does amount to the equivalent or more of the original half-Shekel of the Torah. That is why they gave a third of a Shekel (which was equivalent to half a Shekel of the time of the Beis Hamikdash.
(b)The Lashon "Shelishis ha'Shekel" used by Nechemyah is a hint that one should give at least one Shekel annually, though one may divide it into three donations (as opposed to those who maintain in the first chapter of Bava Basra, that the minimum amount of Tzedakah that one needs to give each year is a third of a Shekel.
(c)Chazal derive from here - that when it comes to donating for communal requirements, one should not trouble the community to give more than three times annually.
(d)Each of the three boxes contained three Sa'ah. The source for all these threes is the above-mentioned Pasuk "Lases Shelishis ha'Shekel ba'Shanah ' ... .
(a)What is the connection between the fact that they sinned at mid-day, that that is the equivalent of six hours, and the Machatzis-ha'Shekel?
(b)Nor is it a coincidence that a Shekel equals twenty Geirah. What is the significance of that?
(c)And why must every firstborn be redeemed for twenty Dinrim?
(d)What is the connection between the sale of Yosef and the half-Shekel?
(a)Some say that the reason for the half-Shekel was because of the sin of the Golden Calf which took place at mid-day; whereas according to others, the half-Shekel (consisting of six Geramsin - a small coin in the days of Moshe) was to atone for the sin of the Golden-Calf which took place after six hours.
(b)Nor is it a coincidence that a Shekel equals twenty Geirah - because, in that case, half a Shekel equals ten Geirah, corresponding to the ten commandments which they nullified when they served the Golden Calf.
(c)Every first-born must be redeemed for twenty Dinrim - because that is how much the brothers received for selling Yosef, Rachel's first-born son.
(d)Bearing in mind that Binyamin and Reuven were not present at the sale, and seeing that the brothers sold Yosef for twenty Dinrim, each of the ten remaining sons will have received two Dinrim - Yosef is also counted in the sale, since it was he who was responsible for the sale - by speaking Rechilus about his brothers to his father).
(a)What happens to the excess of half a Shekel if someone says concerning a handful of money 'Eilu l'Shikli'?
(b)Which principle governs the fact that Mosar Kinei Zavin v'Zavos, v'Yoldos, Chata'os and Ashamos, all go to Nedavah?
(c)What happens to ...
1. ... Mosar Olah?
2. ... Mosar Minchah?
3. ... Mosar Shelamim?
4. ... Mosar ha'Pesach?
(d)What is the difference between Mosar Nezirim and Mosar Nazir?
(a)If someone says, concerning a handful of money 'Eilu l'Shikli' - then whatever is more than half a Shekel remains Chulin (like Beis Hillel).
(b)Mosar Kinei Zavin v'Zavos, v'Yoldos, Chata'os and Ashamos, all go to Nedavah - because Mosar Chatas or Asham goes to Nedavah.
1. ... Mosar Olah - goes for an Olah.
2. ... Mosar Minchah - for a Minchah.
3. ... Mosar Shelamim - for a Shelamim.
4. ... Mosar ha'Pesach - for a Shelamim.
(d)Mosar Nezirim (the leftovers from money that was collected for the Korbanos of Nezirim) must be used for Nezirim, whereas Mosar Nazir (the leftovers from money that was collected for the Korbanos of a specific Nazir - where that is not possible) goes to Nedavah.
(a)When Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina visited Bavel, he heard Rav Yehudah ask Shmuel what would happen to the half-Shekel of someone who designated his coin and then died. What was Shmuel's reply?
(b)'Mosar Asiris ha'Eifah, Kinei Zavin v'Zavos, Mosar Kinei Yoldos, Chata'os va'Ashamos Nedavah'. This appears to corroborate the opinion of Rebbi Elazar, who holds that the Mosar Asiris ha'Eifah of the Kohen Gadol (the Chavitei Kohen Gadol) goes to Nedavah. What does Rebbi Yochanan say with regard to the Mosar Asiris ha'Eifah of the Kohen Gadol?
(c)How does Rebbi Yochanan then explain the Beraisa?
(d)What is the basic difference between the Minchas Chavitin and the Minchas Chotei in this regard?
(a)When Rav Yehudah asked Shmuel what happened to the half-Shekel of someone who designated his coin and then died - he answered that the money goes to Nedavah.
(b)Rebbi Yochanan says that the Mosar Asiris ha'Eifah of the Kohen Gadol must be thrown into the Reed Sea (so that it should not come to abuse).
(c)Rebbi Yochanan establishes the Beraisa, 'Mosar Asiris ha'Eifah ... Mosran Nedavah' - by the Minchas Chotei of a very poor man, which was also a tenth of an Eifah (and not of a Kohen Gadol).
(d)The basic difference between the Minchas Chavitin and the Minchas Chotei in this regard - is that, whereas the latter, which comes to replace a Chatas, is itself considered a Chatas (and Mosar Chatas li'Nedavah), the former is not.
(a)Aba bar Ba wanted to know from where we know that Mosar ha'Pesach is brought as a Shelamim. Who was Aba bar Ba?
(b)We learn it from the Pasuk in Vayikra "v'Im min ha'Tzon Korbano l'Zevach Korbano" (written by Shelamim). How do we know that that is not speaking about ...
1. ... a Pesach in its time?
2. ... a Mosar Olah?
3. ... a Mosar Asham?
(c)How do we learn this from "min ha'Tzon"?
(d)The Gemara asks why we do not make a similar Derashah on a Pasuk written by Olah "v'Im min ha'Tzon Korbano, min ha'Kevasim ... l'Olah". For which two reasons is it more logical to say that Mosar Pesach should be brought as a Shelamim than as an Olah?
(a)Aba bar Ba was Shmuel's father.
(b)The Pasuk "v'Im min ha'Tzon Korbano l'Zevach Korbano"cannot be speaking about ...
1. ... a Pesach in its time - because we learned above that a Pesach in its time cannot be brought as a Shelamim.
2. ... a Mosar Olah - since an Olah can also be brought from cattle, and the Torah writes here "min ha'*Tzon*", implying a type of Korban that can only be brought from the flock.
3. ... a Mosar Asham - which is restricted to rams (the sheep family), but not to goats, whereas the Pesach can be brought from either.
(c)"min ha'Tzon" - implies a type of Korban that can be brought from all kinds of 'Tzon' (i.e. sheep or goats).
(d)In spite of the Pasuk "v'Im min ha'Tzon Korbano, min ha'Kevasim ... l'Olah" - it is more logical to say that Mosar Pesach should be brought as a Shelamim - because firstly, a Shelamim, like a Pesach, is eaten, and secondly, they are both Kodshim Kalim (unlike an Olah, which is Kodshei Kodashim and cannot be eaten).
(a)What is the problem with the above Derashah?
(b)According to the Gemara's conclusion, we learn the above, not from "min ha'Tzon", but from the word "ha'Tzon" which implies form all kinds of Tzon (i.e. sheep and goats). What do we then learn from "Min"?
(a)But how can we learn from "min ha'Tzon" - a kind of Korban which can be brought both from the sheep and from the goats, when the word "Min" always comes to exclude, not to include?
(b)In fact, the Gemara concludes, from "Min" we preclude a female animal or a male that is more than one year from being brought as a Korban Pesach.
(a)Rebbi Yochanan disagrees with Rebbi Chanina, who says that a Pesach is only brought as a Shelamim if one specifically Shechted it as such, but not if he Shechted it as an Olah. What does he learn from the Pasuk in Vayikra "Im min ha'Tzon Korbano l'Zevach Shelamim"?
(b)The Gemara asks whether if the Kohen Shechted the Mosar ha'Pesach with a Machsheves Pesul of an Olah, it will be Pasul even as a Shelamim. Why does the Gemara initially think that the Sha'lah cannot be with regard to someone who Shechted it as an Olah, having in mind to sprinkle its blood tomorrow?
(c)How does the Gemara repudiate this objection (see Tiklin Chadtin)? (d) What is the Gemara's conclusion?
(a)Rebbi Yochanan learns from the extra word "l'Zevach" in the Pasuk "Im min ha'Tzon Korbano l'Zevach Shelamim" - that whichever Korban he has in mind when he Shechts the Mosar Pesach, it becomes a Shelamim.
(b)The Gemara initially thinks that the She'eilah (whether, if the Kohen Shechted the Mosar ha'Pesach with a Machsheves Pesul of an Olah, it will be Pasul even as a Shelamim) cannot be with regard to someone who Shechted it as an Olah, having in mind to sprinkle its blood tomorrow - because even if he would have had such a thought by the Shelamim itself, it would have been Pasul, so how can it possibly be Kasher?
(c)If the Machsheves Pigul renders it an Olah, then the Shelamim is Pasul, and the stringent Din of Pigul does not take effect (since Pigul is only effective when the Korban is otherwise Kasher); whereas if the Machshavah of Olah is not effective, then that of Pigul, is.
(a)They asked what the Din will be if, after Pesach, someone Shechted the Pesach Lishmo and she'Lo Lishmo. What is the She'eilah (See Tiklin Chadtin)?
(b)What does the Gemara answer?
(c)According to this, is there any reason why, if one Shechted a Mosar Pesach Lishmo in order to sprinkle the blood the following day, it should be Pasul?
(d)What causes the Gemara to retract from the decision (in b)?
(a)A Pesach during the rest of the year is Pasul if it is Shechted Lishmo, and Kasher, she'Lo Lishmo (See Tiklin Chadtin). Therefore, the Gemara wants to know what the Din will be if he expressed both thoughts with regard to the same Mossar ha'Pesach.
(b)The Gemara replies that, since he had two contradictory thoughts, they cancel each other, and it is as if he Shechted Stam, it which case, the Korban is automatically a Shelamim (since the Gemara currently holds that a Pesach does not require an Akirah - to be Shechted specifically as a Shelamim).
(c)According to this, there is no reason why, if one Shechted a Mosar Pesach Lishmo in order to sprinkle the blood the following day, it should be Pasul -- because there too, the two thoughts will cancel each other.
(d)The Gemara retracts from its original answer because: who says that its initial presumption -- that a Pesach does not require an Akirah -- to be Shechted specifically as a Shelamim, is correct? -- Perhaps it does, in which case, we will say exactly the opposite: that the two thoughts cancel each other, rendering the Korban Pasul.