Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 30

POINT BY POINT SUMMARY - Shekalim

POINT BY POINT SUMMARY


by Rabbi Ephraim Becker
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question on the daf


Previous daf
Shekalim 14
1) THE APPOINTEES OF THE BEIS HAMIKDASH (cont'd)
(a) Nechunyah dug water pits and knew the water content of rocks layers.
1. His son died of thirst.
2. (R. Chaninah) Whoever says that HaShem ignores and overlooks...
3. Thus the evil are not always punished owing to HaShem's forbearance, not owing to
his sins being overlooked.
4. All debts are paid in the end.
5. Two alternate sources for HaShem being extremely particular with the righteous.
6. The daughter of the Chasid who dug pits for the communal good was miraculously
saved.
(b) Gevini was the "caller" who called those who served in the Mikdash.
1. King Agripas heard him a distance of 8 Parsa.
2. Agripas gave Gevini many gifts.
(c) Be Gever was appointed to the closing of the gates.
1. Rav was the Metargem for Rav Shila (Yoma 20b) and explained Krias HaGever to
refer to Gevini.
2. Question: Why not explain it to refer to a rooster?
3. Answer: We know that Ben *Gever* is a person!
(d) Ben Bavi was over the bundles, who would match up the wicks.

1. R. Yosi attempted to appoint administrators in a community.


2. They declined, citing sources.
3. He responded by citing the fact that Ben Bavi, with a relatively insignificant task, was
included among the greats of his generation, how much more so those with critical
appointments.
(e) Ben Arzah was over the cymbals.
1. His job, striking the note for the Leviim to begin their playing, is mentioned in the
Bereisa.
(f) Hugras Ben Levi (over the songs of the Leviim) had a magnificent voice, as described.
(g) Beis Garmu over the Lechem HaPanim.
1. The story is recorded regarding this family's unique ability to bake the bread and
remove it properly.
2. Others were brought in an attempt to unseat them.
3. They would not teach others so that the bread might never be made for idolatry by
others.
4. They never had clean bread, to be above suspicion.
(h) Beis Avtinas over the Ketores.
1. They, too, would not teach their craft to others, and others were, similarly, brought in.
2. As with Beis Garmu, the newcomers could not match them (here, too, the differences
are detailed).
3. Here, too, their salaries were doubled to entice them to come back to their roles.
4. They were never perfumed, to avoid suspicion.
5. Still, there was a critique, as in the incident of the child of the house of Avtinas.
6. Another incident with a child of the house of Avtinas spoke of their sensitivity to the
honor of their family, the honor due to the righteous and to preserving their family
secret.
7. Their reputation was redeemed when an elder of their family passed the family secret
to R. Yochanan b. Nuri.
14b---------------------------------------14b
(i) Elazar over (those who wove) the Paroches.
(j) Pinchas over the (fitting of) the clothes.

2) HALACHAH 2: OTHER APPOINTEES


(a) There were no fewer than 7 Amarcalim and 3 treasurers.
(b) No authority is given over the community to less than two people.
1. There are two exceptions listed who were alone.
2. They won the widespread confidence of the people.
3) OTHER SENIOR APPOINTMENTS
(a) There are no fewer than two Katlikin, based on the Pasuk.
1. The Pasuk indicates 3 treasurers, 7 Amarcalim (above the treasurers) and 2 Katlikin at
the top.
2. These answer to the King and the Kohen HaGadol.
(b) When a treasury room was closed for later use, each authority, in ascending authority would
seal the door with his seal.
(c) This procedure was reversed to open the treasury, starting with the King who saw his seal
undamaged and broke it, followed by the Kohen HaGadol, etc.
4) AUTHORITY GIVEN TO LESS THAN TWO
(a) (R. Nachman citing R. Mana) The source is the plural in the Pasuk (Shemos 28:5).
5) MOSHE AND HIS WEALTH
(a) Moshe became wealthy from the fragment of the Luchos.
(b) In Moshe's tent was a mine of precious stones and gems.
(c) The People looked after Moshe... (Shemos 33:8)
1. Some interpret this ungenerously (suspecting profiteering).
2. Some interpret this generously (to merit seeing the Tzadik).
6) HALACHAH 3: PURCHASING THE NESACHIM
(a) There were four (or five-Ben Azai) seals/tickets in the Mikdash.
(b) Each represented a different quantity of Nesachim for a Korban.
(c) Korbanos of like quantities shared like tickets.
(d) The procedure began with paying Yochanan and receiving a ticket.
(e) The ticket was given to Ben Achyah who supplied the Nesachim.

(f) An night Achyah brought the tickets to Yochanan and received his money (shortfalls were
made up by Yochanan's personal funds) and overage went to Hekdesh.
(g) If one lost his ticket he had to wait for the night's accounting.
(h) The tickets were dated to avoid fraud.
7) THE TICKET FOR THE POOR SINNER
(a) Question: That ticket should be identical with the Gedi!?
(b) Answer: The Metzora needed an extra Log of oil.
1. According to Rabanan he brought his own oil (a savings).
(c) Question: What Nesachim are brought for a Rachel (female Ayil)?
(d) Answer: It can be inferred from the Mishnah (similar to the Gedi, undifferentiated between
young and mature, male and female).
(e) This is derived from the Pasuk which declares the Nesachim of the Egel and Shor to be the
same.
Next daf
POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
by Rabbi Ephraim Becker
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question on the daf


Previous daf
Shekalim 15
1) EQUIVALENT AMOUNTS OF NESACHIM
(a) The Pasuk says O LaAyil... all Nesachim of an Ayil are the same.
(b) O La'Seh... no distinction in the Nesachim of a Nekeivah (Rachel).
(c) O VaIzim... all Izim are the same (3 Lugim).
2) THE DAY ON THE TICKET TO PREVENT FRAUD
(a) Question: But he'll wait until the same day next week.

(b) Answer: We also write the name of the Mishmar.


(c) Question: Then he'll just wait another half year!?
(d) Answer: We write the day, the Shabbos and the month, as well.
3) HALACHAH 4: TWO ROOMS FOR TZEDAKAH
(a) There were two rooms in the Mikdash: 1. The "quiet" room.
(i) Donations were made there secretly.
(ii) Gifts were distributed from there secretly.
2. The room of utensils.
(i) Donations of Keilim were collected there and surveyed every thirty days.
(ii) The ones which are needed for Bedek HaBayis are retained while the rest are sold for
the benefit of Bedek HaBayis.
4) KEEPING TZEDAKAH SECRET
(a) An incident is recorded wherein the Gabai Tzedakah used an intermediary to get Tzedakah to
needy, but modest, people.
(b) A related incident in which people falsely accused a man of taking Tzedakah which he did not
need, only to find after his death that he was secretly distributing these as well as his own funds
to Tzedakah.
(c) R. Chinenah would distribute at night and had an encounter with the evil spirits of the night.
5) FINDING CLEVER WAYS TO GIVE
(a) (R. Yonah) Fortunate is the one who surveys the situation carefully to determine how to give
without shaming the recipient.
(b) One approach was to claim that the recipient had inherited funds...
(c) Certain scholars would only accept between Rosh HaShanah and Yom HaKipurim (after
which they would only rely on their divinely ordained allocation).
6) BEWARE WHEN PERFORMING MITZVOS
(a) Nechemyah considered the guilt in the death of the poor man to whom he gave meat rather
than fowl.
(b) Similarly, Nachum Ish Gamzu who took upon himself enormous affliction in such a case.
1. R. Akiva bemoaned seeing him in a such a state.

2. Nachum wished such a state upon R. Akiva.


3. R. Akiva questioned why Nachum should curse him.
4. Nachum questioned R. Akiva's attitude towards earthy affliction (Yisurim).
(c) R. Hoshayah explained to his son's sightless tutor why he had not invited him to dine that
particular night.
(d) The tutor, when appeased, gave the remarkable blessing to R. Hoshayah: You have appeased
one who is seen but does not see; may you be well received by the One Who sees but is not seen.
(e) R. Hoshayah asked him for his source for this wonderful Berachah.
(f) He cited a similar incident regarding R. Eliezer b. Yakov.
7) SPENDING PRIORITIES (COMPLEX EDIFICES vs TORAH SCHOLARS)
(a) Two accounts are recorded wherein critique is proffered for building great Synagogues and
adornments for houses of study at the expense of poor Torah scholars.
15b---------------------------------------15b
8) PROCEEDS TO BEDEK HABAYIS OR TO THE MIZBEACH
(a) The Bereisa teaches that items such as animals and stones fitting for the Mizbeach, if donated
to Bedek HaBayis, may be taken for the needs of the Mizbeach.
(b) If the animal was donated to the Mizbeach, its funds may not be used for Bedek HaBayis,
rather only for the Mizbeach.
(c) Question: But our Mishnah, by only mentioning Bedek HaBayis, indicates that the funds may
*not* be used for the Mizbeach.
(d) Answer: Both are meant.
(e) The Bereisa teaches that we may only increase the Kedushah of that which was donated, or,
the donor was specific, (i.e. for the Heichal) we must retain that level of Kedushah.
(f) Question: But we see that the Mishnah allows conversions!?
(g) Answer: The items are sold and the money is recycled into the Lishkas Bedek HaBayis as
"new" unallocated funds.
Hadran Alach Eilu Hen HaMemunin
*****PEREK SHELOSHAH ASAR*****
1) NUMBERED ITEMS IN THE MIKDASH
(a) There were 13 Shofaros, 14 Shulchanos, 13 bowings (14 for the house of R. Gamliel).

(b) There was a tradition that the spot where the wood for the Mizbeach was checked was above
the interred Aron HaKodesh (and one Kohen paid with his life for this information).
2) THE SHOFAROS
(a) The Bereisa teaches that the Shofaros were narrow at the neck and wider below.
(b) This was to prevent theft/fraud.
3) IS THE ARK INTERRED OR WAS IT EXILED?
(a) The Bereisa teaches that the Aron was exiled with them to Bavel (as the Pasuk [Melachim II
20:17] indicates).
(b) Resh Lakish taught that it is hidden in its place (also based on a Pasuk [Divrei HaYamim II
5:9]).
1. The Gemara goes on to expound that Pasuk.
2. It describes the Badim of the Aron, seen and not seen.
(c) Rabanan taught that the Aron was hidden below the wood room (as indicated by the incident
of the Kohen there, and the manner in which the flame consumed him).
4) MORE ABOUT THE ARON
(a) There is a dispute regarding the Aron:
1. (R. Yehudah) There were two Aronos, one with the Luchos and one with the broken
Luchos; the latter going out to battle with the People.
2. (Rabanan) There was only one Aron, which went out once during the time of Ayli
HaKohen.
(b) The Pasuk in Shmuel I (7:8) appears to support the Rabanan (this was a unique event).
(c) The Pasuk in Shmuel I (14:18) appears to support R. Yehudah (for how could Shaul have
asked for the Aron which was, at the time, in Kiryat Yearim?!).
(d) Rabanan respond that Shaul was asking for the Tzitz (i.e. all the Bigdei Kehunah, so that he
might inquire of the Urim v'Tumim).
(e) The Pasuk in Shmuel II (11:11) appears to support R. Yehudah (refers to the Aron with the
People at the battle, not in Tzion, where Dovid HaMelech had taken it from Kiryat Yearim).
(f) The Rabanan explain that Uriah meant that the Aron does not have a proper home (Beis
HaMikdash).
Next daf

POINT BY POINT SUMMARY


by Rabbi Ephraim Becker
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question on the daf


Previous daf
Shekalim 16
SHEKALIM 16 - Dedicated to the memory of Max (Meir Menachem) Turkel
(Yahrzeit: 5 Teves) by his wife Jean and children Eddie and Lawrence.

1) OTHER ITEMS WHICH WERE HIDDEN WITH THE ARON


(a) The Tzintzenes HaMan, the anointing oil, Aharon's (flowered) staff and the gift box from the
Plishtim.
(b) These were hidden by Yoshiyahu, as related in the Pesukim.
1. He understood that if the Aron was taken to Bavel it would not return.
2. Rather, he instructed that it be interred.
2) PREPARING THE ANOINTING OIL
(a) Based on the Pasuk, there were 1,500 Manim of ingredients.
(b) The Bereisa teaches that the ingredients were soaked in 12 Log of oil, or water, and the oil was
passed over the spices, as per the Pasuk.
(c) It was taught that the anointing oil of Moshe was entirely miraculous, and lasts forever after
being used as listed.
3) WHO IS TO BE ANOINTED
(a) A King (first in his dynasty - based on the Pasuk).
(b) Every Kohen HaGadol (based on the Pasuk).
4) ALL OF MOSHE'S OIL WILL REMAIN IN THE TIME TO COME
5) THE KINGS' ANOINTMENT
(a) The King is anointed by a source of water (as Shlomo was anointed by the Gichon).

(b) The son of a King is not anointed (Pasuk) unless there are contenders to the throne.
(c) This was the case regarding Shlomo (because of Adoniyahu), Yoash (because of Atalyahu),
Yehoachaz (because of his elder brother, Yehoyakim) and Yehu (because of Yoram).
1. Question #1: But the Kings of Israel (Northern Tribes) were not to be anointed (as in
the Pasuk)?!
2. Question #2: But Yoshiyahu had already hid the oil before the reign of Yehoachaz?!
3. Answer: It was Persimmon Oil, not the anointing oil.
(d) Kings must be anointed from a Keren.
1. Shaul and Yehu were anointed from a Pach.
2. Their reigns were transitory (unlike Dovid and Shlomo).
(e) Kohanim may not be anointed as Kings (derived from two different Pesukim).
6) THE IDENTITY OF YEHOACHAZ
(a) (R. Yochanan) The Yochanan (listed first as the Bechor in Divrei HaYamim I 3:15) is
Yehoachaz.
(b) Question: But it says he was the Bechor (how could Yehoyakim have been his elder brother)?!
(c) Answer: It means the first to rule.
(d) (R. Yochanan) Shalom (4th in the Pasuk) and Tzidkiyahu (3rd in the Pasuk) are one and the
same.
1. Question: But the Pasuk tells us of the *two* people!?
2. Answer: He was 3rd in birth-order and 4th to reign.
3. His name was Tzidkiyahu as he accepted the Din.
4. His name was Shalom for he ended Dovid's monarchy.
(e) (Resh Lakish) His name was actually Masanyah (Pasuk).
7) THE AMOS OF THE MIKDASH
(a) There were Amos of 5 Tefachim, 6 Tefachim, and 6 Tefachim plus a half-Etzba.
(b) (R. Yochanan and R. Meir) The Aron was made with the 6 Tefachim Amah.
(c) (R. Yehudah) The building was made with an Amah of 6; the utensils with an Amah of 5.
(d) R. Meir's position allows for room for the Sefer Torah in the Aron (as calculated).
16b---------------------------------------16b

(e) Resh Lakish subscribes to the position of R. Yehudah (the Aron was made using Amos of 5
Tefachim).
(f) The Gemara calculates the Luchos and broken Luchos into the Aron according to R. Yehudah.
8) THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ARON
(a) The Aron was three boxes, one within the other.
1. A box of gold within a box of wood, within a box of gold.
2. The requirement of Tetzapenu was fulfilled with covering the top.
(b) (Resh Lakish) There was one box, plated inside and out. (The requirement of Tetzapenu was
fulfilled by covering the seams between the planks).
9) THE WRITING OF THE LUCHOS
(a) (R. Chaninah) The Luchos were written five and five (Pasuk)..
(b) (Rabanan) Ten and ten (Pasuk).
(c) (R. Shimon b. Yochai) Twenty and twenty (Pasuk).
(d) (R. Simai) Forty and forty (Pasuk).
(e) (Chananya b. Achi citing R. Yehoshua) Between each Dibur were written all the details of the
Torah (like a great sea alluded to in the Pasuk).
(f) Resh Lakish praised this teaching.
10) PLACING THE TORAH OF MOSHE
(a) Question: According to R. Yehudah, where was the Sefer Torah of Moshe placed (since, unlike
R. Meir, R. Yehudah does not have room for it in the Aron)?
(b) Answer: There was a shelf (until the Plishtim sent the box).
(c) Question: Why wasn't room allocated for it in the Aron?
(d) Answer: The Torah says that the Sefer is to be placed beside (MiTzad) the Aron.
(e) Question: Why, then, does R. Meir differ?!
(f) Answer: The Pasuk (Shemos 25:21) so indicates.
(g) Question: According to R. Yehudah, the Pasuk is out of order (the instructions regarding the
cover come before the contents of the Aron).
(h) Answer: There is no time-sequence in the Torah (and the order is time-reversed).
11) THE GIVING OF THE TORAH
(a) (R. Pinchas citing Resh Lakish) The Torah given by HaShem to Moshe was white flame

engraved into black flame, mixed in flame, etched in flame and given in flame.
Next daf
POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
by Rabbi Ephraim Becker
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question on the daf


Previous daf
Shekalim 17
1) HALACHAH 2: PROSTRATIONS AND THE GATES OF THE MIKDASH
(a) The locations of the 13 prostrations listed in the previous Mishnah.
(b) These were in appreciation of the 13 gates.
(c) The locations and names of the (named) gates, and the sources of those names.
2) THE NUMBER OF GATES
(a) Our Mishnah follows the opinion that there were 13 gates.
(b) The Rabanan hold that there were seven.
(c) Question: Where were the 13 prostrations according to Rabanan?
(d) Answer: To honor the 13 [closed] breaches in the Soreg.
1. The Greeks made these breaches.
2. The Hasmoneans closed them.
3) THE FUTURE WATERS FLOWING FROM THE MIKDASH
(a) From the Pasuk in Zecharyah (14:8) we learn the increasing strength of that water.
1. It originates as a trickle in the Kodeshei Kodoshim.
2. It will increment to a rushing river.
(b) The Pesukim in Yechezkel (47:1-5) give another description of the waters flowing from the
Mikdash.

1. The Pasuk indicates the flow at each thousand-Amah distance.


2. The Pasuk in Yeshaya (25:11) defines "Sachu" as "Shayit" (boating).
3. Alternately Sachu means refers to waters which are spoken about (Sichah).
(c) The Pasuk the Zecharyah (13:1) speaks of the water which will go out for the house of Dovid
and the residents of Yerushalayim for Chatas (Parah Adumah) and Nidah (Mikveh).
1. Question: Could not the rest of the People use these waters?
2. Answer #1: The waters from Beis Dovid until the residences of Yerushalayim will be
Kosher for Nidah and Chatas; from there out only for Nidah.
3. Answer #2: For that first distance they are Kosher for everything; from there out they
do not gather.
(d) The Pasuk in Yechezkel (47:8) speaks of these waters.
1. They will join the water bodies of Israel.
2. Mutzaim means the waters went out twice (during the generations of Enosh and the
Palagah, to different distances, as the opinions indicate).
3. The last opinion is derived from the Pasuk in Iyov (38:11) "Ad Poh Savoh v'Lo Sosif
u'Fo Yashis b'Geon Galechah."
(i) Poh refers to Ako.
(ii) u'Fo refers to Yafo.
(e) Question: Why do the waters need to meet the Sea of Teveryah and the Sea of Sibuchah
(sweet-water bodies).
(f) Answer: The waters add to their fish, and to the species of fish in them (as indicated by the
incident of R. Shimon b. Gamliel).
(g) Question: The Pasuk (Yechezkel 47:11) indicates the waters will become sweet, while Pasuk 8
indicates they will not!?
(h) Answer: The latter is a place name.
(i) The words "laChadashav Yivaker" in Pasuk 12 speak of the ripening of the fruit.
1. As we know it, grain ripens in six months, while fruit trees produce their fruit in 12
months.
2. In the future the grain will ripen in a month; fruit in two.
3. Based on Yoel (2:23) the grain in 15 days; the fruit in a month.
4. Question: But LaChadashav is in the plural?!
5. Answer: The plural refers to *every* month.

(j) The words "V'Aleyhu l'Serufah" speak of the leaves of the fruit trees growing from the springs
of the Mikdash.
1. One will suck the leaves for his nourishment.
2. Its medicinal value is to release the "mouth."
3. There are four opinions regarding which "mouth" is being released.
4) THE DESTRUCTION OF THE MIKDASH
(a) When Nevuchadnezar came to depose Yehoyachin...
(b) Yehoyachin offered back the keys of the Mikdash...
1. He threw them and they did not come back down.
2. Alternately, a sort of hand took them.
17b---------------------------------------17b
(c) When the officers of Yehudah saw, they fell from their roofs (Yeshayah 22:1).
5) HALACHAH 3: THIRTEEN SHULCHANOS
(a) They are listed with their materials and their locations.
(b) The steps of the Lechem are followed from table to table.
6) LECHEM ON SILVER OR MARBLE
(a) Question: The Bereisa says that the Lechem was on silver, while our Mishnah says marble!?
(b) Answer: Our Mishnah holds they were not of silver since it generates heat (causing spoilage to
the Lechem).
(c) Question: But the warm freshness of the bread all week was miraculous!?
(d) Answer: We do not discuss (rely on) the miracles.
(e) The Bereisa holds silver, and not marble because the latter introduces cold (and the Lechem
needed to be warm).
(f) Question: But the miracle...
(g) Answer: We do not discuss the miracles.
7) IN THE ABSENCE OF NEW LECHEM
(a) Question: If there was no new Lechem, would we leave the Lechem of the present week on the
Shulchanos for the next?
(b) Answer: The Pasuk teaches that the Lechem must *always* be there (even post date).

8) THE SHULCHANOS FITTING INTO THE MIKDASH OF SHLOMO


(a) Shlomo made 10 Shulchanos (Divrei HaYamim II 4:8), five on one side; five on the other.
(b) Question: If their lengths were to the width of the Heichal, they would be in the North and
South (and not only in the North, where the Shulchan must be)?!
(c) Answer: They were not in a row, rather five to the right of Moshe's Shulchan and five to the
left.
1. Only the Shulchan of Moshe was set with Lechem (based on Melachim I 7:48).
2. (R. Yosi) They were all set [alternately] (based on Divrei HaYamim II 4:19).
(d) The Bereisa teaches a dispute regarding their positions.
1. If they were East to West then they are all (properly) in the North.
2. But if they were North to South...?!
Next daf
POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
by Rabbi Ephraim Becker
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question on the daf


Previous daf
Shekalim 18
1) LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS IN THE MIKDASH
(a) The Bereisa teaches the location of the Shulchan.
1. It was within the 20 Amos closest to the Kodesh HaKadoshim.
2. It was set away from the North wall 2.5 Amos.
(b) The Bereisa goes on to locate the Menorah and the Mizbeach.
1. The Menorah paralleled the Shulchan near the South wall.
2. The Mizbeach was in the center, set away (to the East) from the direct line between
the Menorah and the Shulchan.

2) THE TEN MENOROS OF SHLOMO


(a) Question: If they were placed five to the North and five to the South, then only the Southern
ones would be Kosher!?
(b) Answer: It means five to the right and five to the left of the Menorah of Moshe.
(c) There is the same dispute as regarding the Shulchanos as to which was used- only the one of
Moshe or all (rotating).
3) USING UP THE GOLD
(a) Michlos Zahav- they used up Shlomo's gold.
(b) The gold was exceedingly refined (losing any impurities).
(c) Question: But the Bereisa teaches that the Menorah of Moshe could not be reduced by
refining!?
(d) Answer: Indeed, once refined, it could not be further refined.
4) HALACHAH 4: THE THIRTEEN SHOFAROS
(a) The 13 Shofaros were labeled as indicated.
(b) The New Shekalim were of the current year.
(c) One who had not brought one year, brought the next into the Shofar marked Old Shekalim.
(d) (R. Yehudah) Kinin are (large) birds while Gozelei Olah are (small) Bnei Yonah [all are Nidvei
Olos- not obligations].
(e) (Chachamim) The Kinin Shofar received all Kinin (Chatas and Olah) while the one marked
Gozelei Olah received only Olos.
(f) The Mishnah lists the minimum amounts for various unspecified donations (wood, Levonah,
and gold).
(g) From the six Shofaros marked Nedavah they brought Olos (the meat went on the Mizbeach
and the hides to the Kohanim).
1. This was derived from the Pasuk by Yehoyadah.
2. This resolves Two seemingly contradictory Pesukim.
5) THE RATIONALE FOR R. YEHUDAH
(a) There was no Shofar for obligatory Kinin.
(b) We are afraid lest one of the donors died (invalidating the rest).
(c) Question: But the Bereisa says that the woman puts the money into the Shofaros and can be
then assured that she is Tehorah!?

18b---------------------------------------18b
(d) Answer: R. Yehudah is speaking where we know that one of the owners died.
(e) Question: But Bereirah should resolve the matter!?
(f) Answer: R. Yehudah does not hold of Bereirah.
6) THE GIZAR OF WOOD
(a) Question: Does our Mishnah only obligate him to bring two if the donor was not specific, but
if he specified one Gizar that would suffice?
(b) Answer: The Mishnah in Yoma indicates that each Gizar is a separate offering (a separate
Kohen brought each).
7) THE AMOUNT OF WOOD IN A GIZAR
(a) (R. Yehoshua b. Levy) The Gizar was an Amah thick (using "smiling" Amos), by an Amah
length (stinting Amah).
(b) (R. Ami) It was like a Tortani.
(c) It was a stinting Amah long to allow room for the Kohanim on the Mizbeach.
8) LEVONAH NOT LESS THAN A KOMETZ
(a) The source is the word Azkarah found by a donation of Levonah and by the Lechem HaPanim
(both are a Kometz).
(b) Question: But the Lechem HaPanim was doubled (two Kometzim)?
1. Answer (R. Ila): [According to our text] The Kometz of the Lechem HaPanim was a
separate offering (and the Minchas Choteh as well as the donated Levonah are both
learned from it).
2. (R. Yosah) From R. Ila we learn that the donated Levonah must be the Kometz of a
large Kohen.
3. (R. Chizkiyah citing R. Yirmiyah) An average person (since the donor is free to choose
the Kohen).
(c) The GR"A understands the answer differently:
1. Answer (R. Ila): The donated Kometz is derived not from Lechem HaPanim, but from
other Menachos.
2. (R. Yosah) The Kometz must match the hand of the Kohen.
3. (R. Chizkiyah citing R. Yirmiyah) It may match the hand of the donor.

9) GOLD IS DONATED NOT LESS THAN A DINAR


(a) The Dinar is required if the donor mentioned a coin.
(b) If he did not specify a coin, then a small fork is enough.
10) SHOFAROS FOR NEDAVAH
(a) There are four opinions as to the basis for six Shofaros.
1. Chizkiyah - six Batei Avos.
2. Bar Padyah - six types of animals for Korbanos.
3. Shmuel - six types of Korbanos.
4. R. Yochanan - to accommodate the large quantity of donations.
(b) Question: The Pasuk in Divrei Hayamim II (24:14) implies that the donations were used for
Kelei Shares, whereas the Pasuk in Melachim II (12:14) implies not so?
(c) Answer (R. Shmuel b. Nachmani): There were two collections made by Yehoyada.
(d) Answer (R. Yishmael): It was one donation, with the surplus used for Kelei Shares as per the
condition of Beis Din.
(e) Question: The Pasuk refers to two collection boxes?!
(f) Answer: It was one collection but a separate box was placed outside the Azarah for those who
were Tamei.
Hadran Alach Sheloshah Asar
Next daf
POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
by Rabbi Ephraim Becker
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question on the daf


Previous daf
Shekalim 19
*****Perek Ma'os Shenimtzeu*****

1) HALACHAH 1: DEALING WITH FOUND MONEY BETWEEN THE KUPOS


(a) The Mishnah instructs how to deal with money found between the Kupos of ShekalimNedavah, Eitzim-Levonah, Kinin-Gozelei Olah.
(b) We assume that the funds originated in the closer place, even to be lenient.
(c) When neither source is closer, we attribute the funds to the more stringent place of origin.
2) ANALYZING DOUBTS
(a) Question: But only the Shekalim-Kinim Kupos were next to one-another (creating the doubt),
not Shekalim-Nedavah!?
(b) Answer: The Kupos were not in line, they were in a circle.
(c) Question: Why do the equidistant funds go to Nedavah (since Shekalim are more stringent)?
(d) Answer #1: The money may end up as Shirayim.
(e) Answer #2: Fifty-fifty doubt is likened to a Korban whose owners died (and as Shekalim they
would also go to Nedavah).
1. R. Yasa reported having heard (in Bavel) R. Yehudah ask this question of Shmuel.
2. Shmuel had taught that Shekalim (in the case where the owner designated the funds
and then died) should go to Nedavah.
3) LEFTOVER FUNDS FROM THE MINCHAS KOHEN
(a) (R. Yochanan) The leftover funds must be destroyed.
(b) (R. Eliezer) They go to Nedavah (as leftover Chatas).
4) KININ-GOZELOS EQUIDISTANT GOES TO GOZELOS
(a) Question: How can a Chatas be brought as an Olah?
(b) Answer: It is a T'nai Beis Din.
(c) Question: How are this woman's Korban needs addressed?
(d) Answer: This, too, is a T'nai Beis Din (with the supplier).
(e) Question: Why weren't other combinations mentioned in the Mishnah?
(f) Answer: These were addressed by the general principle at the end of the Mishnah.
5) HALACHAH 2: DEALING WITH OTHER FINDS
(a) The Mishnah deals with money found in various parts of Yerushalayim and beyond regarding
their Ma'aser status.
(b) The Mishnah deals with found meat regarding the question of it being Neveilah or Pasul.

(c) Even when the meat of Korbanos might be valid, it cannot be eaten, but it must be retained
until it is certainly invalid, and then burnt.
(d) The manner in which the meat is cut will indicate its origin.
19b---------------------------------------19b
6) MONEY ON HAR HABAYIS IS CHULIN
(a) Question: Could the money not be from Hekdesh (Shekalim)?
(b) Answer: There is a Chazakah that the Kohen would not take money out of the Lishkah before
redeeming it on an animal.
7) THE INVALIDATION OF HESECH HADA'AS
(a) (R. Eliezer citing R. Hoshayah) Meat which became invalidated through Hesech HaDa'as
must develop an additional invalidation before being burned.
(b) Our Mishnah (which says that it must develop an additional invalidation and is then burned)
is cited as a support for the above.
(c) (R. Yosi) The Law of the Mishnah is (not because of Hesech HaDa'as, but rather) because of
our doubts if the meat has already become invalid (Nosar).
(d) [The above step according to the GR"A] (R. Yosi) Such doubtful meat should be Tahor (as
with any doubt in Reshus HaRabim), but the reason for burning this meat is we cannot eat it
(since it may already be invalid) and we may not burn it (since it may not be invalid).
8) MEAT WHICH IS FOUND DEPENDS ON ITS CUT
(a) (R. Krispa citing R. Yosi b. Chaninah) Whole limbs are definitely Neveilah, and one would get
Malkos for eating them.
(b) This seems supported by our Mishnah which speaks in definite terms (permitted-completely,
Neveilah-even with Malkos).
(c) (Same source as a.) Whole limbs which are tied together are permitted.
9) SITUATIONS OF DOUBT
(a) A person is in doubt regarding the meat he bought in one of ten stores (nine sell Neveilah and
1 sells Kosher) - it is presumed not Kosher.
(b) If he found meat in such a town, we follow the majority (non-Kosher)
(c) Even if (in case a.) the nine stores sell Kosher, it is presumed non-Kosher.
(d) If he found meat in such a town, we follow the majority (Kosher).
(e) (R. Yochanan) If the meat were found in the hands of a Gentile, it is the same as in the

markets above.
(f) R. Mana pointed out an incident which, he said, indicated against R. Yochanan.
(g) R. Yochanan restricted his law to a case where we saw the Gentile merchant leaving the store
of a Jew.
10) MEAT BOUGHT BY A GENTILE FROM A JEW
(a) An incident is recorded where a Jew bought meat through a Gentile from another Jew and it
turned out to be Neveilah.
(b) Rebbi taught that this one case cannot prohibit all of the butcher shops in town.
Next daf
POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
by Rabbi Ephraim Becker
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question on the daf


Previous daf
Shekalim 20
1) RAV PROHIBITED MEAT WHICH LEFT THE SIGHT OF A JEW
(a) Rav, upon coming to Bavel, ruled stringently regarding meat which was left unsupervised.
(b) In one case a person left the river into which his meat had fallen and Rav prohibited him from
returning and netting it out (lest this is not his original piece of meat).
(c) Similarly in a case where a bird snatched the meat.
(d) In the cases of bottles and barrels of wine, they could be checked for identifiable seals by the
vintners and used.
(e) Roasted meat in the public street of Gufsa:
1. Need not be returned (the owners have forfeited their claim since it is irretrievable,
akin to a rushing river).
2. May be eaten (since the majority of passersby are Jews).
3. In such an incident their ruling was vindicated as the meat turned out to have been
from the house of Rebbi.

(f) Cheese found in the Pundak of Levi was permitted on the same grounds as above (and their
ruling was similarly vindicated).
2) ATTITUDE TOWARDS FOUND ARTICLES
(a) R. Mana reported to R. Yosi that the Rabbis would announce their find even from a public
thoroughfare.
(b) R. Yosi responded that R. Mana's father, R. Yona, often taught that such a find would enrich
him, not needing to be announced.
(c) Nevertheless, R. Yona, when confronted with such a find, did not take it for himself, but
rather announced it.
3) HALACHAH 3: THE STATUS OF FOUND ANIMALS
(a) An animal found within a radius of Jerusalem to Migdal Eder, the males are brought as Olos;
the females as Shelamim.
(b) (R. Yehudah) If the animal is fit as a Korban Pesach then it is brought as a Pesach [if found
within 30 days before Pesach].
(c) Originally the finder had to put up collateral guaranteeing that he would bring the Nesachim
for the found animal.
1. This practice was eliminated and the Nesachim were provided at public expense.
2. This was the first in a list of seven conditions instituted by Beis Din, as listed.
20b---------------------------------------20b
4) BRINGING FOUND MALES AS OLOS
(a) Question: But the Shelamim could also be from males?!
(b) Answer: The animal is not brought as an Olah, but its value provides for both an Olah and a
Shelamim, if the finder wishes to address all of the doubts which surround it.
1. He is Mechalel the money on the animals, like R. Meir (who holds that Hekdesh
b'Meizid is Mischalel).
2. He then brings Olos and Shelamim with the money.
(c) Question: But how can he be Mechalel b'Meizid!?
1. This ability is only according to R. Meir.
2. We hold like R. Yehudah would disagrees!

(d) Answer: Since it is a condition of Beis Din it is not considered Meizid.


(e) Question (R. Yochanan): But this instructs the finder to do Meilah!?
(f) Answer: The Mishnah means that we follow the Rov;
1. If the majority found are male, they are all Olos.
2. If the majority are females they are all brought as Shelamim.
(g) (R. Zeira) We are not worried about the males among the Shelamim since this, too, is a
condition of Beis Din.
(h) R. Yasa reported having heard (in Bavel) R. Yehudah ask Shmuel regarding one who
separated his Shekalim and died.
(i) Shmuel had taught that Shekalim (in the case where the owner designated the funds and then
died) should go to Nedavah.
(j) Regarding leftover funds from the Minchas Kohen:
1. (R. Yochanan) The leftover funds must be destroyed.
2. (R. Eliezer) They go to Nedavah (as leftover Chatas).
5) THE MINCHAH OF THE KOHEN GADOL
(a) The Asiris HaEifah (which is brought as an Isaron and divided):
1. (R. Yochanan) An entire Isaron is brought, divided and then the half is sanctified in a
Keli Shares.
2. (Resh Lakish) It is all sanctified in a Keli Shares and then divided.
(b) Question: The Mishnah in Menachos (51b) appears to disagree with R. Yochanan (the
remaining half is destroyed, indicating that it was already sanctified).
(c) Answer: This is R. Yochanan's view that leftover funds from the Asiris HaEifah must be
destroyed (4.j.1. above).
(d) Question: There is a Bereisa against R. Yochanan.
1. Where the Kohen Gadol died and his replacement brought a (whole) Minchah from
his home, two halves are offered and two halves are destroyed.
2. The remaining half from the first (deceased) Kohen is destroyed along with the
remaining half of the incoming Kohen, after waiting for it to become invalidated. 3.
Why, according to R. Yochanan, should we have to wait?!
(e) Answer: It is a dispute over whether the utensil for the Isaron sanctifies it.

6) THE INAUGURAL MINCHAH FOR A KOHEN


(a) All Kohanim bring a Minchas Chavitin before performing their Avodah.
(b) If a new Kohen was also becoming the Kohen Gadol, he brings two, one as a new Kohen, and
one as the daily obligation of the Kohen Gadol.
(c) Tufinei (Vayikra 6:14) - Bake the Minchah only when it may be brought (on the same day).
(d) Question: But we learn that it was done a day earlier!?
(e) Answer: That was not the baking, it was heating the water.
(f) (R. Yasa) Tufinei - deep fried then baked.
(g) (R. Acha) Baked then deep fried.
(h) (Tana Kama) Tufinei - Bake it "Na" or not completely (but somewhat) cooked.
(i) (Rebbi) Bake it "Na'eh" (don't fry it first).
(j) (R. Dosa) Bake it more than once (before *and* after).
(k) The above interpretations of Tufinei are the bases for the dispute over baking/frying first.
(l) The laws taught here apply not only if the first Kohen died, but also if he became Tamei, or
developed a blemish.
7) WHO PAYS FOR THE MINCHAS CHAVITIN OF A DECEASED KOHEN?
(a) (R. Yehudah) The inheritors.
(b) They must bring a complete Isaron (undivided).
(c) (R. Shimon) It is a communal expense (as indicated by the words "Chok Olam."
Next daf
POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
by Rabbi Ephraim Becker
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question on the daf


Previous daf
Shekalim 21
1) THE MINCHAH COMING FROM COMMUNAL FUNDS
(a) Question: In one Bereisa we learn that the Minchah coming from communal funds is

d'Oreisa, and our Mishnah teaches that it is a condition of Beis Din!?


(b) Answer: D'Oreisa it comes from the Tzibur, and the condition was to allow the funds of the
Terumas HaLishka to be used.
2) WHOLE OR HALF PARTS OF THE MINCHAH FOR A DECEASED KOHEN
(a) Question: Is the Minchah in such a case whole in both the morning and evening (two
Esronim) or only in the morning?
(b) Answer: Both must be whole.
(c) Question: What about the three Lugin of oil?
1. The Levonah, too, was a question of R. Yochanan.
2. Is it a full Kometz with each Isaron, or half?
(d) Answer: Since the Kometz is derived from the Lechem HaPanim, it requires two full
Komatzim.
1. Once we learn the Kometz from Lechem HaPanim, we should do the same for the
three Lugin of oil!
2. And the ultimate source for the three Lugin is Minchas Chavitin, hence;
3. We should require three full Lugin.
3) ME'ILAH BY THE EIFER HAPARAH
(a) Question: The Mishnah implies that M'd'Oreisa there *is* Me'ilah (and the condition of Beis
Din removed it), yet the Bereisa teaches that M'd'Oreisa there is *no* Me'ilah!?
(b) Answer: There is no Me'ilah.
1. People were treating the Eifer lightly.
2. Chazal made their Gezeirah (Me'ilah).
3. When the People restored the sanctity of the Parah, the Gezeirah was removed.
4) THE FOUND KININ
(a) Question: How can the woman be confident that her Kinin were brought?!
(b) Answer: It was a condition of Beis Din with the providers of the Kinin.
Hadran Alach Maos Shenimtzeu
*****PEREK KOL HAROKIN*****

1) ROK, UTENSILS AND KNIVES


(a) (R. Meir) All spittle in Yerushalayim is Tahor, with the exception of the upper market.
(b) (R. Yosi) Throughout the year all spittle in the middle of the road is Tamei, while that on the
edge of the road is Tahor.
1. During the Regalim, that in the middle is Tahor and on the edges is Tamei.
2. The minority always ends up at the edges.
(c) (R. Meir) Utensils found on the down staircases to a Mikveh are presumed Tamei; on the up
staircases they are Tahor.
(d) (R. Yosi) They are all Tehorim except for the utensils used specifically for graves.
(e) Knives found on the 14th may be used for Shechitah; on the 13th they must be immersed.
(f) A butchering knife must always be immersed.
(g) If the 14th was Shabbos, one may do Shechitah with the knife.
21b---------------------------------------21b
(h) If the Kupitz was found on the 15th, he may use it for Shechitah.
(i) If it was tied to a Shechitah knife, it follows the knife.
2) THE PROHIBITION OF THE UPPER MARKET
(a) (R. Avin citing R. Yehoshua b. Levi) Gentiles were there.
(b) (R. Chaninah) The gentiles would kill wild donkeys there.
1. It was reported that gentiles were killing in the king's stadium.
2. The pilgrims feet were sunk in the blood.
3. The Rabbis did not indicate that they were Tamei.
3) HOW MUCH BLOOD OF A NEVEILAH IS METAMEI?
(a) [R. Simon citing R. Yehoshua b. Levi] A donkey of Rebbi died, and they determined the blood
which came out of it to be Tahor.
(b) R. Eliezer asked R. Simon until how much blood is Tahor?
(c) R. Simon did not acknowledge his question.
(d) R. Eliezer then asked R. Yehoshua b. Levi who responded until a Revi'is.
(e) R. Simon's lack of response bothered R. Eliezer.
(f) When questioned regarding the status of more than a Revi'is, R. Bibi (seemingly in anger)
would not acknowledge the question.

(g) When asked why he refused the question, he said that his poverty (having to buy bread from
the baker) caused him to be unsettled and thus unable to properly respond.
(h) Question: And what, indeed, is the Halachah regarding a Revi'is of blood from a Neveilah?
(i) Answer [R. Yehoshua b. Pesura testified]: It is Tahor.
(j) Rebuttal: No, it is not a Machshir, but it is Metamei.
(k) Question: But we were taught in a Mishnah that only the blood of a Sheretz has this quality
(Tamei but not Machshir)?!
(l) Answer: Its uniqueness is its *amount* (the measure for its blood being equal to the measure
of its flesh - KeAdashah) not the quality of Tamei but not Machshir.
(m) [R. Yosi] There is a Machlokes Amoraim regarding the blood of a Neveilah (one says Tamei
and one says Tahor).
1. The one who says Tamei aligns with R. Yehudah.
2. The one who says Tahor aligns with R. Yehoshua b. Pesura.
(n) [R. Avduma] It is correct to say that R. Yehudah maintains that the blood of Neveilah is
Tamei since he was the Posek in the house of Rebbi (and he said that more than a Revi'is is
Tamei).
4) SPITTLE IS TAHOR EXCEPTING THE UPPER MARKET
(a) Question: Why was there a Gezeirah on the upper market?
(b) Answer: On account of the presence of gentiles there.
5) THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD AND THE FRINGES
(a) The majority (Tamei) would walk in the center of the road throughout the year and the
Tehorim (on the edges) would warn the Temei'im to be careful.
(b) On the Regalim it was the opposite.
6) ALL UTENSILS ARE TAMEI ON THE DOWN STAIRCASE
(a) Question: But we were taught that there was no Gezeirah on Kelim in Yerushalayim!?
(b) Answer: If they are found on the down staircase, it is certain.
7) THE BURIAL UTENSILS
(a) Aba Shaul called them Tziporin (not Merutzim).
(b) The Gemara cites reasons for each name.
8) A KUPITZ TIED TO A KNIFE IS LIKE THE KNIFE

(a) A Bereisa teaches that the knife follows the Kupitz.


9) HALACHAH 2: THE PAROCHOS
(a) If a Paroches became Tamei d'Rabanan it is immersed within the Azarah and immediately
rehung.
(b) If it contacted an Av HaTumah, it was removed from the Azarah for immersion, and spread
out in the Chayil until nightfall.
(c) A new Paroches would be spread out on the roofs of Har HaBayis (for all to see, admire and be
inspired to donate).
(d) The dimensions of the Paroches are listed.
(e) Each thread was woven of 24 individual threads.
(f) Its number (of threads, or weavers, or value) is given.
(g) Two a year were made, and it took 300 Kohanim to immerse it.
10) TWENTY FOUR PLY THREADS
(a) Based on the Pasuk (Shemos 26:31) the Gemara derives that the threads were 24 strands, 32
strands or 48 strands.
11) ROKEM OR CHOSHEV
(a) Question: One Pasuk says Rokem, and one Choshev.
(b) Answer: Rokem is on one face, Choshev is on two.
(c) There is a dispute regarding the images on the faces.
1. Rokem- A lion on one side and smooth on the other; Choshev- A lion on each side.
2. Rokem- A lion on each side; Choshev- a lion on one side and an eagle on the other.
12) HUGE NUMBERS OF THREADS AND CARRIERS
(a) (R. Yitzhok citing Shmuel) These are exaggerations, similar to the Mizbeach having 300 Kor
of ashes.
Next daf
POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
by Rabbi Ephraim Becker
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question on the daf


Previous daf
Shekalim 22
1) HALACHAH 3: WHERE SHOULD TAMEI KODESHIM BE BURNT
(a) (Beis Shamai) All meat is burned within, even if it became Tamei outside, except for that
which was Tamei by an Av HaTumah which is burned outside.
(b) (Beis Hillel) All is burned outside except that which was Tamei by a Vlad HaTumah which is
found and burned inside (two leniencies).
(c) (R. Eliezer) All Av HaTumah is burned outside while all Vlad HaTumah is burned inside.
(d) (R. Akiva) Everything is burned where it became Tamei.
2) WHAT DEFINES AV AND VLAD HATUMAH
(a) (Bar Kaparah) Av HaTumah is M'd'Oreisa and Vlad HaTumah is M'd'Rabanan.
(b) (R. Yochanan) Both are M'd'Oreisa.
(c) Question: According to R. Yochanan, why does Beis Shamai permit bringing the Vlad
HaTumah meat inside?!
(d) Question: Further, why does Beis Hillel permit keeping the Vlad HaTumah meat inside?!
(e) These above remain unanswered.
(f) Question: According to Bar Kaparah, Beis Shamai should permit bringing Av HaTumah meat
inside, just as it is permitted to leave it within if it became Tamei there.
(g) Answer: Beis Shamai agrees with R. Akiva (and Vlad is permitted to be brought within since it
is d'Rabanan).
(h) Question: According to Bar Kaparah, Beis Hillel should permit bringing the Vlad within!?
(i) Answer: They hold like R. Shimon (regarding making a Gezeirah to equate d'Rabanan and
d'Oreisa Tumah).
3) HALACHAH 4: PLACING THE PARTS OF THE ANIMALS; HEKDESH NOWADAYS
(a) The parts of the Tamid are placed on the western side of the lower half of the ramp
(b) The parts of the Musafin are on the eastern side.
(c) The parts of Rosh Chodesh Musaf are above them on the Karkov.
(d) Shekalim and Bikurim are not practiced without a Mikdash.
(e) Ma'aser (grain and animals) and firstborn are practiced.
(f) One who is Makdish Shekalim and Bikurim creates Hekdesh.

(g) (R. Shimon) Bikurin cannot be designated without Mikdash.


4) THE KARKOV
(a) The Karkov was the located where the Kohanim would walk.
5) PRECEDENCE BETWEEN THE MUSAF OF SHABBOS AND ROSH CHODESH
(a) Question: Which is brought first, the Musaf of Rosh Chodesh or Shabbos?
(b) Answer: Rosh Chodesh, based on the Shirah, where the Rosh Chodesh was sung first.
(c) (R. Yosah) Shirah is not applicable since it was sung first to avoid the People's confusion.
(d) Rather, the principle of the more regular taking precedence is applicable here, and the
Shabbos is offered first.
6) MAKING KEDUSHAH WITHOUT A MIKDASH
(a) Question: May we infer that R. Shimon holds that Shekalim *may* be designated (since he
only precluded Bikurim (3.g. above)?
(b) Answer: (R. Shimon b. Yehudah) R. Shimon holds that Shekalim would also not become
Kadosh (unlike the inference from our Mishnah).
(c) A convert must designate the funds for his Korbanos (even as he cannot bring them without a
Mikdash).
(d) (R. Shimon) R. Yochanan b. Zakai annulled that designation because of an impediment.
(e) Question: What was the impediment?
(f) Answer: No Hekdesh can be made for fear of Me'ilah.
(g) Any Hekdesh (money or animals) designated must be destroyed.
(h) We can prove from the above that even after R. Yochanan b.
Zakai eliminated the designation, it still is binding.
22b---------------------------------------22b
(i) Question: We said that the convert who designates his Kinin creates Kedushah (and they
money must be destroyed), yet the Bereisa teaches that designated Shekalim are not Kadosh!?
(j) Answer: The Shekalim are tied to Mikdash, and there is no guarantee that they will *ever* be
usable; whereas money set aside for Korbanos will, sooner or later, be usable.
(k) (R. Hamnuna and R. Ada b. Ahavah citing Rav) The Halachah is like R. Shimon (of our
Mishnah, that Bikurim do not become Kadosh, but coins of Shekalim or the Korban HaGer do
become Kadosh).
HADRAN ALACH KOL HAROKIN USLIKA LA MASECHTA D'SHEKALIM!

On to Yoma

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi