Halakha 3 · MISHNA With regard to one who gathers together small coins and said: These are for my shekel, and subsequently discovered that it amounted to more than a half-shekel. Beit Shammai say: The leftover coins are placed in the collection horn designated for a free-will offering, as the money is consecrated property but it does not have the status of a shekel. Beit Hillel say: The leftover money is non-sacred property since, ab initio, he had in mind to consecrate a half-shekel and no more. An item that was consecrated by mistake does not have the status of consecrated property. However, if he originally said: I am gathering together this money so that I will bring my shekel from these, they agree that the leftover money is non-sacred property. If one who was obligated to bring a sin-offering gathered together coins and said: These are for my sin-offering, then if he had accumulated more than was needed, they agree that the leftover money must be designated as a free-will offering. However, if he originally said: That I will bring my sin-offering from these, they agree that the leftover money is non-sacred property. Rabbi Shimon said: What is the difference between shekels and a sin-offering? Why do Beit Hillel say that the leftover money is non-sacred property in the case of shekels, while with regard to a sin-offering they say that the leftover money is consecrated for a free-will offering? Rather, the issue is that shekels have a fixed value, a half-shekel and no more. Therefore, there is a clear amount beyond which one did not intend the money to become consecrated property. However, a sin-offering has no fixed value. Since the entire sum that one collected could have been used to purchase a sin-offering, whatever he didn't use must at least be designated for a free-will offering. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even for shekels there is no real fixed value. For when the Jewish people ascended from the exile, they would contribute darics, which are Median coins worth two shekels by Torah law. They brought these coins with them and would give a half of one to fulfill their half-shekel obligation. Later on, when the Median Empire was dissolved, they reverted to contributing with a sela, a silver coin of equal weight to the the shekel mentioned in the Torah. People would contribute a half-sela for their half-shekel requirement. When the value of this currency changed later on, they reverted to contributing with a tiva, a different coin which is worth a half-shekel. Some people wished to contribute only dinars, which are half the value of the tiva, i.e., one quarter shekel in value. The Sages refused to accept it and required them to contribute at least the half-shekel mentioned in the Torah. Nevertheless, it is clear that the obligation of contributing shekels does not have a fixed value. Rabbi Shimon said in response: Even so, despite the fact that during different periods there were different amounts used to fulfill the obligation of the half-shekel, everyone has equal standing, i.e., at any particular time, everyone contributes the same amount. Therefore, any sum collected beyond that amount was not intended to be consecrated. However, a sin-offering has no fixed amount whatsoever; this person may bring an animal worth a sela, and that one may bring one worth two, and this one may bring one worth three. Therefore, it cannot be supposed that there was no intention to consecrate the whole sum.

GEMARA: It is taught in the mishna: One who gathers together coins and says: These are for my shekel, if he finds that he has more than a half-shekel, then according to the opinion of Beit Shammai, the remainder is designated for a free-will offering, and according to Beit Hillel the remainder is non-sacred property. Rabbi Yosei said in the name of Rabbi Elazar: With regard to what do they disagree? With regard to one who gathers coin by coin [peroterot], adding small coins bit by bit until they amount to a large sum. It is assumed that he intended to contribute only a half-shekel but did not pay attention to the fact that a larger sum had accumulated. According to Beit Hillel, an item that was consecrated by mistake does not become consecrated, and thus the leftover money is non-sacred property. However, with regard to one who takes a stack of coins and says: These are for my shekel, everyone agrees that he must have intended to consecrate the entire sum. Therefore, the leftover coins are designated for a free-will offering. Rabbi Ḥiyya and Rabbi Beiva said in the name of Rabbi Elazar: With regard to what do they disagree? When one gathers coin by coin. In that case Beit Shammai maintain that the leftover money is designated for a free-will offering. Since they hold that an item consecrated by mistake is in fact consecrated, all the money that he accumulated becomes consecrated property and must be designated as a free-will offering. However, with regard to one who takes a stack of coins and says: These are for my shekel, everyone agrees that the leftover coins are non-sacred property. Even Beit Shammai agree that he did not intend to consecrate a sum of money so beyond the requirement of the half-shekel ab initio. Rabbi Ḥiyya said: The mishna supports the opinion of Rabbi Beivai, as we learned in the mishna that Rabbi Shimon said: What is the difference between the leftover money from the half-shekel contribution, which is non-sacred property, and the leftover money for sin-offerings, which is designated for a free-will offering, other than that shekels have a fixed value and a sin-offering has no fixed value? The Gemara asks: What case are we addressing? If Rabbi Shimon is addressing the case of one who collects money in small amounts and says before he starts: I will bring my shekel from these coins, everyone agrees that the leftover coins are non-sacred property. And if he is addressing the case of one who says: I will bring my sin-offering from these coins, here too, everyone agrees that the leftover money is non-sacred property, as explained in the mishna. Rather, this is the case we are addressing: when one takes a stack of coins and says: These are for my shekel. Rabbi Shimon holds that with regard to shekels, since their fixed value is explicitly from the Torah, the leftover coins are non-sacred property, because even when he held all the money he intended only to take the value of a half-shekel from it. However, with regard to a sin-offering, since it has no fixed value from the Torah, as each person brings an animal of whatever value he wants, it is possible that one intended to bring an animal worth the entire value of the coins he took ab initio. Therefore, the leftover money is consecrated for a free-will offering. This is a proof for Rabbi Beivai's opinion that when one takes a stack of coins and says: These are for my shekel, everyone agrees that the leftover money is non-sacred property. Rabbi Yosei understood the mishna such that when he says: These are for my shekel, everyone agrees that the leftover money is consecrated property. The Gemara asks: What does Rabbi Yosei, in the name of Rabbi Elazar, do with this proof? The Gemara answers: He explains Rabbi Shimon's opinion in the mishna as referring to one who collects coin by coin, and it is in accordance only with the opinion of Beit Hillel. The Gemara challenges Rabbi Yosei's version of Rabbi Elazar's opinion: Didn't we learn in the mishna: The leftover shekels are non-sacred property? This implies that in all situations where one consecrates shekels, including those where one said: These are for my shekel, the leftovers are non-sacred, which is in accordance with Rabbi Beivai's explanation. The Gemara answers: There is no such implication. Rabbi Yosei explained it as limited to the case of one who collects coin by coin, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel. In such a case, the leftover money is non-sacred property.

The Gemara discusses a different issue. When a person sets aside his shekel and thought at that point that he is obligated to contribute it, and it turns out that he is not obligated to contribute it, as he had contributed it already, the shekel that he separated is not consecrated, just as other mistakenly consecrated items do not become consecrated. With regard to one who sets aside two shekels simultaneously and thought that he is obligated to contribute two, one for the current year and one for the previous year, and it turns out that he is obligated to contribute only one, as he had in fact contributed the previous year's shekel, what do you do with the second one that was mistakenly set aside? The Gemara answers. Let us hear the halakha from this baraita: If one set aside his sin-offering, and at that point he thought that he was liable, as he had unwittingly sinned in such a manner requiring him to bring a sin-offering, and it turns out that he was not liable, the animal is not consecrated. If one set aside two animals and thought at the time that he had unwittingly transgressed two prohibitions and was therefore liable to sacrifice two sin-offerings, and it turns out that he was liable to sacrifice only one, what do you do with that second animal? It must rather be left to graze. On the one hand, it is consecrated with the sanctity of a sin-offering, but on the other hand, since the person who consecrated it is not obligated in another sin-offering, it cannot be sacrificed. Therefore, it must be left to graze until it develops a blemish and is disqualified from being offered. It can then be sold, with the proceeds used to purchase free-will offerings. So too, these mistakenly set aside half-shekels, i.e., in the case of one who set aside two half-shekels and in the end was obligated only to contribute one, are designated for a free-will offering. The Gemara rejects this comparison between the case of the extra shekel and the case of the extra sin-offerings. Here, in the case of extra shekels, how can you say: These are designated for a free-will offering? The mishna distinguishes between the leftover money when collecting shekels, which is considered non-sacred property, and the leftover money when collecting for a sin-offering, which is considered consecrated for a free-will offering.

§ It was taught in the mishna: Rabbi Yehuda says that even the half-shekel does not have a fixed value, as over the course of history the exact sum of a half-shekel varied. Rabbi Yehuda then describes the coins used for the half-shekel during various periods. The Gemara first explains the mishna's terminology. Darics are golden dinars. The phrase: They reverted to contributing with a sela, is as it sounds; i.e., the equivalent of the shekel mentioned in the Torah, which is four silver dinar. The phrase: They reverted to contributing with a tiva, refers to a half-sela coin, the equivalent of two silver dinar. The phrase: They wished to contribute only dinars, refers to a karat, i.e., a quarter of a sela, or one dinar. The mishna continues: They refused to accept it from them. The Sages did not agree to accept dinars in place of the half-shekel. From where did the Sages derive this? From this verse: "We made ordinances for us, to charge ourselves yearly with the third part of a shekel for the service of the House of our God" (Nehemiah 10:33). The third of a shekel cited in this verse is one-third of a daric, the prevalent coin of the time. Until that time, the custom was to contribute a half of the prevalent coin of the time. The Sages of that generation were concerned that over time the value of the prevalent coin would be reduced to the extent that people would no longer be contributing the value of the half-shekel of the Torah. The verse reports that they therefore set a minimum for the collection, which is the precedent for the Sages of the mishna not accepting the request to lower the fixed amount to a dinar. Once this verse is mentioned, the Gemara discusses other halakhot that are derived from it. Rabbi Ḥilkiya said in the name of Rabbi Aḥa: This verse is about the mitzva of charity. The term shelishit, one-third, used in this verse contains superfluous letters, as it could have been written shelish and maintained its meaning. From here one may derive that a person must donate his shekel three times a year, meaning that he must give a shekel to charity three times a year. One may also derive from here that one may not burden the community by asking them for charity more than three times a year. Rabbi Avin said: From here, there is also support for the fact that the baskets into which the collection of the chamber was collected were three se'a in size; and from here, there is a hint to the three collection baskets and the three collections of the chamber during the year.

It is written: "This they shall give, everyone who passes among them that are numbered, half a shekel after the shekel of the Sanctuary" (Exodus 30:13). Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Neḥemya disagree with regard to the reason for the mitzva. One said: Because they sinned with the Golden Calf at the midpoint of the day, they should give a half-shekel. And one said: Because they sinned at the sixth hour of the day, they should give a half-shekel, whose sum is equal to six garmisin, a small coin that was prevalent in that period. Rabbi Yehoshua of the house of Rabbi Neḥemya said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Zakkai: Because the Jewish people transgressed the Ten Commandments at the time of the Golden Calf, each one of them shall give ten gera, which equals a half-shekel, as it is written: "This they shall give, half a shekel after the shekel of the Sanctuary; the shekel is twenty gera" (Exodus 30:13). Since the Jewish people violated the first commandment, it was as if they transgressed all ten (Sifrei, Shelaḥ). The Gemara cites an additional reason for the obligation to give a half-shekel: It atones for the sin of the sale of Joseph. First, it introduces this topic. Rabbi Berekhya and Rabbi Levi said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: Since the sons of Jacob sold Joseph, the firstborn of Rachel, for twenty silver dinar, the nation was commanded that each of them must redeem his firstborn son with twenty silver dinar, which is five sela, as there are four dinar in a sela. The Gemara returns to the subject of the obligation to contribute a half-shekel: Rabbi Pineḥas said in the name of Rabbi Levi: Since ten of Jacob's sons sold Joseph, Rachel's firstborn, for twenty silver dinars, each of them received two dinars, which amounts to a tiva or a half-sela; therefore, each and every man must give a tiva for his shekel every year.