Shekalim - Chapter Three

Rashi (Chulin 25b) explains that this additional amount was given to tip the scales in favor of the money changer. The Meiri explains that since half-shekel coins were in demand, the value of two such coins was slightly more than a shekel. Rav Kapach [based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shekalim 1:6)] explains that this additional amount was a fee paid to the Temple treasury for providing the services of a money-changer. Based on the latter two explanations, if a person gives a half-shekel coin, he is not obligated to add a kolbon.

A single kolbon. (See the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah [loc. cit.].)

Since their gift is voluntary in nature, they are not obligated to add more to it.

Since priests are not compelled to give a half-shekel for the reasons mentioned above (see the notes on Chapter 1, Halachah 10), they are also not obligated to give a kolbon (Kessef Mishneh).

Although these individuals are obligated to give a half-shekel, since they did not give on their own behalf, the individual who gave on their behalf is doing a service for the Temple treasury. Hence, he is freed of the obligation of the kolbon.

The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, because of a disagreement regarding the version of the text in the Mishnah (Shekalim 1:7), which serves as the Rambam's source. The Rambam's version of the text appears to have read האחים והשותפים, "The brothers and the partners." The Ra'avad's version of the text read האחים השותפים, "The brothers who are partners." According to the Ra'avad, ordinary partners are obligated to give a kolbon.

Since their business interests are combined, they are considered as a single individual. In the above-mentioned Mishnah, and in Bechorot 9:3 and other sources, our Sages contrast the obligation to give a kolbon with the obligation to tithe one's herds. Whenever these individuals are not obligated to give a kolbon, their herds are considered as a single entity, and they are obligated to tithe them together. Whenever they are obligated to give a kolbon, their herds are not considered as a single entity, and they are not obligated to tithe them together.

Although joining the funds together establishes a partnership (Hilchot Shluchin V'Shutafin 4:1), as long as the initial funds are still in the hands of the partnership, there is still an individual dimension to each person's investment (loc. cit.:3). When the initial funds have been spent and the partnership begins generating its own income, then the two people are considered to have a joint income.

The intent appears to be that since the brothers or the partners divided the funds available to them, it is clear that they no longer desire to conduct business as a single entity. We assume that the reason they did not divide the animal was merely one of convenience, and ultimately the partnership will be divided entirely.

The Ra'avad quotes the Jerusalem Talmud (Shekalim 1:7), which states that this applies only when the livestock do not comprise the majority of the assets of the estate or the partnership. If they did comprise the majority of the assets, a different ruling would apply. The Kessef Mishneh and the Migdal Oz offer different explanations for the Rambam's position.

Although there is no difficulty in dividing funds, the very fact that the funds have not been divided is an indication that the brothers and the partners still intend to do business as a single enterprise.

He is requiring that two different exchanges be made on his behalf: a) the division of his shekel so that he will have fulfilled his obligation of giving a half-shekel; and

b) that he receive a half-shekel in return.

He is obligated to pay a kolbon for each of these transactions (Rav Kapach, based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Shekalim 1:6).

As stated in Halachah 3.

For as explained in Chapter 1, Halachot 5-6, this was the value of the half-shekel given in the desert. A lesser amount was never given.

The Tosefta and the Jerusalem Talmud (Shekalim 1:4) quote different Sages who offer varying opinions regarding the purpose for which the kolbonot were used. The Kessef Mishneh maintains that the Rambam used an indefinite choice of words because no final decision is reached in these texts.

Even if the initial setting aside of funds had already been performed in the Temple, the half-shekalim given afterwards are required actually to reach the Temple treasurers.

The emissaries must take three oaths: that the funds were lost or stolen, that they did not use them for their own purposes prior to their being lost, and that they were not negligent (Hilchot She'ilah UFikadon 4:1).

In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shekalim 2:1), the Rambam emphasizes that the people are required to pay a second time because entrusting the funds to an unpaid watchman is considered a careless and irresponsible approach.

Note the contrast to the laws regarding a paid watchman in the following halachah, which differentiates between whether or not the loss took place before funds were set aside from the Temple treasury.

The Kessef Mishneh notes that it is possible to interpret Bava Metzia 58a as implying that the inhabitants should be freed of the obligation of paying a second time if the money was lost after the funds were set aside in the Temple treasury. The Rambam, however, does not choose this interpretation, for the reasons mentioned above.

According to the Torah itself, an oath is never required concerning consecrated articles. Bava Metzia (loc. cit.) explains, however, that our Sages instituted this oath so that the people would not treat consecrated articles in a disrespectful manner.

We have translated the terms "first" and "later" without adding any clarification at this point, because, as mentioned in the conclusion of the following halachah, there is a difference of opinion regarding their meaning.

As mentioned in Chapter 2, Halachot 1-2, every year, it was possible for a person to give a half-shekel to compensate for his failure to do so in the previous year. The extra shekalim were added to this collection.

A paid emissary is never liable for losses due to forces beyond his control, as explained in Hilchot Sechirut, Chapter 3.

As described in Chapter 2, Halachot 4 and 9.

This oath, like the one mentioned in the previous halachah, and like the one mentioned in the following clause, is Rabbinic in origin.

The Kessef Mishneh notes that the Rambam is quoting the text of the Mishnah (Shekalim 2:1) despite the fact that the meaning of that phrase is changed by an interpretation offered in the preliminary discussion of the issue in Bava Metzia 58a: that the emissary takes the oath to the inhabitants of the city in the presence of the Temple treasurer in order to collect his wage, or in order to clear their reputation.

The Kessef Mishneh maintains, however, that once the Talmud mentions the reason for the oath stated in the previous halachah, "that [nothing] consecrated should be released without an oath having been taken," this interpretation is no longer necessary.

As explained in Chapter 2, Halachah 9, when the person setting aside the funds in the Temple treasury makes the separation, he has the intention that the money set aside should be used to purchase sacrifices on behalf of all the Jews who donated or who will donate money for that purpose. Therefore, after the inhabitants of the city fulfill their obligation by sending the funds with a paid watchman, it is considered as if the funds were already given to the Temple treasury.

The source for the difference of opinion mentioned by the Rambam is the Jerusalem Talmud (Shekalim 2:1).

This ruling is also based on the principles mentioned in the previous halachah: that the person who set aside the funds has in mind all the funds that will be donated in the future. Accordingly, once the person gives his half-shekel to his colleague, it becomes the property of the Temple treasury.

If his act was intentional, he receives lashes as punishment and must reimburse the Temple treasury. If his transgression was unintentional, he is obligated to bring a sacrifice for atonement and to reimburse the Temple treasury, adding a fifth of the shekel's value. (See Hilchot Me'ilah 1:3.)

A person is liable for misappropriating consecrated property when benefit is derived from it. In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shekalim 2:2), the Rambam emphasizes that the benefit the person derives is that he extricates himself from a situation where his property would be taken to compel him to pay the half-shekel. The actual fulfillment of the mitzvah is not taken into account, because "the mitzvot were not given for our personal satisfaction."

In halachic terminology, robbery refers to the seizure of a person's property by force, while stealing refers to the theft of an object without his knowledge.

This ruling applies to a thief, but not to a robber. If, at the time of the theft the funds had not been set aside in the Temple treasury, the half-shekel the person steals has not been consecrated. Hence, the thief is required to make double restitution, as stated in Exodus 22:3.

The Kessef Mishneh explains that this refers to a person who steals from a money-changer after the funds have been set aside in the Temple treasury. He is thus making personal use of consecrated property and must add a fifth of its value when making restitution, as explained above.

The Or Sameach differs and states that this refers also to a person who steals before the funds have been set aside in the Temple treasury. A person who is charged with theft, clears himself by taking an oath in court, and later admits the theft, is required to add a fifth of its value when making restitution, as explained in Hilchot Gezeilah 7:1.

I.e., money that was designated for the improvement of the Temple complex. The Rambam is speaking about an instance where the person is unaware that the funds that he used had been consecrated. If he had been aware, different rules would apply.

For a portion of his half-shekel is considered to have been used towards this purchase. The commentaries question why the Rambam does not mention the need for an animal to be purchased with the funds from the Temple treasury in the previous halachah as well. (See Or Sameach.)

I.e., money used to redeem the second tithe, which must be used to purchase food that will be eaten in Jerusalem. (See Deuteronomy 14:24-26.)

I.e., after the fact, it is as if he transferred the designated nature of the half-shekel to the funds he later used.

When produce that grew in the Sabbatical year is purchased, the seller may use the funds he receives for only one purpose: to purchase produce (that was not grown in the Sabbatical year). Moreover, the produce he purchases must be eaten according to all the laws that pertain to produce of the Sabbatical year. (See Hilchot Shemitah V'Yovel 6:6-10.)

In this instance, as well, after the fact it is as if he transferred the designated nature of the half-shekel to the funds he later used.

Which must be destroyed entirely, together with all the property contained within it. (See Deuteronomy 13:17.)

For the property from such a city is considered as having no value whatsoever. It is as if he gave ashes. The Kessef Mishneh questions the Rambam's statements, noting that this concept is so well known that it would seem unnecessary for the Rambam to mention it.

Several of the later commentaries offer possible resolutions to this difficulty. For example, the Merkevet HaMishneh states that this refers to money from the second tithe found in an apostate city. (See Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 4:15.) Aruch HaShulchan states that this refers to money set aside for the half-shekel, but not given to the money-changers for that purpose. If it has already been given, it should be brought to the Temple treasury.

This follows a general principle that when a person consecrates property because of a misconception, the property is not consecrated.

For this is identical to the situation described in the first clause.

Which, as stated in the following halachah, remains unconsecrated.

The Minchat Chinuch (Mitzvah 105) explains the reason for this law. Exodus 30:15 states that the half-shekalim are given for the purpose of atonement, and the dead are not in need of atonement.

The decision rendered in this clause represents a reversal of the Rambam's opinion from that of his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shekalim 2:3), where he writes that if a person brings money and says that it is for his half-shekel, the remainder is considered a donation and is used to purchase burnt offerings. This change of view is based on the discussion of the subject in the Jerusalem Talmud.

A ma'ah was worth one sixth of a half-shekel in Talmudic times (Chapter 1, Halachah 6).

A coin of little value.

Kin'at Eliyahu notes that there is a slight difficulty with the Rambam's statements, which are based on those of the Mishnah (Shekalim 7:1). According to the description of the order of the chests in Chapter 2, Halachah 2, there are several other chests between the chests of the half-shekalim and the chests for the donations for burnt offerings.

Actual closeness is considered the determinant of primary importance in this and other halachic questions.

And this becomes the determining factor, as stated in the following halachah.

As explained in the following chapter.

For the frankincense was itself considered a sacrifice, in contrast to the wood, which was considered merely a medium to make possible a sacrifice (Kessef Mishneh).

Which were sacrificed, one as a burnt offering and one as a sin offering.

For the pairs of doves are offered, one as a sin offering and one as a burnt offering. Since the priests also partook of the sin offerings, the burnt offerings are considered more stringent.

The Kessef Mishneh cites the commentary of Rabbi Ovadiah of Bertinoro on Shekalim 7:1, where he states that a pair of doves were also donated from communal funds to be sacrificed, one as a burnt offering and one as a sin offering. In this manner, if the funds came from those donated for this purpose, the person would receive atonement.

Regardless of whether the contents of the chest are used for purposes that are governed by more lenient or more stringent requirements.

As indicated by Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 7:2, a person was not allowed to enter the Temple Mount holding money in a visible manner. Thus, we can assume that most of the money lost there came from the Temple treasury, and that as the Rambam continues to explain, that money had already been redeemed through the purchase of the sacrifices.