Torah Community Connections

Week 25 - Thursday - 18 May 2000

SHEKALIM: CHAPTER 2 : MISHNA 1

They may exchange shekels for darics because of the burden of the way. Just as there were shofars in the Temple, so were there shofars in the provinces. If townspeople sent their shekels and they were stolen or lost: if the terumah had already been withdrawn, they swear to the treasurers, but if not they swear to the townspeople and the townspeople contribute shekels in their stead. If they were found, or the thieves returned them, these and those are shekels, but they are not credited for them for the following year.

Kehati

They may exchange shekels for darics after the townspeople had collected all the shekels and wished to send them to the Temple, they were permitted to convert them into gold darics (a daric was equal to two selahs). This coin is mentioned in Ezra (2:69; 8:27) and I Chronicles (29:7), because of the burden of the way so that the messengers would not have to carry as heavy a load. Just as there were shofars in the Temple shofar shaped chests for collecting money with a broad base and a narrow opening, so as to prevent anything to be taken out,

So were there shofars in the provinces in each city, to collect the shekels or darics and send them to the Temple. Rambam writes that each city had two such chests, one for the current collection and one for the overdue shekels of the previous year (Hil. Shekalim 2:1). The Jerusalem Talmud, though, states that there was only a single chest, for the current collection (see Tosefot Yom Tov, who explains that Rambam evidently had a different version of the Jerusalem Talmud text).

If the townspeople sent their shekels by a messenger to the Temple, and they were stolen or lost on the way, if the funds had already been withdrawn all the shekels would be placed in a chamber lishkah in the Temple, and on Rosh Hodesh (the first day of) Nisan they would fill three chests, and would withdraw from them in order to purchase the sacrifices. And they would do the same before the Shavuot and Sukkot festivals (as explained below, Mishnah 3:1), and that was known as the terumah of the lishkah (withdrawal of funds from the chamber).

When the coins were withdrawn, they also had in mind to include such shekels as had already been collected but were still in the hands of the messengers and those shekels that would still have to be collected, so that all of Israel would have a part in the sacrifices, including those people who had not yet contributed. The mishnah here comes to teach us that if the terumah of the lishkah had already been withdrawn before the shekels were stolen from the messengers or lost by them, they the messengers, swear to the treasurers of the Temple, for as the terumah was withdrawn before the theft or loss, it is considered as if the Temple had already received the coins, and the theft or loss was from the Temple funds. The messengers must therefore swear to the Temple treasurers that they were not negligent with the money, and then they are exempt from paying.

And even though there is a general rule that excludes the Temple Treasury from the right to demand an oath, this oath was a special institution of the Sages, to ensure that people would not treat the Temple funds lightly; But if not if at the time of the theft or loss the terumah had not been withdrawn, they the messengers, swear to the townspeople because it was their money which was stolen or lost; and the messengers are then exempt, and the townspeople contribute shekels in their stead They must collect the money a second time, because they had not discharged their duty with the first shekels,

If they were found The shekels which had been lost, or the thieves returned them after the townspeople had collected a second half shekel from everyone, These and those are shekels both sets of money are considered as shekels for the Temple, but they are not credited for them to the following year the second set of shekels are not credited for the townspeople toward the next year's collection, but the first are for the current year's collection and the second for the pervious year's collection (Jerusalem Talmud). Which shekalim are considered the first set? There is a dispute among Amoraim: one holds that the first set are those which were stolen or lost, while the other holds that the first set is whichever one reached the Temple treasurer first.

The Jerusalem Talmud here and the Babylonian Talmud (Bava Metzia 58a) state that this mishnah could refer to a paid messenger who is responsible for theft and loss, but here the mishnah is referring to a case where the money was stolen or lost in circumstances beyond his control, as, for example, where the theft was armed robbery or the loss was due to the sinking of a ship. Rambam, however, does distinguish between an unpaid messenger and a paid messenger, and rules that if they sent the money with an unpaid messenger and it was stolen or lost, he swears to them and is exempt as is the law with any unpaid messenger, and they contribute their shekels a second time. In other words, even if the terumah had been withdrawn before the theft or loss, the townspeople must contribute in their stead because they are deemed to have been negligent by sending their money by means of an unpaid messenger.

If, however, they sent their money with a paid messenger and it was stolen or lost in circumstances beyond his control, as explained above, we see if the [theft or loss] took place after the terumah had been withdrawn, in which case the messenger takes an oath to the Temple treasurers, and the townspeople are exempt And if it was lost before the terumah had been withdrawn, it still belongs to the townspeople, and the messenger swears to the townspeople, and they pay (Hil. Shekalim 3:8-9). Thus, according to Rambam, if we explain this mishnah as referring to an unpaid messenger, we must explain the phrase, the townspeople pay shekels in their stead, as also referring back to the first part of the mishnah if the terumah had already been withdrawn, they swear to the Temple treasurers (see Kesef Mishneh; and see Mishnat Eliyahu on the Jerusalem Talmud).

SHEKALIM: CHAPTER 2 : MISHNA 2

One who gives his shekel to his fellow to contribute for him, but he contributed it himself: if the terumah had already been withdrawn he has committed me'ilah. One who contributes his shekel from consecrated property: if the terumah had already been withdrawn and the animal had been offered he has committed me'ilah. Of the money of the second tithe of the money of the seventh year he must eat an equivalent amount.

Kehati

One who gives his shekel to his fellow to contribute for him that he should be his messenger to contribute his shekel to the Temple on his behalf, but he contributed for himself and instead he used the money to contribute his own half shekel, if the terumah had already been withdrawn If, before the messenger contributes the money for himself the terumah had already been withdrawn, as explained above, he the messenger, has committed me'ilah for the terumah is withdrawn on behalf of both the money already collected and that still to be collected, or, in other words, money which has still not reached the Temple treasurer, as explained in the previous mishnah. Thus the money he received from this fellow to contribute on his behalf already belonged to the Temple, and when he gave it on behalf of himself, he was deriving benefit from the Temple funds. The law then is that anyone who derives personal benefit from consecrated property must bring a special me'ilah (misappropriation) sacrifice and must repay the principal plus a fifth (Lev. 5:15-16). The commentators explain (based on the Jerusalem Talmud) that the personal benefit is not the fact that the person contributed his shekel with the money, for mitzvot were not meant for personal enjoyment [and is a spiritual benefit, not a monetary one], but in that by contributing the half shekel he freed himself from the possibility that his assets might be exacted and as a result he derived personal benefit from consecrated property.

One who contributes his shekel from consecrated property As, for example, where he had consecrated money for the upkeep of the Temple, and thought that they were non consecrated and contributed them as his half shekel, if the terumah had already been withdrawn to purchase the sacrifices, and the animal had been offered and the animal purchased with that money had already been sacrificed, he has misappropriated and he must bring a me'ilah sacrifice, for he, too, had a share in that animal. Thus he derived personal benefit from consecrated property in that his assets were not seized as payment for his shekel, as explained above. If no animal had yet been sacrificed, he has not misappropriated, because misappropriation only applies when one uses consecrated property for a secular purpose. Using consecrated property for another sacred purpose, however, even though deriving benefit from it, does not constitute misappropriation until some positive action has been taken with the sacred property.

There are those who explain (based on the Jerusalem Talmud) that in the first part of the mishnah too, where a man uses his fellow's money to contribute his own half shekel, it does not constitute misappropriation until the animal has been offered, but that the Tanna of the mishnah did not state so directly, relying on the second passage where both misappropriations are explained. There are others who hold that in the first part of the mishnah it constitutes misappropriation even if an animal has not yet been offered, because the misappropriation takes place with an object that is not impaired. After all, the person was given the half shekel to contribute to the Temple treasurer, and that was exactly what he did. Hence, the misappropriation is immediate. But in the second part of the mishnah the misappropriation took place with something already impaired because the money had been consecrated for the upkeep of the Temple and he contributed the shekel for sacrifices.

Therefore, misappropriation only takes place when it is impaired, as we learn (Tractate Me'ilah 5a): Whatever can become impaired [by use] comes under the law of misappropriation only when impaired and whatever does not undergo impairment [when used] comes within the law of misappropriation immediately use is made thereof (Taklin Hadetin quoting HaGra).

Of the money of the second tithe If one contributed his half shekel with money used to redeem the second tithe which must be brought to Jerusalem to purchase food which will be eaten in that city (Deut. 14:25-26), or the money of the seventh year if one contributed his half shekel with money used to purchase shemita produce and has the sanctity of the shemita produce itself and whatever food purchased with that money must be eaten in accordance with the laws of shemita, he must eat an equivalent value he must contribute another half shekel and say: Let the second tithe or shemita funds, wherever they are, be redeemed with this shekel. He then uses it to purchase food in Jerusalem which is to be eaten there, if he used the second tithe money, or he purchases fruit and eats them with the sanctity of shemita if he used shemita funds.

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives