תלמוד על שקלים 2:1

There⁶Mishnah Šeqalim 2:3., we have stated: “If somebody collects coins and says, ‘these are for my Temple tax¹⁵Half a biblical šeqel (Ex. 30:13). While the relation of the biblical ŝeqel to currency in circulation may have varied from time to time, at the beginning of the tax season the amount was clearly stated and known to everybody (Mishnah Šeqalim 2:4). Therefore, nobody who mentions the Temple tax will intend to dedicate more than the stated amount. In contrast, a purification sacrifice can be a sheep or a goat (Lev. 4), in special circumstances also a couple of birds or a flour offering (Lev. 5).,’ the House of Shammai say, the excess should be given as a donation⁷They hold that the entire amount was dedicated even if only part can be used for the purpose stated., but the House of Hillel say, the excess is profane⁸Explained in Mishnah 2:4; Note 13.. ‘That I shall be able to pay my Temple tax,’ they agree that the excess is profane⁹The formulation makes it clear that the amount in excess of the required tax is not dedicated.. ‘These [monies] are for my purification offering’, they agree that the excess is profane.¹⁰The text is shortened so much as to be unintelligible. The Mishnah reads: “ ‘These are for a purification sacrifice,’ they agree that the excess should be a donation (cf. Chapter 4, Note 90). ‘That I shall be able to bring a purification sacrifice,’ the excess is profane (Note 8).”” ¹¹From here to the end of the next paragraph, the text is Halakhah Šeqalim 2:3. The Yerushalmi text reproduced in the Babli (editio princeps) is too closely adapted to Babylonian spelling to be useful for variant readings. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: When do they disagree? If he collects little by little¹²He starts a cache of small coins with the declared intention of collecting money for either his future Temple tax or purification sacrifice.. But if he says “these¹³He declares that all his coins shall be dedicated to the stated purpose. The House of Hillel will agree that everything is dedicated and if it cannot be used for the stated purpose, it should be given to the Temple’s donation account.,” everybody agrees that the excess should be given as a donation. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Bevai in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: When do they disagree? If he collects little by little. But if he says “these,” everybody agrees that the excess is profane. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, the Mishnah¹⁴Šeqalim 2:4. supports Rebbi Bevai: “Rebbi Simeon says, what is the difference between Temple tax and purification sacrifices? Only that the Temple tax is a fixed amount¹⁵Half a biblical šeqel (Ex. 30:13). While the relation of the biblical ŝeqel to currency in circulation may have varied from time to time, at the beginning of the tax season the amount was clearly stated and known to everybody (Mishnah Šeqalim 2:4). Therefore, nobody who mentions the Temple tax will intend to dedicate more than the stated amount. In contrast, a purification sacrifice can be a sheep or a goat (Lev. 4), in special circumstances also a couple of birds or a flour offering (Lev. 5)..” Where do we hold? If he says, “that I shall use it for the Temple tax,” everybody agrees that the excess should be given as a donation¹⁶Read with the Šeqalim text: “Is profane” (as explained in Note 13).. If he says, “that I shall use it for my purification offering,” everybody agrees that the excess is profane¹⁷Read with the Šeqalim text: “Should be given as a donation” (as explained in Note 13).. But we are considering one who says “these¹⁸The monies are already collected; he declares them dedicated for a given purpose..” Since the Temple tax has a fixed rate from the Torah, the excess is profane. Since purification offerings do not have a fixed rate from the Torah, the excess should be given as a donation¹⁹Cf. Chapter 4, Note 90.. How does Rebbi Yose handle this? He explains it if he collects little by little²⁰The argument of R. Simeon applies only if the stated intent is to collect money for the Temple tax, not if the declaration is made on monies already available. In the latter case, R. Simeon may agree that the excess is earmarked for donation., following the House of Hillel.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody collects coins,” etc. ⁴³As explained in the Halakhah and Mishnah 4, a sheqel is a fixed sum and it is reasonable to assume that only the amount necessary was dedicated. The price of an animal for a sacrifice is variable; since the person is ready to spend the entire amount, the entire amount is dedicated. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, where do they disagree? If he collects small change⁴⁴One does not know what sum was accumulated without counting the copper coins. But since exactly 2 silver denars are needed, if silver coins are collected and the owner says, these are sheqalim, all of them are dedicated according to everybody.. But if he says, these [are for my sheqel ]⁴⁵Corrector’s addition. The addition is unnecessary as shown by all parallel sources and the following statement of R. Ḥizqiah. It obscures the main point that the collector of the coins says “these”, not “from these”. In the latter case everybody agrees that the excess is profane; in the first case R. Yose holds that “these” dedicated all coins in the box whereas R. Bevai holds that, in case the amount needed is known beforehand, only the amount needed is dedicated., everybody agrees that the excess is gift. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Bevai in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, where do they disagree? If he collects small change. But if he says, these, everybody agrees that the excess is profane. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, a Mishnah supports Rebbi Bevai, [as we have stated]: “Rebbi Simeon says, what is the difference between sheqalim and purification offerings? It is that sheqalim are a fixed sum but purification offerings have no fixed price⁴⁶Mishnah 4..” Where do we hold? If about one who says, “that I shall bring my sheqel from these,” everybody agrees that the excess is profane. If about one who says, “that I shall bring my purification offering from these,” everybody agrees that the excess is gift⁴⁷Including the House of Shammai.. But we must deal with the case of one who says “these sheqalim”, since from the Torah they are a fixed amount the excess is profane, “purification offerings”, since their value is not a fixed amount from the Torah the excess is gift. How does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish⁴⁸This name is impossible here; one has to read with the Babli sources “R. Simeon”, denying that the argument of R. Ḥizqiah is applicable to the reasoning of the House of Shammai. The reading of the text in Nazir, “R. Yose” also is possible; in that case he states that the argument of R. Simeon applies only if the stated intent is to collect monies for the Temple tax, not if the declaration is made on monies already available. In the latter case, R. Simeon may agree that the excess is earmarked for the Temple gift account. treat this? He explains it, if he collects small change following the House of Hillel. But did we not state⁴⁹Mishnah 5., “the excess of sheqalim is profane”? He explains it, if he collects small change following the House of Hillel. But did we not state, “the excess of the tenth of an ephah” [is profane]⁵⁰Addition of the corrector. Mishnah 5 clearly states that excess monies collected for a flour offering of a tenth of an ephah, probably not the daily offering of the rich High Priest (Lev. 6:12–16) but the purification offering of the very poor (Lev. 5:11–13), are dedicated for the gift account. The entire sentence is missing in B. In ג the reading is “the excess of a tenth of an ephah are sheqalim”. This is acceptable; the excess of coins collected for a sanctum may be used for another sacred purpose. While the sanctity of sheqalim is less than that of a flour offering, the switch will be permitted to the poor following the House of Hillel.? Still he explains it if he collects small change following the House of Hillel.

“When Israel returned from the Babylonian exile they gave as Temple tax darics,” denars⁶³Aurei, Roman gold denarii. The numismatic evidence shows that the Dareikos was worth about twice the aureus., “they continued to give sela`im,” as their meaning<sup>64</sup>The Accadic sila used in both Talmudim to designate the Roman tetradrachma., “they continued to give minted coins,” half tetradrachmas, they wanted to give denars,” quarters<sup>65</sup>With J. Levy reading as Latin quarta., but these were not accepted by the following: and we accepted for us as commandment to give a sheqel three times<sup>66</sup>Neh. 10:33, following the changed wording in B which is understood also in S. The usual translation is “a third of a sheqel.” The verse declares the collection of sheqalim a post-exilic institution. Babli Bava batra9a. in the year for the service in our God’s House. Rebbi Ḥilkiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: From here that a person has to give his sheqel three times a year; <from here that a person is responsible for the alienation of his sheqel three times a year;><sup>67</sup>Added from the other two sources. The omission in the text probably is a scribal error. from here that one does not importune people more than three times a year. Rebbi Abbin said, from here the three se`ah, from here the three boxes, from here the three collection times⁶⁸Mishnah 3:1–2: Money was disbursed from the sheqalim3 times a year; each disbursement yielded three boxes of sheqalim, three se`ah each..