## Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim Chapter 2

###### Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 2:1:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 2:1:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shekalim/r/2:1:1)

**משנה:** מְצָרְפִין שְׁקָלִים דַּרְכּוֹנוֹת מִפְּנֵי מַשּׂוֹי הַדֶּרֶךְ. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהָיוּ שׁוֹפָרוֹת בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ כָּךּ הָיוּ בַּמְּדִינָה. בְּנֵי הָעִיר שֶׁשִּׁילְחוּ אֶת שִׁקְלֵיהֶן וְנִגְנְבוּ אוֹ שֶׁאָבְדוּ אִם נִתְרְמָה הַתְּרוּמָה נִשְׁבָּעִין לַגִּזְבָּרִים וְאִם לָאו נִשְׁבָּעִין לִבְנֵי הָעִיר וּבְנֵי הָעִיר שׁוֹקְלִין תַּחְתֵּיהֶן. נִמְצָאוּ אוֹ שֶׁהֶחֱזִירוּם הַגַּנָּבִים אֵילּוּ וָאֵילּוּ שְׁקָלִים וְאֵין עוֹלִין לָהֶן לְשָׁנָה הַבָּאָה:

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** One consolidates *sheqalim* to *darics*¹, commonly worth 25 full weight silver *denarii*. because of the difficulty of transport. Just as there were horns² in the Temple, so were in the countryside. If the people of a city sent their *sheqalim* and these were stolen or lost, if the sums were disbursed³ were taken from the treasury to be disbursed for the service of the new year, in the computation of the monies available in Nisan the collected but not received sums are taken into account for disbursing on the next two occasions (Chapter 1, Note 26). Therefore the money was stolen from the Temple; the oath which is required either by biblical law or by rabbinic institution from the carrier to be sworn in presence of the owner or his representative, has to be sworn in presence of the Temple treasurers. If the theft or loss was detected earlier, the oath is due to the representatives of the taxpayers. The oaths are different for salaried or unpaid carriers. they will have to swear to the Temple custodians⁴, otherwise they will have to swear to the city dwellers who have to replace them by new *sheqalim*. If they were found or the thieves returned them⁵ already were Temple property (as explained in the preceding sentence), they would have committed not only larceny but also sacrilege., both are *sheqalim* and cannot be credited for the coming year.

footnotes:
¹ Δαρεικός, a Persian gold coin; here the name stands for the Roman aureus
² Boxes in the shape of horns wirh wide bottoms and narrow slits to deposit the coins.
³ If the new sheqalim
⁴ The administrators of the Temple treasury.
⁵ If the sheqalim


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 2:1:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 2:1:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shekalim/r/2:1:2)

**הלכה:** מְצָרְפִין שְׁקָלִים דַּרְכּוֹנוֹת כול׳. וְיַעֲשׂוּ אוֹתָן מַרְגָּלִית. שֶׁמְּא תָזִיל הַמַּרְגָלִית וְנִמְצָא הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ מַפְסִיד. כַּהִיא דְתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. וְכוּלָּן נִפְדִּין בְּכֶסֶף וּבְשָׁוֶה כֶסֶף חוּץ מִן הַשְּׁקָלִים. [וְאֵין פּוֹדִין בְּכֵלִים]. אָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק. שֶׁמָּא יָזִילוּ הַכֵּלִים וְנִמְצָא הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ מַפְסִיד. וְהָכָא שֶׁמָּא תָזִיל הַמַּרְגָלִית וְנִמְצָא הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ מַפְסִיד.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “One consolidates *sheqalim* to *darics*,” etc. Should one exchange them for a pearl? Perhaps the pearl would lose in value and the Temple treasury would suffer damage. As we have stated there⁶8:7., “All⁷ which may be redeemed at all may be redeemed for money’s worth except *sheqalim*. can be redeemed by money or monies-worth except for *sheqalim*” [and one does not redeem by implements;]⁸ and Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, perhaps the implements would lose in value and the Temple treasury would suffer damage. Also here, perhaps the pearl would lose in value and the Temple treasury would suffer damage.

footnotes:
⁶ Mishnah Bekhorot
⁷ Any sancta
⁸ Addition by the corrector from the Babli, unnecessary as already noted by R. Eliahu of Wilna.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 2:1:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 2:1:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shekalim/r/2:1:3)

מַתְנִיתָא בִתְקֵלִין חַדְּתִין. אֲבָל בִּתְקֵלִין עַתִּיקִין לָא בְדָא. וְתַנֵּי כֵן. עַתִּיקִין בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ. אֵין עַתִּיקִין בַּמְּדִינָה. מַתְנִיתָא בִשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם. אֲבָל בְּשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר לֹא בְדָא. אָמַר רַב אַבָּא. וַאֲפִילוּ תֵימַר בְּשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר. נִגְנְבוּ. בְּלֵיסְטֵיס מְזוּיָין. אָבְדוּ. כְּמִי שֶׁטָּבְעָה סְפִינָּתוֹ בַיָּם. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּסְטָא בֵּירִבִּי סִימוֹן. אַתְיָיא כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר. תּוֹרְמִין עַל הַגָּבוּי וְעַל הֶעָתִיד לְהִיגָּבוֹת. בְּרַם כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר. אֵין תּוֹרְמִין לֹא עַל הַגָּבוּי וְלֹא עַל הַמְמוּשְׁכָּן. לֹא בְדָא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
The Mishnah is about new *sheqalim*, but not about old *sheqalim*. And it was stated so: Old ones in the Temple, no old ones in the countryside⁹. The Mishnah is about an unpaid trustee, but not about a paid keeper¹⁰ 8:1. The unpaid trustee has to swear that he did not take the valuables for himself and that he was not grossly negligent. The paid keeper has to pay for what is lost or stolen; there is no reason he should swear in these circumstances.. Rav Abba said, even if you say¹¹ about a paid keeper, if they were stolen, by an armed robber¹²58a., if the were lost, as when his ship sank at sea. Rebbi Justus ben Rebbi Simon said, it follows him who said, one disburses on the account of what was collected and what was to be collected¹³108a, *Bava Meṣi`a*58a., but not following him who said one does not disburse on basis of what was collected¹⁴ nor what was secured by pledges.

footnotes:
⁹ Only current taxes are collected outside of Jerusalem; taxes due from prior years have to be delivered by the taxpayer, who has to bear the full risk of accidents before delivery, to the Temple in Jerusalem.
¹⁰ Mishnah Ševuot
¹¹ Since the speaker is a Babylonian, the reading of ג, תימא, may be a true report of his saying and not a babylonized spelling of a Yerushalmi text.
¹² Greek ληστής. The paid keeper does not have to pay for accidents which clearly were beyond his control. Babli Bava Meṣi`a
¹³ Babli Ketubot
¹⁴ But not delivered to the Temple treasury.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 2:1:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 2:1:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shekalim/r/2:1:4)

בְּנֵי הָעִיר שֶׁשִּׁילְחוּ אֶת שִׁקְלֵיהֶן. נִגְנְבוּ אוֹ שֶׁאָבְדוּ. אָמַר רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא. דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אָמַר. קֳדָשִׁים שֶׁהוּא חַיָיב בַּאֲחֵרִיּוּתָן כִּנְכָסָיו הֵן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא. מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּעַת תַּקָּנָה. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן נִיחָא. נִשְׁבָּעִין לִבְנֵי הָעִיר וּבְנֵי הָעִיר שׁוֹקְלִין תַּחְתֵּיהֶן. הָדָא הִיא דְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. מִשֵּׁם שְׁבוּעַת תַּקָּנָה. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקִּיבְּלוּ בְנֵי הָעִיר לְשַׁלֵּם אֵין הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ יוֹצֵא בְלֹא שְׁבוּעָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“If the people of a city sent their *sheqalim* and these were stolen or lost.” ¹⁵ Rebbi Eleazar said, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, since Rebbi Simeon said, *sancta* for whose alienation he is responsible are like his own property¹⁶6:7 (Note 97). The majority opinion is that there can be no (biblical) oath for *sancta*; so it seems that for them the carriers of the *sheqalim* could not swear.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is everybody’s opinion, because of an instituted oath¹⁷ is irrelevant here. The oath is not biblical, and it is not a question whether the *sheqalim* are *sancta* or not; the oath is the general rabbinic oath imposed on all persons who cannot be forced to pay damages and on whom no biblical oath can be imposed.. Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion is understandable; “they have to swear to the city dwellers who have to replace them by new *sheqalim.*” Is that Rebbi Simeon’s? Even though the city dwellers agreed to pay, Temple property cannot be released without an oath¹⁸.

footnotes:
¹⁵ Since ג and the Babli version M confirm the text of the original scribe, the corrector’s additions have to be considered as a conflation with the text of B.
¹⁶ Mishnah Ševuot
¹⁷ In his opinion the Mishnah Ševuot
¹⁸ Even if the city dwellers believe the trustees and do not require an oath that they are innocent of the loss, it is a rabbinic requirement that the Temple trustees insist on such an oath.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 2:1:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 2:1:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shekalim/r/2:1:5)

הִפְרִישׁ שִׁקְלוֹ וְאָבַד. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. חַיּיָּב בָּאַחֵרָיוּתוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּמְסוֹר לַגִּיזְבָּר. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. הֶקְדֵּשׁ בִּרְשׁוּת הַגָּבוֹהַּ בְּכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁהוּא. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. נִשְׁבָּעִין לִבְנֵי הָעִיר וּבְנֵי הָעִיר שׁוֹקְלִין תַּחְתֵּיהֶן. [עוֹד] הִיא מִשֵּׁם שְׁבוּעַת תַּקָּנָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Somebody put aside his *sheqel*²⁰ and it was lost. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is responsible for its alienation²¹. Babli Ḥulin 139a. until he delivers to the Temple trustee. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Temple property is Heaven’s at any place where it may be²²1:6: “A promise to Heaven is like delivery to an individual.”. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “they have to swear to the city dwellers who have to replace them by new *sheqalim.*.” Still²³ this is because of a regulation oath²⁴.

footnotes:
²⁰ Before it was delivered to the Temple authorities.
²¹ He has to pay another sheqel
²² Mishnah Qiddušin
²³ Corrector’s addition, supported by all parallel sources.
²⁴ The oath is only because they lost other people’s property, and the city dwellers pay as a matter of public policy; it does not imply anything about personal liability to replace the lost money.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 2:1:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 2:1:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shekalim/r/2:1:6)

תַּנֵּי הָרִאשׁוֹנִים נוֹפְלִין לְתְקְלִין חַדְּתִין וְהַשְּׁנִיִים נוֹפְלִים לְתִקְלִין עֲתִיקִין. אֵילּוּ הֵן הָרִאשׁוֹנִים וְאֵילּוּ הֵן הַשְּׁנִיִים. רִבִּי פִּינְחָס בֵּירִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה וְרִבִּי אַבָּא מָרִי. חַד אָמַר. אֵילּוּ שֶׁשִּׁילְחוּ בְנֵי הָעִיר תְּחִילָּה. וְחוֹרָנָה אָמַר. אֵילּוּ שֶׁהִגִּיעוּ לִידֵי גִיזְבָּרִין תְּחִילָּה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It was stated²⁵: The first ones fall to the new *sheqalim*, the second ones to the old *sheqalim*²⁶ are the leftover from the previous year, given to the gift fund for supplementary sacrifices (Chapter 1, Note 171.). Which ones are first and which ones are second? Rebbi Phineas ben Rebbi Ḥananiah²⁷ and Rebbi Abba Mari. One said, those that the city dwellers sent first²⁸ contributed first are the last to be delivered. This seems to be a gloss incorporated into the text., but the other one said, those which came in to the hands of the Temple trustees first.

footnotes:
²⁵ B (not supported by M) reads: “Rebbi stated”.
²⁶ Discussion of the last sentence of the Mishnah. The old sheqalim
²⁷ Since R. Abba Mari belongs to the last generation of Galilean Amoraim, he also has to be dated in this period. His exact patronymic cannot be determined.
²⁸ The Babli texts B and M add: “therefore the last”; the sheqalim


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 2:2:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 2:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shekalim/r/2:2:1)

**משנה:** הַנּוֹתֵן שִׁקְלוֹ לַחֲבֵירוֹ לִשְׁקוֹל עַל יָדוֹ וּשְׁקָלוֹ עַל יְדֵי עַצְמוֹ אִם נִתְרְמָה הַתְּרוּמָה מָעַל. הַשּׁוֹקֵל שִׁקְלוֹ מִן הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ וְנִתְרְמָה הַתְּרוּמָה וְקָרְבָה הַבְּהֵמָה מָעַל. מִמַּעֲשֵׁר שֵׁנִי וּמִדְּמֵי שְׁבִיעִית יֹאכַל כְּנֶגְדָּן:

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If one gives his *sheqel* to another person to deliver it for him but that one uses it for himself, if the sums were disbursed he committed *me`ilah*²⁹ from Heaven’s property.. If somebody pays his *sheqel* from Temple money, if the sums were disbursed and the animal sacrificed he committed *me`ilah*³⁰ are mainly used to buy sacrifices. Using one for the other is alienation from the original intent but not *me`ilah*, which is committed only if *sancta* are used for profane purposes. If the money which he took from Temple money is actually used to buy a sacrifice, he does not have to take from his profane money to pay the *sheqel*; using the corresponding profane money makes the act larceny.. From Second Tithe or Sabbatical money, he shall eat correspondingly³¹. 14:22–27). Similarly, Sabbatical produce has to be eaten, not used in industry. If such produce was sold, the proceeds are to be used to buy produce of the Land to be consumed in the Land. If such money was alienated from its original use, the situation can be repaired in replacing it with new money to be used for the original purpose..

footnotes:
²⁹ Sacrilegious larceny.As explained in Note 3, the money used for public sacrifices, disbursed three times a year (Mishnah 3:1) is computed taking into account monies collected but not yet delivered. These therefore are Temple money wherever they be at the moment (Note 22). Dishonest use of these monies therefore is not stealing from a private person but me`ilah
³⁰ Temple money in general is money intended for the upkeep of the Temple. Sheqalim
³¹ Second Tithe is produce to be eaten in Jerusalem in purity. The produce may be redeemed and the money taken to Jerusalem (Deut


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 2:2:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 2:2:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shekalim/r/2:2:2)

**הלכה:** הַשּׁוֹקֵל כול׳. אֲנָן תַּנִּינָן. אִם נִתְרְמָה הַתְּרוּמָה. וְתַנֵּיי דְבֵית רִבִּי אִם קָרְבָה הַבְּהֵמָה. אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר. מָאן תַּנָּא. אִם קָרְבָה הַבְּהֵמָה. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר. מִיַּד הָיָה מְקַבֵּל מָעוֹתָיו. הַכֹּהֲנִים זְרִיזִין הֵן. וְקַשְׁיָא. אִילּוּ הַגּוֹנֵב עוֹלָתוֹ שֶׁלְחֲבֵירוֹ וּשְׁחָטָהּ סְתָם. סְתַמָּהּ לֹא לְשֵׁם הַבְּעָלִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים מְכַפֶּרֶת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן. תִּיפְתָּר בִּמְסוּיָים. מִשֶּׁלְבֵּית רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל שֶׁהָיָה מִתְכַּוֵּין וּדְחָפוֹ לַקּוּפָּה. וְחָשׁ לוֹמַר. שֶׁמָּא לַשִׁירַיִים הֵן נוֹפְלִין. וְכִי יְשׁ מְעִילָה בְּשִׁירַיִים. אֶלָּא כְרִבִּי מֵאִיר. דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר אָמַר. מוֹעֲלִין בְּשִׁירַיִים. עוֹד הִיא בִּמְסוּיָים. מִשֶּׁלְבֵּית רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל שֶׁהָיָה מִתְכַּוֵּין וְתוֹרְמוֹ לִשְׁמוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “He who pays the *sheqel*,” etc. We have stated, “if the sums were disbursed.” In the House of Rebbi it was stated, “if the animal was sacrificed.³²” Rebbi Eleazar said, who is the Tanna of “if the animal was sacrificed”? Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said, he receives his money immediately, the priests are quick³³1:21).. It is difficult. If somebody stole another’s elevation offering and slaughtered it without special mention, is it not without special mention atoning for the original owner³⁴ become part of a large sum, it is impossible to know whose *sheqel* pays for what and when his particular *sheqel* is disbursed.? Rebbi Yudan said, explain it if it was a definite object, like that of the House of Rabban Gamliel who was taking aim throwing it into the chest³⁵ and threw it into the box from which sacrifices were bought; they had control over the time when their *sheqel* was used.. But should one not worry that maybe it will become part of the remainder; is there *me`ilah* for the remainder³⁶ which required a special sacrifice; R. Meïr disagrees and seems to restrict the uses of the money to sacrificial objects enumerated in Mishnah 4:3. Babli *Qiddušin*54a.? But it must follow Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr said, there is *me`ilah* for the remainder. Still if it was a definite object, like that of the House of Rabban Gamliel who was taking aim and disbursed it in his name³⁷ only if the misappropriated *sheqel* can be traced to the moment of its actual use for sacrifices..

footnotes:
³² Even in the first sentence of the Mishnah.
³³ The statement of R. Simeon is Halakhah 4:11. The Mishnah there states that flour and wine bought by the Temple are bought on condition that they be qualified to be used on the altar. The risk that the flour might have worms or the wine be vinegar has to be carried by the seller; therefore he cannot be paid before the produce is used and found qualified. R. Simeon disagrees since the Cohanim will do the checking immediately. Therefore if we interpret that “the sums were disbursed” not that they were taken from the treasury to the office of the buying agent but that they were actually contracted for sacrificial animals, for R. Simeon there is no practical difference between the two statements. (Tosephta Me`ilah
³⁴ The entire Mishnah seems to be baseless. Since the sheqalim
³⁵ Mishnah 3:3. In the House of Rabban Gamliel I they took their sheqel
³⁶ As explained in Halakhah 4:3, the leftover monies could be used for many needs of the Temple other than sacrifices; therefore larceny of these monies was not me`ilah
³⁷ There can be me`ilah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 2:2:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 2:2:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shekalim/r/2:2:3)

מַה נֶהֱנֶה. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבִּין בְּשֵׁם רַבָּנִן דְּתַמָּן. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁבֵּית דִּין רְאוּיִין לְמַשְׁכֵּן וְלֹא מִישְׁכֵּינוֹ כְּמִי שֶׁנֶּהֱנֶה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
How does he profit³⁸, one not only must use a sacred object illegally but also profit from the action (Mishnah *Me`ilah*5:1).? Rebbi Abbin said in the name of the rabbis there, since the court could take a pledge from but did not take any pledge he is like one who profited.

footnotes:
³⁸ In order to be guilty of me`ilah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 2:2:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 2:2:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shekalim/r/2:2:4)

כָּתוּב אַךְ בְּכוֹר אֲשֶׁר יְבֻכַּר לַיי בִּבְהֵמָה לֹא יַקְדִּישׁ אִישׁ אוֹתוֹ. כָּל שֶׁהוּא קוֹדֶשׁ אֵין קְדושָּׁה חָלָה עָלָיו. כֵּיצַד הוּא עוֹשֶׂה. מֵבִיא סֶלַע שֶׁלְחוּלִין וְאוֹמֵר. מָעוֹת מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי בְּכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁהֵן מְחוּלָלִין עַל סֶלַע זוֹ וְאוֹתָן נִתְפַּסִּין לְשֵׁם שֵׁינִי וְהַשְּׁאָר נַעֲשִׂין שְׁקָלִים.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It is written³⁹ 27:26., *but a firstling which is born first to the Eternal by a domestic animal no person can declare holy*. No holiness can fall on anything holy⁴⁰; cf. Mishnah *Arakhin*8:7. The problem addressed is how to rectify the situation that tithe or sabbatical money was taken for the *sheqel*. Not only is there an obligation to make up for the value taken but the coin given as *sheqel*, being already holy (of a minor degree) cannot possibly acquire the holiness of monies dedicated to the Temple. Without rectification, the use of the coin by the Temple authorities would be sinful.. What does he do? He brings a profane tetradrachma and says, the monies of Second Tithe wherever they be⁴¹. are redeemed by this tetradrachma; this is designated as Second Tithe and the others⁴¹. are declared *sheqalim*.

footnotes:
³⁹ Lev.
⁴⁰ The argument is based on the second part of the verse, not quoted in the text: whether ox or sheep, it [already] is the Eternal’s
⁴¹ Meaning the coins given as sheqel
⁴¹ Meaning the coins given as sheqel


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 2:3:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 2:3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shekalim/r/2:3:1)

**משנה:** הַמְכַנֵּס מָעוֹת וְאָמַר הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ לְשִׁקְלִי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים מוֹתָרָן נְדָבָה. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים מוֹתָרָן חוּלִין. שֶׁאָבִיא מֵהֶן שִׁקְלִי שָׁוִין שֶׁמּוֹתָרָן חוּלִין. אֵילּוּ לְחַטָּאת שָׁוִין שֶׁהַמּוֹתָר נְדָבָה. שֶׁאָבִיא מֵהֶן חַטָּאתִי שָׁוִין שֶׁהַמּוֹתָר חוּלִין: אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַה בֵּין שְׁקָלִים לְחַטָּאת. אֶלָּא שֶׁל שְׁקָלִים יֵשׁ לָהֶן קִיצְבָה וּלְחַטָּאת אֵין לָהּ קִצְבָה. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר אַף לִשְׁקָלִים אֵין לָהֶן קִיצְבָה שֶׁכְּשֶׁעָלוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל מִן הַגּוֹלָה הָיוּ שׁוֹקְלִין דַּרְכּוֹנוֹת חָזְרוּ לִשְׁקוֹל סְלָעִים חָזְרוּ לִשְׁקוֹל טִבְעִים בִּקְּשׁוּ לִשְׁקוֹל דִּינָרִין. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אַף עַל פִּי כֵן יַד כּוּלָּם שָׁוָוה. אֲבָל חַטָּאת זֶה מֵבִיא בְּסֶלַע וְזֶה מֵבִיא בִּשְׁתַּיִם וְזֶה מֵבִיא בְּשָׁלֹשׁ:

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If somebody collects coins and says, “these are for my *sheqel*,” the House of Shammai say, the excess is gift⁴², but the House of Hillel say, the excess is profane⁴³ 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.. “That I shall take from these for my *sheqel*,” they agree that the excess is profane. “These are for a purification offering,” they agree that the excess is gift, “that I shall take from these for a purification offering,” they agree that the excess is profane.
Rebbi Simeon said, what is the difference between *sheqalim* and a purification offering⁵⁷? It is that *sheqalim* have a fixed value and a purification offering has no fixed value. Rebbi Jehudah said, *sheqalim* also have no fixed value. When Israel returned from the Babylonian exile they gave as Temple tax *darics*⁵⁸, they continued to give *sela`im*⁵⁹ is the standard (Sumerian) unit of volume. In the Talmudim, it is the standard expression for the silver tetradrachma (approximately 14g), roughly corresponding to the old Phoenician *sheqel*. In the context here, a similar Persian coin must be intended. The vocalization סֶלַע is customary (from the Hebrew word “rock”); probably סִלַע historically would be more correct., they continued to give minted coins⁶⁰, they wanted to give denars⁶¹. Rebbi Simeon said, anyhow everybody gave the same⁶² was not constant in time, at any given time everybody knew exactly what was required., but for a purification offering, one brings for a tetradrachma, another for two, and still another for three.

footnotes:
⁴² To be given into the gift account of the Temple treasury from which elevation offerings are bought to occupy the altar when otherwise it would be idle.
⁴³ As explained in the Halakhah and Mishnah 4, a sheqel
⁵⁷ As stated in Mishnah 3.
⁵⁸ A Persian gold coin.
⁵⁹ In old Babylonian sources the silā
⁶⁰ In this context meaning the silver didrachma.
⁶¹ But this reduction was never accepted, see the Halakhah.
⁶² While the value of the sheqel


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 2:3:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 2:3:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shekalim/r/2:3:2)

**הלכה:** הַמְכַנֵּס מָעוֹת כול׳. רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָעְזָר. מַה פְליגִין. בִּמְכַנֵּס פְּרוֹטְרוֹט. אֲבָל בָּאוֹמֵר. אֵילּוּ [לְשִׁקְלִי]. כָּל עַמָּא מוֹדֵיי שֶׁהַמּוֹתָר נְדָבָה. רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה רִבִּי בֵּיבַי בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי לָעְזָר. מַה פְלִיגִין. בִּמְכַנֵּס פְּרוֹטְרוֹט. אֲבָל בָּאוֹמֵר. אֵילּוּ. כָּל עַמָּא מוֹדֵיי שֶׁהַמּוֹתָר חוּלִין. אָמַר רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָא לְרִבִּי בֵּיבַי. [דִּתְנָן.] אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. מַה בֵּין שְׁקָלִים לְחַטָּאת. אֶלָּא שֶׁהַשְּׁקָלִים יֵשׁ לָהֶן קִצְבָה וּלְחַטָּאת אֵין לָהּ קִיצְבָה. מַה אֲנָן קַיָימִין. אִם בָּאוֹמֵר. שֶׁאָבִיא מֵהֶן שִׁקְלִי. כָּל עַמָּא מוֹדֵיי שֶׁהַמּוֹתָר חוּלִין. אִם בָּאוֹמֵר. שֶׁאָבִיא מֵהֶם חַטָּאתִי כָּל עַמָּא מוֹדֵיי שֶׁהַמּוֹתָר נְדָבָה. אֶלָּא כֵן אֲנָן קַיָימִין. בָּאוֹמֵר. אֵילּוּ שְׁקָלִים. עַל יְדֵי שֶׁקִצְוָותָן מִן הַתּוֹרָה. מוֹתָרָן חוּלִין. חַטָּאת עַל יְדֵי שֶׁאין קִצְבָתָהּ מִן הַתּוֹרָה. מוֹתָרָהּ נְדָבָה. מַה עֲבַד לָהּ רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֵּן לָקִישׁ. פָּתַר לָהּ בִּמְכַנֵּס פְּרוֹטְרוֹט כְּבֵית הִלֵּל. וְהָא תַנִּינָן. מוֹתַר שְׁקָלִים חוּלִּין. פָּתַר לָהּ בִּמְכַנֵּס פְּרוֹטְרוֹט וּכְבֵית הִלֵּל. וְהָא תַנִּינָן. עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה [חוּלִין]. עוֹד הוּא פָּתַר לָהּ בִּמְכַנֵּס פְּרוֹטְרוֹט וּכְבֵית הִלֵּל.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “If somebody collects coins,” etc. ⁴³ 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 change⁴⁴, all of them are dedicated according to everybody.. But if he says, these [are for my *sheqel* ]⁴⁵, 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 price⁴⁶.” 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 gift⁴⁷. 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 Laqish⁴⁸, “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 state⁴⁹, “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]⁵⁰, 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.

footnotes:
⁴³ As explained in the Halakhah and Mishnah 4, a sheqel
⁴⁴ One 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
⁴⁵ Corrector’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.
⁴⁶ Mishnah 4.
⁴⁷ Including the House of Shammai.
⁴⁸ This 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
⁴⁹ Mishnah 5.
⁵⁰ Addition of the corrector. Mishnah 5 clearly states that excess monies collected for a flour offering of a tenth of an ephah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 2:3:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 2:3:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shekalim/r/2:3:3)

הַמַּפְרִישׁ שִׁקְלוֹ וְסָבוּר שֶׁהוּא חַיָיב וְנִמְצָא שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָיב. לֹא קָדַשׁ. הַמַּפְרִישׁ שְׁנַיִם וְסָבוּר שֶׁהוּא חַיָיב שְׁנַיִם וְנִמְצָא שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָיב אֶלָּא אֶחָד. אוֹתוֹ הַשֵּׁינִי מָה אַתְּ עֲבַד לֵיהּ. [נִשְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. הִפְרִישׁ חַטָּאתוֹ] סָבוּר שֶׁהוּא חַיָיב וְנִמְצָא שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָיב. לֹא קָדְשָׁה. הִפְרִישׁ שְׁתַּיִם וְסָבוּר שֶׁהוּא חַיָיב שְׁתַּיִם וְנִמְצָא שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. אוֹתָהּ הַשְּׁנִיָיה מָה אַתְּ עֲבַד לָהּ. (בָּאוֹמֵר) [אֶלָּא רוֹעָה. הָכָא נַמֵּי אֵלּוּ לִנְדָבָה. הֵיאַךְ אַתָּה אוֹמֵר] אֵילּוּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
If somebody put aside his *sheqel* in the belief that he owed it and it turned out that he did not owe, it was not dedicated⁵¹5:1 stated that dedication in error is void, against the opinion of the House of Shammai.. If he put aside two in the belief that he owed twice and it turned out that he owed only once, how do you treat the second? As one who believed that he owed it and it turned out that he did not owe, or as one who said “these”⁵².?

footnotes:
⁵¹ The entire argument follows the House of Hillel who in Mishnah Nazir
⁵² Following those who hold that dedicating “these coins” is a full dedication even if the value exceeds that of a sheqel


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 2:3:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 2:3:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shekalim/r/2:3:4)

שֶׁכְּשֶׁעָלוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל מִן הַגּוֹלָה הָיוּ שׁוֹקְלִין דַּרְכּוֹנוֹת. דֵּינָרִין. חָזְרוּ לְשְׁקוֹל סְלָעִים. כִּשְׁמוּעָן. חָזְרוּ לִשְׁקוֹל טִיבְעִין. פַּלְגֵי סִילְעִין. בִּיקְּשׁוּ לִשְׁקוֹל דִּינָרִין. קָרָטִין. וְלֹא קִיבְּלוּ עֲלֵיהֶן. מִן הָדָא. וְהֶעֱמַדְנוּ עָלֵינוּ מִצְוֹת לָתֵת שְׁלִשִׁית הַשֶּׁקֶל בַּשָּׁנָה לַעֲבוֹדַת בֵּית אֱלֹהֵינוּ. רִבִּי חִלְקִיָּה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אָחָא. מִיכָּן שֶׁאָדָם צָרִיךְ לְשַׁלֵּשׁ שִׁקְלוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה פְעָמִים בַַּשָּׁנָה. מִיכָּן שֶׁאֵין מַטְרִיחִין עַל הַצִּיבּוּר יוֹתֵר מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה פְעָמִים בַּשָּׁנָה. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבִּין. מִיכָּן לְשָׁלֹשׁ סְאִין. מִיכָּן לְשָׁלֹשׁ קוּפּוֹת. מִיכָּן לְשָׁלֹשׁ אַפְרָשׁוֹת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“When Israel returned from the Babylonian exile they gave as Temple tax *darics*,” denars⁶³, Roman gold *denarii*. The numismatic evidence shows that the *Dareikos* was worth about twice the *aureus*., “they continued to give *sela`im*,” as their meaning⁶⁴ used in both Talmudim to designate the Roman tetradrachma., “they continued to give minted coins,” half tetradrachmas, they wanted to give denars,” quarters⁶⁵., but these were not accepted by the following: *and we accepted for us as commandment to give a sheqel three times*⁶⁶. 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 batra*9a. *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;⁶⁷ 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 times⁶⁸3 times a year; each disbursement yielded three boxes of *sheqalim, three se`ah each.*.

footnotes:
⁶³ Aurei
⁶⁴ The Accadic sila
⁶⁵ With J. Levy reading as Latin quarta
⁶⁶ Neh
⁶⁷ Added from the other two sources. The omission in the text probably is a scribal error.
⁶⁸ Mishnah 3:1–2: Money was disbursed from the sheqalim


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 2:3:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 2:3:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shekalim/r/2:3:5)

כְּתִיב זֶה יִתְּנוּ כָּל הָעוֹבֵר עַל הַפְּקוּדִים וגו׳. רִבִּי יוּדָה וְרִבִּי נְחֶמְיָה. חַד אָמַר. לְפִי שֶׁחָטְאוּ בְמַחֲצִית הַיּוֹם יִתְנוּ מַחֲצִית הַשֶּׁקֶל. וְחָרָנָה אָמַר. לְפִי שֶׁחָטְאוּ בְשֵׁשׁ שָׁעוֹת יִתְנוּ מַחֲצִית הַשֶּׁקֶל דַּעֲבַד שִׁיתָּא גְרַמָּסִין. רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֵּירִבִּי נְחֶמְיָה בְשֵׁם רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּיי. לְפִי שֶׁעִיבְּרוּ עַל עֲשֶׂרֶת הַדִּיבְּרוֹת יְהֵא נוֹתֵן כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד עֲשֶׂרֶת גֵּרָה. רִבִּי בֶּרֶכְיָה רִבִּי לֵוִי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. לְפִי שֶׁמָּכְרוּ בְכוֹרָהּ שֶׁל רָחֵל בְּעֶשְׂרִים כֶּסֶף יְהֵא כָל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד [פוֹדֶה אֶת] בְּנוֹ בְכוֹרוֹ בּעֶשְׂרִים כֶּסֶף. רִבִּי פִּינְחָס בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי לֵוִי. לְפִי שֶׁמָּכְרוּ בְכוֹרָהּ שֶׁל רָחֵל בְּעֶשְׂרִים כֶּסֶף וְנָפַל לְכָל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד מֵהֶן טִבַּע לְפִיכַךְ יְהֵא כָל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד נוֹתֵן שִׁקְלוֹ טִבַּע.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It is written⁶⁹ 30:13, reading הַפְּקוּדִים “the census” as Mishnaic Hebrew הַפִּקּוּדִים “the Commandments”.: *This they shall give, everybody who violated the Commandments*. Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Neḥemiah. One said, because they sinned⁷⁰89a, summarized by Rashi, *Ex.* 32:1. in the middle of the day they shall give half a *sheqel*; but the other said, because they sinned in the sixth hour they shall give half a *sheqel*; which is worth six grams⁷¹, a third of a denar, approximately 1.2 metric grams, used here as name of a silver coin.. Rebbi Joshua the son of Rebbi Neḥemiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Zakkai: Because they transgressed the Ten Commandments, each of them shall give ten *gerah*⁶⁹ 30:13, reading הַפְּקוּדִים “the census” as Mishnaic Hebrew הַפִּקּוּדִים “the Commandments”.. Rebbi Berekhiah, Rebbi Levi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Because they sold Rachel’s firstborn for twenty pieces of silver; each of them shall redeem his firstborn with twenty pieces of silver⁷². 3:47. The firstborn is redeemed by 5 *sheqalim*. Since it is held that the *sheqel* in the Torah is equal to a Roman tetradrachma, *Qiddušin*1:3 Note 339, 5 *sheqalim* are 20 *denarii*. The generic expression “pieces of silver” is taken to mean the most common silver coin, the denar.
The homily is mentioned as introduction to the following one.. Rebbi Phineas in the name of Rebbi Levi: Because they sold Rachel’s firstborn for twenty pieces of silver and each of them received a minted coin¹⁷³ had lost its meaning denoting either a standard weight or a standard coin but became the label of a religious obligation., each of them shall give a minted coin as his *sheqel*.

footnotes:
⁶⁹ Ex.
⁷⁰ Making the Golden Calf after 12 noon, Babli Šabbat
⁷¹ An Aramaic plural of Greek γράμμα, τό, “gram, scruple (as weight)”. One scruple is two oboloi
⁶⁹ Ex.
⁷² Num
¹ In this context meaning the silver didrachma.
⁷³ Since Joseph was sold by 10 of his brothers. The formulation of the homily shows that in later Amoraic times the word sheqel


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 2:4:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 2:4:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shekalim/r/2:4:1)

**משנה:** מוֹתַר שְׁקָלִים חוּלִין. מוֹתַר עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה מוֹתַר קִינֵּי זָבִים קִינֵּי זָבוֹת קִינֵּי יוֹלְדוֹת חַטָּאוֹת וַאֲשָׁמוֹת מוֹתָרָן נְדָבָה. זֶה הַכְּלָל כָּל שֶׁהוּא בָּא לְשֵׁם חֵטּ ומִשֵּׁם אַשְׁמָה מוֹתָרָן נְדָבָה. מוֹתַר עוֹלָה לָעוֹלָה. מוֹתַר מִנְחָה לַמִּנְחָה. מוֹתַר שְׁלָמִים לַשְּׁלָמִים. מוֹתַר פֶּסַח לַשְּׁלָמִים. מוֹתַר נְזִירִים לַנְּזִירִים. מוֹתַר נָזִיר לַנְּדָבָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** The excess of *sheqalim* is profane⁷⁴. The excess of a tenth of an ephah⁷⁵ 5:11., the excess of nests⁷⁶. of male sufferers from gonorrhea⁷⁷ 15:14., the nests of female sufferers from flux⁷⁸ 15:29., the nests of women after childbirth⁷⁹ 12:8., or purification offerings, or reparation offerings, their excesses are gift⁴¹.. This is the principle: of anything brought for a sin or as reparation the excess is gift.
The excess⁹⁴ of elevation sacrifices is for elevation sacrifices, the excess of flour offerings is for flour offerings, the excess of well-being sacrifices is for well-being sacrifices, the excess of *Pesaḥ* is for well-being sacrifices. The excess of *nezirim* is for *nezirim*, the excess of a *nazir*⁹⁵ who might apply for a subsidy for the cost of his sacrifices, the money remain in its status even if not used in the time frame originally envisaged. But if money either was set aside by a *nazir* himself or it was given to him personally for his sacrifices and not completely used, the excess goes to the Temple’s gift account. is for gift.

footnotes:
⁷⁴ Mishnah 3.
⁷⁵ Either the daily offering of the High Priest, which is the only obligatory offering by a single person which is neither a purification nor a reparation offering, or the purification offering of the very poor, Lev.
⁷⁶ Couples of pigeons or turtle doves, needed to permit the person access to sancta
⁷⁷ Lev.
⁷⁸ Lev.
⁷⁹ Lev.
⁴¹ Meaning the coins given as sheqel
⁹⁴ In all these cases the money was saved for the purpose of a certain type of sacrifice. If not all the money was actually used, the excess may be used later for the same purpose. It cannot return to profane status since “a promise to Heaven is like delivery to an individual”.
⁹⁵ If money was collected in order to help any nazir


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 2:4:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 2:4:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shekalim/r/2:4:2)

**הלכה:** מוֹתַר שְׁקָלִים חוּלִין כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסָה. עַד דַּאֲנָא תַמָּן שְׁמָעִית קָל רַב יְהוּדָה שְׁאַל לִשְׁמוּאֵל. הִפְרִישׁ שִׁקְלוֹ וָמֵת. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה. מוֹתַר עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה שֶׁלּוֹ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. יוֹלִיכֵם לְיַם הַמֶּלַח. רִבִּי לָעְזָר אָמַר. יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מוֹתַר שְׁקָלִים חוּלִין. מוֹתַר עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה מוֹתַר קִינֵּי זָבִים קִינֵּי זָבוֹת מוֹתַר קִינֵּי יוֹלְדוֹת חַטָּאוֹת וַאֲשָׁמוֹת מוֹתָרָן נְדָבָה. מַה עֲבַד לָהּ רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. פָּתַר לָהּ מוֹתַר עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה שֶׁלְמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא שֶׁלְכָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “The excess of *sheqalim* is profane,” etc. Rebbi Yasa⁸¹ said, when I still was there, I heard the voice of Rav Jehudah asking Samuel, if somebody had set his *sheqel* apart and died? He told him, they shall fall to gift⁸² and “a promise to Heaven is like delivery to an individual” (Mishnah *Qiddušin*1:6), they are Temple property. Since they are not *sheqalim* they must be given to the Temple account into which all Temple monies not otherwise specified are collected.. The excess of his tenth of an *ephah*, Rebbi Joḥanan said, one shall bring them to the Dead Sea⁸³. Rebbi Eleazar said, it shall fall to gift. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan⁸⁴: “The excess of *sheqalim* is profane The excess of a tenth of an *ephah*, the excess of nests of male sufferers from gonorrhea, the nests of female sufferers from flux, the nests of women after childbirth, or purification offerings, or reparation offerings, the excesses are gift.”. What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? He explains it as excess from the tenth of an *ephah* of the purification offering of any one in Israel⁸⁵ is Temple property but allows only excess of purification or reparation sacrifices to be so taken. The High Priest’s flour offering is neither of these; therefore the Mishnah cannot include it.
The reading of B implies that R. Eleazar identifies that tenth of an *ephah* as the High Priest’s offering..

footnotes:
⁸¹ While all sources have “R. Yose”, the reading must be R. Yasa, a Babylonian early enough to have visited Samuel’s academy. The name is spelled correctly at the end of the Halakhah.
⁸² Since the monies were set aside for the sheqel
⁸³ If this refers to the daily offering of the High priest and the High priest had died, then the monies cannot be used in the Temple since possibly they were not dedicated; they cannot be used as profane since possibly they were dedicated. They have to be destroyed.
⁸⁴ The reading of B is “disagrees with both of them”.
⁸⁵ This seems to be required by the wording of the Mishnah, which decrees that the excess of monies for the tenth of an ephah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 2:4:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 2:4:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shekalim/r/2:4:3)

רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. עַל דָּעֲלִי אָבָּא בַּר בָּא. דְּאִינּוּן אָמְרִין. מְנַיִין שֶׁהַפֶּסַח מִשְׁתַּנֶּה לְשֵׁם שְׁלָמִים. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר. אִם מִן הַצֹּאן קָרְבָּנוֹ לְזֶבַח שְׁלָמִים. כָּל שֶׁהוּא מִן הַצֹּאן בָּא שְׁלָמִים. הָתִיבוּן. הֲרֵי עוֹלָה מִן הַצֹּאן. דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָא אֶלָּא מִן הַצֹּאן. יָצָאת עוֹלָה שֶׁהִיא בָאָה אֲפִילוּ מִן הַבָּקָר. הָתִיבוּן. הֲרֵי אָשָׁם. אָמַר רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר כַּהֲנָא. מִן הַצֹּאן. דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא בָּא מִכָּל הַצֹּאן. יָצָא אָשָׁם שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָא אֶלָּא מִן הָאֵלִים בִּלְבַד. בְּכָל אָתָר אַתְּ אָמַר. (מִלְּרַבּוֹת) [מִן לְמָעֵט]. וְהָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר. (מִלְּמָעֵט) [לְרַבּוֹת]. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. (מִיעֲטוֹ) [הָכָא נַמֵּי מִן לְמָעֵט. מִיעוט שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָא בֶּן שְׁנֵי שָׁנִים. מִיעוט שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָא נְקֵבָה. וְגַבֵּי אָשָׁם נַמֵּי מִן לְמָעֵט הוּא.] שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָא אֶלָּא מִן הָאֵלִים בִּלְבַד. הָתִיבוּן. וְהָכְתִיב וְאִם מִן הַצֹּאן קָרְבָּנוֹ מִן הַכְּשָׂבִים אוֹ מִן הָעִזִּים לְעוֹלָה. מֵעַתָּה מוֹתַר הַפֶּסַח בָּא עוֹלָה. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבּוּן. מְשַׁנִּין דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא לַאֲכִילָה לְדָבָר שֶׁהוּא לַאֲכִילָה וְאֵין מְשַׁנִּין דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא לַאֲכִילָה לְדָבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ לַאֲכִילָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. מְשַׁנִּין קֳדָשִׁים קַלִּים לְשֵׁם קֳדָשִׁין קַלִּין וְאֵין מְשַׁנִּין קֳדָשִׁים קַלִּין לְשֵׁם קָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. עַל דָּאעֲלִי רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. דְּאִינּוּן אָמְרִין. אֵין הַפֶּסַח מִשְׁתַּנֶּה לְשֵׁם שְׁלָמִים אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן שְׁחָטוֹ לְשֵׁם שְׁלָמִים. וַאֲנִי אוֹמֵר. אֲפִילוּ שְׁחָטוֹ לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה. אָמַר רִבִּי אִילָא. טַעֲמֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אִם מִן הַצֹּאן קָרְבָּנוֹ לְזֶבַח שְׁלָמִים. כֹּל שֶׁהוּא זֶבַח בָּא שְׁלָמִים. וּמִשְׁתַּנֶּה לְמַחֲשֶׁבֶת פְּסוּל. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָה. שְׁחָטוֹ לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה עַל מְנָת לִזְרוֹק דָּמוֹ לְמָחָר. מִכָּל מָקוֹם פָּסוּל הוּא. אִין תֵּימַר. מִשְׁתַּנֶּה לְמַחֲשֶׁבֶת פְּסוּל. פִּיגּוּל. אִין תֵּימַר. אֵינוֹ מִשְׁתַּנֶּה לְמַחֲשֶׁבֶת פְּסוּל. פָסוּל.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
⁸⁶5:1, Notes 80–97, where also the readings of B are noted (ג is unreadable or lacunary for the present paragraph.) Only the most necessary notes are given here, the remainder should be consulted there. Rebbi Joḥanan said, about this Abba bar Abba enlightened me, for they are saying, from where that *Pesaḥ* is changed into the denomination of well-being sacrifices? The verse says⁸⁷ 3:6., *and if his sacrifice be from small cattle as meal well-being offering*; anything from small cattle comes as well-being offering. They objected, is there not an elevation offering from small cattle? Anything which only comes from small cattle; this eliminates the elevation offering which even may come from large cattle. They objected, is there not reparation offering? Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, “*from small cattle*”. this eliminates the reparation offering, which only comes from rams. Everywhere you are saying that מִן (is to include) [is to exclude], but here you are saying that (מִן is to exclude) [is to include]⁸⁸ or מִן as privative, excluding certain categories (cf. *Šabbat*7 Note 26, *Ševuot*1:2 Note 75, *Bava Meṣia`*4:8 Note 122, *Nazir*5:4 Note 105). Also in the next sentence, R. Mana gives the interpretation that here מִן is privative. On the other hand, the testimony of the scribe’s two texts, the Genizah fragment available for *Pesaḥim*, and the Munich ms. of *Šeqalim* do not permit emendation. It seems that here “every where” is derogatory, meaning Babylonian. The sequence of arguments leads to a contradiction. Abba bar Abba treats מִן as inclusive, R. Abun bar Cahana as exclusive. R. Mana explains that מִן always is partitive; automatic switch to well-being offerings is possible only for sacrifices that totally correspond to the declaration צאן, i. e., both sheep and goats, male and female.. Rebbi Mana said, (it excludes it,) [here also מִן is to exclude: It excludes in that it may not be brought two years old; it excludes that it cannot be brought female; and for a reparation offering also it excludes]⁸⁹ since it only comes from rams. They objected, is there not written,⁹⁰ 1:10. *and if his sacrifice be from small cattle, from sheep or goats, as elevation offering*; then excess *Pesaḥ* should become elevation offering? Rebbi Abun said, one changes something to be eaten into something to be eaten, but one does not change something to be eaten into something not to be eaten. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, one changes simple *sancta* into simple *sancta*, but one does not change simple *sancta* into most holy sacrifices. Rebbi Joḥanan said, about what Rebbi Ḥanina enlightened, that they are saying, *Pesaḥ* is changed into a well-being offering only if he slaughtered it for the purpose of well-being offering; but I am saying, even for the purpose of an elevation offering. Rebbi Illa said, the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan: *And if his sacrifice be from small cattle as meal well-being offering*⁸⁷ 3:6.; anything to be consumed as *sanctum* is a well-being offering. Does it change with respect to disqualifying thoughts⁹¹ is used against the rules for something other than a well-being offering, do the rules of the other kind apply or is it disqualified and no rules of intent apply?? How is this? If he slaughtered it for the purpose of an elevation offering in order to pour its blood the next day. In any case, it is disqualified. If you are saying that it changes with respect to disqualifying thoughts, it is *piggul*⁹², a deadly sin causing extirpation.. If you are saying that it does not change with respect to disqualifying thoughts, it is disqualified⁹³.

footnotes:
⁸⁶ This and the next paragraph also appear in Pesaḥim
⁸⁷ Lev.
⁸⁸ The text is difficult since it is standard rabbinic interpretation to consider prefix mem
⁸⁹ Corrector’s addition from B.
⁹⁰ Lev.
⁸⁷ Lev.
⁹¹ If the animal dedicated as Pesaḥ
⁹² If the animal still is a sacrifice, now under the rules of elevation sacrifices, the intention to perform any required action out of its prescribed time-frame is piggul
⁹³ If the animal is disqualified and not under the rule of any kind of sacrifice, the illegitimate intent is inconsequential.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 2:4:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 2:4:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shekalim/r/2:4:4)

לִשְׁמוֹ וְשֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ בִּשְׁאָר יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה. רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה בְשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אַבָּא. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁאֵין לוֹ שֵׁם נַעֲשֶׂה כְשׁוֹחְטוֹ לִשְׁמוֹ וְשֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ בִשְׁתִיקָה וְהוּא כָשֵׁר. אָמְרוּ לֵיהּ. וְאִם כֵּן הוּא אֲפִילוּ שְׁחָטוֹ לִשְׁמוֹ לִזְרוֹק דָּמוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ יֵעָשֶׂה מִשָּׁעָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה כְשׁוֹחְטוֹ לִשְׁמוֹ וְשֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ וִיהֵא כָשֵׁר. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּא מָרִי. מָאן אָמַר בִּשְׁתִּיקָה כָשֵׁר. אוֹ נֹאמַר. בִּשְׁתִּיקָה פָּסוּל.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
⁹⁴ For its purpose and not for its purpose on the other days of the year? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Samuel bar Abba: Since it is left without a name it is as if from the start he slaughtered for its purpose and not for its purpose in silence and is qualified. They said to him. if it is so, even if he slaughtered for its purpose to pour the blood not for its purpose it should be treated as if from the start he slaughtered for its purpose and not for its purpose in silence and be qualified. Rebbi Abba Mari said, who says that in silence it is qualified? Or may we say, in silence it is disqualified?

footnotes:
⁹⁴ In all these cases the money was saved for the purpose of a certain type of sacrifice. If not all the money was actually used, the excess may be used later for the same purpose. It cannot return to profane status since “a promise to Heaven is like delivery to an individual”.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 2:4:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 2:4:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shekalim/r/2:4:5)

רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר. וְהוּא שֶׁקָּרְבָה חַטָּאתוֹ בַסּוֹף. אֲבָל אִם קָרְבוּ שְׁלָמִים בַּסּוֹף מוֹתָרָן שְׁלָמִים. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעוּרָה. וַאֲפִילוּ קָרְבוּ שְׁלָמִים בַּסּוֹף הֲלָכָה אַחַת הִיא בְנָזִיר שֶׁתְּהֵא מוֹתָרָהּ נְדָבָה. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָה לְדֵין וּמַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָא לְדֵין. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָה לְרִבִּי זְעוּרָה. אֲפִילוּ הֵן מָעוֹת סְתוּמִין. כָּל שֶׁדְּמֵי חַטָּאוֹת מֵיתוֹת מְעוּרָבוֹת בָּהֵן. וַאֲפִילוּ הִפְרִישׁ דְּמֵי חַטָּאוֹת מֵיתוֹת מִתּוֹכָהּ מָעוֹת סְתוּמִין הֵן. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָא לְרַב חִסְדָּא. אֵילּוּ לְחַטָּאתִי וְהַשְּׁאָר לִשְׁאָר נְזִירוּתִי. וָמֵת. מוֹעֲלִין בְּכוּלָּן וְאֵין מוֹעֲלִין מִקְצָתָן. וְלֹא אָמַר. אִם מַתִּי יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
⁹⁶4:4 (Notes 61–72, **נ**) which probably was the source. Mishnah *Nazir*4:4 deals with the case of a married woman who made a vow of *nazir* and started putting aside money for her required sacrifices when her husband dissolved her vow. Then she no longer is *nezirah* and therefore cannot bring the sacrifices, but the monies remain dedicated. The Mishnah states: “If she had money not designated, it should be given to the gift account. If the monies were designated, the value of the purification offering shall be thrown into the Dead Sea; one may not use it but there can be no *me`ilah*. For the value of the elevation offering, they shall bring an elevation offering; it is subject to the law of *me`ilah*. For the value of the well-being offering, they shall bring a well-being offering, to be eaten on one day; it does not need bread.” Money not designated is money for which it never was decided for which kind of sacrifice it should be used. Rav Ḥisda said, only if his purification offering was presented last. But if his well-being offering was presented last, what is left over is for a well-being offering⁹⁷ with the expenses of their sacrifices but not all was used, the remainder has to be kept in trust to be used in the future for the same purpose. But if a person dedicated his own money for his sacrifices and had money left over, if the last sacrifice bought was of the most holy kind, the leftover money is of the same kind and has to go to the account for elevation offerings. But if the leftovers are of a well-being sacrifice, a “simple *sanctum*” which may be consumed by lay people, the monies have to be used for a simple *sanctum*.. Rebbi Ze`ira said, even if his well-being offering was presented last, it is a general rule for a *nazir* that his leftover be for the gift account⁹⁸3:2, overriding the general rule of Mishnah 2:6. In the Babli, *Nazir*25a, the statement is attributed to R. Joḥanan.. A *baraita* supports one and a *baraita* supports the other. A *baraita* supports Rebbi Ze`ira: “The following are not designated monies: any which contain money for purification offerings should be left to die. Even if he designated money for purification offerings that should be left to die, it remains not designated⁹⁸3:2, overriding the general rule of Mishnah 2:6. In the Babli, *Nazir*25a, the statement is attributed to R. Joḥanan..” A *baraita* supports Rav Ḥisda: “This is for my purification offering and the rest for my *nezirut*. Then he died. One commits larceny with all of them but not with part of them.” It does not say, when he died it should be given to the gift account100.

footnotes:
⁹⁶ This text also is in Nazir
⁹⁷ If monies were collected to help indigent nezirim
⁹⁸ Mishnah Me`ilah
⁹⁸ Mishnah Me`ilah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 2:4:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 2:4:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shekalim/r/2:4:6)

רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר. מוֹתַר לַחְמוֹ שֶׁלְנָזִיר יִירְקָב. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְיֵאוּת. לְהַקְרִיבוֹ בִפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ אֵין יָכוֹל. שֶׁאֵין לְךָ לֶחֶם קָרֵב לְעַצְמוֹ. לְהַקְרִיבוֹ עִם נְזִירוּת אֲחֶרֶת אֵין אַתְּ יָכוֹל. שֶׁאֵין לָךְ נְזִירוּת בָּאָה בְלֹא לֶחֶם. לְפוּם כֵּן צָרִיךְ מֵימַר מוֹתַר לַחְמוֹ שֶׁלְנָזִיר יִירְקָב. סָבְרִין מֵימַר. הוּא לַחְמוֹ הוּא מוֹתַר נְסָכָיו. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. מוֹתַר נְסָכָיו קָדְשֵׁי קָדָשֶׁים אִינּוּן וְיִפְּלוּ לִנְדְבָה. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵה בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. שְׁמוּאֵל וְרַב חִסְדָּא וְרִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר שְׁלָשְׁתָּן אָמְרוּ דָבָר אֶחָד. רַב חִסְדָּא אָהֵן דְּהָכָא. שְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יָסָא. עַד דַּאֲנָא תַמָּן שְׁמָעִית קָל רַב יְהוּדָה שְׁאַל לִשְׁמוּאֵל. הִפְרִישׁ שִׁקְלוֹ וָמֵת. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה. רִבִּי לָעְזָר. מוֹתַר עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה שֶׁלּוֹ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. יוֹלִיכֵם לְיַם הַמֶּלַח. רִבִּי לָעְזָר אָמַר. יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rav Ḥisda said, a *nazir*’s leftover bread shall be left to decay. Rebbi Yose said, that is correct. You cannot sacrifice it by itself since bread cannot be brought alone. You cannot sacrifice it together with another *nazir*’s since no *nazir* sacrifices without bread¹⁰¹ 2, none is authorized for bread alone. Nowhere do we find a procedure to redeem sacrificial bread.. Therefore, it was necessary to say that a *nazir*’s leftover bread shall be left to decay. They wanted to say, the same rule applies to his leftover bread as to his leftover wine offering. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, his leftover wine offering is most holy¹⁰²; it should be given to the gift account. In the opinion of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Samuel, Rav Ḥisda, and Rebbi Eleazar, all three said the same. Rav Ḥisda, as quoted here. Samuel, as Rebbi Yasa said,¹⁰² when I still was there, I heard the voice of Rav Jehudah asking Samuel: If he designated his *sheqel* and died? He said, it should be given as gift. Rebbi Eleazar: ¹⁰³ the leftover of his tenth of an *ephah*: Rebbi Joḥanan said, one should bring it to the Dead Sea; Rebbi Eleazar said, it should be given to the gift account..

footnotes:
¹⁰¹ While several flour offerings are described in Lev.
¹⁰² Halakhah 5, Note 81.
¹⁰² Halakhah 5, Note 81.
¹⁰³ Halakhah 5, Note 83.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 2:5:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 2:5:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shekalim/r/2:5:1)

**משנה:** מוֹתַר שְׁבוּיִים לַשְּׁבוּיִים מוֹתַר שָׁבוּי לְאוֹתוֹ שָׁבוּי. מוֹתַר עֲנִיִּים לָעֲנִיִּים מוֹתַר עָנִי לְאוֹתוֹ עָנִי. מוֹתַר הַמֵּתִים לַמֵּתִים מוֹתַר הַמֵּת לְיוֹרְשָׁיו. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר מוֹתַר הַמֵּת יְהֵא מוּנָּח עַד שֶׁיָּבוֹא אֵלִיָהוּ. רִבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר מוֹתַר הַמֵּת בּוֹנִין לוֹ נֶפֶשׁ עַל קִבְרוֹ:

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** The excess of monies collected for kidnap victims is for kidnap victims; the excess of monies collected for a particular kidnap victim is for this kidnap victim. The excess of monies collected for the poor is for the poor; the excess of monies collected for a particular poor person is for this poor person. The excess of monies collected for the dead¹⁰⁴ is for the dead; the excess of monies collected for a particular dead is for his heirs; Rebbi Meïr says, the excess of monies collected for a particular dead shall be left until Elijah comes¹⁰⁵; Rebbi Nathan says, from the excess of monies collected for a particular dead one builds a memorial on his grave.

footnotes:
¹⁰⁴ For funeral expenses.
¹⁰⁵ Since one does not know what to do with this money, it cannot be touched until Elijah, a member of the Heavenly Court who knows what the rules really should be, comes to announce the Messiah.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 2:5:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 2:5:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shekalim/r/2:5:2)

**הלכה:** גָּבוּ לוֹ בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁאֵין לֹו וְנִמְצָא שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה סְבַר מֵימַר. מוֹתַר הַמֵּת לְיוֹרְשָׁיו. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי אִידִי דְחוּטְרֵיהּ. הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ דְּלָא כִוְונוּן אֶלָּא [לֵיהּ. אֲמַר] לֵיהּ. אֲנָא [לָא] אָמְרִית. אַתְּ מְנָן לָךְ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** If they collected for him presuming that he had nothing and it turned out that he had some¹⁰⁶. Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say, the excess of monies collected for a particular dead is for his heirs. Rebbi Idi from Ḥutra said to him, think of it, did they intend only for [him¹⁰⁷? He said to him], I did [not] say this; what is your source¹⁰⁸?

footnotes:
¹⁰⁶ The reading of ג: ”had nothing”, has to be rejected as scribal error.
¹⁰⁷ Since the intent was to bury a destitute person, should the money not be given to the administrators of welfare for the benefit of future needs?
¹⁰⁸ R. Jeremiah realizes that it is a good question but he quoted a Mishnah; R. Idi has no tannaitic source to support him.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 2:5:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 2:5:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shekalim/r/2:5:3)

תַּנֵּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי נָתָן. מוֹתַר הַמֵּת יִבְנֶה לוֹ נֶפֶשׁ עַל קִבְרוֹ וְיַעֲשֶׂה לוֹ (זלח) [זִילּוּף] עַל גַּבֵּי מִיטָּתוֹ. תַּנֵּי אֵין פּוֹדִין שָׁבוּי בְשָׁבוּי וְאֵין גּוֹבִין טַלִּית בְטַלִּית. וְאֵין מַמְחִין בְּיַד פַּרְנָסִין לְכָךְ. תַּנֵּי. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר. אֵין עוֹשִׂין נְפָשׁוֹת לַצַּדִּיקִים. דִּבְרֵיהֶן הֵן זִכְרוֹנָן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
¹⁰⁹48a.“It was stated in the name of Rebbi Nathan: From the excess of monies collected for a particular dead he builds a memorial on his grave or perfume¹ his bier. It was stated, one does not redeem a kidnap victim for another kidnap victim¹¹⁰ and one does not collect a stole for a stole¹¹¹, but one does not restrict the power of the administrators of charity in this.” It was stated, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, one does not build mausoleums for the just; their words are their remembrance¹¹². *rabba*82(11)..

footnotes:
¹⁰⁹ Tosephta 1:12, Babli Sanhedrin
¹ This is the corrector’s text, following B. The scibe wrote זלח, a root not otherwise recorded in rabbinic Hebrew or Aramaic.
¹¹⁰ Monies collected for a particular prisoner should not be used to redeem another, but in cases of urgent need the hands of the administrators are not tied by this rule.
¹¹¹ If clothing is collected for a particular person, he should be given exactly what was collected for him.
¹¹² Gen


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 2:5:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 2:5:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shekalim/r/2:5:4)

[רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן הֲוָה מַסְמִיךְ וְאָזִיל עַל רִבִּי חִיָיא בַּר אַבָּא וַהֲוָה רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר חֲמִי לֵיהּ וּמִטַּמֵּר לֵיהּ מִקַּמֵּי וַאֲמַר. הָלֵין תַּרְתֵּין מִילַּיָּא הָדֵין בַּבְלָאָה עֲבִיד בֵּיהּ. חָדָא דְלָא שְׁאִיל בִּשְׁלוֹמֵיהּ וְחָדָה מִיטָּמַר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידִי כָּךְ נַהֲגִין גַּבְּהוֹן. זְעִירָא לָא שְׁאִיל בִּשְׁלוּמֵיהּ דְּרַבָּה. דְּאִינּוּן נְהִגִין וּמְקַיְימִין רָאוּנִי נְעָרִים וְנֶחְבָּאוּ וִישִׁישִׁים קָמוּ עָמָדוּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. מָהוּ לְמֵיעֲבַד קַמֵּי דַאֲרוּרָא צִילְמָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. מַה אַתְּ פְּלִיג לֵיהּ יְקָר. עֲבוֹר קַמּוֹהִי וְסַמִּי עֵינוֹיי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. יְאוּת רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר עֲבוּד דְּלָא עֲבַר קַמָּךְ. וְעוֹד עֲבִיד הָא בַּבְלָאָה דְלָא אֲמַר שְׁמַעְתָּא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ. נִכְנְסוּ לְפָנָיו רִבִּי אִמּי וְרִבִּי אַסִּי. אָמְרוּ לוֹ. רִבִּי. כָּךְ הָיָה מַעֲשֶׂה בֵּית הַכְּנֶסֶת שֶׁל טַרְסִיִּים הָיָה בְּנַגָּר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְרֹאשׁוֹ גְלוּסְטְרָא. שֶׁנֶּחְלְקוּ רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי עַד שֶׁקָּרְעוּ סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה בָחַמָּתָן. וְקָרְעוּ סַלְקָָא דַּעְתָּךְ. אֶלָּא שֶׁנִיקְרַע סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה. וְהָיָה שָׁם זָקֵן אֶחָד. וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן קִיסְמָא. אָמַר. תְּמוֹהָנִי אִם לֹא הֲוָה בֵּית הַכְּנֶסֶת זֵה עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. וְחָזַר וְאָמַר. הָכְדֵין מֵחַבְרֵיהּ. נִיכְנַס לְפָנָיו רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידִי. אָמַר לוֹ כְּתִיב כָּל אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְי אֶת מֹשֶׁה עַבְדּוֹ כֵּן צִוָּה יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וגו׳. וְכִי כָל דִּיבּוּר וְדִיבּוּר שֶׁהָיָה יְהוֹשֻׁעַ יוֹשֵׁב וְדוֹרֵשׁ הָיָה אוֹמֵר. כָּךְ אָמַר מֹשֶׁה. אֶלָּא יְהוֹשֻׁעַ יוֹשֵׁב וְדוֹרֵשׁ וְיוֹדְעִין שֶׁהַתּוֹרָה שֶׁל מֹשֶׁה הִיא. אַף אַתָּה אֶלְעָזָר יוֹשֵׁב וְדוֹרֵשׁ. הַכֹּל יוֹדְעִין שֶׁתּוֹרָה שֶׁלָּךְ הִיא. אָמַר לָהֶן. מִפְּנֵי מַה אֵי אַתֵּם יוֹדְעִין לָרַצּוֹת כְּבֶן אִידִי חֲבֵירֵינוּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
¹¹³2:1 (Notes 53–67) and *Mo`ed Qaṭan*3:7 (83c l. 40–83d l. 8). Rebbi Joḥanan was leaning on Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba when Rebbi Eliezer¹¹⁴ saw him and hid himself before him. He said, these two things the Babylonian does to me: First, that he does not greet me, and second, that he hides himself. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi said to him, thus they behave among themselves; Rebbi Ze`ira did not greet Rabba since they observe¹¹⁵29:8. *Boys see me and hide themselves; elders rise and stand*. He asked him, may one pass by a cursed statue? He said to him, do you want to honor it? Pass it by and blind its eyes! He said to him, Rebbi Eliezer¹¹⁴ did well that he did not pass before you. The other thing the Babylonian does, that he does not mention my tradition in my name. Rebbi Immi and Rebbi Assi¹¹⁶ came to him. They said to him, Rabbi, so it happened that it was a synagogue of weavers, about a bolt topped by a lock¹¹⁷10:9. about which Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Yose disagreed until they tore a Torah scroll in their rage. Would you think that they tore a Torah scroll? But that a Torah scroll was torn. There was an old man there, Rebbi Yose ben Qisma, who said, I wonder whether this synagogue will not be a place of foreign worship. He came back and asked, where is the colleague? Rebbi Jacob bar Idi came and said to him, it is written¹¹⁸. 11:15., *all that the Eternal commanded to His servant Moses so Joshua commanded*. When Joshua explained, did he mention every time “so said Moses”? No, he explained and they knew that it was Moses’s teaching. So also Eleazar sits and explains and everybody knows that it is your teaching. He said to them¹¹⁹, why do you not know to pacify like our colleague Ben Idi?

footnotes:
¹¹³ As the concurrent testimony of ג and the scribe’s text show, the following text is not part of the original Halakhah. It was added by the corrector from B; both its Aramaic and the names appearing are Babylonian. A somewhat different Yerushalmi text is in Berakhot
¹¹⁴ This should read: Eleazar.
¹¹⁵ Job
¹¹⁴ This should read: Eleazar.
¹¹⁶ He is R. Yasa in Yerushalmi texts.
¹¹⁷ Mishnah Eruvin
¹¹⁸ Jos
¹¹⁹ R. Immi (Ammi) and R. Assi (Yasa).


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 2:5:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 2:5:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shekalim/r/2:5:5)

וְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מַאי כוּלֵּי הַאי. דְּבָעֵי דְּיֵימְרוּן שְׁמַעְתָּא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ. דְּאַף דָּוִד בִּיקֵּשׁ עָלֶיהָ רַחֲמִים. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר אָגוּרָה בְאָהָלְךָ עוֹלָמִית אֶחֱסֶה בְסֵתֶר כְּנָפֶיךָ סֶּלָה. וְכִי עָלְתָה עַל דַּעְתוֹ שֶׁל דָּוִד שֶׁיְּהֵא חַי וְקַיָים לְעוֹלָמִים. אֶלָּא כָךְ אָמַר דָּוִד לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא. רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם. אֶזְכֶּה שֶׁיְּהוּ דְבָרַיי נֶאֱמָרִין בְּבָתֵּי כְנֶיסִיּוֹת וּבָתֵּי מִדְרָשׁוֹת. שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן נְזִירָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יִצְחָק אָמַר. כְּל תַּלְמִיד חָכָם שֶׁאוֹמְרִים דְּבַר הֲלָכָה מִפִּיו בָעוֹלָם הַזֶּה שְׂפָתָיו רוֹחֲשׁוֹת עִמּוֹ בַקֶּבֶר. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר דּוֹבֵב שִׂפְתֵי יְשֵׁינִים. מַה כֹמֶר שֶׁל עֲנָבִים זֶה כֵּיוָן שֶׁמַּנִּיחַ אָדָם אֶצְבָּעוֹ עָלָיו מִיַּד דוֹבֵב אַף שִׂפתּוֹתֵיהֶם שֶׁל צַדִּיקִים כֵּיוָן שֶׁאוֹמְרִין דְּבַר הֲלָכָה מִפִּיהֶם שֶׁל צַדִּיקִים שִׂפְתּוֹתֵיהֶן מְרַחֲשׁוֹת עִמָּהֶן בַקֶּבֶר. מַה הֲנְָאָה לוֹ. בַּר נְזִירָא אָמַר. כְּהָדֵין דְּשָׁאתֵי קוֹנְדִּיטוֹן. רִבִּי יִצְחָק אָמַר. כְּהָדֵין דְּשָׁאת חֲמַר עָתִיק. אַף עַל גַּב דְּלֵית לֵיהּ טַעֲמָא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Why did Rebbi Joḥanan insist to require that traditions should be reported in his name? For also David begged for divine mercy in this respect, as it says, *may I dwell in Your tent forever, I shall seek shelter under the cover of Your wings, Selah*¹²⁰ 61:5.. Could David think of living forever? Rather, David said before the Holy One, praise to Him: Master of the World, may I have the merit that my words will be mentioned in synagogues and houses of study. What good does that do to him? Simeon, the son of the *Nazir* said in the name of Rebbi Isaac If a Sage’s pronouncement in matters of practice is mentioned in this world, the latter’s lips whisper with him in the grave for it is said¹²¹ means “to speak”., *dripping from the lips of the sleeping ones*. Like that softened bunch of grapes, if a person puts his finger on it immediately it drips, so also the lips of the just drip, for if one mentions their pronouncements in matters of practice the latter’s lips whisper in the grave. What good does that do to them? The son of the *Nazir* says, like one who drinks spiced wine; Rebbi Isaac said, like one who drinks old wine, even though he cannot taste it.

footnotes:
¹²⁰ Ps.
¹²¹ Cant. 7:10. Note that in Accadic the root dbb


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 2:5:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 2:5:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shekalim/r/2:5:6)

גִּדּוּל אָמַר. כָּאן שְׁמוּעָה בְשֵׁם אוֹמְרָהּ יִרְאֶה בַּעַל שְׁמוּעָה כְּאִילּוּ עוֹמֵד לְנֶגְדּוֹ. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר אַךְ בְּצֶלֶם יִתְהַלֶּךְ אִישׁ. רוֹב אָדָם יִקְרָא אֶת אִישׁ חַסְדּוֹ. זֶה שְׁאָר כָּל אָדַם. וְאִישׁ אֱמוּנִים מִי יִמְצָא. זֶה רִבִּי זְעִירָא. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. לָמָּה לִי שֶׁאֲנִי צְרִיכִין רְחוּשִׁין לִשְׁמַעְתֵּיהּ דְּרַב שֵׁשֶׁת דְּהוּא גַבְרָא מְפַתְחָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי זְעִירָא לְרִבִּי אַסִּי. חֲכִים רִבִּי לְבַר פַּתְיָיה דְאָתָא אֲמַר שְׂמוּעָתָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמְרָהּ מִשְׁמֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי זְעִירָא לְרִבִּי אַסִּי. חֲכִים רִבִּי לְרַב דְאַתּ אֲמַר שְׂמוּעָתָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. רַב אָדָא בַּר אַהֲבָה אָמְרָן מִשְּׁמֵיהּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
¹²²1, Notes 188–191. Giddul said, anybody who quotes somebody should consider it as if the author of the quote stood before him, for it is said¹²³ 39:7., *only in image a man wanders.* It is written¹²⁴. 20:6. *many a man professes good will,* this is the rest of mankind; *but where will you find one you can trust*, that is Rebbi Ze`ira. As Rebbi Ze`ira said, should we take the traditions of Rav Sheshet into account since he is blind? Rebbi Ze`ira said to Rebbi Assi, does the Rabbi know Bar Petaiah that you quote traditions in his name? He said to him, Rebbi Joḥanan quoted them in his name. Rebbi Ze`ira said to Rebbi Assi¹¹⁶, does the Rabbi know Rav that you quote traditions in his name? He said to him, Rebbi¹²⁵ Ada bar Ahavah quoted them in his name.

footnotes:
¹²² This paragraph is from Šabbat
¹²³ Ps.
¹²⁴ Prov
¹¹⁶ He is R. Yasa in Yerushalmi texts.
¹²⁵ Read: Rav.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 2:5:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 2:5:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shekalim/r/2:5:7)

אֵין דּוֹר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ לֵיצָנִין. בְּדוֹרוֹ שֶׁל דָּוִד מֶה הָיוּ פְרוּצֵי הַדּוֹר עוֹשִׂין. הָיוּ הוֹלְכִים אֶצֶל חֲלוֹנוֹתָיו שֶׁל דָּוִד. אוֹמְרִין לוֹ. דָּוִד דָּוִד. אֵימָתַי יִבָּנֶה בֵית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ. אֵימָתַי בֵּית יי נֵלֵךְ. וְהָיְה דָּוִד אֹמֵר. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמִתְכַּוְונִין לְהַכְעִיסֵנִי יָבֹאוּ עָלַי אִם לֹא הָיִיתִי שָׂמֵחַ בְדִבְרֵיהֶם. דִּכְתִיב שָׂמַחְתִּי בְּאוֹמְרִים לִי בֵּית יְהֹוָה נֵלֵךְ. יְהָיָה כִּי יִמְלְאוּ יָמֶיךָ וְשָׁכַבְתָּ עִם אֲבוֹתֶיךָ. אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְדָוִד. יָמִים שְׁלֵמִים אֲנִי מוֹנֶה לְךָ וְלֹא יָמִים חֲסֵרִים. כְּלוּם שְׁלֹמֹה בִנְךָ יִבְנֶה בֵית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ אֶלָּא לְהַקְרִיב קָרְבְּנוֹת צִבּוּר. חָבִיב עָלַי צְדָקָה וּמִשְׁפָּט שֶׁאַתָּה עוֹשֶׂה יוֹתֵר מִן הַקָּרְבַּן. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר עֲשֶֹׂה צְדָקָה וּמִשְׁפָּט נִבְחָר לַה׳ מִזָּבַח.]

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
¹²⁶ and *Mo`ed Qaṭan*. There is no generation without scoffers. What did the hooligans of David’s generation do? They went to David’s windows and said to him: David, when will the Temple be built, when will we go to the Eternal’s house? David said, even though they intend to enrage me, something should come over me were I not happy, *I enjoy it when they say to me: let us go to the Lord’s house*¹²⁷ 122:1.. *When your days will be complete and you will lie with your forefathers*¹²⁸ 7:12.. The Holy One, praise to Him, said to David:, I am counting full days for you, I am not counting missing days for you. Will not your son Solomon build the Temple for public sacrifice? Law and justice that you are upholding is more to my liking than sacrifices, as it is said¹²⁹. 21:3., *upholding justice and law is preferred by the Eternal to sacrifice*.]

footnotes:
¹²⁶ This again is the Babylonian version of the text in Berakhot
¹²⁷ Ps.
¹²⁸ 2Sam.
¹²⁹ Prov