How would the moneychangers collect the shekalim? In each and every city, they positioned two chests before them. The bottoms of the chests were wide, and the tops narrow like a shofar,¹ 6:1), the Rambam refers to the Jerusalem Talmud, which explains that the chests had curved necks to prevent people from removing the coins from them. so that the money could be deposited in them, but could not be removed from them easily. Why did they have two chests? One to deposit the [half-]shekalim of the present year, and one to deposit the [half-]shekalim of the previous year,² 2:1) that differs and maintains that in the outlying cities collections would be made only for the present year. It was in Jerusalem alone that they would collect for the previous year. The Or Sameach explains that this reference follows a minority opinion, while the Rambam's decision is accepted as halachah. Other authorities maintain that there were variant versions of the passage in the Jerusalem Talmud. for [the collectors] would demand payment from the people who did not give in the previous year.

footnotes: ¹ In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shekalim ² There is a reference in the Jerusalem Talmud (Shekalim

In the Temple, there were always thirteen chests, each chest [shaped] like a shofar. The first chest was for the shekalim of the present year; the second for the shekalim of the previous year; the third was for all those who where obligated to bring an offering of two turtle doves or two common doves,³ and women after childbirth. Since the money was placed in the chest without distinction, half was used to purchase doves for burnt offerings, and half for sin-offerings. one as a burnt offering and one as a sin offering. The funds [for these offerings] were deposited in this chest. The fourth was for those who were obligated to bring [doves] as a burnt offering only. They would deposit the funds [for these offerings] in this chest. The fifth was for those who volunteered to buy wood for the altar; the sixth, for those who donated money [to purchase] frankincense;⁴ the seventh, for those who donated gold for the covering [of the ark].⁵ 6:5), the Rambam states that these funds were to repair the Holy of Holies. Rav Kapach notes that, on occasion, the Holy of Holies is referred to as "the chamber of the kaporet." This appears to be the Rambam's intent. Rabbenu Ovadiah of Bertinoro, by contrast, interprets this term as referring to the Temple vessels made from gold. The eighth⁶) states "six were for voluntary donations." The Tosefta and the Jerusalem Talmud each offer a different interpretation of the purposes for which these six chests were used. The Rambam chooses the interpretation of the Tosefta. was for the [money that] remains after [purchasing] a sin-offering - i.e., a person set aside funds [to use to purchase] a sin-offering, and money remained after purchasing it. Those funds were deposited in this [chest]. The ninth was for the [money that] remains after [purchasing] a guilt-offering; the tenth, for the [money that] remains after [purchasing] the pairs [of doves necessary] for [the offerings of] zavim, zavot,⁷ is a venereal condition resembling gonorrhea that renders men (zavim) ritually impure. For women (zavot), the term refers to a woman who experiences vaginal bleeding at times other than those of her menstrual period. She also becomes impure. and women after childbirth; the eleventh, for the [money that] remains after [purchasing] the offerings of a nazirite; the twelfth, for the [money that] remains after [purchasing] the guilt offering of a leper; the thirteenth, for a person who pledged money for an animal [to be brought] as a burnt offering.⁸

footnotes: ³ These offerings were brought by zavim, zavot, ⁴ This was used for the meal offerings as well as the incense offerings. ⁵ In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shekalim ⁶ Concerning the purpose of the latter six chests, the Mishnah (loc. cit. ⁷ Zavot ⁸ The commentaries note that by choosing this interpretation, the Rambam defines a purpose for this chest that is different in nature from that of the previous five. Since these six chests were mentioned in one group by the Mishnah, this represents somewhat of a difficulty.

The [purpose] for each category for which the funds in the chest were used was written on the outside of the chest. The court stipulated that all the monies that remained after the purchase of sacrifices for which they were designated should be used to offer animals as burnt offerings.⁹ It thus follows that all the funds in the latter six chests were used [to purchase] animals for burnt offerings. Their hides belonged to the priests, as did the hides [of other burnt offerings].¹⁰ 6:6 relates that from Leviticus 5:19, "a guilt offering unto God," one might think that the offering should be consecrated entirely. Since II Kings 12:17 states, "The money from the guilt offerings and the money from the sin offerings shall... be for the priests," the following resolution was offered. The remaining funds were used to purchase burnt offerings that were dedicated entirely to God; the priests did not partake of them at all. The hides, however, were given to the priests. All the funds in the third chest were to be used to purchase doves: half of them burnt offerings, and half of them sin offerings. All [the funds in] the fourth [chest] were to be used to purchase doves to be sacrificed as burnt offerings.

footnotes: ⁹ Had the court not made such a stipulation, it would not have been permissible to change the purpose of these funds from the intent for which they were originally donated. (See also Chapter 4, Halachah 9.) ¹⁰ Shekalim

When the shekalim were collected from each and every city, they were sent to the Temple with emissaries.¹¹ They might be exchanged for golden dinarim, so that [they would not become a] burden on the journey.¹² [All the funds] were amassed in the Temple. They were placed in one of the chambers of the Temple. All the doors to the chamber were closed [under lock and] key, and then they were covered with seals. All the shekalim that were collected there [were stored] in three large baskets. Each of the baskets was large enough to contain nine seah.¹³ and 130 cubic liters according to Chazon Ish. The remainder [of the money] was left in the chamber. The money in the baskets was referred to as terumat halishcah ("[the funds of] the chamber that were set aside").¹⁴ [The funds that] remained besides [the funds] stored in the baskets were referred to as sheyarei halishcah ("the remainder within the chamber").¹⁵). The other funds, by contrast, were used for mundane purposes, albeit those of the community, and not those of an individual. (See Hilchot Me'ilah 6:13.)

footnotes: ¹¹ More particulars concerning these emissaries are discussed in Chapter 3, Halachot 8-9. ¹² I.e., a golden coin is far lighter than several silver coins of equivalent value. ¹³ Thus, the basket would contain 74.6 cubic liters according to Shiurei Torah ¹⁴ These funds were used to purchase the communal sacrifices and for other purposes, as related in Chapter 4, Halachot 1-7. ¹⁵ These funds were used for various communal projects, as mentioned in Chapter 4, Halachah 8. There is a substantial difference in status between these two groups of funds. The funds in the three baskets were considered sanctified, and a person who used them for mundane purposes would be liable for the misuse of a sacred article (me'ilah

On three occasions during the year¹⁶ 3:1), the Rambam explains that the funds were set aside on these three occasions so that the matter would be publicized. funds were taken from this chamber: On Rosh Chodesh Nisan, on either the day before or the day after the festival of Rosh Chodesh Tishrei¹⁷ (Shekalim 3:1) implies that the money was set aside on Rosh HaShanah, since Rosh HaShanah is a holiday, the money was set aside either beforehand or afterwards., and fifteen days before Shavuot.¹⁸ 7:8, which describes the setting aside of the tithes of the herds on three occasions during the year. How is the money set aside? One person enters the chamber, while the guards stand outside. He asks them: "Should I set aside the funds?" They answer him: "Set them aside; set them aside; set them aside," [repeating the answer] three times.¹⁹ 7:11 and Hilchot Parah Adumah 3:2.) The person then filled three smaller baskets, each containing three seah, from [the funds in] the three large baskets. He then took the money outside to use it until it was depleted. Afterwards, he returned and refilled the three small baskets from the three large baskets a second time before Shavuot. The money was then used until it was depleted.

footnotes: ¹⁶ In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shekalim ¹⁷ Although the wording of the Mishnah ¹⁸ Note also the parallel to (and slight difference from) Hilchot Bechorot ¹⁹ Responses were frequently repeated in the Temple service for the purpose of emphasis. (See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim

In Tishrei, he returned a third time, filled [the three small baskets] from the three large baskets, and used the funds until they were exhausted [or] until Rosh Chodesh Nisan.²⁰ 3:1), the Rambam resolves this difficulty, explaining that on each occasion they would set aside an amount of money appropriate for the period, implying that the amounts were not equal. On Rosh Chodesh Nisan, [funds] were set aside from the new collection.²¹ 7b emphasizes that Rosh Chodesh Nisan was considered to be Rosh HaShanah concerning the Temple sacrifices, and from that time onward the funds to purchase the sacrifices were taken from the new collection. If the funds in the three large containers were insufficient and were exhausted before the month of Nisan, they would set aside other funds from the remainder within the chamber.²² points to a difference of opinion in the Jerusalem Talmud (Shekalim 3:3) between Rabbi Meir and the Sages. The Sages maintain that if the funds were exhausted, a new collection should be made. Rabbi Meir, by contrast, maintains that the funds should be taken from those remaining in the chamber. There is, however, a difficulty with the reference to this source, because Rabbi Meir maintains that the funds remaining in the chamber were consecrated, and therefore one who uses them for his individual purposes transgresses the prohibition against me'ilah. As mentioned above, the Rambam (Hilchot Me'ilah 6:13) does not accept that ruling.

footnotes: ²⁰ There is an apparent difficulty with the Rambam's wording here, which appears to imply that the measures of funds set aside on each occasion were equal. This is inaccurate, for there are far more days between the middle of Iyar - the time of the second separation - and Tishrei - the time of the third - than between Tishrei and Nisan - the time of the first separation. And both of these periods are far greater than the period from Rosh Chodesh Nisan until the middle of Iyar. In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shekalim ²¹ Rosh HaShanah ²² I.e., the funds that were not within the three large baskets and were ordinarily used for other communal purposes.In explanation of this halachah, the Kessef Mishneh

The three smaller baskets into which the funds were set aside and taken outside were labeled alef, bet, gimmel.²³ [In this manner,] he would know to take [the funds] from the first until they were exhausted, and then to take from the second, and then to take from the third. He should fill the first basket from the first large basket, and then cover the large basket with a handkerchief. Afterwards, he should fill the second basket from the second large basket and then cover the large basket with a handkerchief, and then the third basket from the third large basket. He does not cover this large basket with a handkerchief, thus making it apparent that he concluded with it. And he would begin with it when he entered a second time before Shavuot. At that time, he would first set aside [the funds] from the large basket that was uncovered, and then he covered it. He then set aside from the large basket from which he had taken [the funds] first on the previous occasion, and covered it. He would then take funds from the large basket that is next to it. He would not cover this basket, so that [he would know] to start from it in Tishrei, the third time he entered.²⁴ 3:4). (See his Commentary on the Mishnah.) The Ra'avad, Rabbenu Asher, and others offer a different interpretation, which appears to fit more closely the plain meaning of the Jerusalem Talmud's explanation of the Mishnah. Thus, he would have placed [funds] into the first, second, and third of the small baskets from each of the large baskets.

footnotes: ²³ The first three letters of the Hebrew alphabet. The Hebrew letters also serve as numerals. In this instance, it is as though the baskets were labeled 1, 2, and 3. ²⁴ The Rambam's ruling is dependent on his interpretation of the Mishnah (Shekalim

When he placed the funds in these three [small] baskets, he placed the funds in the first basket on behalf of [the inhabitants of] Eretz Yisrael; in the second basket, on behalf of [the inhabitants of] the walled cities surrounding *Eretz Yisrael,*²⁵ 3:4) gives as examples, the inhabitants of the lands of Ammon and Moab. and on behalf of [the inhabitants of] the totality of Eretz Yisrael; and in the third basket, on behalf of [the inhabitants of] Babylonia, on behalf of [the inhabitants of] Media, on behalf of [the inhabitants of] other distant countries, and on behalf of the remainder of the Jewish people.²⁶, then from the surrounding areas, and lastly from the outlying diaspora. Nevertheless, whenever they set aside the money for the communal sacrifices, they had the intent that the money was to be given for the entire Jewish people. It is unlikely that the Rambam would follow this view. It appears that he considers these divisions as merely geographic indicators.

footnotes: ²⁵ Rav Ovadiah of Bertinoro (Shekalim ²⁶ Rav Ovadiah of Bertinoro (who interprets the abovementioned Mishnah differently from the Rambam) explains that the reason for the mention of these three locales is chronological. First, the shekalim would be collected from Eretz Yisrael

When he set aside the funds, he had the intention of including [all those whose shekalim] had been collected and were present in the chamber, [all those whose shekalim] had been collected and had not reached the chamber, and [all those whose shekalim] would be collected in the future.²⁷ 108a, cited by many as the source for this halachah, also mentions that the person setting aside the funds had in mind those people whose half-shekalim were lost and never reached the Temple treasury. Nevertheless, since the lost shekalim were not mentioned in the Jerusalem Talmud (Shekalim 2:1), nor in the Tosefta (Shekalim 2:5), the Rambam also omits mention of them. (See also Chapter 3, Halachot 8-9.) [In this manner,] the shekalim that he set aside to use [to purchase the sacrifices] would serve as atonement for the entire Jewish people. It is as if their shekalim had already reached the chamber, and were included in the money that was set aside.

footnotes: ²⁷ I.e., even if for some reason a person had not given his half-shekel as yet, retroactively he received a share in these sacrifices. In this manner, everyone who ultimately contributes toward the sacrifices will have a portion in all the communal sacrifices, even those offered before his contribution was made.Ketubot

When the person entered to set aside the funds, he should not enter wearing a garment in which he could hide money, nor wearing shoes or sandals,²⁸ 102b, which mentions in this context that it is forbidden to enter the Temple courtyard wearing shoes or sandals. The Rambam quotes this law in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 7:2. nor wearing tefillin or an amulet, lest the people suspect that he hid funds from the chamber underneath them when he set aside the funds. And they would talk to him [continuously] from the time he entered until the time he departed, so that he could not place [a coin] in his mouth. Even though all these safeguards were taken, a poor person or someone who craved money should not [be appointed to] set aside these funds.²⁹ 3:2), which states "A קווץ should not set aside funds." The Rambam interprets this term as referring to either a poor or a greedy individual. The Ra'avad maintains that the term refers to a person with long hair, lest he be suspected of hiding a coin among his locks. [In this way,] the matter will not arouse suspicion, thus [fulfilling the advice of Numbers 32:22]: "You shall be blameless before God and before Israel."

footnotes: ²⁸ See Yevamot ²⁹ The source for this law is the Jerusalem Talmud (Shekalim