Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 4, scan section 7

TRACT SHEKALIM. . 9 {d) R. Simeon says : " What difference is there here between the Shekalim and the sin-offerings ? Shekalim have their fixed value, but sin-offerings have not."^ R. Jehudah says: " Even Shekalim have no fixed value; for when Israel returned from captivity, (half-) Darkons were paid; later (half-) Selas were paid ; again, Tabas (half-shekels) were current (but not accepted), and finally people would only pay with Dinars." * Rejoined R. Simeon: " Nevertheless, the Shekalim were all of like value at one and the same time, while as for sin-offerings, one brings one Sela's worth, another two, and a third three Selas' worth. "^ {e) The remainder of moneys intended for Shekalim is not money, and declared that he would use this sum for the payment of his shekalim tax, the remainder which he may have after such pay- ment is, even according to the school of Hillel, to be devoted for a voluntary offering. With money devoted for a voluntary offering, whole-offerings only were to be bought. MisHNA d. ' By his teaching in this Mishna, R. Simeon wishes to explain the reason of the decree of the school of Hillel concerning the remainder of money which had been gathered little by little for the purpose of paying the Shekalim, or for the bringing of a sin- offering, and says: "Because it is written [Exodus xxx. 15J, 'The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less, than the half of a shekel,' a man when gathering money for the payment of Shekalim knows exactly how much he will need; hence, although he separated the amount gathered, the remainder is ordinary money; but if he gathered money for a sin-offering, which has no fixed value, and for which he did not know exactly how much he would have to pay, his intention in separating the money was evidently to use the entire amount for such purpose, and hence the eventual remainder, which cannot be used for a sin-offering, as it is already sacrificed, should be used for a voluntary offering." " R. Jehudah differs with R. Simeon, and states, that the reason given by the latter for the decree of the school of Hillel cannot be correct, for even Shekalim had not always a fixed value, and when a man commenced to gather money for the payment of his Shekalim he also may not have known how much he would have to pay when the time came, because the value of the coin might be changed in the meantime. 'R. Simeon answered R. Jehudah very properly: "Even if the value of the coin was changed, the man knew well that he would pay a certain sum equal to that paid by all others, and the entire amount lo THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. sanctified.^ The remainder of moneys intended for the offering of the tenth part of an ephah [Lev. v. xi.] (sin-offering of the poor), for bird-offerings of men or women afflicted with venereal disease and of women that had been recently confined, and for sin and guilt offerings, are considered voluntary ofTerings. Fol- lowing is the rule: The remainder of everything designated for sin and guilt offerings is considered as a voluntary offering.^ The remainder of whole-ofTerings is applied to whole-offerings,^ of food-offerings to food-offerings, of peace-offerings to peace-offer- ings; that of the Passover-offerings to peace-offerings, and that of Nazarite-offerings to Nazarite-offerings. The remainder of such (offering) as is designated for a certain Nazarite is a vol- untary offering. The remainder of moneys for the poor in gen- eral, belongs to the poor; of money collected for a certain poor man belongs to that same poor man. The remainder of ransom moneys for prisoners is applied to (the ransom of) other prisoners ; of moneys collected for a certain prisoner belongs to that prisoner. The remainder of burial moneys is applied to (the burial of) other dead ; of money collected for a particular dead (man) belongs to that he had gathered would not be consumed; as for a sin-offering, however, he never knew exactly just what amount he would need for its purchase, because it had no fixed value; therefore, when he separated the money from other moneys his intention was to use the entire amount." MiSHNA e. ' After explaining the opinions of both schools (Shamai and Hillel) in the preceding Mishna, and the Halakha, as usual, pre- vailing according to the school of Hillel, this Mishna states the final Halakha anonymously, and then cites the subsequent ordinances, concerning which there is no difference of opinion. * The reason for this rule is: A sin or guilt offering must be brought for each sin separately. If money was designated for one sin-offering, the remainder cannot be applied to another offering for the same sin, nor for another sin which one might commit in the future, hence the remainder must be a voluntary offering. ' The remainder of whole-offerings may be used for more whole- offerings, because the quantity of whole-offerings, which are volun- tary, is not limited. The same applies to food and peace offerings. The remainder of Passover-offerings, however, which cannot be used for the same purpose again, and should, however, be used for an eat- able sacrifice, cannot be used for a voluntary offering, which is a whole-offering, but for a peace-offering, which is eatable. TRACT SHEKALIM. ii the legal heirs. R. Meir says: " The remainder remains intact until EHjah comes again " (as the herald of the resurrection).* R. Nathan says: " It should be applied to the building of a gravestone for the departed." *The reason for R. Meir's dictum is: He holds, that if money is collected for a certain dead man, the remainder belongs virtually to him, i.e., should be applied only for the use of the corpse; hence the heirs have no share in it. R. Nathan, however, says, that the set- ting up of a gravestone is for the use of the corpse, it being m his honor and not of any benefit to the heirs. . CHAPTER III. MISHNA: [a) At three periods of the year money is drawn - from the treasury (of the Shekalim) ; viz. : Half a month before Passover, half a month before Pentecost, and half a month be- fore the Feast of Booths. The same dates are also the terms for the obligation of cattle-tithing, so says R. Aqiba. Ben Azai says: " The dates for the latter terms are the twenty-ninth of Adar, the first of Sivan, and the twenty-ninth of Abh." R. Eliezer and R. Simeon both say: " The first of Nissan, the first of Sivan, and the twenty-ninth of Elul." But why do they say the twenty-ninth of Elul, why not the first of Tishri ? Because that is a feast-day, and it is not allowed to tithe on a feast-day ; therefore they ordained it for the preceding day, the twenty- ninth of Elul.* {b) The money drawn from the treasury was brought in three chests, each of three Saahs' capacity. On these chests was written: Aleph, Beth, Gimmel. R. Ishmael says: " They were