Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Shekalim 10

1) PRIVATE DONATIONS FOR PUBLIC KORBANOS

QUESTION: The Mishnah (9b) records an argument between Rebbi Yosi and the Rabanan whether an individual is permitted to donate an item to be used for a public offering, such as the public Minchah offering of the Korban ha'Omer. Rebbi Yosi says that he may donate a public offering, and the Rabanan say that it must come from the property of the public and not from an individual.

The Gemara cites a Mishnah that says that people used to give private donations of wood to be used for the Korbanos, and asks if this Mishnah is in accordance only with Rebbi Yosi's opinion. The Gemara gives two opinions. Rav Acha says that it can only be Rebbi Yosi's opinion, for the Rabanan do not permit such donations from individuals; the wood must come from public donations. Rebbi Yosi in the name of Rav Ila argues and says that since the wood is only a "Machshir" (ancillary use) for the Korban and not the Korban itself, even the Rabanan agree that it may be contributed by private sources.

The Gemara then makes a statement that "a Beraisa argues with Rebbi Yosi" and cites a Beraisa. The Beraisa says that according to the Tana Kama, the annual celebration of each family that donated the wood was observed even after the Churban of the Beis ha'Mikdash, while Rebbi Yosi asserts that the celebrations were observed only during the time of the Beis ha'Mikdash.

In what way does this Beraisa show any disagreement with the opinion of Rebbi Yosi (the Tana of our Mishnah) or Rebbi Yosi in the name of Rav Ila (the Amora in the Gemara)?

ANSWERS:

(a) RABEINU MESHULAM and RABEINU SHLOMO SIRILIYO explain that the Gemara means that the Beraisa contradicts the opinion of *Rebbi Yosi in the name of Rav Ila*, and not the Tana, Rebbi Yosi, in our Mishnah. Rebbi Yosi in the name of Rav Ila asserted that the Rabanan agree that private individuals may contribute Machshirim for public offerings (but not the offerings themselves). The Beraisa is saying that the Rabanan hold that the wood was not brought by the individual families *each year*. They only brought the wood the *first year* after returning from Galus, and thereafter they *celebrated* the day on which they had brought the wood the first year. This must be the case, because if the yearly festival was to celebrate the privilege of donating the wood each year, then why should the Rabanan say that they celebrated even after the Churban? Why should they celebrate if they were no longer bringing the wood to the Beis ha'Mikdash? It must be that they were celebrating the day that they brought the wood the *first* year -- since public offerings and their Machshirin may not be brought by private sources -- and thus the celebration was not dependent on the Beis ha'Mikdash, so they celebrated it every year.

(b) The VILNA GA'ON explains that the Beraisa is not a refutation of Rav Ila, but rather of Rav Acha. Rav Acha asserted that the Rabanan hold that no contributions are accepted from individuals for public offerings. The Beraisa shows that even the Rabanan hold that individuals may donate items for public use, such as the wood for the Korbanos. We see this from the concluding remarks of the Beraisa, which quotes the statement of Rebbi Elazar bar'Rebbi Tzadok.

The statement of Rebbi Elazar bar'Rebbi Tzadok in the Beraisa here (as recorded in Ta'anis 12a and Eruvin 41a) concludes with the words, "Yom Tov Shelanu Havah" -- "It was our private Yom Tov." This shows that his family gave a private donation, and thus they observed a private Yom Tov. Since the Beraisa is discussing the opinions of both Rabanan and Rebbi Yosi, we see that even the Rabanan maintain that private individuals donated the wood for Korbanos.

If, as Rav Acha asserted, the Rabanan do not agree with the Mishnah cited at the beginning of the Gemara, that does not mean that they argue and hold that the individual families brought nothing; rather, it means that they hold that the individual families brought wood that was bought with *public funds* and not with private funds. We see, though, from the Beraisa that even the Rabanan maintain that private donations of the wood were accepted.

(c) The PNEI MOSHE suggests that fundamental to Rav Ila's explanation is the suggestion that the wood is considered Machshirei Korban and not an actual Korban itself, which cannot be donated by an individual.

We see from the Beraisa that the day on which they brought the wood for the Korbanos was celebrated as a Yom Tov. We know from Pesachim (50a) that the day on which a person brought a Korban was celebrated by that person as a personal Yom Tov, and he would refrain from Melachah. We do not find that the day on which a person brings *Machshirei* Korban is considered a Yom Tov. Since they made the day of bringing the wood into a Yom Tov, that proves that bringing the wood was like bringing the Korban itself and not just Machshirei Korban. If so, the Rabanan must maintain that the wood may *not* be brought by an individual, just like any public Korban may not be brought with an individual's donation.

10b

QUESTION: The Gemara cites a Beraisa which states that the Mizbe'ach ha'Olah (the outer Mizbe'ach, in the Azarah) and all of the parts inside of the Azarah of the Beis ha'Mikdash, such as the inner Azaros and the Heichal, are built with money from the Sheyarei ha'Lishkah. Areas outside of the Azarah (such as the Ezras Nashim, etc.) are built with money of Bedek ha'Bayis.

We know that the money from the Sheyarei ha'Lishkah is less Kadosh than the money of Bedek ha'Bayis. First, the Mishnah here states that the money of Sheyarei ha'Lishkah was used to build the walls of the city and its towers and for all of the other public needs of the city, which are not Kadosh. The money of Bedek ha'Bayis could not be used for such purposes, because it is Kadosh. Second, everyone agrees that if one uses the money of Bedek ha'Bayis for his own personal benefit, he is Chayav Me'ilah. There is a Machlokes, though, if one is Chayav Me'ilah for using the money of Sheyarei ha'Lishkah. We see, then, that the money of Sheyarei ha'Lishkah is less Kadosh than the money of Bedek ha'Bayis. If so, why does the Beraisa say that we use the money of Sheyarei ha'Lishkah to build the *more* sanctified parts of the Mikdash, and the money of Bedek ha'Bayis for the *less* sanctified parts?

ANSWERS:

(a) The Gemara in the Bavli (Kesuvos 106b) says the opposite -- the holier parts of the Beis ha'Mikdash are bought with money of Bedek ha'Bayis, and the less holy parts with money of Sheyarei ha'Lishkah. The TALMID RAV SHMUEL BAR SHNEUR and TIKLIN CHADETIN change the Girsa here to conform with the Bavli.

(b) TOSFOS (Kidushin 54b) explains that the two statements of the Beraisa are both saying that those respective parts of the Beis ha'Mikdash may *even* be bought with that type of money. That is, when the Beraisa says that the holier parts of the Beis ha'Mikdash are bought with money of Sheyarei ha'Lishkah, it means *even* with money of Sheyarei ha'Lishkah, and certainly with money of Bedek ha'Bayis. When the Beraisa says that the less holy parts of the Beis ha'Mikdash are bought with money of Bedek ha'Bayis, it means *even* with money of Bedek ha'Bayis, and certainly with money of Sheyarei ha'Lishkah, which is less Kadosh.

That is, the Yerushalmi here is arguing with the Bavli (cited in (a) ) in two respects. First, the Yerushalmi holds that there *is* a Chiyuv Me'ilah if one uses the Sheyarei ha'Lishkah for his own benefit, and thus that money has the same Kedushah as the money of Bedek ha'Bayis. Second, the Yerushalmi holds that the city of Yerushalayim has the same Kedushah as the Azarah, and that is why it may be built from money of Bedek ha'Bayis. The Bavli, though, maintains that there is no Me'ilah with the Sheyarei ha'Lishkah and thus that money is not Kadosh, and the city of Yerushalayim does not have the same Kedushah as the Azarah. Therefore, the rest of the city may *only* be built from the money of Sheyarei ha'Lishkah.

(c) RABEINU MESHULAM says that when Rebbi Meir asserts that one is Chayav Me'ilah for using Sheyarei ha'Lishkah, he does not mean that one is Chayav Me'ilah for merely using Sheyarei ha'Lishkah for his own personal benefit. Certainly everyone holds that one may not use money that was given to the Lishkah of the Beis ha'Mikdash for one's own personal benefit, since it is Kadosh. Rather, Rebbi Meir means that Sheyarei ha'Lishkah are different from other types of Hekdesh, in that an item of normal Hekdesh may be used for another type of Hekdesh. The Sheyarei ha'Lishkah, though, may not be used for another type of Hekdesh; it must be used for the purpose for which it was collected. Therefore, since it was collected in order to buy Korbanos with it, it may not be used for any other purpose according to Rebbi Meir. In this sense, the Sheyarei ha'Lishkah have *more* Kedushah than the Terumas ha'Lishkah. That is why they must be used for the Mizbe'ach, and inner Azaros, since they are considered a direct need for the Korbanos, as opposed to what is outside of the Azarah.