THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question about the Daf
SHEKALIM 10 (5 Teves) - Dedicated to the memory of Max (Meir Menachem)
Turkel, on his Yahrzeit, by his wife Jean and children Eddie and Lawrence.
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
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
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)?
(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
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.
2) BUYING HOLY THINGS WITH THE NON-HOLY SHEYAREI HA'LISHKAH
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?
(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
(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.