ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafShekalim 3
(a) The Mishnah in Mo'ed Katan, which adds to a long list of what is
considered public needs that are permitted on Chol ha'Mo'ed that one may
*mark graves* and send out inspectors to check the fields for Kil'ayim -
speaks in a case when a storm blotted out the lime markings, which now
needed to be re-done.
(b) And with regard to sending out inspectors to check the fields for
Kil'ayim - it speaks when the seeds were late in growing, and were not
recognisable in Adar (otherwise they would have gone out already then).
(a) The source for marking graves is the Pasuk in Tazri'a "ve'TameTamei
Yikra" - that when someone is Tamei, it is imperative to warn everyone to
(b) The need to mark human *bones* speaks when *the flesh* has already
(c) A Rova ha'Kav of bones is required for a person to become Tamei through
(a) The Gemara learns from ...
1. ... "Etzem" - that one needs to mark a Rova ha'Kav of bones.
(b) From "u'Banah", we learn that a *fixed* grave-stone must also be marked
- a fixed stone, but not a *loose* one, because this will cause problems if
it is moved to another location, where there is no Tum'ah.
2. ... "Adam" - the spinal cord and the skull.
3. ... "Etzlo" - that one pours lime, not only on the actual grave, but even
around it (to give the Kohen warning before he reaches the grave) (See
Tiklin Chadtin, who explains this Gemara, and subsequently, the Sugya that
4. ... "Tziyun" - that one has to make a mark (i.e. without this word, the
entire Derashah would be senseless).
(c) Even a marked stone whose markings do not extend beyond the stone is
(d) We assume that the corpse that is buried underneath the stone is buried
in a cramped position, in such a way that the stone does in fact, protrude
beyond it. Consequently, if someone were to touch the edge of the stone,
before he realized that it was marked, he would not be Ma'ahil over the
(a) If there are *two* marked stones a distance apart from each other - then
the ground in between them is Metamei be'Ohel, but not the stones
(b) If the ground in between the two stones is plowed - the ground in
between is not Metamei be'Ohel, and we treat the stones as individual ones.
(c) One does not mark human flesh (when there are no bones) - because
eventually, they will decompose, and one will come to treat Tahoros as if
they were Tamei.
(d) It is better to permit a *short-term* situation where someone will walk
over human flesh without realizing it and then work with Taharos, than
create what will ultimately become a *permanent* one whereby one will come
to treat Tahoros as if they were Tamei.
(a) At first, the inspectors used to dig up the Kil'ayim and throw it in
front of the culprits, much to their delight, since a. their fields were now
weeded, and b. their animals enjoyed the benefit of the inspector's work. So
they began throwing it on to the paths.
(b) Nevertheless, the culprits were content with the fact that their fields
were weeded free of charge, and saw no reason to relent.
(c) So the inspectors began penalizing them by rendering their fields
(d) We learn from the Pasuk in Ezra "ve'Chol Asher Lo Yavo ... Yochoram Kol
Rechusho" - that 'Hefker Beis-Din Hefker'.
(a) Beis-Din ha'Gadol should not declare a leap-year ...
1. ... in the Shemitah-year - because it prolongs the prohibition of working
the land, with the result that there will be no crops available for the Omer
and the Shtei ha'Lechem.
(b) Even assuming that, when they did declare either of these two years a
leap-year (thereby rendering its crops Hefker), what grows is also exempt from Ma'asros, there is no proof from here that what the Beis-Din declare
Hefker is even Patur from Ma'asros - because the Beis-Din's declaration is
based on a *Pasuk* "Shamor es Chodesh ha'Aviv" (Re'ei - from which we learn
that Pesach must fall in the spring - and that, the only way of ensuring
this is by declaring a leap-year whenever necessary). Consequently, the
decree is not purely de'Rabbanan.
2. ... in the eighth year - because there is no more Yashan to eat, and by
declaring a leap-year, they are delaying the time-period for Chadash to
(c) From the time that Rebbi permitted the import of vegetables (and
certainly crops) from Chutz la'Aretz, the decree prohibiting the declaration
of the seventh and eighth years as leap-years, became obsolete - because the
people now had food to eat, leaving the wild crops that had grown in the
Shmitah (and which are permitted min ha'Torah) available for the Omer and
the Shtei ha'Lechem.
(d) In addition, the decree only applied to the times of the Beis Hamikdash,
when we lived in our land and the problem of Chadash and Omer and Shtei
ha'Lechem existed. But nowadays (in the times of the Gemara that is) when we
live in Chutz la'Aretz, all this is not a problem, and it is permitted to
declare a leap-year even in the seventh or the eighth years.
(a) If someone made a hay-stack over an area where the poor had not yet
collected 'Leket', all the grains that are touching the ground belong to the
poor (and are Patur from Ma'aser). Rebbi Ami quoting Resh Lakish,
establishes this Beraisa like Beis Shamai - who says that 'Hefker la'Aniyim,
Hefker'. Consequently, it is not due to a penalty that the grains belong to
the poor, but 'min ha'Din'.
(b) According to Rebbi Yossi, it is because Chazal penalized him for
depriving the poor of their right to collect Leket, and declared the entire
area Hefker) - even according to Beis Hillel (who says that, strictly
speaking, 'Hefker la'Aniyim, Eino Hefker'.
(a) On the fifteenth of Adar, the money-changers sat in Yerushalayim (or in
the other towns of Eretz Yisrael) - in order to exchange the people's money
from the local currency into half-Shekalim.
(b) On the twenty-fifth, they sat in the Beis-Hamikdash (or in Yerushalayim)
- That is when Beis-Din began demanding a security from those people who had
not yet handed in their half-Shekel (since time was running out).
(c) They would they take a security from - Levi'im, Yisraelim, Geirim and
slaves who had been set free.
(d) We learn to exempt from half a Shekel ...
- ... women - from the Pasuk in Ki Sisa "ve'Nasnu *Ish* Kofer Nafsho".
- ... slaves - because whenever women are exempt from a Mitzvah, slaves are exempt, too.
(a) A child is considered a Katan with regard to taking a security from him,
until he reaches the age of twenty.
(b) A 'Katan' who is over Bar-Mitzvah, *is* obligated to give a half-Shekel
annually (but not women and Avadim. The Korban Eidah includes women and
Avadim in this Din, but this is very difficult to understand, since we just
exempted them from a Pasuk).
(c) Once the father gives on behalf of his son, he becomes Chayav to give
(a) According to the Tana Kama of our Mishnah, one does not claim a security
from Kohanim because of Darkei Shalom. This cannot be understood literally -
because why should there be any difference between Kohanim and Yisraelim in
this regard (Tiklin Chadtin)? What he must therefore have meant is not
'Darkei Shalom', but 'Mipnei Derech ha'Kavod' (either because they bring the
sacrifices - and taking a security from them will inevitably cause them to
get annoyed; or because of the Mitzvah of "ve'Kidashto" (Emor).
(b) Rebbi Yehudah testifies in the name of Ben Buchri in Yavneh - that a
Kohen (although he was not obligated to give a half-Shekel) would not have
sinned if he *did*.
(c) Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai disagrees - according to him, Kohanim are
*obligated* to give a half-Shekel, no less than Yisraelim. Only they
misinterpreted the Pasuk in Tzav to suit themselves.
(d) "ve'Chol Minchas Kohen Kalil Tihyeh ... Lo Sei'achel" - is written in
connection with the Kohen's private sacrifices. But they went further, and
applied it even to public sacrifices, in which they had a share.
(a) Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai derives the obligation of Kohanim to give half
a Shekel, from the Pasuk in Ki Sisa "Zeh Yitnu" - because "Zeh" is the
numerical value of twelve, hinting that all twelve tribes are obligated to
give half a Shekel.
(b) The Chachamim attempt to prove that there is a distinction between a
Korban Yachid and a Korban Tzibur with regard to the Din of Chatas Meisah,
which is confined to a Chatas *Yachid*, but not to a Chatas *Tzibur*.
Similarly, they maintain, it is only the Korban *Yachid* of a Kohen that
must be completely burned, but not the Korban *Tzibur* (even though they
(c) The Gemara rejects this proof. How can one possibly disprove
someonewrong by using an argument with which he disagrees? Consequently,
this is no proof against Rebbi Yehudah (in our Mishnah), since he holds that
a Chatas Tzibur too, must die.
(d) In fact, Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai's reason here is - because whenever
one donates towards a Korban Tzibur, one hands it to the Tzibur to the point
that one loses personal ownership of the money completely, and it becomes
(a) "Kol ha'Over Al ha'Pekudim" - either means those who passed by the
counted ones (as would appear obvious), or those who crossed through the
(b) According to the former explanation, the Kohanim will be precluding from
having to give half a Shekel (like Ben Buchri) - since *they* did not come
to *Moshe* to be counted (only *he* went to *them*); whereas according to
the latter explanation, the Kohanim too, crossed the Yam-Suf, so they will
also be included in the Mitzvah.
(a) If women, slaves and children donated a half-Shekel - it is accepted,
not so the half-Shekel donated by gentiles and Kutim.
(b) The five obligatory offerings that one cannot accept from gentiles or
from Kutim - are Kinei Zavin, Kinei Zavos, Kinei Yoldos, Chata'os and
Ashamos. Kinei Zavin, Kinei Zavos - apply only to Kutim but not to gentiles,
since (min ha'Torah) gentiles are not subject to Zivus.
(c) We learn from "Ish Ish" (which speaks about Nedarim and Nedavos) - that
gentiles may bring voluntary offerings, but not obligatory ones.
(d) The Tana brings a proof for this from Ezra - who rejected the offer of
the Kutim to help build Yerushalayim and the Beis Hamikdash, informing them
that they could have no part in it.