(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Shekalim 7

SHEKALIM 6-8 (1-3 Teves) - the Dafyomi study for the last days of Chanukah and 3 Teves has been dedicated to the memory of Hagaon Rav Yisrael Zev Gustman ZaTZaL (author of "Kuntresei Shiurim") and his wife (on her Yahrzeit), by a student who merited to study under him.



(a) If the Mosar *was* the Shelamim - then it will be a Shelamim.

(b) The third Korban of a Nazir is an Olah.

(c) According to Rebbi Zeira, even the Mosar *Shelamim* of a Nazir goes to Nedavah, because it is a Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai that all of a Nazir's Korbanos go Nedavah.

(a) 'Kol she'Demei Chatas Me'uravos Bahen, Ma'os Setumin Hein' - speaks about a Nazir who designated the money for his three Korbanos and died. If the money for the Shelamim and the Olah remain Stam (mixed and *not* yet designated), even though the money for the Chatas *was* designated, it all goes to Nedavah. So we see, that, because the money for the Chatas was once mixed together with them, 'Mosar Nazir li'Nedavah' (even of the Shelamim and the Olah).

(b) The second Beraisa speaks when he designated the money for his Chatas separately, and the money for the two other Korbanos mixed together.

(c) 'Mo'alin be'Chulan ve'Ein Mo'alin be'Miktzasan' - means that if he uses only *some* of the unspecified money, he is not Mo'el (because it may be the money of the Shelamim, for which there is no Me'ilah). He is only Mo'el when he uses all of it, when he is bound to have used the money of the Olah. (Note: It is not clear why one needs to use *all* of it in order to be Mo'el. Why should it not suffice to use a little more than half?)

(d) Should the Nazir then die, the Chatas-money is thrown into the Yam- ha'Melach, whereas the other money is divided into two, half for an Olah and half for a Shelamim. Clearly then, the Olah and the Shelamim of a Nazir do not necessarily follow the Chatas.

(a) According to Rav Chisda, the Mosar ha'Lechem of the Nazir must be left to rot. The bread ...
1. ... cannot be brought on its own - because nowhere do we find the bread of the Nazir being brought on its own, without the accompanying Korbanos.
2. ... cannot be used for someone else's Korban Nazir - because every Nazir is obligated to bring bread together with his Korban.
(b) The Mosar Nesachav of the Nazir is sold and its proceeds go to Nedavah - because it is Kodesh Kodoshim, whose Mosar goes to Nedavah (whereas the bread is not).

(c) According to Rebbi Yossi bar Rebbi Bun - Mosar Nesachim li'Nedavah; according to Shmuel - Mosar Machtzis ha'Shekel li'Nedavah, and according to Rebbi Elazar - Mosar Asiris ha'Eifah li'Nedavah.

(d) Rebbi Yochanan holds that Mosar Asiris ha'Eifah must be thrown into the Yam ha'Melach.

  1. ... 'Mosar Shevuyim - li'Shevuyim'.
  2. ... 'Mosar Shavuy - le'Oso Shavuy'.
  3. ... 'Mosar Aniyim - la'Aniyim'.
  4. ... 'Mosar Ani - le'Oso Ani'.
  5. ... 'Mosar ha'Meisim - le'Meisim'.
(b) According to the Tana Kama, 'Mosar ha'Mes le'Yorshav'.

(c) According to Rebbi Nasan, 'Mosar ha'Mes Bonin lo Nefesh al Kivro'.

(a) Rebbi Idi from Chutra holds that, if, after the money has been collected for the burial needs of a man who died, it is discovered that the money is not needed, the money should be returned to the donors - since it was only collected for the deceased man, and if *he* does not need it, how will the heirs acquire it?

(b) A tomb-stone is called a Nefesh - because it perpetuates the Soul of the deceased.

(c) The Tana of the Beraisa adds to 'Bonin Lo Nefesh' - 've'Ye'aseh Lo Ziluf al Gabei Mitaso'.

(d) Although the money that is collected to redeem a specific captive should not be used to redeem a more important one - one does not however, stop the Gaba'im from doing so (or from changing any Tzedakah to one that they consider more important - because it is with that in mind that people donate Tzedakah).

6) According to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, one does not build a tomb-stone over the grave of a Tzadik - because the words of Torah that he leaves behind as a legacy, perpetuate his memory, and no tombstone is necessary.


(a) When Rebbi Eliezer (presumably this refers to Rebbi Elazar ben Pedas - the Amora) saw Rebbi Yochanan coming towards him leaning on Rebbi Chiya bar Aba, he hid. Rebbi Yochanan was cross with him for two reasons - firstly, because he failed to greet him; secondly, because he hid.

(b) Rebbi Ya'akov bar Idi defended Rebbi Eliezer - by pointing out that, based on the Pasuk in Iyov "Ra'uni Ne'arim Nechba'u", (and as a mark of respect) it was the custom in Bavel not to greet someone greater than oneself (and Rebbi Eliezer was from Bavel).

(c) Rebbi Chiya bar Aba then asked Rebbi Yochanan whether one is permitted to honour an idol by walking in front of an it. When he replied that *that* was not considered an honour, and that one may as well show one's contempt by just ignoring it and walking past, Rebbi Chiya retorted that, if that was so, seeing as the custom in Bavel was not to greet someone greater than oneself, then Rebbi Eliezer would have gained nothing by walking in front of him, and that consequently, there was nothing wrong with hiding before him.




(a) Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Asi cited the episode that took place in the Beis Hakenesses of the Tarsi'im where Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yossi argued so vehemently that, in their anger, a Sefer-Torah was burnt. Subsequently, Rebbi Yossi ben Kisma commented that it seemed to him that they were guilty of idolatry (because of the principle 'Kol ha'Ko'es, Ke'ilu Oved Avodah- Zarah'). They were hinting to him that anger, even when it is linked with Torah, is undesirable.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan remained unimpressed - because by a Talmid who does have full respect for his Rebbi, anger is fully justified.

(c) Rebbi Ya'akov bar Idi pacified Rebbi Yochanan by quoting the Pasuk in Yehoshua "Ka'asher Tzivah Hashem es Moshe, Kein Tzivah Moshe es Yehoshua", which demonstrates that everything that Yehoshua ever taught, he received from Moshe. Now is it plausible that he actually quoted Moshe each and every time he taught a Halachah? The truth is that this was not necessary, since everybody knew that whatever he said came from Moshe. Similarly, everybody knows that whatever Rebbi Eliezer Darshens, he received from Rebbi Yochanan, and it is not therefore necessary to quote him directly.

(d) Rebbi Yochanan made an issue out of Talmidim repeating his sayings in his name - even in his life-time). The proof for this is from the Pasuk in Tehilim "Agurah be'Ohalecha Olamim Echeseh be'Seiser Kenafecha Selah". Did David really think that he would live forever? What he must really have meant is that he wanted his Divrei Torah to be repeated in the Shuls and the Batei-Medrash even after his death. And if people would not do so in his life-time, what chance did he have that they would do it after his death!

(a) The Gemara proves from the Pasuk "ve'Chikech ke'Yein ha'Tov ... Dovev Sifsei Yesheinim" - that in the same way as the vat in which the wine is fomenting, begins to bubble when one places one's finger on it, so too, do a Tzadik's lips begin to move in his grave when someone repeats his Divrei Torah after his death.

(b) The Gemara describes the pleasure that a dead man experiences when his Divrei Torah are quoted - like the lingering taste of spiced wine or old, vintage wine.

(c) The difference between the two descriptions is that, according to the former description, he will also need to have performed exceptionally outstanding deeds, just like the spices, which are added to the wine.

(d) A person can ensure that he quotes his Rebbe's sayings correctly - by picturing him in his mind as he speaks.

(a) Rebbi Zeira was special inasmuch as he would quote someone only if he knew for sure that he had really said it.

(b) He not take the rulings of Rav Sheshes too seriously - either because Rav Sheshes was blind, and he could never be certain that he was quoting the person he thought he was, or because, since he had not seen the person who taught him, he was never able to picture him in his mind, and was therefore easily capable of misquoting him.

(c) Rebbi Asi was certain that the quotations that he heard in the name of ...

1. ... Bar Pada really came from Bar Pada and were not fabrications - because *Rebbi Yochanan* (who was completely reliable) quoted him.
2. ... Rav really came from Rav and were not fabrications - because Rav Ada bar Ahavah quoted him.
(a) David's statement in Tehilim "Samachti be'Omrim Li Beis Hashem Neilech" is truly incredible - because this followed the snide comments of his enemies, who would pass his window and announce 'David, when will the Beis Hamikdash be built? When will be able to go and visit it'? They did this, in the full knowledge that *David* was not permitted to build it, and that it was *his son* who would do so - after his father's death! In spite of that, David was happy that people were expressing a desire to go up to the Beis Hamikdash, or because it reminded him of its imminent construction, even it did mean that he had to die first. In this point, David Hamelech is compared to Moshe Rabeinu, who immediately sent soldiers to fight with the Midianim (to avenge the honor of Yisrael) - even though he knew that his death would follow.

(b) The significance of the Pasuk ...

1. ... in Shmuel "ve'Hayah Ki *Yimle'u Yamecha* ve'Shachavta es Avosecha" is - that in spite of the importance of the Beis Hamikdash, Hashem promised that he would not detract one iota from David's life (that he would even live the full year from day to day - to die on his birthday - that Tzadikim merit) even if it meant that the Beis Hamikdash has to wait.
2. ... in Mishlei "Asei Tzedakah u'Mishpat, Nivchar la'Hashem mi'Zevach" is - that Hashem preferred the Tzedakah and Chesed that were the hallmark of David, to the Korbanos that Shlomoh would bring in the Beis-Hamikdash.
***** Hadran Alach 'Metzarfin Shekalim'! *****

***** Perek 'bi'Sheloshah Perakim' *****

Halachah 1


(a) According to Rebbi Akiva, they draw from the Lishkah on P'ros ha'Pesach (fifteen days before Pesach), on P'ros ha'Atzeres (fifteen days before Shavu'os) and on P'ros ha'Chag (fifteen days before Sukos).

(b) These dates corresponded to the dates on which Chazal instituted taking Ma'aser Beheimah.

(c) From these three dates and onwards, it becomes forbidden to eat the new- born animals (mi'de'Rabbanan) until they are Ma'asered.

(d) Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon give the three dates for Ma'aser Beheimah as the first of Nisan, the first of Sivan and the twenty-ninth of Elul. Strictly speaking, the last date should have been on the first of Tishri. However, since one cannot Ma'aser on Yom-Tov, they brought it forward by one day.

(a) '*P'ros* ha'Pesach means *half* of the thirty-day period which Chazal fixed before each Yom-Tov to study the Halachos.

(b) When Rebbi Yochanan gives the reason for the three dates of Ma'aser Beheimah as being that these are the birth-seasons - he means that the first date corresponds to the early births, the second, to the regulars and the third, to those who give birth late.


1. ... 'Kedei she'Tihye ha'Beheimah Metzuyah le'Olei Regalim' - means that there should be animals available to them for Yom-Tov, both for Korbanos and for personal use. Towards this end, Chazal fixed these dates (close to the Yamim-Tovim), even placing a prohibition on the people to eat their new-born animals earlier.
2. ... 'she'Lo Yavo Liyedei Bal Te'acher' means that - since they have just Ma'asered their animals, they will remember to sacrifice them on Yom-Tov (otherwise, they may well forget to do so). Alternatively, this is the reason that Chazal instituted the obligation to Ma'aser three times annually. Had they just Ma'asered once a year, they would have remained with too many animals to take to Yerushalayim on the following Yom-Tov, and, once the animals remain at home, we are afraid that they may transgress Bal Te'acher.
(d) Rebbi Yossa says that, once the fixed time for Ma'asering his new-born animals falls due, someone who refrains from Ma'asering them (in spite of the fact that one is permitted to sell and even to Shecht animals before they have been Ma'asered) transgresses Bal Te'acher mi'de'Rabbanan.
Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,