(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 22



(a) According to Beis Shamai, one burns Kodshei Kodshim that became Tamei inside the Azarah - inside the Azarah.

(b) The sole case where Kodshei Kodshim are burned outside the Azarah - is when they became Tamei *outside* the Azarah through an *Av ha'Tum'ah* .

(a) According to Beis Hillel, Kodshei Kodshim that became Tamei must be taken straight outside and burned there - unless they became Tamei *inside* the Azarah through a *Vlad* ha'Tum'ah (because there are *two* point in its favor:
1. It occurred inside;
2. Its Tum'ah is light.

(b) Rebbi Eliezer goes after the degree of Tum'ah. Whatever became Tamei only through a *V'lad ha'Tum'ah* must be burned *inside* the Azarah even if it became Tamei outside - because, since its Tum'ah is only mi'de'Rabbanan (as we explained, we will even bring it inside the Azarah, in order to fulfill the Mitzvah of burning it in the Kodesh.

(c) According to Rebbi Akiva - the Kodshim must be burned wherever they became Tamei (irrespective of the degree of Tum'ah).

(a) According to 'Bar Kapara, the V'lad ha'Tum'ah referred to in our Mishnah is a Tum'ah de'Rabbanan - e.g. the Tum'ah of liquids (or any other of the eighteen Tum'os decreed by Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel in the first Perek of Shabbos).

(b) Rebbi Yochanan, who learns that the Tana is speaking about Tum'ah d'Oraysa, explains V'lad ha'Tumah to mean that the flesh touched a vessel which touched one of the liquids of a Zav.

(c) The Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan ...

1. ... from Beis Shamai is - why does he permit Kodshim which became Tamei through a Vlad ha'Tum'ah to be taken inside the Azarah - seeing as, when all's said and done, they are Tamei d'Oraysa?
2. ... from Beis Hillel is - why do they permit burning Kodshim inside the Azarah if they became Tamei inside through a Vlad ha'Tum'ah, since there too, the Tum'ah is mi'd'Oraysa?
(d) The Kashya on Bar Kapara from Beis Shamai is - why Beis Shamai make a distinction between an Av ha'Tum'ah which became Tamei *outside* and one which became Tamei *inside*, seeing as both are Tamei mi'd'Oraysa? (It is not however clear, why the Gemara asks this on *Bar Kapara*. The Kashya appears to be one on *Beis Shamai* - since there is no alternative explanation to Bar Kapara's - as far as Av ha'Tum'ah is concerned.)
(a) The Rabbanan did not discuss the Kashyos on Rebbi Yochanan - because they are definitely difficult (and it is not possible to answer them). They did however, discuss the Kashya on Bar Kapara, since they sensed that it was easy to answer.

(b) We see from Rebbi Akiva, answers the Gemara, that we go after the location where the Kodshim became Tamei. That explains why (in the case of when they became Tamei through an Av ha'Tum'ah) Beis Shamai differentiates between whether they became Tamei *inside* or *outside*. Whereas in the case where they became Tamei through a *V'lad* ha'Tum'ah, since there, the Tum'ah is only *mi'de'Rabbanan*, the Chachamim were lenient, even permitting one to take the Tamei Kodshim inside (in order to fulfill the Mitzvah of burning it ba'Kodesh). Note: The Kashya presumed like Rebbi Eliezer, who differentiates between the *degree* of Tum'ah, rather than *where* they became Tamei.

(c) Beis Hillel's distinction between a Vlad ha'Tum'ah (de'Rabbanan) which became Tamei *inside* and one which became *outside* (on which one can ask: since they are both mi'de'Rabbanan, why are they stringent by a case when the Kodshim became Tamei outside?) is based on Rebbi Shimon, who holds that the food and drink of a Metzora may not be brought into the Azarah (even though that which is already there, may remain). Similarly, Chazal were stringent about bringing Kodshim which became Tamei outside, inside even though, that which is already, may be burnt there.

(a) The limbs of both the Tamid and those of the Musaf were initially placed on the lower half of the ramp - the former on the *west* side of the ramp, the latter, on the *east*.

(b) In between the placing of the limbs on the ramp and taking them up to the Mekom ha'Ma'arachah - the Kohanim would go to the Lishkas ha'Gazis to read the Shema (and Daven).

(c) The limbs of the Musaf of Rosh Chodesh were not placed on the ramp at all. They were placed on the Karkov of the Mizbe'ach i.e. on top of the Mizbe'ach, on the Amah surrounding the Mekom ha'Ma'arachah, where the Kohanim used to walk.

(a) Shekalim and Bikurim only apply when the the Beis-Hamikdash is standing; whereas Ma'ser Dagan, Ma'ser Beheimah and Bechor Beheimah apply even when it is not.

(b) the Mitzvah of ...

1. ... Shekalim does not apply nowadays - because there are no Korbanos, and the purpose of the Shekalim is only for the Korbanos.
2. ... Bikurim - because the Torah writes in Ki Savo "Reishis Bikurei Admascha Tavi Beis Hashem Elokecha". Consequently, when there is no Beis Hamikdash, there are no Bikurim.
(c) According to the Tana Kama - this means that there is no obligation nowadays to give a half-Shekel or to bring Bikurim. But if someone designated either of them, they are nevertheless Kadosh.

(d) Rebbi Shimon says that if someone designated Bikurim, they are not Kadosh.

(a) The Musaf of Shabbos preceded that of Rosh Chodesh - because it was Tadir (more common), and whatever is more Tadir, has precedence.

(b) Nevertheless, the Shir of Rosh Chodesh took precedence over that of Shabbos - in order to publicise the fact that it was was Rosh Chodesh.

(c) This would be necessary - because Rosh Chodesh depended upon the the proclamation of Beis-Din (of which not everyone was aware), so Chazal gave the Shir of Rosh Chodesh precedence, as one method of informing the people that it was Rosh Chodesh.

8) The Shir of Rosh Chodesh was sung after the Shechitah of the Musaf of Shabbos, and was followed by the Shir of Shabbos.

9) Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah says in the name of Rebbi Shimon that neither Bikurim nor Shekalim are Kadosh nowadays.


(a) The Tana Kama of the Beraisa rules that a convert is obligated nowadays to set aside a Revi'is Kesef for his Kan - birds which every convert is obligated to bring at the time of his conversion.

(b) According to Rebbi Shimon, Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai annuled this obligation, because of Takalah (the fear that the Hekdesh money may inadvertently be used for Chulin).

(c) For the same reason, one is forbidden to declare something Hekdesh or Cherem nowadays. If one declared Hekdesh ...

  1. ... clothes - they must be burned.
  2. ... an animal - it must be placed in a room and left there without food to die.
  3. ... money - it is thrown into the Yam-Hamelach.



(a) If someone declares his half-Shekel Kadosh (according to Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah), his declaration is invalid - because of the likelihood that, after he has sanctified his half-Shekel, the Beis-Hamikdash will be rebuilt in Nisan (like the Mishkan was) - in which case it will immediately become Terumah *Yeshanah* - and the Korbanos can only be purchased with money from the Terumah *Chadashah*. If, on the other hand, a convert declared money for his Kan Hekdesh - it *does* become Kadosh - because by the Kan of a convert it makes no difference how old the money is.

(b) The Halachah is like Rebbi Shimon in our Mishnah - that nowadays Bikurim are *not* Kadosh, whereas Shekalim and the Kan of a convert are, should the owners designate them.

On to Yoma


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