Implied question: They needed to measure a third of a Hin for [Nesachim of] a ram, and a quarter of a Hin for a lamb!

Answer: They could have [just one measure of a Log, which is a 12th of a Hin, and] measured with Lugim - six Lugim for half of a Hin, four Lugim for a third of a Hin, and three Lugim for a quarter of a Hin.

Note: The answer seems obvious. Also, why did Tosfos need to explain how to measure half a Hin? If there is a way to measure a quarter Hin, we simply do so twice! Also, the question was only that we should not have both measures (a third of a Hin and a quarter Hin). Why did Tosfos need to show how we could manage without either? I suggest as follows. We find that the Torah commands to weigh cinnamon for Shemen ha'Mishchah (Shemos 30:23) in two weighings, for each time one adds a little extra to make the pan with the spices go down (Kerisus 5a). One might have thought that elsewhere, where there is no such Drashah, one must measure at once. Each time one measures liquid in a Kli, some drops remain in the Kli. (Alternatively, every measuring entails a small error due to capillary action (liquid rises a little next to the wall of the Kli) or surface tension (one can fill a Kli slightly above the top, and the liquid will not spill over). Tosfos answers that we are not concerned for this. Further, one need not minimize the number of measurings. One may measure even six times for a half-Hin, even though there is no reason to forbid a measure of half a Hin!

Question: [A Shekel] is 24 Gerah, for "Gerah" is Ma'ah. The Targum of "Esrim Gerah" is Esrin Ma'in;

We say in Kidushin (11b, 12a) that a Sela is four Dinarim, and a Dinar is six silver Ma'ah. [A Shekel of the Torah, which is a Sela,] is 24 Ma'ah!

Answer #1 (R. Tam): In the days of Chachamim they added a sixth to the Sela. Initially it was only 20 Gerah. They added four Gerah.

Answer #2 (Ri): Yechezkel added four Gerah to the Sela. Really, the Chulin Maneh is 25 Sela'im, and the Kodesh Maneh is 50, just initially the Shekel was 20 Gerah, and they added four;

The verse means as follows. The Shekel, which was initially 20 Gerah, and from those Shekalim the Maneh will be 20 Shekalim, 25 Shekalim, and 15 Shekel, i.e. 60 Shekalim in all;

It does not discuss the increased Shekalim, for the Maneh is only 50 of them, twice the Chulin [Maneh]. Rather, it discusses the Shekalim before they were increased.

Implied question: Why did the verse adopt this calculation (20 and 25 and 15), and did not say that it is 60 Shekalim in all?

Answer (R. Tam): They had weights - one was a third of a Kodesh Maneh, one was a commoner's Maneh, and one was a quarter of a Kodesh Maneh.

Support: Targum Yonason [of this verse] is "u'Sela'im Esrin Ma'in Tilsus Manya Esrin Sela'im Mana d'Kaspa Esrin v'Chamesh Sela'im Revi'is Manya Chamesh Esre Sela'im Mana Rava d'Kudsha Yehei Lechon."

Question: This is difficult for the Ri. The Targum connotes unlike his Perush;

If he will say that a third of a Maneh of now is 20 old Sela'im, he should similarly explain that a silver Maneh of Chulin of now is 25 old Sela'im. This is not true. It is 30 old Sela'im!

Explanation #3: Rashi, in his Perush on Yechezkel, explained that Mana d'Kaspa Esrin v'Chamesh Sela'im refers to a Chulin Maneh that used to be.

Inference: It seems that he wants to say like the Ri, that the Chulin Maneh changed.

Question: Why should [the verse] discuss the old Maneh? They changed it!

If those three weights were not [in use] at that time, it should have given the total together, i.e. 60 Shekalim!

Answer (R. Meshulam): The verse mentioned this calculation corresponding to Birkas Kohanim. There are 15 letters in [the first Brachah, which begins] "Yevarechecha". There are 20 in [the second Brachah, i.e.] Ya'er, and 25 in Yisa.

Remark: Perhaps a Midrash says so. We can explain that because Yisrael are blessed through giving Shekalim, Yechezkel gave this calculation in Shekalim.

Explanation (Rashbam): [He forbids taking to Surya] because he holds that Kivush Yachid (Surya was not conquered by all of Yisrael according to Halachah) is not considered Kivush (so it did not get Kedushas Eretz Yisrael).

Implied question: We find also according to the opinion that it is considered Kivush, that they were more stringent in Eretz Yisrael than in Surya!

We say in Gitin (8a) that one who sells his Eved [Kena'ani] to Surya is like one who sells to Chutz la'Aretz (we fine the master, and he goes free), even though [the Tana] holds that [Kivush Yachid] is considered Kivush, like is proven there.

Answer: Even so, the Rashba holds like the Rashbam, since it says "just like we may not take to Chutz la'Aretz, [we may not take to Surya]";

Inference: He holds that it is not considered Kivush, since he equates it to Chutz la'Aretz.

Explanation: The reason it is not considered Kivush is like the Sifri at the end of Ekev learns "Kol Makom Asher Tidroch Kaf Raglechem...";

We learn there that it is only what they conquer in Chutz la'Aretz after conquering all of Eretz Yisrael, "Lachem Yihyeh" (becomes part of Eretz Yisrael). David did not [conquer Surya] according to Beis Din, rather, on his own volition, and he conquered Aram Naharayim and Aram Tzovah before conquering all of Eretz Yisrael. Therefore it is called Kivush Yachid, since he did so on his own volition.

Explanation: Surya is Aram Naharayim and Aram Tzovah.

Support: Arame'ic is called "Sursi' based on Surya, like we say (Bereishis Rabah 75) that the Sursi language should not be light in your eyes, for Torah, Nevi'im and Kesuvim show honor to it;

In the Torah it says "Yegar Sahadusa." In Nevi'im it says "ki'Dena Tomrun Lehon." In Kesuvim, Daniel and Ezra [are partially in Arame'ic].

Inference: Sursi is Arame'ic, for Lavan was from Aram Naharayim, and also Daniel is [partially] in Arame'ic, like it says "the Kasdim spoke to the king in Aramit."

Question: In Bava Kama (83a), a Beraisa says that in Eretz Yisrael, one may not speak Sursi, rather Hebrew or Yevanis, and Rav Yosef said that in Bavel, one may not speak Arami, rather Hebrew or Sursi;

Inference: Sursi and Arami are different!

Answer (R. Tam): They are the same language, but there are several differences, just like La'az (what Nochrim spoke; R. Tam probably refers to French), which varies in different countries.

Support: Unkelos translated "Ed ha'Gal" to be 'Sahid d'Gura', and Lavan called it "Yegar Sahadusa."