Question (R. Chiya citing R. Yirmiyah): Why do we not say that sometimes they are obligated in both the Kalbon and Maaser Behemah and sometimes they are exempt from both?

How so? If they divided the property but not the animals, they are obligated in both. If they divided the animals and later the property, they are exempt from both.

Rebuttal (R. Mana): That is only true when the animals were not the majority of the estate, but if they were, they are the primary part of the property.

Question (R. Avin citing R. Shimi): Just because you were stringent with them to view them as one man when it comes to Maaser Behemah; will you be lenient with them to exempt them from the Kalbon?

Answer (R. Avin): Is it not different here, as it is as if the father has given one whole Selah?!

Question: If so, even if the brothers divided and then re-established a partnership, they should be obligated in Maaser Behemah and exempt from the Kalbon.

But we learned in the Mishnah that they are obligated in the Kalbon and are exempt from Maaser Behemah?!

(R. Ba citing Aba bar Rav Huna): This law of two brothers who inherit their father is the same as the law of two brothers-in-law who inherited their father-in-law.

(Beraisa): How were the Kalbonos used?

(R. Meir): They were added to the half shekel collection.

(R. Elazar): They were used for buying voluntary Korbanos.

(R. Shimon Shezuri): They were used for the gold plating of the inner walls of the Kodesh HaKodoshim.

(Ben Azai): The moneychangers would take them as their payment,

And some say for the travel expenses (of bringing all of the half shekels to Yerushalayim).

(Mishnah): They can combine Shekels and exchange them for Darkonos, because of the burden of the way. Just as there were collection horns in the Beis HaMikdash, so too in the rest of the country.

If townspeople sent their Shekels (with a messenger) and they were stolen or lost, if the collection had already been emptied in the chamber, the messenger makes an oath to the treasurers.

If not, the messenger makes an oath to the townspeople, and they must give the half Shekels again.

If the original Shekels were then found or returned by the thieves, both are considered to be Shekalim, but they cannot be used in the following year.

(Gemara) Question: Why do the townspeople not exchange their Shekels for precious gems instead of Darkonos?

Answer: Perhaps the value of precious gems will decrease and thereby cause a loss to Hekdesh.

Support (Mishnah in Bechoros): Anything that can be redeemed, it can be done with money or equivalent, aside from redeeming Shekalim (which can only be done with money).

Question: Why can one not redeem Shekalim with utensils?

Answer (R. Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak): Perhaps the value of the utensils will decrease and thereby cause a loss to Hekdesh. So too here, perhaps the value of the precious gems will decrease and thereby cause a loss to Hekdesh.

When the Mishnah spoke about the collection horns, it was referring to the new Shekalim, not those given to pay back for previous years. As a Beraisa taught that there were collection horns for old Shekels in the Mikdash, but not in other places in the country.

The Mishnah's case of the messenger was when he acted as a Shomer Chinam - an unpaid watchman; but if he was a Shomer Sachar - a paid watchman, then he cannot make an oath.

(R. Aba disagrees): It also applies to a Shomer Sachar, as the Mishnah's case is of armed bandits and the case of loss is when his ship sank at sea. (In both these cases, a Shomer Sachar would also be exempt from payment if he made an oath.)

(R. Dustai bei R. Simon): When the Mishnah said that he can make a Shevua, it follows the opinion that they collect the funds in the Lishkah both from that which was collected (but has not yet reached the Lishkah) and that which will be collected (which is why the money in the hands of the messenger was already considered the property of Hekdesh).

But the Mishnah is not speaking according to the opinion that they do not collect from that which was collected and that which will be collected.

The Mishnah discussed what happens if townspeople sent their Shekels (with a messenger) and they were stolen or lost.

(R. Elazar): This is the opinion of R. Shimon who says that Kodshim for which one is responsible is considered like his own property.

(R. Yochanan): In fact all agree to this law, because he will make a Rabbinic Shevua, not a Torah Shevua.

Question: It is fine according to R. Yochanan - We require them to swear to the treasurers, but if not, then to the townspeople. The townspeople then bring other Shekalim in their place, because it is a Rabbinic Shevua;

Conclusion of question: But according to R. Elazar, it is fine that they swear to the townspeople, as it is the opinion of R. Shimon. But what are they doing swearing to the treasurers?

Answer: They swear to the townspeople in the presence of the treasurers so that the treasurers do not suspect the townspeople of not giving their Shekels. Alternatively, it is so that the treasurers do not suspect the townspeople of being negligent in watching their Shekels properly.

Even if the townspeople agreed to pay, the messenger cannot discharge his obligation to Hekdesh without making a Shevua.

If a person separated his half Shekel and then lost it, R. Yochanan says that he is responsible for it until he hands it to the treasurer.

R. Shimon ben Lakish says that Hekdesh is in the domain of the treasury wherever it is (so he is not responsible if it was lost).

(Beraisa) Question against R. Shimon ben Lakish: They swear to the townspeople who then give half Shekels in their place.

Answer: This is also because it is a Rabbinic Shevua.

(Beraisa): The first ones fall to the new Shekels and the second ones fall to the old Shekels.

Question: Which are the first ones and which are the second ones?

R. Pinchas Bei R. Chiya and R. Aba Mari disagreed. One said that the first ones are those that the townspeople originally sent. One said that they are those that were received first by the treasurer.

(Mishnah): If a person gave his half Shekel to his friend to give it on his behalf and the friend gave it for himself; if the Terumas haLishkah was already taken, the messenger has transgressed Meilah.

One who takes his half Shekel from Hekdesh and the Terumas haLishkah was already taken and the animal was already sacrificed, he transgressed Meilah.

If he gave from Maaser Sheni or from Sheviis money, he should redeem it onto a new coin and then he can eat from them.

(Gemara): Concerning the case in our Mishnah that taught of a person who gave his half Shekel to his friend, we learned the condition that 'if the Terumas haLishkah was already taken'. But it was taught in the House of Rebbi, 'if the animal was already sacrificed'.

Question: Who is the Tana that taught 'if the Terumas haLishkah was already taken'?

Answer: It is R. Shimon, who said that the one who supplies would immediately receive his money as the Kohanim are diligent.

Question: If someone stole the Olah offering of his friend and slaughtered it (without stating who it is for), would it not usually atone for the original owner?

Answer (R. Yudan): It was a specific Shekel, like those of the House of Rabban Gamliel who would throw his Shekel with intention and the treasurer would push it into the basket (to ensure that it fell into the collection of coins that would be used to buy sacrifices, rather than fall into the other remaining Shekels).

Question: Should we not be concerned that the half Shekel was not used to buy the sacrifices and instead it fell amongst the remaining Shekels that were in the Lishkah? Is there a prohibition of Meilah for those remaining?

Answer: Rather, the Mishnah follows R. Meir, who says that there is Meilah for those remaining.

Answer #2: It was a specific Shekel, as we find that the House of Rabban Gamliel would throw with intention and it would be collected in his name.

Question: What benefit is there? (One only transgresses Meilah when he received benefit!)

Answer (R. Avin citing Rabbanan of Bavel): Since Beis Din could have forced him to pay by taking collateral but they did not, it is as if he benefited.

The Mishnah taught 'from Maaser Sheni etc.' - as the Pasuk states (Vayikra 27), "But the first born which will be chosen to Hash-m as an animal, a person should not sanctify it." This teaches that anything that is already Kodesh, Kedushah does not take effect upon it.

Question: How does he do it?

Answer: He brings a regular Sela and says, 'The money of Maaser Sheni, wherever they are, should take effect on this Sela (making it Kadosh)'. That Sela becomes Maaser Sheni and the remaining coins will become Shekalim.