BSD

Shkolim 7a

18 Adar 1, 5784. 02/27/24

1 We finished the קדשים topics with our גמרא discussing the  מותר (extra) of bread and wine brought by a נזיר.

2- We mentioned an interesting explanation by the כתב סופר on the  מחצית השקל and פורים.

Firstly, why מחצית only?

Briefly, בני ישראל when they got involved in the חטא העגל, were split into two groups.

Those that actually worshiped this עבודה זרה, and those that planned to worship the עגל but never got around to it.

The former group were dealt with by the בני לוי or perished in the מגיפה. The latter group was spared and it was to them that the commandment of מחצית השקל was directed.

A מחצית only, since their sin was only במחשבה – a מחצית   עבירה, the intent to worship the golden calf. This מחצית השקל was a  full a כפרה on the מחצית עבירה .מחשבה.

Now the גמרא relates that when המן ‘purchased’ with עשרת אלפים ככר כסף the rights from אחשוורוש to annihilate בני ישראל, Hashem told him ‘the שקלים’ given by בני ישראל preceded your שקלים!

What is the meaning of this?

Explains the כתב סופר that המן knew that the גזירה upon the בני ישראל was a result of  עבודה זרה in the time of נבוכדנצר.

שאלו תלמידיו את רשב”י מפני מה נתחייבו שונאיהן של ישראל שבאותו הדור כליה אמר להם אמרו אתם אמרו לו מפני שנהנו מסעודתו של אותו רשע. אם כן שבשושן יהרגו שבכל העולם כולו אל יהרגו? אמרו לו אמור אתה.

אמר להם מפני שהשתחוו לצלם אמרו לו וכי משוא פנים יש בדבר אמר להם הם לא עשו אלא לפנים אף הקב”ה לא עשה עמהן אלא לפנים והיינו דכתיב (איכה ג, לג) כי לא ענה מלבו: מגילה יב, א

However, he also knew that that particular sin was a result of Jews being forced to bow down to עבודה זרה. In other words, an עבירה with מעשה without מחשבה.

So his calculation was to ‘join’ the lingering half sin from the חטא העגל במחשבה, with the half sin of עבודה זרה במעשה of the time of נבוכדנצר . Combining these two halves המן thought will create a negative ‘full’ עבירה and would be a reason for his scheme to work.

Unknown to him was the Mitzvah of giving a מחצית השקל.

As above, ‘the שקלים’ given by בני ישראל preceded his שקלים and wiped out the מחשבה half. There was a כפרה on the half of the עבירה  of the חטא העגל.

What was left was only half an עבירה, the מעשה portion, [the half sin of עבודה זרה במעשה of the time of נבוכדנצר] and therefore the גזירה was נתבטל.

3- The next משנה deals on how to deal with the extra or left over funds from a collection לדבר מצוה such as פדיון שבויים.

We spent some time talking about the unique הלכה of הקדש that as opposed to non-הקדש one cannot gift or acquire an object unless a proper קנין is made.

With הקדש however, just by saying ‘I am gifting this to a Shul’ the object instantly becomes the property of the Shul. This is known as

אמירתו לגבוה כמסירתו להדיוט.

What about צדקה? As the Shulchan Aruch clearly states this rule applies to צדקה as well. See below YD 258, 13,

We also discussed if promising to give a specific amount to צדקה is considered a נדר.

We mentioned the two opinions quoted by the רמ”א (YD 258 13) if one commits mentally to give צדקה but does not utter it – is he obligated to give it?

 

To be continued BL”N next shiur.

4- A famous and perplexing saying by רבן שמעון בן גמליאל that many have attempted to explain.

תני רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר אין עושין נפשות לצדיקים, דבריהם הן הן זכרונן.

Simply translated is that we do not place a מצבה or build a ציון stop a קבר of a צדיק.

The Rambam writes this להלכה.

(הלכות אבל ד,ד): “ובונין נפש על הקבר, והצדיקים אין בונים להם נפש על קברותיהם, שדבריהם הם זכרונם”.

How does this jive with the long history of Jews placing tombstones or large structures atop the קברים of צדיקים???

5- We mentioned what the כתב סופר (YD 189) said at the consecration of the ציון on his father’s, the חתם סופר, burial place.

A grave site serves a double purpose says the כתב סופר:

A – for the נשמה of the deceased by marking the location of his resting place so people can come and pray for his soul.

B – for the people to know this specific location to pray for themselves.

Now when talking about the נשמה of a צדיק, being a righteous person, he personally has no need for people to pray for his soul since, despite having departed this world, his תורה is constantly being recited. The repeating of his תורה is a constant benefit for his נשמה.

Thus, the only reason to build a ציון is for the benefit of the living.

So the meaning of what רבן שמעון בן גמליאל said,  אין עושין נפשות לצדיקים is that a ציון is not built for צדיקים as they don’t need it.

It is only built for those who will come to Daven at his קבר.

We mentioned the fascinating story of how the חתם סופר’s grave survived when the fascists/communists built a road thru the Jewish cemetery in Pressburg/ Bratislava, Slovakia. Much ingenuity was used to preserve this site.

See here and here. If you’re planning a visit, remember to book in advance.

בעל שו”ת כתב סופר (יו”ד סימן קעח) אמר ביום הקמת המצבה על קברו של אביו, החתם סופר, שהתועלת בהקמת מצבה היא גם לנשמתו של הנפטר וגם לאנשים הבאים לפקוד את קברו. התועלת לנשמתו היא בזכרון הנפטר, שלא ישכחו להתפלל בעד נשמתו, ומלבד זאת יש תועלת למתפללים במקום קבורתו של צדיק שבאמצעות המצבה הם מזהים את המקום ויודעים היכן לעמוד ולהתפלל, וכוונת הגמרא היא שאין עושים נפשות לצדיקים לצורך הצדיק, כי אין לנשמתו צורך שיתפללו עליה, שהרי דברי התורה שלה ממשיכים לפעול בעולם, אולם לתועלת האנשים הרוצים להתפלל שם, שידעו את מקום קבורת הצדיק, יש צורך לבנות מצבה על קברו.

 

 

BSD

Shkolim 6b (2)

Adar I 11, 5784. February 20, 2024

Our גמרא was a rather complicated קדשים sugya concerning לשמה and פיגול.

One short note:

We previously encountered the idea that according to בית הלל, an error when being מקדיש is null and void. טעות בהקדש אינו הקדש.

This concept of  אין הקדש בטעות is used in another totally different (and amusing) case.

The case is of a fellow ראובן, that sent שמעון as a שליח to be מקדש לאה, for him. לאה lived in another city and upon the שליח arriving in this city he coordinated with the town leaders and showed them his proxy documentation from ראובן.

After choosing proper עדים for the קידושין he went thru the proper ritual in front of them by saying  ’הרי את מקודשת לראובן’.

Afterwards, the above the עדים said that what they heard him say was actually הרי את מקודשת לי!

When the עדים asked him “why did you say לי”? The שליח swears that “I thought I said הרי את מקודשת לראובן, and חס ושלום I did not mean it for myself. Especially as I already have a wife and how can I hurt her by marrying another woman?”

We digressed to discuss if the חרם דרבינו גרשום had already been enacted. It was indeed after the חרם was accepted, at least in Europe.

רבנו גרשום (מכונה רבינו גרשום מאור הגולה או רגמ”ה; ד‘תש“ך 960^[1] – ד‘תשפ“ח 1028)

רבי מאיר ב”ר ברוך מרוטנבורג נודע בשם המהר”ם מרוטנבורג (אחרי ד‘תתק“פ (1220) – י“ט באייר ה‘נ“ג (1293))

“And if I did indeed say לי, it was because there was a commotion etc”.

The שליח immediately went over to the woman and said הרי את מקודשת’ לראובן’.

So now the question is who is she married to? ראובן or שמעון?

The Maharam of Rothenburg was asked this question and ruled that the שליח is believed that it was an error on his part and has to validity. He bases it on the above opinion of בית הלל that הקדש בטעות is אינו הקדש.

 

בס”ד

BS”D

Shkolim 6b

Adar I 4, 5784. February 13, 2024

Some short notes:

1- Our גמרא offers a reason for the מצווה of פדיון הבן by giving 5 שקלים to the כהן.

רִבִּי בֶּרֶכְיָה רִבִּי לֵוִי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. לְפִי שֶׁמָּכְרוּ בְכוֹרָהּ שֶׁל רָחֵל בְּעֶשְׂרִים כֶּסֶף יְהֵא כָל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד [פוֹדֶה אֶת] בְּנוֹ בְכוֹרוֹ בּעֶשְׂרִים כֶּסֶף.

‘Because they (שבטים) sold the בכור of רחל for 20 silver coins they should pay for their first born 20 silver coins’.

The math is: 20 silver coins equals 5 שקל.

2 – The question as asked by the משך חכמה :

הרב מאיר שמחה הכהן מדווינסק

It’s amazing that the (descendants of) Yosef (the victim), need to give פדיון הבן to the (descendants of) Levi who was the seller!

3 – In continuation of last week, the idea that the מחצית השקל is a כפרה for the מכירת יוסף, we discussed the various explanation on how there were 10 (out of the 12)  שבטים associated in the מכירת יוסף.

The issue is – יוסף was the victim. בנימין was not present at all. ראובן was not present at the time of the sale.

The קרבן העדה removes יוסף and בנימין. Others remove ראובן and בנימין, while including יוסף since he caused the hate of his brothers against him.

4 – We now entered a סוגיא in קדשים which will be IYH continued next week.

The point discussed is the uniqueness of the קרבן פסח as being the only קרבן that can be switched to another קרבן type – namely a שלמים.

This chart of פסוקים was used to get an idea of the concepts.

צאן – שה

כבש – איל – טלה.  Sheep

עז – תיש –  גדי – שעיר. Goats

בקר

עגל – שור- פרה – פר – Bull – cow  – ox

שמות פרק יב –                פסח

ג דַּבְּרוּ, אֶל-כָּל-עֲדַת יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר, בֶּעָשֹׂר, לַחֹדֶשׁ הַזֶּה:  וְיִקְחוּ לָהֶם, אִישׁ שֶׂה לְבֵית-אָבֹת–שֶׂה לַבָּיִת.  ד וְאִם-יִמְעַט הַבַּיִת, מִהְיוֹת מִשֶּׂה–וְלָקַח הוּא וּשְׁכֵנוֹ הַקָּרֹב אֶל-בֵּיתוֹ, בְּמִכְסַת נְפָשֹׁת:  אִישׁ לְפִי אָכְלוֹ, תָּכֹסּוּ עַל-הַשֶּׂה.  ה שֶׂה תָמִים זָכָר בֶּן-שָׁנָה, יִהְיֶה לָכֶם; מִן-הַכְּבָשִׂים וּמִן-הָעִזִּים, תִּקָּחוּ.

 דברים פרק טז, ב

א שָׁמוֹר, אֶת-חֹדֶשׁ הָאָבִיב, וְעָשִׂיתָ פֶּסַח, לַיהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ:  כִּי בְּחֹדֶשׁ הָאָבִיב, הוֹצִיאֲךָ יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ מִמִּצְרַיִם–לָיְלָה.  ב וְזָבַחְתָּ פֶּסַח לַיהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, צֹאן וּבָקָר, בַּמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר-יִבְחַר יְהוָה, לְשַׁכֵּן שְׁמוֹ שָׁם.

ויקרא פרק א –                 עולה

א וַיִּקְרָא, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה; וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה אֵלָיו, מֵאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד לֵאמֹר.  ב דַּבֵּר אֶל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם, אָדָם כִּי-יַקְרִיב מִכֶּם קָרְבָּן, לַיהוָה–מִן-הַבְּהֵמָה, מִן-הַבָּקָר וּמִן-הַצֹּאן, תַּקְרִיבוּ, אֶת-קָרְבַּנְכֶם.

ג אִם-עֹלָה קָרְבָּנוֹ מִן-הַבָּקָר, זָכָר תָּמִים יַקְרִיבֶנּוּ; אֶל-פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד, יַקְרִיב אֹתוֹ, לִרְצֹנוֹ, לִפְנֵי יְהוָה.

י וְאִם-מִן-הַצֹּאן קָרְבָּנוֹ מִן-הַכְּשָׂבִים אוֹ מִן-הָעִזִּים, לְעֹלָה–זָכָר תָּמִים, יַקְרִיבֶנּוּ.

 פרק ב –                  שלמים

א וְאִם-זֶבַח שְׁלָמִים, קָרְבָּנוֹ–אִם מִן-הַבָּקָר, הוּא מַקְרִיב, אִם-זָכָר אִם-נְקֵבָה, תָּמִים יַקְרִיבֶנּוּ לִפְנֵי יְהוָה.

ו וְאִם-מִן-הַצֹּאן קָרְבָּנוֹ לְזֶבַח שְׁלָמִים, לַיהוָה–זָכָר אוֹ נְקֵבָה, תָּמִים יַקְרִיבֶנּוּ.  ז אִם-כֶּשֶׂב הוּא-מַקְרִיב, אֶת-קָרְבָּנוֹ–וְהִקְרִיב אֹתוֹ, לִפְנֵי יְהוָה.  יב וְאִם עֵז, קָרְבָּנוֹ–וְהִקְרִיבוֹ, לִפְנֵי יְהוָה.

פרק ה –                  חטאת

ה וְהָיָה כִי-יֶאְשַׁם, לְאַחַת מֵאֵלֶּה:  וְהִתְוַדָּה–אֲשֶׁר חָטָא, עָלֶיהָ.  ו וְהֵבִיא אֶת-אֲשָׁמוֹ לַיהוָה עַל חַטָּאתוֹ אֲשֶׁר חָטָא נְקֵבָה מִן-הַצֹּאן כִּשְׂבָּה, אוֹ-שְׂעִירַת עִזִּים–לְחַטָּאת; וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו הַכֹּהֵן, מֵחַטָּאתוֹ.

פרק ה –                  אשם

יז וְאִם-נֶפֶשׁ, כִּי תֶחֱטָא, וְעָשְׂתָה אַחַת מִכָּל-מִצְוֺת יְהוָה, אֲשֶׁר לֹא תֵעָשֶׂינָה; וְלֹא-יָדַע וְאָשֵׁם, וְנָשָׂא עֲוֺנוֹ.  יח וְהֵבִיא אַיִל תָּמִים מִן-הַצֹּאן, בְּעֶרְכְּךָ לְאָשָׁם–אֶל-הַכֹּהֵן; וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו הַכֹּהֵן עַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ אֲשֶׁר-שָׁגָג, וְהוּא לֹא-יָדַע–וְנִסְלַח לוֹ.  יט אָשָׁם, הוּא:  אָשֹׁם אָשַׁם, לַיהוָה.

 

 

 

 

BSD

Shkolim 6a (3)

Shvat 27, 5784. February 6, 2024

An enlightening observation made by the Rebbe that is somewhat related to our גמרא.

ירושלמי שקלים ב’:ג’:ה

רִבִּי פִּינְחָס בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי לֵוִי. לְפִי שֶׁמָּכְרוּ בְכוֹרָהּ שֶׁל רָחֵל בְּעֶשְׂרִים כֶּסֶף וְנָפַל לְכָל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד מֵהֶן טִבַּע לְפִיכַךְ יְהֵא כָל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד מֵהֶן נוֹתֵן שִׁקְלוֹ טִבַּע.

1- Reb Pinchas said in the name of Reb Levi the reason behind the מצווה of מחצית השקל is a כפרה for the 10 שבטים that sold Yosef.

What price did they sell him for? It says in פרשת וישב that Yosef was sold for 20 silver coins דינרים.

וַיַּֽעַבְרוּ֩ אֲנָשִׁ֨ים מִדְיָנִ֜ים סֹֽחֲרִ֗ים וַֽיִּמְשְׁכוּ֙ וַיַּֽעֲל֤וּ אֶת־יוֹסֵף֙ מִן־הַבּ֔וֹר וַיִּמְכְּר֧וּ אֶת־יוֹסֵ֛ף לַיִּשְׁמְעֵאלִ֖ים בְּעֶשְׂרִ֣ים כָּ֑סֶף וַיָּבִ֥יאוּ אֶת־יוֹסֵ֖ף מִצְרָֽיְמָה׃

No

A שקל\סלע equals 4 דינרים. So 20 silver coins equals 5 שקלים\סלעים.

Dividing the 20 silver coins  or 5 שקלים\סלעים by the 10 שבטים that participated in the sale of יוסף, equals a half a שקל\סלע per each שבט!

[We still need to understand why all 12 שבטים of כלל ישראל are obligated to give מחצית השקל]

2- Now the ancient question is how do we get to 10 participants when discussing מכירת יוסף?

Firstly, בנימין was not there. Secondly, although ראובן was there when they originally planned to kill him he was not present when they actually sold him. [He was shocked when he returned to the pit and יוסף was not there]

So we’re down to 9.

We will discuss some answers next week IY”H.

3- Now, hundreds of years later, (228?), at the חנוכת המשכן the 12 נשיאים donated numerous gifts to the משכן. Amongst them was a שעיר עזים אחד לחטאת.

This חטאת seems out of place in this נדבה for the משכן. It is explained  that the idea behind it was a כפרה for the מכירת יוסף.

So here too the same question pops up.

Why did שבט יוסף need this חטאת? He was the victim…?

Why did ראובן and בנימין need כפרה as above?

4- The Rebbe (LS 8, page 46, footnote 33) suggests that in regards to יוסף perhaps the reason is that he indirectly ‘caused’ the hatred to him by telling the brothers his dreams.

But בנימין?

in the words of the Rebbe:

“על שלא חפשו אותו כל השנים”!

These few words perhaps encapsulate the Rebbe’s outlook on the obligation of every Jew to his brothers.

Binyomin’s did not search for his brother יוסף.

Binyomin, was was not present at the time of the מכירה. True enough. But  by not searching for his brother he is faulted as much as the ones who actually sold יוסף and needs to bring a חטאת.

5- Our גמרא also states that one must give at least a third of a  השקל per year.

רִבִּי חִלְקִיָּה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אָחָא. מִיכָּן שֶׁאָדָם צָרִיךְ לְשַׁלֵּשׁ שִׁקְלוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה פְעָמִים בַַּשָּׁנָה.

This is not the מצווה of מחצית השקל but the minimum צדקה one must give every year.

A similar גמרא is in בבא בתרא.

9a.

אָמַר רַב אַסִּי ^זלְעוֹלָם אַל יִמְנַע אָדָם עַצְמוֹ [מִלָּתֵת] שְׁלִישִׁית הַשֶּׁקֶל בְּשָׁנָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (נחמיה י,

לג) וְהֶעֱמַדְנוּ עָלֵינוּ מִצְוֹת לָתֵת עָלֵינוּ שְׁלִישִׁית הַשֶּׁקֶל בַּשָּׁנָה לַעֲבוֹדַת בֵּית אֱלֹהֵינוּ

We mentioned that this is actually a הלכה in שלחן ערוך. YD 249, 2, Shach 4.

See the ש”ך where he mentions the מנהג of the גבאי צדקה  walking around the שול on Mondays and Thursdays collecting coins so that even by giving him small coins one will reach a ⅓ of a שקל per year!

He concludes: .ומנהג נכון הוא

6 – We finished the story of last week about the question asked to the  מהרי”ט concerning an אפוטרופוס that donated a large sum of money for a רפואה for the young orphan.

The issue was if this was permissible since an executor of a trust can spend funds of the trust only on items that have a ‘limit’. Such a buying for the יתום  a לולב.

צדקה however, in not allowed because ,אין להם קצבה’, it has no limit.

Now what does קצבה or limit mean?

The מהרי”ט quotes our משנה to understand the definition of קצבה- limit.

מחצית השקל says Reb Shimon has a limit – only an exact מחצית השקל. A חטאת on the other hand has no limit since the cost of an animal can run up to a very large sum. Based on this interpretation of קצבה, donating for a מי שברך has no limit.

However, the מהרי”ט’s bottom line is that a non  קצבה item means  it is a constant occurrence – like צדקה for the poor. It’s endless.

מצוות that do not occur on a constant basis are considered קצבה. They are limited since it may not occur again and thus will not deplete the trust.

Therefore the אפוטרופוס did nothing wrong since it he donated  צדקה for an ailment that is not recurring.

His ruling: an אפוטרופוס should indeed donate by estimating how much the orphan would have pledged based upon the value of the trust.

 

 

 

 

BS”D

Shkolim 6a (2)

Shvat 20, 5784. January 31, 2024

1- משנה.

Collecting small amounts of money for the purposes of having enough coins when the time arrives to give the מחצית השקל.

This collection can play out in a few scenarios.

Scenario #1- One begins placing small amounts by saying “these coins are for the מחצית השקל”.

Scenario #2 – He says “my מחצית השקל will be from these coins”.

[One could of course say nothing and probably avoid all issues]

The difference is when it’s time to actually take from this bowl a מחצית השקל and one realizes that there is more than one מחצית השקל.

What do we do with the extras? Is it הקדש or not.

When saying “these coins are for the מחצית השקל”(Scenario #1) it implies, (if it turns out that the person erred in giving too much, that somewhat) perhaps all the coins become הקדש. Meaning the השקל מחצית and all the rest are הקדש.   It is a טעות הקדש.

The opinion of בית שמאי is that any הקדש made in error is considered הקדש. According to בית שמאי the entire collection is הקדש. According to בית הלל the extra coins are חולין.

[We discussed a case of someone bidding $500 for an עליה thinking that the last bid was $450 (and he upped it by $50) when in reality he misheard and the last bid was only $250! Does he pay $300 or $500?]

However, if he said before placing the first coin into the bowl:

“my מחצית השקל will be from these coins”, (Scenario #2) even בית שמאי would agree that only one half a Shekel becomes הקדש and the rest remain חולין. The reason is that he only meant to take one מחצית השקל when the time comes.

2- We discussed why this does not trigger the famous ברירה question.

ברירה means a ‘retroactive designation’. Like drinking from a bottle of wine of טבל, prior to taking out the percentages for תרומה  and מעשר.

 

If ברירה  works, then he can drink the wine as long as he leaves the minimum for תרומה ומעשר at the bottom of the bottle.

By leaving the required amount in the bottle we then apply יש ברירה and  retroactively designate and say: What is left is/was the תרומה ומעשר that took effect before he started to drink.

May sound funny – but that is the idea behind יש ברירה.

להלכה we do not accept this with items that are דאורייתא. So drinking before הפרשת תרומה ומעשר is not allowed להלכה.

So back to this collection of coins. How can he keep on adding to this pile of coins and at the end just choose a מחצית השקל and the rest remains חולין?

We are basically saying that the מחצית השקל that he took out is the one that originally was הקדש. That sounds a lot like ברירה.

3- Related to ברירה we touched briefly on the author of the שו”ת עונג יום טוב, Reb יום טוב ליפא הלפרין.  The writer was a  מתנגד that (according to some historians) was ousted from his position as the Rov of Mezritch when he decided to place the חסידים of this city in חרם!  See here.

4- We spoke about a case when בית דין is unsure on how to write a גט and להלכה need to write two גיטין to ensure that at least one is כשר. The בית דין writes two גיטין and the husband then gives his wife the two גיטין one after the other. EH 129, 18-19.

Here too we may have the issue of ברירה because when the husband gives the first גט he is unsure if that is a  valid  גט or just a scrap of paper..

The נודע ביהודה writes that in his בית דין he would write two גיטין but would not tell the husband. Only after the husband gave the first he would tell him that the בית דין realized that the גט has an problem and they need to write another one. All of this is to avoid the ברירה issue.

5- The above mentioned עונג יום טוב has a novel idea on the above גיטין dilemma and brings support from our גמרא. See here #166.

His point is that ברירה is an issue only when at the time that the action happened it was necessary to know what occurred. Like the case of drinking from the flask before giving תרומה ומעשר.

One needs to know before drinking any wine what in the bottle is תרומה ומעשר and what is not. That is the definition of הפרשה.  To separate the תרומה and the balance becoming  edible חולין.

Using ברירה allows us to retroactively designate what is what.

Since, as above, we do not accept ברירה at the דאורייתא level, drinking in such a manner is prohibited.

However, says the עונג יום טוב, when there is no need to know at the time what is what, then all would agree that there there is no need for ברירה.

Therefore, in the case of the 2 גיטין, there is no issue with ברירה, since the husband does not care and/or need to know which גט will do the job.

His proof is from our גמרא. We allow for the collection of coins to take place and say that only the single coin that will be chosen for the מחצית השקל is הקדש. The rest is חולין.

What about ברירה? It is obvious that ברירה is not a concern here. Why?

Because all coins look alike and one does not care which coin will eventually be ‘the chosen one’.

6 – We began to talk about another interesting topic also related to our גמרא.

The משנה states that unlike מחצית השקל that is limited in the sense that one can only give an exact מחצית השקל, when collecting money for a חטאת, any mount left is הקדש. The cost of a חטאת has no limit.

The term used is:

אמר רבי שמעון מה בין שקלים לחטאת אלא של שקלים יש להן קצבה ולחטאת אין לה קצבה ר‘ יהודה אומר אף לשקלים אין להן קצבה

This concept (קצבה) is also used in regards to the amount that an אפוטרופוס can spend from the trust of an orphan.

An executor of a trust can  spend money of the trust only on items that have a ‘limit’. Such a buying for the יתום  a לולב.

צדקה however in not allowed because ,אין להם קצבה’. There is no limit.

The case we began to discuss was an אפוטרופוס that donated large amounts of צדקה for a יתום that became ill.

This case is discussed at length by Reb Yossef Trani also known as the מהרי”ט so of the famous מבי”ט. See here.

To be continued.

ומסיימין בטוב.