(a)Leviyim, Yisraelim, Geirim and freed slaves had to pay Kalbon. What is Kalbon and which four groups were exempt from paying it?
(b)If someone who was Patur from paying Kalbon borrowed from someone who was Chayav, was he obligated to pay Kalbon?
(c)How many Kalbonos did someone who paid one Shekel on behalf of himself and his friend (in the form of a loan) have to pay according to the Tana Kama, and what is the reason for this?
(d)What does Rebbi Meir hold in this case?
(a)Kalbon is the little bit extra that everyone had to add (according to some Tana'im - as will be clarified later) when giving their half-Shekel. Kohanim, women, slaves and children were exempt from Kalbon.
(b)If someone who was Patur from paying Kalbon, borrowed from someone who was Chayav, he did not need to pay Kalbon (Note: Had the latter paid directly to the treasurer of Hekdesh, he would have been Patur even if he had done so on behalf of someone who would have been Chayav.
(c) According to the Tana Kama, someone who paid one Shekel on behalf of himself and his friend (in the form of a loan) is obligated to pay only one Kalbon, because he gave a whole Shekel (but someone who gave a half- Shekel, according to this Tana, does not need to give a Kalbon).
(d)Rebbi Meir holds that any Bar Chiyuva who pays his half-Shekel, is obligated to pay Kalbon. Consequently, if he pays a whole Shekel on behalf of himself and his friend, he must pay two Kalbonos.
(a)How do we reconcile the Reisha of the Mishnah, which states that we claim the half-Shekel from a Katan, with the Seifa, which exempts him completely?
(b)Gentiles are permitted to bring voluntary sacrifices. What do we learn from the Pasuk in Terumah "Daber el Bnei Yisrael v'Yikchu Li Terumah"?
(c)Our Mishnah seems to places a Kuti on a par with a gentile. How does Rebbi Elazar establish the Mishnah even according to the Rabanan of Rebbi, who considers Kutim to be gentiles in all regards?
(d)What is the proof for Rebbi Elazar from the Beraisa "Adam (Ki Yakriv)" - 'Lerabos es ha'Geirim; "Mikem (Korban)" - 'Lema'et es ha'Mumarin'?
(a)The Reisha of the Mishnah, which states that we claim the half-Shekel from a Katan, speaks about one who is over thirteen and who has grown two hairs, whereas the Seifa, which exempts him completely, speaks when he has not.
(b)We learn from "Daber el Bnei Yisrael v'Yikchu Li Terumah" - that even though gentiles are permitted to donate voluntary sacrifices, obligatory ones are confined to Bnei Yisrael.
(c)The author of our Mishnah, replies Rebbi Elazar, could well be Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, who considers Kutim, Jews (albeit poor ones). It is only gentiles that the Tana of our Mishnah exempts, not Kutim.
(d)We see from the Beraisa ("Adam" - 'Lerabos es ha'Geirim; "Mikem" - 'Lema'et es ha'Mumarin') that although we preclude Mumarin (Jewish apostates) from bringing Korbanos, we do not preclude converts (e.g. Kutim, even if they are apostates).
(a)What is wrong with establishing the Seifa of the Mishnah (regarding Kinei Zavin v'Zavos) by gentiles?
(b)So we establish the Reisha by gentiles and the Seifa by Kutim. Is this acceptable?
(c)But did we not learn earlier (from Ezra), asks the Gemara, that one cannot accept anything from the Kutim for the building of the Beis Hamikdash? So how can we establish the Reisha by gentiles - and not by Kutim? What distinction does Rebbi Yochanan make to reconcile the Mishnah with that Halachah? What is a Davar Mesuyam (see Tiklin Chadtin)?
(d)How will Rebbi Yochanan interpret the Beraisa: 'Ein Mekablin Meihen Hekdesh u'Nedavah l'Bedek ha'Bayis'?
(a)How can we possibly establish the Seifa of the Mishnah by gentiles - when gentiles are not subject to Zivus in the first place?
(b)The Gemara concludes that it is perfectly acceptable to establish the Reisha by gentiles and the Seifa by Kutim.
(c)Rebbi Yochanan explains that with regard to the initial building of the Beis Hamikdash, one accepts nothing from the Kutim. Once it is built however, and it is only a matter of maintenance (known as Bedek ha'Bayis), they may donate things that cannot be pinpointed (such as water and salt) - according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel (The reason for this is because a. it is degrading to be able to point out that such and such was donated by a Kuti, and b. because we suspect that he is only donating it in order to brag).
(d)According to Rebbi Yochanan, the Beraisa: 'Ein Mekablin Meihen Hekdesh u'Nedavah l'Bedek ha'Bayis' - speaks about donating something specific, even if it only for the maintenance of the Beis Hamikdash.
(a)According to Resh Lakish, one may not even accept something that is not specific. How will he establish our Mishnah?
(b)How will Resh Lakish explain the Mishnah in Erchin: 'ha'Kol Shavin she'Hein (Nochrim) Nodrin (ve'Nidarin)'?
(c)And how will he then interpret 've'Nidarin'? How can a gentile be forced to bring a sacrifice against his will?
(d)What remains difficult on Resh Lakish from the fact that every Neder and Nedavah requires Nesachim?
(a)According to Resh Lakish, who maintains that one may not even accept something that is not specific, the Reisha of our Mishnah includes Kutim, and the author is Rebbi, who considers Kutim like gentiles.
(b)Resh Lakish will establish the Mishnah in Erchin ('ha'Kol Shavin she'Hein [Nochrim] Nodrin [ve'Nidarin]') by Olos, but not by Bedek ha'Bayis (It is unclear why the Gemara asks specifically on Resh Lakish, and not on Rebbi Yochanan, who agrees that a gentile cannot donate anything to Bedek ha'Bayis.) Nor is it clear why, from now on, the Gemara appears to assume that gentiles too, have the same Din that, until now, we ascribed to Kutim exclusively.)
(c)Resh Lakish interprets 'Nidarin' with reference to a gentile who overheard a Jew making a Neder to bring an Olah, and he said that he would do the same. (Note: there would have been no problem in the first place had the Beraisa been speaking about Bedek ha'Bayis, because then we could have explained Nidarin to mean that a Jew made a Neder to give the value of a gentile to Bedek ha'Bayis.)
(d)The Kashya remains on Resh Lakish however, from the fact that every Neder and Nedavah requires Nesachim - and 'Mosar Nesachim li'Klei Shares' (which is Bedek ha'Bayis).
(a)Why is the above Kashya (that every Neder and Nedavah requires Nesachim - which goes towards purchasing K'lei Shares) just as much a Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan as it is on Resh Lakish?
(b)We answer Rebbi Yochanan with another Kashya from the Mishnah in Erchin: 'Ne'erachin v'Orchin'. What is the Kashya from there?
(c)How do we now answer both Kashyos with one stroke?
(a)The above Kashya (that every Neder and Nedavah requires Nesachim - which goes towards purchasing Klei Shares) is just as much a Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan as it is on Resh Lakish - because Klei Shares are specific, and we just learned that even according to Rebbi Yochanan, we do not accept from gentiles (Kutim?) something specific.
(b)The Mishnah in Erchin says: 'Ne'erachin v'Orchin' - which also goes to Bedek ha'Bayis. What does Rebbi Yochanan do with that?
(c)We must therefore say that since he is donating with a full heart (not directly to Bedek ha'Bayis directly - we cannot suspect him of donating in order to brag), the fact that we take the money and use it for Bedek ha'Bayis doesn't matter. Similarly, according to Resh Lakish, the gentile brings his Olah together with his drink-offering. The fact that Mosar Nesachim later goes to Bedek ha'Bayis, doesn't matter.
(a)How does Resh Lakish explain the Pasuk in Ezra "Lo Lachem v'Lanu Livnos es Beis Elokeinu", which implies that one may accept nothing at all from gentiles?
(b)May one accept donations towards the maintenance of Yerushalayim (such as the streams of water, the walls and the towers) from them?
(a)Resh Lakish confines the Pasuk in Ezra "Lo Lachem v'Lanu Livnos es Beis Elokeinu" (implying that one may accept nothing at all from gentiles) to the actual construction of the Beis Hamikdash itself, but not to Bedek ha'Bayis, where one may accept from them indirectly, as we just explained.
(b)The maintenance of the walls of Yerushalayim (etc.) has the same Din as the construction of the Beis Hamikdash, from which gentiles are completely precluded.
(a)Why must the author of our Mishnah: 've'Eilu Chayavin b'Kalbon' ... be Rebbi Meir?
(b)How does Rebbi learn that from the Pasuk in Ki Sisa "Zeh Yitnu"?
(a)'ve'Eilu Chayavin b'Kalbon' implies that whoever is Chayav Machatzis ha'Shekel is also Chayav to pay Kalbon - that is the opinion of Rebbi Meir.
(b)"Zeh Yitnu" - 'ka'Zeh Yitnu', says Rebbi Meir, just as pure as the half-Shekel made of fire that Hash-m showed Moshe. To ensure that one gives a full half-Shekel of silver (devoid of impurities) one needs therefore to give a little more than half a Shekel.
(a)According to Rebbi Elazar, the author of our Mishnah: 'ha'Nosen Sela v'Notel Shekel, Chayav Shtei Kalbonos' is Rebbi Meir. Why does he give two Kalbonos?
(b)According to Rav, even the Rabanan will agree that, in this case, one gives two Kalbonos. Why is that?
(c)In that case, what does Rebbi Meir hold?
(a)According to Rebbi Elazar, the author of our Mishnah: 'ha'Nosen Sela v'Notel Shekel, Chayav Shtei Kalbonos' is Rebbi Meir - since it is Rebbi Meir who holds that whenever one pays one's half-Shekel, he is Chayav to add Kalbon, and, in addition, he has to pay the Kalbon that, even according to the Rabanan, he must pay whenever he receives change.
(b)According to Rav, even the Rabanan will agree that, in this case, one gives two Kalbonos - one for giving Hekdesh a Sela instead of a Shekel (thereby forcing Hakdesh to make a transaction), and the other, for changing money through the auspices of Hekdesh (just like one would have to pay one Kalbon to a money-changer for either of these two services).
(c)Rebbi Meir holds that, in this case, he would have to pay three Kalbonos, the two under discussion plus the one that we learn from "Zeh Yitnu".
(a)Whenever partners are Chayav Kalbon, they are Patur from Ma'asar Behemah. When a father dies and leaves his sons animals, are they Chayav Ma'aser (and Patur from Kalbon) or Patur from Ma'aser (and Chayav Kalbon)?
(b)In which case then do they become Patur from Ma'asar Behemah?
(c)Rebbi Elazar differentiates between when the brothers divide kids against kids and goats against goats, and when they divide kids against goats. What is the difference?
(d)Rebbi Yochanan establishes the Petur from Ma'aser even if they divide kids against kids and goats against goats. Why is that?
(a)If a father dies and leaves his sons animals - they are Chayav to be Ma'asered and Patur from Kalbon (like a father who pays for his sons).
(b)They become Patur from Ma'asar Behemah when they divide the property and then go into partnership (because partners are Patur from Ma'asar Behemah (but Chayav Kalbon).
(c)Rebbi Elazar confines this to when they divide kids against goats (because then they become purchasers, and when they later go into partnership, it is like a new transaction); whereas when they divide kids against kids and goats against goats - they retain the Din of heirs (because he holds 'Yesh Bereirah'). Consequently, when they subsequently go into partnership, they revert to the original state - known as Tefusas ha'Bayis (in which case, they are once again Chayav Ma'aser and Patur from Kalbon).
(d)Rebbi Yochanan establishes the Petur from Ma'aser even if they divide kids against kids and goats against goats - because he holds that brothers who divide their inheritance, have the Din of buyers and not heirs (since he holds 'Ein Bereirah'), and a buyer is Patur from Ma'aser (but Chayav Kalbon).