Clarification: Rashi explains 'our Mishnah, which rules 'Lo Kidesh'. so we see that it does not become desecrated, speaks where he betrothed with the Kohen's shirts that are not worn out and that are fit for the Avodah

Clarification (con.): And as long as they are fit for the Avodah, they are not subject to Me'ilah be'Shogeg ...

Reason: Because they were sanctified initially on the understanding that one would benefit from them be'Shogeg as long as one did not have the intention to transfer it to Chulin ...

Reason (cont.): Since the Torah was not given to Mal'achei ha'Shereis - that the Kohanim should be alert like Mal'achei ha'Shereis to strip them off the moment the Avodah comes to an end, and not to continue wearing them for a split second later.

Question: In that case, how can Rebbi Yehudah say that be'Shogeg the Kidushin is valid, and also be'Meizid according to Rebbi Meir - seeing as it does not go out to Chulin ...

Question (cont.): Since they are K'lei Shareis (administering vessels), by which we say 'there is Me'ilah after Me'ilah' - and they do not go out to Chulin?

Answer: It speaks where those shirts had not yet been consecrated for the Avodah, in which case they do not have the sanctity of K'lei Shareis, only of Bedek ha'Bayis ...

Source: As the Gemara says in the first Perek of Sanhedrin (Daf 16b) 'Their Avodah consecrates them'.

The Half-Shekel: This is how the Shekalim were brought: Following the announcement on the first of Adar to bring one's half-Shekel, the people would bring their Shekalim the entire month to the Lishkah (a specific room in the Azarah) until 'P'ros ha'Pesach (fifteen days [six in the case of Shavu'os] before Yom-Tov) - which is the first of Nisan ...

The First T'rumah: They took the first T'rumah separation) from those Shekalim - because three times a year they would separate - on P'ros ha'Pesach, on P'ros Atzeres (Shavu'os) and on P'ros ha'Chag (Sukkos) - with reference to all the Shekalim that were brought from the first of Adar until the first of Nisan and which were placed in the Lishkah.

The First T'rumah (cont.): And they took the first T'rumah in three boxes each containing three Sa'in, from which they purchased all the Korb'nos Tzibur up until P'ros Atzeres according to their needs ...

The Leftovers: And the Tana'im (in Shekalim, 4:4) argue over the Shirayim (leftovers) in those boxes, ...

The Leftovers (cont.): One Tana holds that they made from their proceeds gold plates to overlay the inside of the Kodesh Kodshim; Another Tana says that they used them for K'lei Shareis, and a third Tana holds that they purchased with them animals for Kayitz ha'Mizbe'ach (Olos Nedavah that they brought on the Mizbe'ach during the long summer months) ...

The Leftovers (concl.): And what remains in the Lishkah after the boxes have been filled, they use to strengthen the walls of the city and its towers.

The New Shekalim: Somebody who brought his Shekel from Nisan and onwards, placed it in Tiklin Chadtin - Shofros, so-called because they were wide at the base and narrow on top, and since they placed into them the new Shekalim of the current year, they were called 'Tiklin Chadtin'.

The Second T'rumah: When the first of Sivan - 'P'ros Atzeres' arrives, they took the second T'rumah, which entailed taking the new Shekalim from the 'Tiklin Chadtin' into the same three boxes, in order to bring the Korb'nos Tzibur up to P'ros ha'Chag.

The new Shekalim: And someone who brings his Shekel after P'ros Atzeres would likewise place it in 'Tiklin Chadtin' until the first of Tishri (which is P'ros ha'Chag) ...

The Third T'rumah: When one would take the third T'rumah in order to bring the Korb'nos Tzibur up until the first of Nisan.

If They are Short: If the third T'rumah did not suffice until Nisan - the Tana there argue (Ibid. 6a) ...

Tana Kama: The Tana Kama holds that they must take another T'rumah - from the new Shekalim that were brought between Sukkos and Pesach, but never from the Shirayim that remained after they filled the boxes ...

Rebbi Meir: Whereas Rebbi Meir maintains that they take both from the leftovers and from those that were brought after the three periods of T'rumah have passed - i.e. between Sukkos and Nisan.

Me'ilah: Rashi's explanation does not indicate whether they are subject to Me'ilah or not ...

Me'ilah (cont.): The Riva however, explains that 'Mo'alin' be'Chadti according to Rebbi Yehudah - even after the conclusion of the entire T'rumah

Reason: In case they will eventually be needed for the Korbanos.

Support: And this conforms to the Mishnah in Shekalim (Ibid.) which states that 'If the third one is finished' - meaning that if all three boxes have been emptied, 'one goes back to the second one; And if the second one is finished, one goes back to the first one; whereas if all three are finished, they take a new T'rumah ...

Support (cont.): From the new Shekalim that were brought after Sukkos, but not from the Shirayim in the Lishkah.

Support (cont.): Whereas Rebbi Meir holds that 'One goes back to the Shirayim', as he said 'Mo'alin be'Shirayim', in case they are eventually needed.

Support (concl.): It transpires that the Tana Kama follows the opinion that 'One takes another T'rumah', and the new Shekalim are therefore subject to Me'ilah in case they are eventually needed ...

Tiklin Atikin: 'But not the old ones' - This refers to other Shofros, on which were 'Tiklin Atikin', because someone who did not bring his Shekel last year, brings it the following year and places it in this Shofar ...

Me'ilah: 'And they are not subject to Me'ilah' - because they have the status of the leftovers of the Lishkah, with which one builds/repairs the walls of the city and its towers.

Me'ilah (cont.): Whilst Rebbi Meir holds 'that also the Atikin are subject to Me'ilah, since he holds 'Mo'alin be'Sheyarei ha'Lishkah'.

Me'ilah (concl.): In fact, Rebbi Meir follows his reasoning , as he says there (in the Yerushalmi, Ibid.) that if they are all finished, one goes back to the Shirayim, and they are similar, because, just as one goes back to the Shirayim, so too, does one go back to the Atikin, if necessary.

Question: How can one take from the Atikin for the Korbanos, seeing as one requires a new T'rumah ...

Source: As the Gemara Darshens in Rosh ha'Shanah (Daf 7a) 'Bring from the new T'rumah', which it learns from "Olas Chodesh be'Chodsho"?

Answer #1: That is for a Mitzvah (Lechatchilah [Ibid.]), but where it is not possible, one takes even from the old T'rumah.

Answer #2: Alternatively, since the Shekalim came in the same year - i.e. a full year did not pass from the time they were brought, it is justifiably called 'a new T'rumah'.

Answer #2 (Extention): And this answers another Kashya that people ask ...

Introduction to Question: Because in Maseches Shekalim (Daf 10b) on the ruling that 'The stones of the Mizbe'ach, the Azaros and the Heichal are subject to Me'ilah', the Gemara asks that seeing as they come from the Shirayim, since when is Shirayim subject to Me'ilah? ...

Introduction to Question (cont.): And if you will say that the author is Rebbi Meir, who says 'Mo'alin be'Shirayim, Rebbi only said this within the year, whereas we are speaking about after a year - seeing as the Mizbe'ach and the Heichal were made many years earlier?

Question: But Rebbi Meir here holds 'Mo'alin ba'Atikin', despite the fact that their year has passed, in which case we not establish the case in Maseches Shekalim like him - so why does the Gemara ask 'Rebbi Meir only said this ... ?'

Answer: However, according to what we just answered, that it is called a new T'rumah as long as it was brought this same year, that what we are not able to establish the Beraisa there according to Rebbi Meir is in order.

Clarifying Text: This implies that earlier (on the Amud), in connection with 'Ein Mo'alin ba'Atikin', we do not have the text 'Divrei Rebbi Yehudah' ...

Reason: Because if we did, it ought to have said (here) 'Ipcha' (Reverse the opinions) ...

Clarifying Text (cont.): It must therefore have been learned S'tam (without a name).

Support: Rabeinu Tam too, erased it from his text.

Clarification: Rashi explains that 'There is one opinion that holds Yerushalayim is sanctified - that if one takes stones from the wall to build into one's house, one is Mo'el ...

Clarification (cont.): And there is another opinion that holds that it is not.

Question: In Perek Sh'nei Daynei Gezeiros (Kesuvos, Daf 106b), the Beraisa states that 'The stones of the Mizbe'ach, the Heichal and the Azarah come from Bedek ha'Bayis; and what is outside the walls of the Azarah - such as the walls of the city, comes from the leftover of the Lishkah.

Question (cont.): Whereas the Beraisa in Maseches Shekalim (Daf 7a) states that 'The stones of the Mizbe'ach, the Heichal and the Azarah come from the leftovers of the Lishkah; and what is outside the walls of the Azarah - such as the wall of the city, comes from the Lishkas Bedek ha'Bayis'.

Answer: That is precisely what they are arguing about - The Beraisa in Sh'nei Daynei Gezeiros holds that the leftovers are not subject to Me'ilah ...

Answer (cont.): So what he means to say is - that 'The stones of the Mizbe'ach, the Heichal and the Azarah' - which are holy, 'come from Bedek ha'Bayis' - which is likewise holy; whereas 'the walls of the city' - which are not holy, 'come from the leftovers of the Lishkah'.

Answer (cont.): Whereas the Tana in Maseches Shekalim, which says that 'The stones of the Mizbe'ach, the Heichal and the Azarah come (even) from the leftovers of the Lishkah' holds that 'The leftovers of the Lishkah is subject to Me'ilah', which is why they use it for a thing that is holy

Answer (cont.): And how much more so from Bedek ha'Bayis, which is holier still.

Answer (concl.): 'And what is outside the walls of the Azarah, such as the walls of the city and its towers, come from Bedek ha'Bayis' - meaning even from Bedek ha'Bayis, whose sanctity is great, because he holds that Yerushalayim is sanctified.

Clarification: Seeing as he would not be Chayav for taking it out of Hekdesh, only for eating it or for benefiting from it.

Question: Why do we then need "Hilulim", from which the Gemara in Perek Keitzad Mevorchin (B'rachos, Daf 35a) Darshens 'redeem it and then eat it' - why can we not learn i from the current Gezeirah Shavah?

Answer #1: From the Gezeirah Shavah we would not have known that Pidyon Neta R'vai applies in the third year, only when Ma'aser Sheini applies.

Answer #2: Alternatively, we would have thought that we would learn it, not from Ma'aser, but from Shevi'is, the proceeds of which become Kadosh, and which does not go out to Chulin (further on, on Daf 58a [but now that we learn it from "Hilulim", we learn from Ma'aser that the proceeds do not become Kadosh]).

Clarification: 'Achilah' is La'av Davka, since the same will apply to oil of Hekdesh with which one kindles a light; it too is subject to Me'ilah ...

Reason: Brcause he destroyed it from the world.

Question: In that case, why is one Mo'el by new Shekalim?

Answer: There too, it speaks where he used them as weights, in which case he benefited directly from the Shekalim, which is similar to eating ...

Answer (cont.): And the Gemara is only coming to preclude spending them.

Question: Why does the Gemara not cite the Reisha, which says that 'If he sent it via a Cheresh, Shoteh or Katan; the treasurer is Chayav if they carried out the Shelichus, and the shopkeeper, if they did not' ...

Question (cont.): A proof that a Shogeg is subject to Me'ilah.

Answer: From there one can only prove that be'Shogeg, it goes out to Chulin, but not that be'Meizid, it does not.

Answer (cont.): Whereas from (the Seifa) here we can learn two things - from what the Tana says 'If he remembered before he reached the shopkeeper, the shopkeeper is Mo'el and not the owner' - we see that be'Meizid, it does not go out to Chulin ...

Answer (concl.): And since it says that 'The shopkeeper is Mo'el as soon as he spends it', we see that be'Shogeg, it goes oujt to Chulin.