We now begin chapter 7 of Maseches Shekalim. The first Mishnah deals with the law of money found in the Temple when it is not known where it came from, and with the broad principle that underlies all of these rulings: we follow the nearer.
"Ma'os shenimtze'u bein shekalim linedavah":
As we have learned, shofaros - collection boxes shaped like a shofar - stood in the Temple, and each one was designated for a different purpose: two of them for shekalim (one for new shekalim and one for old shekalim), and six for nedavah, from which olah offerings were brought. Money found between the shofaros, when it is not known from which of them it fell, is governed by the following rules:
"Karov lishkalim - yiplu lishkalim" - it is given to the shekalim shofar and joins that money, on the assumption that this is where it came from.
"Linedavah - yiplu linedavah" - it is considered nedavah money, and olah offerings are brought from it.
"Mechetzah lemechetzah - yiplu linedavah" - when it is found exactly midway between the two, it is given to the nedavah.
The reason for this ruling: the nedavah is weightier. With the shekalim money, offerings that involve eating are also purchased - such as the chatas offering, which is eaten by the kohanim - and from the surplus the needs and repairs of the city are provided for, which are more mundane purposes; whereas the olah is burned in its entirety on the altar to Hashem. Therefore, when the doubt is evenly balanced, we rule stringently and use the money for olah offerings, which is the purpose of the nedavah.
"Bein eitzim lilvonah":
Money found between the shofar from which the wood for the altar is purchased and the shofar from which the levonah for burning is purchased:
"Karov la'eitzim - yiplu la'eitzim" - it joins the money for the wood.
"Lilvonah - yiplu lilvonah" - it is used to purchase levonah.
"Mechetzah lemechetzah - yiplu lilvonah" - when the doubt is evenly balanced, we rule stringently and use it for levonah.
The reason: the levonah is itself an offering and is burned on the altar, whereas the wood is not an offering in its own right but merely a means for burning the offerings.
"Bein kinin legozlei olah":
As we mentioned, the Mishnah presented two views as to the meaning of 'kinin' and 'gozlei olah.' Here we follow the view that 'kinin' refers to the money taken from the shofar of the kinin, from which a chatas and an olah are brought for someone who became obligated in a bird offering - one bird for a chatas and one bird for an olah; while 'gozlei olah' are designated for olah offerings alone, offerings that a person pledges as an olah. According to this understanding:
"Karov lakinin - yiplu lakinin" - it joins the money of the kinin, from which a chatas and an olah are purchased.
"Legozlei olah - yiplu legozlei olah" - it is used for a bird olah.
"Ma'ah lema'ah - yiplu legozlei olah" - when the doubt is evenly balanced, it is used for gozlei olah.
The reason: the bird chatas is eaten, and for that reason it has an aspect of the mundane about it and is lighter, whereas the gozlei olah are burned entirely.
The question of the Yerushalmi:
The Yerushalmi asks: money that was placed in the shofar of the kinin by someone who was obligated in an offering, and now we rule stringently and assume it will be used for olah offerings - what will be done about the chatas that this person is obligated to bring? With the olah one can make a stipulation: if this money came from obligatory kinin, let this olah count as the obligatory olah. But how will he bring the chatas?
The Yerushalmi answers that beis din would take money from outside, purchase a bird chatas with it and offer it, because of the possibility that the money did in fact come from obligatory kinin. Normally one may not bring an offering from non-sanctified money, because of the concern of chullin ba'azarah - bringing something mundane into the Temple in order to offer it - but with a bird chatas this is permitted. This was the practice, in order to ensure that the obligated person would fulfill his obligation, because of the possibility that this money came from the shofar of the kinin, which carries an obligation of a chatas.
"Bein chullin lema'aser sheni":
Here the Mishnah is not speaking of the shofaros in the Temple, but of a person who has one place where he keeps ma'aser sheni money and another place where he keeps ordinary money, and money was found between them:
"Karov lechullin - yiplu lechullin" - we assume it came from the ordinary money.
"Lema'aser sheni - yiplu lema'aser sheni" - we assume it came from the ma'aser money.
"Mechetzah lemechetzah - yiplu lema'aser sheni" - when the doubt is evenly balanced, we rule stringently and treat it as ma'aser sheni.
In summary - this is the principle we have followed throughout the entire Mishnah: "Holchin achar hakarov lehakel" - we follow the closer location, and even if the result is lenient, we rely on what is closer. But in a case of exactly midway, when the doubt is evenly balanced, we rule stringently and choose the weightier possibility.