Mishnayos Shekalim Perek 2 Mishnah 4

Rabbi Shimon said: What is the difference between shekels and a sin-offering? Why do Beit Hillel say that the leftover money is non-sacred property in the case of shekels, while with regard to a sin-offering they say that the leftover money is consecrated for a free-will offering? Rather, the issue is that shekels have a fixed value, a half-shekel and no more. Therefore, there is a clear amount beyond which one did not intend the money to become consecrated property. However, a sin-offering has no fixed value. Since the entire sum that one collected could have been used to purchase a sin-offering, whatever he didn’t use must at least be designated for a free-will offering. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even for shekels there is no real fixed value. For when the Jewish people ascended from the exile, they would contribute darics, which are Median coins worth two shekels by Torah law. They brought these coins with them and would give a half of one to fulfill their half-shekel obligation. Later on, when the Median Empire was dissolved, they reverted to contributing with a sela, a silver coin of equal weight to the the shekel mentioned in the Torah. People would contribute a half-sela for their half-shekel requirement. When the value of this currency changed later on, they reverted to contributing with a tiva, a different coin which is worth a half-shekel. Some people wished to contribute only dinars, which are half the value of the tiva, i.e., one quarter shekel in value. The Sages refused to accept it and required them to contribute at least the half-shekel mentioned in the Torah. Nevertheless, it is clear that the obligation of contributing shekels does not have a fixed value. Rabbi Shimon said in response: Even so, despite the fact that during different periods there were different amounts used to fulfill the obligation of the half-shekel, everyone has equal standing, i.e., at any particular time, everyone contributes the same amount. Therefore, any sum collected beyond that amount was not intended to be consecrated. However, a sin-offering has no fixed amount whatsoever; this person may bring an animal worth a sela, and that one may bring one worth two, and this one may bring one worth three. Therefore, it cannot be supposed that there was no intention to consecrate the whole sum.

אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, מַה בֵּין שְׁקָלִים לְחַטָאת. שְׁקָלִים יֵשׁ לָהֶם קִצְבָה, וְחַטָאת אֵין לָהּ קִצְבָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אַף לִשְׁקָלִים אֵין לָהֶן קִצְבָה, שֶׁכְּשֶׁעָלוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל מִן הַגּוֹלָה הָיוּ שׁוֹקְלִים דַּרְכּוֹנוֹת, חָזְרוּ לִשְׁקוֹל סְלָעִים, חָזְרוּ לִשְׁקוֹל טְבָעִין, וּבִקְּשׁוּ לִשְׁקֹל דִּינָרִים. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, אַף עַל פִּי כֵן, יַד כֻּלָּן שָׁוָה. אֲבָל חַטָאת, זֶה מֵבִיא בְּסֶלַע וְזֶה מֵבִיא בִּשְׁתַּיִם וְזֶה מֵבִיא בְּשָׁלשׁ: