Shekalim, Chapter 2, Mishnah 5. In Mishnah 3 we dealt with a person who sets aside money in order to give his half-shekel, and we learned that if he is left with a surplus, it has the status of chullin. Our Mishnah opens with this halachah, and moves on from there to discuss the law of surplus funds that were set aside for offerings and for other mitzvos.
"Motar shekalim - chullin":
As has been explained, the surplus left over from money collected for the half-shekel has the status of chullin, and a person may use it for his own needs.
"Motar asiris ha'eifah":
What is the tenth of an eifah referring to? There are transgressions for which the one who is liable brings a korban oleh v'yored, an offering whose requirements change according to his financial situation:
If he can afford it, he brings an animal.
If he cannot afford that, he brings birds.
And if he cannot afford even that, he brings a tenth of an eifah of fine flour as a minchah, in place of the chatas offering.
If someone set aside money for this purpose and was left with a surplus, that surplus receives - as do all the items that follow it - the status of nedavah. As we mentioned in Mishnah 3, 'nedavah' means that the surplus funds are designated for olah offerings, offerings that are burned and brought on the mizbeach at a time when no other offerings are being brought upon it.
The Mishnah goes on to list additional surpluses whose law is the same as that of the surplus of the tenth of an eifah:
"Motar kinei zavim, kinei zavos v'kinei yoldos" - the bird offerings brought by a zav (a man who experienced certain emissions), a zavah (a woman who experienced certain emissions) and a woman who gave birth, as part of their purification process. If money remained from the funds they set aside for these offerings, the surplus goes to nedavah.
"V'chataos va'ashamos" - the chatas offering, brought for certain types of sins, and the asham offering, which is a different type of offering brought for other types of sins. In these cases too, their surplus goes to nedavah.
From here the Mishnah establishes a rule: "Zeh hakelal: kol shehu ba lesheim chatas u'lesheim asham - motran lindavah". Any offering that comes as a chatas or as an asham, meaning everything listed above except for the shekalim, has its surplus designated for nedavah.
Offerings whose surplus remains within its own category:
From here onward the Mishnah lists categories in which the surplus is retained for that very same category:
Motar olah - one who set aside money to bring an olah offering as a voluntary gift, the surplus is set aside and retained for olah offerings in the future.
Motar minchah - one who set aside money for a minchah and was left with a surplus, the surplus is retained for menachos in the future.
Motar shelamim - one who set aside money for a shelamim offering, the law of the surplus is the same as in the previous cases.
Motar Pesach - the rule is that the Pesach offering is brought only once a year, and therefore whatever remains from it, whether the animal itself or the money set aside for it, receives the status of shelamim.
Motar nezirim - one who set aside money for poor nezirim who took a vow of nezirus and cannot afford to bring their offerings at the end of their term of nezirus, the surplus is retained for nezirim in the future.
Motar nazir - but one who set aside money for his own nezirus, that money goes to shelamim, as described above.
Surpluses of mitzvos that are not offerings:
From here the Mishnah moves from matters of offerings to other matters of mitzvos:
Motar aniyim - one who set aside money for the poor and has already provided for their needs, and is left with a surplus, the surplus is designated for the needs of the poor in the future.
Motar ani - if he set aside money for a particular poor person and has already provided for his needs, the surplus remains set aside for that same poor person for his future needs.
Motar shevuyim - one who set aside money for the redemption of captives, the surplus is designated for the needs of captives in the future.
Motar shavuy - if he set aside money for a particular captive, the surplus is given to that person, even though seemingly he no longer needs it, since he has already been redeemed. Since the money was set aside for his needs, it comes to him.
Motar hameisim - one who set aside money for burying the dead free of charge, the surplus is designated for burials that will take place in the future.
Motar hameis - a dispute among the Tannaim:
What is the law regarding money that was set aside for the burial of a particular deceased person and from which a surplus remained? On this the Tannaim disagree:
The first opinion: the surplus of the deceased goes to his heirs.
Rabbi Meir: "Motar hameis yehei munach ad sheyavo Eliyahu" - the surplus from a particular deceased person is set aside until Eliyahu comes and instructs what should be done with it, and it is not used.
Rabbi Nassan: with the surplus of the deceased, a monument is built on his grave, meaning that the surplus is used for a marker and a headstone on his grave, or to improve the headstone.
The Gemara in Maseches Sanhedrin explains that their dispute is over what the deceased himself would have preferred. The very fact that he needed this money for himself involves a degree of disgrace, and the question is which is the lesser evil:
According to the first opinion: he would have preferred that the money go to his heirs, and therefore it is given to them.
According to Rabbi Meir: it is uncertain whether he would have forgone his own honor for the benefit of his heirs, and therefore the money is set aside.
According to Rabbi Nassan: he would not have forgone his own honor, and therefore the money must be used for the deceased himself, for the headstone on his grave.
In summary: in this Mishnah we learned the laws of surpluses: the surplus of the shekalim is chullin; anything that comes as a chatas or an asham has its surplus designated for nedavah; and for the remaining offerings and mitzvos, the surplus is retained for that very same category, except for the surplus of the Pesach offering and the surplus of a nazir, which have the status of shelamim. Finally we examined the dispute among the Tannaim regarding the surplus of the deceased, and its basis in the question of what the deceased himself would have preferred.