I have a few different sets of Shas Bavli, and most of them contain Shekalim from the Yerushalmi. (The Steinsaltz version does not, for example, though the Oz v'Hadar version does). When did people first start including it, and why? Is there something special about the content of Shekalim in the Yerushalmi, such that people wanted to include it in the Bavli, despite not including any other Yerushalmi masekhtot?

  • See this answer
    – b a
    Jan 31, 2013 at 23:21
  • @ba Isn't that a dupe?
    – Double AA
    Jan 31, 2013 at 23:29
  • Thanks, @ba. The article he quotes from On The Main Line is very informative, though his answer itself is flawed. He mentions the geonim including this masekhta because it was cheap to print, though the geonim lived centuries before Gutenberg. The blog post that he links to mentions the same information, but from the 16th century. I'm happy to go with that.
    – Shimon bM
    Jan 31, 2013 at 23:34
  • @DoubleAA There is certainly a difference in how the questions are asked. I don't know.
    – b a
    Feb 1, 2013 at 0:07
  • @ShimonbM Take a look again at the article... "a renowned authority (R' Saul Liberman) on the Jerusalem Talmud [who], testifies to the frequent and early study of Shekalim as part of the Babylonian Talmud dating back to the time of the geonim." ... Then another point ..."The reason why this tractate, Shekalim, was printed first and by itself is because of the expense of even printing one order [out of six]. Therefore I chose to have this tractate printed in order to complete the order as it was printed in the Giustiniani edition [1540s]."
    – Yehoshua
    Feb 1, 2013 at 8:19

1 Answer 1


In a standard Shas, all the Masechtot are printed, even those without Bavli on them.

For example, at the end of Vol. 1 - Brachot - you will find all the Mishnayot of Zeraim with Rishonim (usually the ר"ש, IIRC).

At the end of Niddah you will find the rest of Taharot.

In Mo'ed the only tractate without Bavli is Shekalim - so it was added. As to why it was added with Yerushalmi and not the Rishonim like the other Bavli-less tractates, is open to discussion. Maybe it makes Mo'ed feel more complete that all tractates have some form of Talmud on them.

Or maybe we should ask why those tractates with Yerushalmi (like parts of Zeraim) were not printed with their Yerushalmi.

  • 1
    +1 for that last sentence. (Not only that, but I liked it.)
    – Scimonster
    Jun 5, 2014 at 14:05
  • Nothing wrong with what you've said, but it doesn't answer my question. I know that every masekhta is included in Shas Bavli, but the only one of those masekhtas to feature the Yerushalmi is Shekalim. Why?? I don't accept the suggestion that you made (that it makes Seder Moed more "complete"), since as you pointed out yourself this only raises a question on why they weren't included for Seder Zeraim.
    – Shimon bM
    Jun 8, 2014 at 0:47

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .