json/Mishnah/Seder Moed/Mishnah Shekalim/English/The Mishna with Obadiah Bartenura by Rabbi Shraga Silverstein.json

{
    "language": "en",
    "title": "Mishnah Shekalim",
    "versionSource": "http://www.sefaria.org/shraga-silverstein",
    "versionTitle": "The Mishna with Obadiah Bartenura by Rabbi Shraga Silverstein",
    "status": "locked",
    "license": "CC-BY",
    "versionNotes": "To enhance the quality of this text, obvious translation errors were corrected in accordance with the Hebrew source",
    "versionTitleInHebrew": "המשנה עם פירושי רבי עובדיה מברטנורא, רבי שרגא זילברשטיין",
    "versionNotesInHebrew": "כדי לשפר את איכות הטקסט הזה, שונו שגיאות תרגום ברורות בהתאם למקור העברי",
    "actualLanguage": "en",
    "languageFamilyName": "english",
    "isBaseText": false,
    "isSource": false,
    "direction": "ltr",
    "heTitle": "משנה שקלים",
    "categories": [
        "Mishnah",
        "Seder Moed"
    ],
    "text": [
        [
            "\tOn the first of Adar, proclamations are made for shekalim (the head-tax for the Temple). [Beth-din send throughout the cities of Israel and proclaim that they must bring their shekalim. For on the first of Nissan communal offerings must be brought from the new levy, viz. (Numbers 28:14): \"This is the burnt-offering of the month in its month for the months of the year\" — Renew the bringing of offerings from the new (half-shekel) levy (the root of \"month\" and \"new\" being the same in Hebrew). And \"the months of the year\" here (as referring to Nissan) is derived from (Exodus 12:2): \"It (Nissan) is first for you of the months of the year.\" Therefore, the proclamation for the bringing of shekalim is advanced thirty days to the first of Adar.] and (proclamations are made) for kilayim (interdicted mixed sowing) [i.e., They proclaim that the other variety must be diminished until there not remain of it a rova of a kav to a sa'ah, as stated (Kilayim 2:1): Every sa'ah which contains a rova of a kav of a different variety must be diminished. Our rabbis explained that after the seeds are already grown even one in a thousand must be uprooted. For any two varieties, each of which by itself is permitted, but which are interdicted in admixture, do not lend themselves to bitul (\"canceling out\"). It is only when they are intermixed in sowing that diminution suffices, bitul obtaining with one in two by Torah law, so that it is not called a sowing of kilayim, and (the prescribed) diminution is required only because of \"appearances\" (marith ayin). But after they have grown, bitul does not obtain and everything must be uprooted so that only one of the varieties remains.] On the fifteenth (of Adar) the Megillah is read in the towns [surrounded by a wall from the days of Yehoshua the son of Nun. Because of the teaching (1:3): \"On the fifteenth of Adar money-changers sat in the province,\" everything else that they did on that day was included.], and repairs are made on roads, streets [and marketplaces that were damaged by rains in the wintertime. They are repaired for the festival pilgrims. Some explain (that they are repaired) for the benefit of those who slew unwittingly, so that they can flee the blood avenger, as it is written (Deuteronomy 19:3): \"Prepare the way for yourself.\"], and (repairs are made on) ritual baths. [If sediment accumulated in them, they are cleaned, and if the mikveh fell below the required amount, they would add drawn water to it and bring it up to that amount (the majority of the required forty sa'ah being kasher)], and all community needs are attended to [such as monetary litigations, capital cases, cases of stripes, the redemption of assessments, devotions, and dedications, the administration of the sotah's draught, the burning of the red heifer, the boring of (the ear of) the Hebrew bondsman, and the cleansing of the leper. And they would send (messengers) to open cisterns of stored water, so that the people could drink from them in the summertime, all these being community needs.] And graves are marked [so that Cohanim and bearers of taharoth (consecrated foods) not \"tent\" over them. They \"marked\" by crumbling lime and spilling it around the grave. In the rainy season the lime would dissolve so that it was necessary to repeat the process.] And they [deputies of beth-din] would also go out for (i.e., to root out) kilayim. [Even though they had already made proclamation in this regard on the first of Adar (see above), they did not rely upon it, fearing that the owners might not have uprooted it, and they went out and did so themselves.]",
            "\tR. Yehudah said: In the beginning, they (the deputies of beth-din would root out (the kilayim) and throw it down before them [the field owners, to shame them.] When transgressors increased, they would uproot it and throw it on the roads. [The owners rejoiced in that their fields were being weeded by others. What is more, they would place it before their animals (to eat), whereupon they instituted that they cast it upon the roads. But they still rejoiced in that their fields were being weeded,] whereupon they instituted that the entire field be declared ownerless (hefker), [for hefker beth-din hefker (a \"hefker\" pronouncement of beth-din is valid.)]",
            "\tOn the fifteenth (of Adar) money-changers sat in the province (medinah) [Jerusalem, and they made change for the half-shekel for those who brought the currency of their province and were unacquainted with the conversion rate.] On the twenty-fifth, they would sit in the Temple. [Since the time was drawing near, they would sit in the Temple, so that they (the people) would hasten to bring (their shekalim). Rambam explains that all the cities of Israel were called \"medinah,\" and that on the twenty-fifth they sat in the Temple in Jerusalem.] From the time they sat in the Temple, they began to take pledges [from those who had not brought their shekalim.] Whom would pledges be taken from? Levites, it being written (Exodus 30:14): \"All who pass to be numbered, from twenty years and above.\" And the Levites were not counted from twenty years.], Israelites, proselytes, and freed bondsmen; but not women, [it being written (Exodus 30:12): \"Then each man shall give the ransom of his soul\" — a man, and not a woman], nor bondsmen [bondsmen being obligated only in the mitzvoth that women are obligated in], nor minors [even one who showed two hairs, if he were less than twenty]. Any father who has begun to give the shekel for his minor son cannot leave off doing so. [And if his father dies, he must give the shekel for himself.] And pledges are not taken from the Cohanim [ even though they are obligated in the half-shekel] because of \"the ways of peace.\" [Because they perform the sacrificial service, honor was accorded them, and they were depended upon not to defer their shekalim. And even if they did defer and not give them, beth-din stipulated that the shekalim be theirs in exchange for their service, just as allocations are made from the Temple treasury to others engaged in Temple work, as explained below.]",
            "\tR. Yehudah said: Ben Buchri testified in Yavneh: Any Cohein who gives the shekel does not sin thereby [even though he is not obligated to give it. The assumption (that he would be sinning) is that if he does give it, (what should be) a communal offering would be found to be coming (to a certain extent) from (the gift of) an individual. We are, therefore, apprised that he does not sin, in that he gives that half-shekel entirely to the congregation and we do not fear that there might be some reservation on his part in this regard.] R. Yochanan b. Zakkai said to him: To the contrary, any Cohein who does not give the shekel is a sinner [And the verse: \"All who pass to be numbered\" is to be expounded thus: \"All who pass\" through the Red Sea (for all of them passed through the Red Sea) \"to be numbered\" (both those who were numbered by themselves and those who were numbered with the rest of Israel) \"shall give the terumah of the L rd.\" And even though it is written (Exodus 38:25): \"And the silver of the numbered of the congregation was one hundred talents … for six hundred thousand and three thousand, etc.\", that is written in respect to the terumah for the sockets, in which the tribe of Levi did not participate; but Cohanim, Levites, and Israelites participated equally in the terumah for the offerings.]; but the Cohanim expounded this verse for themselves [i.e., to their advantage], viz. (Leviticus 6:16): \"And every meal-offering of a priest shall be entirely burnt; it shall not be eaten.\" (They said:) If the omer and the double loaves were ours (as they would be if the Cohanim contributed to their purchase with the shekalim) how could they be eaten! [The fallacy: It is only in respect to the meal-offering of an individual Cohein that it is written: \"it shall be entirely burnt,\" and not in respect to an offering that he has a share in together with the congregation. And the halachah is that Cohanim are obligated to give the half-shekel, and pledges are not taken from them because of \"the ways of peace.\"]",
            "\tEven though they said that pledges are not taken from women, bondsmen, or minors, if they give the shekel it is taken from them [on condition that they give it to the congregation entirely, so that a communal offering not come from an individual (gift)]. If idolators and Cuthites wish to give the shekel, it is not taken from them. Nor are the bird-offerings of zavim and zavoth [the turtle-doves and young pigeons brought by zavim and zavoth. This refers to \"Cuthites\" alone, zavim and zavoth not obtaining with idolators], (nor are the bird-offerings of) yoldoth (women who have just given birth), nor sin-offerings nor guilt-offerings taken from them; but vow and gift-offerings are taken from them. This is the rule: Everything which is vowed or donated (for the altar) is taken from them; anything which is not vowed or donated is not taken from them. [As we learned (Menachoth 73b) (Leviticus 22:18): \"A man, a man\" — to include gentiles who vow vows and gift-offerings as an Israelite. This tells me only of a burnt-offering, viz. (Ibid.): \"which they will present to the L rd as a burnt-offering.\" Whence do I derive (the same for) peace-offerings? From (Ibid.): \"Of all of their vows.\" Whence do I derive for inclusion birds and meal-offerings, wine, frankincense, and wood? From (Ibid.): \"of all of their vows and all of their free-will offerings.] And thus is it stated by Ezra, [when the Cuthites desired to help them and sent to them (Ezra 4:2): \"Let us build (the Temple) with you, for as you, will we seek out G d, etc.\" What did they answer?] (Ibid. 4): \"It is not for you and us to build a house to our G d\" [in partnership. You have no portion or grant or remembrance in Jerusalem. ]",
            "\tThese are obligated to give a kolbon [kal-bon, i.e., something \"light and small,\" which is added to the half-shekel]: Levites, Israelites, proselytes, and freed bondsmen; but not Cohanim, women, bondsmen, and minors. If one gives the shekel for a Cohein, a woman, a bondsman, or a minor, he is exempt (from the kolbon) [as when he lent them. For since they are exempt (from the half-shekel), they are not liable for the kolbon. And if he did not lend them, but paid for them, even if he gave the shekel for one who is obligated, he is exempt from the kolbon, as explained below.] And if one gives the shekel for himself and for his friend [(This, in an instance where he lends him. He gives one shekel: a half-shekel for himself, and a half-shekel that he lends his friend)], he is liable for one kolbon. [For this tanna holds that one who gives the half-shekel specified in the Torah is exempt from the kolbon, it being written (Exodus 30:13): \"This shall they give\" — Exactly as this shall they give and not more, so that with two who give one shekel, only one kolbon is given.] R. Meir says: Two kolbonoth. [R. Meir holds that one who gives a half-shekel is liable for one kolbon, so that if two give one shekel, they are liable for two kolbonoth. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Meir.] If one gives a sela [a whole shekel, to the Temple money-changer], and he takes a shekel [\"a shekel\" here is a half-shekel, i.e., he gets back half of what he gave], he is liable for two kolbonoth. [Here the first tanna concedes that he gives two kolbonoth: one to compensate for the half-shekel that he receives from the Temple, and one because he did not give the (exact) half-shekel specified in the Torah.]",
            "\tIf one gives the shekel for a poor man, for his neighbor, or for a man of his city, he is exempt (from the kolbon) [having given it to them as a gift.] If he lent it to them, he is liable. Brothers who are partners, [who divided (the inheritance) and then became partners], who are liable for the kolbon, [as any other two who gave a sela for their shekalim], are exempt from the beast-tithe. [They need not tithe all the beasts born to them all the days of their partnership, it being expounded (Bechoroth 56b) (Exodus 13:12): \"…which shall be yours,\" and not that of partners, the verse being understood as referring to the tithe, though it speaks of the first-born.] And when they are liable for the beast-tithe [That is, when they did not divide, in which instance they are liable for the tithe, as expounded: I might think (that they are not liable for the tithe) even when they acquired it (the beast) as part of the estate (i.e., before division); it is, therefore, written: \"shall be\" — (there is liability) in any event], they are exempt from the kolbon. [For their father's property retains its status and it is as if the father gave the shekel for his sons or for his neighbors, in which instance he is exempt.] How much is a kolbon? A ma'ah of silver [one twenty-fourth of a sela, weighing sixteen se'oroth.] These are the words of R. Meir. The sages say: A half, [one forty-eighth of a sela, eight se'oroth. The halachah is in accordance with the sages.]"
        ],
        [
            "\tShekalim may be exchanged for darkonoth because of the burden of the way. [The men of the city, who collected their shekalim, may exchange them for darkonoth, gold coin, viz. (Ezra 2:69): \"gold darkemonim,\" to lighten the burden of the way (to Jerusalem)]. Just as there were shofroth in the Temple, [(\"shofroth\":) chests, whose mouths were narrow on top, like a shofar, whose mouth is narrow on top, and which \"broadens out\" (this, so that nothing could be taken from them), viz. (II Kings 12:10): \"And Yehoyada the priest took a chest and bored a hole in its lid, etc.\" They stood in the azarah and they would all bring their shekalim and deposit them there], so there were shofroth in the medinah [Jerusalem. (According to Rambam, the other cities of Israel)]. If the men of the city sent their shekalim[with a messenger to take them to the lishkah (the Temple treasury)] and they were stolen or lost — if the contribution had already been taken [(It was the practice to contribute from the (money) chests for the offerings. They would contribute from what had been collected and on account of what would be collected, so that even those who had not yet given their shekalim would have a portion in the offerings.)], they [the messengers] would swear to the (Temple) treasurers. [For since the contribution had been made on account of these monies before they had been lost, it is as if they had been in the possession of the treasurers from the time the contribution had been made — so that when they were stolen or lost, it is from the possession of the treasurers that they were stolen or lost, for which reason the messengers swear (that they were not remiss) and they exempt themselves. And even though oaths are not administered for hekdeshoth (Temple dedications), this oath was instituted by the sages so that hekdeshoth not be treated lightly.] And if not [i.e., If at the time they were lost, the contribution had not yet been made and monies had not been taken from the chests on account of what would be collected, then they had gone lost from the possession of the owners (and not from the Temple treasurers). Therefore,] they [the messengers] swear to the men of the city [and exempt themselves]. And the men of the city give [other] shekalim in their stead, [for the first shekalim that were lost are not accredited them.] If they were found or the thieves returned them, both are shekalim and they are not accredited them for the following year.",
            "\tIf one gave his shekel for his friend to give for him, and he went and gave it for himself — if the contribution (for offerings) had been made [before the shekel were given to the treasurer], he [the messenger, who gave it for himself] has profaned (Temple property). [For as soon as the contribution was made on account of what would be collected, this shekel that his friend had given him to give for him, was in the possession of the Temple, so that when he gave it for himself, he benefited from Temple property. For had he not given it, they would have taken a pledge from him, as we learned above (1:3): \"From the time they sat in the Temple, they began to take pledges. He is found, then, to be benefitting from Temple property and he is liable for a me’ilah (profanation) offering.] If one gave his shekel from the monies of hekdesh (Temple property) [If he had in his hand monies dedicated to Temple maintenance, and, thinking that they were chullin (non-consecrated), he gave his shekel from them], and the contribution were made and a beast [bought from that contribution and] sacrificed — then he [who gave the shekel] is liable for a me’ilah offering, [but not before. For this hekdesh remained hekdesh as it was wherever it was without changing. And when the beast was sacrificed and he (the Temple treasurer) intended that it be from the money of all who had given the shekel to the lishkah (the fund for sacrifices), it is as if he (the giver) acquired the beast with those monies of hekdesh and sacrificed it. He benefits, then, in that they did not take a pledge from him for his shekel and he is liable for a me’ilah offering. And in the first instance, too, where his friend gave him the shekel to give for him and he gave it for himself, and he is liable for a me’ilah offering, this, too, is when the beast has been sacrificed after the contribution has been made. The reason this was not stated in the first instance is that it was anticipated for the latter instance, in which the me’ilah in both instances is explicated. The reason there is no me’ilah immediately even though he already benefits (by not having a pledge exacted of him) is that me’ilah obtains only when one converts hekdesh to chullin; but if he converts (one variety of) hekdesh to (a different variety of) hekdesh, even though he benefits thereby, there is me’ilah only after an act is performed in the second hekdesh. This is borne out in the Yerushalmi.] If (one gave his shekel) from the monies of ma’aser sheni or from the monies of shevi’ith, he eats against them. [He brings a shekel and says: \"Wherever the ma’aser sheni or shevi’ith are, they are to be redeemed against this shekel. For shevi’ith \"takes\" in its monies as hekdesh does. And he eats fruits bought with that money in Jerusalem against ma’aser sheni; or he eats them in the sanctity of shevi’ith if the fruits redeemed were those of shevi’ith.]",
            "\tIf one puts away money [little by little, p’rutah after p'rutah, for his shekel ], saying, [ when he begins doing so:] \"This is for my shekel,\" [and when he counts it, he finds that he has more than his shekel], Beth Shammai say: The surplus is a gift. [It goes to the shofroth in the Temple, whose monies are used for \"summer burnt-offerings\" for the altar. Beth Shammai here is consistent with his view that \"hekdesh in error is hekdesh.\"] And Beth Hillel say: The surplus is chullin, [his intent having been to dedicate only the amount of his shekel]. (If he said:) \"I shall take from them for my shekel,\" [which is like saying explicitly: \"If I find more than a shekel, I will take the shekel from them and the rest will be chullin\"], they agree that the surplus is chullin. [If he put away money and said:] \"This is for my sin-offering,\" they agree [i.e., Beth Hillel concede] that the surplus is a gift (to hekdesh). (If he said:) \"I shall take from them for my sin-offering,\" they agree that the surplus is chullin.",
            "\tR. Shimon said: What is the difference between shekalim and a sin-offering? [Why do Beth Hillel say that if one puts money away, saying: \"This is for my shekel,\" the surplus is chullin, whereas if he says: \"This is for my sin-offering,\" they concede to Beth Shammai that it is a gift (to hekdesh)?] Shekalim have a fixed amount, [it being written (Exodus 30:15): \"The rich shall not give more and the poor shall not give less.\" Therefore, he must have intended only a shekel, and the rest is \"hekdesh in error\"], but a sin-offering has no fixed amount. [If he wishes, he can bring a sin-offering for a ma’ah of silver, and if he wishes he can bring one for a large sum. Therefore, the monies \"take,\" and the surplus is a gift.] R. Yehudah says: Even shekalim have no fixed amount! When Israel went up from the exile, they would give darkonoth as the shekel. [The darkon was a coin of the Medean kingdom. It was of gold and worth two selaim and it was the standard coin of trade. And just as in the time of the first Temple, when their coin was a shekel, they would give a half-shekel; now, too, when it was a darkon, they would give a half-darkon.] Then they reverted to selaim. [After the Medean reign, the darkon was voided and they reverted to trading with selaim, their original currency minted at the time of the first Temple, and they gave a half-shekel as in the beginning.] Then they reverted to tevain. [The standard currency became tevain, i.e., a half-shekel.] They desired to give dinars [i.e., they desired to give half of that coin, one dinar, (the sela being two dinars); but this was not accepted from them. For it is permitted to add to the shekel of Scripture according to the difference in the currency minted at the time, but not to detract from it. We see, then, that shekalim, too, have no fixed amount, sometimes being more, sometimes less, their giving always the half-shekel of that time.] R. Shimon rejoined: In spite of that, each gave equally [i.e., Shekalim still cannot be compared to a sin-offering. For at all times, the half-shekel was equal for all — each gave the half-shekel of that time.] But (the amount for) the sin-offering [is never equal for all:] This one brings (a sin-offering) for a sela; that one, for two (selaim) and that one, for three. [And here we conclude that the rationale of Beth Hillel is as per R. Shimon.]",
            "\tThe surplus of shekalim is chullin. [If one puts away money, saying: \"This is for my shekel,\" and then, when he counts it, finds he has a surplus, that surplus is chullin. This anonymous Mishnah is as per Beth Hillel.] The surplus of the tenth of an ephah, the birds of zavin, the birds of zavoth, the birds of yoldoth, sin-offerings and guilt-offerings (the surplus is) a gift (to hekdesh). [(\"the tenth of an ephah,\") which is offered (in a state of) abject poverty. If money was laid aside for this, and there was a surplus, that surplus is a gift. For all surpluses of sin-offerings and guilt-offerings are gifts towards the acquisition of \"summer burnt-offerings\" for the altar, as per the medrash of Yehoyada Hakohen (6:6); and the tenth of the ephah is in place of a sin-offering.] This is the rule: The surplus of all that comes as a sin-offering or as a guilt-offering is a gift (for burnt-offerings). The surplus of a burnt-offering is a burnt-offering. [If he set aside money with which to buy a burnt-offering and there was a surplus, he purchases another burnt-offering with it.] The surplus of a meal-offering is a meal-offering. The surplus of a peace-offering is a peace-offering. The surplus of a Pesach is a peace-offering, [it being written (Deuteronomy 16:2): \"And you shall sacrifice a Pesach to the L rd your G d, sheep and cattle.\" Now does the Pesach come from cattle? The meaning, then, is that the surplus of the Pesach is for what comes from sheep and cattle, namely, peace-offerings.] The surplus of Nazirites is for Nazirites. [If they collected money for Nazirite offerings and there was a surplus, the moneys are kept for the acquisition of offerings for other Nazirites. The surplus of a Nazirite is a gift. [If an individual Nazirite laid aside money for his offerings and there was a surplus, the surplus is a gift for summer burnt-offerings for the altar.] The surplus of (monies collected for) the poor is for the poor. The surplus of a poor man is for that poor man. [If they collected money to buy him clothing and there was a surplus, that surplus is given him.] The surplus of captives is for captives. The surplus of a captive is for that captive. [If they collected charity for the redemption of captives and there was a surplus, it is kept for the redemption of other captives. But if the monies were expressly given for a particular captive, the surplus goes to that captive.] The surplus of the dead is for the dead. [If they collected for the burial of the dead, in general, the surplus goes towards the burial of others.] The surplus of a (particular) dead man is for his heirs, [the assumption being that one waives his \"cheapening\" after death in favor of his heirs.] R. Meir says: The surplus of a (particular) dead man is to be put aside until Eliyahu comes. [R. Meir is in doubt as to whether or not he waives his \"cheapening\" in favor of his heirs, for which reason it is put aside until the advent of Eliyahu.]  R. Nathan says: The surplus of a (particular) dead man is used for building a monument over his grave. [It is obvious to R. Nathan that he does not waive his \"cheapening,\" for which reason a monument is built over his grave with the surplus, which had already reverted to him. The halachah is in accordance with the first tanna. In an instance where they collected for the (burial) requirements of a particular dead person, thinking he was without means, and then they discovered that this was not the case, we do not say that the surplus goes to the heirs, since the collection was in error. This is borne out in the Yerushalmi. And it also follows from the Yerushalmi and from our gemara that where there are seven city caretakers or where there is one, in charge of all community affairs, he may allocate the surplus of captives or of the poor or of the dead as he sees dictated by the exigencies of the time and he is not to be interfered with. And this is always the ruling in practice.]"
        ],
        [
            "\tThree times a year they would remove (shekalim from) the lishkah. [They would deposit all the shekalim in one lishkah (compartment) in the Temple. And three times a year they would take from it and place (the shekalim) into three large baskets of three sa'ah for the purchase of communal offerings. The whole was not taken at one time for the needs of the entire year, for those in distant places had not yet brought all of their shekalim]: at the pross of Pesach [Fifteen days before the festival is referred to as the \"pross\" of the festival. For thirty days before the festival the halachoth of the festival are reviewed. (\"pross,\" as in \"prussah,\" i.e., half)], at the pross of Shavuoth, and at the pross of Succoth. And they (these time periods) are granoth (\"threshing floors\") for the beast-tithe. [These three times are three granoth for the beast-tithe, the sages having designated these times for the tithing of beasts that had been born. And just as (bringing the grain to) the threshing floor makes the grain subject to the tithe, so beasts that have been born may not be eaten after the arrival of these times until they are tithed. But before these times they may be eaten even if they have not been tithed. The sages designated these three times for the beast-tithe so that beasts be available for the festival pilgrims. For even though it is permitted to sell and slaughter and eat as long as the time of the \"goren\" has not yet arrived, still, people would not slaughter their beasts until they had tithed them. For one prefers doing a mitzvah with his property if he loses nothing thereby, as with the beast-tithe, the owner eating the tithed animal itself as a peace-offering. And if they did not tithe in these three periods, many would refrain from selling their beasts, not having tithed them, and beasts would not be available for the festival pilgrims.] These are the words of R. Akiva. Ben Azzai says: On the twenty-ninth of Adar, the first of Sivan, and the twenty-ninth of Av. R. Elazar and R. Shimon say: On the first of Nissan, the first of Sivan, and the twenty-ninth of Elul. [The reasons of all these tannaim, and (the bases of) their differences are explicated in the last chapter of Bechoroth.] Why did they say the twenty-ninth (of Elul) instead of the first of Tishrei? For it is a festival (Rosh Hashanah), and one cannot tithe on a festival, for which reason they moved it up to the twenty-ninth of Elul.",
            "\tWith three baskets of three sa'ah each (shekalim) are removed from the lishkah. [The shekalim were placed there (in the lishkah) and they were taken out in three baskets of three sa'ah each. Rambam writes that first three large baskets of twenty-seven sa'ah each are filled and from these, three baskets of nine sa'ah each are filled. This is an unnecessary, forced explanation.] And they were marked \"aleph,\" \"beth,\" \"gimmel\" [to know which had been filled first, to buy the communal offerings from that first; then, from the second; then, from the third.] R. Gamliel says: It was written in Greek: \"alpha,\" \"beta,\" \"gamla.\" [They would write it in Greek because of (Genesis 9:27): \"G d will beautify Yefeth and he will dwell in the tents of Shem\" — the beauty of Yefeth will dwell in the tents of Shem; and there is no language among the sons of Yefeth more beautiful than the Greek language. The torem (the one who removes shekalim from the lishkah) may enter neither with: a bordered garment, (pargod chafuth) [When the garment is long and doubled from the bottom, that doubled fold is called \"pargod chafuth.\" The torem may not enter thus attired so that he not be suspected of concealing lishkah monies in it.], (nor may he enter with) a shoe, a sandal, tefillin or an amulet [lest they say he undid the thread and placed money inside], lest he grow poor and people say: \"Because of the sin of (stealing from) the lishkah, he has become impoverished\"; or lest he grow rich and they say: \"From the proceeds of the lishkah he has grown wealthy.\" For one must be upright in the eyes of men just as he must be upright in the eyes of the L rd, as it is written (Numbers 32:22): \"And you shall be clean of the L rd and of Israel,\" and (Proverbs 3:4): \"And you shall find grace and goodly understanding in the eyes of G d and man.\"",
            "\tThose of the house of R. Gamliel would enter with their shekel between their fingers and fling it before the torem [They directed their shekalim at the basket, so that they would go towards the purchase of communal offerings and not be left in the lishkah.] and the torem would, likewise, press it to the basket. The torem does not remove (the shekalim) until he asks them: \"Shall I remove them?\" And they answer: \"Remove, remove, remove\" — three times [This three-fold expression is characteristic of the sages. Similarly, in respect to the omer: \"Magal zo, magal zo, magal zo\" - Ektzor, ektzor, ektzor,\" and, in respect to chalitzah: \"chalutz hana'al, chalutz hana'al, chalutz hana'al\" — three times.]",
            "\tHe removes the first [terumah of the pross of Pesach] and [after removing it] he covers [all the shekalim remaining in the lishkah] with ketavlaoth [boiled leather, so that they place upon it the shekalim yet to come from the lands around Eretz Yisrael, which could not be brought before Pesach. These are brought from Pesach until Shavuoth and placed on top of the ketavla, so that the terumah is taken from them at the pross of Shavuoth and so that he does not take from what has already been removed at the pross of Pesach.] (He removes) the second and covers with ketavlaoth. [After he removes at the pross of Shavuoth, he again covers with ketavlaoth all the monies in the lishkah and there is placed upon them all the shekalim brought from Bavel, Madai, and the distant lands.] [(He removes) the third and he does not cover. The terumah is taken from them at the pross of Succoth, and he does not cover it again, for there is no terumah after that.] (He covers the first and the second) lest he forget and remove from what has already been removed. He removed the first for Eretz Yisrael, [who sent their shekalim first, the others not yet having brought them]; the second, for the cities near it (mukafim lah) [such as Ammon and Moav. \"mukafim\" = \"near,\" as in (Gittin 30b): \"litrom shelo min hamukaf\"; (Chullin 46b): \"Ein makifin bebuei\"]; the third, for Bavel, Madai, and the distant lands. [In any event, every time they would remove it for all of Israel, for what had been collected, and for what would be collected. The tanna mentions these different places only to apprise us that they instituted these three times so that by then all the shekalim of Israel would have been collected.]"
        ],
        [
            "\tThe terumah [i.e., what they put into the baskets] — what did they do with it? They bought temidin (the daily burnt-offerings), mussafin (the additional offerings), their libations, the omer, the two loaves, the show-bread, and all the communal offerings [including the incense]. The watchers of after-growths on shevi'ith (the sabbatical year) take their pay from the terumah of the lishkah. [The \"aftergrowths\" are what grow of themselves from what was left of the harvest. Watchmen are paid to see to it that the poor do not pick them on the shevi'ith, and they are brought for the omer on Pesach and for the two loaves on Shavuoth, which come only from the new produce and from Eretz Yisrael. The watchmen may be paid from the terumah, for what is needed for the offering is as the offering itself in this regard.] R. Yossi says: If one wishes, he may donate his services as an unpaid watchman. [And even though he acquires the after-growths from hefker (renounced property) by watching them gratis and bringing them, so that they are his — R. Yossi holds that an individual offering can be converted to a communal one.] They said to him: Do you not agree that they (these offerings) may come only from the congregation? [And if he watched the after-growths gratis and brought them and acquired them, they are found not to come from the congregation (the rabbis holding that an individual offering cannot be converted to a communal one.) The halachah is in accordance with the sages.]",
            "\tThe red heifer and the goat that is sent [to Azazel] and the tongue of crimson come from the terumah of the lishkah. [Even though the red heifer is not slaughtered in the azarah, it comes from the terumah of the lishkah, Scripture calling it a \"sin-offering.\" And the goat that is sent to Azazal (also comes from the terumah of the lishkah), for two goats must be taken and it is not known on which of them will fall \"the lot to the L rd.\" The \"tongue of crimson\" here is the one thrown into the pyre of the red heifer. The same is true for the cedar-wood and the hyssop, but the tongue of crimson alone is adduced to distinguish it from the tongue of crimson of the sent-away goat.] The following come from what is left over in the lishkah: the bridge of the red heifer [They would make two bridges, one on top of the other, because of the (uncleanliness of) \"the grave of the depth,\" from the Temple Mount to the Mount of Olives, over which they would conduct the red heifer], the bridge of the sent-away goat [They would make a kind of bridge leading outside of the city, over which the \"sender\" would take out the goat. This, because of the Babylonians, who would tear his hair, saying: \"Take it and go (fast), and do not keep our sins here!\"], the tongue between its horns [to ascertain if it whitened and the sins of Israel had been forgiven. Since the above are not prerequisites for offerings, they do not come from the terumah which had been separated for offerings, but from what remained in the lishkah after the terumoth had been separated], the water-duct, [which passed through the azarah, if it required repair], the city wall, its towers, and all the needs of the city [the digging of wells, pits, and caves, road repair, the setting up of markets, and the guarding of the city.] Abba Shaul says: The high-priests make the bridge of the red heifer from their own (resources). [The halachah is not in accordance with Abba Shaul.]",
            "\tThe surplus of the left-overs of the lishkah [i.e., what is left over after the city needs have been satisfied] — What is done with it? Wine, oil, and meal is bought for it [and sold to those who need them for meal-offerings], and the profit goes to hekdesh. These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva says: One does not trade in hekdesh, [(for \"there is no poverty in the place of wealth\"; such trade is demeaning to hekdesh)], nor with what is designated for the poor, [lest a poor man come and there be nothing (on hand) to give him. The halachah is in accordance with Abba Shaul.]",
            "\tThe surplus of terumah [i.e., what is left over in the baskets on Rosh Chodesh Nissan, when offerings are brought from the new terumah] — What is done with it? Gold plate overlay (is bought) for the holy of holies [for the floor and the walls.] R. Yishmael says: The surplus of fruits is for the \"summertime of the altar.\" [R. Yishmael is consistent with his view, above, that with the left-overs of the lishkah, wine, oil, and meal are bought. The profit from their sale is called \"the surplus of the fruits,\" that is, their gain from the fruits that they bought. (\"the summertime of the altar\":) When the altar is idle, burnt-offerings are bought from this surplus. Just as sweet things are put on the table after the meal, so, after the obligatory offerings of the day, these burnt-offerings are brought (when there are no vow and gift offerings and the altar is idle)] and the surplus of the terumah is for ministering vessels. [R. Yishmael expounds (II Chronicles 24:14): \"…what was left over of the silver, and they made of it vessels fro the house of the L rd.\" Which silver has left-overs? The terumah of the lishkah.] R. Akiva says: The surplus of the terumah is for the \"summertime of the altar,\" [it (the terumah of the lishkah) having been separated for the purpose of offerings], and the surplus of libations is for ministering vessels. [The Temple treasurers would provide monies to the wine, oil and meal merchants to supply them with the requirements of the meal-offerings and libations of the entire year. If a merchant agreed to supply three sa'ah for a sela and the market price became four sa'ah for a sela, he must give four sa'ah, and that (additional) sa'ah is called \"the surplus of libations.\" Also, when they \"measured out\" to hekdesh, they would do so amply, (and the treasurer would measure frugally.) The ample measure is called \"the surplus of libations.\" It would be used for ministering vessels, the libations being consecrated in ministering vessels.] R. Chananiah, the adjutant high-priest, says: The surplus of libations is for the \"summertime of the altar\" [for both the libations and the burnt-offerings are thoroughly consumed], and the surplus of the terumah is for the ministering vessels. Both [R. Akiva and R. Chanina] did not concede in respect of \"fruits\" [as R. Akiva says above: \"One does not trade in hekdesh.\" The conclusion is that by condition of beth-din all of the surpluses go towards burnt-offerings; and this is the halachah.]",
            "\tThe surplus of the incense [i.e., what is left over every year] — What is done with it [in order to burn it (in the sacrificial service) the following year? For there is no year where there is no surplus. For there were 368 portions of incense and three portions of which the high-priest would fill his hands on Yom Kippur. And not all of it could be contained in his hands (so that there was a surplus). What is more, there was a surplus every regular year (as opposed to a leap year), there being 354 days in the regular year.] They separate from it [i.e., from the lishkah], the wage of the artisans [the spice mixers. They (the Temple functionaries) take their (the artisans') wage from the terumah of the lishkah, have one of the treasurers acquire it on behalf of the artisans, and it (the money) becomes chullin. And even though hekdesh does not become chullin unless something becomes hekdesh in its stead, the terumah of the lishkah is different, beth-din being empowered to allocate it for several purposes. And after they acquire the money on behalf of the artisans], they redeem it (the incense) for the wage of the artisans. [The money is thus consecrated for the old terumah (that of the previous year)], it (the incense) is given to the artisans as their wage, and it is then re-purchased from them with (the money of) the new terumah. [This procedure is more \"modest\" (i.e., in keeping with the nature of hekdesh) than simply selling it and re-purchasing it.] If it came in its time, it is taken from the new terumah. [If the new shekalim were brought before Rosh Chodesh Nissan, which is the time for the new terumah, the surplus of the incense is bought from the new terumah through redemption, as explained above.] And if not, from the old. [If the new shekalim had not yet been brought, it (the surplus of the incense) is bought from the old terumah, if it had already been redeemed. And if it had not yet been redeemed, it is burnt (in the sacrificial service), for the new, not having arrived, the old must be used.]",
            "\tIf one makes his property hekdesh [(\"hekdesh,\" unqualified, reverting to Temple maintenance)] and it includes things appropriate for communal offerings [such as incense, or wine, oil, and meal], they may be given to (Temple) workmen as their wage. [And they become chullin, even though nothing becomes hekdesh in their stead, R. Akiva holding that hekdesh may be redeemed for labor, viz. (Exodus 25:8): \"And let them make for Me a sanctuary, and I shall dwell in their midst\" — the labor may be \"financed\" by hekdesh.] These are the words of R. Akiva. Ben Azzai said to him: \"This is not of the measure.\" [That is, this \"measure\" that you prescribe is not the same as that prescribed above relative to the incense, and you should be consistent in your measures.] Rather, they separate from it the wage of the artisans, redeem it for the wage of the artisans, give it to the artisans as their wage, and then repurchase it with the new terumah (see 4:5), [hekdesh not being redeemed for labor. The halachah is in accordance with Ben Azzai.]",
            "\tIf one makes his property hekdesh, and it includes beasts fit for the altar, male and female — R. Eliezer says: The males are sold to those who need burnt-offerings and the females to those who need peace-offerings and the monies revert with the rest of the property to Temple maintenance. [He holds that \"hekdesh,\" unqualified, reverts to Temple maintenance, even with things that are fit for the altar. But what is fit for the altar does not \"evade\" the altar. For if one dedicates whole (i.e., unblemished) animals for bedek habayith (Temple maintenance), they are redeemed only for the altar and the monies revert to bedek habayith.] R. Yehoshua says: The males themselves are sacrificed as burnt-offerings and the females are sold to those who need peace-offerings, and burnt-offerings are bought with their monies and the rest of the property reverts to bedek habayith. [He holds that what is fit for the altar may be assumed to have been dedicated to the altar. Therefore, the males themselves are sacrificed as burnt-offerings and the females are sold to those who need peace-offerings, and burnt-offerings are bought with their monies. But they themselves are not sacrificed as peace-offerings. For if one dedicates his property, he wishes it all to go to \"on High.\" Therefore, beasts which are fit to be sacrificed as burnt-offerings are sacrificed as burnt-offerings and females are sold to those who need peace-offerings, and burnt-offerings are bought for their monies. For since they are fit for the altar, the sanctity of the altar attaches to them. And even the females, whose bodies are not fit for what he wishes to dedicate them for (i.e., burnt-offerings), still, since they are fit for offerings, in general, the sanctity of bedek habayith does not attach to them and burnt-offerings are bought for their monies.] R. Akiva says: I see (i.e., I prefer) the words of R. Eliezer to those of R. Yehoshua. For R. Eliezer \"equalized his measure\" (everything going to bedek habayith) and R. Yehoshua divided it (the animals to the altar; the rest, to bedek habayith)]. R. Papyas said: I heard (the ruling given) according to the words of both: that if one dedicates explicitly, [saying: \"My animals and (the rest of) my property to hekdesh\"], (the halachah is) in accordance with R. Eliezer. [For since he explicitly distinguished between them and yet did not say: \"The animals to the altar and the property to bedek habayith,\" it is clear that he intended both to go to the same place (i.e., bedek habayith)]; but if one dedicates [all of his property] unexplicitly, (the halachah is) in accordance with R. Yehoshua. [For it may be assumed that his intent is to dedicate each thing for what it is fit. The halachah is in accordance with R. Akiva.]",
            "\tIf one makes his property hekdesh, and it includes things fit for the altar — wine, oil, flour, [which are fit for meal-offerings and libations], and birds [turtle-doves and young pigeons], R. Elazar [(This is the correct version, and not \"R. Eliezer\")] says: They are sold to those who need those things and burnt-offerings are bought with their monies and the rest of the property reverts to bedek habayith. [The rationale of R. Elazar is given in the Yerushalmi: It is written (Leviticus 22:18: \"…of all of their vows and all of their free-will offerings, which they will present to the L rd as a burnt-offering\" — All that they vow and give as gifts of the things that are presented to the L rd — even wine, oil, and flour — is to be a burnt-offering. I might think that he can offer for their monies a bird burnt-offering, or that if he dedicated a bird, he can offer it as a burnt-offering; it is, therefore, written (Ibid. 19): \"…of the cattle, of the sheep, and of the goats.\" He can sacrifice of all that he donated, the burnt-offering of a beast alone.]",
            "\tOnce every thirty days, the market price is established for the lishkah. [The price is established for wine, oil, and flour, to stand for thirty days. And they (the Temple buyers) buy what they need every day from the sellers of wine, oil, and meal for the stipulated sum. If the price rises, they do not give more, and if it falls, they give less.] All who take upon themselves to supply meal at four — if it stood at three, they must supply at four. If (they take upon themselves to supply flour) at three, and it stood at four, they must supply at four. For hekdesh always has the upper hand. [In the days of the grain, wine, and olive harvest, the treasurers would advance money to the merchant, who would take it upon himself to supply wine, oil, and flour for the entire year. And if at that time the market price were four sa'ah for a sela and it rose to three sa'ah for a sela, he must give it at four sa'ah for a sela. For hekdesh acquires (the purchase) with money, viz. (as per Leviticus 27:19): \"And he shall give the money and it shall be his.\" And if he undertook to supply three sa'ah for a sela and the price fell to four sa'ah for a sela, he gives four sa'ah for a sela. For hekdesh is not inferior in this regard to hedyot (non-hekdesh), which acquires only at (the time of) meshichah (\"drawing forth\" the purchased object)]. And if the meal became wormy, it became wormy for him (the supplier). [Even if the Temple treasurer effected meshichah and paid for it, the responsibility is the merchant's.] And if the wine turned sour, it turned sour for him. And he does not receive his money until it (the meal or the wine) is accepted upon the altar. [Therefore, if the wine turns sour or the flour becomes wormy, the responsibility is the merchant's.]"
        ],
        [
            "\tThese are the appointees that were designated in the Temple [The fifteen varieties of appointment and station mentioned in our Mishnah always obtained in the Temple. The men mentioned here did not all live at the same time; the saintliest and the best of all the generations are mentioned. Our rabbis explained that because the first appointees were thus called, all who came after them were called by their name]: Yochanan b. Pinchas over the seals and over the flour [to be explained below in the Mishnah], Achiyah over the libations, Matitya b. Shmuel over the lots [to teach the order of the lots; who performs this service, who the other, as explained in Yoma], Petachyah over the kinin (birds), — [Those lacking atonement, who bring obligatory bird-offerings, turtle-doves and young pigeons, put their money into the shofroth in the Temple, and the appointees over the shofroth take the money and buy kinin for it. The one appointed over the kinin had to be a great sage and expert, as stated in Avoth (3:18): \"Kinin and the (determination of) the onset of niddah (the menstrual period) are the essentials of halachah.\"] Petachyah is Mordecai. Why was he called \"Petachyah\"? Because he would \"open\" words and expound them and was fluent in seventy languages. [This is \"Mordecai Bilshan\" (Ezra 2:2), who went up from the exile. He was thus called (\"Bilshan\") because he assimilated (balal) many languages (leshonoth)], Ben Achiyah over those suffering intestinal disorders [Because the Cohanim walked barefoot on the floor and ate much meat and drank water, they were subject to intestinal disorder and they were always in need of a doctor to prescribe for them.], Nechuniah over the pits [He was appointed over the digging of pits and caves to provide drinking water for the festival pilgrims], Gevini over the proclamations [Gevini would proclaim every morning in the Temple: \"Arise, Cohanim, for your service,\" and his voice could be heard from Jericho.] Ben Gever over the closing of the doors [closing them in the evening and opening them in the morning], Ben Bevai over the pekia [a strap with which to lash Cohanim and Levites found sleeping on their Temple watches at night, as stated in Middoth 1: \"Whoever was found sleeping would be lashed and his garment burned. The Yerushalmi explains \"pekia\" as wicks for the altar and beth hashoevah, as stated (Succah 5:3): \"From the worn-out breeches of the Cohanim and from their sashes they made wicks (mafki'im pethiloth)\"], Ben Arzah over the tziltzal (cymbal) [as in (I Samuel 3:11): \"His two ears shall 'tingle'\" (tetzilenah). When the Levites heard it sounding, they would begin their song.], Hugras b. Levi over the song [to begin the song; and when he would conclude, they all would conclude], Beth Garmo over the preparation of the show-bread, [which was in the form of an open chest. They were artists in its preparation and its baking, (expert in) removing it from the oven without breaking it and processing it so that it not mould.], Beth Avtinas over the preparation of the incense [They were expert in the compounding of the incense and were privy to an herb called \"ma'aleh ashan\" (\"the smoke raiser\"), which, when added to the spices of the incense would cause the smoke to rise in a column.], Elazar over the parocheth (the Temple curtains) [to make new curtains when the need arose], and Pinchas over the wardrobe [He was appointed to attire the Cohanim for the service and to remove the priestly garments after the service and secure them in the compartments assigned to them.]",
            "\tThere are not to be fewer than ten gizbarin (treasurers) [They are in charge of the monies of hekdesh. They redeem assessments, and devotions and dedications; and all the work of hekdesh is done through them] and (there are not to be fewer than) seven amarkalin (trustees) [above the gizbarin. The targum of (Numbers 3:32): \"And the chief over the princes of the Levites\" is \"Va'amarkala dememana, etc.\" The acronymic of \"amarkal\" is \"amar al kol\" (\"saying above all\"). And in Arabic, one of high station is called \"emir.\" What was the function of the seven amarkalin? The seven keys of the azarah were in their hands. If one of them wished to open (a door), he could not do so until all of them came together, and the gizbarin would go in after them and take out what they needed. And there was a level higher than that of the amarkalin, not mentioned in the Mishnah, but in the Tosefta, viz.: \"two katolikin\" (controllers). So that all together there were five levels: high-priest, adjutant high-priest, katolikin, amarkalin, gizbarin.] And authority is not asserted over the populace in monetary matters with fewer than two, [it being written (Exodus 28:5): \"And they shall take the gold, etc.\" The minimum of \"they\" is two.]",
            "\tThere were four seals in the Temple, inscribed (respectively): \"calf,\" \"male,\" \"goat,\" \"sinner.\" [There were three seals for the three distinct libations for beasts: the first seal for the libations of cattle (three esronim of flour mixed with a half hin of oil, and wine for the libation, half a hin), sealed by \"calf.\" The second \"male,\" for the libations of a ram (the targum of ram being \"dichra\" - \"male.\" Its libations are two esronim of flour mixed with a third of a hin of oil and a third of a hin of wine for the libation). The third, \"goat,\" for the libations of a lamb in its first year (an issaron of flour mixed with a quarter of a hin of oil and a quarter of a hin of wine for the libation). The fourth, \"sinner,\" the libation of a rich leper, who brings three beasts and requires ten logs of oil: nine (three each) for the three lambs and one for placing upon lobe and thumbs. It is called \"sinner\" as per (Erchin 16a): \"For seven things (i.e., sins) (leprous) plague-spots come.\"] Ben Azzai says: There were five [(two seals for the leper)], and they were inscribed in Aramaic [most of their converse being in Aramaic]: \"calf,\" \"male,\" \"goat,\" \"poor sinner,\" \"rich sinner.\" [For a poor leper brings only one beast, and if there were only one seal for a leper, a poor leper would be given three esronoth. And the first tanna holds that the poor leper is given the \"goat\" seal. The halachah is in accordance with the first tanna]. \"calf\" is used for the libations of large and small cattle, male and female [both for the libations of burnt-offerings, which come only from males, and for the libations of peace-offerings, which come from males or females, (burnt-offerings and peace-offerings requiring libations, viz. (Numbers 15:3): \"…a burnt-offering or a sacrifice (zevach = peace-offering)\"]. \"goat\" is used for the libations of sheep: Large and small, male and female — except for rams. \"male\" is used for the libations of rams alone. \"Sinner\" is used for the libations of the three beasts of the leper.",
            "\tOne who needs libations goes to Yochanan, who was appointed over the seals. He gives him money [according to the libations that he needs] and receives the (appropriate) seal from him. He then goes to Achiyah, who was appointed over the libations [to buy libations: wine, oil, and flour, so that all who bring offerings not be required to seek out libations prepared in the requisite purity.] He gives him the seal and receives the libations from him. In the evening, they (Yochanan and Achiyah) meet. Achiyah produces the seals and receives money for them. If there is a surplus, the surplus goes to hekdesh [and we do not say that it might be the money of Yochanan that got mixed up with the libation monies], and if there is a deficit, Yochanan makes it up from his pocket, for hekdesh always has the upper hand.",
            "\tIf one lost his seal, he is asked to wait until the evening, [when Yochanan and Achiyah meet.] If he (Yochanan) has [a surplus] corresponding to the (sum of the) seal [he claims to have lost], it is given to him, and if not, he receives nothing. The date [the day and the month] was written on them [the seals] because of the deceivers [lest one of them find a seal that has fallen from his neighbor, or from Achiyah, or from Yochanan and come now to claim (libations). (But on the day that he found it, he would not come to claim them, realizing that the loser would be looking for it.) It is also to be feared (if there were no date) that one bought the seal at the \"cheap rate\" and held onto it until the price rose.]",
            "\tThere were two leshachoth (compartments) in the Temple: one, lishkath chashaim (\"the compartment of the secret ones\") [so-called because those who put money into it did so secretly, and those who were sustained by it, took from it in secret]; the other, lishkath hakelim (\"the compartment of the vessels\"). Lishkath chashaim — the fearers of sin would put (money) into it in secret, and the poor of good family would sustain themselves from it in secret. Lishkath hakelim — whoever donated a vessel would cast it there. After thirty days, the treasurers would open it. Whatever vessel they found useful for bedek habayith (Temple maintenance) they would leave there. The others would be sold and their monies would go to the lishkah of [all the dedications for] bedek habayith."
        ],
        [
            "\tIn the Temple there were thirteen shofroth [receptacles, narrow on top and broad on the bottom and bent like a shofar, because of the deceivers, that they not be able to put their hand in, seeming to be giving — and taking], and thirteen tables [Later it is explained why thirteen shofroth and thirteen tables and where they were placed], and thirteen bowings [Later it is explained where]. Those of the house of R. Gamliel and the house of R. Chaninah, the adjutant high-priest, performed fourteen bowings. And where was the additional one? Towards the woodshed [a lishkah where they stored all the wood for the (altar) wood pile, in the northeast corner of the ezrath nashim]; for they had a tradition from their forefathers that the ark was secreted there. [King Yoshiyahu instructed that it be secreted in the circuitous subterranean vaults that King Solomon constructed when he built the Temple, knowing that it would be destroyed, viz. (II Chronicles 35:3): \"And he said to the Levites who instructed all of Israel … Place the holy ark in the house that Solomon built, etc.\" And with it were secreted the staff of Aaron, the jar of manna, and the flask of anointing oil.]",
            "\tOnce, a certain priest was engaged in his work [removing worms from wood. He had a blemish, and the work of blemished priests was to prepare wood for the (altar) wood pile (for all wood in which worms are found is unfit for the altar)] when he perceived one of the floor tiles to be different from the others. [It was not aligned with the other tiles and he realized that it had been removed and replaced.] He went to inform his friend of this, but could not finish what he had to say before his soul departed — and they knew for a certainty that the ark was secreted there.",
            "\tAnd where did they bow? [The thirteen bowings mentioned above (6:1) — Where were they performed?] Four in the north, four in the south, three in the east, and two in the west, corresponding to thirteen gates. The southern gates, extending to the west: the Upper Gate [The Temple Mount rose in a slant from east to west. The gate near the west is the Upper Gate. After it came ] the Gate of Kindling [the gate of the wood lishkah, in the south of the azarah, so-called because they brought through it the wood for the altar wood pile], the Gate of the Bechoroth [through which they brought the bechoroth (the firstlings) slaughtered in the south], and the Water Gate. Why is it called \"the Water Gate?\" For through it is brought the flask of water for the festival (Succoth) libation. R. Eliezer b. Yaakov says: For from it water oozed and was destined to issue forth from under the threshold of the Temple [viz. (Ezekiel 47:2): \"And, behold, water oozing (mefakim) from the right side,\" i.e., from the south, which is called right, as in (Psalms 89:13): \"North and right.\" Ezekiel saw it (the water) in a prophetic vision issuing forth from the holy of holies, spreading apart like the proboscides of locusts, and, when reaching this gate, gathering strength, attaining to the fullness of the mouth of a flask (pach), for which reason it is called \"mayim mefakim.\"] Corresponding to them in the north, extending west: the Gate of Yechanyah, the Gate of the Offering, [through which holy of holies are brought, which are slaughtered in the south], the Gate of the Women, [through which the women enter to place their hands upon their offerings (This, according to R. Yossi, who says that women may do so; and, according to R. Yehudah and R. Shimon, to stand by their offering], the Gate of the Song, [through which musical instruments were brought]. Why was it called \"the Gate of Yechanyah\"? For through it Yechanyah went to his exile [when he went to the Temple to bow down and to be granted leave in going to exile in Bavel; and he went out through that gate.] In the east, the Gate of Nikanor [(see Yoma 38a)]. There were two wickets in it, one on the right, one on the left, and two in the west, without names. [There were small gates within the large gates, which are also included in the thirteen. And even though the Gate of the Hearth also had a wicket, it is not reckoned, having been very small, whereas these were larger. This Mishnah of the thirteen gates is stated in the Yerushalmi to be in accordance with Abba Yossi b. Chanan; but the sages say that there were seven gates to the azarah and they hold these thirteen bowings to correspond to the thirteen breaches made by the Greek kings in the azarah. When the Hasmonean kings gained the upper hand and defeated them and closed the breaches, they instituted thirteen bowings, one for each closed breach.]",
            "\tThere were thirteen tables in the Temple: eight of marble in the slaughterhouse, where the entrails were rinsed; (there were) two on the west of the ramp — one of marble, the other of silver. On the marble table the limbs were placed. [After they had been cut, they were arranged on the table until the Cohanim offered them up. They were not made of silver or gold (though \"there is no poverty in a place of wealth\") for gold and silver heat and spoil (the flesh) whereas marble cools and keeps it from spoiling. (They did not rely upon the miracle of flesh never having spoiled in the Temple.)] On the silver table, they kept the ministering vessels [that they took out every morning, ninety-three ministering vessels, as explained in Tamid)]. And there were two in the ulam (the hall) inside, at the entrance of the Temple, one of marble and one of silver. On the marble table they would place the show-bread upon entering [i.e., after it was baked, before it was arranged on the (inner) table.] And on the gold table they would place it upon leaving [and it remained there until it was distributed (to the Cohanim)]. For \"we raise in holiness and do not lower.\" [Since it was removed from the (inner) table of gold, we do not \"lower\" it to one of silver.] And there was one of gold within on which the show-bread constantly sat.",
            "\tThere were thirteen shofroth in the Temple (see 6:1). Upon them there was written (respectively): \"new shekalim\" [as explained in our Mishnah, the shekalim of the current year being placed there. When the time for the terumah arrived, the treasurer would take out all the shekalim in the shofar and place them in the lishkah for the terumah to be taken from them.], \"old shekalim\" [One who did not bring his shekel that year brings it the following year and places it in that shofar and the treasurer takes it and places it with the left-overs of the lishkah.], \"kinin\" [large turtle-doves], \"burnt-offering fledglings\" [small pigeons, all burnt-offerings. But those who bring obligatory kinin place the money or the birds in the hand of the Cohein and do not put money into the shofar. The Yerushalmi gives the reason as ta'arovoth (\"admixture\"), i.e., lest one of the givers of the kinin dies, so that there will be found to be mixed up with them (the other monies) the monies of a sin-offering whose giver has died and which must itself die (and not be offered as a sacrifice). The rabbis do not fear this, however, and they hold that in the shofar of \"kinin\" the monies of obligatory kinin are placed, and with all the monies found there, there are offered up one as a sin-offering; another, as a burnt-offering. And the second (\"burnt-offering fledglings\") is all donative, and they are all offered up as burnt-offerings. The halachah is in accordance with the sages.], \"wood\" [wherein one who donates for the wood pile places his money], \"frankincense\" [wherein one who donates frankincense places his money. The treasurers take the money from the shofar and buy frankincense for it, which is burnt upon the altar.], \"gold for the kaporeth\" [One who donates gold places it or its corresponding monies there, and it goes for the kaporeth, i.e., ministering vessels. For the sprinkling bowls are called \"keforei (wipers) zahav (of gold)\" (Ezra 1:10), I Chronicles 28:17), the Cohein wiping his finger on them between sprinklings and (blood) placings of the sin-offering, (what is left on the finger being unfit)]; and six (shofroth) were for gifts. [On the first was written \"the surplus of a sin-offering\"; on the second, \"the surplus of a guilt-offering; on the third, the surplus of kinei zavim, zavoth, and yoldoth\"; on the fourth, \"the surplus of Nazirite offerings\"; on the fifth, \"the surplus of the guilt-offering of a leper\"; on the sixth, \"gift,\" unqualified. If one separated money for a sin-offering and bought a sin-offering, and he had money left over, he casts the surplus into the shofar inscribed \"the surplus of a sin-offering.\" The surplus of a guilt-offering is cast into the shofar so inscribed, and thus with all. And whoever donates anything to the altar places his money in the shofar marked gift.\"] (In the shofar inscribed) \"new shekalim,\" (there were placed) the shekalim of every (current) year. (In the shofar inscribed) \"old shekalim,\" one who had not given the shekel the preceding year deposits it the following year. \"Kinin\" are turtle-doves and \"burnt-offering fledglings\" are young pigeons. And they are all burnt-offerings. These are the words of R. Yehudah. The sages say: \"Kinin\" — one a sin-offering; another, a burnt-offering; \"burnt-offering fledgling\" — all burnt-offerings.",
            "\tIf one says: \"I shall give wood\" [i.e., if he vows to give wood (for the Temple)], he may not give less than two pieces of wood [of the type that is arranged on the wood pile (of the altar). (Its size was known.) This is the case for one who vows to give wood; but if he wishes to give wood, he may give even one piece.], \"frankincense\" — he may not give less than a fistful, [this being the amount of frankincense coming with the meal-offering, viz. (Leviticus 6:8): \"And he shall lift up from it with his fistful from the flour of the meal-offering and from its oil and all the frankincense\" — Just as the lifting of the meal-offering is with a fistful, so the (amount for) the frankincense is a fistful. This is the case for one who vows; but if he wishes to give, he may give even a grain of frankincense.], \"gold\" — he may not give less than a dinar of gold. [This, if he specifies \"coin\"; but if he just says \"gold,\" unqualified, he may bring even a tzinora, a kind of small fork.] Six (shofroth) were for gifts. What did they do with it? They would buy burnt-offerings — the flesh to the L rd and the skin to the Cohanim. This medrash was adduced by Yehoyada the high-priest (Leviticus 5:19): \"It is a guilt-offering; he was guilty; a guilt-offering to the L rd.\" [The beginning of the verse seems to contradict the end. For \" a guilt-offering\" connotes the status and halachah of a gift-offering, i.e., that it is eaten by the Cohanim. And \"a guilt-offering to the L rd\" implies that it is all for the L rd. And Yehoyada expounded it thus: Whatever comes because of sin and guilt (as when he separated money for a sin-offering or a guilt-offering and there was a surplus), burnt-offerings are bought for that surplus — the flesh to the L rd and the skin to the Cohanim.] This is the rule: Burnt-offerings are to be bought for whatever comes because of sin or guilt. The flesh, for the L rd; the skin for the Cohanim. So that the two verses are satisfied: \"a guilt-offering to the L rd\" [— the flesh]; \"a guilt-offering\" to the Cohanim [— the skin]. And it is written [i.e., Where do we find this medrash of Yehoyada?] (II Kings 12:17): \"The money for a guilt-offering and the money for sin-offerings shall not be brought into the house of the L rd. It shall be for the Cohanim.\" [This cannot mean that the Cohanim are to benefit from the monies dedicated for sin-offerings and guilt-offerings. The meaning must perforce be that the proceeds should go for something from which Cohanim do benefit, i.e., burnt-offerings, the skins belonging to the Cohanim.]"
        ],
        [
            "\tIf money was found between (the shofar for) shekalim and (the shofar for) gifts — if it were nearer to \"shekalim,\" it goes to \"shekalim\"; (if it were nearer) to \"gifts,\" it goes to \"gifts.\" [For it is written (Deuteronomy 21:3): \"And it shall be, the city closest to the slain one, etc.\" And, according to the view that where \"majority\" points in one direction, and \"nearness\" in another, we follow \"majority,\" the instance in our Mishnah is (understood to be) one in which the amounts in \"shekalim\" and \"gifts\" are equal.] If it were equi-distant, it goes to \"gifts,\" [which are of a higher order than shekalim, all of it going for burnt-offerings, whereas with \"shekalim,\" sometimes sin-offerings are brought, which are eaten by the Cohanim. Moreover, the left-overs of shekalim go for repair of the walls and its towers.] Between \"wood\" and \"frankincense\" — if nearer to \"wood,\" it goes to \"wood\"; if nearer to \"frankincense,\" it goes to \"frankincense.\" If equi-distant, it goes to \"frankincense.\" [For frankincense is itself an offering, whereas wood is merely ancillary to an offering.] Between \"kinin\" and burnt-offering fledglings\" — if nearer to \"kinin,\" it goes to \"kinin\"; if nearer to 'burnt-offering fledglings,\" it goes to \"burnt-offering fledglings.\" If equi-distant, it goes to \"burnt-offering fledglings.\" [The Yerushalmi queries: It stands to reason that if found near \"burnt-offering fledglings\" it goes for that; for since by Torah law nearness is a criterion, it is as if it certainly came from that (shofar). But if it is found equi-distant from both, where, being uncertain, we rule for the higher-order \"burnt-offering fledglings\" — with what will a woman who brought this money find atonement? It might have fallen from obligatory kinin, and if burnt-offering fledglings are sacrificed for it, how is she atoned for? And they answer: Beth-din, who are appointed over the kinin take from the congregation the amount of money that was found, bequeath it to the owner of the money that was found and sacrifice kinin for it on the possibility (that it was intended for that), and the sin-offering is not eaten.] Between chullin and ma'aser sheni — if nearer to chullin, it goes to chullin; if nearer to ma'aser sheni, it goes to ma'aser sheni. If equi-distant, it goes to ma'aser sheni. This is the rule: We follow nearness (even) for the lenient ruling and equi-distance for the stringent ruling.",
            "\tMoney found before (i.e., in the marketplace of) animal sellers is always ma'aser [i.e., even the entire year (and not only on the festival). For the festival pilgrims do not manage to spend all of their ma'aser sheni money on the festival and they leave it with their relatives or close friends to eat the entire year in Jerusalem. And the essential mitzvah of eating ma'aser sheni is (through) peace-offerings. Therefore, most of the beasts sold in Jerusalem all the days of the year are bought with ma'aser money. And even though the money might have fallen from the sellers and already been redeemed, still, since the buyers are in the majority, many people buying from one merchant, we say that it is the buyers' money and was not redeemed, and, therefore, ma'aser.] (If it were found) in the Temple Mount, it is chullin. [Even on the festival, when most of the money that men carry is ma'aser money, still, it is ruled to be chullin, for we rule according to the majority of the year and assume that it fell before the festival.] In Jerusalem [not in the animal market], during the festival, it is ma'aser. [We do not rule according to the majority of the year, for the streets of Jerusalem were swept every day, and if it had fallen before then, it would have been found.] The other days of the year it is chullin. [But the Temple Mount was not swept. For, being high, the wind swept it and removed all of the dust. (Also, it was forbidden to enter the Temple Mount with dust on one's feet, so that dust did not abound there.)]",
            "\tIf meat were found in the azarah, limbs are (ruled to be) burnt-offerings [Since they are cut in the manner specified for burnt-offerings, it is evident that they are burnt-offerings]; pieces are sin-offerings, [for only sin-offerings and guilt-offerings are eaten in the azarah.] In Jerusalem, they are peace-offerings, [most of the meat eaten in Jerusalem being peace-offerings]. Both [whether they are found in the azarah or in Jerusalem] must undergo \"transformation of form\" and be burned. [For they became unfit by removal of attention and may not be eaten. But they may not be \"cheapened\" and burned until they are unfit of a certainty. Therefore, they must undergo \"transformation of form\" by becoming unfit through nothar (remaining beyond the permitted period of eating), which, in the instance of peace-offerings, is until the third day (after sacrifice)]. If it were found in the borders [the cities of Israel], limbs are carrion, [which is generally cut into limbs which are thrown into the streets for the dogs], and pieces are permitted, [it not being the practice to cut carrion into pieces. But it was the practice to cut kosher meat into small pieces to sell them to Jews or to place them into a pot. (This, in a city where all are Jews. But in a city where there are gentiles, even pieces are forbidden.)] And during the festival, when meat is plentiful [and the limbs are not cut into small pieces but cooked as they are], even limbs are permitted.",
            "\tIf a beast were found between Jerusalem and Migdal Eder, or a similar distance on all sides, the males are burnt-offerings, [for we assume that it came from Jerusalem, and most of the males in Jerusalem are burnt-offerings]; the females are peace-offerings, [for most of the females (in Jerusalem) are peace-offerings]. R. Yehudah says: What is fit for a Pesach offering [a one-year-old male from lambs or goats] is a Pesach offering, [and the finder may sacrifice it as his Pesach offering. If the owner comes afterwards, the finder compensates him for it ] (this,) before the festival thirty days [i.e., from the time they begin to review the halachoth of Pesach and people separate their Pesach offerings. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yehudah.]",
            "\tIn the beginning, they would take pledges from its finder until he brought its libations. [They would take a pledge from one who found a burnt-offering or a peace-offering until he brought its libations at his own expense — three esronim for a bullock, two esronim for a ram, one issaron for a lamb] — whereupon he would leave it and run, [so as not to be liable for its libations] — whereupon beth-din instituted that its libations come from the congregation.",
            "\tR. Shimon said: Seven things [(following)] were instituted by beth-din. And this (above, 7:5) is one of them. (The others follow:) If a gentile sent his burnt-offering from abroad, [it being expounded (Leviticus 22:18): \"A man, a man, etc.\", whereby we are taught that gentiles bring vow and gift-offerings as Jews do] — if he sent (money for) libations along with it, we offer his (libations); if not, we offer (libations) from the congregation. Likewise, if a proselyte died and left offerings, if he has libations, we offer his; if not, we offer from the congregation. And it is a condition of beth-din concerning a high-priest that died that his meal-offering be offered from the congregation. [This refers to the tenth of the ephah that the high-priest offers up every day, half in the morning, half in the evening. It is offered from the congregation, it being written (Leviticus 6:15): \"chak olam\" — This chak (provision) shall be from the olam; that is, from the congregation — from the terumah of the lishkah.] R. Yehudah says: From the heirs, [it being written (Ibid.): \"And the anointed priest, in his place, of his sons,\" the connotation being: \"And the anointed priest, if he died — in his place, one of his sons should offer it.\"] And it was offered complete. [When it came from the congregation, according to R. Shimon, or from the heirs, according to R. Yehudah, it was offered up as a complete issaron and not as a half issaron. R. Shimon derives it from (Ibid.): \"It shall be entirely smoked\" — that it not be smoked by halves, but entirely, when it comes from the congregation. R. Yehudah derives it from: \"…of his sons shall offer it,\" i.e., When one of his sons, his heir, offers it after his father's death, he shall offer it and not its half. The halachah is in accordance with R. Yehudah that it comes from the heirs. As to its being stated in our Mishnah that it is a \"condition of beth-din,\" (rather than Torah law), according to R. Shimon, that it comes from the congregation, the gemara explains that there were two ordinances. In the beginning, it was offered by Torah law from the congregation, it being written \"chak olam.\" When they saw that the lishkah was being \"pressed,\" they instituted that it be collected from the heirs. When they saw the heirs offending (i.e., not providing it), it was re-established as Torah law. So that now it is offered by the congregation on condition of beth-din that it be re-established as Torah law.]",
            "\t(Beth-din instituted) that the Cohanim may make use of the salt and the wood (of hekdesh) [only for the eating of offerings. But as far as chullin is concerned, they may not make use of it even for the salting of chullin eaten in the azarah together with the offerings so that the offerings be eaten in satiety.], and (they instituted) that the ashes of the red heifer not be subject to me'ilah (abuse of consecrated property). [For by Torah law its ashes are not subject to me'ilah, it being written (Numbers 19:9) \"it is a sin-offering\" — it (the red heifer) is subject to me'ilah, but its ashes are not subject to me'ilah. When they saw people \"cheapening\" the ashes, they decreed that they (the ashes) be subject to me'ilah. When they saw them shunning sprinklings of doubtful (instances of dead body uncleanliness), they re-established it as Torah law (that the ashes not be subject to me'ilah)], and (they instituted) that unfit kinin be replaced by the congregation. [Those who are obligated to offer kinin bring money and place it in the shofar. Beth-din take the money and buy kinin and the owners leave and rely upon beth-din to sacrifice their kinin. If the kinin fly away or are found to be unfit, it is a condition of beth-din that they buy others from the money of the lishkah and bequeath them to the owners so that they thereby fulfill their obligation.] R. Yossi says: He who supplies the kinin replaces the unfit ones. [The one who regularly supplies the kinin (i.e., the one who stipulates with the treasurers to sell them all the kinin that they need for a certain sum) — he is obliged to replace whatever is found to be unfit. (As we learned above (4:9): \"He (the supplier) does not receive his money until it (the flour or the wine) is accepted upon the altar.\" So that if the wine turns sour or the flour becomes wormy, it is returned to the merchant.) Similarly, if the bird becomes unfit after it is bought, it is returned to the buyer and he returns the money. The halachah is in accordance with R. Yossi. For thus is it stated in the Yerushalmi: \"It is a condition of beth-din that the supplier of the kinin replaces (the birds) that are lost or that become unfit.\"]"
        ],
        [
            "\tAll the spittle found in Jerusalem is (ritually) clean [and it is not assumed to be the spittle of a zav or of a zavah, which causes uncleanliness in man and vessels, for we follow the majority (of instances)], except for the upper marketplace, [for gentile washers were found there, and the sages decreed that the gentiles be like zavin in all respects and that their spittle is unclean. And some say it is because the upper marketplace was unfrequented by most people and tended to be frequented only by zavin and zavoth, who would isolate themselves from others.] These are the words of R. Meir. R. Yossi says: The other days of the year (i.e., not on festivals) (spittle found) in the middle (of the road) is unclean; and on the sides, clean. During the festival, in the middle, it is clean; on the sides, unclean, for since they (the zavin) are unclean, they move to the sides. [(The other days of the year), zavin and zavoth are numerous and they walk in the middle of the road; and those who are clean move to the sides of the road, where most people do not walk and they exhort all those who are unclean not to touch them. But during the festival, when most of Israel are clean, the unclean ones remove themselves to the sides so as not to make the people unclean, and the clean ones walk in the middle of the road. Therefore, during the festival, the spittle found in the middle is clean and that found on the sides is unclean. The halachah is in accordance with R. Yossi.]",
            "\tAll vessels found in Jerusalem — (if they were found) on the descent to the mikveh, they are unclean; on the ascent, they are clean. [There were two paths to the mikveh: one, descending; the other, ascending, so that the unclean (vessels) not touch the clean. Those found on the descent are unclean of a certainty, for they must have fallen from those bringing them for immersion]; for not as their descent is their ascent. [For in their descent they were definitely unclean, for which reason they would bring them to the mikveh; whereas in their ascent, after immersion, they are clean.] R. Yossi says: They are all clean, [for they did not decree (uncleanliness) for vessels of doubtful status in Jerusalem. The halachah is in accordance with R. Yossi] (they are all clean) except for the basket, the rake [with which the bones of the dead are collected when they are scattered], and the meritzah [an instrument for crushing and breaking the bones of the dead to place them in the basket to carry them from place to place], for they are specifically designated for burial purposes.",
            "\tIf one found a knife on the fourteenth (of Nissan), he may slaughter with it immediately, [for of a certainty its owner immersed it (in a mikveh) yesterday, so that at sunset (it would become clean) and he would be able to slaughter with it today, Pesach eve]; (if it were found) on the thirteenth, he immerses it again. [That is, even though it may be assumed that its owner already immersed it, the finder must immerse it again on the possibility that its owner did not immerse it, having had time to do so until towards evening. And even though they did not decree (uncleanliness) for vessels of doubtful status in Jerusalem, because of the greater stringency of kodshim, immersion was required. Rambam explains that he sprinkles upon it again on the possibility that it incurred dead body uncleanliness and was sprinkled upon the third day; and now (on the possibility of its being the seventh day), he sprinkles upon it again and then immerses it.] and (if one found) a hatchet [used for cutting flesh and hacking bones], both on this and this [the thirteenth and the fourteenth] he immerses it again. [For a hatchet is fit only for the chagigah (the festival offering) in which the breaking of bones is permitted (as opposed to the Pesach offering). The gemara (Pesachim 70a) construes the Mishnah as referring to an instance in which the Nassi is at the point of death on the thirteenth, in which instance, if he dies, the entire congregation will be unclean and will sacrifice their Pesach offering in a state of uncleanliness, so that vessels would not need to be cleansed. Therefore, a knife, which is needed for the slaughtering of the Pesach, and which is subject to only one doubt, viz., perhaps the Nassi will not die and the Pesach will be sacrificed in cleanliness — a knife would be immersed (by the owner) and it is assumed that he cleansed it on the thirteenth in order to slaughter the Pesach with it on the fourteenth. But a hatchet, where there are two doubts — perhaps the Nassi will die and they will sacrifice the Pesach in uncleanliness, in which instance a chagigah is not brought and there is no need for a hatchet, and also (the second doubt), even if he does not die, perhaps the Pesachim will be abundant and a chagigah will not be brought on the fourteenth (see Pesachim 6:3) — they will not immerse it and it is assumed that it has not been cleansed.] If the fourteenth fell out on a Sabbath, he may slaughter with it immediately, [and we do not say that since it is Shabbath he may not slaughter with it, the possibility obtaining that it is unclean, so that the Pesach is rendered unclean, and he will be found to have desecrated the Sabbath with no mitzvah having been performed. My teachers explained \"he may slaughter with it immediately\" as referring to the hatchet. For even though there is no chagigah on Shabbath, it may be assumed that he immersed it on Sabbath eve for the chagigah of the fifteenth.] (If he found it) on the fifteenth, he may slaughter with it immediately, [for all the people know that sprinkling and immersion are forbidden on the festival, and they immerse everything before the festival.] If it (the hatchet) were found bound to a knife, it is like the knife, [i.e., we say that he certainly immersed it with the knife. But Rambam explains: If one knife were found with another knife that he recognizes, it (the first) is regarded as the second: if unclean, unclean; if clean, clean.]",
            "\tIf a parocheth (a Temple curtain) became unclean through a v'lad hatumah (\"the offspring of uncleanliness,\" i.e., first-degree uncleanliness) [If it touched unclean liquids, the sages having decreed that unclean liquids render objects unclean, a decree by reason of the \"liquid\" of zav and zavah, such as his spittle and his semen which are av hatumah (proto-uncleanliness) and render men and objects unclean by Torah law], it is immersed inside [and does not need to be sent outside the Divine encampment, having become unclean only through a v'lad hatumah], and it is immediately returned, [not requiring \"sunset\" (for its cleanliness)]. But if it became unclean through an av hatumah [a sheretz (creeping thing) or carrion], it is immersed outside. [It must be sent out (of the Divine encampment), as stated (Eruvin 10:15): \"If one brings sheretz-uncleanliness into the Temple, he is liable.\"], and it is spread out in the Chel [outside the azarah]. And if it was new, it was spread out on the Itzteva (the Temple portico), so the people could see how finely it was wrought.",
            "\tR. Shimon b. Gamliel says in the name of R. Shimon the son of the adjutant high-priest: The thickness of the parocheth was a hand-breadth, it was woven on seventy-two cross-rods, and on each strand there were twenty-four threads. [For it was made of blue and purple and scarlet and linen, six-fold each, as explained in Yoma.] Its length was forty cubits, and its breadth, twenty [as per the entrance of the Ulam, which was forty cubits high and twenty broad.] And it was made of eighty-two thousand. [This was the number of strands of which it was made. Another interpretation: the number of golden dinars expended upon it (was eighty-two thousand). Some texts have: \"eighty-six thousand young maidens were occupied in fashioning it.\"] Two of them were made every year, and three hundred Cohanim immersed it. [For finished articles, even though they were finished in cleanliness, require immersion for the Temple (Chagigah 3:2). The \"three hundred Cohanim\" of our Mishnah is an exaggeration, that many not being required to immerse it.]",
            "\tThe flesh of holy of holies which became unclean, whether through an av hatumah or a v'lad hatumah, whether inside (the azarah) or outside — Beth Shammai say: All is to be burned inside [in the great beth hadeshen (\"the house of the ashes\") in the azarah, where they burned holy of holies which had become unfit. For all that becomes unfit in holiness is burned in (a place of) holiness], except what became unclean through an av hatumah outside, [for since the uncleanliness is grave, and the unfitness occurred outside, it is not to be brought into the azarah to be burned, since it did not become unfit in holiness.] Beth Hillel say: All is burned outside, except what became unclean through a v'lad hatumah inside, [in which instance there are two (factors dictating its being burned inside): its uncleanliness having been incurred inside, and its uncleanliness being of lesser gravity. But if it became unclean through an av hatumah, its uncleanliness is not to be kept within until it is burned, but it is to be taken out immediately and burned outside.]",
            "\tR. Eliezer says: What became unclean through an av hatumah, whether inside or outside, is to be burned outside; and what became unclean through a v'lad hatumah, whether inside or outside, is to be burned inside. [For since it is clean by Torah law, even if it became unclean outside, it should be burned in (a place of) holiness.] R. Akiva says: Wherever it became unclean, there it is burned.",
            "\tThe limbs of the tamid are placed on the lower half of the ramp to the west. [The Cohanim who won the lot to offer up the limbs of the tamid did not do so at one time, but they would place them upon the ramp and go to the lishkath hagazith (the chamber of hewn stone) to recite the Shema, and then they would return and sacrifice the limbs upon the altar. And it is taught here that they would be placed on the lower half of the ramp. For the ramp was thirty-two cubits long, and they would place it on the half going down. And the ramp was sixteen cubits broad, and they would place it on the half towards the west.] And (the limbs) of the mussafin are placed on the lower half of the ramp towards the east. And (the limbs) of the Rosh Chodesh offerings are placed on the upper half, on the rim of the altar, [i.e., the sovev (the gallery)] towards the east. Shekalim and bikkurim (first-fruits) obtain only when there is a Temple. [Shekalim, because they are used for (the purchase of) offerings, so that where there are no offerings, there are no shekalim. Bikkurim, because it is written (Exodus 23:19): \"The first of the first-fruits of your land shall you bring to the house of the L rd your G d\" — When you have a house (i.e., the Temple), you have bikkurim; when you do not have a house, you do not have bikkurim.]; but the grain tithe and the beast tithe and bechoroth (firstlings) obtain both when there is or is not a Temple. [For the sanctity of the land does not depart, so that terumoth and ma'aseroth must be separated. And, with the beast tithe, every tenth beast must be separated. In Bechoroth (53a) it is stated that the beast tithe was suspended, so that it not be abused.] If one consecrates shekalim and bikkurim, [which obtain only when there is a Temple — if he separates them when there is no Temple], they are (notwithstanding) consecrated. R. Shimon says: If one pronounces his bikkurim consecrated, they are not consecrated. [For since it is explicitly written: \"…shall you bring to the house of the L rd your G d,\" even if he separated them, they are not called \"bikkurim\" when there is no Temple. Rambam understands this as: \"If one consecrates to bedek habayith (Temple maintenance) shekalim and bikkurim that he has already (separated).\" According to his interpretation, it is not clear why according to R. Shimon shekalim are consecrated and bikkurim not. The halachah is in accordance with R. Shimon.]"
        ]
    ],
    "sectionNames": [
        "Chapter",
        "Mishnah"
    ]
}