{ "language": "en", "title": "Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim", "versionSource": "https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH001901012/NLI", "versionTitle": "The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015", "status": "locked", "license": "CC-BY", "versionNotes": "", "shortVersionTitle": "Heinrich W. Guggenheimer, 1999-2015", "hasManuallyWrappedRefs": true, "actualLanguage": "en", "languageFamilyName": "english", "isBaseText": false, "isSource": false, "direction": "ltr", "heTitle": "תלמוד ירושלמי שקלים", "categories": [ "Talmud", "Yerushalmi", "Seder Moed" ], "text": [ [ [ "MISHNAH: On the first of Adar one proclaims about sheqalim1The yearly Temple tax of half a sheqel(Ex. 30:11–16). The expenses of the Temple service had to be paid from the tax collected for the year starting on Nisan 1. Since the tax could be enforced in the Land of Israel, it was sufficient to remind people of their duty and set up collection points one month in advance.
In talmudic times, and already in the LXX, the profane sheqel was identified with the Greek and Roman didrachma, or 2 denar piece, approximately equal to the Achemaenean sheqel (siglos). However, it is clear from the talmudic sources as well as the coinage of the first war against the Romans that as sacrificial sheqel the old Canaanite and Israelite sheqel was used, approximately a Roman tetradrachma (cf. Qiddušin 1:1, Note 122.), and therefore the biblical half-sheqel was a full profane sheqel.
and about kilaim2Since it is the end of the rainy season, farmers are reminded to remove spontaneous kilaim growth from their fields, so they should not run the risk that their harvest be forbidden for all use., and on the fifteenth of that month one reads the Esther scroll in fortified places3Greek χάραξ, “palisades”. The expression is used to describe walled cities reputed to have been walled at Joshua’s time, cf. Mishnah Megillah1:1., and one repairs the roads,4Rural roads which might have been damaged during the rainy season, to prepare them for the pilgrims going to Jerusalem in the following month. and the streets5Municipal roads., and water pools6Since the term is not discussed in the Halakhah, it is difficult to know whether one refers to religious miqwaot or to water supply for the pilgrims. Both kinds of pools may contain dust deposited there by the rains of the winter months., and one looks after all public needs7Described in the Halakhah., and marks the graves8Graves not in a cemetery, which must be clearly marked so ritually pure pilgrims will not be contaminated accidentally and then prevented from completing their pilgrimage. The whitewash characterizing these graves may have been damaged during the rainy season., and also goes to inspect for kilaim9As described in Mishnah 2..", "HALAKHAH: “On the first of Adar one proclaims,” etc. Why on the first of Adar? So that Israel should bring their sheqalim in time and it should be disbursed from the new contributions to the treasury10The technical term for the Temple tax. on time on the First of Nisan. And Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, [the heave of the treasury]11Corrector’s addition from the Babli. From here to the end of the paragraph there is a parallel in Roš Haššanah1:1 (56d line 4, ר). as at its start, as it is written12Ex. 40:17., it was in the First month of the Second year, on the first of the month, that the Sanctuary was erected. It was stated hereto, on the day the Sanctuary was erected, on the same day the contribution13The Temple tax required in Ex. 30:11–16. was collected. Rebbi Tabi, Rebbi Yoshia in the name of Cahana. It is said here months, and it is said there, months14As shown later, the reference is to Num. 28:14: this is the monthly elevation offering on its day of the New Moon, for the months of the year. This is compared to Ex. 12:2, this month shall be for you the start of months; it is the first of the months of the year. The latter verse designates the month of the spring equinox as start of the year in all matters of sacrificial ritual.. Since months mentioned there are only counted from Nisan, so also months mentioned here are only counted from Nisan. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Tabi left out the start and only quoted the end; this is not done since it was stated15In the way the baraita was stated by R. Tabi, it is impossible to see what it refers to. One has to state the baraita in its entirety for it to make sense. Babli Roš Haššanah7a.: This is the elevation sacrifice for a month at its New Moon16Num. 28:14.. I could think that one should collect every month, the verse says at its New Moon for the months; at one New Moon one collects for all months of the year. I could think on any month of his choosing, it is said here months, and it is said there, months. Since months mentioned there are only counted from Nisan, so also months mentioned here are only counted from Nisan.", "What means “one lets hear”? Rav Huna said, one proclaims17Since the Hebrew expression was no longer understood, it is substituted by the Semitic hif`il of the Greek verb κηρύσσω., as you are saying182Chr. 24:9., they made a proclamation in Jehudah and Jerusalem.", "19An almost exact parallel is in Megillah 1:7, 71a line 21, מ. There, we have stated20Mishnah Megillah1:7.: “The only difference between a First Adar and a Second Adar21In an intercalary year, where a thirteenth month is added preceding the next Nisan, this “Second Adar” is the month where dates scheduled for Adar should be observed. is the reading of the Esther scroll and gifts to the poor22Both in observance of the Purim festivities.”. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, also proclamations regarding sheqalim and kilaim are between them23Mishnah Sheqalim1:1 in an intercalary year refers to the first day of Second Adar.. Rebbi Ḥelbo and Rav Ḥuna, Rav in the name of the Great Rabbi Ḥiyya: Everybody may fulfill his obligation on the Fourteenth, which is the time of its reading24This has nothing to do with the topic under discussion. Mishnah Megillah 1:1 gives different dates for the reading of the megillah for different places. It is stated that the dates other than the 14th of Adar are not absolute; the 14th is valid at all places.. Rebbi Yose said, this25This refers to the statement of R. Simon. is correct. Did they not say,. one proclaims about sheqalim, so that Israel should bring their sheqalim in time? If you would say on the First Adar, there still would be sixty days {left} in the year. Did they not say, also one goes to inspect for kilaim, not that the plants should be recognizable? If you would say in the First Adar, they still would be small.", "Rebbi Ḥisqiah asked: But then the people in Babylonia proclaim about sheqalim on the start of the month26In the version of the ms., Ḥizqiah points out that the Mishnah applied to countries outside the Holy Land leads to nonsensical results. In the version printed in the Babli, his is a declarative sentence, that in Babylonia one proclaims at the start of winter (about November), so the money may be delivered to Jerusalem in time.. Was it not so that Israel should bring their sheqalim in time and it should be disbursed from the new contributions to the treasury on time on the First of Nisan? Rebbi Ulla asked before Rebbi Mana: Did we not state27Mishnah 3:1., “three times a year one disburses from the treasury, half a month before28In contrast to the Babli and the text of B, one reads פרס as (Latin) pars, “one half”, meaning half a month before the holiday indicated (Halakhah 3:1, Tosephta 2:1). Passover, before Pentecost, before Tabernacles.” He told him, we may say, before Passover, from those near; before Pentecost, from those farther away, before Tabernacles, from those still farther away. He answered him, it was collected all at one time. And why did they say, “three times a year”? To make a procession29Greek πομπή, Latin pompa. of the occasion.", "Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi: May one read this and not be ashamed30In B: afraid. In the biblical narrative, all good actions are ascribed to individuals, the bad to the entire people.? In a good sense, every one of goodwill31Ex. 35:5.; in a bad sense, all the people took off the gold rings in their ears32Ex. 32:3.. In a good sense, Moses led the people out33Ex. 19:1.; in a bad sense, all of you ganged up against me34Deut. 1:22.. In a good sense, then Moses and the Children of Israel sang35Ex. 15:1.; in a bad sense, the entire congregation started wailing36Num. 14:1.. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, indeed they got up early to destroy37Zeph. 3:7.. Any destructive action they made early in the morning. Rebbi Abba bar Aḥa said, one cannot understand the character of this people; they are asked for the {golden} calf and are giving, for the Sanctuary and are giving. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina stated this baraita:38To answer R. Ḥiyya bar Abba’s question. You shall make a cover of pure gold39Ex. 25:17., may the gold of the cover come and atone for the gold of the calf.", "Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman. Three contributions are mentioned in the paragraph40Ex. 25:2–3, as explained in the text., the contribution for the bases41As noted in Ex. 38:27–28, the silver contributed by half-sheqalim contributed by a head tax according to Ex. 30:11–16 was used to cast the bases, hooks, and covers, for the poles for the posts securing the sanctuary and its gobelins., the contribution for sheqalim42Since the receipt of the first tax was used for construction purposes, there must have been a second tax (in the amount of the first but collected only in the following years, not the year of construction) to provide for the communal sacrifices., and the contribution for the Sanctuary432. Speak to the Children of Israel, they shall take for me a contribution, that is the contribution for the bases. From any man of goodwill take my contribution, this refers to the contribution for sheqalim. This is the contribution which you shall take from them, that is the contribution for the Sanctuary. The contribution for the Sanctuary is for the Sanctuary, they may use it in any way they want. The contribution for sheqalim is for sacrifices, they may use it in any way they want, so that everybody’s part of it be the same. The contribution for the bases [is for the bases]44Addition by the corrector following B but probably incorrect; the fact that it is equal for everybody distinguishes it from the contributions to the Sanctuary., the rich may not increase and the poor may not decrease45Ex. 30:15.. Rebbi Abun said, also in this paragraph46In Ex. 30:11–16. The expression תְּרוּמָה לַיי or תְּרומַת יי appears in vv.. 13,14,15 Babli Megillah29b. are three contributions mentioned.", "“On the fifteenth of this month one reads the Esther scroll in fortified places.” But did not Rebbi Ḥelbo, Rav Ḥuna, Rav in the name of the Elder Rabbi Ḥiyya, say246: Everybody may fulfill his obligation on the Fourteenth, which is the time of its reading? It only comes to teach you that (the obligations apply to the Second Adar) [all obligations which apply to the Second Adar apply to the First Adar.]47The text in parentheses is the scribe’s, the one in brackets the corrector’s adapted to the text of B. The scribe’s text is clear; since only one 14th and one 15th are mentioned, the reading of the scroll happens only once and this is the Second Adar of an intercalary year. In this version, in such a year Purim is not noticed at all in the First Adar. The corrector’s text and B take the opposite opinion, difficult to understand at this moment. Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Aḥa were sitting together. Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Aḥa, it only is reasonable for the past, not for the future48The rule of R. Ḥiyya may only be applied to unforeseen circumstances. If people read on the 14th when according to the rules they should have read on the 15th, one does not tell them to read a second time. But if people from such a place come to ask before the 14th whether they may read on the 14th, one tells them no, they have to read on the 15th.; as it was stated, at a place where one is used to read it both days49In a city where there is a doubt whether one should read on the 14th or the 15th. one reads it both days. He said to him, I also am of this opinion. Rebbi Mana said, this is correct. If one read it on the Fourteenth and then wants to read it49In a city where there is a doubt whether one should read on the 14th or the 15th. on the Fifteenth, would one not listen to him? If you are saying otherwise, you would eliminate the time of the fortified places with your hands50Which is practice to be followed, being stated in two Mishnaiot..", "51A parallel (original) text for this and the following paragraph is in Megillah1:7, 71a line 14 (מ). It was stated: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, Obligations which apply to the Second Adar do not apply to the First Adar except for eulogy and for fasting which are equal for both52Tosephta Megillah1:6, Babli Megillah 6b.. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav, Rebbi Simeon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi Ḥuna, the rabbi of Sepphoris said, Rebbi Ḥanina made it a custom in Sepphoris following Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. He only said custom, therefore not as practice53It is obligatory only in places which adopted the ruling..", "But in matters of documents one writes the First Adar, the Second Adar. only that for the Second Adar one writes תִינייָן. Rebbi Jehudah says, the Second Adar one writes, and it is enough54This paragraph is thoroughly garbled, and the text of B is worse. The intelligible text is the original in Megillah(and Tosephta Megillah1:6). In the anonymous opinion (ascribed in B to R. Meïr), for both months one writes Adar, but the second one is qualified by “second” (in Aramaic, the language of contracts in both Talmudim.) R. Jehudah agrees that “Adar” alone means the First Adar in an intercalary year, but the Second may be indicated by a single letter ת֗, first letter of the Aramaic word “second”..", "“One repairs the roads,4Rural roads which might have been damaged during the rainy season, to prepare them for the pilgrims going to Jerusalem in the following month. and the streets5Municipal roads., and water pools6Since the term is not discussed in the Halakhah, it is difficult to know whether one refers to religious miqwaot or to water supply for the pilgrims. Both kinds of pools may contain dust deposited there by the rains of the winter months., and one looks after all public needs7Described in the Halakhah..” “55Tosephta Mo`ed Qaṭan2:11. From here to the end of the Halakhah the text is from Mo`ed Qaṭan1:1 (80b 66), with no or little relevance here. The Mo`ed Qaṭan text of the ms. is indicated by ק; in addition there exist an Ashkenazic text of the Yerushalmi (A) edited by J. Sussman in Kobez al Yad12 (1994), pp. 62–63.
Most of the activities permitted in the baraita are for the benefit of individuals, not the public, most clearly delivering a new pair of shoes on the semi-holiday, mentioned last in the baraita. The only reason for its inclusion here is the identity of the expression “public needs”, applied both to public works in preparation for the holiday and permitted activities during the intermediate days of an extended holiday.
The following are the public needs: One judges civil suits, and capital crimes, and cases of flogging, and one redeems valuations56Fixed amounts dedicated to the Temple, Lev. 27:2–6., and bans57Dedications reserved for the Cohanim, Num. 18:14., and dedications58Dedications for the upkeep of the Temple, other than currency., one lets the suspected adulteress drink59Num. 5:11–31., and burns the Cow60Num. 19., and one breaks the neck of the calf whose neck was to be broken61For an unsolved murder case, Deut. 21:1–9., and one pierces the ear of a Hebrew slave62, and one purifies the sufferer from skin disease63, and removes the shoe from the block but one may not return it.”", "“One marks the graves.” Were they not already marked in Adar? Explain it if there was a flood caused by rain which rinsed it off64This also is copied from Mo`ed Qaṭan. The question is why one should hire people to mark graves (or in the next paragraph to check for kilaim) on the semi-holidays approximately on the spring and fall equinoxes (Mishnah Mo`ed Qaṭan1:2) when they already had been checked in late winter. The reason that one tries to have all public works done on semi-holidays is that at that time most journeymen are without work and ready to work for lower wages. One provides work for the poor and saves taxpayer’s money at the same time. Cf. Babli Mo`ed Qaṭan6a..", "“And also one goes to inspect for kilaim8Graves not in a cemetery, which must be clearly marked so ritually pure pilgrims will not be contaminated accidentally and then prevented from completing their pilgrimage. The whitewash characterizing these graves may have been damaged during the rainy season..” Did they not already go in Adar? Explain it if the year was late and the plants not recognizable.", "65This text in addition is in Ma`aser Šeni5:1, :Notes 17–25, ש) and Sotah9:1 (Notes 29–31, ס). Babli Mo`ed Qatan6a. The biblical roots for the duty of the authorities to mark the places of graves with taxpayers’ money. From where about marks? Rebbi Berekhiah, Rebbi Jacob the son of the daughter of Jacob, in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran. Rebbi Yose said it, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Uziel the son of Rebbi Onias from Hauran in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran: impure, impure, he shall call out67Lev. 13:46. An inappropriate reference since the verse refers to the impurity of the sufferers from skin disease, not of corpses.; the impurity itself has to call out and say to you: go away! Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: The emissaries shall crisscross the land; if one sees a bone of a human he builds a sign near it.68Ez. 39:15. {A bone}69Quoted from the parallels; in parallel to the following statements the source in the verse should be stated, except for the version of B which quotes the verse only up to a bone., from here that one makes signs for bones. A human, from here that one makes signs for spine and skull. He builds, from here that one makes signs on fixed stones. If you say on loose ones, it would move and make other places impure. Near it, on a place of purity. A sign, from here the marks.", "70Tosephta Šeqalim1:5. If one found a single marked stone, even though one should not keep it so, if somebody forms a tent over it he is impure; I say a marked corpse71This expression has no explanation; B simply has “a corpse”, probably since the printer did not understand the word to be inserted. . Most parallels have קמצוץ “compressed”, a corpse buried with its head between the legs, so it fitted under the stone. This is not a Jewish burial custom. Since the majority of sources reads “impure”, they imply that Gentile corpses cause “tent impurity” (Num. 19, Babli Yebamot61a); only the texts in Ma`aser Šeni and the Tosephta follow R. Simeon who restricts tent (and any kind of biblical) impurity to Jewish bodies. was under it. If there were two, he who forms a tent over any one of them is pure; between them he is impure. If between them was a ploughed strip they are single stones, between them the area is pure and around them62 impure.", "It was stated73Tosephta Šeqalim1:5.: One does not mark flesh, for perhaps it will decompose74Then it is no longer impure.. Rebbi Justus bar Shunem asked before Rebbi Mana: Will that not cause pure food to be retroactively made impure75If the carrier of pure food learns that he has crossed a place where human flesh (without enough bone to cause tent impurity) was buried.? He said to him, it is better that these should become unusable for a limited time than that {the earth} become unusable forever." ], [ "MISHNAH: Rebbi Jehudah says, originally they were uprooting and throwing down76The public employees checking the fields for kilaim tore out all kilaim growth and left it lying on the fields.. When the number of transgressors rose77The farmers did not check for kilaim themselves since the public employees not only weeded the fields for them but also provided them with animal fodder., they were uprooting and throwing on the roadways78Then the uprooted growth was no longer animal feed but at least they got the fields weeded on public expense.; they instituted that they were declaring the entire field as ownerless79Not the real estate but the crop growing on it..", "HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Jehudah said.” It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah said, originally they were uprooting and throwing down before them; they were twice happy, first that they weeded their fields and second that they could use (the robbery) [the kilaim ]80The corrector’s [text] clearly is the correct one, supported by B; the scribe’s (text) possibly was caused by a lapse of attention.. When the number of transgressors rose, they were throwing it on the roadways, and still they were happy that they weeded their fields. They instituted that they were declaring the entire field as ownerless.", "From where that a declaration of forfeiture by a court makes it ownerless? 81The following text is copied from Peah5:1 (פ). From the middle of the text there are two Genizah sources edited by Ginzberg without noting the readings differing from the editio princeps(Yerushalmi Fragments from the Genizah, New York 1909), one noted G (pp. 120,122,129,131), the other ג (pp. 121, 123–128,130,132–139). It is written82Ezra10:8. Babli Yebamot89b.: Anybody who will not come within three days conforming to the decree of the rulers and the elders, all his property shall be devoted to destruction and he shall be separated from the community of the Diaspora83If the decree of the Court did not make the property abandoned, its destruction would have to be considered theft. Since Ezra was a teacher of the Law, his rulings have to be accepted.. From where that it84Produce declared ownerless by a decree of court. The intricacies of these rules are explained in Peah; they have no relevance here. is free from tithes? Rebbi Jonathan, the son of Rebbi Isaac bar Aḥa understood it from the following85Tosephta Sanhedrin2:9, Sanhedrin Yerushalmi 1:2 (Note 207), Babli 12a; Nedarim6:13 Note 83.: “One intercalates86Since the Jewish year is both lunar and solar, but 12 lunar months are only approximately 254 days, in 19 years there have to be seven intercalary years of 13 months each. For details see the author’s Seder Olam(Jason Aronson, Northvale NJ, 1998). years neither in the Sabbatical year, nor in the year following the Sabbatical; but if they did intercalate it is intercalated.” The one month he adds, is it not free from tithes87Since the spontaneous growth of the Seventh Year may be taken by everybody, it is not your harvest and, hence, biblically free from heave and tithes even if taken by the owner of the land. If the Supreme Court declared the year intercalary against the rules, it is nevertheless a valid 13 months year and all produce is legally abandoned property.? That refers to the Sabbatical year. What about the year after the Sabbatical? Rebbi Abun said, not to prolong the prohibition of new grain88New grain may be eaten only after the Omer sacrifice on the 16th of Nisan, Lev. 23:14. The intercalation of a month, which always falls in Adar, unnecessarily postpones the harvest of new grain.. 89This paragraph is an aside, taken from Ševi`it6:4, also Nedarim6:13. It explains why our calendar today does not take the Sabbatical year into consideration when determining intercalary months in the 19 year cycle. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: That is only before Rebbi permitted the importation of vegetables from outside the Land. But after Rebbi permitted the importation of vegetables from outside the Land, the Sabbatical year is as any other year90The soil outside the Land of Israel is unclean (cf. Amos7:17). In former times Jews did not use vegetables from outside the Land since it might have particles of soil still clinging to it. But after the last remnants of the ashes of the Red Cow disappeared, these laws became inoperative and it was possible for everybody, even the most scrupulous, to eat imported vegetables. This has to be dated to the times of Rebbi. Cf. commentary to Mishnah Berakhot 1:1..", "It was stated: One does not intercalate in the Sabbatical Year [nor in the year following the Sabbatical;]91Corrector’s addition, unjustified since the words also are missing in ג and in Peah. but only in other years of a Sabbatical period, but if they did intercalate it is intercalated. Rebbi Mana said, that refers to earlier times when years were in order, but now that years are not in order92Probably this means that since the Roman (Byzantine) government collects taxes from farmers also in the Sabbatical, they are forced to grow produce also in the Sabbatical; there no longer is any reason to treat the Sabbatical differently., the Sabbatical year is like any other year. It was stated: The house of Rabban Gamliel intercalated immediately after the end of the Sabbatical year. Rebbi Avin said, from this93All the previous arguments which prove that the action of the court can free produce from the Biblical obligations of heave and tithes are not relevant since there is a biblical obligation to manipulate the calendar so that Passover should fall in the month of the Spring equinox. Hence, the obligation to intercalate is biblical rather than rabbinic. you do not infer anything. watch the spring month94Deut. 16:1.. Watch it that it should come in its renewal.", "What text implies this95Which Mishnah text implies that property decreed ownerless by the court is legally abandoned property?? “For a grain stack under which gleanings were not collected, all ears that touch the ground are for the poor.”96Mishnah Peah5:1. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: This is from the House of Shammai. Rebbi Yose97With the text in Peah one has to read R. Yasa, contemporary of R. Immi, not R. Yose who has to be dated 2 generations later. said to him: We understand that according to everybody, this is a fine98As explained in Peah5:1, Note 4. There is no biblical reason why the ears touching the ground should be given to the poor; the farmer is fined since he put his sheaf on a place where the poor could not yet have taken the gleanings. The disagreement between the Houses of Shammai and Hillel is explained in ג: The House of Shammai hold that things abandoned exclusively for the use of the poor are legally abandoned whereas the House of Hillel hold that only things unconditionally abandoned are legally abandoned and therefore exempt from heave and tithes (Mishnah Peah6:1).. Following the House of Hillel, the poor give tithes and eat." ], [ "MISHNAH: On the Fifteenth99Of Adar, in an intercalary year the Second Adar., money changers100To exchange coins into silver half-sheqels, half a Roman tetradrachma, which are collected for the Temple. were sitting in the country side; on the Twenty Fifth they were sitting in the Temple101Since nobody is permitted to sit in the sacred domain (except possibly kings of the Davidic dynasty), these money changers had to sit on the Temple Mount, outside the sacred domain.. From the date they were sitting in the Temple one started to take pledges102To foreclose on people who did not pay their Temple tax.. From whom does one take pledges? From Levites, Israel, proselytes, and freed slaves103All these are adult male Jews subject to all commandments., but not from women, slaves104Who are obligated only in cases women are obligated. Since women do not pay, the sheqel being a positive commandment due at a fixed time, slaves cannot be obligated., and minors. Any minor for whom his father started to give the sheqel does not stop any more. However one does not take pledges from Cohanim because of communal peace105As explained in the Halakhah and Mishnah 4..
Rebbi Jehudah said: “Ben Kukhri testified at Jabneh that any Cohen who pays the sheqel108Voluntarily, even if they cannot be forced to pay. does not sin. Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai told him, on the contrary, any Cohen who does not pay the sheqel does sin109Since he reads the commandment Ex. 30:11–16 as not stating any exemption for Cohanim., only the Cohanim explain the following verse for their benefit: Any flour offering of a Cohen shall be totalled, it may not be eatenl110Lev. 6:16.. If the `omer, the two breads, and the shew bread are ours, how may they be eaten?l111If they would pay the sheqel, they would be part owners of these offerings, but the consumption of all these offerings is explicitly commanded.”", "HALAKHAH: “On the Fifteenth,” etc. But one requests106The Mishnah states that one does not take pledges from women, slaves, and minors. It should have stated that these are not obligated to pay, then it would be obvious that nothing can be collected. This argument is valid for women and slaves, but since the Mishnah indicates that fathers are invited to pay the sheqel for their minor sons, an informal request may be made earlier, a formal one only if the son reaches the age of adulthood for religious obligations, the onset of puberty indicated by the growth of at least two pubic hairs.? This is if he grew two pubic hairs, but it does not apply if he did not grow two pubic hairs. In matters of pledges, one never takes pledges if he did not grow two pubic hairs.", "So is the Mishnah: One does not take pledges from Cohanim because one honors their status107Even though they should pay as explained in the next Mishnah. The original text implies a criticism of the Cohanim; one does not enforce the payment because they are quarrelsome..", "“Rebbi Jehudah said:, testified” etc. Rebbi Berekhiah said, the reason of Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai is112Ex. 30:12., this they shall give, twelve tribes shall give. Rebbi Tabi in the name of Rav Hamnuna: So answer the Sages to Rebbi Jehudah113Who reports the opinion of Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai approvingly.. A private purification sacrifice is let to die; a public purification sacrifice is not left to die114Once a sacrifice has been designated as a purification sacrifice it can neither be redeemed nor used for any other sacrifice. If such an animal was lost, another animal was used, and then the original was found again (or a few similar situations), nothing can be done with it, it must be left to die.. A private flour offering115Of a Cohen, as noted in the Mishnah. is brought totally, but no public flour offering is brought totally. This is difficult, how can one argue with a person about something with which he does not agree116ג reads: “by an argument that can be objected to.”? “For no public purification sacrifice is left to die; Rebbi Jehudah says, it shall be left to die.117Mishnah Yoma6:2; see there Halakhah 1, Note 33.” And he objects to them, are these not private flour offerings118The argument of Cohanim to which Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai objects implies that the half sheqel is not given as a tax but to acquire a minute part of the public sacrifices, which imply that there are no public offerings at all, only those of a private partnership.? They answer him, from the moment when it is delivered to the public, it is treated as a public offering119The argument is impossible since biblical rules for private and public offerings differ in some respects.. It is written, everybody being counted120Ex. 30:13., Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Neḥemiah. One said, everyone who crossed the Sea shall give, the other one said, everyone being counted121In Numbers where it is made explicit that the tribe of Levi was not counted with the remainder of the tribes. Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai cannot explain this verse, unless he explains that Ex. 30:11–16 is not the basis of the duty to pay the sheqel, but Ben Kovri (Kokhri, Bukhri, Bikhri) cannot explain the inclusion in Mishnah 4. shall give. He who said, everyone who crossed the Sea shall give, supports Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai; he who said, everyone being counted shall give, supports Ben Kovri." ], [ "MISHNAH: Even though they said that one does not take pledges from women, slaves, and minors, but if they gave the sheqel one accepts it from them. One does not accept from the Non-Jew and the Samaritan122This is a statement in dispute as explained in the Halakhah. The argument behind the statement is that since the Temple tax is used for public sacrifices, only people for whom the sacrifices are brought may contribute., and from them one does not accept nests of male sufferers from gonorrhea, nests of female sufferers from flux, nests of women having given birth, and purification and reparation sacrifices123This is the list of sacrifices which a Jew may only bring if he is obligated for them. Since a Non-Jew never is obligated to follow any pentateuchal rules other than the Noahide commandments, he never is eligible for these offerings. If a sacrifice is voluntary for Jews, it also is so for Non-Jews.. This is the principle: Anything which can be given as a vow or a gift one does accept from them; anything which\\can be given neither as a vow nor a gift one does not accept from them. So it is spelled out by Ezra, it is not upon you and us to build our God’s House124Ezra 4:3. This refers only to the sheqel..
The following are liable for agio145Latin collybus, collubus, Greek κόλλυβος “exchange of coins, rate of exchange”, here used for the money changer’s fee.: Levites, Israelites, proselytes, and freedmen, but not priests, women, slaves, and minors146Since these are obligated for the sheqel, they have to give exactly one didrachma piece. If they have other coins, they have to pay the fee for exchange in correct coins. But contributions of priests, women, slaves, and minors, are voluntary and not bound by the exact amount or exact coins and, therefore, do not have to be exchanged.. He who pays the sheqel for a slave, a woman, a priest, or a minor, is not liable. He who paid the sheqel for himself and another person is liable for one agio; Rebbi Meïr says, two agios147For the rabbis, a person paying for two may pay a tetradrachma, R. Meïr requires two didrachmas.. He who gives a tetradrachma to receive back a sheqel is liable for two agios148If he pays with a tetradrachma he should get back 2 denar minus the agio, set in Mishnah 7 either as an obolos (1/6 denar) or a semi-obolos. If he pays the money-changer’s fee separately, he has to pay for changing the common 2 denar into the less common didrachma..
A person who pays the sheqel for a poor person. a neighbor, or a dweller in his town is not liable for the agio, unless it is as a loan, then he is liable156If he pays for himself and from his own money he also pays for others, all is one transaction and pays one transaction fee. But if he is reimbursed for his expense this is not an act of charity; therefore each payment is a separate transaction and incurs a separate fee.. Brothers who are partners157In the Halakhah the reading from a different Mishnah is: “brothers or partners”, but B quoting the Mishnah here reads “brothers as partners”. As long as the father’s estate is not distributed, the surviving brothers are still considered children of their father; if the estate pays for their sheqel it is one transaction and incurs one fee. Calves born to the estate are considered property of one person and the tenth calf automatically becomes a sacrifice. If they distributed the estate but then decided to continue jointly to pursue the agricultural affairs of their father, they form a new partnership and follow the rules of partnerships. They are independent persons, each of whom has to pay his own fee, but all calves born are property of joint owners, not a single person, therefore the tenth calf or lamb (Lev. 27:32) is not sanctified. who are liable for the agio are not liable for animal tithe; if they are liable for animal tithe they are not liable for the agio. How much is the agio? A silver obolos1581/6 of a Roman denar., the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages say, half an obolos.", "HALAKHAH: “Even though they said,” etc. Therefore one does not request? Here you are saying, one requests, but there106The Mishnah states that one does not take pledges from women, slaves, and minors. It should have stated that these are not obligated to pay, then it would be obvious that nothing can be collected. This argument is valid for women and slaves, but since the Mishnah indicates that fathers are invited to pay the sheqel for their minor sons, an informal request may be made earlier, a formal one only if the son reaches the age of adulthood for religious obligations, the onset of puberty indicated by the growth of at least two pubic hairs. you are saying, one does not request. There if he grew two pubic hairs, and here if he did not grow two pubic hairs.", "“One does not accept from the Non-Jew and the Samaritan.” Rebbi Abba said, explain it125On the face of it, the equation of Samaritans with Gentiles is unintelligible. The baraita shows that up to the time of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, Rebbi’s father, the Samaritans were simply Sadducee Jews, the only Sadducee sect to survive after the destruction of the Temple. The Mishnah here reproduces Rebbi’s opinion. The paragraph also is in Berakhot7:1 (Note 59, ב). following him who said, a Samaritan is like a Gentile, as they disagreed: A Samaritan is like a Gentile, the words of Rebbi; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, a Samaritan is like a Jew in all respects.", "Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah is about Gentiles, therefore not about Samaritans. It was stated so126Sifra Wayyiqra I (Ḥovah) Pereq2(3).: “A human127Lev. 1:2. This use of human follows R.. Simeon’s interpretation of Ez. 34:30, where he reads אָדָ֣ם אַתֶּ֑ם as “you are noblemen” (Accadic awēlum), a title reserved for members of the Covenant. Since the Samaritans are descendants of proselytes, they are included in all obligations and privileges of the covenant and cannot be excluded from any of these., to include the proselytes. From among you128Reading prefix mem as privative; excluding people who removed themselves from the Covenant. It seems that ג reads “removed from discipline”., to exclude the apostates.” The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar: “One does not accept nests of male sufferers from gonorrhea, nests of female sufferers from flux, nests of women having given birth.” Do there exist nests of sufferers from gonorrhea and flux among Gentiles129These kinds of impurity do not apply to Gentiles who anyhow do not need them since they only are required to permit the healed person to enter the sanctuary or eat sancta, from which Gentiles are excluded.? But the beginning is about Gentiles, the end about Samaritans130The statement that one does not accept the sheqel from them (but also that one accepts their voluntary sacrifices.) The rest is Rebbi’s formulation to exclude Samaritans from Jewish worship.. So it is, the beginning is about Gentiles, the end about Samaritans.", "Rebbi Joḥanan said, at the start131At the start of building the Temple, the situation described in the verse from Ezra. While the verse refers to Samaritans, the discussion here is about Gentile offerings. one accepts from them neither definite objects nor non-definite objects132After the building was finished and funds are needed for its continual upkeep., and at the end one accepts from them definite objects but not non-definite objects133Since the Torah clearly accepts Gentile sacrifices, Lev. 22:25, one also has to accept vessels or other objects inscribed with the Gentile donor’s name. But unspecified moneys for the continual upkeep of the Temple are reserved for and are a duty upon Jews.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, both at the beginning and at the end one accepts from them neither definite objects nor non-definite objects. A baraita134Tosephta 1:7, Sifra Emor Parashah7(2), Babli Menaḥot73b; cf. Nazir9:1 Note 8. disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “One does not accept from them voluntary gifts for Temple property for the upkeep of the Temple.” He explains it, both at the start and at the end, if it is for non-definite objects. A Mishnah135Mishnah Arakhin1:3, where R. Meïr and R. Jehudah disagree about the status of a Gentile with respect to the rules detailed in Lev. 27:2–8. disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Everybody agrees that they make vows and are objects of vows136Since a voluntary sacrifice must be vowed to the Temple before it can be offered, Lev. 22:25 clearly implies that a Gentile’s vows are valid in a Jewish setting. It is stated that a Jew may make a vow whose object is a Gentile or which is conditioned on the actions of a Gentile.. He explains it for elevation offerings137These are the only sacrifices which a Gentile unquestionably is able to bring. It is difficult to see how he could bring a well-being offering which as a family sacrifice has to be consumed by the pure family members. The Gentile, being biblically unable to be impure, cannot biblically be pure either.. One understands that he makes a vow to bring an elevation offering. Can he be the object of a vow for an elevation offering? No, if an Israel says, I undertake to bring an elevation offering, when a Gentile hears him and says, I am undertaking what he says138While the Gentile is not the passive object of a vow, his vow is subsidiary to the Jew’s.. Does he not bring libations with it139As required by Num. 15:1–15.? Is not the excess money given for libations used for vessels of Service? Then it turns out that he brought {money for} a definite object140Nobody brings his libations to the Temple; he pays for them in the Temple; they are brought from the Temple’s stores, and the net proceeds are used to buy gold and silver vessels for the Temple. These are objects that could be engraved with the donor’s name.! Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun objected, did we not state that they may offer their value141While not mentioned in Lev. 27:2–8, in fact this is what money donations to the Temple are used for.? Are offerings of one’s value not for the upkeep of the Temple142The person making the vow of his value is intent to give the money to the worship; what actually is done with the money is not of interest to him.? It is as you are saying there, his intent was for Heaven; automatically it will be used for the upkeep of the Temple143Similarly, the excess money given for libations goes into a big pot where the individual contributions are no longer recognizable; no donor’s plate can be affixed to any vessel bought with such money.; so here you are saying, his intent was for Heaven; automatically it will be used for vessels of Service. How does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish treat this? He explains, it is not upon you and us to build our God’s House. Rebbi Ḥilkiah said, Rebbi Simon asked: Does this imply that one does not accept from them143Similarly, the excess money given for libations goes into a big pot where the individual contributions are no longer recognizable; no donor’s plate can be affixed to any vessel bought with such money. for an aqueduct, or the city walls, or its towers, because of you have no part, nor rightful claim, nor memorial, in Jerusalem144Neh. 2:20..", "“The following are liable for agio,” etc. The Mishnah is Rebbi Meïr’s, since Rebbi Meïr said, even though his sheqel is not from the Torah, his agio is from the Torah149It seems that one has to accept the reading of B and ג: “just as his sheqel is from the Torah” (Ex. 30:11–16). The argument of the concluding aggadah is that the obligation is not to give the value of a half-sheqel of silver (5.7 g), but the exact coin which at this moment is called “sheqel” having approximately the historical weight. Then naturally anybody who pays with other coins automatically is required to pay the statutory fee for exchange into the correct coin.. Rebbi Meir is of the opinion that one who gives his sheqel as a piece is not liable for the agio150 151, Rebbi Meïr said, like a kind of coin made of fire did the Holy One, praise to Him, bring out from under the Throne of Glory and showed it to Moses. He said to him, this they shall give152Ex. 30:13., like this they shall give.", "“He who gives a tetradrachma to receive back a sheqel is liable for two agios.” Rebbi Eleazar said, it is Rebbi Meïr’s, as Rebbi Meïr said, one for the sheqel which he gives and one for the tetradrachma153With the other two sources, read: sheqel. which he takes. Rav said, it is everybody’s opinion, one for the sheqel which he [gives, one for the sheqel which he]154Addition by the corrector following B; this has to be deleted since it makes the question about Rav unnecessary. takes, and one for the words of the Torah155Rav insists that anybody who pays with any coin other than a didrachma first has to pay the regular fee for the money changer (into the money changer’s pocket) and then an additional agio (into the Temple’s treasury) for not presenting a didrachma; cf. Tosephta 1:8, end. According to him, the κολλυβιστής “agio collector” in the Temple (Matt. 21:12) collected the agio for the Temple treasury and with good reason is not called τραπεζίτης “money changer”.. In Rav’s opinion, are there three agios? There came Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac in the name of Rav: There are three agios, one for the sheqel which he gives, one for the sheqel which he takes, and one for the words of the Torah.", "Brothers or partners who are liable for the agio and not liable for animal tithe,” if they distributed and then formed a partnership; “if they are liable for animal tithe and not liable for the agio,” if they never distributed.", "“A person who pays the sheqel for a poor person,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar said, only if they counted lambs against rams and rams against lambs, but if they counted lambs against lambs and rams against rams, it was his part from the first hour. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if they counted lambs against lambs and rams against rams, they are like buyers159R. Eleazar accords them the state of partnership only it there was a genuine distribution of the estate before the new partnership was entered into; if the estate was left untouched and each son got a proportional share of everything, it remains an estate. R. Joḥanan holds that the formal establishment of a partnership is all that is needed. Here “property” means not only real estate but everything not livestock. Babli Bekhorot56b., as we have stated there160Mishnah Bekhorot9:3.: “The buyer or recipient of a gift is not liable for animal tithe. Rebbi Ḥizkiah161The reading of ג “Ḥilkiah” has to be rejected since the latter was not a student of R. Jeremiah. said that Rebbi Jeremiah asked: And why are we not saying that sometimes they are liable for both and sometimes they are not liable for either. How is this done? If they distributed the properties and afterwards distributed the animals they are liable for both162If the estate was distributed except for livestock and then a partnership formed, they are individually responsible for their sheqels with agio, while the undistributed livestock remains subject to animal tithe even under the new arrangement.. If they distributed the animals and afterwards distributed the properties they are not liable for either.163If the livestock was distributed but not the real estate and the cash of the estate, they may continue to pay their sheqels together with one agio while the livestock is under the rules of partnership. Babli Bekhorot56b. Rebbi Mana said, this holds only if the animals were not a majority, but if the animals were a majority they form the main property164The rule of the Mishnah applies even if the cash was never distributed explicitly.. Rebbi Abun said that Rebbi Shammai asked: Because you made them like one person for animal tithe, you made them not liable for agios165If the heirs are adults the status of the estate should have no influence on the duty to pay the agio.? He said to him, no. There is a difference because he is giving a complete tetradrachma166Since the estate (here supposed to be property of two brothers) pays for both of them, there is only one transaction and only one fee is due.. Then even if they distributed and then formed a partnership, they should be liable for animal tithe and not liable for the agio167If the partnership would pay for them.. But we have stated, “they are liable for the agio, not liable for animal tithe.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Abba bar Rav Huna168In the Babli he is mentioned as Rabbah bar Rav Huna. it is the same for two brothers inheriting from their father or two brothers-in-law inheriting from their father-in-law169Since in the absence of male offsprings the daughters inherit following the rules for males, all rules for brothers dividing the estate of their father apply to brothers-in-law acting as administrators of their wives’ estates..", "170Tosephta 1:8, end. “Where were the agios credited to? Rebbi Meïr says, to the sheqalim. Rebbi Eleazar says, for voluntary offerings171 “Gift,” the separate account kept at the Temple treasury from which sacrifices were bought to occupy the altar in case it otherwise would be idle.. Rebbi Simeon from Shezur says, gold sheeting, cover for the Holiest of Holies172This special account in the Temple treasury is not mentioned in any other source.. Ben Azzai says, the money changers were taking them as their fees; but some say, for travel expenses173Everybody except Ben Azzai holds that the money changers as tax collectors are salaried employees of the Temple. In the second version of Ben Azzai’s opinion he also agrees that the tax collectors receive a basic salary for the time they are working for the Temple; the income from the agio only covers their travel expenses..”" ] ], [ [ "MISHNAH: One consolidates sheqalim to darics1Δαρεικός, a Persian gold coin; here the name stands for the Roman aureus, commonly worth 25 full weight silver denarii. because of the difficulty of transport. Just as there were horns2Boxes in the shape of horns wirh wide bottoms and narrow slits to deposit the coins. in the Temple, so were in the countryside. If the people of a city sent their sheqalim and these were stolen or lost, if the sums were disbursed3If the new sheqalim were taken from the treasury to be disbursed for the service of the new year, in the computation of the monies available in Nisan the collected but not received sums are taken into account for disbursing on the next two occasions (Chapter 1, Note 26). Therefore the money was stolen from the Temple; the oath which is required either by biblical law or by rabbinic institution from the carrier to be sworn in presence of the owner or his representative, has to be sworn in presence of the Temple treasurers. If the theft or loss was detected earlier, the oath is due to the representatives of the taxpayers. The oaths are different for salaried or unpaid carriers. they will have to swear to the Temple custodians4The administrators of the Temple treasury., otherwise they will have to swear to the city dwellers who have to replace them by new sheqalim. If they were found or the thieves returned them5If the sheqalim already were Temple property (as explained in the preceding sentence), they would have committed not only larceny but also sacrilege., both are sheqalim and cannot be credited for the coming year.", "HALAKHAH: “One consolidates sheqalim to darics,” etc. Should one exchange them for a pearl? Perhaps the pearl would lose in value and the Temple treasury would suffer damage. As we have stated there6Mishnah Bekhorot8:7., “All7Any sancta which may be redeemed at all may be redeemed for money’s worth except sheqalim. can be redeemed by money or monies-worth except for sheqalim” [and one does not redeem by implements;]8Addition by the corrector from the Babli, unnecessary as already noted by R. Eliahu of Wilna. and Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, perhaps the implements would lose in value and the Temple treasury would suffer damage. Also here, perhaps the pearl would lose in value and the Temple treasury would suffer damage.", "The Mishnah is about new sheqalim, but not about old sheqalim. And it was stated so: Old ones in the Temple, no old ones in the countryside9Only current taxes are collected outside of Jerusalem; taxes due from prior years have to be delivered by the taxpayer, who has to bear the full risk of accidents before delivery, to the Temple in Jerusalem.. The Mishnah is about an unpaid trustee, but not about a paid keeper10Mishnah Ševuot 8:1. The unpaid trustee has to swear that he did not take the valuables for himself and that he was not grossly negligent. The paid keeper has to pay for what is lost or stolen; there is no reason he should swear in these circumstances.. Rav Abba said, even if you say11Since the speaker is a Babylonian, the reading of ג, תימא, may be a true report of his saying and not a babylonized spelling of a Yerushalmi text. about a paid keeper, if they were stolen, by an armed robber12Greek ληστής. The paid keeper does not have to pay for accidents which clearly were beyond his control. Babli Bava Meṣi`a58a., if the were lost, as when his ship sank at sea. Rebbi Justus ben Rebbi Simon said, it follows him who said, one disburses on the account of what was collected and what was to be collected13Babli Ketubot108a, Bava Meṣi`a58a., but not following him who said one does not disburse on basis of what was collected14But not delivered to the Temple treasury. nor what was secured by pledges.", "“If the people of a city sent their sheqalim and these were stolen or lost.” 15Since ג and the Babli version M confirm the text of the original scribe, the corrector’s additions have to be considered as a conflation with the text of B. Rebbi Eleazar said, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, since Rebbi Simeon said, sancta for whose alienation he is responsible are like his own property16Mishnah Ševuot6:7 (Note 97). The majority opinion is that there can be no (biblical) oath for sancta; so it seems that for them the carriers of the sheqalim could not swear.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is everybody’s opinion, because of an instituted oath17In his opinion the Mishnah Ševuot is irrelevant here. The oath is not biblical, and it is not a question whether the sheqalim are sancta or not; the oath is the general rabbinic oath imposed on all persons who cannot be forced to pay damages and on whom no biblical oath can be imposed.. Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion is understandable; “they have to swear to the city dwellers who have to replace them by new sheqalim.” Is that Rebbi Simeon’s? Even though the city dwellers agreed to pay, Temple property cannot be released without an oath18Even if the city dwellers believe the trustees and do not require an oath that they are innocent of the loss, it is a rabbinic requirement that the Temple trustees insist on such an oath..", "Somebody put aside his sheqel20Before it was delivered to the Temple authorities. and it was lost. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is responsible for its alienation21He has to pay another sheqel. Babli Ḥulin 139a. until he delivers to the Temple trustee. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Temple property is Heaven’s at any place where it may be22Mishnah Qiddušin1:6: “A promise to Heaven is like delivery to an individual.”. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “they have to swear to the city dwellers who have to replace them by new sheqalim..” Still23Corrector’s addition, supported by all parallel sources. this is because of a regulation oath24The oath is only because they lost other people’s property, and the city dwellers pay as a matter of public policy; it does not imply anything about personal liability to replace the lost money..", "It was stated25B (not supported by M) reads: “Rebbi stated”.: The first ones fall to the new sheqalim, the second ones to the old sheqalim26Discussion of the last sentence of the Mishnah. The old sheqalim are the leftover from the previous year, given to the gift fund for supplementary sacrifices (Chapter 1, Note 171.). Which ones are first and which ones are second? Rebbi Phineas ben Rebbi Ḥananiah27Since R. Abba Mari belongs to the last generation of Galilean Amoraim, he also has to be dated in this period. His exact patronymic cannot be determined. and Rebbi Abba Mari. One said, those that the city dwellers sent first28The Babli texts B and M add: “therefore the last”; the sheqalim contributed first are the last to be delivered. This seems to be a gloss incorporated into the text., but the other one said, those which came in to the hands of the Temple trustees first." ], [ "MISHNAH: If one gives his sheqel to another person to deliver it for him but that one uses it for himself, if the sums were disbursed he committed me`ilah29Sacrilegious larceny.
As explained in Note 3, the money used for public sacrifices, disbursed three times a year (Mishnah 3:1) is computed taking into account monies collected but not yet delivered. These therefore are Temple money wherever they be at the moment (Note 22). Dishonest use of these monies therefore is not stealing from a private person but me`ilah from Heaven’s property.
. If somebody pays his sheqel from Temple money, if the sums were disbursed and the animal sacrificed he committed me`ilah30Temple money in general is money intended for the upkeep of the Temple. Sheqalim are mainly used to buy sacrifices. Using one for the other is alienation from the original intent but not me`ilah, which is committed only if sancta are used for profane purposes. If the money which he took from Temple money is actually used to buy a sacrifice, he does not have to take from his profane money to pay the sheqel; using the corresponding profane money makes the act larceny.. From Second Tithe or Sabbatical money, he shall eat correspondingly31Second Tithe is produce to be eaten in Jerusalem in purity. The produce may be redeemed and the money taken to Jerusalem (Deut. 14:22–27). Similarly, Sabbatical produce has to be eaten, not used in industry. If such produce was sold, the proceeds are to be used to buy produce of the Land to be consumed in the Land. If such money was alienated from its original use, the situation can be repaired in replacing it with new money to be used for the original purpose..", "HALAKHAH: “He who pays the sheqel,” etc. We have stated, “if the sums were disbursed.” In the House of Rebbi it was stated, “if the animal was sacrificed.32Even in the first sentence of the Mishnah.” Rebbi Eleazar said, who is the Tanna of “if the animal was sacrificed”? Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said, he receives his money immediately, the priests are quick33The statement of R. Simeon is Halakhah 4:11. The Mishnah there states that flour and wine bought by the Temple are bought on condition that they be qualified to be used on the altar. The risk that the flour might have worms or the wine be vinegar has to be carried by the seller; therefore he cannot be paid before the produce is used and found qualified. R. Simeon disagrees since the Cohanim will do the checking immediately. Therefore if we interpret that “the sums were disbursed” not that they were taken from the treasury to the office of the buying agent but that they were actually contracted for sacrificial animals, for R. Simeon there is no practical difference between the two statements. (Tosephta Me`ilah1:21).. It is difficult. If somebody stole another’s elevation offering and slaughtered it without special mention, is it not without special mention atoning for the original owner34The entire Mishnah seems to be baseless. Since the sheqalim become part of a large sum, it is impossible to know whose sheqel pays for what and when his particular sheqel is disbursed.? Rebbi Yudan said, explain it if it was a definite object, like that of the House of Rabban Gamliel who was taking aim throwing it into the chest35Mishnah 3:3. In the House of Rabban Gamliel I they took their sheqel and threw it into the box from which sacrifices were bought; they had control over the time when their sheqel was used.. But should one not worry that maybe it will become part of the remainder; is there me`ilah for the remainder36As explained in Halakhah 4:3, the leftover monies could be used for many needs of the Temple other than sacrifices; therefore larceny of these monies was not me`ilah which required a special sacrifice; R. Meïr disagrees and seems to restrict the uses of the money to sacrificial objects enumerated in Mishnah 4:3. Babli Qiddušin54a.? But it must follow Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr said, there is me`ilah for the remainder. Still if it was a definite object, like that of the House of Rabban Gamliel who was taking aim and disbursed it in his name37There can be me`ilah only if the misappropriated sheqel can be traced to the moment of its actual use for sacrifices..", "How does he profit38In order to be guilty of me`ilah, one not only must use a sacred object illegally but also profit from the action (Mishnah Me`ilah5:1).? Rebbi Abbin said in the name of the rabbis there, since the court could take a pledge from but did not take any pledge he is like one who profited.", "It is written39Lev. 27:26., but a firstling which is born first to the Eternal by a domestic animal no person can declare holy. No holiness can fall on anything holy40The argument is based on the second part of the verse, not quoted in the text: whether ox or sheep, it [already] is the Eternal’s; cf. Mishnah Arakhin8:7. The problem addressed is how to rectify the situation that tithe or sabbatical money was taken for the sheqel. Not only is there an obligation to make up for the value taken but the coin given as sheqel, being already holy (of a minor degree) cannot possibly acquire the holiness of monies dedicated to the Temple. Without rectification, the use of the coin by the Temple authorities would be sinful.. What does he do? He brings a profane tetradrachma and says, the monies of Second Tithe wherever they be41Meaning the coins given as sheqel. are redeemed by this tetradrachma; this is designated as Second Tithe and the others41Meaning the coins given as sheqel. are declared sheqalim." ], [ "MISHNAH: If somebody collects coins and says, “these are for my sheqel,” the House of Shammai say, the excess is gift42To be given into the gift account of the Temple treasury from which elevation offerings are bought to occupy the altar when otherwise it would be idle., but the House of Hillel say, the excess is profane43As explained in the Halakhah and Mishnah 4, a sheqel is a fixed sum and it is reasonable to assume that only the amount necessary was dedicated. The price of an animal for a sacrifice is variable; since the person is ready to spend the entire amount, the entire amount is dedicated.. “That I shall take from these for my sheqel,” they agree that the excess is profane. “These are for a purification offering,” they agree that the excess is gift, “that I shall take from these for a purification offering,” they agree that the excess is profane.
Rebbi Simeon said, what is the difference between sheqalim and a purification offering57As stated in Mishnah 3.? It is that sheqalim have a fixed value and a purification offering has no fixed value. Rebbi Jehudah said, sheqalim also have no fixed value. When Israel returned from the Babylonian exile they gave as Temple tax darics58A Persian gold coin., they continued to give sela`im59In old Babylonian sources the silā is the standard (Sumerian) unit of volume. In the Talmudim, it is the standard expression for the silver tetradrachma (approximately 14g), roughly corresponding to the old Phoenician sheqel. In the context here, a similar Persian coin must be intended. The vocalization סֶלַע is customary (from the Hebrew word “rock”); probably סִלַע historically would be more correct., they continued to give minted coins60In this context meaning the silver didrachma., they wanted to give denars61But this reduction was never accepted, see the Halakhah.. Rebbi Simeon said, anyhow everybody gave the same62While the value of the sheqel was not constant in time, at any given time everybody knew exactly what was required., but for a purification offering, one brings for a tetradrachma, another for two, and still another for three.", "HALAKHAH: “If somebody collects coins,” etc. 43As explained in the Halakhah and Mishnah 4, a sheqel is a fixed sum and it is reasonable to assume that only the amount necessary was dedicated. The price of an animal for a sacrifice is variable; since the person is ready to spend the entire amount, the entire amount is dedicated. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, where do they disagree? If he collects small change44One does not know what sum was accumulated without counting the copper coins. But since exactly 2 silver denars are needed, if silver coins are collected and the owner says, these are sheqalim, all of them are dedicated according to everybody.. But if he says, these [are for my sheqel ]45Corrector’s addition. The addition is unnecessary as shown by all parallel sources and the following statement of R. Ḥizqiah. It obscures the main point that the collector of the coins says “these”, not “from these”. In the latter case everybody agrees that the excess is profane; in the first case R. Yose holds that “these” dedicated all coins in the box whereas R. Bevai holds that, in case the amount needed is known beforehand, only the amount needed is dedicated., everybody agrees that the excess is gift. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Bevai in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, where do they disagree? If he collects small change. But if he says, these, everybody agrees that the excess is profane. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, a Mishnah supports Rebbi Bevai, [as we have stated]: “Rebbi Simeon says, what is the difference between sheqalim and purification offerings? It is that sheqalim are a fixed sum but purification offerings have no fixed price46Mishnah 4..” Where do we hold? If about one who says, “that I shall bring my sheqel from these,” everybody agrees that the excess is profane. If about one who says, “that I shall bring my purification offering from these,” everybody agrees that the excess is gift47Including the House of Shammai.. But we must deal with the case of one who says “these sheqalim”, since from the Torah they are a fixed amount the excess is profane, “purification offerings”, since their value is not a fixed amount from the Torah the excess is gift. How does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish48This name is impossible here; one has to read with the Babli sources “R. Simeon”, denying that the argument of R. Ḥizqiah is applicable to the reasoning of the House of Shammai. The reading of the text in Nazir, “R. Yose” also is possible; in that case he states that the argument of R. Simeon applies only if the stated intent is to collect monies for the Temple tax, not if the declaration is made on monies already available. In the latter case, R. Simeon may agree that the excess is earmarked for the Temple gift account. treat this? He explains it, if he collects small change following the House of Hillel. But did we not state49Mishnah 5., “the excess of sheqalim is profane”? He explains it, if he collects small change following the House of Hillel. But did we not state, “the excess of the tenth of an ephah” [is profane]50Addition of the corrector. Mishnah 5 clearly states that excess monies collected for a flour offering of a tenth of an ephah, probably not the daily offering of the rich High Priest (Lev. 6:12–16) but the purification offering of the very poor (Lev. 5:11–13), are dedicated for the gift account. The entire sentence is missing in B. In ג the reading is “the excess of a tenth of an ephah are sheqalim”. This is acceptable; the excess of coins collected for a sanctum may be used for another sacred purpose. While the sanctity of sheqalim is less than that of a flour offering, the switch will be permitted to the poor following the House of Hillel.? Still he explains it if he collects small change following the House of Hillel.", "If somebody put aside his sheqel in the belief that he owed it and it turned out that he did not owe, it was not dedicated51The entire argument follows the House of Hillel who in Mishnah Nazir5:1 stated that dedication in error is void, against the opinion of the House of Shammai.. If he put aside two in the belief that he owed twice and it turned out that he owed only once, how do you treat the second? As one who believed that he owed it and it turned out that he did not owe, or as one who said “these”52Following those who hold that dedicating “these coins” is a full dedication even if the value exceeds that of a sheqel.?", "“When Israel returned from the Babylonian exile they gave as Temple tax darics,” denars63Aurei, Roman gold denarii. The numismatic evidence shows that the Dareikos was worth about twice the aureus., “they continued to give sela`im,” as their meaning64The Accadic sila used in both Talmudim to designate the Roman tetradrachma., “they continued to give minted coins,” half tetradrachmas, they wanted to give denars,” quarters65With J. Levy reading as Latin quarta., but these were not accepted by the following: and we accepted for us as commandment to give a sheqel three times66Neh. 10:33, following the changed wording in B which is understood also in S. The usual translation is “a third of a sheqel.” The verse declares the collection of sheqalim a post-exilic institution. Babli Bava batra9a. in the year for the service in our God’s House. Rebbi Ḥilkiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: From here that a person has to give his sheqel three times a year; <from here that a person is responsible for the alienation of his sheqel three times a year;>67Added from the other two sources. The omission in the text probably is a scribal error. from here that one does not importune people more than three times a year. Rebbi Abbin said, from here the three se`ah, from here the three boxes, from here the three collection times68Mishnah 3:1–2: Money was disbursed from the sheqalim3 times a year; each disbursement yielded three boxes of sheqalim, three se`ah each..", "It is written69Ex. 30:13, reading הַפְּקוּדִים “the census” as Mishnaic Hebrew הַפִּקּוּדִים “the Commandments”.: This they shall give, everybody who violated the Commandments. Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Neḥemiah. One said, because they sinned70Making the Golden Calf after 12 noon, Babli Šabbat89a, summarized by Rashi, Ex. 32:1. in the middle of the day they shall give half a sheqel; but the other said, because they sinned in the sixth hour they shall give half a sheqel; which is worth six grams71An Aramaic plural of Greek γράμμα, τό, “gram, scruple (as weight)”. One scruple is two oboloi, a third of a denar, approximately 1.2 metric grams, used here as name of a silver coin.. Rebbi Joshua the son of Rebbi Neḥemiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Zakkai: Because they transgressed the Ten Commandments, each of them shall give ten gerah69Ex. 30:13, reading הַפְּקוּדִים “the census” as Mishnaic Hebrew הַפִּקּוּדִים “the Commandments”.. Rebbi Berekhiah, Rebbi Levi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Because they sold Rachel’s firstborn for twenty pieces of silver; each of them shall redeem his firstborn with twenty pieces of silver72Num. 3:47. The firstborn is redeemed by 5 sheqalim. Since it is held that the sheqel in the Torah is equal to a Roman tetradrachma, Qiddušin1:3 Note 339, 5 sheqalim are 20 denarii. The generic expression “pieces of silver” is taken to mean the most common silver coin, the denar.
The homily is mentioned as introduction to the following one.
. Rebbi Phineas in the name of Rebbi Levi: Because they sold Rachel’s firstborn for twenty pieces of silver and each of them received a minted coin60,In this context meaning the silver didrachma.73Since Joseph was sold by 10 of his brothers. The formulation of the homily shows that in later Amoraic times the word sheqel had lost its meaning denoting either a standard weight or a standard coin but became the label of a religious obligation., each of them shall give a minted coin as his sheqel." ], [ "MISHNAH: The excess of sheqalim is profane74Mishnah 3.. The excess of a tenth of an ephah75Either the daily offering of the High Priest, which is the only obligatory offering by a single person which is neither a purification nor a reparation offering, or the purification offering of the very poor, Lev. 5:11., the excess of nests76Couples of pigeons or turtle doves, needed to permit the person access to sancta. of male sufferers from gonorrhea77Lev. 15:14., the nests of female sufferers from flux78Lev. 15:29., the nests of women after childbirth79Lev. 12:8., or purification offerings, or reparation offerings, their excesses are gift41Meaning the coins given as sheqel.. This is the principle: of anything brought for a sin or as reparation the excess is gift.
The excess94In all these cases the money was saved for the purpose of a certain type of sacrifice. If not all the money was actually used, the excess may be used later for the same purpose. It cannot return to profane status since “a promise to Heaven is like delivery to an individual”. of elevation sacrifices is for elevation sacrifices, the excess of flour offerings is for flour offerings, the excess of well-being sacrifices is for well-being sacrifices, the excess of Pesaḥ is for well-being sacrifices. The excess of nezirim is for nezirim, the excess of a nazir95If money was collected in order to help any nazir who might apply for a subsidy for the cost of his sacrifices, the money remain in its status even if not used in the time frame originally envisaged. But if money either was set aside by a nazir himself or it was given to him personally for his sacrifices and not completely used, the excess goes to the Temple’s gift account. is for gift.", "HALAKHAH: “The excess of sheqalim is profane,” etc. Rebbi Yasa81While all sources have “R. Yose”, the reading must be R. Yasa, a Babylonian early enough to have visited Samuel’s academy. The name is spelled correctly at the end of the Halakhah. said, when I still was there, I heard the voice of Rav Jehudah asking Samuel, if somebody had set his sheqel apart and died? He told him, they shall fall to gift82Since the monies were set aside for the sheqel and “a promise to Heaven is like delivery to an individual” (Mishnah Qiddušin1:6), they are Temple property. Since they are not sheqalim they must be given to the Temple account into which all Temple monies not otherwise specified are collected.. The excess of his tenth of an ephah, Rebbi Joḥanan said, one shall bring them to the Dead Sea83If this refers to the daily offering of the High priest and the High priest had died, then the monies cannot be used in the Temple since possibly they were not dedicated; they cannot be used as profane since possibly they were dedicated. They have to be destroyed.. Rebbi Eleazar said, it shall fall to gift. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan84The reading of B is “disagrees with both of them”.: “The excess of sheqalim is profane The excess of a tenth of an ephah, the excess of nests of male sufferers from gonorrhea, the nests of female sufferers from flux, the nests of women after childbirth, or purification offerings, or reparation offerings, the excesses are gift.”. What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? He explains it as excess from the tenth of an ephah of the purification offering of any one in Israel85This seems to be required by the wording of the Mishnah, which decrees that the excess of monies for the tenth of an ephah is Temple property but allows only excess of purification or reparation sacrifices to be so taken. The High Priest’s flour offering is neither of these; therefore the Mishnah cannot include it.
The reading of B implies that R. Eleazar identifies that tenth of an ephah as the High Priest’s offering.
.", "86This and the next paragraph also appear in Pesaḥim5:1, Notes 80–97, where also the readings of B are noted (ג is unreadable or lacunary for the present paragraph.) Only the most necessary notes are given here, the remainder should be consulted there. Rebbi Joḥanan said, about this Abba bar Abba enlightened me, for they are saying, from where that Pesaḥ is changed into the denomination of well-being sacrifices? The verse says87Lev. 3:6., and if his sacrifice be from small cattle as meal well-being offering; anything from small cattle comes as well-being offering. They objected, is there not an elevation offering from small cattle? Anything which only comes from small cattle; this eliminates the elevation offering which even may come from large cattle. They objected, is there not reparation offering? Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, “from small cattle”. this eliminates the reparation offering, which only comes from rams. Everywhere you are saying that מִן (is to include) [is to exclude], but here you are saying that (מִן is to exclude) [is to include]88The text is difficult since it is standard rabbinic interpretation to consider prefix mem or מִן as privative, excluding certain categories (cf. Šabbat7 Note 26, Ševuot1:2 Note 75, Bava Meṣia`4:8 Note 122, Nazir5:4 Note 105). Also in the next sentence, R. Mana gives the interpretation that here מִן is privative. On the other hand, the testimony of the scribe’s two texts, the Genizah fragment available for Pesaḥim, and the Munich ms. of Šeqalim do not permit emendation. It seems that here “every where” is derogatory, meaning Babylonian. The sequence of arguments leads to a contradiction. Abba bar Abba treats מִן as inclusive, R. Abun bar Cahana as exclusive. R. Mana explains that מִן always is partitive; automatic switch to well-being offerings is possible only for sacrifices that totally correspond to the declaration צאן, i. e., both sheep and goats, male and female.. Rebbi Mana said, (it excludes it,) [here also מִן is to exclude: It excludes in that it may not be brought two years old; it excludes that it cannot be brought female; and for a reparation offering also it excludes]89Corrector’s addition from B. since it only comes from rams. They objected, is there not written,90Lev. 1:10. and if his sacrifice be from small cattle, from sheep or goats, as elevation offering; then excess Pesaḥ should become elevation offering? Rebbi Abun said, one changes something to be eaten into something to be eaten, but one does not change something to be eaten into something not to be eaten. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, one changes simple sancta into simple sancta, but one does not change simple sancta into most holy sacrifices. Rebbi Joḥanan said, about what Rebbi Ḥanina enlightened, that they are saying, Pesaḥ is changed into a well-being offering only if he slaughtered it for the purpose of well-being offering; but I am saying, even for the purpose of an elevation offering. Rebbi Illa said, the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan: And if his sacrifice be from small cattle as meal well-being offering87Lev. 3:6.; anything to be consumed as sanctum is a well-being offering. Does it change with respect to disqualifying thoughts91If the animal dedicated as Pesaḥ is used against the rules for something other than a well-being offering, do the rules of the other kind apply or is it disqualified and no rules of intent apply?? How is this? If he slaughtered it for the purpose of an elevation offering in order to pour its blood the next day. In any case, it is disqualified. If you are saying that it changes with respect to disqualifying thoughts, it is piggul92If the animal still is a sacrifice, now under the rules of elevation sacrifices, the intention to perform any required action out of its prescribed time-frame is piggul, a deadly sin causing extirpation.. If you are saying that it does not change with respect to disqualifying thoughts, it is disqualified93If the animal is disqualified and not under the rule of any kind of sacrifice, the illegitimate intent is inconsequential..", "94In all these cases the money was saved for the purpose of a certain type of sacrifice. If not all the money was actually used, the excess may be used later for the same purpose. It cannot return to profane status since “a promise to Heaven is like delivery to an individual”. For its purpose and not for its purpose on the other days of the year? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Samuel bar Abba: Since it is left without a name it is as if from the start he slaughtered for its purpose and not for its purpose in silence and is qualified. They said to him. if it is so, even if he slaughtered for its purpose to pour the blood not for its purpose it should be treated as if from the start he slaughtered for its purpose and not for its purpose in silence and be qualified. Rebbi Abba Mari said, who says that in silence it is qualified? Or may we say, in silence it is disqualified?", "96This text also is in Nazir4:4 (Notes 61–72, נ) which probably was the source. Mishnah Nazir4:4 deals with the case of a married woman who made a vow of nazir and started putting aside money for her required sacrifices when her husband dissolved her vow. Then she no longer is nezirah and therefore cannot bring the sacrifices, but the monies remain dedicated. The Mishnah states: “If she had money not designated, it should be given to the gift account. If the monies were designated, the value of the purification offering shall be thrown into the Dead Sea; one may not use it but there can be no me`ilah. For the value of the elevation offering, they shall bring an elevation offering; it is subject to the law of me`ilah. For the value of the well-being offering, they shall bring a well-being offering, to be eaten on one day; it does not need bread.” Money not designated is money for which it never was decided for which kind of sacrifice it should be used. Rav Ḥisda said, only if his purification offering was presented last. But if his well-being offering was presented last, what is left over is for a well-being offering97If monies were collected to help indigent nezirim with the expenses of their sacrifices but not all was used, the remainder has to be kept in trust to be used in the future for the same purpose. But if a person dedicated his own money for his sacrifices and had money left over, if the last sacrifice bought was of the most holy kind, the leftover money is of the same kind and has to go to the account for elevation offerings. But if the leftovers are of a well-being sacrifice, a “simple sanctum” which may be consumed by lay people, the monies have to be used for a simple sanctum.. Rebbi Ze`ira said, even if his well-being offering was presented last, it is a general rule for a nazir that his leftover be for the gift account98Mishnah Me`ilah3:2, overriding the general rule of Mishnah 2:6. In the Babli, Nazir25a, the statement is attributed to R. Joḥanan.. A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Ze`ira: “The following are not designated monies: any which contain money for purification offerings should be left to die. Even if he designated money for purification offerings that should be left to die, it remains not designated98Mishnah Me`ilah3:2, overriding the general rule of Mishnah 2:6. In the Babli, Nazir25a, the statement is attributed to R. Joḥanan..” A baraita supports Rav Ḥisda: “This is for my purification offering and the rest for my nezirut. Then he died. One commits larceny with all of them but not with part of them.” It does not say, when he died it should be given to the gift account100.", "Rav Ḥisda said, a nazir’s leftover bread shall be left to decay. Rebbi Yose said, that is correct. You cannot sacrifice it by itself since bread cannot be brought alone. You cannot sacrifice it together with another nazir’s since no nazir sacrifices without bread101While several flour offerings are described in Lev. 2, none is authorized for bread alone. Nowhere do we find a procedure to redeem sacrificial bread.. Therefore, it was necessary to say that a nazir’s leftover bread shall be left to decay. They wanted to say, the same rule applies to his leftover bread as to his leftover wine offering. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, his leftover wine offering is most holy102Halakhah 5, Note 81.; it should be given to the gift account. In the opinion of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Samuel, Rav Ḥisda, and Rebbi Eleazar, all three said the same. Rav Ḥisda, as quoted here. Samuel, as Rebbi Yasa said,102Halakhah 5, Note 81. when I still was there, I heard the voice of Rav Jehudah asking Samuel: If he designated his sheqel and died? He said, it should be given as gift. Rebbi Eleazar: 103Halakhah 5, Note 83. the leftover of his tenth of an ephah: Rebbi Joḥanan said, one should bring it to the Dead Sea; Rebbi Eleazar said, it should be given to the gift account.." ], [ "MISHNAH: The excess of monies collected for kidnap victims is for kidnap victims; the excess of monies collected for a particular kidnap victim is for this kidnap victim. The excess of monies collected for the poor is for the poor; the excess of monies collected for a particular poor person is for this poor person. The excess of monies collected for the dead104For funeral expenses. is for the dead; the excess of monies collected for a particular dead is for his heirs; Rebbi Meïr says, the excess of monies collected for a particular dead shall be left until Elijah comes105Since one does not know what to do with this money, it cannot be touched until Elijah, a member of the Heavenly Court who knows what the rules really should be, comes to announce the Messiah.; Rebbi Nathan says, from the excess of monies collected for a particular dead one builds a memorial on his grave.", "HALAKHAH: If they collected for him presuming that he had nothing and it turned out that he had some106The reading of ג: ”had nothing”, has to be rejected as scribal error.. Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say, the excess of monies collected for a particular dead is for his heirs. Rebbi Idi from Ḥutra said to him, think of it, did they intend only for [him107Since the intent was to bury a destitute person, should the money not be given to the administrators of welfare for the benefit of future needs?? He said to him], I did [not] say this; what is your source108R. Jeremiah realizes that it is a good question but he quoted a Mishnah; R. Idi has no tannaitic source to support him.?", "109Tosephta 1:12, Babli Sanhedrin48a.“It was stated in the name of Rebbi Nathan: From the excess of monies collected for a particular dead he builds a memorial on his grave or perfume109aThis is the corrector’s text, following B. The scibe wrote זלח, a root not otherwise recorded in rabbinic Hebrew or Aramaic. his bier. It was stated, one does not redeem a kidnap victim for another kidnap victim110Monies collected for a particular prisoner should not be used to redeem another, but in cases of urgent need the hands of the administrators are not tied by this rule. and one does not collect a stole for a stole111If clothing is collected for a particular person, he should be given exactly what was collected for him., but one does not restrict the power of the administrators of charity in this.” It was stated, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, one does not build mausoleums for the just; their words are their remembrance112Gen. rabba82(11)..", "113As the concurrent testimony of ג and the scribe’s text show, the following text is not part of the original Halakhah. It was added by the corrector from B; both its Aramaic and the names appearing are Babylonian. A somewhat different Yerushalmi text is in Berakhot2:1 (Notes 53–67) and Mo`ed Qaṭan3:7 (83c l. 40–83d l. 8). Rebbi Joḥanan was leaning on Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba when Rebbi Eliezer114This should read: Eleazar. saw him and hid himself before him. He said, these two things the Babylonian does to me: First, that he does not greet me, and second, that he hides himself. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi said to him, thus they behave among themselves; Rebbi Ze`ira did not greet Rabba since they observe115Job29:8. Boys see me and hide themselves; elders rise and stand. He asked him, may one pass by a cursed statue? He said to him, do you want to honor it? Pass it by and blind its eyes! He said to him, Rebbi Eliezer114This should read: Eleazar. did well that he did not pass before you. The other thing the Babylonian does, that he does not mention my tradition in my name. Rebbi Immi and Rebbi Assi116He is R. Yasa in Yerushalmi texts. came to him. They said to him, Rabbi, so it happened that it was a synagogue of weavers, about a bolt topped by a lock117Mishnah Eruvin10:9. about which Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Yose disagreed until they tore a Torah scroll in their rage. Would you think that they tore a Torah scroll? But that a Torah scroll was torn. There was an old man there, Rebbi Yose ben Qisma, who said, I wonder whether this synagogue will not be a place of foreign worship. He came back and asked, where is the colleague? Rebbi Jacob bar Idi came and said to him, it is written118Jos. 11:15., all that the Eternal commanded to His servant Moses so Joshua commanded. When Joshua explained, did he mention every time “so said Moses”? No, he explained and they knew that it was Moses’s teaching. So also Eleazar sits and explains and everybody knows that it is your teaching. He said to them119R. Immi (Ammi) and R. Assi (Yasa)., why do you not know to pacify like our colleague Ben Idi?", "Why did Rebbi Joḥanan insist to require that traditions should be reported in his name? For also David begged for divine mercy in this respect, as it says, may I dwell in Your tent forever, I shall seek shelter under the cover of Your wings, Selah120Ps. 61:5.. Could David think of living forever? Rather, David said before the Holy One, praise to Him: Master of the World, may I have the merit that my words will be mentioned in synagogues and houses of study. What good does that do to him? Simeon, the son of the Nazir said in the name of Rebbi Isaac If a Sage’s pronouncement in matters of practice is mentioned in this world, the latter’s lips whisper with him in the grave for it is said121Cant. 7:10. Note that in Accadic the root dbb means “to speak”., dripping from the lips of the sleeping ones. Like that softened bunch of grapes, if a person puts his finger on it immediately it drips, so also the lips of the just drip, for if one mentions their pronouncements in matters of practice the latter’s lips whisper in the grave. What good does that do to them? The son of the Nazir says, like one who drinks spiced wine; Rebbi Isaac said, like one who drinks old wine, even though he cannot taste it.", "122This paragraph is from Šabbat1, Notes 188–191. Giddul said, anybody who quotes somebody should consider it as if the author of the quote stood before him, for it is said123Ps. 39:7., only in image a man wanders. It is written124Prov. 20:6. many a man professes good will, this is the rest of mankind; but where will you find one you can trust, that is Rebbi Ze`ira. As Rebbi Ze`ira said, should we take the traditions of Rav Sheshet into account since he is blind? Rebbi Ze`ira said to Rebbi Assi, does the Rabbi know Bar Petaiah that you quote traditions in his name? He said to him, Rebbi Joḥanan quoted them in his name. Rebbi Ze`ira said to Rebbi Assi116He is R. Yasa in Yerushalmi texts., does the Rabbi know Rav that you quote traditions in his name? He said to him, Rebbi125Read: Rav. Ada bar Ahavah quoted them in his name.", "126This again is the Babylonian version of the text in Berakhot and Mo`ed Qaṭan. There is no generation without scoffers. What did the hooligans of David’s generation do? They went to David’s windows and said to him: David, when will the Temple be built, when will we go to the Eternal’s house? David said, even though they intend to enrage me, something should come over me were I not happy, I enjoy it when they say to me: let us go to the Lord’s house127Ps. 122:1.. When your days will be complete and you will lie with your forefathers1282Sam. 7:12.. The Holy One, praise to Him, said to David:, I am counting full days for you, I am not counting missing days for you. Will not your son Solomon build the Temple for public sacrifice? Law and justice that you are upholding is more to my liking than sacrifices, as it is said129Prov. 21:3., upholding justice and law is preferred by the Eternal to sacrifice.]" ] ], [ [ "MISHNAH: Three times a year one disburses from the lodge1The room where the sheqalim were stored, to be disbursed as will be described in Mishnah 2.; half a month before Passover, half a month before Pentecost, and half a month before Tabernacles, and these are threshing floors2Tithe from grain is due once the grain has been threshed and the grain kernels collected to form an orderly heap. Therefore “threshing floor” is the technical term for the term when tithe becomes due by biblical standards. All lambs and calves born after one of these terms and before the next become forbidden as food on the next term until they are counted and tithe was given. for animal tithe, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Ben Azzai says, on the 29th of Adar315 days before Pesaḥ, the festive Passover Eve., the first of Sivan4, and the 29th of Av535 days before Tabernacles.. Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simon say, on the first of Nisan, the first of Sivan, and the 29th of Elul6The last day of the year counting from the first of Tishre.. Why did they say on the 29th of Elul and did not say on the first of Tishre? Because that is a holiday and it is impossible to tithe on a holiday; therefore they advanced it to the 29th of Elul.", "HALAKHAH: “Three times a year,” etc. Rebbi Abbahu said, everywhere we have stated pars, it is one half7If no numbers are given, the Latin pars“a part” means one part of two; in this case of the month preceding the holiday.. [Half of the thirty days before a holiday when one explains its rules.8Corrector’s addition from B. Cf. Babli Pesaḥim6b, Megillah4a; Sifry Num. 66.]", "Rebbi Joḥanan said, because they are the periods of birth9Different kinds of livestock produce their young at different times.. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: That animals be available for the pilgrims on the holidays10Babli Bekhorot57b/58a. It is explained later that the main time for animal tithe is early fall. The other two times are introduced for the convenience of the farmer that he may take his tithe animal to the Temple when he makes his pilgrimage anyhow.. Rebbi Yudan said, that he should not come to do not tarry11It is sinful to give tithes too late (Ex. 22:28). This is interpreted to mean that one disregards a positive commandment if one does not hand over (for produce) or sacrifices (for animals) his tithes on or before the next holiday, and one transgresses the prohibition on the third holiday after the start of the obligation.. Rebbi Yose said, anybody who is late with his ṭevel transgresses12Ṭevel is untithed produce for which heave and tithes are due.. There,13Mishnah Bekhorot8:5. The text quoted here is the Mishnah text; nevertheless it seems that the statement from Mishnah Roš Haššanah1:1, quoted in B, that R. Eleazar (ben Shamua) and R. Simeon fix the date at the first of Tishre, has to be included here. From here on the text is copied in Roš Haššanah1:1 (Note 148). we have stated: “Rebbi Meïr says, on the first of Elul is the New Year for animal tithes. Ben Azzai says, those born in Elul are to be tithed separately.” Rebbi Ḥuna said, The reason of Rebbi Meïr: Up to that point they finish to give birth from the old ones; after that they start to give birth from the new ones14Since the gestation period for sheep is 5 months, those born in Av were conceived before the start of Nisan, those in Elul after the first of Nisan. If the start of the year is fixed in spring, the natural date for a new year of animal tithes is the start of Elul.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Huna: The reason of Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon, the rams are mounting the ewes, these are the early ones, and the valleys are clothed in grain, these are the late ones, they are friends and also are tithed15Ps.65:14. The last word is read as if it were יְעַשְׂרוּ. Babli Roš Haššanah8a., both enter the corral to be tithed. Ben Azzai said, since these are saying this and those are saying that, those born in Elul should be tithed by themselves. How is this? If there were born in his flock five in Av, five in Elul, and five in Tishre, they do not combine16The tenth lamb is animal tithe. If there are 5 in Av and 5 in Elul, they cannot add up to 10 since practice may follow R. Meïr; 5 in Elul and 5 in Tishre cannot combine since practice may follow R. Simeon.. If there were born in his flock five in Av and five in Tishre, they combine17This really should be: 5 in Tishre and 5 in the following Av, so they belong to the same fiscal year (Tosephta Bekhorot7:9, Babli Bekhorot58a.). Could Ben Azzai decide between his students18The reference to Ben Azzai in a dispute between R. Aqiba’s last students is anachronistic; Ben Azzai died young, before these became independent scholars.? Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Miasha in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: For so disagreed the fathers of the world. Who are the fathers of the world? Rebbi Jonah stated before Rebbi Jeremiah: Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba19Ben Azzai considers the points of view of R. Aqiba and R. Ismael as equivalent even though he never was R. Ismael’s student. If he does not follow his teacher, he must be an independent authority.. This implies that Ben Azzai was colleague and student of Rebbi Aqiba. If you are saying that he was his teacher, is there anybody who says to his teacher, “since these are saying this and those are saying that”? Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac understood it from the following20Mishnah Bava batra9:14. The testimony of a Mishnah is preferable to that of a baraita.: “Ben Azzai said to him, we are sorry about their disagreement, and you come to find us disagreement where they are concurring.” This implies that Ben Azzai was colleague and student of Rebbi Aqiba. If you are saying that he was his teacher, is there anybody who says to his teacher, “you come to find us disagreement”?", "There, we have stated: “Any born from the first of Tishre until the 29th of Elul combine; five before New Year’s day and five after New Year’s day do not combine. Five before the threshing floor and five after the threshing floor do combine21Mishnah Bekhorot9:5. A general rule for all tithes is that they have to be given separately for each year. This is inferred from Deut. 14:22, referring to agricultural tithe, which has to be given year by year. The tax year for animal tithe is defined as from Tishre 1 to Elul 29..” Rebbi Yose said, this implies that the rules of animal tither are neither like those of germinating22The tax year for tithe from the yield of trees (rabbinic except for olive oil) is defined as from Shevat 15 to Shevat 14; for these purposes a fruit is defined as in existence if it started growing after the flower lost its leaves. The equivalent for animals would be a visible pregnancy. nor like those of a third23Agricultural produce (Biblically, grain) has to be given if it is harvested when barely edible, one-third ripe. Its year is from Tishre 1 to Elul 29.. If you would say like germinating, it should state, all whose pregnancy starts from the 29th of Elul. If you would say like a third, it should state, up to the 22nd24. Rebbi Shammai in the name of Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya: Like the third, they made it following Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said, {an animal} before its time enters the corral to be tithed25He holds that the tithe is not slaughtered at the moment it is selected; at all times it is a prospective sacrifice. Babli Bekhorot21b.. Rebbi Mana met Rebbi Shammai; he asked him, did you say that? He told him, yes. He answered, but did we not state, “Ben Azzai says, those born in Elul are to be tithed separately.13Mishnah Bekhorot8:5. The text quoted here is the Mishnah text; nevertheless it seems that the statement from Mishnah Roš Haššanah1:1, quoted in B, that R. Eleazar (ben Shamua) and R. Simeon fix the date at the first of Tishre, has to be included here. From here on the text is copied in Roš Haššanah1:1 (Note 148).” Not even if it was born up to the 29th of Elul? Could you say that Ben Azzai follows Rebbi Simeon26Since it was explained in the preceding paragraph that Ben Azzai follows neither R. Simeon nor his opponents; his statement has to be acceptable to both parties.? You have to say, he follows the rabbis. Just as you say following the rabbis, he leaves them for the next year and they will be tithed with the others of their year27An animal born between 23rd and 29th of Elul for Ben Azzai according to the rabbis has to be tithed the following year with the animals born the next year during Elul 1–22., so you have to say following ben Azzai, he leaves them for the next threshing floor28Which is a preferred but not obligatory date for tithing. and they will be tithed with those from Elul. Rebbi Huna said, this implies that the days of a firstling while he still is before its time29The first 7 days of its life. The firstling has to be delivered to a Cohen during its first year. are counted for its year. Rebbi Mana said, my father Rebbi Jonah understood this from the following30Deut. 15:19. Since only its date of birth is mentioned. The firstling automatically is a dedicated sacrifice, and neither may nor can be selected.: Any male firstling which is born to your cattle and small cattle, etc. How is this? You count its year from the moment it is born." ], [ "MISHNAH: One disburses from the lodge1The room where the sheqalim were stored, to be disbursed as will be described in Mishnah 2. into three boxes of three seah each, on which is written ג ,ב ,א31The money to be spent in the inverse order of the boxes; then it always is clear how much money is left.. Rebbi Ismael says, it was written in Greek, A, B, Γ. The disburser enters neither in trousers32Rashi’s interpretation, Latin paragauda. Another interpretation: a long robe with wide cuffs (sources giben in Levy’s Dictionaty, vol. 4 col. 98b. Cf Arabic בֻּוגֻז). with pockets, nor with shoes33The last two are sewn together; the seam could be opened and coins stuffed in there., nor with sandals, nor with phylacteries nor with an amulet33The last two are sewn together; the seam could be opened and coins stuffed in there., lest he become poor and people would say, he became poor because he sinned in the lodge, or he became rich and people would say, he enriched himself from the money lifted from the lodge, for a person needs to be clean before people34Rabbinic Hebrew distinguishes between בִּרְיָה “creature” and בְּרִיָּה “creation”. as he has to be clean before the Omnipresent, as it is said35Num. 32:22., you have to be blameless before the Eternal and before Israel, and it says36Prov. 3:4., find grace and understanding in the eyes of God and men.", "HALAKHAH: [Rebbi Ze`ira asked Rebbi Joshiah, what is the measure of three baskets? He told him, let us infer the hidden from the explicit. It is stated:]37Corrector’s addition from B, originally from Šabbat10, Notes 35–37. One distributes from the lodge into three boxes of three seah each, which is nine seah, which is 27An animal born between 23rd and 29th of Elul for Ben Azzai according to the rabbis has to be tithed the following year with the animals born the next year during Elul 1–22. seah38; it is written on them ג ,ב ,א. Why is ,ג ב ,א written on them? To say that one does not take from the first before one has taken from the second, and not from the second before one has taken from the third39The other two sources and the Tosephta (2:1) insist that the money was used in ascending order of the boxes/ “Before one has taken” means “before one has finished taking.”.", "40The following text is the corrector’s addition from B; it is neither in the scribe’s text nor in ג. The entire Babylonian addition is irrelevant for the subject under discussion; it is a somewhat defective copy of a text in Šabbat8, Notes 25–51, which should be consulted for the meaning of the text. The Notes here are mostly restricted to remarks about deviations of this copy from the original. An appropriate version is in 8:1.[There, we have stated: “One who brings out wine to mix a cup.” Rebbi Ze`ira asked Rebbi Joshiah, what is the measure of a cup? He told him, let us infer the hidden from the explicit since Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, the Four Cups which they said add up to an Italic quartarius of wine.", "A cup mixed by how much? Rebbi Yose bar Bevin said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, let us hear from the following: “Water. a gulp; Rebbi Jehudah says, for mixing a cup. Wine. a gulp; Rebbi Jehudah says, for mixing a cup.” This implies mixed as cups are mixed. What is the measure of cups? Rebbi Abun said, τέταρτρον is a quarter.", "May one drink them together? Since Rebbi Meïr said,45Eccl. 8:1. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he heard Hallel in the synagogue he has fulfilled his obligation, this implies that if he drank them together he fulfilled his obligation. May one drink them with interruptions? They said that he should drink to feel differently, not that he should get drunk. If he drinks them with interruptions, he will not become drunk. May one fulfill his obligation with Sabbatical wine? Rebbi Hoshaia stated, one may fulfill his obligation with Sabbatical wine. May one fulfill his obligation with spiced wine? Since Bar Qappara stated, spiced wine is like wine, which implies that one may fulfill his obligation with spiced wine. May one fulfill his obligation with mixed wine? Since Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: the Four Cups which they prescribed, one may fulfill his obligation either with unmixed or mixed, on condition that it have the taste and looks of wine. Rebbi Jeremiah said, it is meritorious to fulfill one’s obligation with red wine. What is the reason? Do not see wine when it shows its red color, when put in our cup42Prov. 23:31. A hilarious misquote of בַּכּוֹס עֵינוֹ as בְּכוֹסֵינוּ, caused by the disappearance of ע as audible sound.. It was stated, cooked for spice. May one fulfill his obligation with cooked wine? Rebbi Jonah said, one may fulfill his obligation with cooked wine. Rebbi Jonah follows his own opinion, since Rebbi Jonah drank his four cups in the Passover night and had a headache until Tabernacles43Contamination of the story of R. Jonah, who had a headache until Pentecost, with that of R. Jehudah bar Ilai, the subject of the following paragraph, who had a headache until Tabernacles..", "A lady44A post-talmudic diminutive of Latin matrona. saw that his face was shiny. She said to him, old man, old man, one of three things applies to you. Either you are drunk from wine, or you are lending on interest, or you are raising pigs. He answered her, this woman’s spirit shall be blown away, not one of these three things applies to me, but my learning is ever present with me, as it is written45Eccl. 8:1., a man’s wisdom illuminates his face.", "Rebbi Abbahu descended to Tiberias. The students of Rebbi Joḥanan saw that his face was shiny. They said before Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Abbahu found a treasure. He came to him. He asked him, what new teaching did you hear? He said, an old Tosephta. He recited about him, a man’s wisdom illuminates his face.", "Rebbi Ḥanan said, the log of the Torah is the old Sepphorean eighth of fish sauce. Rebbi Jonah said, I know it. In the House of Shammai46Anachronistic misreading for “House of R. Yannai.” they were measuring honey with it. It was stated, half of the old Tiberian eighth. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this one we used. Why did he call it the old one? Because it was in his days. Some are saying, it was small, then was enlarged. But some are saying, it was diminished more than before. What is the measure of a cup? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Pazi, Rebbi Yose ben Bevin in the name of Samuel: Two fingers by two fingers high a finger and a half and a third of a finger. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Bevin in the name of Samuel: Rebbi Nathan follows Rebbi Simeon. Just as Rebbi Simeon says, a quartarius, so Rebbi Nathan says, a quartarius, when it jells it will have the volume of an olive.", "Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: It happened that a mule of Rebbi’s household died and they declared its blood pure regarding the carcass. Rebbi Eleazar asked Rebbi Simon, how much? He did not take notice of him. He asked Rebbi Joshua ben Levi who told him, it is pure up to a quartarius. More than that is impure. Rebbi Eleazar felt badly that Rebbi Simon had not repeated the tradition to him. Rav Beva was sitting stating this occurrence. Rebbi Isaac bar Bisna asked him, is it pure up to a quartarius; more than that impure? He was unfriendly to him. Rebbi Zeriqa asked him, because he asked you, you were unfriendly to him? He answered him, because my mind was not clear, I was unfriendly to him, as Rebbi Ḥanan said, 47Deut. 28:66.your life will hang far from you, that is one who buys a year’s supply of wheat, you will be fearful night and day, that is one who buys from the Saracen, and you will not believe in your survival, that is one who buys from the retail store, and I am dependent on retail stores. What about it? “Rebbi Joshua ben Bathyra testified about blood of carcasses that it is pure.” What means pure? It is pure in the flesh47aDefective copy from Šabbat: הבשר instead of הֶכְשֵׁר “in that it does not prepare for impurity”., but for impurity it makes impure. There, we have stated “The blood of a crawling animal is like its flesh, it makes impure but does not prepare. Nothing else is like this,” in the amount needed that its blood makes impure like its flesh. Rav Yose said, two Amoraim disagree, one says impure, and one says pure. He who says “impure” follows Rebbi Jehudah; he of “pure” follows Rebbi Joshua ben Bathyra. Rav Abuha of Iman the sister of48Unintelligible misreading of the text in Šabbat. Rebbi Jehudah was the instructor of the Patriarch.]", "[“Lest he become poor and people would say,” etc.] Rebbi Ismael stated, a curly head should not disburse because of the suspicion49That he might hide some coins in his hair.. It was stated, “the treasurers were rubbing with Cilician cloth.” It was stated, “they were talking with him from the time he entered to the time he left.50Tosephta 2:2. Cilician cloth was made from goats’ hair. They were checking that he had no coins on his body, and talking with him so that he could not put any coins in his mouth.” Should he not fill his mouth with water? Rebbi Tanḥuma said, because of the benediction51If he entered with his mouth full of water and left with his mouth full of water it would be clear that he could not have hidden any coins there.
It is absolutely unclear to what R. Tanḥuma refers. While the root תרם means “to lift heave”, and giving heave needs a benediction, the use of the word cannot make disbursing other people’s contributions equal to dedicating from one’s own property; the obligation of dedicating heave with a benediction cannot reasonably be extended to the act of disbursing. (against the explanation by R. Eliahu Fulda on the authority of R. David Oppenheim.) It would be unavoidable that the disburser swallow some drops of water, but this does not require any benediction for the water as food.
.", "Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: In the Torah, in Prophets, and in Hagiographs we find that a person had to be innocent in the eyes of people just as he has to be innocent in the eyes of the Omnipresent. In the Torah from where? As it is written,35Num. 32:22. you have to be blameless before the Eternal and before Israel. In Prophets from where? As it is written52Jos. 22:22., The Power, God, Eternal, the Power, God, Eternal, He knows, and Israel has to know. In Hagiographs from where? As it is written36Prov. 3:4., find grace and understanding in the eyes of God and man. Gamaliel the twin asked Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, which one is the clearest52aB: The most stringent. of all of these? He answered him, you have to be blameless before the Eternal and before Israel." ], [ "MISHNAH: A member of the household of Rabban Gamliel was entering with his sheqel between his fingers and threw it before the disburser53Chapter 2, Note 35.. The disburser was directing it and threw it into the box. The disburser only starts disbursing after he asked, “shall I disburse”? And they54The treasurers standing outside. answer him, “disburse, disburse, disburse,” three times.
He disburses the first time and covers it with cushions57Greek καταβολή “support, cushion”., the second time and covers it with cushions. The third time he was not covering58He covers the coins remaining in the lodge where the receipts for the sheqalim are kept. As explained in the Mishnah, the monies taken on the first of Nisan are from the contributions of the Land of Israel, those taken before Pentecost are from neighboring countries and those at the end of Elul from Babylonia, Persia, and other far countries. Monies not used for sacrifices are used for other expenses as explained in the next Chapter. In order to give due credit, the monies should not be mixed even though in an emergency one can have regress on those already labelled as surplus.. Why did he cover? That he should not forget and disburse from anything which already had been disbursed. The first time he disbursed in the name of the Land of Israel, the second time in the name of nearby walled cities58aJewish settlemens in Syria and Egypt., and the third time in the name of Babylonia, in the name of Media, and in the name of distant countries.", "HALAKHAH: “A member of the household of Rabban Gamliel was,” etc. If there were two heaps and he gave heave from one for the other, would that not remove the liability from the other55Since for heave all produce of the same kind is interchangeable, by analogy all sheqalim are interchangeable; there is no reason why the House of Rabban Gamliel should be interested in controlling in which box their sheqel ends up.? It gave them satisfaction that the sacrifice should be brought first from their money56While legally the sheqel becomes Temple property and is no longer their own, they derive satisfaction from knowing that their contribution will be used for sacrifices rather than for any of the ancillary uses spelled out later for which the sheqel also could be used..", "“He disburses the first time,” etc. It was stated: If he removed the covers, all was made remainder59Since no due credit could be given to the contributors of the new sheqalim. The monies should be given to the gift account.. It was stated: The third was the richest since it contained golden stateres60Tosephta 2:4 reads אִסטראות, half darics. and golden darics.", "It was stated61: He disburses the first time in the name of the Land of Israel and in the name of all of Israel62Tosephta 2:3.. The second time in the name of fortified cities63While each batch is intended to be from one definite region, one cannot be sure whether somebody from another region gave his sheqel with them. Therefore one has to be inclusive in the declaration. and in the name of all of Israel. The third time in the name of Babylonia and the name of Media and in the name of all of Israel. It was stated: If he took from the first box, even if there was in the first box he shall take from the second64This does not refer to the three times a year one disburses from the lodge but to the three boxes which are filled with coins, which have to be used in the correct order.. If he took from the second box, even if there was in the second box he shall take from the third. If the third was used up, he returns to the second; if the second was used up he returns to the first. If all three are emptied, one collects new sheqalim; Rebbi Meïr says, he has regress on the remainder65Even though the excess coins had been declared remainder and property of the gift account, actually they become remainder only at the start of a new tax year. Tosephta 2:5 in the name of R. Simeon ben Eleazar, 2:1 as everybody’s opinion., since Rebbi Meïr says, one commits me`ilah with the remainder,66Since the money remains potentially dedicated to be used for public sacrifices. perhaps one needs them at the end.", "68This paragraph has been copied by the corrector from B. It is neither in the scribe’s text nor in ג; it is a Babylonian addition. It is a slight rewrite of a text in Šabbat1, Notes 274–286, based on the Babylonian version of the last Mishnah in Soṭah.[“And so did Rebbi Phineas ben Yair say, promptitude brings to cleanliness, cleanliness brings to purity, purity brings to holiness, holiness brings to meekness, meekness brings to fear of sin, fear of sin brings to piety, piety brings to the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit to the Resurrection of the Dead, the Resurrection of the Dead brings to Elijah, may his remembrance be a blessing.” “Promptitude brings to cleanliness,” as it is written69Lev. 16:20., he finishes, and he atones. “Cleanliness brings to purity,” as it is written70Lev. 12:8., the Cohen shall atone for her, then she will be pure. “Purity brings to holiness,” as it is written71Lev. 16:19., he shall purify it and sanctify it. “Holiness brings to meekness,” as it is written72Is. 57:15., for so says the High and Elevated One, Who thrones eternally, His name is Holy, in sublimity … and the oppressed and of meek spirit.“Meekness brings to fear of sin,” as it is written73Prov.22:4., the consequence of meekness is fear of the Eternal. “Fear of sin brings to piety,” as it is written74Ps. 103:17., the Eternal’s piety is eternally on those who fear Him. “Piety brings to the Holy Spirit,” as it is written75Ps. 89:20., then You spoke in a vision to Your pious ones. “The Holy Spirit brings to the Resurrection of the Dead,” as it is written76Ez. 37:14., I shall give My Spirit into you and you will live. “The Resurrection of the Dead brings to Elijah, may his remembrance be a blessing,” as it is written77Misquote of Pr. 2:5., then you will understand the fear of the Eternal, and the knowledge of God you will find. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Meïr: Anybody permanently in the Land of Israel who speaks the holy language, eats its produce in purity, and recites the Shema` mornings and evenings is assured of his place in the World to Come.]" ] ], [ [ "MISHNAH: For what was the disbursement used? One buys from it daily and musaf sacrifices and their libations, the `omer1The offering of barley grain on the 16th of Nisan to permit consumption of grain from the new harvest; Lev. 23:9–14., and the Two Breads2The two leavened breads on Pentecost, Lev. 23:17., and the shew-bread3Seven breads every week, Lev. 24:5–9., and all public offerings4Including incense and public reparation offerings (Lev. 4:13–21.). The watchmen for aftergrowth in the sabbatical year5Since the `omer and the Two Breads have to be produce of the Land, and no sowing is permitted in a Sabbatical, the grains have to be harvested from spontaneous aftergrowth. Fields from which such a yield is expected have to be watched lest the plants be eaten by animals or the grains be taken by humans. In this case the watch is an essential precondition for the possibility of the offering and therefore the expenses have to be borne by the Temple. take their wages from the disbursement from the lodge. Rebbi Yose says, he also may volunteer as unpaid trustee6Even though the unpaid trustee acquires rights to what he is watching, R. Yose holds that private property may be donated to the Temple as public offering.. They told him, would you not also say that they only come from the public7The Sages deny that private property may be donated to the Temple as public offering. “They” are public offerings. Therefore the argument cannot be intended to convince R. Yose; rather it is a statement clarifying that they insist that only fully paid watchmen are acceptable.?", "HALAKHAH: 9“For what was the disbursement used,” etc. For what reason were the times of wood by the priests and the people to be counted10This paragraph is Halakhah Ta`aniot4:6 (ת), also in Megillah1:2 (70c l. 1 ff.; מ). In fact, ג simply notes: “one repeats from Ta`aniot up to ‘and were fasting but not completing.’ ”? Only that at the time when Israel returned from the Diaspora and did not find wood in the chamber, those came forward and volunteered wood from their own, donated it to the public, and used it to offer public sacrifices. The prophets among them stipulated that even if the chamber was full of wood and those came and offered and volunteered wood from their own, that the sacrifice should only be brought first from theirs11Babli Ta`anit28a.. Rebbi Aḥa said, this is Rebbi Yose’s, since Rebbi Yose said, also he may volunteer as unpaid trustee. Rebbi Yose12This is R. Yose the fifth generation Amora. The reading of B (and M), R. Assi (= Yasa), is impossible since R. Ila was a student, not a teacher, of R. Yasa. in the name of Rebbi Ila, it is the opinion of everybody. Where do they disagree? About the body of the offering. But for enablers of the offering everybody agrees that a private offering can be turned into public offering13While holding that the firewood is ancillary, not intrinsic, to the sacrifice, they still would have to require that the two daily logs required before any sacrifices are brought to the altar (Lev. 6:5)to be paid for from the public purse.. It was stated, a woman who made a coat for her son has to surrender it to the public14Since the prescribed garments of a priest are part of the establishment of the Tabernacle (Ex. 28:40–43), they must be public property. Babli Yoma35b.. Rebbi Aḥa said, this is Rebbi Yose’s, since Rebbi Yose said, also he may volunteer as unpaid trustee. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila, it is the opinion of everybody. Where do they disagree? About the body of the offering. But for enablers of the offering everybody agrees that a private offering can be turned into public offering.. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yose15The Amora, speaking in the name of R. Ila.: 16Tosephta Ta`aniot3:6.“Those days are observed at the time of sacrifices and not at the time of sacrifices; Rebbi Yose says, they are observed only at the time of sacrifices.17The days enumerated on which certain families celebrated their offerings of firewood according to the Tanna R. Yose are treated as days of sacrificing. Therefore at least for him, firewood is part of the sacrifice, not ancillary, and may be given from private property as public sacrifice.” Also from the following16Tosephta Ta`aniot3:6.: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq said, we were of the descendants of Senaah ben Benjamin. When the Ninth of Av fell on a Sabbath, we postponed it to the end of the Sabbath and were fasting but not completing.18Their holiday was on the 10th of Av. Since the 9th of Av is the day of remembering the destruction of the Temple, his story must be dated after the destruction, when there were no longer any sacrifices. If the family holiday is so important that one pushes aside the fasting for the 9th of Av, it must be that even for the majority the offering of firewood was the equivalent of a sacrifice, not an ancillary act. Therefore R. Aḥa is justified.”", "“The `omer1The offering of barley grain on the 16th of Nisan to permit consumption of grain from the new harvest; Lev. 23:9–14., and the Two Breads2The two leavened breads on Pentecost, Lev. 23:17.., and the shew-bread.” The Mishnah19The part of the Mishnah which states that the watchmen over grain for the `omer are paid from public funds. If it were possible to import the grain during a sabbatical year, the expense would be unnecessary and therefore forbidden. is Rebbi Ismael’s, since Rebbi Ismael said, the `omer is not brought from Syria20Syria in matters of religious law is the area which was part of David’s empire but not permanently settled by one of the Twelve Tribes. The rules of the Land do not apply biblically but the land is not ritually impure. Therefore grain for use in the Temple could be bought from there.. There, we have stated:21Mishnah Menaḥot8:1. The sacrifices referred to are offerings of flour and wine. “All private and public sacrifices come from the Land and from outside the Land, from new or old [grain], except for `omer and the Two Breads, which only come from new grain22This is not obvious since the `omer permits the profane use of new grain also from outside the Land and the Two Breads permit the use of new wheat in the Tabernacle which according to the Mishnah includes wheat imported from Syria. While the Mishnah states that grain is acceptable from outside the Land, this refers to grain from outside the Land on both sides of the Jordan and Syria only if it remained impervious to the impurity of Gentile lands (i. e., if it was guarded from any contact with water or fluids whose status is like water in this respect.) and from the Land.” Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah, this is Rebbi Ismael’s, since Rebbi Ismael said, the `omer is not brought from Syria23And certainly not from impure lands.. There, we have stated24Mishnah Kelim1:6.: “There are ten levels of holiness. The Land of Israel is holier than other lands; and what is its holiness? That one brings from it the `omer, first fruits, and the Two Breads, which cannot be from other lands.” Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah, this is Rebbi Ismael’s, since Rebbi Ismael said, the `omer is not brought from Syria. There, we have stated25Mishnah Ševi`it1:5.: “Rebbi Ismael says, since sowing is a voluntary act, also harvesting is a voluntary act. This excludes harvesting the `omer, which is a commandment26This refers to Ex. 34:21: Six days you may work but on the Seventh Day you must rest, from ploughing and harvesting you must rest. According to R. Ismael while this forbids any optional harvesting on the Sabbath, it implies that harvesting required by a religious commandment must be performed on the Sabbath. (Cf. Ševi`it Chapter 1, Notes 43 and 2.)
ג adds here the one-sentence Halakhah Ševi`it1:5 (Note 44).
.” Who is the Tanna of “the watchmen for aftergrowth in the sabbatical year take their wages from the disbursement from the lodge”? Rebbi Ismael20Syria in matters of religious law is the area which was part of David’s empire but not permanently settled by one of the Twelve Tribes. The rules of the Land do not apply biblically but the land is not ritually impure. Therefore grain for use in the Temple could be bought from there.. Rebbi Yose said, it is everybody’s opinion. If one would not find in Syria,.one would bring from the aftergrowth in the Land of Israel27While not needed every year, in a year of drought in Syria it might be obvious that one has to look for any available grain in the Land.. Could one sow from the start for the `omer28Since the verse Lev. 25:3 introducing the Sabbatical year combines sowing and harvesting, one could make the point that only voluntary sowing in a Sabbatical is forbidden, therefore obligatory sowing leading to obligatory harvesting is permitted.? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada asked before Rebbi Mana, would he not take the fistful for leftovers than cannot be eaten29Only a fistful of the grain brought for the `omer(a tenth of an ephah, about 3.8 l) is burned on the altar, the leftover has to be consumed by the priests in the Sanctuary. But produce sown in a Sabbatical is forbidden; the leftover of the flour could not be consumed.? He said to him, it has a status like the five kinds which can be brought in impurity but may not be eaten in impurity30The leftover has to be burned. The same would happen if all available grain and all available personnel were impure, Mishnah Pesaḥim7:4..", "How does he do it31The problem is that the sheqalim are Temple property which can only be used to buy sacrifices. If the Temple administrator would pay workers with these monies, he would be guilty of me`ilah, larceny of sacred property.? He takes coins from the money changer and gives them to the harvesters and the watchmen before the `omer is presented. He brings coins from the disbursement from the lodge and redeems them for it32The `omer is presented as flour. Therefore the value of the grain and the cost of all labor used in the preparation of the offering can be added and the sheqalim coins redeemed on the total value of the sacrifice. The redeemed coins can then be used to liquidate the debt incurred at the banker’s.; then it is in order33The reading of B, Rebbi Tibḥi ben Rebbi Yose, seems to be a grotesque misreading.. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abba: Any which he gives are its coins from the start34The red cow whose ashes purify the impurity of the dead, Num. 19.. It was stated: The same is the case with the stone-masons35The scapegoat of the day of Atonement.. He takes coins from the money changer and gives them to the quarry workers and the stone-cutters before it is fixed in the row36The strip of purple wool, together with a branch of cedar and a hyssop, which the Cohen has to throw into the pyre of the burning Cow, Num. 19:6.. Then he brings coins from the disbursement from the lodge and redeems them for it; then it is in order. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Samuel: Any which he gives are its coins from the start." ], [ "MISHNAH: The Cow34The red cow whose ashes purify the impurity of the dead, Num. 19., the he-goat which is sent away35The scapegoat of the day of Atonement., and the shiny strip36The strip of purple wool, together with a branch of cedar and a hyssop, which the Cohen has to throw into the pyre of the burning Cow, Num. 19:6. come from the money disbursed from the lodge37These are explicitly prescribed by biblical verses.. The ramp for the Cow38Leading directly from the Temple to the Mount of Olives., the ramp for the he-goat which is sent away39The ramp built to shield the scapegoat while it is lead away, Yoma6:4., the strip bound on its horns40Mishnah Yoma4:2, 6:6., the water canal41The aqueduct which supplies water to the Temple. The need for a water supply is implicit in the biblical rules for the Tabernacle but is never explicitly mentioned., the city wall and its towers42By biblical rules, family sacrifices may be consumed “in the camp.” The “camp” of the Temple is the walled city of Jerusalem. Therefore the integrity of the walls are a requirement of the Temple service and the necessary expenditures may be made from the Temple tax., and all needs of the city, come from the leftovers in the lodge43The items mentioned in this sentence are all necessary or customary parts of the Temple establishment, but are not mentioned in biblical verses. They are paid for from monies not directly used for the service of prior years.. Abba Shaul says, the High Priests build the ramp for the Cow at their own expense.
What did one do with the leftover in the lodge47What is left from the Temple tax at the end of the fiscal year.? One buys with it wine, oil, and fine flour,48For public sacrifices these are paid for from the coins disbursed from the lodge. Wine, oil, and flour for private sacrifices are bought from the Temple as explained in the next Chapter. R. Ismael holds that the original funds for this operation come from the surplus of the Temple tax; R. Aqiba must hold that this is a self-financing non-profit operation. and the gain is the Temple’s, the words of Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Aqiba says, one gains neither for the Temple nor funds for the poor49He holds that the Temple may not be involved in commercial transaction. He objects to investing funds destined for the poor not only since avoidance of loss is more important than possible gain but also that money for the poor must be available at all times for possible emergencies..
What did they use the leftover of the disbursement73If money was left in the boxes into which it was taken from the lodge at the time when new money was disbursed, the amount of new money was not reduced but the old money was put into a separate account to be used for other needs of the Temple. for? Gold sheets coating for the Holiest of Holies. Rebbi Ismael said, the leftover of produce74The gain made by the Temple in providing flour, oil, and wine, for private sacrifices. is for adornment of the altar75It is given to the gift account to buy elevation sacrifices in times when the altar otherwise would have been idle., the leftover of the disbursement is for Service vessels76The vessels used in sacrificial acts.. Rebbi Aqiba says, the leftover of the disbursement is for adornment of the altar, the leftover of the libations77As explained in Halakhah 5, the income from the trading arrangements with the suppliers to the Temple. is for Service vessels. Rebbi Ḥanania the executive officer of the Cohanim says, the leftover of the libations is for adornment of the altar, the leftover of the disbursement is for Service vessels. Neither of them did agree about produce78R. Ḥanania agrees with R. Aqiba that the Temple has to provide the produce at cost and cannot make a gain on this service..", "HALAKHAH: 44From Yoma Halakhah 4:2 (י). Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: There are three strips. The one for the he-goat for a tetradrachma, for the sufferer from skin disease for a sheqel45For the purification ceremony of the person healed from skin disease (Lev. 14:4,6)., for the Cow for two tetradrachmas. Rebbi Onias from Berat-Hauran in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Zavda in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Ḥalaphta, for the Cow for two tetradrachmas and a half; but some express it in the formulation ten (zin)46Defined in Terumot10:7 (Note 80) as 1/100 of a (probably Roman) pound. 2.5 tetradrachma are 10 denarii. Since an Augustean denar was 1/96 of a Roman pound (silver), 10 zin are 9.6 denarii.
The corrector’s reading zuz(denar) is from B.
[zuz].", "Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel50If the reading of B were “Rav Huna in the name of Samuel”, it would need consideration as lectio difficilior. But since it is the impossible “Rav Huna in the name of Rebbi Samuel”, it has to be disregarded. ג is defective at this place. In the Babli Ketubot106a the statement is attributed to Rav Giddul in the name of Rav.: The scholars who teach the priests the rules of slaughter, rules of receiving, rules of sprinkling, take their wages from the disbursement from the lodge51Since every week another group of Cohanim comes to serve, which may bring with them young inexperienced members of the group, they are permanently occupied. Babli Ketubot106a.. Rebbi Isaac bar Redifa in the name of Immi: The inspectors of defects of sancta52Since the animals chosen for the daily sacrifice have to be without defects (Num.28:3), there have to be competent daily inspections. Babli Ketubot106a. take their wages from the disbursement from the lodge. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simlai: Those who correct the scroll of the Temple courtyard53From which the High Priest reads on the Day of Atonement and which is used to standardize the texts of copies of the Torah. The reading of B, “Ezra’s scroll”, has to be rejected. Babli Ketubot106a. take their wages from the disbursement from the lodge. Giddul bar Benjamin in the name of Assi: The two judges of robberies54This is the translation of the text here and in Mishnah Ketubot13:1. But it seems that the meaning of the term is that of the reading of ג and most Babylonian sources here and in Ketubot13, דַּיָנֵי גְזֵירוֹת “judges of decisions,” i. e., appeals judges. The reading here is the result of an exchange of liquids. The legal principles attributed to these judges in Ketubot Chapter 13 all refer to matters of civil, mostly matrimonial, law. Babli Ketubot105a. take their wages from the disbursement from the lodge. Samuel said, women who are weaving the gobelins55For use in the Temple Hall, to separate between the holy and the holiest of holies. take their wages from the disbursement from the lodge; Rav Ḥuna said, from disbursements for repair of the House. How do they disagree? Samuel makes it a sacrifice, Rav Huna makes it part of the building. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said that Rebbi Jehudah Dried Figs56It is impossible to determine his time of activity. stated: The incense and all public sacrifices come from the disbursement from the lodge. The golden altar and vessels for the Service come from the excess of libations57This statement endorses the position of R. Ismael in the Mishnah, that the operation to provide wine, oil, and flour to those who bring private sacrifices, routinely provides a surplus to the Temple.. The altar for elevation sacrifices, the building, and the courtyards57This statement endorses the position of R. Ismael in the Mishnah, that the operation to provide wine, oil, and flour to those who bring private sacrifices, routinely provides a surplus to the Temple. come from the leftover in the lodge. The outside of the courtyards come from the lodge for maintenance of the House59The place where the funds are kept which were given as vows to the Temple.. But was it not stated: One commits me`ilah with stones of the Temple or the courtyards60Me`ilah is defined (Lev. 5:15) as “larceny committed on the Eternal’s sancta”, where the usual interpretation is that sancta are only sacrifices and their appurtenances; cf. Halakhah 3:4, Note 66.. How can one commit me`ilah with leftovers? But it must follow Rebbi Meïr, for Rebbi Meïr said, one commits me`ilah with leftovers. Rebbi Ḥinena said, Rebbi Meïr said this only during its year. But here we are after its year61Money is a sanctum whose misuse is me`ilah only if there is the possibility that it will be used to buy sacrifices. As explained earlier, any leftovers after disbursement still must be kept together since they might be needed if the money disbursed later was not sufficient for the Temple’s needs. But once a new year started, the old sheqalim cannot be used to buy sacrifices of any kind; they cannot cause me`ilah. The baraita is rejected. Babli Qiddušin54a..", "Rebbi Ḥizqiah said that Rebbi Jehudah Dried Figs56It is impossible to determine his time of activity. stated: The table, the candelabrum, the altars62Since obviously in the absence of an altar there can be no sacrifice, the reference is to the golden incense altar in the Sanctuary, not the large altar outside. Babli Zevaḥim62a., and the gobelins55For use in the Temple Hall, to separate between the holy and the holiest of holies. obstruct the sacrifice, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, the sacrifice is only obstructed by the wash basin and its base63Since the priests are forbidden to officiate unless they wash hands and feet from the Temple wash basin on its base, Ex. 30:17–21, 40:30–32.. Otherwise, Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina both say, everywhere “opposite64The following refers to the commandment how the Tabernacle had to be organized (Ex. 26:32–37; 40:1–16) and the report how this was executed ((Ex. 40:1–17–33.) The candelabrum was put “opposite the table”. (Ex. 40:24).” is written it is obstructive, “on the side65The table has to be put “on the North side”, the candelabrum “on the South side”; (Ex. 26:35).” is not obstructive, but Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan said, even “on the side” is obstructive, and Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Jonathan said, even “putting66Moses “put” all the furniture of the Tabernacle at its correct places (Ex. 40:18 ff.)” is obstructive. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, here for service inside, there for service outside67Since one may bring sacrifices on the altar without a Temple (Mishnah Idiut8:6), for any offering on the large altar one only needs the wash basin and its base. But for any offering inside the Sanctuary, e. g., the daily incense burning, all pieces have to be available at the correct places..", "68Discussion of the statement of Abba Shaul in Mishnah 2, that the ramp for the Cow (including a bridge over the Kidron valley) was made new every time on the High Priest’s expense. It is implied that the High Priest either oversaw the ceremony himself or appointed one of his sons. Rebbi Ḥanina said, there was much arrogance among the sons of the High Priests, for more than 60Me`ilah is defined (Lev. 5:15) as “larceny committed on the Eternal’s sancta”, where the usual interpretation is that sancta are only sacrifices and their appurtenances; cf. Halakhah 3:4, Note 66. talents of gold69That would be 180’000 sheqel or 360’000 denar. One should take note of the reading of B, “silver” instead of “gold”. [did they spend on it.]70Addition by the corrector, an adaptation to the formulation in B; not supported by any Genizah fragment. If the ramp for the Cow was still standing, no one was leading out his cow on the other’s ramp, but he tore it down and was building it anew. Rebbi Ulla objected before Rebbi Mana: Was it not stated that Simeon the Just made two Cows; on the ramp on which he took out one he did not take out the other71Since he was in office for 40 years, after about 35 years probably not much of the first ramp was still in existence.. Could you say that Simeon the Just was arrogant? What about it? Because they gave eminence to the Cow, ornaments they made for the Cow. It was stated: Ledges and walls were on both sides so that the priests could not look down and become impure72Since the Kidron valley was used as burial ground at least from First Temple times, if the Cohen was not protected by the wooden floor of the ramp which separated him from the “tent impurity” emanating from the graves, the Cohen would become severely impure and not able to conduct the ceremony. Therefore one made it impossible for the Cohen to lean out over the railings. The scribe’s reading. “could not look down” is preferable over that of the other sources, “leave”. Tosephta Parah3:7..", "79This does not belong to Mishnah 4 but is the discussion of the statement of Rebbi Aqiba that one does not invest capital of funds for the poor. Only if he wants that the loss be his and the gain for the endowment80While originally this means “property of the Temple”, it is used in the sense common in the Middle Ages, “endowment of a fund for the poor”, “welfare fund.” The text shows that this includes property administered by a guardian for the benefit of underage orphans. it is permitted81As agreement between adults, that the risk of investments is borne solely by the agent but any gain split between agent and investor, it is forbidden as hidden payment of interest. But if the investment is for a charitable fund for minor orphans it is permitted. Babli Bava Meṣia` 70a.. As the following: Bar Zemina was appointed for property of orphans. He came and asked Rebbi Mana, who told him, if you want that the loss be yours and the gain be split among you it is permitted. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada was appointed for property of orphans and acted in this way.", "It85The statement in Mishnah 4 about the leftover of produce, whose existence is denied by R. Aqiba and R. Ḥanina. is all Rebbi Ismael’s. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph explains the Mishnah: The leftover of produce74The gain made by the Temple in providing flour, oil, and wine, for private sacrifices. is the gain of the Temple86The money made by the Temple in selling for a profit flour, oil, and wine, for flour offerings and libations.; the leftover of libations is the fourth seah87As explained in Mishnah 11, the Temple does not have to hedge its purchases of produce because it is protected against changes in the market place at all times. If the Temple contracted for flour at the rate of 3 seah per tetradrachma and at the time of delivery it was 4 seah per tetradrachma, the provider has to deliver 4. But if the contract was for 4 and the price went up and now stands at 3 for a tetradrachma, the provider has to deliver 4 while the Temple will sell at the going rate.. Rebbi Joḥanan explains the Mishnah, The leftover of produce is the fourth seah; the leftover of libations is the overflow88In order to avoid the sin of me`ilah, the suppliers of produce of all kinds to the Temple have to deliver slightly more than the measure which was contracted for, while the Temple will distribute this product for private libations and flour offerings at the exact measure. The small differences will add up to a considerable amount during a full year; this kind of gain is approved also by the opponents of R. Ismael.. Does Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph not have overflow? Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, what is counted for the fourth seah is overflow89He holds that the reason that the Temple always is the beneficiary of changes in the market place also is to serve as a precaution against me`ilah infractions; both kinds of additions have the same status.. The opinion of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph is understandable. “one does not gain neither for the Temple nor funds for the poor,” therefore “neither of them did agree about produce.” The opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan is difficult. We have stated87As explained in Mishnah 11, the Temple does not have to hedge its purchases of produce because it is protected against changes in the market place at all times. If the Temple contracted for flour at the rate of 3 seah per tetradrachma and at the time of delivery it was 4 seah per tetradrachma, the provider has to deliver 4. But if the contract was for 4 and the price went up and now stands at 3 for a tetradrachma, the provider has to deliver 4 while the Temple will sell at the going rate.: “if the going rate was three, he has to deliver for four” and we have stated, “neither of them did agree about produce.” They did not agree about produce to adorn the altar; they did agree for Service vessels90Since Mishnah 11 is unanimous opinion, the opponents of R. Ismael cannot deny that the Temple always makes money which has to be used for definite purposes.. So far overflow of public {sacrifices}. Even overflow for private {sacrifices}. Would then not Service vessels come from private donations? It is as it was stated, “a woman who made a coat for her son has to surrender it to the public.91This was discussed earlier, Note 14.” So far the overflow of fluids; even the overflow of dry goods; as that which we stated92Mishnah Menaḥot7:4. This is not directly overflow but a third way in which the Temple accumulates a surplus. If a sacrifice was brought and the offerer bought the libations including the flour offering from the Temple, if then these flour offerings could not be used because the sacrifice was disqualified, the priests in charge may use the flour, etc., for the next sacrifice. In this case the Temple is paid twice for the same produce; Tosephta Menaḥot10:8 states that the money accumulated in this way is given to the gift account to buy elevation offerings for the idle altar., “in case libations were sanctified in a vessel when the sacrifice was found disqualified, if there is another sacrifice they should be brought with it; otherwise they will become disqualified by staying overnight.”" ], [ "MISHNAH: What did one do with the excess of incense82Which from the start was intended to be sufficient for an intercalary year and therefore had guaranteed leftovers in a regular year.? One sets apart the artisans’ wages and redeems them on the artisan’s money; one gives them to the artisans as their wages and then buys them back from them from the new disbursement83Since the expenses of the Temple service each year have to be paid by the sheqalim of that year, one cannot simply take the leftover as incense for the next year. On the other hand, since profane use of incense prepared in the proportions prescribed for Temple service is a deadly sin (Ex. 30:38), the incense cannot be used outside of the Temple. One takes money from the sheqalim to pay the artisans who prepare the next year’s batch of incense, then uses this money in order to redeem the incense and make it profane, a possible object of trade. Then one pays the artisans in kind with the incense, and since they could do nothing with it one buys the incense back from them with the money earmarked to this effect. Then the artisans are paid at the same time the incense for the new year is paid with money from the new Temple year starting at Nisan 1.. If the new money is available at its time one takes them from the new disbursement, otherwise from the old84Since the insistence on new money is customary, not biblical, if the new Temple tax was not collected by Nisan 1, one takes the money from the prior disbursement to effect the trade..", "HALAKHAH: 94Here starts the discussion of Mishnah 5. What is gained by redeeming incense with Temple money, which is not profane? Would not Temple property be redeemed by Temple property? What does he do? Rebbi Simeon bar Carsana said, he brings coins and redeems them for the building95Both the scribe’s text and that of B are difficult to understand. While it is accepted that the Temple is built as profane building and only sanctified when completed (Babli Me`ilah14a), once it is sacred it cannot be redeemed. If the money is legitimately paid for a sacrificial animal, it belongs to the owner of the animal and is no longer available for Temple use. Tosephta Me`ilah1:23 reads: “A worker who did work for the Temple for a mina or two may not say, give me this cow for a mina or this garment for 50 {denar} since Temple property cannot be redeemed for work but only for coins. What does one do? One takes the wages of the artisans {from the sheqalim} and redeems them on the artisans’ money, gives them to the artisans as their wages; then buys them back from the disbursement of the lodge to pay back the workers for the coins they earlier gave to the Temple.” A similar text seems to be intended here.; brings incense and redeems it for them, and gives it96The incense. to the artisans as their wages. What should be done with those coins? Rebbi says, I am saying that they should be given to the family Garmu and the family Eutinos who were experts in compounding the incense and in making the shew-bread97Cf. Mishnah Yoma3:11.. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav <isaac<98Name added from B. said, only if they were due to them beforehand99Since Temple money can only become profane for actual debts incurred by the Temple. Advance payments are not possible.. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked, what if they were not due beforehand? There came Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One uses them to adorn the altar75It is given to the gift account to buy elevation sacrifices in times when the altar otherwise would have been idle.. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen asked before Rebbi Yose: The opinion of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba seems inverted. Here it is questionable for him; there it is obvious for him100How can he ask when he himself teaches the answer which his teacher had given? He does not question that a possible use is to give the money to the gift account; he questions whether this is the only possible use.
The inverse order in B must be a scribal error.
. He told him, where it is questionable for him, for Service vessels; where it is obvious for him, to adorn the altar.", "100aThis is a copy from Yoma 5:1, explained there in Notes 12-30. The introductory sentence is missing, but is partially present in B. The question is, why does the Mishnah prescribe that leftover incense should be redeemed and used as payment of the artisans. Since it is a biblical decree (Lev. 27:10) that unblemished animals dedicated as sacrifices cannot be redeemed, would it not be reasonable to assume that sacrificial objects sanctified in a Service vessel cannot be redeemed? If one accepts this, a second question arises. Was the incense prepared in a Service vessel and therefore is sanctified from the start, or does only the daily portion become sanctified when it is filled into a Service vessel, and the leftovers are intrinsically redeemable as Temple property? As they disagreed: If it101The incense. was compounded as profane, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it is disqualified; Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, it is qualified. What is Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina’s reason? It is holy102There is no such verse; similar verses about incense would be Ex.30:36, most holy it shall be for you, Ex. 30:37, holy it shall be for you. Babli Keritut 6a., that it shall be brought into the Sanctuary. What is Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s reason? It is holy, that it shall be brought from the disbursement from the lodge. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina’s parallels Samuel and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s Rebbi Joḥanan, as we have stated, “if one dedicated his property to the Temple and there were objects appropriate as public offerings103Mishnah 6..” Rebbi Joḥanan said, incense. Rebbi Hoshaia said, explain it about an artisan of the family Eutinos who took incense as his wages. And Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s is like Samuel, as Rav Ḥuna said in the name of Samuel, they made the mortar a vessel to sanctify. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Ḥuna said this before Rebbi Yose: something sanctified in a vessel may be redeemed. He said to him, is that not Samuel’s? Since Samuel said, one is lenient in the case of leftovers. As they disagreed: If unblemished animals were left over, Samuel says, they are redeemed unblemished. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they are redeemed as disqualified sancta. Leftover he-goats, in Samuel’s opinion if elevation sacrifices are redeemed, a purification sacrifice so much more. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion? Rebbi Ze`ira said, they shall graze. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, one uses them to adorn the altar. This is difficult. May a purification sacrifice be brought as elevation sacrifice? Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference, for public sacrifices are determined only by slaughter. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, it is a stipulation of the Court that all leftovers should be brought as elevation sacrifices." ], [ "MISHNAH: If somebody gives his property to the Temple104The Temple is supposed to sell the property and to use the proceeds for its needs. As Temple property, the proceeds are under the laws of me`ilah. and in it there were items usable for public sacrifices105Which cannot be redeemed, cf. Note 100., they shall be given to the artisans as their wages, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Ben Azzai said to him, this is not they way106Since Temple property cannot be given for wages, Tosephta Me`ilah1:23, Note 95. One has to apply the rules of Mishnah 5 in their entirety., but from it one sets apart the artisans’ wages and redeems it on the artisan’s money; one gives it to the artisans as their wages and then buys it back from them from the new disbursement83Since the expenses of the Temple service each year have to be paid by the sheqalim of that year, one cannot simply take the leftover as incense for the next year. On the other hand, since profane use of incense prepared in the proportions prescribed for Temple service is a deadly sin (Ex. 30:38), the incense cannot be used outside of the Temple. One takes money from the sheqalim to pay the artisans who prepare the next year’s batch of incense, then uses this money in order to redeem the incense and make it profane, a possible object of trade. Then one pays the artisans in kind with the incense, and since they could do nothing with it one buys the incense back from them with the money earmarked to this effect. Then the artisans are paid at the same time the incense for the new year is paid with money from the new Temple year starting at Nisan 1..
If somebody gives his property to the Temple104The Temple is supposed to sell the property and to use the proceeds for its needs. As Temple property, the proceeds are under the laws of me`ilah. and in it there was an animal fit for the altar107An unblemished bovine, sheep, or goat, which may not be redeemed, Lev. 27:10. Since they were given to the Temple to be sold, the easiest way to satisfy the will of the donor and the rules is to sell the animals as sacrifices to those who have vowed a sacrifice., males or females. Rebbi Eliezer says, males should be sold to those who need an elevation offering108Who in contrast to well-being offerings must be male (Lev. 1:3,10)., and females be sold to those who need well-being offerings, and the revenue together with the remainder be for upkeep of the Temple.
Rebbi Joshua says, the males themselves should be brought as elevation sacrifices, and the females be sold to those who need well-being offerings, and the remaining property be used for upkeep of the Temple.
Rebbi Aqiba says, I agree with the words of Rebbi Eliezer against the words of Rebbi Joshua, since Rebbi Eliezer is uniform in his rules but Rebbi Joshua splits142According to R. Eliezer the entire property is for the upkeep of the Temple; R. Joshua excludes male unblemished animals. Also R. Eliezer treats male and female animals by the same rules.. Rebbi Pappaeus said, I heard according to the words of both of them. If somebody dedicates explicitly143He says, the animals are to be sacrifices., following the words of Rebbi Eliezer; if the dedication is unspecified144He simply hands over his property to the Temple., following the words of Rebbi Joshua.
If somebody gives his property to the Temple104The Temple is supposed to sell the property and to use the proceeds for its needs. As Temple property, the proceeds are under the laws of me`ilah. and in it there were things fit for the altar, wines, oils, or birds. Rebbi Eleazar says, they shall be sold to people needing these kinds and from the proceeds one shall bring elevation sacrifices146Four-legged animals. Even though birds (pigeons and turtle doves) are valid elevation sacrifices (Lev. 1:14–17), only four-legged animals can be brought “to adorn the altar.”; but the remainder of the property shall be used for the upkeep of the Temple.", "HALAKHAH: “If somebody gives his property to the Temple and in it there were items usable for any public sacrifices.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, incense. Rebbi Hoshaia said, explain it about an artisan of the family Eutinos who took incense as his wages. What is Ben Azzai’s reason? For Temple property cannot be redeemed by work, only by coins.", "There we have stated109Mishnah Temurah7:2.: “There is about gifts for the upkeep of the Temple that unspecified gifts to the Temple are for the upkeep of the Temple. Sanctification for the upkeep of the Temple falls on everything110Anything of value can be donated to the Temple., and me`ilah applies to what grows from it111Not only growth from seeds donated but all income from the principal are protected by me`ilah laws as is the original donation., and priests have no usufruct from it.” Rebbi Ḥanania said, this is Rebbi Eliezer’s, as we have stated: “If somebody gives his property to the Temple and in it there was an animal fit for the altar, males or females. Rebbi Eliezer says, males should be sold to those who need an elevation offering, and females be sold to those who need well-being offerings, and the revenue together with the remainder be for upkeep of the Temple112Since the Mishnah starts “if somebody gives his property,” this means it is unspecified, given to the Temple to use it as it sees fit, and R. Eliezer says that all proceeds go to the upkeep of the Temple..” Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of Rebbi Eliezer : If a man dedicate his house holy to the Eternal113Lev. 27:14.. How do we hold? If for a dwelling, it already is written, if the dedicator redeem his house114Lev. 27:15.. Therefore we hold that he dedicates his property. From here that unspecified dedications to the Temple are for the upkeep of the Temple115Verse 14 states that if a person dedicates his house, a priest has to determine its value. V. 15 the notes that if the donor wants to regain his house, he has to pay 125% of the value. Since it is assumed that a dwelling is always needed, the donation of a house could have been described in one sentence, combining valuation and redemption. Since the verses are split, it is understood that also property not used as dwelling is included and is given to produce money for the Temple, not the priests (in contrast to agricultural property, vv.21..", "Rebbi Ze`ira, Rav Huna in the name of Rav: They disagree116R. Eliezer in Mishnah 7 and R. Joshua in Mishnah 8. about one who gives his property to the Temple. But if he gives his flock to the Temple, everybody agrees that it is for the altar117The animals should not be sold for the benefit of the Temple to people who need sacrificial animals but be directly used as elevation offerings of the Temple in times of need. The only animals to be sold are the blemished ones.. Rebbi Abba, Rav Huna in the name of Rav: Where do they disagree? About one who gives his flock to the Temple, but if he gave his property to the Temple, everybody agrees that it is for the upkeep of the Temple118As explained in the preceding paragraph.. The opinion of Rebbi Ze`ira can be understood119Since an animal becomes a sacrifice only by a dedication, the animals given to the Temple in a will, while becoming subject to the laws of me`ilah as Temple property, are not sacrifices and Lev.27:9–10 does not apply to them. The disagreement between RR. Eliezer and Joshua is purely about rabbinic rules and these apply equally to both cases.. It is difficult for Rebbi Abba. Is an animal not for the altar? An animal is for the altar. But why did this man not specify? It is as if he said, it only should be for the upkeep of the Temple. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no difference. The disagreement is both about one who gives his property to the Temple as about one who gives his flock to the Temple119Since an animal becomes a sacrifice only by a dedication, the animals given to the Temple in a will, while becoming subject to the laws of me`ilah as Temple property, are not sacrifices and Lev.27:9–10 does not apply to them. The disagreement between RR. Eliezer and Joshua is purely about rabbinic rules and these apply equally to both cases..", "Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Sancta given for the upkeep of the Temple which were redeemed unblemished become profane120While dedicated unblemished animals cannot be redeemed and cannot revert to profane status, animals willed to the Temple are not in this category as explained in the preceding Note. While selling the animals to be used as sacrifice is the prescribed proceeding, if the rules are not followed and they are sold for profane use the sale is valid on condition that the Temple receive its money.. A Mishnah says so121Mishnah Ḥulin10:2. The Mishnah states that blemished animals which were dedicated as sacrifices never become intrinsically holy; if they are redeemed they are fully profane, their offspring and their milk is profane (first quote). If they were validly dedicated and later developed a blemish, they have to be redeemed and used as profane food, but cannot totally lose their sacred status; they cannot be used for work nor are their offspring and their milk permitted (second quote, also Temurah7:1.), “their offspring and their milk are permitted after their redemption.” Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Explain it if they were redeemed unblemished and then became defective. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Does the Mishnah say so121Mishnah Ḥulin10:2. The Mishnah states that blemished animals which were dedicated as sacrifices never become intrinsically holy; if they are redeemed they are fully profane, their offspring and their milk is profane (first quote). If they were validly dedicated and later developed a blemish, they have to be redeemed and used as profane food, but cannot totally lose their sacred status; they cannot be used for work nor are their offspring and their milk permitted (second quote, also Temurah7:1.)? “Their offspring and their milk are forbidden after their redemption.” Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Yose: Sancta given for the upkeep of the Temple which were redeemed unblemished become profane. If you are saying they did not become profane, how could the sanctity of the altar fall on sancta given for the upkeep of the Temple123Since what is dedicated for one category of sancta cannot be changed to another, both R. Eliezer and R. Joshua must agree that the sale of the animal by the Temple makes it profane; the dedication of the buyer is the valid dedication of a profane animal.?", "The sanctity of the altar falls on defective animals. In which respect? For shearing and work125It is sinful to dedicate a defective animal to the altar. The question is whether such a dedication is effective at all. The statement here shows that the animal has to be treated according to the rules of an animal dedicated unblemished which later developed a defect (Note 121). B correctly adds prohibition of its offspring or its milk.. “126Tosephta Pesaḥim9:19, Temurah2:5; Babli Temurah19b/20a. The text of B in the anonymous statement, “does not effect substitution”, is a scribal error as shown by the later text in B.
The reference is to Lev. 27:10, that it is forbidden to make a substitution for a dedicated animal, but if such a substitution was made, both the original animal and its substitute are sancta. Therefore “to effect substitution” implies “the original dedication is valid.” Everybody agrees that even if the dedication is void as dedication for the altar, it is valid as a gift of the animal or its value for the upkeep of the Temple.
If somebody dedicated a female for his elevation offering, or his Pesaḥ, or his reparation offering, it effects substitution. Rebbi Simeon says, for his elevation offering it effects substitution; for his Pesaḥ or his reparation offering it does not effect substitution.” “127This is known only as a quote in the Babli, Temurah20b. Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Simeon, neither for his elevation offering, nor his Pesaḥ, nor his reparation offering, does it effect substitution.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon is that we find that a female is qualified as elevation offering of a bird128Male animals are prescribed for four-legged elevation sacrifices, Lev. 1:3,10, but not for birds, 1:14 (Sifra Wayyiqra I Parshata6(2,5). Argument missing in B.. [And]129Corrector’s addition, unwarranted. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon120While dedicated unblemished animals cannot be redeemed and cannot revert to profane status, animals willed to the Temple are not in this category as explained in the preceding Note. While selling the animals to be used as sacrifice is the prescribed proceeding, if the rules are not followed and they are sold for profane use the sale is valid on condition that the Temple receive its money. is, if there are differences in its own kind, so much more if it is not its own kind. What are differences in its own kind? As it was stated121Mishnah Ḥulin10:2. The Mishnah states that blemished animals which were dedicated as sacrifices never become intrinsically holy; if they are redeemed they are fully profane, their offspring and their milk is profane (first quote). If they were validly dedicated and later developed a blemish, they have to be redeemed and used as profane food, but cannot totally lose their sacred status; they cannot be used for work nor are their offspring and their milk permitted (second quote, also Temurah7:1.), “a yearling as reparation offering, and he brought one of two years, he satisfied his obligation; a two-year old as reparation offering, and he brought one of three years, he did not satisfy his obligation”. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon and Rebbi Joshua said the same. As Rebbi Joshua said, a female as elevation offering is sanctified only for its money’s worth122If willing one’s property to the Temple were a genuine dedication, the animal which was unblemished at the time of donation but later developed a defect never could regain full profane status. Therefore the rule only is possible if the position of R. Joḥanan (Note 119) is adopted., so Rebbi Simeon123Since what is dedicated for one category of sancta cannot be changed to another, both R. Eliezer and R. Joshua must agree that the sale of the animal by the Temple makes it profane; the dedication of the buyer is the valid dedication of a profane animal. said, a female as elevation offering is sanctified only for its money’s worth. If you would say that they are sancta as to their body, they should graze124This sentence added to the truncated text of B repeats the prior argument. Animals which are leftovers are animals bought with sheqel money but not used at the end of the tax year. Since these animals become dedicated only at the moment they are used (end of the text for Note 100), their status as far as dedication goes is identical to that of animals willed to the Temple.. “Rebbi said, I agree with Rebbi Simeon about the Pesah; could the Pesaḥ be brought as a well being offering? But I do not agree with the words of Rebbi Simeon for reparation offerings; could a reparation offering be brought as an elevation offering?125It is sinful to dedicate a defective animal to the altar. The question is whether such a dedication is effective at all. The statement here shows that the animal has to be treated according to the rules of an animal dedicated unblemished which later developed a defect (Note 121). B correctly adds prohibition of its offspring or its milk.” Rebbi Abbin said, in case a Pesaḥ be brought as a well being offering, its body is brought as well-being offering; in case a reparation offering be brought as an elevation offering, its body cannot be brought as elevation offering. What about it? In one case one says, it is sanctified for its money’s worth; in one case one says, it is sanctified in its body126Tosephta Pesaḥim9:19, Temurah2:5; Babli Temurah19b/20a. The text of B in the anonymous statement, “does not effect substitution”, is a scribal error as shown by the later text in B.
The reference is to Lev. 27:10, that it is forbidden to make a substitution for a dedicated animal, but if such a substitution was made, both the original animal and its substitute are sancta. Therefore “to effect substitution” implies “the original dedication is valid.” Everybody agrees that even if the dedication is void as dedication for the altar, it is valid as a gift of the animal or its value for the upkeep of the Temple.
.", "Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. The reason of Rebbi Joshua137Since R. Joshua requires that the male animals be used as elevation offerings, why does he not require that the females be used directly as well-being offerings, but sold and the proceeds used for elevation offerings?: 138Lev. 22:18–19.Speak to Aaron, and his sons, and to all Children of Israel, and say to them: each single man from Israel, etc. who willoffer an elevation sacrifice to the Eternal, anything could be elevation sacrifice, voluntarily from you, unblemished, male. From where even females? The verse says, in cattle, to include females139In contrast to Lev. 1:3, whereמִן הַבָּקָר clearly is partitive, only the select from the cattle, here בַּבָּקָר, “in the herd”, is inclusive. While females cannot be elevation sacrifices, they can be dedicated that their proceeds be used for elevation sacrifices.. Rebbi Isaac ben Rebbi Eleazar140B adds, probably correctly, “asked”.: It says male, and you are saying in cattle, to include females. Then similarly it is written unblemished, and you are saying in cattle, to include the blemished141Since Mishnah 7 starts “if there was an animal fit for the altar,” clearly excluding defective animals also according to R. Joshua, the argument is invalid and so is the prior statement of R. Ze`ira.?", "What is between them? The stick of a weaver’s shuttle is between them145There is very little between them since R. Aqiba only says that R. Eliezer is more logically consistent; he does not decide that practice has to follow R. Eliezer. The weaver’s shuttle is Greek κερκίς, -ίδος. The reading of B, “the statement of Bar Pada” does not seem to make any sense; probably it is a misreading of the version of M, “a matter of invention”, i. e., of formulation..", "Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. The reason of Rebbi Eleazar: 138Lev. 22:18–19.Speak to Aaron and to his sons, etc., who would sacrifice to the Eternal as elevation sacrifice; everything may be brought as elevation sacrifice, by your volition, unblemished, male. I could think that this includes birds. The verse says, in cattle, not birds148Since the verse restricts elevation offerings from four-legged animals to unblemished males, it is inferred that the restriction does not apply to birds [Sifra Emor Parashah7(20), Wayyiqra I Parshata6(3)]. In addition, since Lev. 1:14–17 is addressed to the individual, but Lev. 22:18–19 to the public, it is inferred that birds as elevation offerings are possible only to the individual; the public is restricted to four-legged animals. Since a gift to the Temple is a gift to the public, birds given to the Temple as part of an estate may not be sacrificed.. Rebbi Jeremiah and Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya were sitting and saying, there said Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon is that we find that a female is qualified as elevation offering of a bird128Male animals are prescribed for four-legged elevation sacrifices, Lev. 1:3,10, but not for birds, 1:14 (Sifra Wayyiqra I Parshata6(2,5). Argument missing in B.. And here, he149Even though the statement is transmitted in the name of R. Simeon ben Laqish, we do not hear that R. Joḥanan disagrees; the statement is coming from R. Joḥanan’s Academy. says so? Rebbi Yose said, I confirmed it following what Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: Anything which could be sacrificed neither itself nor its money’s worth is sanctified only as money’s worth150If an animal is not dedicated as sacrifice and if sold, the money cannot be used to buy an animal which can validly be dedicated (Note 119), the animal is given for the upkeep of the Temple, not to the gift account.. And you are saying, this is correct. You cannot sacrifice it, for it is written in cattle151And the public to whom the bird was given may not dedicate it as sacrifice.. You cannot redeem it since birds cannot be redeemed.152Mishnah Menaḥot12:1. Not only birds, but also dedicated wine and flour cannot be redeemed since the rules of redemption in Lev. 27 are formulated referring to four-legged animals only.", "The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan; Rebbi Ayvo bar Nagari said before Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan. The reason of this Tanna: But if any impure animal from which no sacrifice to the Eternal may be offered153Lev. 27:11.. Why does the verse say, impure154Since no impure animal can be sacrificed, either the mention of “impure” or that of “cannot be sacrificed” seems to be superfluous.? But even impure for this denomination155If an animal was dedicated in a category for which it was not appropriate, and it never could be sacrificed in that category, it never was dedicated to the altar and therefore can be redeemed.. This is difficult; about this is written, he shall stand, he shall appraise156Lev. 27:12.? Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar did not say so but, but if any impure animal from which no sacrifice to the Eternal may be offered; anything which could be sacrificed neither here nor at any other place does not effect substitution157If “impure” really means “unfit”, e. g. cattle or sheep with a broken leg, it is not dedicated to the altar and must be redeemed with the money going for the upkeep of the Temple. However, it cannot be made to stand as required by the verse.. This excludes the female of a bird which even though it cannot be sacrificed here is fit to be sacrificed at another place. Rebbi Abbin and Rebbi Abun asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: Are there not the animals used for active or passive bestiality, which can be sacrificed neither here nor at any other place, and they effect substitution158Tosephta Temurah1:12 states that dedicating such an animal, while sinful, is equivalent to dedicating an unblemished animal which after dedication becomes blemished; all rules of me`ilah do apply and it may be redeemed only after it develops a permanent bodily defect.? He said to them, also I did speak only about really impure ones159B reads: “defective ones.”. This is difficult; about this is written, he shall stand, he shall appraise156Lev. 27:12.?" ], [ "MISHNAH: Once every thirty days one sets the prices for the office160One lets contracts to supply the Temple with wine and flour to accompany the sacrifices. This lets the Temple set the prices for these items as explained in the next Chapter.. Anyone who accepts to supply fine flour at a rate of four161The contract is to supply 4 seah of flour for one tetradrachma., if the going rate goes up to three he has to supply at the rate of four164When at the time of use the items were found to be in good order.; if at the rate of three and the going rate went down to four he has to supply at four since the hand of the sanctuary is privileged. If the flour turned out worm-infected, it was infected in his possession163Even if the worms were not detected at the time of delivery, only at the time of use.; and if the wine turned into vinegar it was vinegar in his possession. He is not paid until the altar did atone164When at the time of use the items were found to be in good order..", "HALAKHAH: It was stated in the name of Rebbi Simeon: he receives his money immediately, for the priests are quick165Chapter 2, Note 33. The text there is reproduced in B and M.." ] ], [ [ "MISHNAH: These are the appointees who were in the Sanctuary1The permanent officers of the Temple who organized the service which was executed by the families of the clans of Cohanim, who came to serve in turn for one week. Different in Tosephta 2:14–15.: Joḥanan ben Phineas of the seals2As explained in Mishnah 4, a person who brings an animal as sacrifice to the Temple buys from the Temple the appropriate flour and wine offerings (as detailed in Num. 15:1–12). The “seal” (or ”signature”) is a ticket stamped with one of different stamps. The worshipper buys the ticket from the keeper of seals and delivers it to the keeper of libations who then gives him the correct amount to give to the officiating priests., Aḥiyya of the libations, Mathew ben Samuel of the lotteries3The lotteries which distribute the different duties to the priests who came to serve for one week, as explained in Yoma Chapter 2., Petaḥiah of the nests4He organizes the sale of “nests”, couples of pigeons or turtle doves, needed for several purification rites.. Petaḥiah is Mordecai. Why was he called Petaḥiah? For he had original ideas5In the interpretation of biblical verses. and explained them, and he knew seventy languages6In Ezra2:2 and Neḥemiah7:7 in the list of returnees from Babylonia one finds Mordecai Bilshan, where the traditional interpretation is to consider the second name not as an independent (Babylonian) name but an epithet “linguist” of Mordecai. (In modern Hebrew, by mispronunciation “linguist” is balshan.) A linguist is a person who knows the languages of all of the 70 peoples enumerated in Gen. 7..
Ben Aḥiyyah for indigestion; Onias the digger of ditches, Gabinius the herald, Ben Gever for locking the doors, Ben Bevai for the oakum. Ben Arza for the cymbal, Hugdas ben Levi for the song. The family Garmu for the shew-bread, the family Eutinos for producing the incense. Eleazar for the gobelins, and Phineas the clothier.", "HALAKHAH: 7This text is from the end of Chapter 3 in Yoma(Notes 238,239), where all textual variants are noted.“These are the appointees who were in the Sanctuary.” Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, Rebbi Simon and the rabbis. One said, he comes to enumerate the qualified ones of every generation. But the other said, he who was in a generation enumerated what was in his generation\\. He who said, he comes to enumerate the qualified ones of every generation, about all of them he says, the remembrance of the just is for blessing8Prov. 10:3.. He who said, he who was in a generation enumerated what was in his generation, about all of them he says, but the name of evildoers shall rot. About whom was said, the remembrance of the just is for blessing? About Ben Qaṭin9As mentioned in Mishnah Yoma3:11. and his kind.", "Rebbi Jonah said, it is written10Is. 53:12. The verse continues: For he offered himself to death and counted the sinners. This applies to R. Aqiba who was a martyr and organized religious tradition in a systematic corpus.: Therefore, I shall distribute to him in public, and with the powerful he shall have part in booty, that is Rebbi Aqiba who organized interpretation of Scripture, practice, and homiletics11The reading of B: Mishnah, interpretation of Scripture, and practice, seems preferable since R. Aqiba had no reputation in homiletics and as a matter of principle homiletics about biblical verses is not to be systematized.. But some say, this refers to the men of the Great Assembly, who organized principles and details12They find in the work of the Great Assembly the essence of Second Temple and later rabbinic Judaism, the effort to turn the mostly disjointed statements of the Torah into a systematic code of laws..", "Rebbi Abbahu said, it is written131Chr. 2:55. The families of counters, dwellers of Yabeṣ. Why does the verse say, counters? Because they formulated the teaching numbers, numbers14In B: ciphers, ciphers.. “Five shall not lift heave.15Mishnah Terumot1:1.” “Fifteen women free their co-wives.16Mishnah Yebamot1:1.” “Thirty-six extirpations in the Torah.17Mishnah Keritut1:1.” “Thirteen matters about the carcass of a pure bird.18Mishnah Ṭehorot1:1.” “Four main categories of torts.19Mishnah Bava Qamma1:1.” “Thirty-nine categories of work.”", "Rebbi Aḥa said, for Ezra the priest, the counter20Ezra7:11.. But just as he was counting in the Torah so he was counting in the words of the Sages21The principles of mesorah, to fix the text of Scriptures by noting the number of occurrences of certain forms, is attributed to Ezra in Megillah4:1 (47d l. 49), Babli Megillah3a. Similarly, the fixation of mishnaiot by numbers is attributed to him..", "Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman. The earlier generations ploughed, and sowed, and weeded, and trimmed, and hoed, cut, made sheaves, threshed, winnowed, milled, sifted, made dough, kneaded, and baked. But we do not even have a mouth to eat22Even though the earlier generation organized the study of religious texts in a systematic way, still we have difficulty following them.. 23From here to the end of the next paragraph the text is from Demay1:3, Notes 131–137 (ד). Rebbi Abba bar Zemina said in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: If the earlier generations were angels, we are men; if they were men, we are donkeys. Rebbi Mana said, at that moment24When a great scholar ate ṭevel without suspecting that it was not tithed. they said, we are not even comparable to the she-ass of Rebbi Phineas ben Yair.", "Robbers stole the she-ass of Rebbi Phineas ben Yair at night. She was hidden with them for three days during which she did not eat anything. After three days, they took counsel to return her. They said, remove her lest she die with us. They let her out; she returned to her master’s door and started braying. He said to them, open to that poor creature because for three days now she did not taste anything. They opened for her and she entered. He said to them, give her something to eat. They put oats before her but she did not eat. They said to him, rabbi, she does not want to eat. He asked them, did you put it in order? They said: Yes. He asked them, did you remove its demay? They said, did the rabbi not teach us: “He who buys seeds for animals, flour for tanning, oil for lighting, is free from demay”? He said to them, what can we do with this poor creature since she is very restrictive for herself? They removed the demay and she ate.", "Petaḥiah of the nests4He organizes the sale of “nests”, couples of pigeons or turtle doves, needed for several purification rites.. Come and see how great the power of this man was, for he “had original ideas5In the interpretation of biblical verses. and explained them, and he knew seventy languages6In Ezra2:2 and Neḥemiah7:7 in the list of returnees from Babylonia one finds Mordecai Bilshan, where the traditional interpretation is to consider the second name not as an independent (Babylonian) name but an epithet “linguist” of Mordecai. (In modern Hebrew, by mispronunciation “linguist” is balshan.) A linguist is a person who knows the languages of all of the 70 peoples enumerated in Gen. 7..” It was stated: A Synhedrion of which two know how to speak25As a minimum two members of the Synhedrion have to be able to interrogate any witness in his own language and the rest of them have to be able to understand the answer. The Court may not use interpreters. In the Babli, Sanhedrin17b, the reference is not to the Synhedrion as Supreme Court but to any court of criminal jurisdiction. and all of them are able to hear is acceptable26As a minimal requirement. as Synhedrion. Three is average, four is wise, and in Jabneh there were four, Ben Azzai and Ben Zoma, Ben Ḥanikai and Rebbi Eleazar ben Matthew.", "Rav Ḥisda said, once the Land of Israel was dry (and they collected from Gaggot-Ṣerifin27Mishnah Menaḥot10:2. Ṣerifin probably is Serafand in the plain NE of Jerusalem..) [and they did not know from where to bring28As spelled out in the Mishnah (and B), the problem was to find barley grain for the `omer which must be brought from the produce of the Land. Babli Menaḥot64b.. There was there a mute person who put one hand on roofs and another on a shed. They brought him before Petaḥiah, who told them, is there a place called Gaggot-Ṣerifin or Ṣerifin-Gaggot? They went there and found.] Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, once the entire world29In B: The Land of Israel. The Mishnah refers to wheat grain for the Two Breads. was burned and they did not know from where to bring. There was there a mute person who put one of his hands over his eyes and one hand on a door lock. They brought him before Petaḥiah, who told them, is there a place called `Ein-Sokher30A place near Sichem (Nablus.) or Sokher-Ayin. They went there and found.", "Three women brought their nests31Since Petaḥiah was in charge of these, it was his duty to instruct the officiating Cohanim in the correct way to sacrifice the birds. As obligatory offerings of a woman after prolonged menstruation as zavah, one bird is to be an elevation offering and the other a purification offering. As thanksgiving offerings both birds are elevation offerings.. One said, לְעֵינָתִי; and one said, לְיַמָּתִי, and one said, לְזִיבָתִי. About the one who said 32Since עַיִין means both “eye” and “wellhead, spring”.לְעֵינָתִי, they wanted to say, her menstrual flow is like a well. He said, she was dangerously sick in her eye. About the one who said לְיַמָּתִי, they wanted to say, her menstrual flow is like the sea. He said, she was in danger on the sea. About the one who said לְזִיבָתִי, they wanted to say, she was really a zavah33While in Mishnaic Hebrew זִיבָה means the state of a zavah it is asserted here that after the alef became silent it also could not carry a separate vowel. Therefore זְאֵב “wolf” became זֵאב and since the ־ֵ was pronounced as η, it sounded like זִיב. More than 70 languages, the administrator of nests had to know all local dialects.. He told them, a wolf34The stone floor, which was unhealthy in winter. came to snatch her son.", "“Ben Aḥiyyah for indigestion.” Since the Cohanim were walking barefoot on the floor34The stone floor, which was unhealthy in winter., and were eating meat35Since the priests are obligated to eat the meat of all purification and reparation offerings in the Temple on the day of the sacrifice and the following night, and in addition to the meat they have only baked goods made from flour offerings and water, for the week of their service their diet is very unbalanced and unhealthy., and drinking water, they got indigestion. He knew which wine was good for the intestines and which was noxious36The translation is tentative. Brill proposes to read מְמַסְמֵס “massages”. The reading of B, “eliminates intestines” is difficult to understand. for intestines.", "“Onias the digger of ditches.” He was digging ditches and caves37To create miqwaot for pilgrims to the Temple. and knew which rock cools the water and which rock was dry and how far its dryness extended. Rebbi Aḥa said, but (he) [his son]38Reading of B and the corrector, to be deleted. died of thirst. 39The text also is in Yom Ṭov3:9 (Note 124, צ). Rebbi Ḥanina said, anybody who says that the All-Merciful is indulgent, his intestines shall dissolve themselves; for He is forbearing and then collects His due. Rebbi Aḥa said, it is written40Ps. 50:3., His surroundings are very hairy. He is exact with them like a hair’s width. Rebbi Yose said, not because of this reason, but because what is written41Ps. 89:8., He is awesome on His surroundings, His fear on those near Him is greater than those far away.", "42This also is from Demay1:3 (Note 150) and similarly in Deut. rabba3. Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: It happened that a pious person used to dig cisterns, ditches, and caves for travellers. Once, his daughter travelled to marry44To sing at the daily sacrifices. and she was swept away by a river. All the people came to him and wanted to console him, but he refused to be consoled. Rebbi Phineas ben Yair came to him and wanted to console him, but he refused to be consoled. He told them, is that your pious man? They said to him: Rabbi, such and such he did, such and such happened to him. He replied: It is impossible that he would honor his Creator by water and He hurts him by water! Immediately, there started a rumor in the town that the man’s daughter had returned. Some say, she got trapped in a hedge of thorns, others say that an angel came in the appearance of Rebbi Phineas ben Yair and saved her.", "“Gabinius the herald.” He was announcing in the Temple. What did he say? “The Cohanim to the service, and the Levites to the podium44To sing at the daily sacrifices., and Israel to stand by45Representing the entire people for whom the sacrifices were brought, in later Second Temple times a delegation of the people from the district of the week’s Cohanim was present during the offering of the daily sacrifices..” King Agrippas heard his voice at a distance of eight parasangs46Using Egyptian measures this would be about 36 km. B (but not M) reads “one parasang”, about 4.5 km. and gave him rich gifts.", "“Ben Gever for locking the doors.” Rav explained for the House of Rebbi Shila, “when gever called47Mishnah Yoma1:8.” as “when the herald proclaimed.” They said to him, “when the rooster called.” He said to them, did we not state “Ben Gever”? Could you say, “the son of the rooster”?", "“Ben Bevay for the oakum, he was threading the wicks48This is from Yoma2:2, Note 106.. 49This text is from Peah8:7, Notes 94–96 (פ). Rebbi Yose went up to Kufra and wanted to appoint providers50Overseers of charity. there, but they did not accept. He came and said before them: “Ben Bavai over the oakum.” If this one had been appointed over the wicks and therefore merited to be counted with the leaders of his generation, you who are being appointed over the lives of people, so much more.", "“Ben Arza for the cymbal;” as we have stated there51Mishnah Tamid7:3., “the executive officer waves a sheet and Ben Arza plays the cymbal.”", "“Hugdas ben Levi for the song.” Rebbi Aḥa said, he knew a special melody. When he put his thumb in his mouth he produced all kinds of sounds and the heads of his fellow Levites were taken aback.", "52This and the next paragraphs are from Yoma3:8, Notes 225–235, where also the differences in readings are noted. The additions of the corrector in the story of the family Eutinos are from B. The family Garmu were experts in preparing the shew-bread and its removal from the oven, but they did not want to teach. They sent and brought craftsmen from Alexandria who were experts in preparing the shew-bread but were not experts in its removal from the oven. The family Garmu were heating from within and removing from the outside, and it did not become moldy. But those were heating from the inside and removing from the inside, and it became moldy. When the Sages realized this situation, they said, everything which the Holy One, praise to Him, created, he created to His glory; all work of the Eternal is for Himself53Prov. 16:4.. They sent after them, but they refused to come until they doubled their wages. They used to take twelve mina, so they gave them twenty-four. Rebbi Jehudah says, they used to take 24, so they gave them 48. They asked them, why do you not want to teach? They answered them, there is a tradition among us from our forefathers that this Temple will be destroyed in the future. Others should not learn and prepare the same before their foreign worship. In the following matter one mentions them for praise, that in the hands of their children white bread was never found, so people should not say, from the preparation of shew-bread they are eating.", "“The family Eutinos were experts in preparing the incense and the smoke-creating herb, but they did not want to teach. They sent and brought craftsmen from Alexandria who were experts in preparing the incense but were not experts in the smoke-creating herb. The family Eutinos’s was going straight up, and spread, and descended. But theirs was immediately spreading. When the Sages realized the situation, they said, everything which the Holy One, praise to Him, created, he created to His glory; as it is said54Is.43:7., all which is called by My Name, etc. They sent after them, but they refused to come until they doubled their wages. They used to take twelve mina, so they gave them twenty-four. Rebbi Jehudah says, they used to take 24, so they gave them 48. They asked them, why do you not want to teach? They answered them, there is a tradition among us from our forefathers that this Temple will be destroyed in the future. Others should not learn and prepare the same before their foreign worship. In the following matter one mentions them for praise, that no woman of any of them ever went out perfumed. Not only that, but if one of them married a woman from outside, he contracted with her that she should not use perfume, [that one should not say, they perfume themselves from the compounding of incense, to confirm what is said, you shall be innocent in the eyes of the Eternal and of Israel.]", "Rebbi Yose said, I found a child of the family Eutinos. I said to him, my son, from which family are you? he told me, from family X. I said to him, my son, because your forefathers intended to increase their prestige and to decrease Heaven’s prestige, therefore their prestige was diminished and Heaven’s prestige increased. Rebbi Aqiba said, Simeon ben Lagos told me, I was collecting herbs, I and a youth from the family Eutinos, when I saw him crying and laughing. I said to him, my son, why did you cry? He said to me, about the prestige of my family which is diminished. And why did you laugh? About the glory prepared for the Just in the future world. [What did you see?] There is smoke-creating herb before me! I said to him, my son, show it to me. He answered me, I have a tradition from my ancestors not to show it to any creature.’ Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, I met an old man from the family Eutinos [who held a scroll about chemicals.]. He said to me, ‘Rabbi. In the past my family were humble, and transmitting this scroll one to the other. But now they are not trustworthy; here the scroll is yours and take care of it.’ When I came and repeated these words before Rebbi Aqiba, his tears flowed and he said, from now on we do not have to mention them for shame.", "“Eleazar for the gobelins,” he was appointed to oversee the weavers of the gobelins. “Phineas the clothier.” He clothed the garments of the High Priesthood. It happened that a Cohen dressed a general55Greek στρατιώτης. who gave him 8 pieces of gold, and some say, he gave him twelve." ], [ "MISHNAH: One does not appoint less than seven overseers56In the Temple. The etymology of the word seems to be אָמַר-כֹל “he commands everything.” and three treasurers57In the Temple., and one does not appoint less than two persons to an executive office spending money58This includes treasurers of public funds outside the Temple., except Ben Aḥiyyah for indigestion and Eleazar for the gobelins, for these the public accepted59The Temple had to pay for Ben Aḥiyya’s prescriptions and Eleazar’s assignments for work delivered on their signature alone, without co-signer..", "HALAKHAH: “One does not appoint less than three treasurers and seven overseers.” It was stated: And two καθολικοί60In imitation of the financial administration of the Roman Empire which at the Emperor’s court was directed by the katholikoi.. That is what is written612Chr. 31:13, misquoted (but less badly than in B.) Description of Ezekias’s Temple organization., and Yeḥiel, and Uzziahu, and Maḥat, treasurers; and Asael, and Yerimot, and Yozavad, and Eliel, and Samkhiahu, and Maḥat, and Conaiahu, overseers, officers supervised by Konaniahu and his brother Simei, katholikoi; appointed by King Yeḥizkiahu and Azariahu the governor of God’s House, King and High Priest.", "When he seals62Money bags., the treasurer seals and gives it to the overseer. The overseer seals and gives it to the katholikos. The katholikos seals and gives it to the High Priest. The High Priest seals and gives it to the King. And if the break the seals, the King sees his seal and breaks it62aIn all cases, B reads “recognizes” instead of “breaks”.. The High Priest sees his seal and breaks it. The katholikos sees his seal and breaks it. The overseer sees his seal and breaks it. The treasurer sees his seal and breaks it.", "“One does not appoint less than two persons to an executive office spending money.” Rebbi Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Mana: Following63Ex. 28:5. they should take64Formulated in the plural; one never lets public property be used by a single person. Babli Bava Batra8b. the gold, and the blue wool, and the purple wool.", "65Babli Nedarim38a, Tanḥuma Eqev(9), Ex. rabba46(2). Rebbi Ḥama ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, Moses got rich from the refuse of the tablets. That is what is written66Ex. 34:1., cut for yourself two stone tablets. Cut for yourself667, the refuse shall be yours. Rebbi Ḥanin said, The Holy One, praise to Him, created68B: uncovered. a quarry of precious stones and pearls in his tent, and from this Moses got rich.", "69Tanḥuma Ki Tissa26, Babli Qiddušin33b. A slightly differently arranged text is Bikkurim3:3. This text shows that the corrector’s addition [in brackets] is from B; it is missing in the Yerushalmi sources and M. It is written70Ex. 33:8., they looked after Moses until he reached the Tent. Two Amoraim, one says for shame, the other one says for praise. He who says for shame, “look at the thigh, look at the feet, look at his flesh. He eats from the Jews, and drinks from the Jews, everything he has is from the Jews.” He who says for praise, to see the just ones is meritorious [great for one who was worthy to see him.]" ], [ "MISHNAH: Four stamps71As explained in the next Mishnah, with these tickets one bought the prescribed amounts of flour, oil, and wine, prescribed for each kind of sacrifice (Num. 15:1–16.) were in the Temple; on them was written calf, ram, lamb, sinner. Ben Azzai says, there were five, and Aramaic was written on them, calf, ram, lamb, poor sinner, rich sinner. “Calf” serves for the libations of cattle, large or small, male or female723/10 of an ephah of flour, half a hin olive oil and half a hin wine. An ephah is 3 seah; in the Roman system (Mishnah Kelim17:11) a cadus of about 38 l. A hin is half a seah; half a hin is a Roman congius of about 3.2 l. The basic fluid measure is the log(sextarius) of about .53 l; half a hin are 6 log.. “Lamb” serves for the libations of sheep and goats, large or small, male or female731/10 ephah of flour, 1/4 hin(3 log) each of oil and wine., except for rams. “Ram” only serves for the libations with a ram742/10 ephah of flour, 1/3 hin(4 log) each of oil and wine. A ram is a male sheep older than 13 months (Mishnah Parah1:3). “Sinner” serves for the three animals of the sufferer from skin disease75The rich healed sufferer from skin disease had to bring 3 sheep and an extra log of oil, in total 3/10 of an ephah of flour, 10 log of oil, and 9 log of wine. As explained in the Halakhah, the anonymous majority holds that the poor healed sufferer from skin disease, who had to bring only one sheep, buys the ticket for the sheep and brings the extra log of oil with him. Since skin disease led to social ostracism, it is not mentioned on the ticket..
If somebody needs libations he goes to Joḥanan who is overseeing the stamps, gives him the money, and receives a ticket from him. He goes to Aḥiyya who is overseeing the libations, gives him the ticket, and receives the libations from him. In the evening they84Joḥanan and Aḥiyya. come together, Aḥiyya produces the tickets and receives money correspondingly85Since he not only handed out the materials but also bought them for the Temple from wholesalers.. If there was a deficit, it is his86Joḥanan’s. deficit and Joḥanan has to pay from his own. But if there was excess87If more money was taken in than the value of the libations handed out. it belongs to the Temple since the hand of the Temple is privileged.
If somebody lost his ticket, one lets him wait until the evening. If they find for him corresponding to his ticket one gives to him; otherwise one does not give to him.88If a person notified the authorities that he had lost his ticket and the daily accounting at the end of the day showed that libations in the value of what he claimed was his ticket remains after the other claims had been paid, the difference is not declared as excess but is used to provide him with his libations. Otherwise he has lost his money. The date was written on it because of the tricksters89The ticket was valid only one day so nobody could claim that he had lost his ticket, and if he was lucky got his libations without paying, and then presented the ticket on another day..", "HALAKHAH: And following Ben Azzai, why the [poor]76Corrector’s addition from B. sinner? He brought his log with him, and following the rabbis he brings a lamb77As explained in Note 75.. What are the libations for a mother sheep78Since there is a difference between the libations needed for a young male sheep and those for an adult male, why does one not make the same distinction for females?? Since we stated, “ ‘lamb’ serves for the libations of sheep and goats, large or small, male or female,” this implies that the libations of a mother sheep are like the libations of a lamb. It is written79Num. 15:11., so you shall do for one bull, or for one ram, or an animal from sheep or goats.80Sifry Num.107. This tells that He did not differentiate between libations for a calf and libations for a bull. Since one could argue, an animal from the flock needs libations, a bovine animal needs libations. Since we find that He distinguished between the libations for a sheep and the libations for a ram, so we should differentiate between libations for a calf and libations for a bull. The verse says, so you shall do for one bull; this implies that He did not distinguish between libations for a calf and libations for a bull. Why was it said, or for a ram? Since one could argue, if we find that He differentiated between libations for a yearling and libations for a two-year old, so we should differentiate between libations for a two-years old and a three-years old. The verse says, or for one ram. Why was it said, or for an animal from sheep? Since one could argue, if we find that He differentiated between libations for a sheep and libations for a ram, so we should differentiate between libations for a young female sheep and libations for a mother sheep. The verse says, or for an animal from sheep. Why was it said, or a goat? Since one could argue, if we find that He differentiated between libations for a sheep and libations for a ram, so we should differentiate between libations for a kid goat and libations for a bellwether. The verse says, or for a goat, it compared the smallest kid goat to the largest bellwether81The distinction by age applicable to sheep is not applicable to goats.. Since one needs three log, so the other needs three log.", "Think of it, if he matched it90Writing the day of the week on the ticket will not defeat the trickster who will wait just one week to cash in on his ticket. with that day! The name of the watch91The name of the one of 24 priestly watches which serves in the week of this particular sacrifice. was written on it. Think of it, if he matched the watch92The ticket will be valid again in another 24 weeks.. The name of the day, the week93The week is named after the portion to be read from the Torah on the following Sabbath., and the month was written on them; then it is impossible to match94Since the length of the lunar/solar year varies between 50 and 55 weeks, even with a computed calendar it will take very many years before the same watch will officiate again in the same week, and without a computed one it is totally impossible to predict the recurrence of this match.." ], [ "MISHNAH: Two lodges were in the Temple, one the silence lodge and one the vessel lodge. The silence lodge: Silently did sin-fearing people contribute there and poor people from good families were supported from there in silence. The vessel lodge: Anybody who vowed a vessel throws it in there. Once in 30 days the treasurers open it. Any vessel which they deem is needed for the upkeep of the Temple they keep, but the remainder is sold and their proceeds belong to the lodge of upkeep of the Temple.", "HALAKHAH: 95The following text (except the last paragraph) also is found in Peah8:9, Notes 149–167 (פ). Also there exists a Genizah text from here to Chapter 7 (ג). Rebbi Jacob bar Idi and Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman were providers96Administrators of the welfare fund. and gave a denar to Rebbi Ḥama the father of Rabbi Oshaia, but he gave it away to others. All were saying evil things about Rebbi Zachariah, the son-in-law of Rebbi Levi; they said that he was taking while he did not need it. When he died, they checked and found that he was splitting it up for others.", "Rebbi Ḥinena bar Pappos used to distribute his charity in the night. Once the prince of spirits encountered him. He said to him, did not our teacher teach us: Do not displace your neighbour’s boundaries97Deut. 19:14.? He said to him, but is it not written, a gift in secret appeases anger98Prov. 21:14.? He was afraid of him and fled from him.", "Rebbi Jonah said, it is not written, “hail to him who gives to the needy,“ but: hail to him who is considerate to the needy99Ps. 41:2.; this refers to him who fulfills this commandment intelligently. How did Rebbi Jonah do it? When he saw a son of a prominent family who had lost his property, he used to say to him: My son, since I heard that an inheritance fell to you at another place, take and you will pay back. When he had taken it, he said to him, it is a gift.", "Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, in our days there were old people who used to take if somebody gave to them between New Year’s Day and the Great Fastday. After that, they were not taking. They said, there is permission for us.", "Neḥemiah from Shiḥin met a Jerusalemite who said to him, acquire merit by giving me a chicken. He said to him, here is its value, go buy red meat; he bought, ate and died. He said, come and eulogize him whom Neḥemiah killed.", "Naḥum from Gimzo was carrying a gift to the house of his father-in-law when he met a person afflicted with boils who asked him, acquire merit from what you have on you. He said to him, when I shall return. He returned and found him dead. He said before him, his eyes which saw you and did not give to you shall go blind, his hands which did not stretch out to give to you shall be cut off, his feet which did not run to give to you shall be broken. This happened to him. Rebbi Aqiba came to visit him and said, woe to me that I see you in this state. He answered, woe to me that I do not see you in this state. He asked, why do you curse me? He answered, why are you contemptuous of suffering?", "The teacher of the great Rebbi Hoshaia’s son was blind and he used to invite him to eat with him every day. One day there were guests and he did not ask him to eat with him. In the evening, he went to him and said: Please, Sir, do not be angry with me. [Since I had guests, I did not want risking injuring the Sir’s honor, therefore I did not eat with you today.]100The corrector’s addition in this paragraph is necessary as shown by the parallels. He said to him, you assuaged him who is seen but does not see; may He be appeased by you Who sees but is not seen. He asked him, from where do you have this? He said, from Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob. For there came a blind man to Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob’s town; Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob sat below him so that they should say if he were not a great person, Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob would not sit below him. They provided for him in honor. He asked them, what is this? They told him, because Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob sat below you. He prayed for him the following prayer: You did a good deed for one who is seen but does not see; He Who sees but is not seen may be appeased by you and do good for you.", "Clarification. Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina and Rebbi Hoshaiah were strolling through the synagogue of Lod. Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina said to Rebbi Hoshaiah: How much money did my forefathers invest here! He answered him: How many souls did your forefathers invest here, there is no one in here who studies Torah101In B: How many souls did your forefathers lose here, are there no ones here who study Torah?!", "Rebbi Abun made doors for the main house of study. Rebbi Mana came to him; he said to him, look what I did. He told him, Israel forgot its Creator and built palaces102Hos.8:14.. Were there no people who study Torah103Support of needy students is more important than great buildings on campus.?", "It was stated: Altar sancta take what is appropriate for them from sancta of upkeep of the Temple. Sancta of upkeep of the Temple do not take what is appropriate for them from altar sancta104. But did we not state, “any vessel which they deem is needed for the upkeep of the Temple they keep, but the remainder is sold and their proceeds fall into the lodge of upkeep of the Temple107This implies that vessels needed for the service of the altar cannot be used directly but must be sold and other vessels bought in their stead.”? Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, so is the Mishnah: in case of need108For any need, including the altar. from the lodge of upkeep of the Temple." ] ], [ [ "MISHNAH: Thirteen horns, thirteen tables, and thirteen prostrations were in the Temple. The family of Rabban Gamliel and of Rebbi Ḥanania the Second in Command of the priests were prostrating themselves fourteen times. And where was the additional one? In front of the storage room of the wood since they had a tradition from their forefathers that there the Ark was hidden.
It happened that a Cohen was occupied when he saw that a floor tile was different from the others. He went to tell it to a comrade but could not finish speaking before his soul left him; then they knew with certainty the the Ark was hidden there.", "HALAKHAH: “Thirteen horns,” etc. It was stated: these horns were curved; narrow on top and wide on the bottom because of the tricksters1The “horns” were chests for the money given to the Temple for various reasons, as detailed in Mishnah 7. A person putting money into one of the chests could not put his hand into it, he had to let the coins drop in from the top..", "It was stated in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: 2Tosephta 2:18; Babli Yoma53b..“The Ark was deported with them to Babylon. What is the reason? There will not remain a word32K.20:17.. Word refers only to what contains the Words. And so it says, at the turn of the year king Nebuchadnezzar sent and brought him to Babylon with the desirable vessels of the Eternal’s House42Chr.36:10. In the Tosephta this is the reason given by R. Simeon (ben Yoḥay) in support of R. Eliezer.. What are the desirables of the Eternal’s House? This is the Ark. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish5This name of an Amora is impossible in a Tosephta. B has R. Jehudah bar Ilay; the Tosephta R. Jehudah ben Laqish (a fifth generation Tanna). Also quoted in Sefer Wehizhir p. 92a. said, at its place it was hidden. That is what is written61K. 8:8., the poles were long; the tips of the poles were seen in the Sanctuary, in front of the Hall, but were not seen outside,<and were there until this day.7The additional words are only in ג and the Tosephta; they are the reason for ben Laqish’s statement.> It is written, were seen, and you are saying, but were not seen. They protrude and stick out like a woman’s breasts8This argument only explains the wording of the verse, explaining that the ends of the poles with which the Ark was carried were noticed on the gobelin between the Sanctuary and the Holiest of Holies. Babli Yoma54a in the name of Rav Jehudah..", "But the rabbis say, the Ark was hidden in the storage room of the wood. It happened that a blemished Cohen was splitting wood in the storage room of the wood and saw a floor plate different from the others. 9This and the next sentences are missing in B and M; the full text is quoted by Sefer Wehizhir(p. קיג); a slightly different full version is in Babli Yoma54a. He came and said to a colleague, come and see this floor plate which is different from the others. They did not finish the matter before his soul left him; then they knew that there the Ark was hidden. Rebbi Hoshaia stated10B and M: It was stated in R. Hoshaia’s name.: He hit on it with a sledgehammer; fire erupted and burned him.", "11From here to the end of the Halakhah the text is from Soṭah8:3 (Notes 43–130,ס), where all references to the Babli are given. It was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah ben Laqish says, two arks were travelling with Israel in the desert; one in which the Torah was deposited and one in which the broken pieces of the tablets were deposited. The one in which the Torah was deposited was put into the Tent of Meeting; that is what is written12Num. 14:44.: Moses and the Ark of the Eternal’s covenant did not move from the camp. The one in which the broken pieces of the tablets were deposited was going out and coming in with them13Sifry Num. #82, referring to Num. 10.33.. But the Rabbis say, it was only one, and once it went out in the days of Eli and was taken prisoner. A verse supports the Rabbis: Woe to us, who will save us from this mighty god141S.5:8.? A word which shows that they never had seen it before. A verse supports Rebbi Jehudah ben Laqish. Saul said to Aḥiya: present God’s Ark151S.14:18.. But was the Ark not at Qiryat Ye`arim? What do the rabbis do with it? ‘Present to me the High Priest’s diadem16This is the correct interpretation, as explained at the end of Yoma Chapter 7, not “ephod” following LXX and many moderns.’ Another verse supports Rebbi Jehudah ben Laqish: The Ark, Israel, and Jehudah, dwell in huts172S. 11:11.. Was the Ark not in Zion? What do the rabbis with it? The straw roof cover that was in the walls, since the Temple was not yet built.", "When the ark was hidden, there were hidden with it the flask of Manna, the bottle of anointing oil, Aaron’s staff with its almonds and flowers, and the chest which the Philistines returned as a reparation sacrifice for Israel’s God. Who hid it? Josiah hid it. When he saw that it was written: The Eternal will lead you and your king whom you will have put above you, to a people whom neither you nor your fathers had known, he started and hid it. That is what is written: He said to the Levites, who instruct all of Israel, the ones holy to the Eternal, put the Ark into the House that Salomon, son of David, King of Israel, built; you do not have to carry it on your shoulder.” He said, if it is exiled with you to Babylonia, you will never return it to its place. But now, serve the Eternal, your God, and his people Israel.", "The preparation of the anointing oil. Take for yourself select spices, etc. and cassia 500, etc., altogether 1500 parts. And olive oil one hin, that is twelve log, in which the roots were cooked, the words of Rebbi Meןr. Rebbi Jehudah says, he cooked them in water, then poured the oil on them, and when it had absorbed the fragrance one removed it, just as the perfumers do. That is what is written: holy anointing oil, etc.", "18This and the following paragraph also are in Horaiot3:3 (ה). Rebbi Jehudah bar Ilay stated: The anointing oil made by Moses in the desert was from the start to the end a work of wonders, since there were only twelve log to start with, as it was said, and olive oil one hin. It would not have been enough to rub the wooden planks with it; so much more since the fire swallows, wood absorbs, and the kettle absorbs! From it the Tabernacles and all its vessels were anointed, the table and its vessels, the candelabrum and all its vessels. From it Aaron and his sons were anointed all of the seven days of induction, from it all high priests and kings were anointed. A king who is first needs anointing, a king who is a king’s son does not need anointing. [What is the reason? Do anoint him, for this one is it191S. 17:20., this one needs anointing but his son does not need anointing.]20Corrector’s addition from B. But a High Priest who is the son of a High Priest needs anointing, even for ten generations. Nevertheless, it is all there for the future; that is what is written21Ex. 30:31., a holy anointing oil will this be for Me, for all your generations.", "One anoints kings only at a spring, as it was said221K. 1:33–34.: Let Solomon, my son, ride on my mule and take him down to the Giḥon; there Ṣadoq the priest and Nathan the prophet shall anoint him as king over Israel. One anoints (kings) [kings sons of kings]23Corrector’s addition from B, not found in Yerushalmi sources. The mention of Jehu shows that the scribe’s text is the correct one. only because of disputes. Why was Solomon anointed? Because of the dispute of Adoniahu, Joash because of Athaliah, Jehu because of Joram. Is it not written191S. 17:20., do anoint him, for this one is it, this one needs anointing, but the kings of Israel do not need anointing? But Joaḥaz because of his brother Joiakim who was two years his elder. But did not Josiah hide it24The anointing oil. Therefore none of Josia’s sons could be anointed with the anointing oil.? That means that they anointed with balsamum. One anoints kings only from a horn. Saul and Jehu were anointed from a can because their kingdom was temporary; David and Solomon were anointed from a horn because their kingdom was permanent. One does not anoint priests as kings25Text missing in B but implied by R. Ḥiyya bar Ada.. Rebbi Jehudah Antordiya said, because26Gen. 49:10. the scepter shall not be removed from Jehudah. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, because of27Deut. 17:20. he shall have many days of his kingdom, he and his sons in the midst of Israel. What is written after that? The levitic Cohanim should not28Deut. 18:1..", "Rebbi Joḥanan said, Joḥanan is Joaḥaz. But is it not written: The first born Joḥanan291Chr. 3:15., the first in kingdom. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Shallum is Sedekiah. But is it not written,291Chr. 3:15. the third Sedekiah, the fourth Shallum? Sedekiah, the third in birth, the fourth in kingdom. Sedekiah, because he accepted the judgment on himself, Shallum, because in his days the dynasty of David was completed. 30In B this is a statement by R. Simeon ben Laqish, disputing R. Joḥanan’s. His name was neither Shallum nor Sedekiah but Mattaniah. That is what is written312K. 24:17.: The king of Babylon made his uncle Mattaniah32B’s reading מתתיה probably is a scribal error, not a different reading in the verse. king in his stead and changed his name into Sedekiah.", "Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Ark was made with a cubit of six hand-breadths. Who stated “a cubit of six hand-breadths“? This is Rebbi Meןr’s. [As we have stated33Mishnah Kelim17:10.: “Rebbi Meןr says, all cubits were of buildings; Rebbi Jehudah says, the cubit of buildings six, of vessels five.”] According to Rebbi Meןr who says that the Ark was made with a cubit of six hand-breadths, the length of the Ark was fifteen cubits, as it is written34Ex. 25:10.: Its length two cubits and a half. Each cubit was six and half a cubit three. Four tablets were in it, two whole ones and two broken ones, as it is written35Deut. 10:2.: Which you broke and put into the Ark. Each of the tablets was six hand-breadths in length and three in width. Put the widths of the tablets in the length of the Ark, there were three hand-breadths left. Apply them to the cylinder36The Torah scroll.. [On each side half a hand-breadth to have a handle, and two hand-breadths as place to put there the Torah scroll.]37Corrector’s addition from B, to be deleted. The width of the Ark was nine hand-breadths, as it is written: A cubit and half a cubit. A cubit six and half a cubit three. Four tablets were in it, two whole ones and two broken ones. Each of the tablets was six hand-breadths in length and three in width. Put the lengths of the tablets in the length of the Ark, there were three hand-breadths left. On each side half a hand-breadth to have a handle, and two hand-breadths as a place to put there the Torah scroll.", "Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the Ark was made using a cubit of five hand-breadths. Who stated “a cubit of five hand-breadths”? This is Rebbi Jehudah. As we have stated there33Mishnah Kelim17:10.: “Rebbi Jehudah says, the builders’ cubit was of six hand-breadths, but that of vessels five hand-breadths.” And the Ark is a vessel. According to Rebbi Jehudah who says that the Ark was made with a cubit of five hand-breadths, the length of the Ark was twelve and one half cubits, as it is written34Ex. 25:10.: Its length two cubits and a half. Each cubit was five and half a cubit two and one half. Four tablets were in it, two whole ones and two broken ones, as it is written35Deut. 10:2.: Which you broke and put into the Ark. Each of the tablets was six hand-breadths in length and three in width. Put the width of the tablets in the length of the Ark, there remains there half a handbreadth. One finger’s thickness for the wall on either side. The width of the Ark was seven and a half hand-breadths, as it is written, Its width a cubit and half a cubit. A cubit five and half a cubit two and a half. Four tablets were in it, two whole ones and two broken ones, as it is written35Deut. 10:2.: Which you broke and put into the Ark.. Each of the tablets was six hand-breadths in length and three in width. Put the lengths of the tablets in the width of the Ark, there was one and a half hand-breadths left. 39This sentence is not a continuation of the preceding text but the conclusion of an additional argument about the width of the Ark, reproduced in B and Soṭah. One finger’s thickness for the wall on either side and on each side half a hand-breadth to have a handle.", "How did Beṣalel make the Ark? Rebbi Ḥanina said, he made three boxes, two of gold and one of wood. He put (the one of wood inside one of gold and) one of gold inside the one of wood, [and the one of wood inside the other one of gold] and covered it, as is written40Ex.25:11. As usual, the proof is by the part of the verse not quoted: You shall cover it, with pure gold inside and out you shall cover it, implying separate covers.: You shall cover it with pure gold inside and out. Why does the verse say, you shall cover it? To include the upper rim. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he made one box and gilded it, as is written: You shall cover it with pure gold inside and out. Why does the verse say, you shall cover it? Rebbi Phineas said, also between the planks.", "How were the tablets written? Rebbi Ḥanania ben Gamliel says, five on one tablet each41This minority opinion is everywhere accepted in depictions of the tablets.. But the rabbis say, ten on each tablet, as it is written42Deut. 4:13.: He informed you of His covenant which He had commanded you to do, the ten words, ten on each tablet. Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai43The name tradition here is very varied. said, twenty on each tablet, as it is written: He informed you of His covenant which He had commanded you to do, the ten words, twenty on each tablet44Ten on the top, ten on the bottom.. Rebbi Simai says, forty on each tablet, as it is written, on each side they were written45Ex. 32:15., a square46Greek τετράγωνον. He holds that the tablets were cubes, top and bottom empty and identical writing on each of the faces.. Ḥananiah, the son of Rebbi Joshua’s brother, says: Between every two commandments, the details and the letters [of the Torah] were written. Filled with tarsis47Cant. 5:14. His hands are golden cylinders, inlaid with tarsis, the cylinders being Torah scrolls (Cant. rabba5:12). The Palestinian Targum to Ex. 28:20, 39:13 translates taršiš by כְּרוֹם יַמָּא רַבָּא ”the color of the Great Sea.“ One may assume that the scribe of the Yerushalmi did not understand the Greek χρω̅μα “color” and shortened it to .כְּ. The Targum to Cant. translates taršiš by the Syriac/Pahlevi word פֵּירוֹזַג (Farsi פירוזה) “turquoise”. The sentence is missing in the Genizah text and in B., like the Great Sea. When Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish had occasion to discuss this verse, he said, Ḥananiah, the son of Rebbi Joshua’s brother, did teach us correctly. Just as in the sea there are small waves between a large wave and the next, so between any two commandments there are the details and the letters of the Torah.", "Rebbi Tanḥuma said, I asked before Rebbi Phineas: It is acceptable following Rebbi Jehudah49The verse quoted next which implies that the Torah scroll was not in the Ark., it is not acceptable following Rebbi Meןr. What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? To take this Torah scroll and put it next to the side of the Ark of the Eternal’s covenant50Deut. 31:26., etc In the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah, who said, where the Torah scroll was put? They made for it a kind of case51Greek γλωσσοκομε̅ι̅ον, τό. outside and the Torah scroll was put into it. What is the reason of Rebbi Meןr? You should put the cover on top of the Ark52Ex. 25:21.. In the opinion of Rebbi Meןr who says that there is no earlier and later in the Torah, in the Ark you shall put the testimony that I shall give to you53Ex. 25:16., and after that, you should put the cover on top of the Ark. Rebbi Phineas in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: 54Text of B: The Torah which He gave to Moses was white fire engraved in black fire; it is of fire quarried from fire, born from fire, given into the right hand of the Holy One, praise to Him, at it is said, From His right hand, the fiery law to them. The Torah which the Holy One, Praise to Him, gave to Moses, was white fire engraved in black fire. It was fire mixed with fire; hewn from fire, given from fire: That is what is written55Deut33:2.: From His right hand, the fiery law to them." ], [ "MISHNAH: Where were these prostrations? Four in the North, four in the South, three in the East, and two in the West, corresponding to the thirteen gates.
The Southern gates close to the West56The gates of the Temple courtyard were not symmetrical in the wall but more to the West; they are enumerated from West to East.: the Upper Gate, the Fuel Gate, the Firstborns’ Gate, the Water gate. And why was it called Water Gate? For there they bring in the phial of water for the water libation on Tabernacles. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said, the water will drizzle in the future from under the threshold57As predicted in Ez. 47:1–5.
Opposite them92Continued enumeration of the 13 gates of the Temple compound. in the North, close to the West, the Jechoniah93He is called Jehoiachin in Kings and Chronicles, Koniahu in Jeremiah, Jechoniah in Esther. gate, the Sacrifice gate, the Women’s gate, the Song’s gate. And why was it called the Jechoniah gate? For through it Jechoniah left in his deportation94Middot35b.. In the East the Nikanor gate95Cf. Yoma3:8, Notes 317 ff., which had two small entrances96Where the people charged with opening the large doors to the public could enter with a key., one to the right and one to the left. And two in the West which had no names.", "HALAKHAH: The Mishnah is Abba Yose ben Ḥanin’s, since Abba Yose ben Ḥanin said, corresponding to the thirteen gates. But according to the Rabbis there were seven gates58As described in Mishnah Middot1:4.. In the Rabbis’ opinion, where were the thirteen prostrations? As we have stated there59Mishnah Middot2:3., “There were thirteen breaches, were the Greek kings breached it; they came back and closed them and decided correspondingly thirteen prostrations.”", "It is written60Sach. 14:8., on that day, fresh water will flow out from Jerusalem, etc. It was stated: From the Holiest of Holies to the gobelins like the feelers of silai and bilai61These seem to be tiny insects, not further identified.. From the gobelins to the golden altar like the horns of locusts. From the golden altar to the courtyards like a shut-thread, from the courtyards to the threshold of the Temple like woof-thread, from there onwards like the pouring from a jug: behold, water drizzled from the right hand side62Ez. 47:2. (Yoma77b–78a).. It is written63Ez. 47:3–5. Tosephta Sukkah3:3–7., when the man left towards the East, with a measuring rod in his hand, he measured a thousand cubits and made me cross the water, ankle water. Up to his ankles. Then he measured another thousand cubits and made me cross the water, knee water. Up to his knees. Then he measured another thousand cubits and made me cross the water, hip water. Up to his hips. From there on, then he measured another thousand, a river which cannot be crossed. Even a large Liburnian64Latin liburna(sc. navis), the standard fast commercial sail ship. could not cross it. What is the reason? No mighty ship may cross it65Is.33:21.; why? The water was high, swimming water66Ez. 47:5. The word has to be explained since in common usage שיט, not שחה, was used for “to swim”.. What is “swimming water”? Where one swims. Rebbi Ḥuna said, in our place one calls the swimmer seḥuna. He moves his hands in himself, as a swimmer would move to swim67Is. 25:11.. What means “to swim”? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, in unruly water68Explanation of the verse; the movements referred to are those of a desperate person.. It is written69Sach. 13:1. It is presumed that the prophesies of Ezechiel and Sachariah refer to the same matter and one may be used to explain to other.: On this day, a water-source will be opened for the House of David and the dwellers in Jerusalem, for purification and impurity. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: From the House of David70The Temple. to the dwellers in Jerusalem it is qualified for impurity and purification71“Purification” here means water with ashes of the Red Cow, used to purify from the impurity of the dead, which in Num. 19:9 is called “purification”.. Farther away it is mixed water, qualified for impurity but disqualified for purification72Only spring water is qualified as “purification,” Num. 19:17. All other impurities are removed by immersion in a miqweh, which may contain any kind of water, including rain water.. Rebbi Eleazar said, from the House of David to the dwellers in Jerusalem it is qualified for impurity and purification. Farther away it is water running down73Greek καταφερής, -ές adj. “inclines downwards”, used in the sense of “rapidly flowing water”., disqualified for impurity74Since a miqweh is a “collection” of water, it cannot be a waterfall (or any shower). The same holds for rapidly flowing water; Mishnah Ṭahorot8:9. and purification.", "It is written75Ez. 47:8.: He said to me, these waters flow out to the Eastern district, this is Lake Samchonitis76Lake Huleh., and descends to the lowlands, this is Lake Tiberias, and comes to the sea, this is the Salt Sea77The Dead Sea., the sea of outgoing water, this is the Great Sea78The Mediterranean.. And why is it called the sea of outgoing water? For the two times it came out, [once in the generation of Enosh, and once in the generation of the Dispersal.]79Corrector’s addition from B; its statement understood by all texts.. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: The first time it went out up to Calabria, the second time it went to the Capes of Barbary80He holds that the Eastern Mediterranean was part of the original creation; it was connected to the Okeanos through the Straights of Gibraltar by later catastrophes. Cf. Gen. rabba23(11).. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: The first time it went out to the Capes of Barbary, the second time it came to Acco and Jaffa81He holds that the Mediterranean was not part of the original creation; it was formed by waters of the Okeanos through the Straights of Gibraltar by later catastrophes.. Up to here you shall come but no more82Job38:11.; up to Acco you shall come but not add. And there you stop the might of your waves82Job38:11., at Jaffa83Reading וּפֹא as יפו. Yalqut Šim`ony#924. you stop the might of your waves. One understands the Great Sea and the Salt Sea, to make them sweet. Lake Tiberias and Lake Samchonitis84Since it is written that the river flowing out from the Temple brings healing to the water, what healing can it bring to sweet water lakes?? To increase their fish; their fish shall be in kinds85Ez. 47:10.; in great number shall be the kinds of their fish. It was stated: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, it happened that I went to Sidon and they brought before me more than 300 kinds of fish on one tray.", "The waters will be healed75Ez. 47:8.. Its ponds and its puddles will not be healed, they will be given for salt85Ez. 47:10.. It is written, the waters will be healed, and you are saying, they will not be healed? There is a place called “will not be healed.”", "It is written86Ez. 47:11. Taaniot1:2 (ת)., on the banks of the river on both sides all kinds of fruit tree will grow; its leaf shall not wilt, and its fruit not stop; in its months it shall produce first fruits. It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah said, in the present world grain grows in six months and trees produce every twelve months, but in the future grain will grow in a month and trees will produce in two months. Rebbi Yose said, in the present world grain grows in six months and trees produce every twelve months, but in the future grain will grow in fifteen days and trees will produce in a month, for so we find that grain grew in the days of Joel in fifteen days, and the ‘Omer was brought from it. What is the reason? The people of Zion shall enjoy and be happy in the Eternal, your God, for He in truth gave you strong rain, early rain and late rain in the first {month}87Ez. 47:12. How does Rebbi Yose satisfy in its months it shall produce first fruits? Every month it shall produce first fruits88Joel2:23.. And its leaf as medicine86Ez. 47:11. Taaniot1:2 (ת).. Rebbi Joḥanan said, its healing is that one looks at it and food is turned into medicine. Rav and Samuel, one says, to open the upper mouth89Toothaches and any disease of the mouth. Menaḥot95a., but the other one says, to open the lower mouth90Constipation.. Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, one says, to open the mouth of sterile women91The womb., but the other one says, to open the mouth of the dumb.", "97A shortened version of a text in Lev. rabba19(6). For the first part, cf. also Gen. rabba94, end. The text cannot be considered as historical reconstruction; it is part of an attempt to project the rabbinic establishment of the time as dominating factor inherited from Moses, prophets, and kings. You are finding that when Nebuchadnezzar campaigned here, he came and sat in Daphne of Antiochia. The Great Synhedrion went to him and said to him, did the time come that this House be destroyed? He said to them, give me the one which I made king over you and I will depart. They came and said to Jehoiachin, the king of Judea, Nebuchadnezzar wants you. 98This is better read as a story about the destruction of the Temple, Babli Ta`anit29a, where the two Amoraic statements are combined into one (and the language of B is adjusted to fit the language there.) When he heard this from them, he took the keys of the Temple and climbed to the roof of the Temple. He said before Him: Master of the world! In the past we were trustworthy for You and Your keys were handed to us. Now that we are not trustworthy for You, Your keys are handed to You. Two Amoraim, One said, he threw them upwards and they never returned. The other said, He saw that something like a hand came and took them from him. When all the freeholders of Jehudah heard this, they climbed to the tops of their roofs, fell down, and died. That is what is written99Is.22:1., Saying about the valley of vision: Why are you doing this, that you climbed on all roofs, the noisy, full, humming city." ], [ "MISHNAH: There were thirteen tables in the Temple100For the sacred service. There were more tables in the back part of the Temple domain, between the walls of the Temple and the walls of the enclosure, where the Cohanim had to eat their part of the most holy sacrifices. Thirteen, as the number of the Divine attributes of mercy, is a most lucky number in religious matters.. Eight marble ones in the slaughterhouse on which one was soaking the intestines101Which must be washed before being sacrifices, Lev. 1:9,13.. Two West of the ramp, one of marble and one of silver. On the marble one they put the limbs, on the silver one the vessels of service102Where the flour and wine sacrifices were deposited before being brought up to the altar.. And two in the vestibule103The small hall in front of the main Temple hall in the Temples of Solomon and Herod, in contrast to the Tabernacle. inside, near the entrance to the Temple Hall, one of marble and one of gold. On the marble one they put the shew-bread when it was brought in, and on the golden one when it was brought out, for one increases in holiness and does not decrease104The bread was brought in on Friday, but was exchanged for the old bread in the main Temple hall only on the Sabbath. The removed bread was deposited in the vestibule until it could be distributed to the Cohanim at the end of the musaf service. Since it was laying during the week on the golden table inside, it could not be deposited on a table of lesser value. Babli Menaḥot99b.. And a golden one inside on which the shew-bread was permanently105Ex. 25:30..", "HALAKHAH: It was stated, “on the silver one”106It is not perfectly clear to what this baraita refers. In the Babli version, there were no marble tables, only silver ones. In the Yerushalmi version, it either can mean that in the vestibule there was a silver table instead of the marble one mentioned in the Mishnah, or that the sentence is not from a baraita, but a quote from the Mishnah, implying that according to R. Joḥanan there was no silver table at all in the Temple, and that wine and flour offerings also had to be kept cool.. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac; Rebbi Ḥananiah brought it in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There was none of silver because it heats107Assuming one speaks about the silver table mentioned in the Mishnah, one has to be careful to keep the flour offering cool lest it become leavened and forbidden in the Temple. If it is indicated that the table in the vestibule was of silver, the question is whether putting the new shew-bread on a warm table would spoil it. Tamid31b.. But did we not state108Babli Yoma21a, in the name of R. Joshua ben Levi., this is one of the wonders which happened in the Temple, that just as they were putting it down hot, so they were removing it hot, [as it is written]109Corrector’s addition from B, missing in ג and deleted by the scribe himself in the Leiden ms., to put hot bread as on the day it was removed1101S. 21:7. The implication is that a warm silver table would be more appropriate for the shew bread than a cold marble one.. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, one does not mention wonders111One may not act trusting that a wonder will occur in one’s behalf. Babli Berakhot60a, Yebamot121b, Ḥulin43a.. They asked before Rebbi Ila: If they did not have bread, may they leave it for the coming week112Since the shew-bread has to be exchanged every Sabbath (Lev.24:8), if there was no replacement available is it better to leave the table empty or leave the old bread in its place.? He said to them, it is written113Ex. 25:30.: you shall put on the table the shew-bread before Me permanently. The shew-bread, even disqualified114Since the shew-bread removed from the sanctuary had to be eaten by the Cohanim as most holy sacrifice (Lev.24:9), it must be eaten on the day it becomes available and will be disqualified the next morning, to be burned. But this rule does not apply to bread never removed from the Sanctuary..", "Solomon made ten tables: Solomon made ten tables and deposited them in the Temple Hall, five to the right and five to the left1152Chr. 4:8.. If you would say, five to the North and five to the South, but the table is only qualified in the North, as it is said, and the table put on the North side116Ex. 26:35.. Why does the verse say, five to the right and five to the left? Five to the right of Moses’s table, and five to its left. Nevertheless, only Moses’s alone was used, as it is said1171K. 7:49., the table on which is the shew-bread. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, all of them were used, for it is said1182Chr. 4:19., the tables on which the shew-bread is. It was stated: They were put East and West, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, they were put North and South. He who says East and West is understandable; all of them are proper for Service119As prescribed in Ex. 40:22,, the table at the North side of the Tabernacle, and Ex. 40:24, the candelabrum at the South side, standing East-West, opposite the table.. He who says, North and South, would then not the table be in the South and the candelabrum in the North? But was it not stated, the table was in the middle of the Temple, more to the inside, about two cubits away from the wall to the North, and opposite it the candelabrum in the South120If they are all in one line, at the North side of the Temple, the long side oriented East-West, all pentateuchal requirements are satisfied. Babli Menaḥot 99a.. The golden altar was in the middle of the Temple, dividing the Temple, inside, a little bit drawn to the North121While the center of the golden altar exactly determines the middle of the Temple hall for distances measured East-West, i. e., between the entrance and the gobelins shielding the Holiest of Holies, it does not exactly determine the middle of the center of the distance of North to South walls.. All were put inside of a third of the Temple122The first third of the distance between entrance and the Holiest of Holies was empty..", "Solomon made ten candelabra, [as it is said]123Corrector’s insert following B., he made the ten candelabra according to its rules1242 Chr. 4:7. In the other two sources correctly “their rules”, and they add the end of the verse, to which the next argument refers: and put them in the Temple Hall, five to the right and five to the left. Cf. Babli Menaḥot98b–99a.. If you would say, five to the North and five to the South, but the candelabrum is only qualified in the South, as it is said, and the candelabrum opposite the table on the South side116Ex. 26:35.. Why does the verse say, five to the right and five to the left? Five to the right of Moses’s candelabrum, and five to its left. Nevertheless, only Moses’s alone was kindled, as it is said1252 Chr.13:11, showing actual practice.\\, and the golden candelabrum and its lights to kindle evening by evening. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, all of them were kindled, for it is said1262 Chr. 4:20–21., the candelabra and their lights, to kindle them regularly in the Temple Hall, closed gold127Cf. Yoma4:4, Note 101., and the flower128According to Rashi, the ornament of the candelabrum mentioned in Num. 8:4 but not in the original instructions, Ex. 25:31–40., and the lights, and the pincers of gold, this uses up the gold. These used up Solomon’s gold. Rav Jehudah in the name of Assi129In B a Tannaitic text, a statement of R. Jehudah in the name of Issy.: Solomon took 1’000 talents of silver, put them repeatedly into the (fire) [smelting furnace]130The scribe’s text (in parentheses) is confirmed by the Genizah text; the corrector’s [in brackets] is from B. until they were reduced to one, to fulfill what is written131Ex. 37:24., from one talent of pure gold he made it. It was stated, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah said, 132The following is from Yoma4:4, Notes 107–108. it happened that the golden candelabrum which Moses made in the desert was in excess of one gold denar, and they returned it to the fire eighty times and it did not lose anything133This seems to contradict the preceding story of Solomon’s refining smelter.. This is correct. Before it is refined it loses a lot, once it is refined it will not miss anything." ], [ "MISHNAH: Thirteen horns1The “horns” were chests for the money given to the Temple for various reasons, as detailed in Mishnah 7. A person putting money into one of the chests could not put his hand into it, he had to let the coins drop in from the top. were in the Temple, and it was written on them: New sheqalim, and old sheqalim, nests134Obligatory purification or reparation offerings, as prescribed in Lev. In all cases, two birds are required, one as purification and one as elevation offering, following different rules., young birds for elevation sacrifices135Voluntary offerings which may be for a single bird., wood136A person vowing firewood for the Temple does not bring wood but the money for it., and incense, gold for the cover137To cover the Holiest of Holies in the absence of the Ark; Mishnah 4:4., and six for voluntary gifts138As explained in the Halakhah and in Tosephta 3:7.. New sheqalim for the current year, and old ones, one who did not bring the past year, gives it for the next one139New sheqalim are given for current use; sheqalim for past years are treated directly as remainders from that year (Mishnah 4:3)..
“Nests” are turtle doves and “young birds as elevation offerings” are pigeons, all for elevation offerings, the words of Rebbi Jehudah147It was explained in the preceding Halakhah that R. Jehudah cannot accept the explanation of Mishnah 7 given in Note 134, but must require that a person offering two birds to be able to partake in sancta, the woman after childbirth (Lev. 12:8), the poor person healed from skin disease (Lev. 14:22), the male healed from gonorrhea (Lev. 15:14) and the female from flux (Lev. 15:29), personally deliver the birds to the Cohen who thereby is assured that the person is alive. As a consequence, for him the money deposited for “nests” is for elevation sacrifices; the distinction from “young birds for elevation offerings” only is in the amount of money required and the kind of birds bought. Mishnah 7 was explained following the Sages in Mishnah 8.. But the Sages say, of “nests” one is a purification offering and one an elevation offering; “young birds as elevation offerings” are all elevation offerings. If one says, “I am obligated for wood logs”, he may not give less than for two logs; “incense”, he may not give less than for a fistful; “gold”, he may not give less than for a gold denar14825 silver denars, or their equivalent in small change.. “Six for voluntary gifts.” What did they do with this? One buys with it elevation offerings149As with any money delivered to the gift account.; the flesh is for the Eternal and the skins are for the Cohanim. This explanation did Jehoyada the High Priest explain: It is a reparation offering, repairing, a reparation offering for the Eternal150Lev. 5:19.; this is the principle: Elevation offerings should be bought from anything coming151It is obvious that money given to the Temple for purification or reparation offerings must be used for the kind of offering specified. Money “coming from” these kinds of offerings are excess monies, not used for the obligatory offerings. Since obligatory offerings cannot be brought voluntarily, nor can monies dedicated to the Temple be returned, the excess has to be deposited in the gift account and used for elevation offerings. because of sin or reparation; the flesh is for the Eternal and the skins are for the Cohanim. It turns out that both parts of the verse are fulfilled, a reparation offering for the Eternal and reparation for the Cohanim. And it says, money for reparation offerings and money for purification offerings are not to be brought to the Eternal’s House, it shall be for the Cohanim1522K. 12:17. The money is not for the Cohanim but the Cohanim receive the skins of the animals bought with the excess monies..", "HALAKHAH: It was stated140Babli Yoma55a. This paragraph is two texts in one. The Yerushalmi text is that of the scribe of the Leiden manuscript; the Babli text (Yoma55b) is reproduced in Babylonian Aramaic in B and the corrector’s text given in brackets here.: “Rebbi Jehudah said, there was no horn for nests in Jerusalem because of mix-up.141Tosephta 3:3.” Maybe one of them would die and it turn out that moneys of dying purification sacrifices were mixed up in them142This is the Yerushalmi’s explanation for R. Jehudah’s statement, as noted in Yoma55b. An animal dedicated as a purification sacrifice whose owner died between dedication and sacrifice cannot be used for anything, but it has to be let to die (Mishnah Temurah4:1). Moneys dedicated for a purification sacrifice under the same circumstances have to be destroyed; in Israel this means to be thrown into the Dead Sea. R. Jehudah holds that such money mixed up with other moneys makes everything unusable and worthless.. [But did we not state] (It was stated): A woman who said, I have to bring a nest, brings the money for the nest and puts it in the horn, and eats from sancta without worry. And the Cohen does not worry that maybe moneys of dying purification sacrifices are mixed up in them143The woman is recovering from childbirth or from flux; she may not eat sancta unless a sundown was preceded by her sacrifice. (Therefore ג reads “gets up in the morning and eats.”) The statement implies that the horn for nests was emptied several times every hour and any money deposited there immediately used for the required sacrifice. This makes R. Jehudah’s objection moot; practice follows the Mishnah.
In Babylonia, the Galilean explanation was rejected (Yoma55b); therefore, the baraita is read as a question, and an objection to R. Jehudah.
Babli Eruvin32a, Menaḥot27a.
. [For what we are saying is about purification sacrifices whose owner certainly died144Everybody agrees that the requirement to destroy the money is rabbinical, restricted to cases of certainty. R. Jehudah’s statement is rejected as a matter of principle.. We could say, let us choose two zuz and throw them into the River145The River is the Euphrates, which here appears as Babylonian equivalent of the Dead Sea. The argument is that even in case it is known that a woman died after paying her fee into the horn and the next sacrifices of nests, could not the amount of the Temple’s charge for the nest be taken from the horn, designated as this woman’s contribution, and eliminated?, then the remainder should be permitted, but do we not say in general that Rebbi Jehudah does not accept retroactive choices146It is generally agreed that a later choice can retroactively eliminate rabbinic prohibitions but not biblical ones. R. Jehudah represents a minority opinion which rejects retroactivity in all cases. Therefore the remedy proposed according to R. Jehudah cannot be applied; for the majority, whom practice follows, there is a horn for nests, but for R. Jehudah this is an impossibility.?]", "153A copy of this text, except for the last sentence, is in Shevi`it9:7, Notes 95–97. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked: If he said, I am obligated [to offer] a log, does he bring one log? Rebbi Eleazar said, a Mishnah says that each one is a separate sacrifice, as we have stated154Mishnah Yoma 2:5., “two, holding in their hands two wooden logs.” This adds single logs.", "155The version of B and the corrector’s, derived from B, have to be understood from the parallel in the Babli Zevaḥim62a/b, which, however, can better be read as supporting the readings of the scribe of the Leiden ms. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, their width was (like an engraver’s cubit156A short cubit, of five hand-breadths, based on small hands.) [in an expansive cubit157A long cubit, of seven hand-breadths, based on large hands. Only two dimensions are given. In the Babli more correctly the logs were hewn as rectangular solids with a base of one cubit square and small height. A similar statement is required here by the baraita quoted at the end.], and its width (a dwarf) [an excessive] cubit. Rebbi Onias in the name of Rebbi Immi: Like scales158Latin trutina, Greek τρυτάνη. Since it is specified later that the fire place on Moses’s altar was only one cubit square, the two logs put on the altar at the beginning of each day’s service had to be half a regular cubit’s height and lying strictly parallel, as are the scales on a balance.. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, because the place of the fire was only one cubit square, therefore they only could be a (dwarf) [excessive] cubit. It was stated thus159Cf. Zevaḥim62a. The altar was five-by-five cubits (Ex. 27:1). This included the basis where most of the blood had to be spilled onto, a walkway at half height for the Cohen to sprinkle blood on the horns, the copper enclosure delineating the upper part. In the description given here, the place of the fire is given a full cubit; all the other items are half a cubit since there is one of them on each side. This is too much for the copper enclosure and too little for the walkway, but is possible if both together are taken to be 2 cubits. In these enumerations, very frequently “hand-breadth” means “not more than a hand-breadth” and “cubit” “more than a hand-breadth but not more than a cubit”.: One cubit the basis, one cubit the walkway, one cubit the enclosure, and one cubit the horns, and one cubit the fire place.", "“Incense”, he may not give less than for a fistful. It is said here “remembrance” and it is said there, “remembrance”160“Here” means the rules of voluntary flour offerings, described in Lev. Chapter 2. “There” means either the rules of the shew bread, Lev. 24:7 or that of the obligatory flour offering of the poor sinner, Lev. 5:12. In the first case, there are two rows of bread, each one with a portion of incense which at the end has to be entirely burned on the altar. In the second case, it is stressed that the entire fistful has to be burned. In both cases it can be inferred that for voluntary flour offerings, where “entire” is not mentioned, only an entire fistful is qualified.. Since “remembrance” there means a full fistful, so “remembrance” here must mean a full fistful. Since “remembrance” there means two fistfuls161This can apply only to the shew bread., does “remembrance” here mean two fistfuls? Rebbi La said, they inferred fistfuls only from the shew bread162In B: From the poor sinner’s flour offering.. Since there a deficient fistful is disqualified, also here a deficient fistful is disqualified. Rebbi Yose said, the word of Rebbi Ila implies that one who volunteers a flour offering brings it according to the High Priest’s163It seems that one refers not to a High Priest, but to a large priest, whose fistful can be enormous. Since the donor does not know which Cohen will present his offering to the altar, he must prepare for the largest possible fistful. fistful. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: even according to the owner’s fistful.", "“Gold”, he may not give less than for a gold denar. Rebbi Eleazar said, only if he mentioned minting164Babli Menaḥot107a.. But if he did not mention a coin he even may bring a hook.", "“Six for voluntary gifts.” Ḥizqiah said, corresponding to the six clans165During the week of service of a “watch” of Cohanim, each of the six workdays another clan would serve, whose members then had claim to all hides of elevation offerings of that day.
In B, the statement is ascribed to Rav, Ḥizqiah’s cousin, and fellow student of the Elder R. Hiyya, Rav’s uncle and Ḥizqiah’s father.
. Bar Pedaiah said, corresponding to seven animals: bull, and calf, and he-goat, ram, and lamb, and kid goat. Samuel said, corresponding to six sacrifices: the nests of the sufferer from gonorrhea, the nests of the sufferer from flux, the nests of the new mother, purification sacrifices, and reparation sacrifices, flour offerings, and the Tenth of an Ephah166This list has 7 items. The corresponding list in B has only six, but the selection in unconvincing. Probably the correct list is Tosephta 3:7: The excesses of money for 1) purification sacrifices, 2) reparation sacrifices, 3) nests of sufferers from gonorrhea or flux, 4) nests of a woman after childbirth, 5) offerings of a nazir, 6) of a healed sufferer from skin disease.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, because the gifts were many, they added many horns for it. [As it is said]167This addition by the corrector, taken from B, has to be deleted, since it hides the fact that the following quote is the start of a question. The remaining additions by the corrector, while unnecessary, are not in conflict with the line of thought., when they were finished they brought before the king and Jehoyada1682 Chr.24:14. The problem is that the remaining part of the verse, quoted in full in ג nd B, notes that the excess money donated for the renovation of the Temple under King Joash was used to make silver and gold vessels for the Temple, while the corresponding verse in 2K. 12:14 declares the opposite. etc. Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan [said], two voluntary gifts169The two verses refer to two separate collections.. Rebbi Ismael stated, one gift. But is it not written1702 Chr.24:8, while in 2K. 12:10 it is reported that the chest was deposited in the priests’ courtyard, to the right (East) of the altar., the king commanded and they made a chest and put it at the outside of the gate of the Eternal’s House. Rav Ḥuna said, because of those impure. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rav Joseph: Because of but silver cups would not be made in the Eternal’s House1712K. 12:14.. Things similar to silver cups would not be made in the Eternal’s House172Either there were two different calls for gifts to the Temple, or for the same collection period there were two chests, one inside and one outside, and vessels were made only from the money which never entered the sacred domain.." ] ], [ [ "MISHNAH: Coins which are found between the sheqalim and the voluntary gifts, if closer to sheqalim they have to be given to sheqalim, closer to voluntary gifts to voluntary gifts; in the middle they have to be given to voluntary gifts1As explained at the end of the Mishnah, in general coins found are assigned to the box closest to the place where the coins were found. Only if the coins are strictly in the middle between two boxes they are assigned to the more holy use. Since voluntary gifts are strictly for elevation offerings but sheqalim are used for all needs of the Temple, voluntary gifts represent the more holy use.. Between wood and incense, if closer to wood they have to be given to wood, closer to incense to incense; in the middle they have to be given to incense2Incense is an offering in itself, whereas wood is only an auxiliary to offerings on the altar; incense is more holy.. Between nests and young birds for elevation sacrifices, if closer to nests they have to be given to nests, closer to young birds for elevation sacrifices to young birds for elevation sacrifices; in the middle they have to be given to young birds for elevation sacrifices3According to the rabbis, nests contain one bird as purification offering and one as elevation offering, whereas young birds for elevation sacrifices are all elevation sacrifices; the latter are more holy.. Between profane money and Second Tithe\\4, if closer to profane money they have to be given to profane money, closer to Second Tithe to Second Tithe; in the middle they have to be given to Second Tithe. This is the principle: one follows proximity; in the middle one is stringent.", "HALAKHAH: “Coins which are found between the sheqalim and the voluntary gifts,” etc. It would only be necessary between sheqalim and nests5Since Mishnah 6:7 states that the horn for nests is next to the two for sheqalim, how can coins be found between sheqalim and gifts?! They were arranged like a snail6Greek κοχλίας, “snail with a spiral shell”. If the horns are arranged almost in a circle, the box for new sheqalim is next to the last box for gifts. If they would be in a straight line then the box near to “nests” is that for “old sheqalim”, which are never used for sacrifices and therefore the coins found halfway should be given to “nests”.. Would it not be necessary that it be given to sheqalim7Since “gifts” provide private sacrifices but sheqalim public ones, the sanctity of sheqalim should be greater than that of “gifts”.? Some want to say, maybe they would remain with the excess of the lodge8Which are not used for sacrifices.. Some want to say, in the middle it is as if he died. 9This text to the end of the paragraph is from Halakhah 2:5, Notes 81–83. The origin of the text is there, since the last two sentences, about the High Priest’s flour offering, have no connection with the topic under discussion here. Rebbi Yasa said, when I still was there, I heard the voice of Rav Jehudah asking Samuel, if somebody had set his sheqel apart and died? He told him, they shall fall to the gift account. The excess of his tenth of an ephah, Rebbi Joḥanan said, one shall bring them to the Dead Sea. Rebbi Eleazar said, it shall fall to the gift account.", "And it is difficult. May purification offering be brought as elevation offering10If coins lie in the middle between nests and young birds for elevation sacrifices, there is a 50% chance that the money was brought by a woman for her obligatory nests. How can one justify a rabbinical rule that assigns the money to elevation sacrifices against a possibly biblical injunction against doing this?? Rebbi Ḥizqiah (brother)11The correct reading is preserved in B, א׳ (אָמַר) “said”. in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: It is a stipulation of the Court that the excesses be brought as elevation sacrifices12Everybody bringing a gift to the Temple knows that these will be evaluated by Temple rules and the donor accepts these rules by giving. Therefore the money never was absolutely dedicated for purification offerings.. By what is that woman atoned for13Since the money may have been given by a woman needing purification, if it happens that her monies were used as elevation offering, how can she ever eat sancta? The sentence and the next are reproduced at the end of the Chapter (7).? Rebbi Isaac said, it is a stipulation of the Court that the providers of nests also provide the disqualified ones14The provider has to provide a few extra birds which are treated as possible purification offerings (a situation impossible for four-legged animals) but are not eaten.. Would it not also be necessary between incense and wood, and frankincense, and gold for the cover15The Mishnah does not treat a number of other possible cases.? As it is stated at the end, “one follows nearness; in the middle one is stringent.”" ], [ "MISHNAH: Coins found near vendors of animals always are Tithe money16Most kosher animals sold in Jerusalem are sold to pilgrims who use their tithe money for their living expenses in Jerusalem. If not all this money is spent during their visit, the remaining coins used to be given to their hosts, to be used to buy food consumed in purity according to the rules of second Tithe. Therefore the presumption is that money in the hand of resident Jerusalemites found near venders of animals for slaughter is Second Tithe money. The finder will have to use the coins according to Tithe standards.. On the Temple Mount, profane. In Jerusalem, during the remainder of the year they are profane, during the holidays everything is Second Tithe.
Of meat found in the Temple courtyard, limbs are elevation sacrifices and cuts purification sacrifices19Elevation sacrifices have to be dissected into limbs (Lev. 1:6,12) before being brought to the altar, but purification sacrifices have to be eaten by the Cohanim in the holy precinct and for this purpose have to be cut into portions.; in Jerusalem well-being sacrifices20Since usually meat in Jerusalem is from a family sacrifice.. In either case it has to lose its shape and be taken out to be disposed of by burning21The meat can neither be eaten nor brought to the altar since it might be impure or otherwise disqualified; it cannot be disposed of immediately since it might be pure and qualified. One has to wait until the time allotted for each kind having passed and the meat automatically becoming disqualified; this is the remainder of the day for elevation sacrifices, the remainder of the day plus the following night for purification sacrifices, and the following day for well-being sacrifices..
If it was found in the countryside26Palestine outside of Jerusalem and its surroundings., limbs are carrion27Since the butcher did not care to cut it into slices, one must assume that it was notkosher and thrown away for the dogs., cuts are permitted28If there are no sources of non-kosher meat in the neighborhood.. On holidays, when meat is abundant, even limbs are permitted29Since for big family meals one may buy whole limbs and cut them after cooking..", "HALAKHAH: Would it not be necessarily holy on the Temple Mount17Since it is forbidden to enter the Temple Mount in private business (Mishnah Berakhot9:8), how can there be a presumption that monies lost there are profane?? Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There is a presumption that no Cohen will remove money from the lodge unless it is redeemed by an animal18The money legitimately in the hands of private persons on the Temple Mount is money received from the Temple for delivery of goods or services. While the origin of the money is from the Temple, it is legitimately profane in the hands of its owner..", "Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Diversion of attention requires {loss of} shape22Sacrificial meat which is left unattended even for a moment cannot be used any more; it has to be kept as is until the time of its sacrificial use has elapsed and then disposed of by burning outside the sacred domain. Babli Pesaḥim34a.. Rav Hoshaia said, the Mishnah says so, “it has to lose its shape and be taken out to be disposed of by burning.” 23The rest of this Halakhah is missing in B. Rebbi Yose says, this is correct. You may not eat it for maybe its shape already is lost. <you may not burn it24On the altar. for maybe its shape is not lost>25Missing in the Leiden text, added from ג. Cf. Note 21. Therefore it had to say, “it has to lose its shape and be taken out to be disposed of by burning”.", "30This Halakhah is missing in B. Rebbi Crispus in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: One flogs for carrion limbs because of carrion31; and the Mishnah says so: “limbs are carrion, cuts are permitted.” Are cuts not really permitted? And similarly, one flogs for carrion limbs because of carrion.", "Rebbi Crispus in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: If they were strung they are permitted32If all butcher shops in the neighborhood are kosher and all households eat kosher, nobody expends the work to string pieces (or sausages) together if they are not kosher and have to be fed to the dogs.. 33This sentence is missing in ג and B but there is no reason to doubt its authenticity. Ten stores, nine sell carrion and one sells kosher slaughtered meat, if it was switched, he worries. For what is found, one follows the majority. Ten stores, nine sell kosher slaughtered meat and one sells carrion, if it was switched, he worries34In the language of the Babli (Ketubot15a), “anything whose provenience is fromknown fixed sources is considered as 50–50”, and therefore one has to consider the switched package as coming from the store which sells carrion, whether this is one in ten or nine in ten.. For what is found, one follows the majority35If a package of meat is found and provenience and buyer are unknown..", "Rebbi Joḥanan said, what is in the hand of a Gentile is as found on a thoroughfare36Greek πλατεῑα (sc. ‘οδός) “a wide (road)”. On a thoroughfare the traffic is not local; even if all local shops are kosher, the majority of travelers come from places which are not kosher, and meat found there automatically is forbidden.. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ḥaggai was supporting Rebbi Mana. He saw an Aramean cutting from his horse and feeding his son. He said to him, that is what Rebbi Joḥanan said, what is in the hand of a Gentile is as found on a thoroughfare37Meat at the disposal of a Gentile automatically is forbidden.. He answered him, so said the great Rebbi Yose38R. Yose ben Ḥalafta, the Tanna.: Only39That meat in the possession of the Gentile possibly is kosher. if they saw him leaving a Jewish butcher shop40Latin macellum.. A man in Sepphoris went and wanted to buy red meat from a butcher, but he did not give to him. He told a Roman, who brought him. He said to him, did I not buy against your will? He retorted, did I not give carrion to him41Disproving R. Yose’s statement. The butcher is happy to sell his non-kosher meatto a Gentile since it is worthless for his Jewish clientele.? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: A case came before Rebbi who said, it is not believable to forbid the butcher shop of Sepphoris42He doubts the genuineness of the story. Since Rebbi Joḥanan lived a generation after Rebbi, his ruling has to be followed..", "42aThis paragraph, accepting the Babylonian opinion that “meat which was out of sight”, out of control for a moment, is prohibited, annulling the Mishnah here, appears in a different order of the cases in Avodah zarah 2:9, Notes 393-395. The Genizah text here follows the arrangement of Avodah zarah. Rav returned there and saw them taking things lightly and was restrictive with them. A man went to wash a piece of meat in the river. He forgot it and left. Then he went and wanted to sell it. Rav told him, it is forbidden to you, for I am saying the other one was carried away by the river and it brought another piece of carcass meat in its place. A man was carrying meat while walking on the market. There came a vulture, seized it from his hand, and dropped it off. He came back and wanted to sell it. Rav told him, it is forbidden to you, for I am saying that it was carrying carcass meat, dropped it and took the other instead.", "Ginai43A river not otherwise identified (also mentioned in Demay1:3 (Note 144), Babli Ḥulin 7a. Since both known authorities called R. Isaac ben Eleazar were Galilean, the river must be a Galilean brook. The statement made here is that even though wineskins may have been used for non-kosher wine, if they were swept away by a brook but then recovered, identification confirms not only ownership but also possibility of use for kosher wine. swept away wineskins. The case came before Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar who said, may the vintners recognize their knots.", "A sausage was found in the meeting room of the town council. The case came before Rebbi Jeremiah who said, may the butchers recognize their handiwork44Since the sausage was whole, the problem of meat out of sight does not arise if the maker recognizes it..", "A roast kid goat was found in the main street of Gufta45The meaning of this word is not clear. It seems to denote the Jewish part of Sepphoris.. They permitted it because of two things, as a find46Because it was found on a thoroughfare it is ownerless and the finder may take possession without trying to find the owner., and because of the majority of passers-by47Since the place was Jewish, the meat is presumed to be kosher.. As a find, as it was stated: If one saves from before a lion, from before an army, from a surge of the sea, or the surge of a river, from a wide road, or a wide plaza, it belongs to him, since the owners give up on them. Because of the majority of passers-by, because of a Gentile’s slaughter. It turned out48Nevertheless, nobody tried to eat from the meat before its kosher state was ascertained and certified. that it was from the House of Rebbi.", "A wheel of cheese was found in the hostelry of Levi. They permitted it because of two things, as a find, and because of the majority of passers-by. As a find, as it was stated: If one saves from before a lion, from before an army, from a surge of the sea, or the surge of a river, from a wide road, or a wide plaza, it belongs to him, since the owners give up on them. Because of the majority of passers-by, because of Gentile’s cheese. It turned out that it was from Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose.", "Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose, but do we not see that the rabbis publicize49This refers to the monetary aspect, Note 46. Rabbis will advertise to find the prior owner even if the find was laying on a well-travelled road.? He told him, if you had been there, you would not have taken it. Your father, Rebbi Jonah, did not say so, but he said, if only I would find it inside from the circular road50Cf. Eruvin Chaptrer 8, Note 102; the access road to and from a town along a long-distance road. “Inside” is the major road in the town, where many people are passing by at all times.. Even so, he found and did not take51In practice he did not follow his own permissive ruling which therefore cannot be practice.." ], [ "MISHNAH: If it was found in the countryside26Palestine outside of Jerusalem and its surroundings., limbs are carrion27Since the butcher did not care to cut it into slices, one must assume that it was notkosher and thrown away for the dogs., cuts are permitted28If there are no sources of non-kosher meat in the neighborhood.. On holidays, when meat is abundant, even limbs are permitted29Since for big family meals one may buy whole limbs and cut them after cooking..
Rebbi Simeon said, the Court64The body empowered by the returnees from Babylonia to oversee the functioning of the Second Temple. stipulated seven things, and this65The stipulation mentioned in the preceding Mishnah, that the libations for a stray animal used as sacrifice should be paid for by the half-sheqel tax. was one of them: If a Gentile66Who may bring all kinds of voluntary offerings; only obligatory offerings are restricted to full members of the Jewish faith. sent his elevation offering from overseas also sent its libations, they are brought from his property; otherwise they are brought from public money. Similarly, if a proselyte67He failed to contract a Jewish marriage and start a Jewish family; therefore he has no heirs and his estate is ownerless. died and the estate includes well-being offerings; if he also has flour offerings they are brought from his property; otherwise they are brought from public money. It is a stipulation of the Court that the flour offering of a deceased High Priest68The daily offering of the High Priest should not stop between the death of one High Priest and the investiture of the next; the only question is whether it is paid for by the heirs of the deceased or by the public. be brought from public money; Rebbi Jehudah says, from his heirs, and it was brought whole69The offering of the living High Priest is brought in two parts (Lev.6:13); the offering in the interim is brought whole according to everybody..
101Continuation of the Court stipulations from Mishnah 5. About salt and wood that the Cohanim may use them102The Cohanim who have to consume most holy sacrifices in the sacred compound may use salt and wood bought with sheqalim to cook the meat and bake maṣsot., and about the Cow that one does not commit larceny with its ashes103Even though the ashes of the Red Cow are called חַטָּאת, this does not mean “purification sacrifice” but only “(means of) purification.” Even though the Cow was bought with sheqel money, the ashes are no sancta.. And about disqualified nests104If a woman put money for a “nest” in the corresponding box, and the birds given to the Cohen for the corresponding sum turned out to be disqualified, they must immediately be replaced since the woman trusts that she may eat sancta after sundown. Since her identity is unknown, she cannot be asked to pay a second time; therefore her nest has to be paid by the public. R. Yose disagrees and holds that the contract with the supplier of birds stipulates that the birds supplied must be qualified. Therefore disqualified birds have to be replaced by the supplier at no cost to the Temple. that they be charged to the public; Rebbi Yose says, he who provides the nests provides the disqualified ones.", "HALAKHAH: 56The present paragraph has a parallel in Qiddušin2:8 (Notes 202–210) of which, however, it is not a direct copy. The elder Rebbi Hoshaia said (more)<to his son>`57Of the three readings given by the three parallel sources, the one ג is supported by the parallel in Qiddušin and making sense. In the translation, the texts in parentheses should be disregarded. this was taught for their monetary value58It is impossible to say that a male animal which was found ownerless should be taken as elevation offering since it might have been dedicated as well-being offering. The animal should be redeemed and the redemption money used for an elevation offering. The same argument is given in the Babli, Qiddušin55a.. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, does one say to a person, go and commit larceny with sacrifices59It is impossible to redeem an unblemished dedicated animal (Lev. 27:10.) Any redemption is both sinful and ineffective. R. Hoshiah’s rule seems to be impossible.? But they followed the majority of cases: If most60The animal itself should be used for what was its most probable dedication. are male, they are elevation offerings, if most are female, well-being offerings. But do not well-being offerings come from males and females? What does he do? He redeems them as profane and then turns them into elevation offerings61One follows both R. Hoshaia and R. Joḥanan. The animal is first redeemed and then rededicated; this precludes the sin of freeing a dedicated animal and removes the prior specific dedication. In the Babli, Qiddušin55b, R. Joḥanan holds that the redemption of unblemished animals is never possible. He requires that the animal be put out to graze until it develops a blemish; then it can be redeemed and the proceeds used for another sacrifice. In any case, the answer is unsatisfactory. Since the Mishnah states that people were refraining from picking up stray animals because they did not want to pay for its flour offerings, they certainly do not want to take upon themselves the much greater expense of redemption.. Rebbi Ze`ira said, it is a stipulation by the court that all redundant animals should be brought as elevation offerings, so it is a stipulation by the court that lost animals should be brought as elevation offerings62Therefore, it is part of every dedication of any male animal that, if not needed for its original purpose, it should be used as an elevation offering. It is also part of every dedication of any male animal that, if lost and then found by another person, it should become an elevation offering.. Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa63Since R. Jacob bar Aḥa lived two generations before R. Yose, the reading of B, R. Assi (= Yasa) has to be accepted., is that not intentional misuse? He said to him, since it is a stipulation by the court, it is not intentional misuse.", "70Chapter 2, Notes 81–83. Rebbi Yasa said, when I still was there, I heard the voice of Rav Jehudah asking Samuel, if somebody had set his sheqel apart and died? He told him, they shall fall to gift. The excess of his tenth of an ephah, Rebbi Joḥanan said, one shall bring them to the Dead Sea. Rebbi Eleazar said, it shall fall to gift.", "The tenth of an ephah from the High Priest71Lev. 6:12–16.. [Rebbi Joḥanan said,]72Correct addition by the corrector. he splits it and then dedicates73The requirement is a tenth of an ephah daily, half in the morning and half in the evening. Since the volume of the flour is prescribed, it must be measured. R. Joḥanan must hold that the measuring vessel is not a Temple vessel which automatically dedicates anything poured into it; otherwise there would be no possibility of dedicating the two parts separately.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he dedicates and afterwards splits it. A Mishnah74Mishnah Menaḥot4:5. disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “He brings half of it; the other half is lost.75If a High Priest died after he had brought his morning offering and another was appointed before the evening, the second part of the first’s offering cannot be used anymore, but has to be kept to the next day and then burned outside the sacred compound as disqualified sacrifice. The second one must bring a tenth of an ephah, but only the second half may be used.” He explains it, because even the money has to be brought to the Dead Sea76Since R. Joḥanan holds that even money set aside for the Tenth but not used has to be destroyed (Note 70), he will agree that the second half cannot be used even if not dedicated.. A Mishnah74Mishnah Menaḥot4:5. disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “It turns out that two halves are brought and two halves are lost.” And it was stated on this77Tosephta Menaḥot7:10.: “If the first one’s, the second half should lose its shape and be brought to the place of burning.78This text is difficult for R. Joḥanan (reading of B) and R. Simeon ben Laqish. For R. Joḥanan, why should the flour become unusable if it was not yet dedicated? The answer is given in Note 76. For R. Simeon ben Laqish, the entire flour is dedicated as sacrifice from the start; if it becomes disqualified in any way, it should be burned immediately and not need waiting for the next day.” He explains it following Rebbi Ismael, for Rebbi Ismael said, the issaron79Since the dedication is automatic, not by his conscious act, it does not have the status of a directly dedicated animal and needs waiting for the next day. dedicates. “If a Cohen comes first to serve, he brings his Tenth and officiates himself.80Sifra Ṣaw Parashah3(3). He has to bring the tenth of an ephah once in his lifetime, when he officiates in the Temple the first time. Lev. 6:13.” The officiating of both a High Priest and a common priest who officiated before they brought their tenth of an ephah is valid. Rebbi Mana wanted to say, if on that very day81A Cohen was appointed as High Priest on the day he first came to officiate in the Temple. Confirmed Babli Menaḥot78a. he was appointed High Priest he brings two, one for his initiation and one as daily obligation.", "תּוּפִינֵי82Lev. 6:14, a word of unknown etymology.. It has to be תּוּפִינֵי when it is brought, it does not have to be תּוּפִינֵי early in the morning88A Second Temple source.. But did we not state88A Second Temple source., “they place those who bake the baked goods to make the baked goods”? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, to make the hot water to soften them. תּוּפִינֵי, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina, he fries them and after that bakes them. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina, he bakes them and after that fries them. תּוּפִינֵי, they shall be baked cooked85An attempt to explain the word תפיני as contraction of תאפה נא. The following two statements have to be explained in a similar way. Babli Menaḥot50b.. Rebbi said, they shall be baked softly; Rebbi Dosa said, they shall be baked beautifully. This disagreement is parallel to the other disagreement. He who says, they shall be baked beautifully, is like him who says, he fries them and after that bakes them68The daily offering of the High Priest should not stop between the death of one High Priest and the investiture of the next; the only question is whether it is paid for by the heirs of the deceased or by the public.. He who says, they shall be baked softly is like him who says, he bakes them and after that fries them.", "Not only if he died, but even if he became impure; and even if he became disabled by a defect87Since Lev. 6:13 reads: this is the offering of Aaron and his sons which they have to offer to the Eternal, the daily flour sacrifice should be offered by the High Priest himself. While the service can be delegated to a common priest, the High Priest must be able to do it himself. If somehow he is disabled, it is as if there were no High Priest.. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi stated from Bar Delaia88A Second Temple source.: Even if he became disabled by a defect. 89Babli Menaḥot51b; Sifra Ṣaw Pereq5(3).“From where that if a High Priest dies and no other was appointed in his stead that his flour offering is brought from the heirs? The verse says90Lev. 6:15., from his sons he shall make. I could think that he should bring it in halves, the verse says, it, entire I said, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon says, it only comes from the public, for it says, an eternal law, (to whom the creatures belong.)91This text does not make any sense. It seems necessary to adopt the reading of Sifra, בְּרִית “covenant”, instead of “creatures”. Then, Ravad explains, the expression חָק־עוֹלָ֕ם is compared to the same expression used for the shew-bread (Lev. 24:9) where in v. 8 בְּרִ֥ית עוֹלָֽם is used. The translation then is: “who are in the covenant.” The Babli (loc. cit.) simply reads עוֹלָם as in rabbinic Hebrew “public”. Totally it shall be burned, all is for burning.", "Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked, the system of Rebbi Simeon seems inverted. There he says, from the heirs, but here he says, from the public92In the Mishnah he qualifies the rule that the daily flour offering in the absence of a High Priest is charged to the public as a Court stipulation, implying that by biblical law it should be charged to the High Priest’s heirs. In Sifra he deduces the rule from a biblical verse.. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, is that not a pertinent question? There came Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is a word from the Torah that it should be brought from the public. I could say, one should tax for it92In the Mishnah he qualifies the rule that the daily flour offering in the absence of a High Priest is charged to the public as a Court stipulation, implying that by biblical law it should be charged to the High Priest’s heirs. In Sifra he deduces the rule from a biblical verse.; they instituted that it should come from what is taken from the lodge93It seems that one should read with B: collect it from the heirs..", "Rebbi Yose94With B read: Yasa (Assi). said, Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Entire in the morning and entire in the evening, or half in the morning and half in the evening, [or entire in the morning and nothing in the evening]95The High Priest has to bring a fIour offering mornings and evenings (Lev. 6:13). If the High Priest is dead or disabled and according to the Mishnah his flour offering has to be brought entire, does that mean two offerings per day, or only one in the morning? It is clear that the sentence about bringing two halves has to be deleted and the corrector’s addition from B accepted.? Then it should be obvious to him, what about three log96The text about the High Priest’s offering only mentions oil but does not specify its quantity. It is deduced either from the libations required in general for a sheep (Num. 15:4) or from the specifics indicated for the daily sacrifice (Num. 28:5) that a tenth of an ephah of flour requires a quarter of a hin, 3 log, of olive oil. This therefore is the quantity of oil required here, even though it is used for frying, not for mixing as in the cases where the quantities are specified. Sifra Ṣaw Pereq4:1–5; cf. Babli Menaḥot52b.? Three log in the morning and three log in the afternoon, or a log and a half in the morning and a log and a half in the afternoon? Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, also the following was a problem for him: Two handful97In the Babli, Menaḥot52a, R. Joḥanan reports that the Tenth of the High Priest also requires addition of a handful of incense like other flour offerings. He also reports that there is a dispute whether the living High Priest has to bring one handful, which is split into two, or two separate handfuls for morning and evening services. But since here the question is about the Tenth for the absent or incapacitated High Priest, one infers that the Yerushalmi holds that the living High Priest only brings one handful. in the morning and two handful in the evening or one handful in the morning and one handful in the evening? Rebbi Yose said, did they not the two handful infer from the sinner’s flour offering98This reading is impossible since the sinner’s flour offering (Lev. 5:11) is brought without oil and incense. The commentators conjecture an emendation “from the shew bread” which is put onto the table in two rows, each one with a cup of incense.? Just as there two handful, also here two handful. Just as there it was problematic for him, so here it is problematic for him99Missing in B and M, probably correctly.. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, did one not infer the three log from the daily afternoon sacrifice96The text about the High Priest’s offering only mentions oil but does not specify its quantity. It is deduced either from the libations required in general for a sheep (Num. 15:4) or from the specifics indicated for the daily sacrifice (Num. 28:5) that a tenth of an ephah of flour requires a quarter of a hin, 3 log, of olive oil. This therefore is the quantity of oil required here, even though it is used for frying, not for mixing as in the cases where the quantities are specified. Sifra Ṣaw Pereq4:1–5; cf. Babli Menaḥot52b.? Since there {are} three log, so also here three log. [Just as] there it was problematic for him, [so] here it is (obvious) [problematic] for him100.", "Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: It would have been logical105Since the Cow is treated as a sanctum, it is clear that until its ashes are collected as required in Num. 19:9, any action not in accordance with the procedure prescribed in vv. 2–9 will invalidate the procedure and usufruct of correct procedure will be larceny of sacra. According to the general principle that once the required procedures are executed, there can be no longer larceny of sacra, the problem is to decide whether the correct preparation of the ashes is the final step in this regard, or the sprinkling on a person impure in the impurity of the dead, as described in the verses following. To say that it would be logical is tantamount to a statement that one could argue the second position but, since the answer is not clear from the biblical text, it is up to the Court overseeing the Temple to decide which opinion to follow. that one commit larceny with them, but they decided that one does not commit larceny with them. But did we not state106Babli Menaḥot51b/52a.: “it is ḥattat, this teaches that one commits larceny with it. [With it one commits larceny,]107Corrector’s addition following B and M, correct but not absolutely necessary. with its ashes one does not commit larceny.” Rebbi Abbahu said, at the beginning they were using it as a disinfectant108Reading as Arabic שקשק “to rinse”. and were putting it on their wounds and therefore they decided that one would commit larceny with it109But biblically the ashes never could lead to larceny of sacra.. When they were fenced in110It was certain that no illegitimate use would be tolerated., they decided that one does not commit larceny with it.", "By what is that woman atoned for13Since the money may have been given by a woman needing purification, if it happens that her monies were used as elevation offering, how can she ever eat sancta? The sentence and the next are reproduced at the end of the Chapter (7).? Rebbi Isaac said, it is a stipulation of the Court that the providers of nests also provide the disqualified and the lost ones14The provider has to provide a few extra birds which are treated as possible purification offerings (a situation impossible for four-legged animals) but are not eaten.." ] ], [ [ "MISHNAH: All spittle1Any impurity caused by a human body itself, such as in a person afflicted by gonorrhea, is a source of severe impurity, and all his body fluids are sources of severe impurity. In any place other than Jerusalem, one must assume that spittle was ejected by an impure person whose impurity was caused by his body (cf. Mishnah Ṭahorot4:5). By rabbinic usage, all Gentiles are considered to be in this category. In Jerusalem, where people are used to eat sancta the entire year according to R. Meןr, or on the holidays according to R. Yose, one may assume that impure people are careful not to contaminate their pure neighbors. This is a reconstruction by authors living two generations after the destruction of the Temple. found in Jerusalem is pure except on the Upper Market2A Gentile neighborhood., the words of Rebbi Meןr. Rebbi Yose says, on all other days of the year, those in the middle of the road are impure, and those on the sides pure. On holidays, those in the middle of the road are pure and those on the sides impure since the minority will remove themselves to the sides.
All implements which are found in Jerusalem on the road descending to the place of immersion are impure, on the way ascending they are pure since they were brought down on a way different from that on which they were brought up, the words of Rebbi Meןr. Rebbi Yose says, all are pure except the bag and the rake15As the Halakhah shows, a word “the hoe” is missing here, found in B and the independent Mishnah mss. set apart for graves.
If a knife was found on the Fourteenth21The 14th of Nisan, the day of slaughter of the Pesaḥ sacrifice. Even though the previous Mishnah stated that all implements found in Jerusalem are presumed to be pure, for use on sancta one is restrictive and requires immersion in a miqweh and waiting for the following sundown. The only time this requirement is waived is the 14th of Nisan, the day of mass slaughter, where it is presumed that every knife which is qualified to be used for ritual slaughter was immersed in a miqweh the previous day., one may slaughter with it immediately; on the Thirteenth one has to repeat and immerse22Since all knives are immersed on the 13th of Nisan, one has to assume that this particular knife was lost on the way to the miqweh.. A dagger23Which is not usable for slaughter and therefore not necessarily immersed in a miqweh. in either case one has to repeat and immerse. If the Fourteenth falls on a Sabbath, one may slaughter with it immediately24Since one may not immerse on that day, certainly the knife had been immersed on the 13th.; on the Fifteenth one may slaughter with it immediately25Since the 15th of Nisan is a holiday where immersion is not done, and the knife was purified for the 14th, the presumption of purity extends to this case.. If it26The dagger. was tied to a knife its status is that of the knife.", "HALAKHAH: “All spittle,” etc. Rebbi Abbin in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: A Gentile fortification3Reading קצטרן, “their castra”. The Babli text reads קצרן “their laundry”. was there. Rebbi Ḥanina said, they were stabbing wild donkeys in Jerusalem and the feet of the pilgrims were immersed in blood up to their knee joints4As explained in the next paragraph, while carcasses of four-legged animals are a source of impurity (Lev. 11:26–28), this does not extend to their blood, which does not cause impurity. Gentile circus games have no impact on purity in Jerusalem (except for the removal of the carcasses which must be done by Gentiles.) Babli Menaḥot103b.. [They came before the Sages who did not tell them anything.]5Corrector’s addition from B, correct but unnecessary. Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: A Gentile fortification was there.", "6The text was copied more or less in Chapter 3:2, Notes 40 ff. The full explanation is given in Šabbat8, Notes 51–62. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: It happened that a mule of Rebbi’s household died and they declared its blood pure regarding the carcass. Rebbi Eleazar asked Rebbi Simon, how much? He did not take notice of him. He asked Rebbi Joshua ben Levi who told him, it is pure up to a quartarius. More than that is impure. Rebbi Eleazar felt badly that Rebbi Simon had not repeated the tradition to him. Rav Bevai was sitting stating this occurrence. Rebbi Isaac bar Bisna asked him, is it pure up to a quartarius; more than that impure? He was unfriendly to him. Rebbi Zeriqa asked him, because he asked you, you were unfriendly to him? He answered him, because my mind was not clear, as Rebbi Ḥanin said, 7Deut. 28:66.your life will hang far from you, that is one who buys a year’s supply of wheat, you will be fearful night and day, that is one who buys from the Saracen, and you will not believe in your survival, that is one who buys from the retail store, and I am dependent on retail stores. What about it? “Rebbi Joshua ben Bathyra testified about blood of carcasses that it is pure.8Mishnah Idiut8:1.” What means pure? It is pure in that it does not prepare, but for impurity it makes impure. There, we have stated “The blood of a crawling animal is like its flesh, it makes impure but does not prepare. Nothing else is like this,9Mishnah Makhširin6:5.” in the amount needed for impurity but its blood makes impure like its flesh. Rav Joseph said, he who says “impure” follows Rebbi Jehudah; he who said “pure” follows Rebbi Joshua ben Bathyra. Rav Eudaimon the emigrant said to him, this is correct. Rebbi Jehudah was the instructor of the Patriarch.", "Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, they did not decide about spittle in Jerusalem10Nobody required that heave and other sancta be considered potentially impure because they touched spittle of unknown provenience, in contrast to all places in the Holy Land outside of Jerusalem (Mishnah Ṭahorot4:5), since the number of people whose impurity is caused by their own body is minuscule. Then why is the Upper Market in Jerusalem excluded? Babli Pesaḥim19b.? [Was it not said]11Corrector’s addition from B, in Babli terminology. about this, Rebbi Abbin in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: A Gentile fortification3Reading קצטרן, “their castra”. The Babli text reads קצרן “their laundry”. was there12One must assume that the spittle is a Gentile’s, automatically impure by rabbinic standards.? In the remainder of the days of a year the impure ones are walking on the path13A form of שביל “path”, not “ear of grain”. and the pure ones are walking on the shoulder. The pure ones walk without saying anything, the impure ones tell them, keep apart. During a holiday14When practically everybody was pure as long as the Temple existed. the pure ones are walking on the path and the impure ones are walking on the shoulder. The impure ones walk without saying anything, the pure ones tell them, keep apart.", "But did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of16Missing in B. Rebbi Joḥanan, they did not decide about vessels in Jerusalem17In contrast to all other places in the Holy Land, one does not have to presume that vessels found in Jerusalem be impure. Then why does R. Meןr declare some vessels impure?? Since they were found on the road descending to the place of immersion, it is proof18These must be presumed impure unless the opposite is proven..", "Abba Shaul used to call it19The word for “hoe” missing in the Mishnah. The word מְרִיצָה is a hapax and according to the second opinion used exclusively for the gravedigger’s (or burial cave excavator’s) hoe. “fingernail” since it is shaped like a fingernail. He who said מְרִיצָה because it quickly dispatches the stone [to the cemetery.]20Corrector’s addition from B; questionable since the text seems to refer to excavating burial caves (impossible in the Iraqi plain.)", "It was stated: If he knife was tied to it26The dagger. its status is that of the knife27It seems that the last sentence in the Mishnah was missing in the original Yerushalmi Mishnah; therefore it is quoted as a baraita; cf. Note 43.." ], [ "MISHNAH: If a gobelin28In the Temple, separating the Holiest of Holies from the Temple Hall. Since it is an implement, not a fixed part of the building, it may become impure. became impure by derivative impurity29A rabbinic impurity. By biblical standards, implements may become impure only by contact with original impurity., one immersed it inside and brought it back immediately. But if by original impurity, one immersed it outside and spread it out in the ante-court30The enclosed plaza in front of the entrance to the Temple courtyard. because it requires sundown. If it was new, one spreads it out on the roof of the stoa31The double stoa built by Herod as enclosure of the Temple district. so the people could see its workmanship, which was beautiful.
Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says in the name of Rebbi Simeon, the son of the Executive Officer of the Temple32Who credibly could inform about details of the Temple some 80 years after its destruction.: The thickness of a gobelin was a hand-width. It was woven on 72 strings33Of the warp. and each string was composed of 24 threads34Since the gobelin had to be made from blue, purple, and crimson wool, and byssus (Ex. 26:31), and each kind was twined of six threads.. Its length 40 cubits and its width 20 cubits; it was made for 820’000 {denar}. Two were made every year35According to the Tosephta (3:15), one was hung new on the Eve of the Day of Atonement and the other kept in reserve if some impurity should occur on one of the two which were in use. and 300 Cohanim were immersing it36For purification; see end of Halakhah 4..", "HALAKHAH: If it had said “thread”, one, “double”, two, “twisted”, three, “entwined”, six37One tries to explain why the expression entwined used in the biblical text for all woven textiles used in the Temple (except the garments of the simple priests) means a multiply twisted string. Since there are other words available for small numbers of threads, entwined must designate heavy strings.. There are four kinds, this makes 24. It was stated 32. If it had said “thread”, one, “double”, two, “twisted”, four, “entwined”, eight. There are four kinds, this makes 32. It was stated 48. If it had said “thread”, one, “double”, two, “plaited” three, “twisted”, six, “entwined”, twelve. There are four kinds, this makes 48.", "38Tosephta 3:14; explained differently in Babli Yoma72b.“One verse says embroidered work39Ex. 26:36., and one verse says, intelligent work40Ex. 26:31.. Embroidered work, one face41Greek προσώπον, τό. The scribe originally wrote correctly פרוסיף., intelligent work, two faces.” Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Nehemiah, one said embroidered work, a lion on each side, intelligent work, a lion on one side and nothing on the other side. The other one said, embroidered work, a lion on one side and nothing on the other side, intelligent work, a lion on one side and an eagle on the other side.", "(It was stated:)43This was written by the scribe but then deleted. S. Liebermann (Tarbiz5, p. 261) also sees here a sign that the statement was not part of the original Galilean Mishnah. “It was made for 820’000 {denar}.” Rebbi Isaac bar Bisna in the name of Samuel: exaggerated44In the Babli, as also in B, always the noun “exaggeration” is used.. There, we have stated45Mishnah Tamid2:2, describing the amount of ashes accumulated on the altar at the end of a night. B quotes the entire Mishnah.: “Sometimes there was on it about 300 kor46About 114m3, a volume impossible for the surface area of 174.5m2 of the fire on the altar. Babli Tamid29a, Ḥulin90b..” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Samuel: exaggerated." ], [ "MISHNAH: Flesh of most holy sacrifices47Elevation, purification, and reparation sacrifices, whose flesh never should leave the sacred precinct. which became impure either by original impurity or by derivative impurity48Derivative impurity is rabbinic impurity; according to biblical standards the flesh could be eaten., whether inside or outside, the House of Shammai are saying that everything has to be burned inside except what became impure outside by original impurity49Since most holy sacrifices may not leave the sacred precinct, flesh disqualified for the altar must be burned in the courtyard. Only if the flesh was taken outside and became biblically impure can it not be returned and must be disposed of by being burnt outside.. The House of Hillel are saying that everything has to be burned outside except what became impure inside by derivative impurity50They hold that flesh impure by biblical standards has to be removed as quickly as possible from the sacred precinct; then it can be burned outside in leisurely fashion. Flesh inside which is considered impure only by common usage, not biblical decree, may be burned in the courtyard. No flesh impure in any way may be introduced into the sacred precinct..
Rebbi Eliezer says, what became impure by original impurity, whether inside or outside, shall be burned outside. But what became impure by derivative impurity, whether inside or outside, shall be burned inside51In the matter of burning, he considers rabbinic impurity as nonexistent.. Rebbi Aqiba said, the place of its impurity is the place of its burning52This is his interpretation of the hidden meaning of Lev. 6:23, as explained in Sifra Saw Pereq8(5–6), where also additional opinions of RR. Meïr and Jehudah are reported..", "HALAKHAH: 53The same statement is found in Ma`aser Šeni3:8 (Note 103) and Pesaḥim1:7, Notes 166,167. Bar Qappara said, original impurity is a word from the Torah, derivative impurity is of their words. Rebbi Joḥanan said, both these and those are words of the Torah54In Lev. 7:19 one reads: Any meat which touches anything impure may not be eaten, in fire it shall be burned. Since it is not stated “touches any impure person”, one has to conclude that anything impure refers to implements or similar things which became impure from the touch of an impure person. Therefore it is clear that by biblical standards there exist derivative impurities. Bar Qappara holds that anything which makes something else impure is called original impurity. Since the verse does not refer to the meat as impure, he will hold that it is disqualified but its touch will not make the implement touched impure. He restricts the term “impure” to matter able to transmit impurity; matter disqualified is classifioed as “derivative impurity”. R. Joḥanan will hold that the meat, two touches distant from original impurity, still is impure by biblical standards (even though it is not called so in the text.) Everybody will agree that further impurities, 3 and 4 touches separated from original impurity, are rabbinic (or customary) categories of impurity.. 55Similar discussions, referring to other Mishnaiot, are in Ma`aser Šeni3:8 (Note 103) and Pesaḥim 1:7, Notes 166,167. The House of Shammai is difficult for Rebbi Joḥanan, since the House of Shammai said, “everything has to be burned inside except what became impure outside by original impurity.” What is the difference between [original]56Correct addition by the corrector. (The clause is missing in B.) impurity and derivative impurity outside, are not both of them words of the Torah? And even the House of Hillel is difficult for him, since the House of Hillel say, “everything has to be burned outside except what became impure inside by derivative impurity.” What is the difference between derivative impurity inside and original impurity inside, are not both of them words of the Torah? The rabbis only discuss Bar Qappara’s opinion57Since the objections to R. Joḥanan’s opinion cannot be answered, his statement cannot be valid in rabbinic tradition.. The House of Shammai is difficult for Bar Qappara, since the House of Shammai said, “everything has to be burned inside except what became impure outside by original impurity.” What is the difference between original impurity outside or inside, are not both of them words of the Torah? Because of Rebbi Aqiba, who said “the place of its impurity shall be the place of its burning.58The House of Shammai will accept R. Aqiba’s interpretation of Lev. 6:23; this explains their position without reference to Bar Qappara’s statement.” Would not the House of Hillel also be difficult for him, since the House of Hillel say, “everything has to be burned outside except what became impure inside by derivative impurity.” What is the difference for derivative impurity inside or outside, are not both of them their words? Because of Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said, food and drink of a person afflicted with skin disease are sent outside the three camps59This is a complicated formulation of the simple statement of Note 50. It is inferred from Num. 5:2–4 (Sifry Num. 1) that there were three encampments in the desert, the holy precinct of the Tent of Meeting, the encampment of the Levites, and that of the Israelites. These are represented by the Temple enclosure, the Temple Mount, and Jerusalem (or any walled city in the Holy Land). Then it is stated that from the categories of people excluded from the holy sites, people impure in the impurity of the dead are excluded from the Temple precinct, those suffering from gonorrhea (or anybody whose impurity is caused by his own body) is excluded from the Temple Mount, and the sufferer from skin disease is excluded from the city. R. Simeon explains that the sufferers from skin disease under no circumstance can enter the city; this is a paradigm for the statement that anything impure never may be brought into a place from which it is excluded.." ], [ "MISHNAH: The limbs of the daily sacrifice are deposited on the lower part of the ramp to the West60As explained in Yoma Chapter 2, the sacrifices were slaughtered and cut into pieces which immediately were carried to the ramp leading up to the altar, but then were taken up one by one to be burned on the relatively small area of the fire on the altar., those of the musaf sacrifices61Of the Sabbaths and holidays. on the lower part of the altar. Those of the days of the New Moon on the rim62As explained in the Halakhah, on top of the altar, between its horns, on the place usually reserved for the Cohanim serving at the altar. on the top of the altar. Sheqalim and First Fruits63Sheqalim are dedicated for the Temple service; if there is no Temple there are no sheqalim. Of First Fruits it says (Ex. 23:19): Bring the First Fruits of your land to the Eternal’s House; if there is no House they cannot be brought (Tosephta 3:24). apply only if there is a Temple, but tithes of grain, and tithes of animals, and firstlings64Of all these, the verse (Num. 18:12–19) says that these are given to the Eternal; therefore they are obligations independent of the Temple., apply whether there is a Temple or there is no Temple. If somebody dedicates sheqalim or First Fruits65Today, in the absence of a Temple. R. Simeon holds that a dedication as First Fruits is a vow in error which does not need annulment., they are sanctified. Rebbi Simeon says, even if somebody designates First Fruits as holy, they are not holy.", "HALAKHAH: “What is ‘the rim of the altar66The word is a hapax in the Bible, Ex. 27:5. The explanation is intended also as applicable to the biblical word. Tosephta 3:19; Babli Zevaḥim 62a.’? A cubit between two horns, on the place reserved for the feet of the Cohanim walking.”", "67This paragraph is copied in Sukkah5:6 (Note 124). Which of the musaf sacrifices of the Sabbath and of the New Moon has precedence68The question may be asked here since the limbs of the sacrifices of the New Month are stored much closer to the fire on the altar than those of the Sabbath sacrifices.? Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say, between the musaf sacrifices of the Sabbath and of the New Month, the musaf sacrifices of the New Month have precedence. The strength of Rebbi Jeremiah is from the following: Between the song of the Sabbath and the song of the New Month69Babli Sukkah54b., the song of the New Month has precedence. Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference there since Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: To make a proclamation to publicize that it is the start of a new month. How does one do it? One slaughters the musaf sacrifices of the Sabbath and says for them the song of the New Month. But here, between the musaf sacrifices of the Sabbath and of the New Month, the musaf sacrifices of the Sabbath have precedence, under the category: what is more frequent than another precedes the other70A general principle, Yoma2:3 (Note 127), Ta`anit4:5 (68b l.30), Babli Berakhot51b, Pesaḥim114a, Zevaḥim91a..", "Did sheqalim therefore71Since in the Mishnah R. Simon only states that dedications of First Fruits are ineffective; he is silent about sheqalim. become holy72Is a sheqel dedicated today reserved for use in the Temple; in absence of a Temple any use of it would be larceny of sacra.? Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah in the name of Rebbi Simeon: Both these and those73First fruits and sheqalim. did not become holy. It was stated:74Cf. Tosephta 3:22; Babli Roš Haššanah31b (in the name of R. Simeon ben Eleazar), Keritut9a. Sifry zuta Šelaḥ explains the sacrifice as necessary before the proselyte will be permitted to partake of sancta, since every person whose body was the cause of his impurity, once he is pure he needs such a sacrifice to be admitted to sancta(cf. Note 1). A proselyte today has to bring for his nest a quarter of a silver {denar}. Rebbi Simeon said, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai already disestablished this because of the mishap. What is “because of the mishap”? As was stated, today one does neither dedicate as sacrifice, nor dedicate one’s value, nor dedicate as ḥerem, nor does one collect [heave and tithes]75Corrector’s addtion from B, totally erroneous since heave and tithes are applicable today. Probably the addition “and tithes” is a scribal error in the ms. underlying B, since “heave and tithes” is a common expression. If “and tithes” is deleted, then the reference is not to heave from agricultural produce but to the money taken from the depository of sheqalim for use in the Temple. Therefore, this “lifting” is dedication as sheqalim.. If somebody dedicates as sacrifice, or dedicated one’s value, or dedicated as ḥerem, or collected, cloth must be burned, an animal castrated. [How? One locks it in and it dies by itself.]76Corrector’s addtion from B, inappropriate here. It is possible to be careful not to use an animal, but it must be prevented from producing offspring (even though castrating is sinful.) Monies shall go to the Dead Sea77Babli Yoma66a, Bekhorot23a, Avodah zarah13a.. If he78A person dedicating sheqalim does not sanctify his money according to R. Simeon; a proselyte dedicating money for his sacrifice in case the Temple will be rebuilt does sanctify the money set apart. transgressed and dedicated, since Rebbi Simeon said, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai already disestablished this because of the mishap, this implies if he transgressed and dedicated, it became sanctified. Rebbi Yudan from Antodria asked before Rebbi Yose: here you are saying it became sanctified, and there you are saying, it did not become sanctified78A person dedicating sheqalim does not sanctify his money according to R. Simeon; a proselyte dedicating money for his sacrifice in case the Temple will be rebuilt does sanctify the money set apart.. He said to him, there 79Corrector’s addition from B, best deleted as a wordy paraphrase of the text obtained by deletion.[because of the following one may not dedicate from the start because it is an obligation to bring from the new contribution, and this would be from the old one. Here, what can you say? That one is old. But in respect to other dedications, the proselyte’s nest does not have to be from new money; if he dedicated it is holy;] maybe the Temple will be built like earlier and the heave of the lodge will be lifted on time on the first of Nisan80Then any moneys set apart before the First of Adar are not admissible as new sheqalim; dedicating them before the Temple was rebuilt would be a self-defeating act.. But here, what do you have? Rav Ada and Rav Hamnuna, Rav Ada bar Aḥawa in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Simeon81Babli Keritut9a. The ruling refers to all of R. Simeon’s statements in this paragraph.." ] ] ], "sectionNames": [ "Chapter", "Halakhah", "Segment" ] }