json/Mishnah/Seder Moed/Mishnah Shekalim/English/merged.json

{
    "title": "Mishnah Shekalim",
    "language": "en",
    "versionTitle": "merged",
    "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Shekalim",
    "text": [
        [
            "<b>On the first of Adar</b> the court <b>proclaims concerning</b> the collection of <b>shekels,</b> i.e., the yearly half-shekel contribution to the Temple treasury made by each adult male for the purpose of buying communal offerings. <b>And</b> they also proclaim <b>with regard to</b> the obligation to uproot forbidden mixtures of <b>diverse kinds</b> of food crops in gardens and fields. <b>And on the fifteenth</b> day <b>of the</b> month of Adar, <b>the Scroll [<i>Megilla</i>]</b> of Esther <b>is read in the cities [<i>kerakim</i>]</b> surrounded by walls from the time of Joshua. <b>And they</b> also <b>repair the roads</b> that were damaged in the winter, <b>and the streets, and the cisterns. And</b> at that time <b>they perform all that is necessary for public welfare. And they</b> also <b>mark the</b> Jewish <b>gravesites</b> anew, so that people would know their location and avoid ritual impurity, as the previous markers may have eroded during the rainy season. <b>And</b> agents of the court <b>also go out</b> to inspect the fields <b>for diverse kinds</b> of food crops, to determine whether or not the farmers had in fact uprooted these seeds after the proclamation on the first of the month. If the agents of the court found that these diverse kinds had not been uprooted, they themselves would uproot them.",
            "At the end of the last mishna it was stated that the court sends out agents on the fifteenth of Adar to inspect whether the owners of fields had indeed uprooted any diverse kinds of crops as instructed. <b>Rabbi Yehuda said: At first</b> those agents <b>would uproot</b> the diverse kinds of crops <b>and cast them in front of</b> the owners of the fields. <b>When</b> the number of <b>transgressors</b> who would not uproot diverse kinds in their fields <b>increased,</b> and the Sages saw that this tactic was ineffective, <b>they would cast</b> the uprooted crops <b>onto the roads.</b> Ultimately, <b>they instituted that the entire field should be declared ownerless.</b>",
            "<b>On the fifteenth of</b> Adar, money changers would <b>sit</b> at <b>tables</b> set up <b>in</b> the rest of <b>the country,</b> outside the Temple, to handle the collection of shekels. <b>On the twenty-fifth of</b> Adar, the money changers <b>sat in the Temple. From</b> the time <b>when</b> the money changers <b>sat in the Temple,</b> the court <b>began to seize collateral</b> from those who had yet to donate the half-shekel. <b>From whom did they seize collateral?</b> From <b>Levites, Israelites, converts, and emancipated slaves. However,</b> they did <b>not</b> seize collateral from <b>women, slaves, or minors. And any minor whose father began</b> one year <b>to contribute</b> a half-shekel <b>on his behalf,</b> despite the fact that he was not obligated to do so, <b>he may not cease to do so</b> in subsequent years. The court <b>does not seize collateral from priests,</b> although they are legally obligated to give a half-shekel like all other Jews, <b>because of the ways of peace.</b> The mishna goes on to explain the status of priests with regard to the contribution of the half-shekel.",
            "<b>Rabbi Yehuda said</b> that <b>ben Bukhri testified in Yavne: Any priest who contributes</b> the half-shekel <b>is not</b> considered <b>a sinner,</b> despite the fact that he is not obligated to do so. Rabbi Yehuda added that <b>Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said to</b> ben Bukhri: <b>Not so; rather, any priest who does not contribute</b> the half-shekel is considered <b>a sinner,</b> as they are obligated like all other Jews. <b>However,</b> Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai continued, <b>the priests</b> who do not contribute <b>interpret this verse to their own</b> advantage: <b>“And every meal-offering of the priest shall be wholly made to smoke; it shall not be eaten”</b> (Leviticus 6:16). Those priests claim as follows: <b>Since the <i>omer</i></b> offering <b>and the two loaves,</b> i.e., the public offering of two loaves from the new wheat brought on the festival of <i>Shavuot</i>, <b>and the shewbread</b> placed on the sacred table in the Sanctuary each Shabbat, which are all meal-offerings, are <b>ours,</b> then if we contribute shekels we will have partial ownership of these communal offerings, as they are purchased with the shekels. <b>How,</b> then, <b>can</b> they <b>be eaten?</b> They ought to be regarded as priests’ meal-offerings, which must be wholly burnt. But since these offerings are eaten, the priests concluded that they are not obligated to contribute the half-shekel. This argument does not, however, take into account the fact that communal offerings belong to the public, which is understood as its own entity, and are not regarded as shared offerings of all who contribute to the public purse.",
            "<b>Although</b> the Sages <b>said,</b> as stated in the previous mishna, that the court <b>does not seize collateral</b> from <b>women, slaves, and minors,</b> as they are not obligated to contribute, <b>however, if they contributed a shekel</b> of their own accord, the Temple treasurers <b>accept from them.</b> Conversely, in the case of <b>a gentile or a Samaritan [<i>Kuti</i>] who contributed a shekel</b> to participate in the communal offerings, <b>they do not accept</b> it <b>from them. And</b> likewise, <b>they do not accept from</b> a gentile or a Samaritan <b>pairs</b> of birds sacrificed in the purification ritual of <b>a <i>zav</i>, pairs</b> of birds <b>of a <i>zava</i>, or pairs</b> of birds <b>of a woman who gave birth,</b> all of which are brought for ritual purification, <b>or sin-offerings or guilt-offerings.</b> <b>This is the principle:</b> With regard to <b>anything that can be</b> brought to the altar <b>as a vow or as a free-will offering,</b> the priests <b>accept</b> it <b>from</b> gentiles and Samaritans, and with regard to <b>anything that cannot be</b> brought <b>as a vow or as a free-will offering, they</b> may <b>not accept</b> it <b>from them. And this</b> principle <b>was similarly articulated by Ezra,</b> when he recorded the Jewish leadership’s rejection of the Samaritans’ request to assist the Jews in the construction of the Second Temple, <b>as it is stated:</b> “But Zerubbabel, and Joshua, and the rest of the heads of fathers’ houses of Israel, said unto them: <b>You have nothing to do with us to build a house unto our God;</b> but we ourselves together will build unto the Lord the God of Israel, as King Cyrus the king of Persia has commanded us” (Ezra 4:3).",
            "<sup><b>[4a]</b></sup> The mishna states another <i>halakha</i>: <b>And these are</b> the people <b>who are obligated</b> in <b>the premium [<i>kalbon</i>],</b> a small sum added to the half-shekel collected: <b>Levites, Israelites, converts, and emancipated</b> Canaanite <b>slaves, but not priests, women,</b> Canaanite <b>slaves, or minors.</b> <b>One who contributes</b> a half-shekel <b>on behalf of a priest, on behalf of a woman, on behalf of a slave,</b> or <b>on behalf of a child, is exempt</b> from the premium, as they are exempt. <b>But if he contributed on his own behalf and on behalf of another,</b> i.e., he contributed one whole shekel to discharge both his own obligation and that of someone else, <b>he is obligated in one premium. Rabbi Meir says:</b> He must pay <b>two premiums.</b> The mishna further states: <b>One who gives</b> the collection agent <b>a <i>sela</i>,</b> i.e., a whole shekel, <b>and takes a shekel,</b> i.e., a half-shekel, as change <b>is obligated</b> in <b>two premiums.</b>",
            "<b>One who contributes</b> a half-shekel <b>on behalf of a poor</b> person, <b>on behalf of his neighbor, or on behalf of a resident of his city is exempt</b> from the premium. The Sages did not obligate in the premium those who use their own money to fulfill the obligation of another. <b>But if one loaned them</b> a half-shekel, rather than paying it on their behalf, <b>he is obligated</b> to pay the premium. Since the recipients of the loan must repay the money, it is as though the half-shekel were paid from their property rather than the lender’s. <b>Partnered brothers,</b> who have fully divided among themselves their late father’s assets, and <b>who,</b> if they jointly pay a whole shekel from those assets to discharge both of their obligations, <b>are obligated in the premium</b> like any other two private individuals, <b>are exempt from the animal tithe</b> for the livestock they inherited. Since they have completely divided between them all inherited assets, they are considered purchasers of the livestock, and a purchaser is exempt from the animal tithe. <b>But when</b> they have not completely divided the assets, and <b>they are</b> therefore <b>obligated in the animal tithe,</b> as the livestock is considered in their father’s possession, <b>they are exempt from the premium</b> for their joint payment, as in the case of one who pays on behalf of another. <b>And how much is a premium? A silver <i>ma’a</i>.</b> This is <b>the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say:</b> It is only <b>half a <i>ma’a</i>.</b>"
        ],
        [
            "When people who live far from Jerusalem wish to send to Jerusalem the shekels that have been levied from their community, <b>they</b> may <b>combine</b> their <b>shekels</b> and exchange them <b>for darics [<i>darkonot</i>],</b> which are large gold coins, <b>due to the burden of the way.</b> Instead of carrying large amounts of shekels, the agents who deliver the funds will bring a much lighter burden of gold coins with them. The mishna adds: <b>Just as there were</b> collection <b>horns in the Temple</b> to receive the half-shekel contributions, <b>so too there were</b> collection <b>horns in the rest of the country,</b> i.e., areas outside of Jerusalem. The local inhabitants placed their half-shekels in these horns, which were later brought to Jerusalem. § With regard to <b>the residents of a town who sent their shekels</b> to the Temple <b>and they were stolen</b> from the agent on the way <b>or were lost, if</b> the <b>collection</b> of the chamber <b>had</b> already <b>been collected</b> before these shekels arrived, the agents must <b>take the oath</b> of a bailee <b>to the treasurers [<i>gizbarin</i>].</b> After the collection of the chamber, all the shekels that have been contributed become the property of the Temple, so the Temple treasurers who are in charge of this property become the opposing litigants of the agents. <b>If</b> the ceremony has not yet been performed and the contributions have <b>not</b> yet been collected into the baskets, the shekels are considered the property of the residents of the town, and therefore the agents must <b>take an oath to</b> absolve themselves to <b>the residents of the town.</b> Since those shekels are still considered the property of the residents of the town because the shekels never reached the Temple, they have not fulfilled their obligation. Therefore, <b>the residents of the town</b> must <b>contribute</b> other shekels <b>in their place. If,</b> after the residents of the town contributed other shekels, the original shekels <b>were found or the thieves returned them,</b> both <b>these</b> original shekels <b>and those</b> newly contributed ones have the status of consecrated <b>shekels</b> and belong to the Temple. However, <b>they do not count for the following year.</b> The people cannot claim that since they contributed twice in one year they are exempt from contributing the next year.",
            "With regard to <b>one who gives his shekel to his fellow to contribute on his behalf</b> by placing it in the collection horn for him, <b>and</b> the fellow instead <b>contributed it for himself, if</b> at the time that he placed the shekel in the collection horn <b>the collection</b> of the chamber <b>had been collected,</b> the fellow is guilty of <b>misuse of consecrated property.</b> When they perform the collection of the chamber, the treasurers also have in mind the shekels that have been contributed but are not yet in the possession of the Temple treasury, so that all those who have contributed shekels will have a part in the communal sacrifices. Therefore, when the agent gives this shekel for himself, he is considered to be deriving benefit from a consecrated item and is guilty of unintentional misuse of consecrated property. With regard to <b>one who</b> mistakenly <b>contributes his shekel from consecrated</b> money, <b>and</b> then <b>the collection of</b> the chamber <b>was collected and an animal</b> purchased with those funds <b>was sacrificed</b> as a communal offering, he is guilty of <b>misuse of consecrated property</b> once the animal has been offered. This is because at that point the money used to purchase the animal is transferred to non-sacred status. However, before that point, merely contributing consecrated money is not considered misuse. If one mistakenly contributed his shekel from money used to redeem the fruits of the <b>second tithe or from money</b> from the permitted sale of produce grown during the <b>Sabbatical Year, he must eat</b> non-sacred fruits besides the ones he already possesses, <b>corresponding to</b> the value of the shekel, and he must treat them with the sanctity of second tithes or Sabbatical Year fruits.",
            "With regard to <b>one who gathers together</b> small <b>coins and said: These are for my shekel,</b> and subsequently discovered that it amounted to more than a half-shekel. <b>Beit Shammai say: The leftover</b> coins are placed in the collection horn designated for <b>a free-will offering,</b> as the money is consecrated property but it does not have the status of a shekel. <b>Beit Hillel say: The leftover</b> money <b>is non-sacred</b> property since, <i>ab initio</i>, he had in mind to consecrate a half-shekel and no more. An item that was consecrated by mistake does not have the status of consecrated property. However, if he originally said: I am gathering together this money so <b>that I will bring my shekel from these, they agree that the leftover</b> money <b>is non-sacred</b> property. If one who was obligated to bring a sin-offering gathered together coins and said: <b>These are for my sin-offering,</b> then if he had accumulated more than was needed, <b>they agree that the leftover</b> money must be designated as <b>a free-will offering.</b> However, if he originally said: <b>That I will bring my sin-offering from these, they agree that the leftover</b> money <b>is non-sacred</b> property.",
            "<b>Rabbi Shimon said: What is the difference between shekels and a sin-offering?</b> Why do Beit Hillel say that the leftover money is non-sacred property in the case of shekels, while with regard to a sin-offering they say that the leftover money is consecrated for a free-will offering? <b>Rather,</b> the issue is <b>that shekels have a fixed</b> value, a half-shekel and no more. Therefore, there is a clear amount beyond which one did not intend the money to become consecrated property. However, <b>a sin-offering has no fixed</b> value. Since the entire sum that one collected could have been used to purchase a sin-offering, whatever he didn’t use must at least be designated for a free-will offering. <b>Rabbi Yehuda says: Even for shekels there is no</b> real <b>fixed</b> value. <b>For when the Jewish people ascended from the exile, they would contribute darics,</b> which are Median coins worth two shekels by Torah law. They brought these coins with them and would give a half of one to fulfill their half-shekel obligation. Later on, when the Median Empire was dissolved, <b>they reverted to contributing</b> with <b>a <i>sela</i>,</b> a silver coin of equal weight to the the shekel mentioned in the Torah. People would contribute a half-<i>sela</i> for their half-shekel requirement. When the value of this currency changed later on, <b>they reverted to contributing</b> with <b>a <i>tiva</i>,</b> a different coin which is worth a half-shekel. Some people <b>wished to contribute</b> only <b>dinars,</b> which are half the value of the <b><i>tiva</i>,</b> i.e., one quarter shekel in value. The Sages <b>refused to accept it</b> and required them to contribute at least the half-shekel mentioned in the Torah. Nevertheless, it is clear that the obligation of contributing shekels does not have a fixed value. <b>Rabbi Shimon said</b> in response: <b>Even so,</b> despite the fact that during different periods there were different amounts used to fulfill the obligation of the half-shekel, <b>everyone has equal standing,</b> i.e., at any particular time, everyone contributes the same amount. Therefore, any sum collected beyond that amount was not intended to be consecrated. <b>However, a sin-offering</b> has no fixed amount whatsoever; <b>this</b> person may <b>bring</b> an animal <b>worth a <i>sela</i>, and that one</b> may <b>bring</b> one <b>worth two, and this one</b> may <b>bring</b> one <b>worth three.</b> Therefore, it cannot be supposed that there was no intention to consecrate the whole sum.",
            "<b>The leftover</b> money <b>from</b> what was set aside for <b>shekels is non-sacred</b> property, in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel in the previous mishna. The mishna now discusses similar cases for other sacred items: However, with regard to <b>the leftover</b> money <b>from</b> what one set aside to purchase <b>the tenth of an ephah</b> of fine flour for a meal-offering and <b>the leftover</b> money <b>from</b> what one set aside to purchase offerings that he is liable to sacrifice due to ritual impurity or a sin, such as <b>the pairs</b> of birds <b>of a <i>zav</i>, the pairs</b> of birds <b>of a <i>zava</i>, and the pairs</b> of birds <b>of a woman after childbirth, sin-offerings,</b> or <b>guilt-offerings,</b> in these cases, <b>its leftover</b> money must be used for <b>free-will offerings</b> that are offered as repletion of the altar, i.e., burnt-offerings sacrificed at times when the altar was idle. <b>This is the principle: Whatever</b> money <b>is designated for a sin-offering or for a guilt-offering, its leftover</b> money must be used for <b>a free-will offering. The leftover</b> money <b>from</b> what one set aside to purchase <b>a burnt-offering</b> that he owes, due to a vow or to volunteering, must be used <b>for</b> another <b>burnt-offering</b> that he will bring in the future. <b>The leftover</b> money <b>from</b> what one set aside to purchase fine flour for <b>a meal-offering</b> must be used <b>for</b> another <b>meal-offering. The leftover</b> money <b>from</b> what one set aside to purchase <b>a peace-offering</b> must be used <b>for</b> another <b>peace-offering.</b> <b>The leftover</b> money <b>from</b> what one set aside to purchase a lamb for his <b>Paschal lamb</b> is not used for another Paschal lamb, such as for the following year. Rather, it is used <b>for</b> purchasing <b>a peace-offering. The leftover</b> money <b>from</b> what one set aside to purchase sacrifices for a number of <b>nazirites</b> must be used to purchase sacrifices <b>for</b> other <b>nazirites. The leftover</b> money <b>from</b> what a single <b>nazirite</b> set aside for his own offering must be used <b>for a free-will offering.</b>  <b>The leftover</b> money collected <b>for</b> freeing unspecified <b>captives</b> must be allocated <b>to</b> freeing <b>captives. The leftover</b> money collected <b>for</b> freeing <b>a</b> specific <b>captive</b> is given as a gift <b>to that captive. The leftover</b> money collected as charity <b>for the poor</b> must be allocated <b>to the poor. The leftover</b> money collected for <b>a</b> specific <b>poor</b> person is given as a gift <b>to that poor</b> person. <b>The leftover</b> money collected <b>for</b> burying <b>the dead</b> must be allocated to burying <b>the dead. The leftover</b> money collected to bury or provide burial shrouds <b>for a</b> particular <b>deceased</b> person is given <b>to his heirs. Rabbi Meir says:</b> It is uncertain what should be done, and therefore <b>the leftover</b> money <b>for the deceased should be placed</b> in a safe place <b>until Elijah comes</b> and teaches what should be done. <b>Rabbi Natan says:</b> With <b>the leftover</b> money collected <b>for a deceased</b> person they <b>build a monument [<i>nefesh</i>] on his grave for him.</b>"
        ],
        [
            "<b>On three occasions during the year the</b> ceremony of the <b>collection of the</b> Temple treasury <b>chamber is performed.</b> During the ceremony, a priest enters the treasury chamber with three containers, lifts up [<i>torem</i>] some of the coins, and places them in the containers. These funds, known as the collection of the chamber, are used to purchase animals for communal offerings and other needs of the Temple. These three occasions are: <b>Half a month,</b> fifteen days, <b>before Passover,</b> on the day before the first of the month of Nisan; <b>half a month before <i>Shavuot</i>,</b> on or around the twentieth of Iyar; <b>half a month before the festival</b> of <i>Sukkot</i>, on the day before Rosh HaShana. <b>These</b> three days <b>are</b> also <b>the due dates</b> that were established by the Sages <b>for</b> the setting aside of <b>animal tithes.</b> On each of these days one is obligated to tithe the animals that were born during the intervening period, and it is prohibited for him to eat or sell them until he does so. <b>This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva.</b> <b>Ben Azzai says</b> that the dates established by the Sages for the setting aside of animal tithes are <b>the twenty-ninth of Adar, the first of Sivan, and the twenty-ninth of Av.</b> <b>Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say</b> that the dates for the animal tithes are <b>the first of Nisan, the first of Sivan, and the twenty-ninth of Elul.</b> <b>And why did</b> Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon <b>say the twenty-ninth of Elul and not the first of Tishrei,</b> as they said the first of Nisan and Sivan? <b>Because</b> the first of Tishrei <b>is</b> the <b>festival</b> of Rosh HaShana, <b>and it is not permitted to tithe on a Festival. Therefore,</b> the Sages <b>advanced</b> the day of tithing the animals born over the course of the summer <b>to the twenty-ninth of Elul.</b>",
            "The funds <b>are collected from the</b> Temple treasury <b>chamber with three baskets, each</b> measuring <b>three <i>se’a</i>. On</b> the baskets <b>is written,</b> respectively, <b><i>alef</i>, <i>beit</i>, <i>gimmel</i>,</b> based on the order in which the baskets are filled, to indicate from which basket coins should be taken to buy sacrifices. The coins were used in the order of their collection. <b>Rabbi Yishmael says:</b> The letters <b>written on them</b> were <b>in Greek, <i>alfa</i>, <i>beta</i>, <i>gamma</i>.</b> <b>The one who collects</b> the funds from the chamber <b>must not enter while wearing a cuffed garment</b> [<b><i>ḥafut</i></b>], <b>and not with a shoe, and not with a sandal, and not with phylacteries, and not with an amulet,</b> since all of these have places into which money can be inserted. The concern is that <b>perhaps</b> the one collecting the funds <b>will</b> one day <b>become poor, and</b> people <b>will say</b> that it is <b>because of the sin of</b> stealing the shekels of <b>the chamber</b> that <b>he became poor,</b> as they will suspect that he stole money and hid it in those places. <b>Or perhaps he will become rich and</b> people <b>will say</b> that <b>he became rich from</b> stealing <b>the funds of the chamber,</b> even though he did not actually do so. Even though one should not suspect someone of stealing consecrated shekels, the one collecting the funds from the chamber must nevertheless take these precautions, <b>as a person must appear justified before people just as he must appear justified before the Omnipresent [<i>HaMakom</i>], and it is stated: “And you shall be guiltless before the Lord and before Israel”</b> (Numbers 32:22). From here it may be inferred that it is not enough to be innocent before God; one must also be innocent before the Jewish people. Even in situations where there is little concern that one may commit a sin, the proper course is to remain above any possible suspicion of misconduct. <b>And the verse states: “So shall you find grace and good understanding in the sight of God and man”</b> (Proverbs 3:4).",
            "In order to indicate the importance that was attached to the ceremony of the collection of the Temple treasury chamber, the mishna relates that the members <b>of the house of Rabban Gamliel</b> desired that their shekels be the ones collected from the chamber and used for the purchase of the communal offerings. Each of them <b>would</b> therefore come to the Temple specifically on the day of the ceremony of the collection of the chamber, <b>enter</b> the chamber <b>with his shekel between his fingers, and toss it in front of the one collecting</b> the money so that he would see it and place it in the basket containing the money to be taken out of the chamber. Understanding what was happening, <b>the one collecting</b> the money from the chamber <b>would purposely push</b> this shekel <b>into the basket,</b> so that it would later be used to buy communal offerings. <b>The one collecting</b> the funds from the chamber may <b>not</b> begin to <b>collect</b> the money <b>until he asks</b> the Temple treasurers three times: <b>Shall I collect</b> the funds, <b>and they say to him: Collect</b> them, <b>collect</b> them, <b>collect</b> them, <b>three times.</b>",
            "The coins were stored in the Temple treasury in three large baskets, each measuring nine <i>se’a</i>. In the collection of the chamber ceremony, coins were removed from these baskets and placed in smaller baskets of three <i>se’a</i> each that were marked with letters (see the previous mishna on <i>daf</i> 8a). After <b>he collected the</b> funds <b>from the first</b> large basket and put them into one of the smaller baskets labeled with the letter <i>alef</i>, <b>he</b> immediately <b>covered with a leather cover</b> the large basket from which he had removed the money. After collecting funds <b>from the second</b> large basket, <b>he covered</b> it <b>with a leather cover</b> as well. But after collecting funds from <b>the third</b> large basket, <b>he did not cover</b> it. The mishna asks: <b>Why did he cover</b> the first two baskets? In order to mark them as already having had funds collected from them. In this way, there was no concern that <b>perhaps he would forget and</b> once again <b>collect</b> funds <b>from</b> a basket from which funds <b>had</b> already <b>been collected.</b> The mishna specifies the intent of the one collecting the funds from the baskets as he does so: <b>He collected</b> funds <b>from the first</b> basket <b>on behalf of</b> the people living in <b>Eretz Yisrael;</b> from <b>the second</b> basket <b>on behalf of</b> the people living in <b>the cities near</b> Eretz Yisrael; and from <b>the third</b> basket <b>on behalf of</b> the people living in <b>Babylonia, and on behalf of</b> the people living in <b>Media, and on behalf of</b> the people living in <b>the distant countries.</b>"
        ],
        [
            "At certain times of the year, half-shekels that had been donated to the Temple and stored in a chamber in the Temple were collected in order to be used for various purposes. The mishna asks: <b>The collection</b> of half-shekels, <b>what would they do with it? They</b> would <b>purchase</b> animals for the <b>daily offerings,</b> which were offered each morning and afternoon; <b>and</b> for <b>the additional offerings,</b> which were offered on Shabbat, the New Moon, and Festivals; <b>and</b> wine for <b>their libations;</b> barley for <b>the <i>omer</i></b> meal-offering; <b>and</b> wheat for both the <b>two loaves</b> offered on Shavuot <b>and the shewbread; and</b> animals for <b>all the communal offerings.</b> § The <b>guards of</b> the <b><i>sefiḥin</i>,</b> grain that grew without being purposely planted, <b>during the Sabbatical Year,</b> ensured that people did not take this ownerless grain, so that it remained available to be used for the <i>omer</i> and the offering of the two loaves. They <b>collect their wages from the collection of the</b> Temple treasury <b>chamber. Rabbi Yosei says: One who</b> so <b>desires</b> may <b>even volunteer</b> his services and guard the grain as <b>an unpaid bailee.</b> The Rabbis <b>said to him: Even you</b> must <b>say that</b> the <i>omer</i> and the two loaves <b>come only</b> <b>from communal</b> funds and not from any one individual. If one were to volunteer his services, he would acquire the grain for himself by guarding it and transporting it to the Temple. In that case, these offerings would have come from an individual. So that the offerings come solely from communal funds, the guards must receive payment from the half-shekels removed from the chamber.",
            "<b>The</b> red <b>heifer, the scapegoat, and the strip of crimson</b> wool used in the process of burning the red heifer all <b>come from the collection of the</b> Temple treasury <b>chamber,</b> despite the fact that they are not sacrificial offerings. The same is true for <b>the ramp</b> built from the Temple Mount to the location on the Mount of Olives, where they would slaughter the red <b>heifer; the ramp</b> built to lead the <b>scapegoat</b> out of the city; <b>the strip</b> of crimson wool <b>that was</b> tied <b>between its horns;</b> any repairs required for <b>the aqueduct</b> that ran through the Temple courtyard and <b>the walls of the city and its towers; and</b> for <b>all the needs of the city,</b> such as street repairs, security, and the like. All of these <b>come from the remains of the chamber,</b> i.e., from the money that remained in the chamber after the three collections of money were taken to use for communal offerings. <b>Abba Shaul says: The High Priests construct the ramp</b> for <b>the</b> red <b>heifer from their own</b> funds.",
            "<b>What would they do with the leftover remains of the chamber</b> after all the items mentioned above had been attended to? <b>They</b> would <b>purchase wine, oil, and fine flour</b> and sell them to those who needed them for their private offerings. <b>And the profit</b> from these sales would go <b>to consecrated</b> property, i.e., to the Temple treasury; this is <b>the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: One may not generate profit by</b> selling <b>consecrated</b> property, <b>neither</b> may one profit <b>from</b> funds set aside <b>for the poor.</b>",
            "<b>What would they do with the leftover</b> funds <b>of the collection</b> that had not been spent on communal offerings? They would purchase <b>golden plates</b> as a <b>coating for the</b> walls and floor of the <b>Holy of Holies. Rabbi Yishmael says: The leftover produce</b> was used to purchase the <b>repletion of the altar,</b> i.e., burnt-offerings sacrificed at times when the altar was idle. <b>The leftover</b> funds <b>of the collection</b> were used <b>to</b> purchase <b>sacred vessels.</b> <b>Rabbi Akiva says: The leftover</b> funds <b>of the collection</b> were used to purchase the animals used <b>for the repletion of the altar,</b> since they had originally been collected for offerings. <b>The leftover libations</b> were used <b>to</b> purchase <b>sacred vessels. Rabbi Ḥananya, the deputy [<i>segan</i>] High Priest, says: The leftover libations</b> were used to purchase animals for <b>the repletion of the altar,</b> while <b>the leftover</b> funds <b>of the collection</b> were used <b>to</b> purchase <b>sacred vessels.</b> Both <b>this</b> Sage, Rabbi Akiva, and <b>that</b> Sage, Rabbi Ḥananya, <b>did not agree</b> with Rabbi Yishmael’s opinion <b>with regard to the</b> leftover produce.",
            "<b>The leftover incense</b> from one year could not be used the following year, as it had been purchased with the shekels collected for the previous year. <b>What would be done with it</b> in order to make it usable? The Temple treasurers <b>would set aside</b> an amount <b>of it</b> equal to the value of <b>the wages of the artisans</b> who worked in the Temple. <b>They would</b> then <b>desacralize</b> that incense by transferring its sanctity <b>to the money</b> owed to <b>the artisans. They would</b> then <b>give</b> the incense <b>to the artisans as their wages.</b> Finally, <b>they would return and buy</b> back the incense from the artisans with funds <b>from the new collection</b> of shekels. <b>If the new</b> funds <b>come on time,</b> i.e., by the beginning of Nisan, <b>they purchase</b> the incense with funds <b>from the new collection</b> of shekels. <b>And if not,</b> they may still purchase it <b>from the old</b> collection, and it is valid.",
            "<b>One who consecrates</b> all <b>his possessions</b> without specifying for what purpose, his possessions are consecrated for Temple maintenance. <b>And</b> if <b>among them there are items</b> that are <b>suitable for</b> use as <b>communal offerings,</b> which may not be used for the maintenance of the Temple but only for sacrificial purposes, what is done with those items to remove their consecration for Temple maintenance, in order that they may be reconsecrated for sacrificial use? <b>They are given to</b> Temple <b>artisans as their wages,</b> and thereby they are desacralized; this is <b>the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Ben Azzai said to him: This is not the method</b> to be used. <b>Rather,</b> the same method that is used to desacralize the leftover incense, as is described in the previous mishna, should also be used here, i.e., <b>they set aside from</b> the consecrated items the equivalent of the value owed to the <b>artisans for their wages, and they desacralize them</b> by transferring their sanctity <b>onto</b> the <b>money</b> allocated <b>for the artisans’</b> wages, <b>and</b> then <b>they give those</b> items, which are no longer consecrated, <b>to the artisans as their wages.</b> According to both opinions, once the desacralized items are in the possession of the artisans, one of Temple treasurers <b>should repurchase those</b> items using money <b>from</b> that year’s <b>new collection of half-shekels,</b> consecrating them for sacrificial use during the coming year.",
            "In the case of <b>one who consecrates</b> all <b>his possessions</b> without specifying for what purpose, <b>and among them there is an animal that is suitable</b> to be sacrificed <b>on the altar, male</b> or <b>female,</b> what should be done with it? <b>Rabbi Eliezer says:</b> Since he did not specify otherwise, everything is consecrated for Temple maintenance. Therefore, any <b>males</b> should <b>be sold for the needs of burnt-offerings,</b> i.e., to individuals who will sacrifice them as such. <b>And</b> any <b>females,</b> since they cannot be brought as burnt-offerings, should <b>be sold for the needs of peace-offerings,</b> i.e., to individuals who will sacrifice them as such. <b>And their monetary value</b> that is received from their sale is <b>allocated with the rest of his property for Temple maintenance.</b> <b>Rabbi Yehoshua says:</b> Although he did not specify for what purpose he consecrated his possessions, it may be assumed that he intended the animals to be consecrated as burnt-offerings. Therefore, any <b>males</b> should <b>themselves be sacrificed as burnt-offerings, and</b> any <b>females,</b> since they cannot be brought as burnt-offerings, should <b>be sold for the needs of peace-offerings,</b> i.e., to individuals who will sacrifice them as such, <b>and their monetary value</b> that is received from their sale should be used to purchase and <b>bring burnt-offerings.</b> According to both opinions, <b>the rest of the possessions,</b> which are not suitable for sacrificial use, <b>are allocated for Temple maintenance.</b> <b>Rabbi Akiva said: I see the statement of Rabbi Eliezer</b> as more correct <b>than the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua, since Rabbi Eliezer applied his method equally</b> to both animals and other possessions in treating both as consecrated for Temple maintenance, whereas <b>Rabbi Yehoshua made a distinction</b> between them. <b>Rabbi Papeyyas said: I heard the statements of both of them</b> applied to different situations: <b>One who consecrates</b> all his possessions and <b>explicitly</b> states that his animals are to be included, clearly intends to equate his animals with the rest of his possessions, that both should be consecrated for the same purpose, i.e., for Temple maintenance. Therefore, he should act <b>in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Eliezer.</b> However, with regard to <b>one who consecrates</b> all his possessions <b>without</b> explicitly <b>specifying</b> that this includes his animals, since there is no reason to presume that he wishes them all to be consecrated for the same purpose, it is presumed that each item is consecrated for the purpose most suited to it. Therefore, he should act <b>in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua.</b>",
            " In the case of <b>one who consecrates</b> all <b>his possessions, and among them there were items that are suitable to</b> be sacrificed <b>on the altar,</b> such as <b>wines</b> for libations, <b>and oils</b> for meal-offerings, <b>and birds,</b> e.g., turtledoves or young pigeons, <b>Rabbi Eliezer says: They are sold for the needs of that kind</b> of item, i.e., to individuals who will use them as such. <b>And he should bring with their monetary value</b> that is received from their sale <b>burnt-offerings. And the rest of the possessions are allocated for Temple maintenance.</b>",
            "<b>Once every thirty days, the prices</b> at which the Temple supplies such as wine, flour, or oil will be purchased <b>are set for the</b> Temple <b>chamber.</b> This set price is implemented in the following way: <b>Any</b> merchant <b>who undertakes to provide fine flour</b> after the chamber set a price of <b>four</b> <i>se’a</i> per <i>sela</i>, even if the general market price rose and <b>stood at three</b> <i>se’a</i> per <i>sela</i>, <b>he must provide</b> fine flour based on the set price of <b>four</b> <i>se’a</i> per <i>sela</i>. However, if the chamber’s set price was <b>three</b> <i>se’a</i> per <i>sela</i>, and the general market price fell to <b>four</b> <i>se’a</i> per <i>sela</i>, <b>he must</b> now <b>provide</b> fine flour based on the new market price of <b>four</b> <i>se’a</i> per <i>sela</i>. This is in order <b>that the</b> Temple treasury of <b>consecrated</b> property always <b>has the upper hand.</b> <b>If the fine flour became wormy, it became wormy for</b> the merchant, i.e., he bears the loss of the ruined fine flour and must provide new fine flour in its place. Similarly, <b>if the wine turned to vinegar, it turned to vinegar for</b> the merchant. This is because the merchant <b>only receives,</b> i.e., earns, <b>his money once the altar is satisfied,</b> i.e., the transaction is only realized once the items have been sacrificed on the altar."
        ],
        [
            "<b>These are the officials who served</b> in specific positions <b>in the Temple: Yoḥanan ben Pineḥas</b> was responsible <b>for the seals.</b> One who paid for a specific type of sacrificial item received a seal, which he presented to the Temple official in exchange for that item. <b>Aḥiyya</b> was responsible <b>for the libations,</b> i.e., the wine, oil, and flour prepared with the level of ritual purity necessary for the libation offerings and the meal-offerings, which accompanied many animal offerings. Aḥiyya supplied the libations to those who presented the appropriate seal. <b>Matya ben Shmuel</b> was responsible <b>for the lotteries,</b> which were used to select priests for the various Temple services each day. <b>Petaḥya</b> was responsible <b>for the pairs</b> of birds, i.e., the turtledoves or pigeons, brought by a <i>zav</i>, a <i>zava</i>, a woman after childbirth, and a leper. They placed the appropriate sum of money into the horn designated for this purpose, and each day Petaḥya oversaw the purchase of birds from that money and their sacrifice in the proper manner. Incidentally, the Gemara mentions: <b>Petaḥya is Mordecai</b> from the book of Esther. <b>And why was he called Petaḥya,</b> which resembles the word for opening [<i>petaḥ</i>]? The reason is <b>that he would open,</b> i.e., elucidate, difficult <b>topics and interpret them</b> to the people, <b>and</b> because <b>he knew</b> all <b>seventy languages</b> known at the time. The mishna resumes the list of officials. <b>Ben Aḥiyya</b> was responsible <b>for</b> the care of the priests who suffered from <b>intestinal disease. Neḥunya</b> was the <b>well digger</b> for pilgrims on their way to Jerusalem for the Festivals. <b>Gevini</b> was the Temple <b>crier</b> who would awaken the priests and the Levites for their Temple duties. <b>Ben Gever</b> was responsible <b>for locking the</b> Temple <b>gates</b> in the evening and for unlocking them in the morning. <b>Ben Bevai</b> was <b>appointed over the shreds</b> of garments, which were formed into wicks for the Temple candelabra. He also supervised the twisting of those wicks into the appropriate thickness for the various nights during the different seasons of the year. <b>Ben Arza</b> was responsible <b>for the cymbal,</b> which was rung as a signal that the Levites should commence their song. <b>Hugras ben Levi</b> was responsible <b>for the song.</b> He taught and conducted the singers in the Temple. <b>The house of Garmu</b> was responsible <b>for the preparation of the shewbread; the house of Avtinas</b> was responsible <b>for the preparation of the incense; and Elazar</b> was responsible <b>for</b> weaving <b>the</b> Temple <b>curtains; and Pineḥas</b> was <b>the valet,</b> who assisted the priests in fitting their clothes and dressing themselves for their Temple service.",
            "<b>There must be no fewer than seven trustees [<i>amarkolin</i>] and three treasurers</b> appointed over the Temple administration. <b>And we do not appoint an authority over the public</b> comprised <b>of fewer than two</b> people, <b>except for ben Aḥiyya, who</b> was responsible <b>for</b> healing priests who suffered from <b>intestinal disease, and Elazar, who</b> was responsible <b>for</b> the weaving <b>of the</b> Temple <b>curtains.</b> The reason for these exceptions is <b>that the majority of the public accepted these</b> men <b>upon themselves</b> as officials who served without the assistance of even a single partner.",
            "This mishna provides details of the functions performed by Yoḥanan ben Pineḥas and Aḥiyya, the officials mentioned in the first mishna of this chapter, which concerns the seals and libations. <b>There were four seals in the Temple</b> that confirmed that the bearer had paid for the libations that accompanied his offering. <b>And</b> one of the following inscriptions was <b>written on them: Calf; male,</b> i.e., a ram; <b>kid; and sinner,</b> i.e., a leper, as leprosy is a punishment for one of seven sins (see <i>Arakhin</i> 16a). Conversely, <b>ben Azzai says: There were five</b> seals, <b>and</b> the following was <b>written upon them</b> in <b>Aramaic,</b> not Hebrew: <b>Calf, male, kid, poor sinner, and rich sinner.</b> The mishna explains the significance of each of the four aforementioned seals. The <b>calf</b> seal <b>serves</b> as a payment receipt <b>for libations of cattle</b> offerings, whether they are <b>large or small, male or female,</b> as all offerings from the cow family are accompanied by the same libation. The <b>kid</b> seal <b>serves for libations of sheep</b> or goat offerings, whether <b>large or small, male or female, except for those of rams</b> aged thirteen months and older. The <b>ram</b> seal, which was earlier called the male seal, <b>serves exclusively for ram libations.</b> The <b>sinner</b> seal <b>serves for libations of the three animal</b> offerings <b>of a leper,</b> for the completion of his purification.",
            "<b>One who seeks libations</b> for his offering <b>goes to Yoḥanan,</b> the official <b>who was responsible for the seals, and gives him</b> the appropriate sum of <b>money and receives a seal from him.</b> With that seal <b>he</b> subsequently <b>comes to Aḥiyya, who was responsible for the libations, and gives him</b> Yoḥanan’s <b>seal and receives</b> his <b>libations from him.</b> <b>In the evening,</b> Yoḥanan and Aḥiyya <b>would get together</b> to reconcile their accounts, <b>and Aḥiyya would take out the seals</b> he had received <b>and accept the money</b> Yoḥanan had received <b>in exchange for them. If</b> the money <b>was less</b> than the value of the seals, <b>they were less to him,</b> i.e., Yoḥanan would bear the loss, <b>and Yoḥanan would</b> have to <b>pay</b> the difference to the Temple treasury <b>from his own</b> property. <b>And if</b> there was some money <b>left over,</b> i.e., the total money was greater than the value of the seals, <b>they</b> were <b>left over to</b> the benefit of <b>the Temple treasury of consecrated property, as the Temple treasury</b> always <b>has the upper hand.</b>",
            "With regard to <b>one who lost his seal</b> that he purchased from Yoḥanan, Yoḥanan and <b>Aḥiyya would wait to</b> resolve <b>his</b> problem <b>until the evening. And</b> when they added their accounts in the evening, <b>if they found for him</b> a surplus of money <b>equivalent to</b> the value of <b>his seal, they would give him</b> the corresponding libations. <b>And if not, they would not give him</b> libations. <b>And the name of the day</b> of the week <b>was written upon</b> the seals <b>because of the cheats.</b> They might try to use old seals that had been lost by the Temple officials or by someone who had brought an offering at an earlier date, so as to receive libations in a deceitful manner.",
            "<b>There were two</b> special <b>chambers in the Temple, one</b> called <b>the chamber of secret</b> gifts <b>and</b> the other <b>one</b> called <b>the chamber of vessels.</b> The mishna explains the purpose of these chambers. In <b>the chamber of secret</b> gifts, <b>sin-fearing people put</b> money <b>secretly and poor people of noble descent support themselves from it secretly.</b> With regard to <b>the chamber of vessels, anyone who donates a vessel</b> to the Temple <b>drops it inside</b> that chamber, <b>and once every thirty days the treasurers open it. And any vessel that they found for it a use for Temple maintenance, they leave it</b> for that purpose, <b>and the rest are sold, and their monetary</b> value is <b>allocated to Temple maintenance.</b>"
        ],
        [
            "<b>There were thirteen</b> collection <b>horns,</b> narrow at the top and wide at the bottom, into which were placed the shekels that were collected for the various needs of the Temple. There <b>were</b> also <b>thirteen tables</b> for various purposes, and <b>thirteen prostrations in the Temple.</b> The members <b>of the household of Rabban Gamliel and</b> the members <b>of the household of Rabbi Ḥananya, the deputy High Priest, would prostrate</b> themselves <b>in fourteen</b> places. <b>And where was</b> this <b>extra</b> location? It was <b>facing the wood depository, as there was a tradition handed</b> down <b>to them from their fathers that the Ark was sequestered there.</b>",
            "The mishna relates that there was <b>an incident involving a certain priest who was going about</b> his duties <b>and saw</b> a certain <b>flagstone that was different from the others.</b> He noticed that one of the stones was slightly raised above the others, indicating that it had been removed and returned to its place. The priest understood that this was the opening to an underground tunnel where the Ark was concealed. <b>He came and said to his fellow</b> that he had noticed this deviation in the floor. <b>He did not manage to conclude</b> relating <b>the incident before his soul left him,</b> i.e., he died. Following this event, <b>they knew with certainty that the Ark was sequestered there</b> and that God had prevented that priest from revealing its location.",
            "The previous mishna mentioned that there were thirteen prostrations in the Temple. <b>Where were these prostrations?</b> There were <b>four in the north</b> of the courtyard, <b>four in the south, three in the east and two in the west,</b> as the thirteen prostrations were <b>facing the thirteen gates</b> of the Temple courtyard. The thirteen gates were as follows: <b>The southern ones,</b> listed in order, beginning with the one <b>adjacent to the western</b> side, were <b>the Upper Gate,</b> and the topography of the courtyard was such that there was an incline on the east-west plane, therefore the gate farthest to the west was higher than the other gates; <b>the Gate of Kindling,</b> through which the priests would bring the wood for the arrangement of fire on top of the altar; <b>the Gate of the Firstborn,</b> through which priests would bring the ritually pure firstborn animals to be sacrificed, as it is permitted to slaughter firstborn animals on the southern side of the courtyard; and <b>the Gate of Water.</b> The mishna elaborates: <b>And why was it named the Gate of Water? Since through it they would bring in the vial</b> <b>of</b> water for <b>the water libation on the festival</b> of <i>Sukkot</i>, as they would ceremoniously draw the water from the Pool of Siloam and bring it to the altar through this gate. <b>Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says:</b> There was a different reason for this name. It was called the Gate of Water because <b>through it the water would trickle [<i>mefakim</i>], and in the future</b> this water will increase and <b>go out from under the threshold of the House.</b> <b>Facing these</b> gates were the ones <b>in the north,</b> listed in order from the one <b>closest to the west: The Gate of Jeconiah; the Gate of the Offering,</b> through which they would bring the offerings of the most sacred order, as these could be slaughtered only in the northern part of the courtyard; <b>the Gate of Women,</b> where women would enter the courtyard to place their hands on the heads of their offerings; and <b>the Gate of Song,</b> through which they would bring the musical instruments into the courtyard. The mishna asks: <b>And why was it called the Gate of Jeconiah?</b> The reason is <b>that through it Jeconiah went out to his exile.</b> Before Jeconiah was exiled by Nebuchadnezzar to Babylon he came to take leave of the Temple, and he left through this gate. The mishna resumes the list with the gates <b>that</b> are <b>in the east: the Gate of Nicanor,</b> which was named after Nicanor, who brought the doors of this gate from Egypt (see <i>Yoma</i> 38a). <b>And</b> the Gate of Nicanor <b>had two wickets [<i>pishpeshin</i>], one on its right and one on its left. And</b> there were <b>two</b> gates <b>in the west that did not have a name,</b> making a total of thirteen gates.",
            "This mishna details the exact location and purpose of the thirteen tables in the Temple. There <b>were thirteen tables in the Temple. Eight</b> of them were made <b>of marble</b> and were located <b>in the slaughtering area,</b> north of the altar, where the priests would slaughter the offerings of the most sacred order. <b>Upon these</b> tables <b>they would wash the innards</b> of the offerings, as the marble was cool and preserved the freshness of the meat. <b>And</b> there were <b>two</b> more tables <b>on the western</b> side <b>of the ramp,</b> south of the altar, <b>one of marble and one of silver.On</b> the table <b>of marble they would place the limbs</b> before they were sacrificed, and from there the priests would bring them up to the altar. <b>On</b> the table made <b>of silver</b> they would place the ninety-three <b>sacred vessels</b> brought out from the Chamber of Vessels each morning for the services of that day. <b>And</b> there were <b>two</b> tables <b>in the Entrance Hall</b> to the Sanctuary, <b>on the inside</b> of the Entrance Hall, <b>near the opening to the Temple, one of marble and one of gold. On</b> the table <b>of marble they would put the shewbread before its entrance</b> to the Sanctuary after it was baked on the eve of Shabbat. <b>And</b> they would place the old shewbread <b>on</b> the table <b>of gold upon its exit</b> from the Sanctuary, to be divided among the priests. The reason the shewbread was placed on a marble table before being brought into the Sanctuary and on a golden one upon when removed from there is <b>that one elevates</b> to a higher level <b>in</b> matters of <b>sanctity and one does not downgrade.</b> Since it had been placed on the golden Shewbread table all week inside the Sanctuary, upon its removal it could not be derogated to a marble table and so was placed on a different golden table in the Entrance Hall. Finally, there was <b>one</b> table <b>of gold inside</b> the Sanctuary, i.e. the Shewbread table, <b>upon which the shewbread</b> was placed <b>always.</b>",
            "<b>There were thirteen</b> collection <b>horns in the Temple, and</b> the intended use of the funds <b>was written upon</b> each one, as follows: <b>New shekels, old shekels, pairs</b> of birds, <b>fledglings</b> designated for <b>burnt-offerings, wood</b> for the arrangement on the altar, <b>frankincense</b> that accompanied meal-offerings, and <b>gold</b> donated <b>for the Ark cover.</b> The remaining <b>six horns</b> were designated <b>for</b> communal <b>free-will offerings.</b> The horn labeled <b>new shekels</b> was designated for the half-shekel donation <b>that</b> was brought <b>every year</b> for the needs of that year. The horn labeled <b>old shekels</b> was for <b>one who did not bring</b> his half-shekel <b>the previous year,</b> who would <b>contribute his shekel for the following year.</b> The funds in the horn labeled <b>pairs</b> of birds <b>are</b> designated for the <b>turtledoves</b> used for bird-offerings, and the one labeled <b>fledglings</b> for <b>burnt-offerings are</b> used to purchase <b>young pigeons</b> as burnt-offerings. <b>All of these,</b> i.e., the funds in both horns, were used exclusively for voluntary <b>burnt-offerings.</b> This is <b>the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.</b> <b>And the Rabbis say:</b> The funds in both the horn labeled pairs of birds and the horn labeled fledglings were for young pigeons and turtledoves. The distinction between them is that the funds in the horn labeled <b>pairs</b> of birds were designated for the obligatory offerings of a <i>zav</i>, a <i>zava</i>, a woman after childbirth, and a leper. These offerings included a pair of birds, <b>one</b> brought for <b>a sin-offering, and</b> the other <b>one</b> brought for <b>a burnt-offering.</b> Conversely, the funds in the horn labeled <b>fledglings</b> for <b>burnt-offerings</b> were <b>all</b> used exclusively for voluntary <b>burnt-offerings.</b>",
            "<b>One who says:</b> It is incumbent <b>upon me</b> to donate <b>wood</b> to the Temple, must donate <b>no fewer than two logs</b> for the arrangement on the altar. One who says: It is incumbent upon me to donate <b>frankincense,</b> must donate <b>no less than a handful</b> of frankincense, the amount brought with a meal-offering. One who says: It is incumbent upon me to donate <b>gold,</b> must donate <b>no less than a dinar of gold.</b> It was stated that <b>six horns</b> were designated <b>for</b> communal <b>free-will offerings.</b> The Mishna asks: With regard to the money designated for communal <b>free-will offerings, what would they do with this</b> money? The Mishna answers that they used <b>it to purchase</b> animals for <b>burnt-offerings,</b> as <b>the meat</b> from these offerings was offered on the altar <b>to God and the hides</b> were given <b>to the priests.</b> <b>This midrash was taught</b> by <b>Jehoiada the High Priest:</b> There is an apparent contradiction between two verses. With regard to the guilt-offering, the verse states: <b>“It is a guilt-offering; he is certainly guilty before the Lord”</b> (Leviticus 5:19). This verse indicates that the guilt-offering goes to God, not the priests. However, a different verse states: “As is the sin-offering, so is the guilt-offering; there is one law for them; the priest who makes atonement with it, he shall have it” (Leviticus 7:7). This verse indicates that the offering is designated for the priests alone. How can these two verses be reconciled? The Mishna explains that <b>this is the principle: Any</b> funds <b>that come due to a sin-offering or due to a guilt-offering,</b> i.e., leftover coins designated for one of these offerings, <b>they</b> should be used for the <b>purchase of animals for a</b> voluntary <b>burnt-offering,</b> as <b>the meat</b> will be offered on the altar <b>to God, and the hides</b> will go <b>to the priests.</b> In this manner <b>the two verses are found</b> to be <b>fulfilled,</b> as it is both <b>a guilt-offering to God as well as a guilt-offering to the priest.</b> <b>And</b> this <i>halakha</i> also explains the verse that <b>says: “The guilt-offering money and the sin-offering money was not brought into the House of the Lord; it was for the priests”</b> (II Kings 12:17). This verse is understood to refer to the hides given to the priests."
        ],
        [
            "If <b>money was found</b> on the floor of the Temple <b>between</b> one of <b>the</b> collection horns marked <b>shekels and the</b> collection horn marked <b>free-will offerings,</b> that is to say, between the first and the thirteenth collection horns, in which funds contributed to the Temple were stored, the following distinctions apply: If the money was found <b>closer to the</b> horn marked <b>shekels, it is allocated to the shekels;</b> if it was found <b>closer to the</b> horn marked <b>free-will offerings, it is allocated to free-will offerings;</b> and if it was <b>equidistant</b> from the horn marked shekels and the horn marked free-will offerings, <b>it is allocated to free-will offerings.</b> If the money was found <b>between</b> the horn marked <b>wood and</b> the horn marked <b>frankincense,</b> that is, between the fifth and sixth horns, if it was <b>closer to the</b> horn marked <b>wood, it is allocated to wood;</b> if it was closer to <b>the</b> horn marked <b>frankincense, it is allocated to frankincense;</b> and if it was found <b>equidistant</b> from both, <b>it is allocated to frankincense.</b> If the money was found <b>between</b> the horn marked <b>pairs</b> of bird-offerings <b>and</b> the horn marked <b>doves for burnt-offerings,</b> i.e., between the third and the fourth horns, if it is <b>closer to the</b> horn marked <b>pairs</b> of bird-offerings, <b>it is allocated to pairs</b> of bird-offerings; if it was found <b>closer to</b> the horn marked <b>doves for burnt-offerings, it is allocated to doves for burnt-offerings;</b> and if it was found <b>equidistant</b> from both, <b>it is allocated to doves for burnt-offerings.</b> And similarly, if money was found anywhere else <b>between</b> a container for ordinary, <b>non-sacred</b> money <b>and</b> one containing <b>second-tithe</b> money, the following distinctions apply: If the money was found <b>closer to the non-sacred</b> money, <b>it is allocated to the non-sacred</b> money; if it was found closer to <b>second-tithe</b> money, <b>it is allocated to second-tithe</b> money; and if it was found <b>equidistant</b> from both, <b>it is allocated to second-tithe</b> money. <b>This is the principle:</b> In cases of doubt, the ruling <b>follows whichever is closer,</b> even if this involves <b>being lenient,</b> but if the money was found <b>equidistant</b> from both, the ruling follows whichever allocation involves <b>being stringent.</b>",
            "This mishna considers other situations in which something is found and its source is unknown. <b>Money found before animal merchants</b> in Jerusalem is <b>always</b> presumed to be second-<b>tithe</b> money. The presumption is based on the fact that in Jerusalem, most of the animals are bought with second-tithe money and sacrificed as peace-offerings. <b>And</b> money found <b>on the Temple Mount</b> is presumed to be <b>non-sacred</b> money. <b>And</b> with regard to money found <b>in</b> the rest of <b>Jerusalem,</b> the following distinction applies: If it was found <b>during the rest of the days of the year,</b> it is presumed to be <b>non-sacred</b> money, <b>but</b> if it was found <b>during the time of a pilgrim Festival,</b> it is <b>all</b> presumed to be second-<b>tithe</b> money, because most of the money found in Jerusalem at the time of a Festival is second-tithe money.",
            "The mishna continues: With regard to <b>meat that was found in the</b> Temple <b>courtyard,</b> and it is not known from whence it came, the <i>halakha</i> is as follows: If it is whole <b>limbs</b> of the animal, in the manner that burnt-offerings are brought to the altar, it is presumed to be <b>burnt-offerings. And</b> if it is in small <b>pieces,</b> it is presumed to be <b>sin-offerings. And</b> if the meat, in whatever form, is found <b>in</b> the city of <b>Jerusalem,</b> as opposed to the courtyard, it is presumed to be the meat of <b>peace-offerings,</b> as most of the meat in Jerusalem is the meat of peace-offerings. Since it is possible that the time during which it is permitted to eat any of it has already passed, both <b>this and that,</b> whether it is determined to be the meat of burnt-offerings or the meat of peace-offerings, <b>its form</b> must be allowed <b>to decay,</b> i.e., it must be left until it is definitely disqualified, <b>and</b> then <b>it must be taken out to the place of burning,</b> where offerings that have become disqualified are burned. With regard to meat <b>found in the outlying areas,</b> outside of Jerusalem, if it is in the form of whole <b>limbs,</b> the meat presumably comes from <b>carcasses</b> of animals that were not properly slaughtered, for meat unfit for eating was generally cut up into full limbs, to be fed to dogs or sold to gentiles. <b>But</b> if it is in small <b>pieces,</b> it is presumably kosher and <b>permitted</b> to be eaten, as kosher meat was ordinarily cut up into small pieces. <b>And</b> if meat is found <b>at the time of a Festival, when meat is plentiful,</b> so that it is generally not cut up into small pieces, then <b>even</b> whole <b>limbs are permitted</b> to be eaten.",
            "If <b>an animal</b> that is fit for the altar <b>was found</b> straying, <b>from Jerusalem and as far as Migdal Eder, and</b> similarly if it was found <b>within that distance</b> from Jerusalem <b>in any</b> other <b>direction,</b> it is presumed that the animal came from Jerusalem. Most of the animals in Jerusalem were designated for offerings, and presumably this one was as well. <b>Males</b> are presumed to be <b>burnt-offerings,</b> as only males are brought as burnt-offerings. <b>Females</b> are presumed to be <b>peace-offerings,</b> as it is permitted to bring a female peace-offering. <b>Rabbi Yehuda says:</b> An animal <b>that is fit for the Paschal offering,</b> i.e., a one-year-old male lamb or kid, is presumed to be <b>a Paschal offering,</b> provided that it was found <b>within thirty days before the Festival</b> of Passover.",
            "<b>Originally,</b> the court <b>would seize collateral from one who found</b> such an animal, as security <b>until he would bring with it the libations</b> associated with this offering, as if the found animal were his own and he had committed himself to bring the libations. This brought about a situation in which those who found the animals <b>began leaving them</b> where they found them, <b>and absconding,</b> so as not to become liable for the libations. <b>The court</b> therefore <b>instituted that the libations</b> accompanying these offerings <b>would come from public</b> funds, that is, from the Temple treasury.",
            "<b>Rabbi Shimon said: The court instituted seven ordinances</b> with regard to the financial aspects of offerings and consecrations. <b>And this</b> ordinance, namely, that the cost of the libations accompanying the sacrifice of a found animal is borne by the public, <b>is one of them.</b> These are the other ordinances: If <b>a gentile sent his burnt-offering from abroad,</b> outside Eretz Yisrael, <b>and he sent with it</b> money for the purchase of the <b>libations</b> that must accompany it, the libations <b>are offered at his</b> expense. <b>And if</b> the gentile <b>did not</b> cover the cost of the libations, it is a condition of the court that the libations are <b>sacrificed at the public’s</b> expense, with funds taken from the Temple treasury. <b>And likewise,</b> in the case of <b>a convert who died</b> without heirs <b>and left</b> animals that he had designated as <b>offerings. If he has the libations,</b> i.e., if he also had set aside libations or money for that purpose, the libations <b>are sacrificed from his</b> estate. <b>And if</b> he did <b>not</b> do so, the libations <b>are sacrificed from public</b> funds. <b>And</b> another ordinance: <b>It is a condition of the court with regard to a High Priest who died,</b> and a new High Priest had not yet been appointed in his place, <b>that his meal-offering,</b> i.e., the griddle-cake offering that the High Priest would bring each day from one-tenth of an ephah of flour, would be <b>sacrificed from public</b> funds. <b>Rabbi Yehuda says:</b> It was brought <b>from</b> the property of the High Priest’s <b>heirs,</b> i.e., his estate, and not from public funds. In any event, the offering was not brought as it would have been brought by the High Priest himself were he still alive, half in the morning and half in the evening, <b>but</b> rather <b>it was sacrificed</b> all at once, from a <b>whole</b> one-tenth of an ephah.",
            "The fourth ordinance was <b>about the salt</b> in the Temple that was designated for salting the offerings, <b>and</b> the fifth was <b>about the wood</b> that was used for the burning of the offerings. These ordinances decreed <b>that the priests may use them</b> also to prepare the meat of the offerings that they eat. <b>And</b> the sixth ordinance <b>concerned the</b> red <b>heifer: that</b> deriving benefit <b>from its ashes is not considered misusing</b> consecrated property. <b>And</b> the seventh ordinance was <b>about disqualified pairs</b> of bird-offerings: It ruled <b>that</b> their replacements <b>should come from public</b> funds. <b>Rabbi Yosei</b> disagreed and <b>says:</b> The expense does not fall upon the public, but rather upon <b>whoever supplies</b> all <b>the pairs</b> of bird-offerings to the Temple; <b>he must</b> also <b>supply,</b> at no additional charge, the replacements for <b>the disqualified</b> birds."
        ],
        [
            "The mishna discusses the ritual purity of items found either in the Temple or in Jerusalem and its environs, in continuation of the previous chapter’s discussion of found money, animals, or meat. <b>All the spittle that is found in Jerusalem is ritually pure.</b> Since neither ritually impure people nor gentiles were commonly present in Jerusalem, the Sages decreed an exception to the rule that spittle that is found is ritually impure since it presumably comes from one of those groups. This is the case <b>except for</b> spittle found <b>in the upper marketplace,</b> where gentiles and ritually impure Jews were likely to be present. This is <b>the statement of Rabbi Meir.</b> <b>Rabbi Yosei says: On all the other days of the year,</b> i.e., any day that is not on one of the three pilgrim Festivals, Passover, <i>Shavuot</i>, and <i>Sukkot</i>, spittle <b>that</b> is found <b>in the middle</b> of the street is <b>ritually impure,</b> and spittle <b>that</b> is found on <b>the sides</b> of the street is <b>ritually pure.</b> According to Rabbi Yosei, it was common for people who were ritually impure to be present in the streets of Jerusalem. They would be careful to walk in the middle of the street, while the ritually pure who wished to remain so would walk on the sides. Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that spittle found in the middle of the street is from one who is impure, while spittle found on the side of the street is from one who is pure. <b>But during the time of the Festival,</b> when most of the people in Jerusalem were there for the Festival and were ritually pure, the spittle found <b>in the middle</b> of the street was <b>ritually pure,</b> and that found on <b>the sides</b> of the street was <b>ritually impure.</b> The difference is <b>due to</b> the fact <b>that</b> at the time of the Festival, <b>the</b> ritually impure <b>minority moves to the sides</b> of the streets.",
            "The mishna continues: <b>All the vessels that are found in Jerusalem</b> on the <b>way down into the bathhouse,</b> wherein one purifies vessels in a ritual bath, are <b>ritually impure, and</b> those that are found on the <b>way up</b> are <b>ritually pure.</b> The mishna explains: <b>Their descent</b> into the bathhouse <b>is not</b> by the same route <b>as their ascent</b> out of it, and it can be assumed that those found on the way down have not yet been immersed, while those found on the way up have been. This is <b>the statement of Rabbi Meir.</b> However, <b>Rabbi Yosei says: They are all ritually pure, except for the basket, and the shovel, and the <i>meritza</i>, which are specifically used for graves,</b> to gather up the bones of the dead. These tools must be presumed to be ritually impure, but in general, vessels are presumed to be pure.",
            "The mishna continues with another ruling about ritual purity: One may <b>slaughter immediately with a knife that was found on the fourteenth</b> of Nisan, i.e., the day the Paschal lamb is slaughtered, and need not be concerned that it is ritually impure. Presumably it was immersed the day before so that it could be used to slaughter the Paschal offering. If he found it <b>on the thirteenth</b> of Nisan, he <b>immerses</b> it <b>again.</b> Perhaps its owners had not yet immersed it, since they still had time to do so before the evening. If one finds a <b>cleaver [<i>kofitz</i>],</b> which is used to slaughter an animal and break its bones, whether it was <b>on this</b> day, i.e., the fourteenth, or <b>on that</b> day, i.e., the thirteenth, <b>he immerses</b> it <b>again</b> out of doubt. Since breaking the bones of the Paschal lamb is prohibited, its owners would have no need for it on the fourteenth, and it cannot be presumed that it has already been immersed to make it ritually pure. However, if the <b>fourteenth occurs on Shabbat,</b> he may <b>slaughter with</b> the cleaver <b>immediately.</b> Since immersing a vessel is prohibited on Shabbat, and presumably the owner of the cleaver wants it to be ritually pure on the fifteenth, one can assume that he immersed it already on Friday, the thirteenth of Nisan. It is therefore ritually pure. If the cleaver was found <b>on the fifteenth</b> of Nisan, i.e., if it was found on the Festival itself, he may <b>slaughter with it immediately.</b> The owners of the cleaver would have immersed it so that they could use it on the fifteenth to cut up the bones of a Festival peace-offering. If the cleaver <b>was found attached to a knife, it is like a knife,</b> i.e., if it was found on the thirteenth of Nisan it is presumed impure, and if it was found on the fourteenth he may slaughter with it immediately, as it was certainly immersed on the day before.",
            "With regard to <b>a curtain that became ritually impure from a secondary source of impurity,</b> since its ritual impurity is by rabbinic law and not Torah law, there is no need to remove it from the Temple. Rather, <b>it is immersed inside</b> the Temple. <b>And</b> if it were removed to outside the courtyard in order to immerse it, <b>it</b> can <b>be brought</b> back into the courtyard <b>immediately.</b> Since it is ritually impure only by rabbinic law, there is no need to wait until sunset before returning it. But <b>if it became impure from a primary source of impurity,</b> e.g., it came into contact with the carcass of one of the eight creeping animals that confer impurity by Torah law, <b>it is immersed outside</b> the courtyard <b>and is spread out</b> to dry <b>on the rampart.</b> This is the low wall surrounding the Temple courtyard and the buildings within it, which has a lower level of holiness than the courtyard. The reason for this policy is <b>because the sun needs to set on it.</b> Immersion does not confer ritual purity on an item that became impure by Torah law until after the sun has set. And <b>if</b> this curtain <b>were new, it is spread out</b> to dry <b>on top of the bench [<i>itztabba</i>],</b> a prominent place on the Temple Mount, <b>so that the people</b> will <b>see its craftsmanship and perceive its beauty.</b>",
            "The Gemara discusses the aforementioned curtain that separated the Holy of Holies from the Sanctuary. <b>Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says in the name of Rabbi Shimon the son of the deputy</b> High Priest: The <b>curtain</b> has the <b>thickness of a handbreadth,</b> and <b>it is woven from seventy-two strands</b> of yarn. And <b>each and every strand</b> from those seventy-two is made from <b>twenty-four threads.</b> The curtain was made from four materials: Sky-blue wool, purple wool, scarlet wool, and fine linen, and a strand was made up of six threads of each type of material. And with regard to the dimensions of the curtain, <b>its length</b> was <b>forty cubits,</b> as the height of the ceiling of the Sanctuary; <b>and its width</b> was <b>twenty</b> cubits, to match the width of the entrance; <b>and</b> it <b>was made from eighty-two ten-thousands,</b> i.e., 820,000 golden dinar. <b>And they</b> used to <b>make two</b> new curtains <b>every year. And</b> the curtain was so heavy that they needed <b>three hundred priests</b> to carry it when they would <b>immerse it.</b>",
            "With regard to <b>the flesh of offerings of the most sacred order that became impure, whether</b> it became impure <b>from a primary source of impurity or from a secondary source of impurity, whether</b> it became impure <b>inside</b> the courtyard <b>or outside,</b> it must be burned. There is a dispute among the <i>tanna’im</i> with regard to where it is burned. <b>Beit Shammai say: It all should be burned inside</b> the Temple courtyard, <b>except for that which became impure from a primary source of ritual impurity outside,</b> as under such circumstances, it is not appropriate to bring it inside the Temple. <b>Beit Hillel say: It all should be burned outside</b> the Temple courtyard, <b>except for that which became ritually impure by a secondary source of impurity inside.</b> In such a case the flesh need not be removed from the courtyard and is burned there.",
            "<b>Rabbi Elazar says:</b> Flesh from offerings of the most sacred order <b>that became</b> ritually <b>impure from a primary source of ritual impurity, whether</b> it became so <b>inside</b> the courtyard <b>or outside, is burned outside.</b> Since its ritual impurity is of the most stringent type, it is not to be brought into the courtyard, or allowed to remain there. However, an item <b>that became ritually impure from a secondary source of ritual impurity, whether</b> it became ritually impure <b>outside or inside, is burned inside.</b> Since its ritual impurity is of a lenient type, it can be brought into the courtyard in order to be burned. <b>Rabbi Akiva says: The place of its impurity is where its burning should occur.</b> Therefore, regardless of whether the source is primary or secondary, such flesh is burned wherever it presently is.",
            "The <b>limbs of the daily offering</b> were not placed directly on the altar fire. Instead, after cutting up the offering, its limbs <b>were placed</b> first on the <b>ramp</b> of the altar, <b>from</b> the <b>halfway</b> point <b>and below,</b> on the lower sixteen cubits of the ramp, <b>on</b> its <b>western</b> side. Limbs <b>of</b> the <b>additional</b> offerings of the Shabbat and Festivals <b>were placed on the ramp from the halfway point and below on</b> its <b>eastern</b> side. <b>Additional New Moon offerings were placed on top of the upper part of the edge [<i>karkov</i>] of the altar.</b> Another law: The obligation to give <b>half-shekels</b> each year <b>and</b> to offer <b>the first fruits is practiced only in the presence of the Temple,</b>as fulfillment of these mitzvot is only possible then. <b>But</b> the mitzvot of produce tithes and <b>grain tithes and</b> of <b>animal tithes and of</b> the sanctified <b>firstborn</b> animals <b>are practiced whether</b> one is <b>in the presence of the Temple, or</b> one is <b>not in the presence of the Temple.</b> Although animal tithes and firstborn cannot be sacrificed without a Temple, once they develop a blemish, they may be eaten by their owners. If, in the present time when there is no Temple, <b>one consecrates shekels</b> for the mitzva of the half-shekel <b>or</b> fruits for the mitzva of <b>first fruits, they are consecrated,</b> and it is prohibited to derive benefit from them. <b>Rabbi Shimon says: One who declared first fruits to be consecrated,</b> in the present time, does not give them that status and they are <b>not consecrated.</b>"
        ]
    ],
    "versions": [
        [
            "William Davidson Edition - English",
            "https://korenpub.com/collections/the-noe-edition-koren-talmud-bavli-1"
        ]
    ],
    "heTitle": "משנה שקלים",
    "categories": [
        "Mishnah",
        "Seder Moed"
    ],
    "sectionNames": [
        "Chapter",
        "Mishnah"
    ]
}