Shekalim 10a (י.) — the Talmud in English

But

you too concede

and say

that

the Omer and the two loaves

may be brought only

from communal property.

If a person volunteers to guard the ownerless sefihin, it follows that he has acquired them, and the offering is not sacrificed from communal property but from the property of an individual.

Rabbi Yosei maintains that since he gives them over for the sake of the community, they become the property of the entire community, and the offering is no longer an individual’s offering.

The Sages maintain that this is an established principle: an individual’s offering cannot be transformed into a communal offering.

Gemara

The Mishna in tractate Ta’anit states that there were nine times during the year when the priests and certain families in Israel would volunteer wood to bring to the arrangement of wood on the altar.

Those times were festive days for them, on which eulogies and fasting were forbidden.

The Gemara asks:

Why was the time of the priests and the people’s wood listed

in the Mishna specifically as particular designated times? After all, anyone could volunteer and bring wood for the arrangement on the altar whenever he wished; if so, what was special about those times?

Rather, when the Israelites ascended from the exile

in the days of Ezra,

and found no wood in the chamber

for the arrangement of wood,

these people arose

those families

and volunteered wood from their own property, and gave it over to the community, and communal offerings were sacrificed from it.

And

in return for this,

the prophets stipulated with them

among them [such as Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, Ezra and Nehemiah]

that

from then on, forever, on those nine times listed in the Mishna in Ta’anit,

even if the chamber is full of wood, and the members

of these families

volunteer wood from their own property, no offering shall be brought except from theirs first.

Therefore they were listed in the Mishna, to inform you that their wood, on those times listed there, takes precedence over all the other wood in the chamber.

Rabbi Aḥa said:

This statement that wood for communal offerings may come from an individual’s property

is Rabbi Yosei’s view.

As Rabbi Yosei says

in the Mishna:

Even one who wishes—

may volunteer

to be

an unpaid guardian.

Although he acquired the grain through his guarding, nevertheless, since he gives it over to the community, it is a communal offering.

But according to the Sages, it is impossible to bring wood from an individual’s property, since even if he gives it over to the community, they maintain that an individual’s offering cannot be transformed into a communal offering.

Rabbi Yosei in the name of Rabbi Ila

said:

It is the view of everyone.

Everyone agrees that with regard to wood, even an individual may bring it and give it over to the community.

With regard to what do they disagree?

Specifically

with regard to the body of the offering,

which must come from communal property, and they were concerned that the individual might not give it over wholeheartedly.

But with regard to the requirements of an offering,

such as wood, which is not the offering itself—

everyone agrees

everyone agrees

that it is transformed from an individual’s offering into a communal offering.

That is, the requirements of a mitzva do not need to come from communal property at all.

And we find that Rabbi Aḥa and Rabbi Yosei also disagree regarding another law: whether the Sages agree that the requirements of an offering may come from an individual.

For it was taught: A woman,

who was the mother of the High Priest,

who made a white tunic

for her son the High Priest, to serve in it in the Sanctuary on Yom Kippur,

it is valid.

Provided that she gives it over to the community.

Rabbi Aḥa said:

This Mishna

is Rabbi Yosei’s view.

As Rabbi Yosei says: Even one who wishes

may volunteer

to be

an unpaid guardian

of the grain and then give it over to the community; and it is valid for the Omer and the two loaves, which are communal offerings.

But according to the Sages, we are concerned that he may not give it over wholeheartedly. Therefore this tunic too would not be valid according to the Sages, since it must belong to the community, and we are concerned that she may not give it over wholeheartedly.

Whereas

Rabbi Yosei in the name of Rabbi Ila

said:

It is the view of everyone.

And

with regard to what do they disagree?

The Sages disagree with Rabbi Yosei specifically

with regard to the body of the offering,

which must come from communal property.

But with regard to the requirements of an offering—

everyone agrees that it is transformed from an individual’s offering into a communal offering.

That is, the requirements of a communal offering are valid even when they come from an individual.

And we say:

Our Mishna

our Mishna

disagrees with Rabbi Aḥa. For it is evident from our Mishna that even according to the Sages, an offering of wood from an individual is sacrificed. This is as Rabbi Yosei in the name of Rabbi Ila said: The requirements of an offering are valid even when brought by an individual.

It was taught in a beraita in Megillat Ta’anit:

The beraita states:

Those days

of bringing the wood

were observed

by those families as festive days, both

when

the Temple was standing and they sacrificed

an offering,

and

when it was not the time of

sacrificing

the offering.

Rather, even after the destruction of the Temple, that day remained their festive day.

Rabbi Yosei says: They did not observe

these days as festive days

except when the offering was being sacrificed.

But after the destruction, when offerings were no longer sacrificed and they no longer brought wood, they did not observe those days as festive days.

Rabbi Eliezer son of Rabbi Tzadok said: We were among the descendants of Senaah son of Benjamin,

one of the families that brought wood for the offering. The time fixed for our family to bring wood was the tenth of Av.

And

it happened

that the Ninth of Av fell on Shabbat, and we postponed it until the conclusion of Shabbat.

That is, we fasted on the first day of the week, in accordance with the law of a postponed Ninth of Av.

We fasted

on that day

but did not complete

the fast; rather, we ate before the end of the day, so as not to fast for the entire day. For that day was the tenth of Av, and it was our festive day.

Rabbi Eliezer son of Rabbi Tzadok wished to prove from this that even when the Temple was not standing [as it was after the destruction, since they fasted on the Ninth of Av], and no offering was being sacrificed, they nevertheless observed that day as a festive day.

From this the Gemara proves that although Rabbi Eliezer son of Rabbi Tzadok was among the Sages who disagreed with Rabbi Yosei, even so, he treated that day as a festive day. It is therefore evident that individuals sacrificed an offering of wood.

It must necessarily be that the requirements of an offering are different, and everyone agrees that they may come from an individual. [We have explained the passage according to the version of the Vilna Gaon; there are other interpretations.]

There,

in tractate

Menaḥot, we learned: All offerings

of meal offerings

of an individual and of the community—

may be brought

both

from

the produce of

the Land and

both

from

the produce of

outside the Land.

Both

from the new

produce of this year

and

both

from the old

produce of the previous year.

Except for

the meal offering of

the Omer and the two loaves, which may be brought only from

the new grain and from

the

grain grown

in the Land

alone.

Rav Huna in the name of Rabbi Yirmeya said:

This Mishna

is Rabbi Yishmael’s view.

For

we find

that Rabbi Yishmael says: The Omer may not be brought from Syria,

although with regard to several laws Syria has the status of the Land of Israel.

It follows that, all the more so, the Omer may not be brought from outside the Land.

But the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yishmael and maintain that the Omer may be brought from Syria, likewise maintain that it may even be brought from outside the Land, contrary to the Mishna in Menaḥot.

There,

in tractate Kelim,

we learned: There are ten levels of sanctity

of the lands;

they are,

each higher than the next.

The Land of Israel—

is more sacred than all other lands.

And what is its sanctity?—

That from it they bring

the meal offering of

the Omer, the first fruits, and the two loaves, whereas they do not bring them from all other lands.

Rabbi

Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Yirmeya

said: This Mishna

is Rabbi Yishmael’s view!

Rabbi Yishmael said: The Omer may not be brought from Syria,

and by means of a kal va-chomer it may not be brought from the other lands. But the Rabbis, who disagree with him regarding Syria, likewise validate an Omer brought from the other lands.

There,

in tractate Shevi’it,

we learned:

That which is written: “Six days you shall labor, and on the seventh day you shall rest. In plowing and harvesting you shall rest” —

does not refer to Shabbat.

For with regard to Shabbat it has already been stated: “Six days you shall labor and perform all your labor. But the seventh day is a Shabbat to the Lord your God; you shall not perform any labor.”

Therefore, apply it to the Sabbatical year.

But even with regard to the Sabbatical year, it is not necessary to prohibit agricultural labor, as it is written: “You shall not sow, nor harvest its growth.”

And from the fact that it is again written, “In plowing and harvesting you shall rest,” they expounded to include:

Therefore

Rabbi Yishmael says:

This verse comes to teach that harvesting the Omer is permitted during the Sabbatical year.

For Scripture juxtaposed plowing and harvesting. And we derive the following from this juxtaposition:

Just as plowing,

which Scripture prohibited, is plowing for

“secular purposes”,

as there is no plowing for a mitzva at all,

so too harvesting,

which Scripture prohibited, refers only to harvesting for

secular purposes.

The harvesting of the Omer, which is a mitzva, is excluded;

therefore, it is permitted to harvest it during the Sabbatical year.

We learned in the Mishna: The guardians of sefihin during the Sabbatical year take their wages from the chamber’s collection.

And we say:

Who

is

the tanna

who maintains

that the guardians of sefihin during the Sabbatical year take their wages from the chamber’s collection?

It is Rabbi Yishmael’s view,

who maintains that the Omer may not be brought from Syria.

For according to the Sages, there would be no need to guard sefihin; they could bring barley for the Omer from Syria, where the prohibition of the Sabbatical year does not apply.

Rabbi Yosei said:

The Mishna

is the view of everyone,

and in any event an Omer brought from Syria is valid.

And this is what it is saying: If they

did not find

grain that had not yet been harvested

in Syria—

they bring it from the sefihin in the Land of Israel.

In that situation, guards are required, and they take their wages from the chamber’s collection.

The Gemara raises a question:

This

this

Omer,

if there are no grain sefihin from which to bring it—

what is the law with regard to sowing initially

barley initially in the Sabbatical year in order to bring the meal offering of the Omer from it?

Did Rabbi Yishmael permit sowing for this purpose just as he permitted harvesting during the Sabbatical year for the mitzva of bringing the Omer, or not?

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Adda asked before

challenged

Rabbi Mana:

How could it be possible for it to be permitted to sow barley during the Sabbatical year and bring the Omer from it?

After all, with regard to all meal offerings that are eaten, one takes a handful from them and burns it on the altar, thereby permitting the remainder to be eaten.

And if the taking of the handful does not permit the remainder, it is not considered a valid taking of the handful!

If so, with regard to the meal offering of the Omer from the Sabbatical year, even if harvesting it is permitted, how can it be valid?

Would it not then be like taking a handful from remainder that may not be eaten

? Since the remainder is forbidden to eat because it was sown during the Sabbatical year, it follows that the handful does not permit the remainder of the meal offering to be eaten, and the act of taking the handful is not valid!

He said to him

Rabbi Mana: Your question about whether it is permitted to sow during the Sabbatical year for the purpose of bringing the Omer is well founded; it does not matter to us that the remainder is not permitted.

For

it becomes

the matter

like

those

five matters

listed in tractate Pesaḥim, which

are brought

and sacrificed even when they are

in a state of ritual impurity, but may not be eaten in a state of ritual impurity.

The Omer and the two loaves are included among them; therefore, although the remainder is not eaten, the taking of the handful is nevertheless valid.

The Gemara now discusses how it is possible to pay the guards from the chamber’s collection, despite the fact that it is consecrated property and it is forbidden to use it for secular purposes because of misuse of consecrated property.

And we inquire about it: With regard to what we learned, that the guardians of sefihin take their wages from the chamber’s collection—

how does he

the treasurer who gives them their wages

do so?

How can he give them consecrated money? Consecrated property cannot become unconsecrated without redemption.

The Gemara explains: The treasurer

takes money from the money changer

as a loan,

and gives it to the reapers and the guards

as their wages

before

before

the Omer is sacrificed.

And

afterward he

brings money

of consecrated property

from the chamber’s collection, and redeems

the money

upon it,

upon the harvested Omer; through this, the Omer becomes consecrated and the money becomes unconsecrated. With this money, which has become unconsecrated, they repay the money changer for his loan.

The Gemara asks:

And

is it

proper to do this!?

That is, is it proper to act in this manner? The money owed to the guards and reapers is much greater than the value of the Omer; how can he redeem a large amount of money for a small value?

Rabbi

Yosei in the name of Rabbi Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Ba said: Whatever he gives

for the Omer during the Sabbatical year—

that is precisely its value from the outset!

The value of the Omer is assessed according to what must be invested in guarding it; and since guards are required, its value is substantial, equal to the cost of guarding it.

The tanna

also taught:

The stoneworkers

the ones who hew stones for the construction of the House

likewise

receive their wages in this manner, as he explains:

How does he do so?

He takes money

as a loan

from the money changer, and gives it to the quarrymen and stonecutters

as their wages

before the stone is placed upon the course

the row of stones in the building.

Once

the stone

has been placed upon the course—

he brings money from the chamber’s collection and redeems

the money

upon it,

and repays the money changer with the money that has become unconsecrated.

The Gemara also raises a difficulty regarding this:

And

is it

proper

to do

so?

The value of the building stone does not amount to the wages of the craftsmen; how can their wages be redeemed upon the stone?

Rabbi Yosei in the name of Rabbi Aḥa son of Rabbi Bun in the name of Shmuel said: Whatever he gives—

that is precisely its value at the outset!

Since the stones require hewing and dressing, their value is substantial, and they are worth the value of the labor invested in preparing them.