Shekalim 10a — the Talmud in English

But

you too admit

and say

that

the Omer and the two loaves

come only ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

from the property of the public.

And if a person volunteered to guard the growths, which are ownerless, it follows that he acquired them, and the offering is not offered from the property of the public but from the property of an individual.

And Rabbi Yose holds: Since he gives them over for the sake of the public, they become the property of the entire public, and consequently it is no longer an individual’s offering.

And the Sages hold that it is a principle that an individual’s offering does not change into the designation of a communal offering.

Gemara

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

And those times were festivals for them, on which it was forbidden for them to mourn and to fast.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty:

Why was the time of the wood of the priests and the people enumerated

in the Mishna particularly as special times? After all, anyone may volunteer and bring wood for the arrangement whenever he wishes; if so, what is distinctive about those times?

Rather, when Israel came up from the exile

in the days of Ezra,

and they did not find wood in the chamber

for the fire of the arrangement,

these stood up [

those families ]

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

And

in reward for this

the prophets stipulated with them

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

that

from now on, forever, on those nine times enumerated in the Mishna in tractate Ta’anit,

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

the members of

these families stand up and volunteer wood from their own property, so that an offering may be brought only from theirs first.

And therefore they were enumerated in the Mishna, to inform you that their wood, on those times enumerated there, precedes all the other wood in the chamber.

Rabbi Aḥa said

that this matter which we say, that wood for communal offerings comes from an individual’s property—

it is Rabbi Yose’s.

For Rabbi Yose says

in the Mishna:

even one who wishes—

volunteers

of his own accord to be

an unpaid guard.

And although he acquired the produce through his guarding, nevertheless, since he gives it over to the public, it is a communal offering.

But according to the Sages, it is impossible to bring wood from an individual’s property, for even if he gives it over to the public, they hold that an individual’s offering does not change into a communal one.

Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Ila

said:

It is according to everyone.

For everyone agrees that, with regard to wood, even an individual may bring it and give it over to the public.

In what do they disagree,

specifically

with regard to the substance of the offering,

which must come from the property of the public, and they were concerned that the individual might not give it over properly.

But with regard to the requisites of an offering,

such as wood, which is not the offering itself—

everyone agrees [

everyone agrees ]

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

That is, the requisites of a mitzva do not at all need to be from the property of the public.

And we find that Rabbi Aḥa and Rabbi Yose disagreed regarding another law: whether the Sages agree with regard to the requisites of an offering that come from an individual’s property:

For it was taught: A woman,

who is 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 public.

Rabbi Aḥa said:

this Mishna—

is Rabbi Yose’s.

For Rabbi Yose says: Even one who wishes—

volunteers

to be

an unpaid guard

over the produce, and afterward gives it over to the public; and it is valid for the Omer and the two loaves, for they are communal offerings.

But according to the Sages, we are concerned that he may not give it over properly. Therefore this tunic too is not valid according to the Sages, for we require that it be from the property of the public, and we are concerned that she may not give it over properly.

Whereas

Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Ila

said:

It is according to everyone.

And

in what do they disagree,

the Sages with Rabbi Yose—specifically

with regard to the substance of the offering,

which must come from the property of the public.

But with regard to the requisites of an offering—

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

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

And we say:

The baraita

our Mishna

disagrees with Rabbi Aḥa.

For it is proven from our Mishna that even according to the Sages an offering of wood from an individual’s property is offered, as Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Ila said: the requisites of an offering are valid even when an individual brought them.

For it was taught in a beraita in the Scroll of Fasts:

Those days

of bringing the wood,

those families observe

a festival on them, both

when

the Temple is standing and they offered a

sacrifice,

and

when it is not the time of

offering

the sacrifice.

Rather, even after the destruction of the Temple, this was their festival.

Rabbi Yose says: They do not observe

a festival on these days,

except at the time of an offering alone.

But after the destruction, when they no longer offered sacrifices and again no longer brought wood, they did not observe a festival on those days.

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

one of the families that brought wood for the offering. And 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 the fast of the Ninth of Av on Sunday, in accordance with the law of a postponed Ninth of Av.

And we would fast

on that day,

but we would not complete

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

And Rabbi Eliezer son of Rabbi Tzadok wished to prove from this that even at a time when the Temple does not exist [for it was after the destruction, since they fasted on the Ninth of Av], and offerings are not offered, nevertheless they observed that day as a festival.

And from this the Gemara proves that although Rabbi Eliezer son of Rabbi Tzadok is among the Sages who disagree with Rabbi Yose, even so he regarded that day as a festival. And it is proven that individuals offered an offering of wood.

And necessarily, the requisites 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, and there are other explanations].

There

in tractate

Menaḥot we learned: All offerings [

meal-offerings ]

of the individual and of the public—

come

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 come only from

the new, and from

the

growth

in the Land

alone.

Rav Huna said in the name of Rabbi Yirmeya:

this Mishna

is Rabbi Yishmael’s.

For

we find

that Rabbi Yishmael says: The Omer does not come from Syria,

even though with regard to several laws Syria is like the Land of Israel.

And it is proven that all the more so the Omer does not come from outside the Land.

But the Sages, who disagree with Rabbi Yishmael and hold that the Omer comes from Syria, likewise hold that it may even come from outside the Land, contrary to the Mishna of Menaḥot.

There

in tractate Kelim

we learned: There are ten levels of sanctity

of the lands

which they have,

each one higher than the other.

The Land of Israel—

is more sacred than all the lands.

And what is its sanctity—

that they bring from it

the meal-offering of

the Omer, the first fruits, and the two loaves, which they do not bring likewise from all the lands.

Said

Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Yirmeya:

this Mishna—

is Rabbi Yishmael’s!

For Rabbi Yishmael said: The Omer does not come from Syria,

and by a kal va-chomer it does not come from the other lands either. But the Sages, who disagree regarding Syria, also deem valid an Omer that comes from the other lands.

There

in tractate Sheviit

we learned:

Concerning that which is written, “For six days you shall work, and on the seventh day you shall rest. In plowing and in reaping you shall rest” \-

it does not concern Shabbat.

For concerning Shabbat it was already stated: “For six days you shall work and perform all your labor. And the seventh day is Shabbat for Hashem your God; you shall perform no labor.”

And therefore, apply it to the Sabbatical year.

And even regarding the Sabbatical year it is not necessary to prohibit working the land, for it is written: “You shall not sow, and you shall not reap its growths.”

And since it is again written, “In plowing and in reaping you shall rest,” they expounded it to include:

And therefore

Rabbi Yishmael says:

This verse comes to teach the permission of reaping the Omer during the Sabbatical year.

For Scripture compared plowing to reaping. And we expound from the comparison as follows:

Just as plowing

which Scripture prohibited is plowing of

“optional”,

for there is no plowing that is a mitzva at all,

so too reaping

which Scripture prohibited, it prohibited only reaping of

“optional.”

The reaping of the Omer is excluded, since it is a mitzva,

and therefore it is permitted to reap it during the Sabbatical year.

We learned in the Mishna: The guards of the growths during the Sabbatical year take their wages from the collection of the chamber.

And we say:

Who

is

the tanna

who holds

that the guards of the growths during the Sabbatical year take their wages from the collection of the chamber?

It is Rabbi Yishmael,

who holds that the Omer does not come from Syria.

For according to the Sages, it was not necessary to guard growths; rather, they would bring barley for the Omer from Syria, where there is no prohibition of the Sabbatical year.

Rabbi Yose said:

the Mishna—

is according to everyone,

and in fact an Omer that comes from Syria is valid.

And this is what it says: If

they did not find

produce that had not yet been reaped

in Syria—

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

And in this manner guards are necessary, and they take their wages from the collection of the chamber.

And the Gemara is uncertain:

This [

this ]

Omer,

if there are no growths of produce from which to bring it—

what is the law of sowing initially [

from the outset ] barley during the Sabbatical year in order to bring the meal-offering of the Omer from it?

Is it that just as Rabbi Yishmael permitted reaping during the Sabbatical year for the sake of the mitzva of bringing the Omer, he likewise permitted sowing for that purpose, or not?

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Adda asked before [

raised a difficulty before ]

Rabbi Mana:

How can it be possible that it is permitted to sow barley during the Sabbatical year and to bring the Omer from it?

For with regard to all meal-offerings that are eaten, one takes a handful from them and burns it upon the altar, and through this he permits the remainder for eating.

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

And if so, with regard to the meal-offering of the Omer of the Sabbatical year, even if it is permitted to reap it, nevertheless how is it valid, and

is it not like “a handful taken from remainders that are not eaten”,

for the remainder is forbidden for eating since it was sown during the Sabbatical year, and it follows that the handful does not permit the remainder of the meal-offering for eating, and the service of taking the handful is not valid!

He said to him

Rabbi Mana: Properly have we asked whether it is permitted to sow during the Sabbatical year for the sake of bringing the Omer; we are not concerned that the remainder is not permitted.

For

it becomes

the matter

like

those

five things

that were enumerated in tractate Pesachim, that

come

and are offered even when they are

in a state of ritual impurity, and are not eaten in a state of ritual impurity.

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

And now the Gemara discusses the question of how it is possible to pay the guards from the collection of the chamber, although it is consecrated property, and it is forbidden to make ordinary use of it by the law of misuse.

And we inquire about it: With regard to what we learned, that the guards of the growths take their wages from the collection of the chamber—

how does he [

the treasurer who gives them their wages ]

do it?

How does he give them consecrated money? For consecrated property does not leave its consecrated status without redemption.

And 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 offered.

And

afterward

he brings money

of consecrated property

from the collection of the chamber, and redeems

the money

with it, [

upon the reaped Omer ], ועל ידי כן העומר מתקדש והמעות יוצאין לחולין. ואת המעות האלו שיוצאין לחולין פורעין לשולחני עבור הלואתוand through this the Omer becomes consecrated and the money leaves its consecrated status. And with this money, which leaves its consecrated status, they repay the money changer for his loan.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty:

And

for

is this good!?

That is, is it good to do so? The money that he owes the guards and the reapers is much greater than the value of the Omer; how can he redeem a large amount of money for a small value?

Said

Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Ba: Whatever he gives

corresponding to the Omer during the Sabbatical year—

that is precisely its value from the outset!

For they calculate the value of the Omer according to what must be invested in guarding it, and since it requires guards, its value is great, corresponding to the cost of guarding.

A tanna taught:

Even

with regard to the stonecutters [

who hew stones ] for the construction of the House,

so

he does in giving their wages, as he explains:

How does he do it?

He takes money

as a loan

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

as their wages

before the stone is placed upon the course [

the row of stones in the building ].

And once it has been placed

the stone

upon the course—

he brings money from the collection of the chamber, and redeems

the money

with it,

and he repays the money that has left its consecrated status to the money changer.

And the Gemara also raises a difficulty concerning this:

And

for

is it good

to do

so?

For the value of the building stone does not rise to the amount of the craftsmen’s wages, so how can their wages be redeemed upon the stone?

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

that is precisely its value at the outset!

For since the stones required hewing, their value is great, and they are worth the value of the labor invested in making them.