Shekalim 10b (י:) — the Talmud in English

Halakha 2 – Mishna:

A red heifer

and the

goat sent away

to Azazel on Yom Kippur, and

the strip of crimson wool [

see the note, which explains three opinions of the Rishonim as to which strip of crimson wool is meant] –

come

they too

from the appropriation of the chamber.

The reason is that the Torah calls the red heifer by the designation “sin offering,” as it is stated: “It is water of sprinkling; it is a sin offering.” Therefore, its status is like that of offerings, which come from the appropriation of the chamber.

The crimson thread likewise has the status of an offering [see the preceding note regarding how it is associated with the offering], and therefore it too comes from the appropriation of the chamber.

The goat sent away comes from the appropriation of the chamber, even though it is not an offering sacrificed upon the altar, because it is written: “And from the assembly of the children of Israel he shall take two male goats for a sin offering: one for the Lord and one for Azazel.” And we derive from the wording “two male goats” that the two must be equal, both in their purchase price and in being taken together; from this we learn that both come from the appropriation of the chamber.

See the writings of Rabbi Hayyim and the Mikdash David, which elaborate on the nature of the goat sent away: whether it has the status of an offering, and whether the strip of crimson wool is associated with the offering.

b. The Mishna now enumerates the things that come from the coins remaining in the chamber after the three appropriations had been placed into the boxes [as we learned in chapter 3]:

The ramp for the heifer –

A sort of double bridge, one above the other, was constructed from the Temple Mount to the Mount of Olives, and the red heifer was brought out upon it, because of concern about impurity from an unknown grave.

And the ramp for the goat sent away –

which was constructed from the Court until outside the city, and the goat sent away to Azazel was taken out upon it, because of the people who would pull out the hair of the one leading it, in order to hasten him so that the sins would not remain upon Israel.

And the strip of crimson wool –

which they would tie between the horns of the goat sent away, to know whether the sins of Israel had been atoned for [for if it turned white, it was a sign that the sins had been atoned for].

And the water channel

that passed through the Court.

And the walls of the city and its towers, and all the other needs of the city –

they

came

from the funds of

the remainder of the chamber,

since none of these is required for offerings.

Abba Shaul says: The ramp

upon which they brought out

the

red

was made by High Priests from

their own money

themselves.

c.

The surplus of the remainder of the chamber,

the coins that remained in the chamber after all the needs mentioned above had been provided for –

what would they do with it?

They would purchase wine, oil, and fine flour with it,

and sell them to one who needed to bring a meal offering;

and the profit

that they earned from this would go

to the Temple treasury. These are the words of Rabbi Yishmael.

Rabbi Akiva says: They may not engage in profit-making [

they may not conduct commerce in order to earn a profit]

with consecrated funds,

as sometimes there is also a loss.

And they may not

engage in profit-making

with

charity funds

belonging to the poor,

when there are no poor, for the same reason. Rather, the money should remain deposited until poor people arrive.

d. The Mishna now explains what they would do with what remained in the boxes into which funds from the chamber had been appropriated.

For with the money remaining from the previous year they would not bring communal offerings, since communal offerings may be brought only from the new appropriation.

The surplus of the appropriation

that remained in the boxes on the first of Nisan –

what would they do with it?

Gold plates [

thin sheets of gold],

covering

the walls, ceiling, and floor

of the Holy of Holies.

Rabbi Yishmael says: The surplus of the produce [

and the Gemara explains what this is] – it is what they use

for the summer-offerings of the altar.

When the altar was idle, and the people were not bringing offerings, they would sacrifice burnt offerings called “communal voluntary offerings,” and from the surplus of the produce they would bring such burnt offerings.

These burnt offerings are called “the summer-offerings of the altar.”

Communal voluntary burnt offerings are called by this name because the word “summer” means “produce,” [II Samuel 16:2], and just as it is customary to bring fruit and sweets to the table at the end of a meal, so, after they had finished bringing the obligatory offerings of the day, they would bring these burnt offerings as a “dessert” for the altar.

But

the surplus of the appropriation

that remained in the boxes into which they had appropriated the shekels in the chamber, Rabbi Yishmael holds, was intended

to

purchase

sacred vessels.

For Rabbi Yishmael holds that the requirements of an offering have the status of an offering, and therefore they come from the funds from which the offerings are brought.

Rabbi Akiva says: From the surplus of the appropriation

that remained in the chamber they would purchase burnt offerings

for the summer-offerings of the altar,

as stated by the first tanna.

And

from the

surplus of the libations [

and the Gemara explains what this is] they would take

to

purchase

sacred vessels with it.

Rabbi Hanina, deputy of the priests, says: The surplus of the libations

was

for the summer-offerings of the altar.

And

if

the surplus of the appropriation

had been intended

for

the purchase of

sacred vessels.

Both of them,

Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Hanina, deputy of the priests,

would not agree

with Rabbi Yishmael

regarding the

surplus of

produce.

For they hold that there was no surplus of produce at all, since one may not engage in profit-making with consecrated funds.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna:

The ramp for the heifer

and the ramp for the goat sent away and the strip between its horns.

We find in the Torah three matters that require a “strip of wool” dyed red, called “crimson wool.”

Regarding this,

Rabbi Yishmael bar Naḥman in the name of Rabbi Yonatan said:

There are three strips

of red crimson wool

that

differ in their weights:

a.

The strip of crimson wool

for the goat

sent away, which they would tie between its horns, weighed

a sela.

Since it had to be divided in two, as we learned in tractate Yoma: Half was tied to the rock and half was tied between its horns, its weight was consequently substantial.

b.

The strip of crimson wool required for the purification of

the metzora,

to be immersed in the water sprinkled upon him, needed to weigh only

a shekel,

which is half a sela, since it did not need to be divided in two.

c.

The strip of crimson wool

for the

red heifer, which they cast into the burning of the heifer, had to be heavy enough to enable them to cast it in; therefore, it had to weigh

two selas.

Rabbi Ḥanoya of Beit Ḥavarin

said in the name of

Rabbi Ba bar Zavda in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Ḥalafta:

The strip of crimson wool

for the

red heifer weighed

two and a half selas.

And some state the matter differently [

and there are those who state this law in another formulation]: Its weight was

ten zuz.

There is no difference between the formulations, for a sela is four zuz; therefore, two and a half selas are ten zuz.

The Gemara now enumerates additional “performers of tasks” who received their wages from the appropriation of the chamber:

Rabbi

Yehuda said in the name of Rabbi Shmuel: Torah scholars who taught the priests the laws of slaughter, and the laws of receiving

the blood,

and the laws of sprinkling

the blood of offerings –

received their wages from the appropriation of the chamber.

Rabbi

Yitzḥak bar Redifa said in the name of Rabbi Imi: Those who inspected the blemishes of

animals

consecrated [

who were appointed to examine blemishes in animals] –

received their wages from the appropriation of the chamber.

Rabbi

Aḥa

said in the name of

Rabbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Simlai: Those who corrected the Torah scroll

that was kept

in the Court –

received their wages from the appropriation of the chamber.

Rabbi

Giddel bar Binyamin said in the name of Rabbi Asi: The two judges of robbery

who adjudicated cases of robbery in Jerusalem –

received their wages from the appropriation of the chamber.

Shmuel said: The women who wove the curtain

that separated the Sanctuary from the Holy of Holies –

received their wages from the appropriation of the chamber.

In the First Temple, Solomon built a wall one cubit wide [called the “cubit of traksin”] to separate the Sanctuary from the Holy of Holies. In the Second Temple, however, the ceiling was extremely high, and a partition wall could not be maintained at such a great height. Therefore, they made two curtains there, with a cubit between them.

Shmuel held that the women who wove these curtains received their wages from the appropriation of the chamber.

Rabbi Huna said:

They received their wages

from the appropriation for the repair of the Temple.

And the Gemara explains: In

what

did Rabbi Huna disagree with Shmuel?

Shmuel treated it

—he regarded the curtain

as vessels,

like sacred vessels purchased from the appropriation of the chamber.

But

Rav Huna treated it

—he regarded it

as construction,

since it took the place of the wall of the “cubit of traksin,” which was a structure in the Temple built by Solomon rather than a curtain; and structures were not built from the appropriation of the chamber, but from the funds that will be explained below.

Rabbi Ḥizkiya said: Rabbi Yehuda Gadgadot taught [

that was his name]:

The incense, and all communal offerings –

come from the appropriation of the chamber.

The golden altar,

which is movable and is considered a vessel,

and all sacred vessels –

come from the surplus of the libations [

from the profit accruing to the Temple through the libations, as explained below].

The altar of the burnt offering,

which is constructed,

and the Sanctuary and the Courts –

come

from the funds of [the version of the Vilna Gaon:

the appropriation for the repair of the Temple.]]

Structures that they built

outside the Courts,

such as the walls of the city and its towers –

come from the remainder of the chamber [the version of the Vilna Gaon].

the version of the Vilna Gaon]. [

That is, from the remainder left in the chamber after all the offerings of that year had been brought.

And we raise an objection: How could you say that the construction of Jerusalem, which is outside the Courts, comes from the remainder of the chamber?

And

isn’t it taught: The stones of Jerusalem –

one commits misuse with them!

But is there misuse with the remainder [

of the remainder of the chamber]?

And we answer: Indeed, there is misuse with the remainder,

in

accordance with the opinion of

Rabbi Meir.

For Rabbi Meir said: One commits misuse with the remainder.

Rabbi Ḥiyya said [

as an objection]:

Did Rabbi Meir say

that one commits misuse with the remainder that remained in the chamber

only during its year,

when it is still possible that this money will be needed for offerings if the money in the boxes is exhausted?

But after its year, when offerings are no longer brought from the remainder, he did not say that one commits misuse with it.

But here –

we are dealing with a period outside its year [

this is the case under discussion]. During its year, it is forbidden to use the money for other purposes, lest it be needed for communal offerings.

The Gemara leaves the objection unanswered.

Rabbi Ḥizkiya said: Rabbi Yehuda Gadgadot taught: The table, the menorah, the altars, and the curtain –

prevent the offerings from being brought,

for if any of them is missing, offerings may not be sacrificed,

according to Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say: You have no

matter

that prevents an offering except

the absence of

the basin and its stand

of the basin

alone.

And we raise an objection:

And

yet

didn’t Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yosei ben Ḥanina say so?

For

both of them

said

they said:

Anywhere

where

“opposite” is written

it

prevents

the service if it is missing.

As with the menorah, concerning which it is written: “And you shall place the menorah opposite the table.”

We learn from here that the absence of the menorah prevents the offerings from being brought.

But where

“side”

is written, as with the table, concerning which it is written: “And you shall place the table on the north side” –

it does not prevent

the offerings from being brought if it is missing.

And Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan: Even

a matter concerning which

“side” is written –

does prevent them.