Shekalim 11a — the Talmud in English

And Rabbi Ila said in the name of ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

Rabbi Shmuel bar Nahmani: And even

where it is written

“place,”

namely, the Ark and the curtain, concerning which it is written “and he placed”—this

is indispensable.

And it is difficult concerning all these amoraim: Behold, the Sages said that only the basin and its base are indispensable.

Rabbi Hanina said: Here,

where those amoraim said that all these are indispensable, it is speaking

of the works that

they perform

inside

the Sanctuary.

And here,

where the Sages said that only the basin and its base are indispensable, it is speaking

of the works

that they perform

outside, on the outer altar.

Rabbi Hanina said: Arrogance [pride]

conceit]

there was among the sons of high priests

when they were appointed to the high priesthood.

For more than sixty talents of gold they would spend on it,

on the construction of a new ramp, which they would make in order to pass the red heifer upon it.

And even

though the ramp of the heifer

already

stood

built from former days,

none of them would take his heifer out on the ramp of his fellow.

Rather, he would demolish it and build it

anew

from his own

to display his wealth.

Rabbi Ulla objected [he raised an objection]

he challenged this argument]

before

Rabbi Mana:

Rabbi Mana:

How can we say that because of arrogance the high priests would not pass the heifer on a ramp built by the preceding high priest?

But it was taught: Shimon HaTzadik—

made two

red

heifers.

And

he did not take the one out on the ramp on which he took the other one out.

And

can you say

that

Shimon HaTzadik was arrogant [he was proud]?!

he was conceited]?!

And the Gemara asks: If so, if they did not make each ramp anew because of pride,

what is it now [what was the reason that they did so]?

what was the reason that they did so]?

And the Gemara explains:

because of the distinction [importance]

importance]

that there is in the heifer.

It is a refinement [honor]

respect]

of the heifer.

For because of the belovedness of the mitzva of the red heifer, they designated a ramp of its own for each heifer.

It was taught

in a beraita explaining the making of the ramp that they made for the red heifer:

Projections [stone protrusions]

stone protrusions]

and walls would extend from here and from there

from both sides of the ramp,

so that the priests would not look out

by extending their heads, because perhaps they would spread over a grave that was outside

and become impure.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Akiva says: One may not profit

from consecrated property:

And the Gemara explains that the reason is lest there be a loss to consecrated property. And one has no permission to profit from consecrated property.

Rather,

but

if he wishes [the one profiting agrees]

the person conducting the transaction agrees]

that the loss should be his and the profit should belong to consecrated property—

it is permitted

to profit from it.

As in this [as we find that]

as we find concerning]

Bar Zamina [that was his name]

that was his name], who

had a deposit of orphans’ money deposited with him [they deposited with him a treasure entrusted by orphans].

a deposit of orphans’ property was entrusted to him].

He came and asked Rabbi Mana:

whether he might profit with this money for the benefit of the orphans.

He said to him: If you want the loss to be yours and the profit to be for both of you, it is permitted. [If you want the loss to be yours, and the profit for both of you, then you are permitted to profit with their money.] [Even though in such a case, when one borrows from orphans’ funds and it is close to profit, that they will gain, and far from loss, this is the dust of interest, and it is forbidden to do so, with orphans they were lenient.]

if you want the loss to be yours and the profit to belong to both of you, you are permitted to profit from their money]. [

Although in such a case, when one borrows from orphans’ funds and they are close to profit, meaning that they are likely to gain, but far from loss, meaning that they are unlikely to suffer a loss, this constitutes a slight form of interest and is prohibited, the Sages were lenient in the case of orphans.]

And the Gemara relates:

Rabbi Hiyya bar Adda had a deposit of orphans’ money deposited with him, and he did so,

that he profited with it under this condition, that the loss would be upon him and the profit for him and the orphans.

We learned in the Mishna: Rabbi Yishmael says:

the surplus of produce

for the summer-offering of the altar:

And we say:

The Mishna is [according to] Rabbi Yishmael.

For he holds that one may profit from consecrated property, and “the surplus of produce” means the profit that came to consecrated property from the sale of the oils and the fine flour.

And

as

he said

Rabbi Hiyya bar Yosef,

who

interpreted the Mishna,

explaining the words of the Mishna: What is

“the surplus of produce”?—

the

profit

that comes

to consecrated property

from the sale of the oils and the fine flour. For consecrated property would buy cheaply and sell dearly to one who needed to bring libations.

And Rabbi Hiyya bar Yosef further explained:

“the surplus of libations,”

which we learned in the Mishna,

is this fourth se’a.

For the treasurers would give money to suppliers, so that they would supply them with wines, oils, and fine flour for the entire year.

And if the suppliers had undertaken to supply three se’ah for a sela, and [the price] decreased, and four se’ah stood for a sela, they were obligated to supply consecrated property four se’ah for a sela. And that fourth se’a is “the surplus of libations.”

And Rabbi Yohanan

disagrees in the interpretation of “the surplus of produce” and “the surplus of libations,” but

interpreted the Mishna [explained the Mishna]:

explained the Mishna]:

“The surplus of produce”

is this fourth se’a [as explained].

as explained above].

“The surplus of libations”

is for the heaped measures.

That is, the heap. When the suppliers measured for consecrated property, they would give a “heaped” measure, whereas what consecrated property supplied for the meal-offerings they would measure with a level measure. And the difference is “the surplus of libations.”

And the Gemara raises a difficulty concerning what Rabbi Hiyya explained, that “the surplus of libations” is this fourth se’a, and did not explain that it is the heaped measures:

And does Rabbi Hiyya bar Yosef not have

—does he not concede—

to

the fact that there were

heaped measures

in the Temple?

And we answer:

Rabbi Hezekiah said:

He concedes that there were heaped measures in the Temple, and that there was profit for consecrated property from them.

Rather, he holds:

What falls into the fourth se’a—

has fallen into the heaped measures!

To the place to which the profit from the fourth se’a goes, the profit that comes from the heaped measures also goes. For the law of both is one, and both are called “the surplus of libations.”

And in this he disagrees with Rabbi Yohanan, who explained that the fourth se’a is the surplus of produce.

And we say: Granted,

according to the view of Rabbi Hiyya bar Yosef,

who said that “the surplus of produce” means what consecrated property profited from the sales of the fine flour [according to Rabbi Hiyya bar Yosef]—

it is satisfactory

what Rabbi Akiva said:

One may not profit from consecrated property, and not even

profit

from the property of the poor.

And

therefore, both this and that,

Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Hanina, the deputy of the priests,

did not concede concerning the produce.

For both of them hold that one may not profit from consecrated property, and consequently there is no surplus of produce at all, since consecrated property did not profit from the sale of the fine flour.

But

according to the view of Rabbi Yohanan,

who said that “the surplus of produce” means the fourth se’a,

it is difficult:

Did Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Hanina, the deputy of the priests, not concede that such a matter existed in the Temple, that if the suppliers sold three se’ah for a sela, and [the price] decreased and stood at four se’ah, they would give the fourth se’a also to consecrated property?

But

it is a Mishna! For so

we learned: “If they stood at three se’ah, he supplies four”!

That is, if at the time of the purchase the price was three se’a for one sela, and now the price rose so that four se’a cost one sela, he must supply four se’a. It follows that the consecrated property gains one se’a.

That is, if at the time of the purchase the price was three se’ah for a sela, and now they became dearer and stood at four se’ah for a sela, he supplies four se’ah. And it follows that consecrated property profits a se’a.

And

if so, it is difficult: How will Rabbi Yohanan interpret

that which we learned, “both this and that did not concede concerning the produce”?

The Gemara answers: In fact, Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Hanina, the deputy of the priests, did concede that there was a surplus of produce.

Rather,

they did not concede in

the “law” of the surplus

of produce

according to Rabbi Yishmael, who holds that from the surplus of produce they would bring

for the summer-offering of the altar,

and they disagreed with him concerning this.

But they did concede

that there was a surplus of produce, but according to their view they would make

with

its value

service vessels.

And we ask: Since we say, “the heaped measures for service vessels,” without qualification, it implies that even from the heaped measures of the libations of an individual offering they would bring service vessels.

And it is difficult:

Until now [granted,]

the libations of offerings brought by

the heaped measures of

the libations of

the communal

offerings—they can properly purchase service vessels with them.

But how is it possible

even

from

the heaped measures of an individual

to bring service vessels?

And

is it not the case that

service vessels are found to come from an individual’s property!

For service vessels belong to the community, and they must come from the property of the community!?

The Gemara answers: Service vessels properly do come even from the property of an individual, since the individual hands them over to the community.

As in this that we learned [as we learned]:

And we say:

A woman who made a white tunic

for the priest to serve in it in the sacred service—it is valid.

Provided that she hands it over to the community.

Thus, through the individual handing his property over to the community, it is fit to serve as a service vessel.

And we say:

Until now [it is unnecessary to say]

the heaping of flour brought for meal-offerings] are used to bring burnt-offerings for the upkeep of the altar, even though they were not consecrated in a vessel.

the heaped measures of liquids,

the heap of wet substances, such as wines and oils, which are consecrated because at the time of measuring they became consecrated in a service vessel. And as we say in tractate Menahot, that a vessel used for measuring liquids [the vessel in which the wet substances are placed and measured] becomes consecrated, as below. Therefore, according to Rabbi Hanina, the deputy of the priests, they bring burnt-offerings from them for the summer-offering of the altar.

Rather,

even the heaped measures of dry substances [the heap of flour brought for meal-offerings]—from them also they bring burnt-offerings for the summer-offering of the altar, even though they did not become consecrated in a vessel.

liquid measure are

And

as that which we learned there

in Menahot [the version of the Vilna Gaon]:

The heaped measures of

a measure of

liquid—

consecrated.

The heaped measures of

a measure of

dry substance—

non-consecrated.

And why are the heaped measures

of a measure of

liquid

consecrated

?

Because a

vessel

for measuring liquids was anointed

with anointing oil

inside,

and became consecrated. Therefore, even the heaped measures, since they were inside the vessel, became consecrated.

And why are the heaped measures

of a measure of

dry substance non-consecrated?

Because a

vessel

for measuring dry substances was not anointed, neither inside

the vessel

nor outside.

That is, it was not anointed at all, and it did not become consecrated.

And what was inside became consecrated only through the sanctification of the mouth.

Therefore, what the donor needs is sanctified by his consecration, but what he does not need is not sanctified; and therefore the heap, which he does not need, is not consecrated through the sanctification of the donor’s mouth.

And all these heaped measures

have the following law:

if there is another sacrifice—

they are offered with it,

for the libations obligated for it.

And the heaped measures of liquids, since they became consecrated in a service vessel,

The remaining three maneh were brought by the High Priest, by the handful, as incense on Yom Kippur into the Holy of Holies.

if they remained overnight—

they became unfit through overnight lodging.

And if not,

if there is no other sacrifice with which to offer them—

they are sold for the summer-offering of the altar.

Thus we see that from all the heaped measures, that is, both from the heaped measures of a liquid measure and from the heaped measures of a dry measure, they purchase burnt-offerings for the summer-offering of the altar.

Halakha 3 — Mishna:

The incense was made once a year, and its weight was three hundred and sixty-eight maneh.

Three hundred and sixty-five [maneh] were used for the incense offered each day, one maneh per day.

And the three extra maneh, from them the high priest would bring the fullness of his handfuls of incense on Yom Kippur into the Holy of Holies.

And since only a small amount from the three maneh would enter his handfuls, there would remain every year, even in a leap year, “the surplus of the incense.”

And likewise there would remain a surplus of the incense in every ordinary year, since it has only three hundred and fifty-four days, and eleven maneh remained in it.

And the Mishna discusses what they would do with this surplus:

The surplus of the incense—

what would they do with it?

Because of the honor of the remaining incense, the Sages wanted it to be used also in the following year.

The simple method was to redeem its sanctity onto non-consecrated money by means of selling it, and then to buy it again with new shekels.

But the Sages did not want to treat it contemptuously by selling it as non-consecrated property. Therefore they instituted an honorable method by which it would leave its consecrated status through an honorable redemption, and then be purchased again from the new shekels.

a.

They set aside from it,

from the incense that remained, the value of

“the wages of the artisans”

who were engaged in the work of construction in the Temple, or in the work of the incense.

b.

And they redeem it [the sanctity of the incense]

c.

onto money

of the wages of

the artisans.

And that is,

they would

give it,

designating the incense, as payment

to the artisans, as their wages. And through this the sanctity of the incense was transferred to the wages of the artisans before it actually reached the hands of the artisans.

contribution.

For sanctity is transferred even onto a debt of wages owed to the artisans, and not only onto actual money.

And now the incense belongs to the artisans, since it is designated for them as wages, after its sanctity was transferred to the debt of their wages. But they had still not given it into the hands of the artisans; rather, they reached an agreement with them that they would sell it to consecrated property for the incense of the following year.

c.

And

again

they return and purchase it [the surplus of the incense]

from the artisans, since it is non-consecrated property in their hands.

And they pay the artisans for it

with

shekels from the

new

contribution

.

Thus, in practice, the incense was not actually given into the hands of the artisans; rather, it remained all the time in the possession of consecrated property.

d.

And the incense that was [available] on the thirtieth day of the month of Adar was dependent and pending:

how does he act?

If

the month

of Nisan

came at its proper time,

for they sanctified it on the thirtieth of Adar, and it follows that this day belongs to the new year—

they would purchase it from the new contribution,

since the new year had already entered, and the incense had to be brought from the new contribution.

And if not,

that they did not sanctify the month on the thirtieth of Adar, but Adar was “made full” with the thirtieth day, it follows that the thirtieth day of the month of Adar belongs to the passing year. They would take the incense for burning on that day, which belonged to the previous year,

from the old [contribution].

Gemara:

At this stage, the Gemara assumed that they did not redeem the surplus of the incense onto the debt of the artisans’ wages, but rather redeemed it onto the money of their wages that came from the chamber contribution.

And we inquire: How do they redeem the incense onto the money of the artisans’ wages?

And

is it not the case that

consecrated property is found to be redeemed onto consecrated property!

For the chamber contribution is also consecrated, and can consecrated property be redeemed onto consecrated property?!

And we answer: Rather,

how does he act?

Rabbi Shimon bar Bisna said: He brings [the treasurer]

the treasurer ]

money

from the chamber contribution, which is consecrated,

and redeems it onto

the stones of

the construction

of consecrated property in the following manner:

At first they would build in the Temple with stones that were non-consecrated, and only after the construction would they consecrate them, so that they would not benefit from the stones during the construction and come to misuse consecrated property.

And after the building had been built, he would bring this money and redeem it onto the stones, saying: Let the sanctity of the money take effect upon the building. Through this, the stones became consecrated and the money became non-consecrated.