Shekalim 11a (יא.) — the Talmud in English

And Rabbi Ila said in the name of

Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman: And even

where it is written

“place,”

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

is indispensable.

This poses a difficulty for all these amoraim: The Sages said that the only things whose absence is indispensable are the basin and its base.

Rabbi Ḥanina said: Here,

when those amoraim said that all these things are indispensable, they were referring to

the rites that

are performed

inside

the Sanctuary.

And here,

when the Sages said that the only things whose absence is indispensable are the basin and its base, they were referring to

the rites

performed

outside, on the outer altar.

Rabbi Ḥanina said: There was great arrogance [

pride ]

among the sons of High Priests

when they were appointed to the High Priesthood.

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

constructing a new ramp, which they made so that the red heifer could be transported along it.

And even

though the ramp for the heifer

was already

standing,

having been built in earlier times,

none of them would transport his heifer on the ramp built by his predecessor.

Rather, he would dismantle it and rebuild it

anew

at his own expense,

to display his wealth.

Rabbi Ulla raised an objection [

challenged ]

before [

in the presence of ]

Rabbi Mana:

How can we say that, because of arrogance, the High Priests would not transport the heifer on a ramp built by the preceding High Priest?

But was it not taught: Shimon HaTzaddik—

he made two

red

heifers.

And

he did not transport one of them on the ramp on which he had transported the other.

And do

you have grounds to say

that

Shimon HaTzaddik was arrogant [

was prideful ]?!

The Gemara asks: If so, if they did not rebuild each ramp because of pride,

what, then, [

what was the reason they did so ] ]?

The Gemara explains:

It was in recognition of the elevated status [

importance ]

of the heifer.

It was an enhancement [

honor ]

of the heifer.

Because the mitzva of the red heifer was especially cherished, they designated a separate ramp for each heifer.

It was taught

in a baraita explaining the construction of the ramp made for the red heifer:

Projections [

stone protrusions ]

and walls extended from here and there,

from both sides of the ramp,

so that the priests would not peer out

by extending their heads, lest they overhang a grave located outside and

become impure.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Akiva says: One may not profit

from consecrated property:

The Gemara explains that the reason is lest there be a loss to the sacred funds. One is not permitted to profit from consecrated property.

However,

but

if he wishes [

the person seeking to profit agrees ]

that any loss will be his, while the profit will go to the sacred funds—

it is permitted

to profit from it.

This is like [

as we find concerning ]

Bar Zamina [

that was his name ],

a fund belonging to orphans was deposited with him [

they entrusted him with a deposit of money belonging to orphans ].

He came and asked Rabbi Mana:

May he invest this money for the benefit of the orphans?

He said to him: If you want the loss to be yours and the profit to belong to both of you, it is permitted [

if you want the loss to be yours and the profit to be shared by both of you, you may profit from their money ]. [

Although in such a case, when one borrows from the orphans’ funds and the arrangement is close to profit, in that they will gain, and distant from loss, this is a form of interest, and it is forbidden to do so; the Sages were lenient in the case of orphans. ]

The Gemara relates:

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Adda had a fund belonging to orphans deposited with him, and he did so,

investing it on this condition: the loss would be his, and the profit would belong to him and to the orphans.

We learned in the Mishna: Rabbi Yishmael says:

The surplus of the produce

is for the maintenance of the altar:

And we say:

The Mishna is in accordance with Rabbi Yishmael.

He holds that one may profit from consecrated property, and “the surplus of the produce” means the profit that accrued to the sacred funds from the sale of the oils and fine flour.

And

as

said

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef,

who

interpreted the Mishna,

explaining the meaning of

“the surplus of the produce,”

it is

the profit

that came

to the sacred funds

from the sale of the oils and fine flour. The sacred funds would purchase them cheaply and sell them at a higher price to those who needed to bring libations.

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef further explained:

“The surplus of the libations,”

which we learned in the Mishna,

is the additional se’a.

The treasurers would give money to suppliers to provide them with wine, oil, and fine flour for the entire year.

If the suppliers had undertaken to provide three se’a for a sela, and the price dropped so that four se’a were available for a sela, they were obligated to provide the sacred funds with four se’a for a sela. That fourth se’a is “the surplus of the libations.”

And Rabbi Yoḥanan

disagrees concerning the interpretation of the surplus of the produce and the surplus of the libations. Rather, he

interpreted the Mishna [

explained the Mishna ] as follows:

“The surplus of the produce”

is the additional se’a [

as explained ].

“The surplus of the libations”

refers to the overflows.

That is, the heaping. When the suppliers measured out commodities for the sacred funds, they would give a heaping measure, whereas whatever the sacred funds supplied for meal-offerings was measured in a level measure. The difference is “the surplus of the libations.”

The Gemara raises a difficulty concerning Rabbi Ḥiyya’s interpretation that the surplus of the libations is the additional se’a, rather than the overflows:

Does Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef not hold,

that is, does he not concede

to

the fact that there were

overflows

in the Temple?

And we answer:

Rabbi Ḥizkiya said:

He concedes that there were overflows in the Temple and that they generated profit for the sacred funds.

However, he holds:

What falls into the additional se’a—

falls into the overflows!

The place to which the profit from the additional se’a goes is also the place to which the profit from the overflows goes. The two have the same legal status, and both are called “the surplus of the libations.”

In this he disagrees with Rabbi Yoḥanan, who explained that the additional se’a is the surplus of the produce.

And we say: Granted,

according to the opinion of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef,

who said that “the surplus of the produce” means the profit that the sacred funds earned from sales of the fine flour [according to Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef ]—

it is understandable

what Rabbi Akiva said:

One may not profit from consecrated property, and likewise one may not

profit

from the property of the poor.

And

therefore, both of them,

Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Ḥanina, the deputy High Priest,

did not concede with regard to the produce.

For both held that one may not profit from consecrated property, and consequently there was no surplus of the produce at all, since the sacred funds did not profit from the sale of the fine flour.

However,

according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan,

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

there is a difficulty:

Did Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Ḥanina, the deputy High Priest, not concede that such a situation existed in the Temple, namely, that if the suppliers sold three se’a for a sela, and the price dropped so that four se’a were available for a sela, they would also give the fourth se’a to the sacred funds?

But

it is a Mishna! For

we learned as follows: “If the price rose from three se’a, he must supply four”!

[The quoted Mishna reads: “If they stood at three se’a, he shall supply four.” ]

That is, if at the time of the purchase the price was three se’a for a sela, and now the price rose and four se’a were available for a sela, he must supply four se’a. The sacred funds consequently gain one se’a.

And

if so, there is a difficulty: How does Rabbi Yoḥanan interpret

that which we learned: “Both of them did not concede with regard to the produce”?

The Gemara answers: Indeed, Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Ḥanina, the deputy High Priest, conceded that there was a surplus of the produce.

However, they

did not concede to the

“law” of the surplus of

the produce

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

for the maintenance of the altar,

and they disagreed with him on this point.

But they did concede

that there was a surplus of the produce; however, in their view they would make

from

its value

sacred-service vessels.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Since we say “overflows for sacred-service vessels” without qualification, it appears that they would make sacred-service vessels even from the overflows of the libations of an individual offering.

The difficulty is:

At this point [

granted ]

the overflows

of the libations of

communal

offerings can properly be used to purchase sacred-service vessels.

But how is it possible

even

from

the overflows of an individual’s offering

to make sacred-service vessels?

And

is it not the case that

sacred-service vessels are acquired only from communal funds!

After all, they are communal sacred-service vessels, and they must be acquired from communal funds?!

The Gemara answers: Sacred-service vessels may properly be acquired even from an individual’s funds, because the individual transfers them to the community.

As we learned: [

as we have learned ]

A woman who made a white tunic

for the priest to serve in it in the Sanctuary—it is fit.

Provided that she transfers it to the community.

Thus, by virtue of the individual transferring his property to the community, it is fit for use as a sacred-service vessel.

And we say:

At this point [

it is unnecessary to say ]

the overflows of liquids,

the heaping of liquid substances, such as wine and oil, which become sacred because they were consecrated in a sacred-service vessel at the time of measurement. As it is said in tractate Menahot, the vessel used to measure liquids [the vessel in which liquid substances are placed and measured] becomes sacred, as will be explained below. Therefore, according to Rabbi Ḥanina, the deputy High Priest, burnt-offerings for the maintenance of the altar are brought from them.

Rather,

even the overflows of dry substances [

the heaping of flour brought for meal-offerings ] are used to bring burnt-offerings for the maintenance of the altar, despite the fact that they were not consecrated in a vessel.

And

as that which we learned there

in tractate Menahot [the version of the Vilna Gaon ]:

The overflows

of the measure of

liquid substances—

are sacred.

The overflows

of the measure of

dry substances—

are non-sacred.

And why are the overflows

of the measure of

liquid substances

themselves

sacred?

Because

the

vessel used to measure liquids was anointed

with the anointing oil

on the inside,

and thereby became sacred. Therefore, since the overflows were inside the vessel, they too became sacred.

And why are the overflows

of the measure of

dry substances non-sacred?

Because

the

vessel used to measure dry substances was not anointed, either on the inside

of the vessel

or on the outside.

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

And what was inside it became sacred only through verbal consecration.

Therefore, whatever the donor requires is consecrated through his consecration, but whatever he does not require is not consecrated. Consequently, the heaping, which he does not require, is not consecrated through the donor’s verbal consecration.

And all these overflows of the measures

have the following status:

If there is another sacrifice—

they are brought together with it,

as the libations required for it.

And

the liquid overflows, since they became sacred in a sacred-service vessel,

if they remained overnight—

are disqualified by overnight stay.

But if not,

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

they are sold for the maintenance of the altar.

We see, then, that from all the overflows of the measures—that is, both the overflows of the measure of liquids and the overflows of the measure of dry substances—burnt-offerings for the maintenance of the altar are purchased.

Halakha 3 — Mishna:

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

Three hundred sixty-five of them were used for the incense offered each day, one maneh per day.

And from the remaining three maneh, the High Priest would bring the amount that filled his handfuls of incense on Yom Kippur into the Holy of Holies.

Since only a small amount of the three maneh entered his handfuls, there remained each year—even in a leap year—“the surplus of the incense.”

There also remained a surplus of incense in an ordinary year, since it consists of only 354 days, leaving eleven maneh.

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 due to the remaining incense, the Sages wanted it to be used during the following year as well.

The straightforward method would have been to redeem its sanctity onto non-sacred money by selling it, and then to purchase it again using the new shekels.

However, the Sages did not want to treat it disrespectfully by selling it for non-sacred use. Therefore, they instituted an honorable procedure through which it would leave the status of sacred property by means of an honorable redemption, and would then be purchased again with the new shekels.

a.

They set aside from it,

from the remaining incense, the value of

“the wages of the artisans,”

who were engaged in construction work in the Temple or in preparing the incense.

b.

And they redeemed it [

the sanctity of the incense ]

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.

In this manner, the sanctity of the incense was transferred to the artisans’ wage debt before the incense actually reached the artisans.

For sanctity can be transferred even onto a debt for labor owed to the artisans, and not only onto money that is physically present.

The incense now belonged to the artisans, as it had been designated for them as wages, after its sanctity had been transferred to their wage debt. However, they still had not given it to the artisans; rather, they reached an agreement with them that the artisans would sell it back to the sacred funds for use as incense during the following year.

c.

And

again

they would return and purchase it [

the surplus of the incense ] from the artisans, since it was non-sacred property in their possession.

And they would pay the artisans for it

with

shekels from the

new

contribution

of the new

contribution.

d.

And

the incense on the thirtieth day of the month of Adar remained in a state of uncertainty:

If

the month

of Nisan

arrived at its proper time,

meaning that it was sanctified on the thirtieth of Adar, and it emerged that this day belonged to the new year—

they would purchase it with the new contribution,

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

But if not,

if the month was not sanctified on the thirtieth of Adar, but Adar was made a full month with the thirtieth day included, it emerged that the thirtieth day of Adar belonged to the previous year—they would take the incense to burn on that day, which belonged to the preceding year,

from the old contribution.

Gemara:

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

And we raise the issue: How can they redeem the incense onto the money for the artisans’ wages?

And

is it not the case that

sacred property cannot be redeemed onto sacred property!

After all, the chamber contribution is also sacred, and can sacred property be redeemed onto sacred property?!

And we answer: Rather,

how does he proceed?

Rabbi Shimon bar Bisna said: He brings [

the treasurer ]

money

from the chamber contribution, which is sacred,

and redeems it onto

the stones of

the construction

of the sacred property, as follows:

Initially, they would build in the Temple with non-sacred stones, and only after the construction was completed would they consecrate them, so that they would not derive benefit from the stones during the construction and thereby come to misuse sacred property.

Once the building had been completed, 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 sacred and the money became non-sacred.