Shekalim 11b — the Talmud in English

And

again

he brings

the remainder of the

incense, and redeems it [

on the unconsecrated coins], and it is found that the coins have become consecrated with the sanctity of the contribution of the chamber, while the remainder of the incense has gone out to unconsecrated status.

And they give it to the craftsmen as their wages.

And he again purchases from the craftsmen, with the new shekels, the incense for the consecrated funds.

And those coins with which they redeemed the incense became consecrated with the sanctity of the old contribution, and their law is like the law of that which is made from the old contribution [according to the Gra]. [

According to the version before us

Rabbi says: I say, they shall be given

to the craftsmen of

the House of Garmu and to the

craftsmen of

the House of Avtinas, who were proficient in the preparation of the incense and in the making of the showbread.

For those coins returned and became consecrated with the sanctity of the contribution of the chamber, and from these monies they make all the needs of the offerings, as explained above [in this chapter, halakha 2]. Therefore, it is possible to give them to the craftsmen engaged in making the incense and the showbread. But it is not possible to give from this money to the craftsmen engaged in the work of construction, since their wages do not come from the contribution of the chamber, as explained above].

Rabbi Shmuel bar Rabbi Yitzhak said: And this is so [

and he is],

that they were owed [

to the craftsmen]

money from the outset.

That is, they pay them from the remainder of the incense in place of their work, which they performed in preparing the incense of the past year, and they became obligated to them for payment for this work.

But if they had not yet become obligated to them, and they come to pay them money for the work that they will perform in preparing the incense for the new year, it is not possible to pay them from the remainder of the incense, since it is from the old contribution, whereas for the incense of the coming year one must pay from the contribution of the new year.

Rabbi Hiyya bar Ba inquired [

was uncertain]: If

they were not owed money from the outset,

and it is impossible to give them from the remainder of the incense—what shall they do with those coins?

Rabbi Ba came and

said

in the name of Rabbi Hiyya bar Ba in the name of Rabbi Yosei: They provide kayitz ha-mizbe'ach with them.

They would bring with this money burnt-offerings to sacrifice them on the altar when the altar was idle from offerings [and this is called everywhere: the kayitz ha-mizbe'ach].

Rabbi Ba bar Kohen inquired before Rabbi Yosei [

challenged before Rabbi Yosei]:

How is it possible that Rabbi Hiyya, who had already heard from Rabbi Yosei that with the money with which they redeem the incense it is possible to bring burnt-offerings for the kayitz ha-mizbe'ach [as Rabbi Ba said in his name], himself raised the question, “If they were not owed money from the outset, what would they do with it?” For he already knew the answer to this question, as he had said in the name of Rabbi Yosei that they provide kayitz ha-mizbe'ach with it.

And is

the position of Rabbi Hiyya bar Ba exchanged?

For

there it was uncertain to him, and

if

so it was obvious to him [

and did Rabbi Hiyya bar Ba exchange his position, so that previously it was uncertain to him and now the matter is obvious to him]?

And we answer: There are two subjects:

That which was uncertain to him

and about which he was uncertain: Is it possible to purchase

with

these monies

sacred vessels,

or only burnt-offerings for the kayitz ha-mizbe'ach?

And

that which was obvious to him—

that it is certainly possible to purchase from these monies burnt-offerings

for the kayitz ha-mizbe'ach.

For they disputed,

the tannaim disputed concerning the law of preparing the incense [and this does not belong to the subject above; rather, this is the way of the Jerusalem Talmud, that sometimes the letter dalet is written before the word even though it is not connected to the preceding subject]:

If he prepared it

for incense

with unconsecrated [materials],

such as when he did not consecrate it at first—

Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Hanina

said: It is

invalid.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: It is

он

valid.

What is the reason of Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Hanina?

For he expounds

“It is holy”—

that its making shall be [

its preparation]

in holiness,

that is, when it is holy: that he should first consecrate the ingredients and only afterward prepare it.

What is the reason of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi?

That is, what does he expound from this verse, “It is holy”?

He expounded

“It is holy”—

that it shall come

from the holy, that is,

from the contribution of the chamber.

Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Bun said: This follows

the view

of Rabbi Yosei ben Hanina,

who says that the making of the incense must be in holiness,

as

the view of

Shmuel [

as he explains].

And

the view

of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi,

who says that the making of the incense need not be with the incense [itself],

as

the view of

Rabbi Yohanan.

For we learned

below:

One who consecrates

all

his property, and there were among it things fit

to come

for communal offerings,

and it is explained there in the Mishna what they would do with these things.

And we considered it: What are the “things fit for communal offerings”? For it is impossible to say wines and fine flour, since their law was explained separately in this Mishna.

Rabbi Yohanan said: Incense.

And it is demonstrated that it can come from unconsecrated [property]. For one who consecrates incense must necessarily have prepared it when it was unconsecrated, and it teaches that they are fit for communal offerings.

Rabbi Hoshaya said:

This is not a proof. For

interpret it [

that the Mishna must be established] as referring to this: that we find the incense to be unconsecrated even though in truth they made it when it was holy. For afterward it went out to unconsecrated status.

And it is speaking

of a craftsman of the House of Avtinas, who would take incense as his wages,

as it says in the Mishna.

Thus, it is possible for the incense to be unconsecrated even though it was made in holiness.

And

the Gemara continues to explain the words of Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Bun.

What he said,

that

the words of

Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Hanina,

who says that the incense was prepared after it had been consecrated, follows

as

the view of

Shmuel:

for we find that

Rav Huna said in the name of Shmuel: The mortar

in which they would pound the ingredients for the incense—

they made it like a sacred vessel, to consecrate

through it the ingredients placed in it.

It follows that according to Shmuel all its procedures were performed in holiness.

Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Bun said: Rabbi Huna said it before Rabbi Yosei

as a challenge: If the incense was made while it was consecrated with bodily sanctity, then how do we say in the Mishna that they give it to the craftsmen as their wages, and it is redeemed and goes out to unconsecrated status? Is it that

something consecrated in a sacred vessel is redeemed!?

He said to him,

Rabbi Yosei:

And

this

is not Shmuel’s [view]!

For Shmuel is the one who said that the mortar was holy and consecrated the incense.

And Shmuel follows his own reasoning—

for Shmuel said: It is a leniency

that the Sages were lenient

with the remainder

of consecrated things, so that when they are not needed they go out to unconsecrated status, even though they became consecrated in a vessel.

Therefore, there is no contradiction in the fact that the remainder of the incense became consecrated in a sacred vessel, and nevertheless it is redeemed.

For they disputed

Shmuel and Rabbi Yohanan: In a case where

there remained

on the first of Nisan lambs

unblemished

that had been standing for the offering of the daily offering, and now it is no longer possible to offer the daily offering from them, since they came from the old contribution:

Shmuel said:

Even though they became consecrated with bodily sanctity, nevertheless they are

redeemed as unblemished animals,

being unblemished. And they redeem them onto unconsecrated money, and afterward purchase them from the new contribution.

And even though ordinarily an unblemished animal consecrated with bodily sanctity is not redeemed, it is a leniency with which the Sages were lenient concerning the remainder of consecrated things: since they were not needed, their sanctity departs.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: They are redeemed

only

as consecrated animals disqualified

that graze until a defect occurs in them, and only then are redeemed.

And the Gemara discusses: If

male goats remained

from the communal sin-offering. For example, a male goat of the sin-offering of the New Moon that was lost, and they designated another in its place, and afterward the first was found: Is it redeemed or not?

According to Shmuel’s view [

according to Shmuel], it is all the more so redeemed.

For

if

the daily offering, which is an offering of

a burnt-offering,

all of which is offered to the Most High, is

redeemed,

is it not all the more so a sin-offering,

of which only the portions offered on the altar are sacrificed, that it is certainly redeemed?

And according to Rabbi Yohanan’s view,

who says that a daily offering that remained is not redeemed:

Rabbi Zeira said: Let them graze

the male goats until they become blemished, a defect occurs in them, and they are redeemed with their defect. For there is no distinction between a burnt-offering and a sin-offering, and since both became consecrated with bodily sanctity, they are redeemed only through a defect.

And he disagreed

and Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzhak said:

It is not so.

Rather,

they provide kayitz ha-mizbe'ach with them.

They sacrifice these very male goats on the altar as the communal voluntary burnt-offering, when vows and voluntary offerings are not being sacrificed upon it, so that the altar should not be idle.

And it is difficult:

Is it that

there is

an animal that was consecrated

for a sin-offering

and it

is sacrificed as a burnt-offering?

And how is it possible that these male goats, which were consecrated for a sin-offering, should be sacrificed as a communal voluntary offering for the kayitz ha-mizbe'ach, which is a burnt-offering!?

Rabbi Yosei said: This matter is different [

it is different]. For there is a general rule

that communal offerings are not fixed

as to which offering they are designated to be

except at slaughter.

For the knife consecrates them according to what they are [designated to be]. And if they wish to change them to another sacrifice until the slaughter, it is proper.

Therefore, although these male goats were consecrated by the community for the sake of a sin-offering, nevertheless it is still possible to change their designation and sacrifice them for the sake of a burnt-offering, since the knife has not yet consecrated them for a sin-offering, and they have not been fixed as a sin-offering.

Rabbi Hiyya said

to resolve the difficulty, “Is there a sin-offering that is sacrificed as a burnt-offering?”:

It is a condition of the court concerning the remainder

that remains from the offerings

that they be sacrificed as burnt-offerings.

And the practical difference between Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Hiyya is:

According to Rabbi Yosei, every communal offering can be changed to another sacrifice until slaughter; and according to Rabbi Hiyya, only “remainder” can be changed to another sacrifice, because it is a condition of the court.