Shekalim 12a — the Talmud in English

Halakha 4 — Mishna:

A.

One who consecrates his possessions

to the Temple [and an unspecified consecration is for Temple maintenance]],

and there were among them things suitable for the communal offerings [

incense ] —

they shall be given to craftsmen

who are fit to receive their wages from Temple maintenance

as their wages, and they then return and purchase the incense from the craftsmen in order to burn it on the altar from the funds of the chamber donation, so that the incense should come from the community,

They then return and purchase the incense from the artisans, in order to burn it on the altar with money from the chamber collection, so that the incense will be supplied by the community’s funds.

the words of Rabbi Akiva.

For he holds that consecrated property is desacralized through the work, and therefore it is possible to give the incense as it is to the craftsmen in exchange for the wages of their work. The incense thereby goes out to non-sacred status.

Ben Azzai said to him: This is not the manner

of giving the incense as it is to the craftsmen.

For he holds that consecrated property is not desacralized through the work. And if he were to give the incense as it is to the craftsmen, it would remain in its sanctity.

Rather, they set aside from them [

from the possessions that he consecrated ] possessions for

the wages of the craftsmen.

And he takes these possessions and says: Let their sanctity take effect upon the building [which they built for the consecration and which is still non-sacred]. And now these possessions go out to non-sacred status, and they are designated for the wages of the craftsmen.

And they take the incense that this one consecrated,

and desacralize it [

the incense ]

onto

these possessions, which they designated to be

money

of the wages of

the craftsmen.

And the incense goes out to non-sacred status.

And

now

they give them [

the incense ]

to the craftsmen as their wages.

And

again they return and

purchase it

from them,

from

money of

a new donation, so that it should again become consecrated and be fit to be burned upon the altar.

so that it will once again become consecrated and be fit to be burned on the altar.

B.

One who consecrates his possessions

and did not specify whether for the altar or for Temple maintenance,

and there was among them an animal fit

to be sacrificed

upon the altar,

whether they are

males and

whether they are

females.

Rabbi Eliezer says: Since an unspecified consecration is for Temple maintenance, and the law is that whenever one consecrates for Temple maintenance an animal fit for the altar, it is not redeemed from the sanctity of Temple maintenance except for the needs of the altar, because everything fit for the altar that one consecrated, even with the sanctity of Temple maintenance, never leaves the domain of the altar.

Since an unspecified consecration is for the Temple treasury, and the law is that when an animal suitable for the altar is consecrated for the Temple treasury, it cannot be redeemed from that sanctity except for the needs of the altar—for anything suitable for the altar that was consecrated, even with the sanctity of the Temple treasury, can never be diverted from the altar—

Therefore, the

males —

shall be sold for the needs of burnt-offerings, to people who need to bring burnt-offerings [and this is preferable, and they should not be sold for the needs of peace-offerings. For burnt-offerings are entirely for the Most High, whereas in peace-offerings the meat belongs to the owners].

to people who need to bring burnt-offerings [and this is preferable; they are not sold for the purpose of purchasing peace-offerings, because in a burnt-offering everything goes to the altar, whereas in a peace-offering the meat belongs to the owners].

And the females [

which are not fit for burnt-offerings ] —

shall be sold for the needs of peace-offerings.

And their proceeds shall fall, together with the rest of his possessions

that are not fit for the altar,

to Temple maintenance.

Rabbi Joshua says: The intention of the one who consecrated was that the animals fit for the altar should themselves ascend to the altar.

The intention of the person who consecrated them was that the animals suitable for the altar should themselves be brought upon the altar.

And therefore

the males —

they

themselves shall be sacrificed as burnt-offerings.

And the females — which are fit only for peace-offerings, and he intended that everything should ascend to the Most High, while in peace-offerings the meat is eaten by the owners; therefore the females

which are suitable only for peace-offerings—and he intended that everything should go to the altar, whereas in a peace-offering the meat is eaten by the owners—therefore, the females

shall be sold for the needs of peace-offerings.

And he shall bring burnt-offerings with their proceeds.

And the rest of the possessions

that are not fit for the altar,

shall fall to Temple maintenance.

Rabbi Akiva said: I see the words of Rabbi Eliezer, who says that everything is for Temple maintenance, more

who says that everything goes to the Temple treasury

than the words of Rabbi Joshua, who says that the animals fit for burnt-offerings are sacrificed themselves.

who says that the animals suitable for burnt-offerings are themselves brought as offerings.

For Rabbi Eliezer made his measures uniform, and holds that the intention of the one who consecrated was to consecrate everything for Temple maintenance.

holding that the intention of the person who consecrated the property was to consecrate everything to the Temple treasury.

But

if

Rabbi Joshua distinguished, that only what is not fit for the altar was his intention to consecrate for Temple maintenance, but what is fit for the altar he consecrated for the altar.

holding that he intended to consecrate only what was not suitable for the altar to the Temple treasury, while what was suitable for the altar he consecrated for the altar.

Rabbi Pappias said: I

I

“heard”

” I received

the words of both of them! For at times the law is like Rabbi Eliezer, and at times like Rabbi Joshua.

For sometimes the law follows Rabbi Eliezer, and sometimes it follows Rabbi Yehoshua.

For when

the one who consecrates specifies, and details and says: “An animal and my possessions are for consecration,” since he specified and did not say, “An animal fit for the altar is for the altar, and my possessions are for Temple maintenance,” we infer that his intention was that everything should go to one place, to Temple maintenance,

and specifies, saying, “The animal and my property are for consecration,” since he specified but did not say, “The animal suitable for the altar is for the altar, and my property is for the Temple treasury,” we understand that his intention was that everything should go to one place, namely, the Temple treasury,

in accordance with the words of Rabbi Eliezer.

But

if

the one who consecrates does so without specification, and says, “All my possessions are for consecration,” and did not specify, we say that his intention was to consecrate each thing for that for which it is fit,

saying, “All my property is for consecration,” without specifying, we say that his intention was to consecrate each item for the purpose for which it is suitable,

in accordance with the words of Rabbi Joshua.

C.

One who consecrates his possessions, and there were among them things suitable for the altar,

such as

wines, oils, and birds

that are sacrificed, namely turtledoves and young pigeons.

Rabbi Eliezer

son of Shammua

says: They shall be sold for the needs of that species, and he shall bring burnt-offerings with their proceeds.

And the rest of the possessions

that are not fit for the altar

shall fall to Temple maintenance.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna:

“One who consecrates his possessions, and there were among them things suitable for the communal offerings.”

And the Gemara explains what these things are. For it is impossible to explain them as animals, wines, oils, and fine flour, whose law was explicitly explained in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This is

That means

incense.

Rabbi Oshaya said: It is impossible to explain that this consecrator made incense in his house and now consecrated it, because incense is made only after its ingredients have been consecrated [as we learned above, chapter 4, halakha 3, where there is a dispute concerning this].

It cannot mean that this person made incense in his home and then consecrated it, because incense is made only after its ingredients have been consecrated [as was taught above, in chapter 4, halakha 3, where there is a dispute concerning this].

Rather,

explain it as referring to a craftsman

among the makers of the incense, who were

from the House of Avtinas, who took as his wages

from the remainder of the

incense.

And afterward they would return and purchase it from him. And before they purchased it, this one arose and consecrated it. And the incense was never made in a non-sacred state.

We learned in our Mishna: Ben Azzai says, “This is not the manner, that the incense should be given as it is to the craftsmen.”

And we raised an objection concerning it:

What is the reason of Ben Azzai?

Because he holds that consecrated property is not desacralized through the work, but only through money.

Therefore, it is impossible to give the incense itself to the craftsmen, for if so, it will not be desacralized and will remain in its sanctity. Rather, they desacralize it onto non-sacred money, and afterward give it to the craftsmen as their wages.

There,

in tractate Temura,

we learned: There is

a stringency

in consecrated property for Temple maintenance

that is not present in consecrated property of the altar.

A.

That unspecified consecrations

where the consecrator did not specify for what he is consecrating — are

for Temple maintenance.

B.

Consecration for Temple maintenance takes effect upon everything, whereas consecration for the altar takes effect only upon something fit for the altar.

whereas consecration for the altar takes effect only upon an item suitable for the altar.

C. Consecrated property for Temple maintenance

is subject to misuse through its growth, for example, if one consecrated a hen and it laid an egg, there is misuse through it. This is not so with consecrated property of the altar.

for example, if one consecrated a hen and it laid an egg, one is liable for misuse of consecrated property through the egg. This is not so with property consecrated for the altar.

D.

And

in consecrated property for Temple maintenance

there is no benefit in them [

benefit ]

for the priests. This is not so with consecrated property of the altar, for the meat is permitted to the priests for eating. And likewise, with a burnt-offering, the hide is given to the priests.

the members of the priestly class who serve in the Temple. This is not so with property consecrated for the altar, because the meat may be eaten by the kohanim. Likewise, in the case of a burnt-offering, its hide is given to the kohanim.

Rabbi Ḥanania said: This matter that we say in this Mishna, that an unspecified consecration is for Temple maintenance —

The statement in this Mishna that an unspecified consecration is for the Temple treasury

it is Rabbi Eliezer’s

in our Mishna

opinion.

For we learned

in the Mishna:

“One who consecrates his possessions, and there was among them an animal fit for the altar, males and females.”

Rabbi Eliezer says: The males shall be sold for the needs of

a

burnt-offering, and the females shall be sold for the needs of peace-offerings, and their proceeds shall fall together with the rest of the possessions to Temple maintenance. For he holds that although this consecrator consecrated without specification, and there were in his consecration things fit for the altar, nevertheless we say that they go to Temple maintenance.

This shows that he holds that although this person consecrated his property without specification, and his consecration included items suitable for the altar, nevertheless we say that they go to the Temple treasury.

And from here, Rabbi Eliezer holds that an unspecified consecration is for Temple maintenance.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This is

This is

the reason of Rabbi Eliezer, who says that an unspecified consecration is for Temple maintenance: He derives it from a verse.

who says that an unspecified consecration is for the Temple treasury: he derives it from a verse.

For it is written:

“And if a man consecrates his house as holy to Hashem

and the priest shall assess it”

. And in the following verse it is written: “And if the one who consecrated redeems his house.”

And one must examine:

In what case are we dealing, what consecration does the first verse speak of?

that is, what type of consecration is discussed in the first verse?

If

when he consecrated

a dwelling house,

then

it is already written

in the second verse

“And if the one who consecrated redeems his house.”

And if the first verse speaks of one who consecrates his house, the second verse should have been a continuation of the first, and it should have been written, “And if he redeems it,” rather than writing, “He redeems his house,” for Scripture continues and states the law of that very first consecration.

And since it again writes “his house,” it follows that the preceding verse speaks of a different consecration.

Rather, in what case are we dealing,

necessarily the first verse speaks

of one who consecrates his possessions

without specification, and Scripture says that everything is

“holy to Hashem.”

And from here it is proven

that unspecified consecrations are for Temple maintenance,

for it is all for Hashem'.

For if it is consecrated for the altar, the meat is eaten [according to the reading of the Vilna Gaon].

Rabbi Zeira said,

said

Rav Huna,

in the name of Rav:

In what

matter are these words said,

that Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua disagree, specifically

Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua? Specifically,

in the case of one who consecrates his possessions, which include possessions not fit for the altar and possessions fit for the altar; in this Rabbi Eliezer holds that everything is for Temple maintenance, because a person does not divide his consecration, part for Temple maintenance and part for the altar.

which includes both property unsuitable for the altar and property suitable for the altar. In this case Rabbi Eliezer holds that everything goes to the Temple treasury, because a person does not divide his consecration, assigning part to the Temple treasury and part to the altar.

But

in the case of

one who consecrates his herd, whose entire consecration is animals fit for the altar —

where everything he consecrated consists of animals suitable for the altar,

everyone agrees [

everyone agrees ]

that it is for the altar.

For Rabbi Eliezer concedes that an unspecified consecration is for the altar, and only where, if we say that he consecrated it for the altar, his consecration would be divided, so that it would not all be for one place, does he disagree and say that it is reasonable that he consecrated everything for Temple maintenance.

And

Rabbi Ba

in the name of

Rav Huna in the name of Rav

said the opposite:

In

what

matter are these words said,

that Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua disagree, and Rabbi Joshua holds that the animals themselves are sacrificed upon the altar, specifically

Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua, with Rabbi Yehoshua holding that the animals themselves are brought upon the altar? Specifically,

in the case of one who consecrates his herd,

for all of his consecration is fit for the altar.

But in the case of one who consecrates

all

his possessions, which include both things fit for Temple maintenance and things fit for the altar —

which includes both items suitable for the Temple treasury and items suitable for the altar,

everyone agrees that

a person does not divide his consecration, and therefore all

his consecration is for Temple maintenance.

And we say: It is understandable

according to the view of Rabbi Zeira [

according to the view of Rabbi Zeira ], who says that in the case of one who consecrates his herd everyone agrees that everything is for the altar,

it is satisfactory. For it is logical that since everything is fit for the altar, it is reasonable that his consecration was for the altar.

It is logical that since everything is suitable for the altar, his consecration was intended for the altar.

But

it is difficult according to the view of Rabbi Ba, who said that even in the case of one who consecrates his herd, Rabbi Eliezer disagrees and holds that everything is not for the altar:

who said that even when one consecrates his flock Rabbi Eliezer disagrees and holds that everything is not for the altar:

And is

an animal not designated for the altar? And why should we say that he did not intend to consecrate it for the altar?

? Why should we say that he did not intend to consecrate it for the altar?

And the Gemara answers: Rabbi Eliezer holds that this person did not intend to consecrate his herd for the altar, because

one who consecrates an animal for the altar

says and explains that his consecration is

and specifies that his consecration is

for the altar.

And why did this man leave it unspecified,

and did not specify that he was consecrating it for the altar?

Rather, it follows

that

behold

he is as one saying: It shall not be

this consecration

except for Temple maintenance. [According to the reading of the Vilna Gaon.]

Rabbi Yohanan said

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Not like the words of Rabbi Zeira, who holds that when one consecrates his herd, according to everyone his consecration is for the altar; and not like the words of Rabbi Ba, who holds that when one consecrates all his possessions, according to everyone his consecration is for Temple maintenance.

It is not different

It makes no difference [

it makes no difference ]. Rather,

it is the case of one who consecrates his possessions —

it is the case of one who consecrates his herd;

in both this and that

there is the dispute.

Said

Rav Huna in the name of Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Animals that are

property consecrated for the Temple treasury, when they are redeemed

consecrated property for Temple maintenance, which one redeems when they are

unblemished

unblemished —

they go out to non-sacred status.

And we say:

the Mishna says so, for the Mishna in tractate Temura proves in accordance with Rabbi Yoḥanan’s words, that one who redeems unblemished animals from Temple maintenance so that they should go out to non-sacred status, they go out to non-sacred status.

the Mishna in tractate Temura proves Rabbi Yohanan’s statement, that when an unblemished animal is redeemed from the Temple treasury so that it becomes ordinary property, it does become ordinary property.

For it is stated in the Mishna: There is a stringency in consecrated property of the altar that this stringency is not present in consecrated property for Temple maintenance, and it explains all the advantages of consecrated property of the altar. One of them is that the offspring and milk of consecrated property of the altar, after a blemish befell them and they were redeemed, are forbidden.

For it is permitted to eat only their meat, but not their offspring and milk.

Whereas consecrated property for Temple maintenance, in which this stringency is not present,

their offspring and milk are permitted after their redemption.

And the Gemara understood that this is speaking when they were redeemed while they were unblemished.

Thus, they went out to non-sacred status through redemption even though they were fit for the altar. For if not, they would be forbidden in benefit, since they had been consecrated for the altar.