Shekalim 12a (יב.) — the Talmud in English

Halakha 4 – Mishna:

a.

One who consecrates his property

to the Temple [and, without specifying, consecration means for the repair of the Temple],

and among it were items suitable for communal offerings

[incense] –

they shall be given to craftsmen

who are entitled to receive wages from the funds for the repair of the Temple

as their wages,

and they then purchase the incense back from the craftsmen, in order to burn it on the altar with money from the chamber’s contribution, so that the incense will come from communal funds,

the words of Rabbi Akiva.

He maintains that consecrated property becomes unconsecrated through the labor, and therefore the incense itself may be given to the craftsmen in exchange for the wages for their labor. The incense thereby becomes unconsecrated.

Ben Azzai said to him: This is not the proper procedure

to give the incense itself to the craftsmen.

For he maintains that consecrated property does not become unconsecrated through labor. If he gave the incense itself to the craftsmen, it would remain in its state of sanctity.

Rather, they set aside from them

[from the property that he consecrated] property sufficient for

the wages of the craftsmen.

They take this property and say: Let its sanctity take effect on the building [which they built for the consecrated property but which is still unconsecrated]. The property now becomes unconsecrated, and it is designated for the craftsmen’s wages.

They take the incense that this person consecrated,

and transfer its sanctity

[that of the incense]

onto

this property, which they designated to be

money

for the wages of

the craftsmen.

The incense thereby becomes unconsecrated.

And

now

they give it

[the incense]

to the craftsmen as their wages.

And

they then again

purchase it

from them,

with

money from

a new contribution,

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

b.

One who consecrates his property

without specifying whether it is for the altar or for the repair of the Temple,

and among it was an animal fit

to be offered

on the altar,

whether

males or

whether

females.

Rabbi Eliezer says:

Since unspecified consecration is for the repair of the Temple, and the law is that when one consecrates for the repair of the Temple an animal fit for the altar, it may be redeemed from its sanctity as property consecrated for the repair of the Temple only for the needs of the altar, since anything fit for the altar that one consecrated, even with the sanctity of property consecrated for the repair of the Temple, never ceases to be designated for 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; they should not be sold for the needs of peace-offerings, because burnt-offerings are entirely for the Most High, whereas in the case of peace-offerings 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 join his other property

that is not fit for the altar,

for the repair of the Temple.

Rabbi Yehoshua says:

The intention of the one who consecrated them is that animals fit for the altar should themselves ascend to the altar.

Therefore, the

males –

they

themselves shall be offered as burnt-offerings.

And the females –

which are fit only for peace-offerings, while his intention was that everything should go to the Most High, but in peace-offerings 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 property

that is not fit for the altar

shall go to the repair of the Temple.

Rabbi Akiva said: I consider the words of Rabbi Eliezer,

who says that everything goes to the repair of the Temple, more compelling

than the words of Rabbi Yehoshua,

who says that animals fit for burnt-offerings are offered themselves.

For Rabbi Eliezer made his measures consistent,

maintaining that the intention of the one who consecrated them was to consecrate everything for the repair of the Temple.

But

if

Rabbi Yehoshua distinguished,

saying that he intended to consecrate only what is not fit for the altar for the repair of the Temple, while he consecrated what is fit for the altar for the altar.

Rabbi Pappias said:

I

“heard”

—I received

the words of both of them!

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

For

one who consecrates explicitly,

specifying and saying, “The animal and my property are for consecration”: Since he specified but did not say, “The animal fit for the altar is for the altar, and my property is for the repair of the Temple,” we infer that his intention was for everything to go to one place, the repair of the Temple,

in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer.

But

if

one consecrates without specification,

saying, “All my property is for consecration,” without specifying, we say that his intention was to consecrate each item for whatever it is fit for,

in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua.

c.

One who consecrates his property, and among it were items suitable for the altar,

such as

wines, oils, and birds

that are offered—turtledoves and young pigeons.

Rabbi Eliezer

son of Shamua

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

And the rest of the property

that is not fit for the altar

shall go to the repair of the Temple.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna:

“One who consecrates his property, and among it were items suitable for communal offerings.”

The Gemara explains which items these are. It is impossible to explain that the reference is to animals, wines, oils, and fine flour, since their law is explicitly explained in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yohanan said:

This refers to

incense.

Rabbi Hoshaya said:

It is impossible to explain that this person made incense in his home and then consecrated it, since 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].

Rather,

explain it as referring to a craftsman,

one of the incense preparers, who was

from the House of Avtinas, who would take as his wages

from the remainder of the

incense.

Afterward, they would return and purchase it from him. Before they purchased it, this person arose and consecrated it. In any event, the incense was never made in an unconsecrated state.

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

And we raised the question:

What is the reason for Ben Azzai?

Because he holds that consecrated property becomes unconsecrated not through labor, but through money.

Therefore, it is impossible to give the incense itself to the craftsmen, for in that case it would not become unconsecrated and would remain in its state of sanctity. Rather, they transfer its sanctity onto unconsecrated money and then give it to the craftsmen as their wages.

There,

in tractate Temura,

we learned: There is

a stringency

with property consecrated for the repair of the Temple

that does not apply to property consecrated for the altar.

a.

Unspecified consecrations,

where the one consecrating did not specify for what he was consecrating,

are for the repair of the Temple.

b.

Consecration for the repair of the Temple takes effect on everything,

whereas consecration for the altar takes effect only on something fit for the altar.

c. Property consecrated for the repair of the Temple

is subject to misuse with what it produces,

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

d.

And

with property consecrated for the repair of the Temple,

there is no benefit

[permitted benefit]

for the priests.

This is not so with property consecrated for the altar, since the meat is permitted for the priests to eat. Likewise, in the case of a burnt-offering, its hide is given to the priests.

Rabbi Hanania said:

The statement in this Mishna that unspecified consecration is for the repair of the Temple—

it is Rabbi Eliezer

in our Mishna

who says this.

For we learned

in the Mishna:

“One who consecrates his property, and among it was an animal fit for the altar, males and females.”

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

an offering of

burnt-offerings, and the females shall be sold for the needs of peace-offerings, and their proceeds shall join the rest of the property for the repair of the Temple.

Thus, he maintains that although this person consecrated without specification, and his consecration included items fit for the altar, nevertheless we say that they go to the repair of the Temple.

From here it follows that Rabbi Eliezer maintains that unspecified consecration is for the repair of the Temple.

Rabbi Yohanan said:

This is

the reason for Rabbi Eliezer,

who says that unspecified consecration is for the repair of the Temple: He derives it from a verse.

As it is written:

“And when a man consecrates his house as holy to the Lord

the priest shall assess it.”

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

We must examine:

With what are we dealing,

with what type of consecration is the first verse speaking?

If

it is referring to one who consecrated

a dwelling house,

then

it is already written

in the second verse

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

If the first verse were speaking of one who consecrated his house, the second verse should continue the first, and it should say, “And if he redeems it,” rather than “redeems his house,” since the verse would be continuing with the law of that very same consecration mentioned first.

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

Rather, with what are we dealing,

necessarily, the first verse is speaking

of one who consecrates his property

without specification, and the verse says that everything is

“holy to the Lord.”

And from here it is proven

that unspecified consecrations are for the repair of the Temple,

since it is all for Him.

For if it were consecrated for the altar, the meat would be eaten [according to the reading of the Gra].

Rabbi Zeira said:

Rabbi

Huna

said in the name of Rav:

In what

circumstances

do they dispute,

Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua? Specifically,

with regard to one who consecrates his property,

which contains both property unfit for the altar and property fit for the altar. In this case Rabbi Eliezer maintains that everything goes to the repair of the Temple, because a person does not divide his consecration, assigning part to the repair of the Temple and part to the altar.

But

with regard to

one who consecrates his flock,

when all his consecration consists of animals fit for the altar,

everyone agrees

[all agree]

that it is for the altar.

Rabbi Eliezer agrees that unspecified consecration is for the altar; he disputes only where, if we say that he consecrated it for the altar, his consecration would be divided and would not all be assigned to one place. In such a case, he says that it is reasonable to assume that he consecrated everything for the repair of the Temple.

And

Rabbi Ba

in the name of

Rav Huna in the name of Rav said the opposite:

—

With

what

circumstances

do they dispute,

Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua, with Rabbi Yehoshua maintaining that the animals themselves are offered on the altar? Specifically,

with regard to one who consecrates his flock,

when all his consecration is fit for the altar.

But with regard to one who consecrates

all

his property,

which includes both items suitable for the repair of the Temple and items suitable for the altar,

everyone agrees that

a person does not divide his consecration; therefore all

of his consecration is for the repair of the Temple.

And we say: Granted,

according to the view of Rabbi Zeira

[according to Rabbi Zeira’s view], who said that when one consecrates his flock everyone agrees that everything is for the altar,

it is understandable.

It is logical that since everything is fit 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 when one consecrates his flock Rabbi Eliezer disputes this and maintains that everything is not for the altar:

Is

an animal not destined for the altar

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

And the Gemara answers: Rabbi Eliezer maintains that this person did not intend to consecrate his flock for the altar because

one who consecrates an animal for the altar

says

and specifies that his consecration is

for the altar.

And why did this man leave it unspecified,

rather than specify that he was consecrating it for the altar?

Rather, it follows

that

he is

like one who says, “This shall not be”

a consecration

except for the repair of the Temple. [According to the reading of the Gra.]

Rabbi Yohanan said

Rabbi Yohanan said:

This is not like Rabbi Zeira, who maintains that when one consecrates his flock, everyone agrees that his consecration is for the altar; nor is it like Rabbi Ba, who maintains that when one consecrates all his property, everyone agrees that his consecration is for the repair of the Temple.

It makes no difference

[it is not different]. Rather,

whether it is one who consecrates his property or

whether it is one who consecrates his flock,

in both cases

this is the dispute.

Rav

Huna said in the name of Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

Animals that are

property consecrated for the repair of the Temple, which one redeems

when they are

unblemished –

become unconsecrated.

And we say:

The Mishna says this,

as it is proven from the Mishna in tractate Temura, in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan’s statement: One who redeems unblemished animals from property consecrated for the repair of the Temple in order that they become unconsecrated— they become unconsecrated.

For it is stated in the Mishna: There is a stringency with property consecrated for the altar that does not apply to property consecrated for the repair of the Temple, and it lists all the advantages of property consecrated for the altar. One of them is that the offspring and milk of property consecrated for the altar, after it developed a blemish and was redeemed, are forbidden.

It is permitted to eat only their meat, but not their offspring or milk.

Whereas property consecrated for the repair of the Temple, which does not have this stringency,

its offspring and milk are permitted after their redemption.

The Gemara understood that this refers to animals that were redeemed while they were unblemished.

It follows that they became unconsecrated through redemption even though they were fit for the altar. Otherwise, they would be forbidden to benefit from, since they had been consecrated for the altar.