Shekalim 13a — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Yosei said: I have established it:

to explain the reason of Rabbi Eliezer in the Mishna, in what he said: “One who consecrates his possessions, and there were birds among them, they are sold, and with their proceeds they bring a burnt-offering.”

His reason is:

like this

like the principle

that Rabbi Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi Zeira:

Every animal that a person consecrated,

which is unable to be offered, neither it

itself

nor its proceeds

its law

is that it did not become consecrated

with sanctity of the body,

but only with sanctity of value

alone.

And

therefore

you have said correctly,

you have said well, for these birds, which he consecrated among his possessions, have only sanctity of value.

For

to offer it

these birds

you are unable.

For it is written

in the verse

“among cattle.”

And we expound:

but not birds.

And from here we learned that one who consecrates birds without specification does not offer them.

And

to redeem it

and to bring a burnt-offering with its proceeds also

you are unable.

For

after all,

there is no redemption for a bird [even if a blemish occurred in it].

if it develops a blemish].

And if so, it is something that cannot be offered, neither it itself nor its proceeds.

And

therefore [and therefore]

you

it is necessary [you are compelled to say] that these birds—

—

became consecrated only with sanctity of value.

And Rabbi Eliezer said correctly, that sanctity of value is redeemed.

The members of the group [the members of the group] said

said

in the name of Rabbi Yohanan.

And likewise

Rabbi Aibu bar Nagri said before Rabbi Ila in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

Here is

the reason of this tanna [of this tanna], Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda in the name of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that one who consecrates a female animal for his burnt-offering, or for his Passover-offering, or for his guilt-offering, does not cause sanctity of the body to take effect upon it, and it does not effect temura, is from here:

this is derived from here:

For he learns from what is written

“And if any impure animal, from which they may not bring an offering to the Lord,”

“then he shall stand the animal before the koen, and the koen shall assess it.”

And according to the plain meaning of the verse, it comes to teach that one who consecrates an impure animal causes only sanctity of value to take effect upon it, and therefore it is redeemed, and its redemption is through standing and assessment. That is, he shall stand the animal before the koen, and the koen shall assess it, and he shall redeem it for the value at which the koen assessed it.

And it is difficult:

what does it come to teach

in this verse, “an animal

impure”?

But the law of an impure animal is explained in another verse afterward: “And if it is an impure animal—then he shall redeem it according to your assessment”!

Rather, this verse comes to teach us that

even

if it is not truly an impure animal, but only

“impure” with regard to that designation,

so that with regard to that offering-designation for which it was consecrated it is unfit, it does not become consecrated with sanctity of the body, but only with sanctity of value, and it is redeemed.

From here: one who consecrates a female animal for a burnt-offering, or for a Passover-offering, or for a guilt-offering—since it is “impure” with regard to that designation, for it is unfit for these offerings, it becomes consecrated only with sanctity of value.

And it is difficult,

and the Gemara raises an objection to this: if this verse deals with one who consecrates a female animal for a burnt-offering, and it comes to teach us that it does not become consecrated with sanctity of the body, how

in this [in this verse]

is it

is it written: “and he shall stand it” and “he shall assess it”!?

That is, that it is redeemed through standing and assessment.

But it is not consecrated at all, since this animal he consecrated for the altar, and since sanctity of the body did not take effect upon it, it consequently remained unconsecrated and does not require redemption at all.

For redemption is possible only with a blemished animal or with an impure animal, which are fit only for sanctity of value. But with an unblemished animal, such a sanctity, through which it could be redeemed while it is unblemished, is not possible.

Rather, either sanctity of the body takes effect upon it, in which case it has no redemption while it is unblemished, or it remains unconsecrated.

Rabbi Zeira in the name of Rabbi Eliezer did not say so

to expound this verse as teaching that one who consecrates a female animal for a burnt-offering did not cause sanctity of the body to take effect upon it.

Rather,

he learned this verse according to the view of Rabbi Shimon anonymously, who says that one who consecrates a female animal for a burnt-offering causes sanctity of the body to take effect upon it, but for a Passover-offering and a guilt-offering it does not become consecrated. And he expounds it as follows:

“And if any impure animal, from which they may not bring an offering to the Lord”—

anything

that is like an impure animal,

which is unfit to be offered, neither here nor elsewhere

for that offering-designation, does not become consecrated, and

does not effect temura.

Excluded

is one who consecrates

a female animal for a burnt-offering, for although it is unfit to be offered here

as the burnt-offering of an animal, nevertheless

it is fit

it

to be offered elsewhere,

as the burnt-offering of a bird.

And from here: one who consecrates a female animal for his burnt-offering causes sanctity to take effect upon it, and it effects temura, for it is fit for that offering-designation, namely, a burnt-offering of a bird.

But one who consecrates a female animal for a Passover-offering or for a guilt-offering—since it is unfit anywhere for the offering-designation of a Passover-offering or a guilt-offering, therefore it does not become consecrated and does not effect temura.

Rabbi Avun and Rabbi Bun asked before Rabbi Zeira [they raised a difficulty before Rabbi Zeira] concerning his words, that he said: anything that is unfit to be offered neither here nor elsewhere does not become consecrated with sanctity of the body:

they challenged Rabbi Zeira] regarding his statement, that anything not fit to be offered neither here nor elsewhere is not consecrated with sanctity of the body:

But what of the one that engaged in bestiality and the one with which bestiality was committed,

even though

they are unfit to be offered neither here nor elsewhere, nevertheless they are

consecrated and

effect temura [as was taught in the Tosefta of Temura]?

Rabbi Zeira said to them [to them]:

He said to them [to them], Rabbi Zeira:

come to explain the position of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that one who consecrates a female animal for a Passover-offering or a guilt-offering does not cause it to acquire sanctity, as you understood my words.

I too did not

come and say to explain the view of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that one who consecrates a female animal for a Passover-offering or a guilt-offering does not cause sanctity to take effect upon it, as you understood my words.

Rather,

I explained the view of the one who holds that one who consecrates a female animal for a Passover-offering or a guilt-offering causes sanctity to take effect upon it.

And according to his view I said that this is what the verse taught us: only one who consecrates an animal that is

truly impure

does not cause any sanctity to take effect upon it, because no member of its species is offered anywhere.

But a female animal, and one that engaged in bestiality and one with which bestiality was committed—their species is offered [when they have not engaged in bestiality], and therefore the law is that sanctity of the body takes effect upon them.

And since the verse speaks of a truly impure animal, with regard to which sanctity of the body is entirely inapplicable, it is well understood that in

this [in this]

“he shall assess it,”

it is written “and he shall stand it”

“and he shall assess it,”

for it indeed has sanctity of value.

For it is applicable to consecrate it only for its value, since it has no connection whatsoever with the altar, and it has redemption through standing and assessment. [According to the version of Korban Ha-Edah.]

Halakha 5—Mishna:

Once every thirty days they assess,

[they establish a price]

the chamber.

For then they establish a price for wines, oils, and fine flours, so that this price will stand for thirty days, and each day they purchase from the sellers of wines, oils, and fine flours whatever they need for that amount which they set.

And with regard to what do they set the price?

If the merchandise became more expensive within those thirty days, they do not add money; but if it became cheaper, they purchase according to the cheaper price.

Anyone

who undertakes

to supply fine flour

to the chamber, for the needs of the meal-offerings throughout the year, and they agreed with him that he would supply the consecrated funds

four

seahs for a sela, behold, even though they became more expensive

and stood

at

three

seahs per sela, nevertheless he shall continue

to supply four

seahs per sela.

For although the consecrated funds did not draw the fine flours, nevertheless they acquired them through the acquisition of money, since the consecrated funds acquire through the acquisition of money.

And it is found that the consecrated funds profit one seah for every sela.

If he undertook to supply fine flours when they stood at

three

seahs per sela, and they became cheaper

and stood at four

seahs per sela—

he shall supply four

seahs per sela.

For

always

the hand of the consecrated funds is uppermost.

If the fine flour became wormy

which the seller undertook to supply—

it became wormy for him,

and he must give other fine flour in its place.

And

likewise

if the wine became sour

which he undertook to supply—

it became sour for him,

and he gives the consecrated funds other wine in its place.

And

the seller’s loss is so even if the treasurer drew the fine flour and the wine and already gave him money.

Because

he does not receive his money

to become truly his,

until

everything is fit for the altar, and

the altar effects acceptance.

Gemara:

It was taught in the name of Rabbi Shimon: Immediately the suppliers would receive

the

money

. And we are not concerned that the fine flours might become unfit, since

the kohanim are vigilant

to guard them so that they do not spoil.

We have returned to you, chapter Ha-Teruma

Halakha 1 — Mishna:

There were always fifteen appointments of administration and authority in the Temple. Each of these appointed officials had many people under his authority, in order to prepare the work over which he was appointed — [Maimonides, chapter 7 of the Laws of the Temple Vessels].

And

these are the appointed officials who were in the Temple:

1.

Yohanan son of Pinhas —

appointed

over the seals.

One who needed libations came to take them from the appointed official, and he would give money to Yohanan son of Pinhas. He would give him, corresponding to his money, a seal according to the measure of libations that he needed.

2.

Ahiya —

appointed

over the libations.

Everyone who bought a seal from Yohanan son of Pinhas would give it to Ahiya. He would give him libations according to what was written on the seal.

[And the reason they sold libations but did not sell animals for offerings is that libations contract ritual impurity, and they must be guarded in purity.]

3.

Mattitya son of Samuel —

appointed

over the lotteries.

For there were four lotteries in the Temple every day, to determine who would merit this service and who would merit that service. He was appointed to arrange the order of the lotteries.

4.

Petahya —

appointed

over the bird offerings.

For zavim and women after childbirth would bring [their offerings].

Those obligated to bring obligatory pairs of birds would bring their money to the collection boxes in the Temple, and the officials appointed over the collection boxes would take the money and bring the pairs of birds with it.

And a great and expert sage had to be appointed over this, as we say in tractate Avot: “Pairs of birds and the matters of a menstruating woman are themselves fundamental laws.”

And

Petahya —

this was Mordecai

the Jew.

And why was he called Petahya?

Because he would open matters, expound them, and know seventy languages,

as will be explained in the Gemara.

5.

Ben Ahiya —

appointed

over the illnesses

of the

intestines

to heal them.

Because the priests would eat much sacrificial meat, and they would walk on the floor barefoot. Therefore their intestines would become impaired, and they constantly needed a physician to tell them their remedy.

6.

Nehunya —

the digger

of wells and

cisterns.

So that water would be available to drink for those going up on pilgrimage.

7.

Gavini —

was appointed over the

proclamation.

For every morning he would proclaim in the Temple: “Stand, priests, for your service!” He would awaken them, and they would hear his voice as far as Jericho.

8.

Ben Gav —

was appointed

over locking the gates.

For he would instruct that the gates of the Temple be locked in the evening and opened in the morning.

9.

Ben Bevai —

was appointed

over the wick.

Over making the wicks of the menorah. Since the mitzva of the menorah is that it burn from evening until morning, and they would always put in it an equal measure of oil, namely half a log, the amount sufficient for the long nights of Tevet, he was appointed to regulate the thickness of the wicks in all seasons of the year, so that it would not go out before morning.

10.

Ben Arza —

was appointed

over the cymbal.

It is a musical instrument that has a loud sound, and when they heard its sound the Levites would begin the song.

11.

Hugras son of Levi —

appointed

over the song.

For the Levites would sing with their mouths. He had a great pleasantness in his voice, and he was appointed to begin the song. When he would finish, they would all finish.

12.

The house of Garmu —

appointed

over the preparation of the lehem ha-panim.

It was made in the form of an open box, and they were skilled craftsmen in making and baking it, removing it from the oven without breaking it, and making it in such a manner that it would not become moldy.

13.

The house of Avtinas —

were appointed

over the preparation of the incense.

For this family was expert in preparing the incense, and knew the herb whose name was “that which raises smoke.”

When they would mix it with the ingredients of the incense, the smoke of the incense would rise in a column like a staff.

14.

Elazar —

was appointed

over

the weavers of

the curtains.

To make new curtains when they were needed.

15.

And Pinhas —

appointed

over the clothing.

He dealt with the priestly garments, weaving and making them, and he took care that the garments would be ready for the priests at the time of service and stored away after the service; a special chamber for this purpose was in the Temple.

Gemara:

Rabbi Hezekiah said in the name of Rabbi Simon, and the Rabbis

said: These appointed officials mentioned in the Mishna were appointed only for their time, and in the other generations other officials were appointed.

They disagreed about the reason for the tanna, a Sage of the Mishnaic era: Why did he list these names specifically?

One said: He came to list the most fit of each generation among them.

Not all of these served in one generation. Rather, the tanna listed the most worthy person in each position throughout all the generations.

And the other

[and the other one]

said:

All these appointed officials served in one generation. And

the one who was in that generation

in which Israel came up from the exile

listed what

was

in his generation. He mentioned those, and did not mention all the appointed officials who were present during the time of the Temple.

[This sentence belongs to the preceding argument.] [A textual segmentation is unclear here: the source places this statement after the preceding sentence.]

We learned in tractate Yoma, chapter three:

“Ben Katin made twelve spigots for the laver. King Munbaz would make all the handles of the vessels of Yom Kippur of gold. And they would mention them with praise.”

“And these for disgrace: The house of Garmu did not wish to teach about the preparation of the lehem ha-panim. The house of Avtinas did not wish to teach about the preparation of the incense. Hugras son of Levi knew a section of the song and did not wish to teach. Ben Kamtzar did not wish to teach about the skill of writing.”

“Concerning the first ones it was said: ‘May the memory of the righteous be for a blessing’; and concerning these it was said: ‘The name of the wicked shall rot.’”

And now we say:

The one who says

that the tanna of our Mishna

came to list the most fit of every generation,

if so, it follows that the house of Garmu, Hugras, and the house of Avtinas were the fit ones of all the generations, and an answer was found for their reasons why they did not wish to teach, as we say below in the Gemara.

And necessarily

concerning all of them he says, “May the memory of the righteous be for a blessing,”

even concerning the house of Garmu, Hugras, and the house of Avtinas.

And what we say there in Yoma, that concerning the latter ones he says, “The name of the wicked shall rot,” does not refer to them, but to Ben Kamtzar and his companions.

However, for

the one who says, “The one who was in that generation listed what was in his generation,”

if so, there is no proof that all those mentioned in our Mishna were fit. And again the Mishna in Yoma must be explained according to its plain meaning, that

concerning all

who were mentioned there for disgrace

he says, “And the name of the wicked shall rot,”

even concerning the house of Garmu and Hugras and the house of Avtinas.

And concerning whom is it said

there in the Mishna

“May the memory of the righteous be for a blessing”? —

Concerning Ben Katin and his companions,

who are taught there at the beginning of the Mishna.