Shekalim 13a (יג.) — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Yosei said: I have established it:

to explain the reason for Rabbi Eliezer’s statement in the Mishna, where he said: If one consecrated his property and there were birds among it, they are sold and with their proceeds one brings a burnt-offering.

His reason is:

like this

the principle

that Rabbi Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi Zeira:

With regard to any animal that a person consecrated,

which is not fit to be offered, neither it

itself

nor its value

its status is

that it is not consecrated

with sanctity of the body,

but only with sanctity of value

alone.

And

therefore

you have said well;

you have spoken correctly, for these birds, which he consecrated among his property, are consecrated only with sanctity of value.

For

to offer it

these birds

you are unable.

As it is written

in the verse

“among cattle.”

And we expound:

but not birds.

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

And

to redeem it

and bring a burnt-offering with its value as well

you are unable.

For

indeed,

a bird has no redemption [even

if a blemish developed in it].

If so, it is something that can be offered neither itself nor through its value.

And

therefore [

and consequently]

it is necessary [

you are compelled to say] that these birds—

were consecrated only with sanctity of value.

And Rabbi Eliezer spoke well: sanctity of value can be redeemed.

The members of the group [

the members of the fellowship] 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 for this tanna [

of this tanna], Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda in the name of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that when one consecrates a female animal for his burnt-offering, or for his Paschal offering, or for his guilt-offering, sanctity of the body does not take effect upon it, and it does not effect substitution: It is derived from here:

For he derives it from what is written:

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

“then he shall set the animal before the kohein, and the kohein shall assess it.”

According to the plain meaning of the verse, it teaches that when one consecrates an impure animal, only sanctity of value takes effect upon it. Therefore, it is redeemed, and its redemption is accomplished through standing and assessment: That is, he sets the animal before the kohein, the kohein assesses it, and he redeems it for the value assessed by the kohein.

The difficulty is:

What is the implication of

the verse’s saying “an

impure” animal?

After all, the law of an impure animal is explained in another verse immediately 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 actually an impure animal, but is merely

“impure” with regard to that designation,

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

It follows that one who consecrates a female animal for a burnt-offering, or for a Paschal offering, or for a guilt-offering: Since it is “impure” with regard to that designation, as it is unfit for these offerings, it is consecrated only with sanctity of value.

And there is a difficulty,

and the Gemara raises an objection to this: If this verse is speaking of one who consecrates a female animal for a burnt-offering, and it teaches us that sanctity of the body does not take effect upon it, how

in this [

in this verse]

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

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

After all, it is not consecrated at all, since he consecrated this animal for the altar; and since sanctity of the body did not take effect upon it, it remained non-sacred and requires no redemption whatsoever.

Redemption is possible only for a blemished animal or an impure animal, which are fit only for consecration of value. But a unblemished animal cannot have this type of sanctity, which would allow it to be redeemed while it is unblemished.

Rather, either sanctity of the body takes effect upon it, in which case it cannot be redeemed while it is unblemished, or it remains non-sacred.

Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: He did not say so

to expound this verse as teaching that one who consecrates a female animal for a burnt-offering does not consecrate it with sanctity of the body.

Rather,

he expounded this verse according to the anonymous opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says that one who consecrates a female animal for a burnt-offering consecrates it with sanctity of the body, and only in the case of a Paschal offering or a guilt-offering does sanctity not take effect upon it. And he expounds as follows:

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

any

animal that is like an impure animal,

which is not fit to be offered, neither here nor elsewhere

for that offering-designation, is not consecrated, and

does not effect substitution.

Excluded

is one who consecrates

a female animal for a burnt-offering, for although it is not fit to be offered here

as an animal burnt-offering, nevertheless

it is fit

to be

offered elsewhere,

as a bird burnt-offering.

It follows that one who consecrates a female animal for his burnt-offering consecrates it, and it effects substitution, since it is fit for that offering-designation, namely, a burnt-offering of a bird.

But one who consecrates a female animal for a Paschal offering or for a guilt-offering: Since it is nowhere fit for the offering-designation of a Paschal offering or a guilt-offering, it is not consecrated and does not effect substitution.

Rabbi Avun and Rabbi Bun asked Rabbi Zeira [

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 an animal that engaged in bestiality and an animal that was the object of bestiality—

even though

they are not fit to be offered neither here nor elsewhere, nevertheless they are

consecrated and

effect substitution [

as taught in the Tosefta of Temura]?

He said to them [

Rabbi Zeira said to them]:

I, too, did not

come and say that I was explaining the position of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that one who consecrates a female animal for a Paschal offering or a guilt-offering does not consecrate it, as you understood my words.

Rather,

I explained the view of the one who holds that when one consecrates a female animal for a Paschal offering or a guilt-offering, it is consecrated.

According to his view I said that this is what the verse teaches us: Only one who consecrates an animal that is

actually impure

is not consecrated at all, because no animal of its species is offered anywhere.

But a female animal, and an animal that engaged in bestiality or was the object of bestiality, belong to species that are offered [when they have not engaged in or been the object of bestiality]; therefore, sanctity of the body takes effect upon them.

And since the verse is speaking of an actually impure animal, with regard to which sanctity of the body cannot apply at all, it is well understood that

in this [

in this case]

it is written “then he shall set it”

“and he shall assess it,”

for it is indeed consecrated with sanctity of value.

After all, it can be consecrated only for its value, since it has no connection whatsoever to the altar, and it can be redeemed through standing and assessment. [Based on the version of Korban Ha-Edah.]

Halakha 5—Mishna:

Once every thirty days they set the price, [

they establish a price]

for the chamber.

For at that time they establish a price for wines, oils, and fine flour, and that price remains in effect for thirty days. Each day they purchase from the sellers of wines, oils, and fine flour whatever they require, at the sum that they established.

And with regard to what purpose do they establish the price?

If the price rises during those thirty days, they do not add money; but if it decreases, they purchase at the lower price.

Any

supplier

who undertakes to supply fine flour

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

four

seahs per sela, even if the price rose

and stood

at

three

seahs per sela, nevertheless he continues

to supply four

seahs per sela.

For although the consecrated funds did not physically acquire the fine flour, they acquired it through payment, since the consecrated funds acquire through payment.

Thus, the consecrated funds gain one seah for every sela.

If he undertook to supply fine flour when the price stood at

three

seahs per sela, and the price decreased

and stood at four

seahs per sela—

he supplies four

seahs per sela.

For

always

the consecrated funds have the advantage.

If the fine flour became wormy

that the seller had undertaken to supply—

it became wormy for him,

and he must provide other fine flour in its place.

And

likewise,

if the wine turned sour

that he had undertaken to supply—

it turned sour for him,

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

And

the seller bears the loss even if the treasurer had already taken the fine flour and the wine and had already given him the money.

Because

he does not receive his money

as truly belonging to him

until

everything is fit for the altar, and

the altar effects acceptance.

Gemara:

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

the suppliers’

money.

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

the priests are vigilant

to guard it so that it does not spoil.

We have completed the chapter “The Contribution.”

Halakha 1 — Mishna:

There were always fifteen appointed officials of administration and authority in the Temple. Each of these appointed officials had many people under his direction, in order to prepare the work for which he was responsible — [Rambam, Chapter 7 of the Laws of the Temple Vessels].

And

these were the appointed officials who served in the Temple:

1.

Yohanan ben Pinhas —

the official

in charge of the seals.

Anyone who needed libations would come to obtain them from the official and would give money to Yohanan ben Pinhas. In return for the money, he would give him a seal corresponding to the measure of libations that he required.

2.

Ahiya —

the official

in charge of the libations.

Anyone who had purchased a seal from Yohanan ben Pinhas would give it to Ahiya, and he would give him libations in accordance with what was written on the seal.

[The reason they sold libations but did not sell animals for sacrifices was that libations can become impure, and they had to be guarded in a state of purity.]

3.

Matitya ben Shmuel —

the official

in charge of the lotteries.

There were four lotteries in the Temple every day, to determine who would merit this service and who would merit that service. He was responsible for arranging the order of the lotteries.

4.

Petahya —

the official

in charge of the bird offerings.

For zavim and women who had given birth

would bring their money to the collection boxes in the Temple; those who were obligated to bring the obligatory bird offerings would bring their money there, and the officials in charge of the collection boxes would take the money and purchase the bird offerings with it.

A great and expert sage therefore had to be appointed to this position, as we say in tractate Avot: “Bird offerings and the openings of menstruation are themselves the fundamental laws.”

And

Petahya —

this was Mordecai,

the Jew.

And why was he called Petahya?

Because he would open with words, expound them, and know seventy languages,

as will be explained in the Gemara.

5.

Ben Ahiya —

the official

in charge of

the

ailments of the intestines

and their treatment.

The reason was that the priests ate a great deal of sacrificial meat and walked barefoot on the floor. Consequently, their intestines would become disordered, 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 for the pilgrims to drink.

7.

Gavini —

he was in charge of the

proclamation.

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

8.

Ben Gever —

he was the official

in charge of locking the gates,

as he instructed that the gates of the Temple be locked in the evening and opened in the morning.

9.

Ben Bavi —

he was the official

in charge of the wicks,

that is, of making the wicks for the Menora. Since the mitzva of the Menora was that it burn from evening until morning, and they always placed in it an equal measure of oil, half a log, the amount sufficient even for the long nights of Tevet, he was responsible for adjusting the thickness of the wicks throughout the seasons of the year, so that the flame would not go out before morning.

10.

Ben Arza —

he was the official

in charge of the cymbal.

This was a musical instrument with a loud sound, and when its sound was heard, the Levites would begin their song.

11.

Hugras ben Levi —

the official

in charge of the song.

The Levites would sing with their mouths. He had a very pleasant voice and was responsible for beginning the song; when he finished, they would all finish.

14.

The House of Garmu —

they were the officials

in charge of making the showbread.

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

13.

The House of Avtinas —

they were the officials

in charge of making the incense.

This family was expert in compounding the incense and recognized the herb called “raiser of smoke.”

When they mixed it with the ingredients of the incense, the smoke of the incense would rise straight upward like a staff.

14.

Elazar —

he was the official

in charge of

the weavers of

the curtains.

They made new curtains whenever they were needed.

15.

And Pinhas —

the official

in charge of the vestments,

who dealt with the priestly garments, weaving and making them. He was responsible for ensuring that the garments were ready for the priests at the time of the service and for storing them away afterward; 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 served only in their own time; in the other generations, there were other appointed officials.

They disagreed about the reason for the tanna’s ruling: Why did he list these names specifically?

One said: He came to list the finest of each generation.

Not all of these served in a single generation; rather, the tanna listed the most qualified person for each of the appointments throughout all the generations.

And the other [the other one]

—

said:

All these appointed officials served in a single generation. And

the one who served in that generation,

the generation in which Israel ascended from the exile,

listed what

was

in his generation. He mentioned those officials, but did not mention all the appointed officials who served during the period of the Temple.

We learned in tractate Yoma, chapter three:

Ben Katin made twelve spigots for the basin. King Monbaz made all the handles of the Yom Kippur vessels of gold. And they would mention these deeds in their praise.

And these were mentioned to their discredit: The House of Garmu did not wish to teach others the craft of making the showbread. The House of Avtinas did not wish to teach others the craft of making the incense. Hugras ben Levi knew a chapter of the song but did not wish to teach it. Ben Kamtzar did not wish to teach the craft of writing.

Concerning the former it is stated: “May the memory of the righteous be for a blessing,” and concerning these it is stated: “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 finest of each generation,

if so, it follows that the House of Garmu, Hugras, and the House of Avtinas were the finest people in all the generations, and they had found a response to explain why they did not wish to teach others, as will be stated below in the Gemara.

It must therefore be that

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

including the House of Garmu, Hugras, and the House of Avtinas.

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

However, according to

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

there is no proof that all those mentioned in our Mishna were worthy. We must therefore interpret the Mishna in Yoma according to its simple meaning:

concerning all

those mentioned there to their discredit

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

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

And

concerning whom is it stated

there in the Mishna

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

Concerning Ben Katin and his colleagues,

who are mentioned at the beginning of the Mishna.