Shekalim 14b (יד:) — the Talmud in English

And they would

hand over this scroll

on which were written the identifying signs of the incense spices, how to recognize them, and the order of their preparation,

to one another.

They relied on one another so that this scroll would not come into the hands of an unworthy person, who might use it for idolatry.

And now that the members of the House of Abba are no longer trustworthy,

and I fear that this scroll may pass into the hands of an unworthy person,

here, take the scroll,

for you are trustworthy,

and guard it,

so that it does not pass from your hands to others.

And when I came and recounted these matters

to

Rabbi Akiva, his eyes filled with tears, and he said: From now on, we need not mention them disparagingly.

Until now, we had thought that the House of Avtinas should be disparaged because they did not wish to teach the preparation of the incense, despite the fact that they explained their reason: They did not want an unworthy person to come and do this for idolatry.

We thought that these were merely empty words, and that their real reason was their own needs and livelihood. But now that we see how carefully they guarded the scroll, we can see that their intention was for the sake of Heaven. Therefore, we need no longer continue to mention them disparagingly.

We learned in our Mishna:

Eleazar

was appointed

over the curtain.

And the Gemara explains:

He was

Eleazar,

appointed over

all

the weavers of the curtains

and those who embroidered them, so that they would be ready for the Sanctuary and the gates.

There were thirteen curtains in the Second Temple, and every year they would make two new curtains, to distinguish between the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies.

We learned in our Mishna:

Phinehas, the dresser.

And the Gemara explains:

He dressed the garments of the High Priest.

That is, he was occupied with preparing and weaving the garments of ordinary priests and the garments of the High Priest, and everything was produced under his supervision [Rambam, Chapter 7 of the Laws of the Temple Vessels, halakha 20].

And

there was an incident involving a priest who dressed

a certain

officer

in the clothes he was accustomed to wearing,

and he gave him eight gold coins as his payment.

And some say: Twelve

gold coins

he gave him.

Halakha 2 — Mishna:

Our Mishna continues to enumerate the additional appointees who served in the Temple.

a.

There may not be fewer

in the Temple

than three treasurers,

who had the consecrated funds under their authority. They collected valuations and redeemed consecrated property, and all work involving consecrated property was carried out through them.

And there may not be fewer

than seven amarkalin,

who were appointed over the treasurers [and from this their name “amarkal” is derived, from the word “mar,” master over the “all”]. The seven keys to the Temple courtyard gates were in their possession, one key in the hands of each of them, and they could not open the gates until all seven had assembled together.

b.

And no authority may be exercised over the public

with regard to money, even non-sacred money,

by fewer than two

appointees.

As it is written concerning the collection of the donations for the Tabernacle, “And they shall take the gold”: “They” is a plural expression, and the minimum of a plural is two. And the reason is to avoid suspicion.

Therefore, all those appointees mentioned above also had other appointees serving with them [and the tanna mentioned only the chief of the appointees].

Except for the son of Ahijah, who

was the sole appointee

over intestinal ailments,

even though this involved money, since funds had to be spent to purchase medicinal ingredients.

And

apart from

Eleazar, who

was the sole appointee

over the curtain,

although this too involved money.

Because

the majority of the public had accepted them in these positions.

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna:

There may not be fewer

in the Temple

than three treasurers and seven amarkalin.

It was taught:

And likewise, there may not be fewer

than two katilikin,

who were two additional appointees placed over the amarkalin.

The Gemara brings a source for all these appointments:

This is what is written

in II Chronicles [31]: “

And Hezekiah said to prepare chambers in the House of our God. And they prepared them, and they brought the offering and the tithe faithfully.

And over them was Conaniah the Levite, with Shimei his brother as deputy, and Jehiel, and Uzziah, and Nahath, and Asahel, and Jerimoth, and Jozabad, and Eliel, and Ismachiah, and Mahath, and Benaiah, by the appointment of King Hezekiah and Azariah, the ruler of the House of God.”

The Gemara explains the role of each of those mentioned in this verse [the Gemara lists them according to their order of importance, rather than according to the order in which they are mentioned in the verse].

“Jehiel, and Uzziah, and Nahath” —

treasurers.

Thus, three treasurers must be appointed.

“And Asahel, and Jerimoth, and Jozabad, and Eliel, and Ismachiah, and Mahath, and Benaiah” —

amarkalin.

This indicates that seven amarkalin are appointed.

And they were

“officials under the authority of Conaniah and Shimei his brother” \-

These were the two

katilikin

appointed over the amarkalin.

And all these were appointed

“by the appointment of King Hezekiah and Azariah, the ruler of the House of God” —

that is, the High Priest.

The meaning of the verse is that

the king and the High Priest

were appointed over all the appointees mentioned here.

And

when he opens

—when he came to remove the seals from the treasuries in order to take money from them:

The king

came first, and

saw his seal and opened.

After him came the

High Priest, saw his seal, and opened.

Then came

the katilik, saw his seal, and opened.

And

the amarkal saw his seal and opened.

Finally, the

treasurer

came,

saw his seal, and opened.

We learned in our Mishna:

No authority may be exercised over the public

with regard to something that involves

money, by fewer than two people.

From where do we derive this?

Rabbi

Naḥman said in the name of Rabbi Mana: It is on account of

what is written [Exodus, chapter 25] concerning the donation for the Tabernacle:

“And they shall take the gold, and the blue wool, and the purple wool.” “

They” is a plural expression, and the minimum of a plural is two. Thus, those who handle public funds may not handle them alone; there must be at least two, so that they do not come to suspicion.

The Gemara offers a reason why two are required for authority involving money, so that the appointees not come to suspicion: Even the generation of Moses spoke about him and suspected him, and all the more so would they suspect others.

Rabbi Ḥama son of Rabbi Ḥanina said: Moses became wealthy from the fragments of the Tablets.

This is what is written,

when God said to Moses:

“Carve for yourself two stone Tablets.”

And we derive that when He said to him,

“Carve for yourself,” it meant

that the fragments

that fell away when the stone Tablets were hewn

would be yours.

Rabbi Ḥanin said:

Moses did not become wealthy from the fragments of the Tablets, but rather

a quarry

—a place where stones are hewn—

of precious stones and pearls the Holy One, blessed be He, created

for Moses

inside his tent, and from it Moses became wealthy.

It is written:

[Exodus, chapter 33]:

“And they gazed after Moses until he entered the tent.”

And

two amoraim

disagreed concerning the nature of this gaze:

One said: It was to his discredit. And one said: It was to his credit.

And the Gemara explains:

The one who says it was to his discredit

means that they gazed at Moses and said:

“Look at

—see—

his shins;

look at

his legs

[see how broad they are],

look at his flesh

[look at his body],

he eats from the Jews and drinks from the Jews,

[he eats and drinks from the property of Israel].

Everything he has

[all that belongs to him] —

is from the Jews.”

And

the one who says it was to his credit:

They gazed after Moses because

they wished to see the righteous and meritorious man

[they wanted to see the righteous and meritorious man]. And they would say:

“Fortunate is he

—how fortunate are we—

that we have merited seeing him,”

for we were privileged to see him.

Halakha 3 — Mishna:

In the previous Mishna, it was mentioned that one person was appointed over the seals and another was appointed over the libations.

The Mishna before us explains how this was done.

a.

With every burnt-offering or peace-offering brought upon the altar, a meal-offering mixed with oil and fine flour, and wine libations, were brought together with it.

Their measure depended on the species of animal, and they were divided into three categories:

a.

The libations of a yearling lamb, and of a goat, whether large or small,

whether male or female, are: one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour, mixed with one-quarter of a hin of oil [which is three log], and one-quarter of a hin of wine for the libation.

b.

The libations of a ram

[a male lamb in its second year, which is called a ram] are: two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour, mixed with one-third of a hin of oil [which is four log], and one-third of a hin of wine.

c.

The libations of cattle,

whether large or small, male or female, are: three-tenths of an ephah of fine flour, mixed with half a hin of oil [which is six log], and half a hin of wine.

b.

The obligation to bring libations applies to burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, whether those of an individual or those of the community. But a sin-offering or a guilt-offering does not require libations.

Except for the sin-offering and guilt-offering of a leper, for a wealthy leper brings three animals: two male lambs, one for a guilt-offering and one for a burnt-offering, and one female lamb for a sin-offering. He is obligated to bring libations for his offerings, as explicitly stated in the Torah. For each offering, one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour mixed with one-quarter of a hin of oil, and one-quarter of a hin of wine, as the measure of the libations of a lamb.

A poor leper, who does not have the money to purchase three animals, brings one lamb for a guilt-offering, and two birds, turtledoves or young pigeons, one for a sin-offering and one for a burnt-offering. He brings libations of only one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil and one-quarter of a hin of wine, because libations are brought only for animals and not for birds.

In addition, the leper must bring an extra log of oil, to place on the thumbs of his hands and feet and to sprinkle toward the entrance of the Sanctuary, in accordance with the order explicitly set out in the Torah in the portion concerning the leper.

c.

For communal offerings, the libations came from the funds of the community, which were kept in the chamber, in accordance with the law governing communal offerings.

For an individual’s offering, the individual is obligated to bring the libations from his own funds, and he may bring the libations from his home.

However, since it is difficult to take care at home to keep them in a state of purity—for they had to be guarded according to the laws governing non-sacred items prepared in a state of purity for sacred use, for which great care is required—there was a chamber in the Temple in which pure libations were kept. Anyone who wished to bring his libations could purchase them there.

He would give his money to the appointee over the seals, and he would receive from him a seal on which the measure of the libations he was to receive was written.

He would give this seal to the appointee over the libations, and the latter would give him libations corresponding to the seal in his possession.

For this purpose,

there were four seals in the Temple.

They corresponded to the three different types of libations mentioned above, and the fourth was for the libations of a leper.

And written on them was:

a.

Calf —

If someone consecrated cattle for his offering, they would give him, in exchange for his money, a seal on which “calf” was written, and the appointee over the libations would give him, in exchange for his money, three-tenths of an ephah of fine flour, half a hin of oil, and half a hin of wine.

b.

Male —

for the libations of a ram [a ram is a male, as it is translated in the Aramaic translation: “dekhra”].

c.

Kid —

for the libations of a yearling lamb or of a goat, even a large one.

d.

Sinner —

for a leper. Since he must bring libations for three offerings, he is given one seal on which “sinner” is written, for all his libations.

A leper is called a “sinner,” as we say in tractate Arakhin, page 16a: Afflictions come on account of seven things.

Ben Azzai

disagrees and

says: Five

seals

there were

in the Temple.

He also disagrees with the first tanna, for in his opinion these seals did not have words written on them in the Holy Tongue, but rather

they had words written on them in Aramaic.

For during the Second Temple period, most of the people spoke Aramaic.

What were the five seals according to Ben Azzai?

a.

Calf.

b.

Dekhar.

[“Male” in Aramaic is called “dekhar.”]

c.

Kid.

d.

Poor sinner

[a poor leper], who brings libations for only one animal, since his offering consists of one lamb and two birds. The reason a separate seal was made for him, rather than giving him a “kid” seal for the libations of his lamb, is that he must bring an additional log of oil for placement on his thumbs.

e.

Wealthy sinner

[a wealthy leper]. The seal

“calf” serves for

all

cattle libations,

cattle libations,

whether for

large

bulls or for

small calves,

whether for

males

among the cattle or for

females

among them, since all types of cattle have the same law with regard to libations. The seal

“kid” serves for sheep libations,

“kid” was used for the libations of sheep,

whether for

large

kids or for

small kids,

for

males

and for

females.

Except for rams,

for although a ram is also of the sheep species, it nevertheless has a separate seal.

A two-year-old male lamb is called a ram, and its libations differ, as explained above; therefore, it is assigned a seal of its own. The seal

“ram”

was

used only for the libations of rams.

The seal

“sinner” was used for the libations of the three animals of a leper,

and for the log of oil for the thumbs.

The Mishna now explains the procedure for purchasing the libations.

One who requests libations

for his offering

goes to Yohanan, who

was

appointed over the seals, and gives him money

equal to the value of his libations.

And he receives a seal from him

corresponding to his libations.

Afterward,

he comes to Ahijah, who

was

appointed over the libations

and the fine flour,

and gives him

Ahijah the

seal

that he received,

and receives libations from him.

In the evening, they come to one another —

Ahijah and Yohanan.

And Ahijah takes out

all

the

seals

that he received during the day,

and receives

from Yohanan

in exchange for them

the

money

that he received that day in exchange for the seals. They would compare the sum of the money with the total value represented by the seals.

If the money was short,

meaning that there was not enough money corresponding to all the seals,

they deducted the amount from him, and Yohanan paid from his own funds,

since he was responsible for them to the consecrated funds.

And if there was a surplus,

meaning that they found excess money,

it belonged to the consecrated funds,

and we do not say that perhaps it was Yohanan’s money; rather, we are concerned that one of the purchasers had lost a seal.

This follows from

the principle that

always

the Temple treasury's hand is uppermost.

One whose seal was lost

from him, and

his seal

came to Yohanan and informed him that his seal had been lost,

they waited for him until evening,

when his brother Ahiyah and Yohanan would sit together and calculate the money against the seals.

And if they found for him

extra money

equal to

the value of

his seal

that had been lost from him,

they gave it to him.

For they would say: We certainly know that his seal was lost, since we see that one seal was not used.

But if not,

if they did not find extra money, but there was only enough money for the seals in Ahiyah's possession,

they would not give it to him.

And the name of the day

of the week and the name of the month

were written on them [

on all the seals]

because of the swindlers.

Perhaps the swindler would find a seal that had fallen from its owner before that day, or from Yohanan the official, and would use it after some time.

On that very day, however, we are not concerned that he would collect the libations with it, because he fears the person who lost it and is searching for it.

Likewise, we are concerned that he might purchase a seal when the market price is low and keep the seal until the libations become more expensive, and then collect the libations with it.

Gemara:

We challenge Ben Azzai, who disagrees with the first tanna and maintains that there was an additional seal for the poor person afflicted with tzara'at:

And according to Ben Azzai, the seal for the poor person afflicted with tzara'at—

why

was it necessary? His offering was one lamb, so the kid seal sufficed for him, just as it does for anyone who brings a lamb offering?

The Gemara answers:

Because

in addition to the libations of the lamb, he

would bring

also

its log

of oil

with it,

for application to the thumbs.

Therefore, an additional seal was necessary, corresponding to which he would receive the libations of the lamb together with an additional log of oil for the thumbs.

However, according to the Rabbis [

But the Rabbis], who disagree with him, maintain that there was no separate seal for a poor person afflicted with tzara'at; rather, he

would bring

a

kid

seal for the libations of his lamb.

And on account of the one log of oil that he had to bring for application to the thumbs, they did not establish a separate seal for him; rather, he would bring it from his home.

The Gemara considers:

The libations of an ewe [

which is a female lamb two years old]—

what

are they?

Is its law like that of a male, so that a two-year-old male lamb is a ram, and it brings more libations than a one-year-old lamb—and the same should apply to an ewe?

Or perhaps this applies specifically to a ram, whose libations are as stated. But the law of an ewe is like that of young lambs, which bring fewer libations, and like goats, between which there is no distinction; they always bring the libations of a lamb, whether they are mature or young.

We resolve this:

From what we learned [

from what we learned] in our Mishna, that a

kid

seal

served for the libations of flock animals,

both

mature and

young,

both

male

and

females, except for rams.

female,

except for rams.

This teaches [

We learn] that

the libations of an ewe are

like the libations of a kid,

and not like those of a ram. For we learned that even females, whether mature or young, have the law of a lamb, except for a ram.

What is the reason for the distinction between an ewe and a ram?

It is

as it is written

in the passage concerning libations:

“So shall it be done for the one ox, or for the one ram, or for a lamb, among the sheep or among the goats.”

“For the one ox”—

why is this stated?

If it is to teach us that cattle require libations, it has already been stated in this passage: “And he shall offer with the young bull a meal-offering.”

Rather,

the verse teaches

you, “for the one ox”—

that it does not distinguish between the libations of a calf

young

and the libations of an ox

large; all their libations are equal.

For it would have been logically possible

to reason otherwise, were it not for the additional implication of the verse.

For

the offspring of the flock requires libations, and the offspring of cattle requires libations.

It would therefore have been possible to derive one from the other:

If we find that Scripture distinguishes

among flock animals

between the libations of a lamb

one year old

and the libations of a ram

two years old, even though they belong to one species,