Shekalim 15a (טו.) — the Talmud in English

Therefore, we would distinguish

also in the case of cattle

between

the libations of a calf and the libations of an ox.

The verse states: “So shall it be done for the one ox.”

It teaches

the verse

that it does not distinguish between the libations of a calf and the libations of an ox.

And the Gemara continues to expound this verse:

“Or for a ram” —

why is this stated?

If it is to teach us that a ram requires libations, it was already stated: “Or for a ram you shall prepare a meal-offering”!

Rather,

it could have been derived logically

to say otherwise.

If we find that the verse distinguishes

regarding the libations of sheep

between the libations

of a one-year-old lamb

and the libations of a two-year-old ram, therefore we would distinguish

as well

between the libations

of a two-year-old sheep

and the libations of

a

three-year-old

sheep, and say that its libations should be greater than those of a ram.

The verse states: “Or for the one ram.”

It teaches that from the age of two years onward, he always brings two tenths of an ephah, as is the law of a ram.

“Or for a lamb among the sheep” —

why is this stated?

If it is to teach us that a lamb requires libations, it was already stated: “Or for a sacrifice, for the one lamb.”

Rather,

it could have been derived logically

to say:

If we find that the verse distinguishes

among male sheep

between the libations of a lamb

and the libations of a ram, therefore we would distinguish

between the libations of a ewe and the libations of a mature ewe, and say that the libations of a mature ewe should consist of two tenths, like the libations of a ram.

The verse therefore says: “Or for a lamb among the sheep,” to include that even the law of the libations of a mature ewe is like that of a lamb and not like that of a ram.

The verse states: “Or for a lamb among the sheep,”

to include that even the libations of a mature ewe have the status of those of a lamb and not of a ram.

“Or among the goats” —

why is this stated?

Are goats not included among sheep, and has the law of sheep not already taught us that they require libations?

Rather,

it could have been derived logically

to say:

If we find that the verse distinguishes

among sheep

between the libations of a lamb

one year old

and the libations of a ram

two years old,

therefore we would distinguish

as well

between the libations of a kid

[a small goat in its first year]

and the libations of a he-goat

[an adult goat], and say that the libations of a he-goat should be as great as those of a ram.

The verse states: “Or among the goats.”

The verse compares

the small one among the goats

the smallest among the goats to the largest among the he-goats: just as this one

[the smallest among the goats] has libations

of three log

of wine and oil,

so too this one

the he-goat, the largest among the goats, has libations

of three log.

We learned in our Mishna:

And the name was written

on them [on all the seals].

And we challenge this:

Consider this!

What benefit is there in having the day of the week written on the seal? You must be concerned

that the swindler will calculate

[will arrange]

that same day

of the week and redeem the seal. If “Tuesday” is written on it, and it is lost, and this swindler finds it, he can come and redeem it on Tuesday of the following week. What benefit, then, does this ordinance provide in preventing fraud?

And he answers:

The name of the watch

that served in the Temple during that week

was also written on it.

For there were twenty-four watches in the Temple, and each week a different watch served. Once the name of the watch and the day of the week were recorded, waiting until the following week with this seal would no longer help him, since the watch of the current week is not the one recorded on the seal from the previous week.

And we challenge this:

Consider this!

There is still reason for concern

that he will calculate

[will arrange] and the swindler will wait until

that same watch

returns twenty-four weeks later, and will arrange to come on the same day of the week recorded on the seal, and redeem it.

And we answer: On these seals

the name of the day

of the week,

the name of the week

[which week of the month it was],

and the name of the month were written on them,

as well as the name of the watch.

Therefore,

even if he wishes to calculate

[to arrange] the day,

it is not feasible to calculate.

For it is not likely that the same watch will again fall on the same day and the same week of the month, and on the same day of the month, all together. Therefore, there is no concern about this with regard to swindlers.

Halakha 4 — Mishna:

There were two chambers

[rooms]

in the Temple: one

called

the Chamber of Discretion, and one

called

the Chamber of Vessels.

The Chamber of Discretion

served charitable purposes.

Those fearful of sin

would

place money inside it

in secret,

privately

[in hiding],

and the poor of distinguished families

would come there

and support themselves from it in secret, so that they would not be embarrassed. And this is the source of its name: the Chamber of Discretion.

so that they would not be embarrassed. This is the reason for its name: the Chamber of the Discreet.

The Chamber of Vessels —

anyone who volunteered a vessel

for the repair of the Temple

would throw it inside.

Once every thirty days, the treasurers

of consecrated property

would open it, and any vessel in which they found a need for the repair of the Temple

for use in the Temple service or for repairing the building,

they would set

aside and leave

it

for the repair of the Temple.

And the remainder,

which was not needed for use in repairing the Temple,

would be sold.

And their proceeds would fall

into the chamber of

the repair of the Temple,

where money for the repair of the Temple was deposited.

Gemara:

Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi and Rav Yitzḥak bar Naḥman were charity administrators

[they were charity collectors],

and they would give

[and they gave]

Rabbi Ḥama, the father

[of]

Rabbi Yehoshaya, a dinar

from the charity funds in their possession,

and he would give it to others

[and he would give the money to others] who were poor.

The distribution was arranged in this manner so that the poor would not be embarrassed: they were ashamed to accept from the charity collector, and therefore Rabbi Ḥama would accept the money from the collector and give it to these poor people privately.

Rabbi Zekharya, the son-in-law

[son-in-law]

of Rabbi Levi was constantly slandered by everyone

and spoken about

him.

For they

would say that he did not need

charity,

yet he would take it

[they would say that he did not need to receive charity, yet he took it].

When he died,

[when he died,]

they examined him and found

[they examined and found]

that he had distributed it to others

[that he had distributed the money to the poor]. He had derived no benefit from it at all, and they had slandered him for no reason.

Rabbi Ḥinana bar Pappa would distribute charity

at night

[he was accustomed to distribute charity at night], bringing it to the poor so as not to embarrass them.

Once, he encountered the prince of the spirits

[once, while going at night to distribute charity, he encountered the prince of demons].

He said to him

to Rabbi Ḥinana:

Have you not learned this from us,

[did you not teach us,]

Rabbi: “You shall not move your fellow’s boundary”!?

At night, permission is granted to demons and spirits to roam, but not to human beings. Thus, you are infringing upon the domain of the demons.

He said to him

Rabbi Ḥinana:

Is it not written: “A gift in secret subdues anger”?

And I, who engage at night in giving gifts in secret, you have no permission to harm me, for a gift given in secret has the power to subdue the forces of harm.

Once the prince of the spirits heard this,

he was afraid of him

[he feared that he would subdue him],

and fled from before him

[and ran away from him].

It is written in Psalms [chapter 41]: “Fortunate is he who acts wisely toward the poor. On the day of evil the Lord will deliver him.”

Rabbi Yona said: “It is not written here, ‘Fortunate is he who gives to the poor,’

but rather, ‘Fortunate is he who acts wisely toward the poor.’”

The verse speaks only of

one who examines

and considers thoughtfully

the mitzva

of giving charity,

how to perform it

without causing the poor person embarrassment.

And therefore the verse uses the expression “acts wisely” rather than “gives,” for the mitzva depends not only on giving, but also on considering how it should be performed.

And the Gemara relates an incident involving Rabbi Yona, who thoughtfully considered the manner in which charity should be given.

How would Rabbi Yona perform

the mitzva of charity?

When

Rabbi Yona

would see a poor person of distinguished family who had lost his possessions, he would say to him: My son,

I have heard that you have lost your possessions and need money. But

because I have heard that you have inherited an inheritance from elsewhere

which you must wait some time to receive,

take

money from me now as a loan,

and

when you receive your inheritance,

you will repay

me.

After he had taken

the money from him,

he would say to him

Rabbi Ḥinana: The money that I lent you —

it is a gift to you,

and since he had first taken it as a loan, he was no longer embarrassed to accept the money as a gift.

Ḥiyya bar Adda

would say:

There were old men in our days

[there were old men in our days] who would not accept charity throughout the entire year, and only

when someone would give it to us

[and only when they gave them charity]

between Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur

[between Rosh HaShana and the fast day of Yom Kippur]

would they take it

[would they accept it].

But

from then onward

[from that point forward]

they would not accept it

[they would not accept charity] until Rosh HaShana of the following year.

They would say

[they said:]

“Our sustenance is in our hands”

[the sustenance for this year is in our hands], for our allotment of food for the entire year had already been decreed for us on Yom Kippur, and we had no need to accept charity. Only between Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur, when their judgment had not yet been sealed in Heaven, did they agree to accept charity [according to Tikelin Ḥadtin].

Neḥemya of Sikhin encountered a certain Jerusalemite

who was poor.

He said to

Neḥemya:

Do charity with me

[perform charity with me] and bring me

one chicken.

He said to him

Neḥemya:

Here is a coin, and

go

buy meat

[here is this coin; buy yourself beef], for you need not eat specifically chicken, which is the food of the wealthy.

This poor man went and bought beef,

and ate, and died.

For he was an esthete, and only poultry suited him, not the meat of an animal.

And

when Neḥemya saw that the poor man had died,

he cried out and said: Come and mourn the one killed by Neḥemya,

for had he given him chicken as he was accustomed to eat, he would have lived.

Naḥum of Gam Zo was carrying a gift

[a load carried by three donkeys laden with food, drink, and delicacies [Ta’anit 21a]]

to his father-in-law’s house.

On the way

he encountered a leper, who said to him: Do charity with me from what you have with you,

[give me something to eat from the food you are carrying].

He said to him

Naḥum of Gam Zo:

“When I return”

[when I return from unloading the donkey’s load, I will give you food], and he did not wish to delay then because of the honor of his father-in-law.

He went and

returned, and found him

upon his return, the poor man,

dead.

And he would say to himself

[Naḥum of Gam Zo would say to himself]:

“The eyes that saw you and did not give you charity” —

let them become blind.

Eyes that saw you and did not give you charity immediately when you asked — let them become blind.

“The hands that did not extend themselves to give you” —

let them be cut off.

Hands that did not extend themselves to give you charity — let them be cut off.

“The legs that did not hasten to give you” —

let them be broken.

Legs that did not run to give you charity — let them be broken.

And this happened to him,

and indeed it came upon him in this manner: his eyes became blind, and his hands and feet were cut off.

Rabbi Akiva came up to him

[he went up to him]

Rabbi Akiva

to visit him.

Rabbi Akiva said to him:

Rabbi Akiva:

“Woe is me

[alas]

that I see you in such a state,”

with these afflictions.

He said to him

Naḥum of Gam Zo:

“Woe is me that I do not see you in such a state.”

Rabbi Akiva said to him:

Rabbi Akiva:

“Why are you cursing me,

saying that the same should happen to me?”

Naḥum of Gam Zo said to him:

Naḥum of Gam Zo:

“And why are you

[why do you]

revolting against suffering,

by saying, ‘Woe is me that I see you in such a state’?”

Rabbi Hoshaya the Great had a son whose teacher was

blind

[he was the teacher of one of his blind sons],

and he was accustomed to eat with him every day

[Rabbi Hoshaya the Great was accustomed to eat with him at his table every day].

Once, he had guests and did not come to eat with him

[once, there were guests with him, and he did not come to eat with the blind man].

In the evening he went up to him

[in the evening Rabbi Hoshaya went up to the blind man] and

said to him

Rabbi Hoshaya:

“Let my master not be angry with me

for not having come to you to eat.

Because I had guests with me today

[because there were guests with me today], I did not wish to come to you with them,

for I said that they might fail to honor my master today

[for I feared that they might not treat you respectfully].

For this reason I did not eat with my master today.”

[and for this reason I did not eat with you today].

The blind man said to him:

Since

you have appeased

me,

the one who is seen but does not see

[one who is visible but does not see], therefore

the One who sees but is not seen

[the One who sees but is not seen, namely, the Holy One, blessed be He]

will accept your appeasement,

and will reward you well for it.

Rabbi Hoshaya the Great said to him:

Rabbi Hoshaya the Great:

“Where did you learn this

[from where did you learn to bless in this manner]?”

He said to him:

I learned this matter

from the incident involving Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov

.

For Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov entered a city with a blind man

[a blind man entered his city].

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov sat lower than him

[Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov sat below him], so that

people would say

that

if he were not

this

great man, Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov would not sit lower than him

[so that people would say: if he were not an important person, Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov would not sit below him].

And indeed, because of this,

people provided him with

a

respectable livelihood

[they provided him with a livelihood and gave him charity in an honorable manner].

He said to them

[the blind man said to them]:

“Why is this so?”

[why have you honored me so greatly]?

They said to him

the townspeople: We saw

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov

who

was sitting

in the study hall

below you

[beneath you], and we understood from this that you are an important person worthy of honor.

When the blind man heard how Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov had treated him,

he prayed this prayer for him

[he prayed this prayer for Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov]:

“You performed kindness for one who is seen but does not see

[for one who is visible but does not see].

May the One who sees but is not seen

[the One who sees but is not seen]

perform kindness toward you

[toward you]

as well.”

Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina and Rabbi Hoshaya were walking through these synagogues of Lod,

[they were walking through the synagogues in Lod].

Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina said to Rabbi Hoshaya: How much money my ancestors invested here,

for they built these synagogues with their own money.

Rabbi Hoshaya said to him

Rabbi Hoshaya:

“How many souls did your ancestors invest here!?”

Could it be that

there were no people who were studying Torah

[were there not people who studied Torah], and it would have been preferable to support poor Torah scholars with this money rather than use it to build a synagogue?