Shekalim 18a (יח.) — the Talmud in English

And

so this will likewise be difficult according to the one who says that the

menorah

was placed

in the north.

For according to that tanna, the ten menorot that Solomon made [as explained below] were also placed between north and south [since it is not reasonable to distinguish between the menorot and the tables]. It follows that half of them were in the north as well, and they were not all equivalent for sacred service, since the menorah belongs in the south.

There is a further difficulty according to the one who says that they were placed between north and south:

But it was taught: The table was placed

in the Sanctuary

from the middle of the building inward,

for the Sanctuary was forty cubits long, and the table was placed from the middle of the Sanctuary inward—that is, in the twenty cubits nearest the Holy of Holies—

set two and a half cubits away from the wall toward the north,

so that there would remain an open space for the passage of the two priests who carried the two arrangements of the showbread. For the passage of two people, two and a half cubits were required.

And the menorah was opposite it in the south.

As it is written: “opposite the table”—one opposite the other. It too was set two and a half cubits away from the southern wall, corresponding to the measure of the table.

And the golden altar was placed in the middle

of the length of

the building,

at the end of the first twenty cubits that were in the Sanctuary.

It follows that it

divided the building from its midpoint inward.

And the altar was

set slightly farther out

[a little] than the table and the menorah,

toward the outside,

in the direction of the entrance to the Sanctuary, which was in the east. For the table and the menorah were also in the middle of the building, but they were set inward, at the beginning of the inner twenty cubits, nearest the Holy of Holies. Thus the table, the menorah, and the altar were placed in the Sanctuary in the shape of the Hebrew letter samekh.

And all of them

[the table, the menorah, and the golden altar]

were placed from one-third of the building inward.

When we calculate the Sanctuary, whose length was forty cubits, together with the Holy of Holies, whose length was twenty cubits, we find a total of sixty cubits.

The golden altar, which was at the end of twenty cubits from the entrance to the Sanctuary, was therefore placed from one-third of the building inward [including the Holy of Holies], which is half of the Sanctuary.

Likewise, the table and the menorah were placed in the third of the building that constituted half of the Sanctuary, as explained above.

The Gemara now explains the difficulty from this beraita against the view that the tables were placed between east and west.

In any event, it teaches that the table was set two and a half cubits away from the wall. How is this possible according to the one who says that the tables were placed between north and south?

After all, the combined length of the ten tables was twenty cubits, which was the entire width of the Sanctuary; there was no open space left in which we could set the table away from the wall.

This proves that they were placed between east and west.

The Gemara now explains the matter of the menorot made by King Solomon:

Solomon made ten menorot.

As it is stated

in Chronicles:

“And he made ten golden menorot according to their form, and placed them in the Sanctuary, five on the right and five on the left.”

The Gemara explains that when it is written “five on the right and five on the left,” it does not mean that five menorot were on the right side of the Sanctuary, in the south, and five on the left, in the north.

If you say

[do not say] that they were

five in the north and five in the south,

but is the menorah valid except

when it is placed

in the south?

As it is stated

[Exodus 26]:

“And the menorah opposite the table, on the side of the Tabernacle toward the south.”

And “south” is the southern side. Thus, the place of the menorah is in the south.

If so,

what does the verse mean by saying, “five on the right and five on the left”?

Rather,

the intention of the verse is that

five

menorot were

to the right of Moses’ menorah

[which he was commanded to make for the work of the Tabernacle],

and five to its left,

and all of them were in the south.

And nevertheless,

although there were ten menorot in the Temple,

he would kindle only

the menorah

of Moses alone.

As it is stated: “And the golden menorah and its lamps, to kindle them every evening.”

Since it says “the golden menorah,” in the singular, it indicates that he kindled only one menorah.

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda says: He would kindle all of them,

sometimes this one and sometimes that one.

As it is stated

in Chronicles:

“And the menorot and their lamps, to kindle them according to the rite before the Sanctuary, of refined gold.”

This indicates that all the menorot were made for their lamps to be kindled upon them, and not only Moses’ menorah.

It is written in II Chronicles [4:19]: “And Solomon made all the vessels that were in the House of God, and the golden altar, and the tables ... and the menorot

and the flowers, and the lamps and the tongs

of gold—of perfect gold.”

The Gemara explains the expression “of perfect gold”:

for they consumed Solomon’s gold

because he required a very great quantity of gold in order to refine it and extract from it the amount of pure gold sufficient to make the ten menorot, as explained in the beraita below.

Rav Yehuda taught in the name of Asi:

When King Solomon made the menorot of the Temple,

Solomon would take one thousand talents of gold and place them in the furnace,

so that they would melt in the fire and be purified of their impurities,

and he would remove them,

and again place them inside and remove them,

until

he

reduced them to

one talent of gold,

one.

To fulfill what is stated

concerning Moses’ menorah:

“He made it of one talent of pure gold.”

For pure gold, refined of impurities, was required.

It was taught: Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident involving the menorah of the Temple, which exceeded

in weight

that of

the

menorah that Moses made in the wilderness

by the weight of

one gold dinar, and they placed it in the furnace eighty times, and it did not lose

from its weight through the fire

anything.

And we challenge this:

Is that so?

Is this really the case? After all, we see that when gold is placed in a furnace in the fire, it loses weight.

And we answer: Indeed, when gold is placed in the fire, it loses weight. But this is so only

until it has reached its degree of purity

[as long as the gold has not reached its full purity], because it has not yet been completely refined and purified; at that stage,

it would lose a great deal

[it would diminish greatly] through the fire.

However,

once it has reached its degree of purity,

from the time that it has already reached its full purity and has been completely refined, even if it is placed in the fire eighty times,

it loses nothing.

Halakha 4—Mishna:

At the beginning of the chapter, the Mishna explained that there were thirteen boxes made in the form of a shofar, narrow above and broad below, and they were called shofarot. Money designated for the various communal and individual offerings was placed in them. Each shofar served a different purpose. Our Mishna comes to explain the names of these shofarot and what they were used for.

There were thirteen shofarot in the Temple

—in the courtyard—

and their names were written on them.

These are they:

1.

“New shekels”

[new shekels], in which the new shekels that the community contributed each year were placed, as explained below in our Mishna.

2.

And “old shekels”

[old shekels], as will be explained below in the Mishna.

3.

“Bird offerings,”

as will be explained below.

4.

And “young birds for burnt offerings,”

as will be explained below.

5.

“Wood,”

one who volunteered to bring wood for the pyre would place its value in the shofar marked “wood,” and afterward the priests would take this money and purchase wood for the pyre.

6.

And “frankincense.”

One who volunteered frankincense for the altar would place its value in the shofar marked “frankincense.”

7.

“Gold for the atonement,”

in which the money of one who volunteered gold for plating the Holy of Holies was placed, or of one who volunteered gold for sacred vessels, which were also called “atonement,” for in the Book of Ezra blood bowls are called “golden atonement vessels,” because the priest wipes the blood from his finger on the rim of the bowl between one sprinkling and the next, as explained in Zevachim [25a].

In addition,

six

shofarot were

for

burnt offerings

voluntarily donated.

For anyone who set aside money for his sin offering or guilt offering, purchased his offering, and had money left over, would place the surplus money in the shofarot for voluntary offerings. With this money, burnt offerings were purchased for the “summer of the altar,” as explained later in our Mishna. When the altar was idle, with no offerings, burnt offerings were brought from these funds. The reason that six shofarot were required for surplus money will be explained in the Gemara.

The Mishna now explains the use of these shofarot.

In the shofar marked

“New shekels,”

they would place the new shekels

of each and every year.

For one who had not brought his shekel in Adar could bring it whenever he wished, until shortly before the festival of Sukkot, and place it in this shofar. When the time came for the collection of the Chamber, the treasurer removed the shekels from the shofar and placed them in the Chamber, in order to collect from them, as explained above.

And the shofar marked “old

shekels”

served for

one who had not brought

his shekel

the previous year

[last year], whose law is that he

must weigh for the coming year,

and he would place it in the shofar marked “old shekels.”

Communal offerings were not brought from this money, since the offerings had to come from the collection of the Chamber for the current year, whereas this shekel was given for the previous year. Rather, the money went to the remainder of the Chamber funds, and many of the Temple’s needs were provided from it, as explained above, chapter 4, mishna 2.

The shofar on which was written

“Bird offerings”

are turtledoves,

fully grown. One who vowed or volunteered to bring turtledoves to the altar would place their value in the shofar marked “bird offerings,” and with this money the priests would purchase turtledoves for him and offer them on his behalf.

And “young birds for burnt offerings” are fledglings

—young pigeons. One who vowed or volunteered to bring young pigeons would place their value in the shofar marked “young birds for burnt offerings.”

And all of them—

the two shofarot for bird offerings and young birds for burnt offerings—nothing other than

burnt offerings was brought from their value, the words of Rabbi Yehuda—

who maintains that the shofarot were only for voluntary bird offerings, and voluntary bird offerings are exclusively burnt offerings and do not include sin offerings.

But there was no shofar for obligatory bird offerings, such as the nest of a man or woman with a flux or of a poor woman after childbirth, who are obligated to bring a nest of birds—two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one for a sin offering and one for a burnt offering. Rather, they would give the money or the birds directly to the priest, and the Gemara will explain the reason.

And the Sages say:

There was not one shofar for voluntary turtledoves and another shofar for young pigeons brought as voluntary offerings.

Rather, in the shofar marked

“Bird offerings,”

they would place the value of obligatory bird offerings, whether turtledoves or young pigeons, and from each nest [pair]

one sin offering and one burnt offering were brought.

And

the shofar marked

“Young birds for burnt offerings”

was intended for voluntary nests, both of turtledoves and of young pigeons, and from

all of them only burnt offerings

were brought, in accordance with the law of voluntary nests, which are exclusively burnt offerings.

Our Mishna explains that there were three additional shofarot: for one who volunteered wood, frankincense, or gold, who placed their value in these shofarot. In connection with this, the Mishna explains the amount that one who vowed wood, gold, or frankincense had to give, since he had not specified how much.

One who says, “It is incumbent upon me to bring wood

for the altar,” but did not specify how much wood,

may not give less than two logs

[large pieces of wood], like the logs that they arranged on the altar for the daily offering.

One who says, “It is incumbent upon me to bring

frankincense,”

but did not specify how much,

may not give less than a handful

of frankincense, which is the measure of frankincense that accompanies a meal offering.

One who says, “It is incumbent upon me to give a coin of

gold

for the maintenance of the Temple,” but did not specify which coin,

may not give less than a gold dinar,

which is a small gold coin.

The Mishna explains what was done with the money in the

six

shofarot that were

for voluntary offerings,

which came from the surplus of sin offerings and guilt offerings.

Voluntary offerings—

what did they do with it?

They would purchase with it

[with the money in these shofarot] animals and offer them as

burnt offerings.

And the flesh was for the sake of the Altar,

for all of it was burned on the altar according to the law of a burnt offering, which is burned in its entirety.

And the hides

of the burnt offerings were divided

among the priests.

The law we stated—that with this money, which remained from the value of sin offerings and guilt offerings, burnt offerings were purchased, their flesh was burned, and their hides were given to the priests—we learn from “the exposition of Jehoiada the High Priest” [who lived in the days of King Jehoash].

This is the exposition expounded by Jehoiada the High Priest:

It is written in the passage concerning a conditional guilt offering:

“It is a guilt offering; it is a guilt offering to the Lord.”

At first glance, there is a contradiction in the wording of the verse. At its beginning it says, “It is a guilt offering,” indicating that its law is like that of a definite guilt offering, whose flesh is given to the priests, as it is written: “As the sin offering, so is the guilt offering; there is one law for them.” But at the end of the verse it says, “a guilt offering to the Lord,” indicating that it is entirely for the Lord, like a burnt offering. How can this be?

Rather,

this is the principle

that the verse comes to teach us:

any

offering

that comes on account of sin and guilt,

that is, from money left over from what one set aside for a sin offering or a guilt offering—

burnt offerings are purchased with it.

The flesh

is burned in its entirety

for the sake of the Altar, and the hides

are divided

among the priests

[and without this exposition, we would not know that burnt offerings may be brought with money set aside for a sin offering or a guilt offering].

And

the two verses mentioned

are

both fulfilled.

Since this verse is not speaking of a guilt offering, but of a burnt offering brought from the surplus of a guilt offering, the two verses are reconciled:

“A guilt offering to the Lord”

refers to the flesh, which is burned in its entirety.

“A guilt offering for the priest”

refers to the hide, whose law is like that of a guilt offering given to the priests, in that the hides are divided among the priests.

And where do we find that Jehoiada expounded this?

And it says

[II Kings 12:17], for Jehoiada said:

“The money of guilt offerings and the money of sin offerings shall not be brought into the House of the Lord;

they shall belong to the priests.”

It is impossible to explain this according to its plain meaning, that the money set aside for a sin offering or a guilt offering was to be given to the priests, since it had to be used to purchase and offer the offerings for which it had been set aside.

Rather, the intention of the verse is that the money remaining from the funds set aside by those obligated to bring sin offerings and guilt offerings for the purchase of their offerings was not used for the House of the Lord, for the maintenance of the Temple. Instead, it was given to the priests, who purchased voluntary burnt offerings with it, whose hides have the same law as the hides of sin offerings and guilt offerings, which are given to the priests.

Gemara:

The Mishna states that Rabbi Yehuda and the Sages disagreed over whether there was a shofar in the Temple for money for obligatory bird offerings. The Gemara explains the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that there was no shofar for obligatory bird offerings.

1. There is a distinction between obligatory bird offerings and voluntary bird offerings:

One who voluntarily brings a nest of birds brings two burnt offerings, whereas one obligated to bring a nest, such as a man or woman with a flux or a poor woman after childbirth, brings as an offering two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one for a sin offering and one for a burnt offering.

2. One who set aside his sin offering or money for his sin offering and died—the law of the offering is that it must die, and the law of the money is that it must be cast into the Dead Sea. For this is the law: A sin offering whose owner died must be left to die.

This is one of the “five sin offerings that must die,” which were transmitted as a halakha to Moses from Sinai.

It was taught: Rabbi Yehuda said: There was no shofar for bird offerings in Jerusalem because of the possibility of intermixture.

For they feared

lest one

of the women with a flux or women after childbirth who had placed their money in the shofar to purchase their offerings should die, with the result that half of her money, which had been set aside for the sin offering in her offering, would have to be lost in the Dead Sea, according to the law of sin offerings that must die.

And since the money of the deceased woman was mixed in the shofar with the rest of the money of those obligated to bring bird offerings,

the value of “sin offerings that must die” would be found mixed among it,

and all the money would have to be destroyed.

Because of this concern, it was instituted that those obligated to bring bird offerings should give their money to the priest, who would keep each woman’s money separately, and the money would not be placed in a shofar.

And we challenge this:

But it was taught:

1. A woman after childbirth must bring an offering when the days of her purification are complete, and this offering permits her to eat sacrificial food.

Her offering is a sheep for a burnt offering and a turtledove or young pigeon for a sin offering. If she is poor, she brings two turtledoves or two young pigeons [called a “nest”], one for a burnt offering and one for a sin offering.

2. A woman with a flux must bring, after she has been purified from her ritual impurity, two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and one for a sin offering, and by bringing them she becomes permitted to eat sacrificial food.

A woman who said, “It is incumbent upon me to bring a nest

of turtledoves or young pigeons, for my childbirth or for my flux,”—

she brings the value of a nest and places it in the shofar,

relying on the priests to offer bird offerings with it that very day.

And she immerses an additional time for sacrificial food, besides the immersion that purifies her from her ritual impurity.