Shekalim 18a — the Talmud in English

And

so it will be difficult for the one who says this. For it is also found that the

menora

was placed

in the north.

For according to that opinion, also the ten menorot that Solomon made [as explained below] were placed between north and south [for it is not logical to distinguish between the menorot and the tables]. And it follows that also half of them were in the north, and they were not all equal for service, for the place of the menora is in the south.

And there is a further difficulty according to that opinion, that they were placed between north and south:

But it was taught: The table was placed

in the Sanctuary

from the middle of the House inward,

for the length of the Sanctuary was forty cubits, and the table was placed from the middle of the Sanctuary inward, that is, in the twenty cubits adjacent to the Holy of Holies, when it was

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

so that free space would remain for the passage of the two kohanim who carried the two arrangements of the showbread. For for the passage of two people, two and a half cubits are required.

And the menora was opposite it in the south.

As it is written, “opposite the table,” this opposite that; and it too was drawn away from the southern wall two and a half cubits, according to the measure of the table.

And the golden altar was placed in the middle

of the length of

the House,

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

And it follows that it

divided the House from its middle inward.

And the altar was

drawn slightly

away from the table and the menora

toward the outside,

toward the opening of the Sanctuary in the east. For the table and the menora too were in the middle of the House, but they were drawn inward, at the beginning of the inner twenty cubits, adjacent to the Holy of Holies. And it follows that the table, the menora, and the altar were placed in the Sanctuary in the form of the letter samekh.

And all of them

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

were placed from one-third of the House inward.

When we calculate the Sanctuary, whose length was forty cubits, together with the Holy of Holies, whose length was twenty cubits, there are sixty cubits.

And the golden altar, which was at the end of twenty cubits from the opening of the Sanctuary, was placed from one-third of the House inward [including the Holy of Holies], which is half of the Sanctuary.

And likewise the table and the menora were placed at one-third of the House, which is half of the Sanctuary, as explained above.

And now the Gemara explains the difficulty from this beraita against the one who holds that the tables were placed between north and south.

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

But the length of the ten tables together was twenty cubits, and the entire width of the Sanctuary was so much; there was no free space at all in which we could draw the table away and distance it from the wall.

And it is proven that they were placed between east and west.

And now the Gemara comes to explain the matter of the menorot that King Solomon made:

Solomon made ten menorot.

As it is stated

in Chronicles:

“And he made the golden menora, ten, according to its ordinance, and he placed them in the Sanctuary, five on the right and five on the left.”

And the Gemara explains that what is written, “five on the right and five on the left,” does not mean that five menorot were on the right 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 menora fit only

when it is placed

in the south.

As it is stated

[Exodus 26]

“And the menora opposite the table, on the side of the Tabernacle southward.”

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

And if so,

what does “five on the right and five on the left” come to teach?

Rather,

the intention of the verse is that

five

menorot were

to the right of Moses’ menora

[which he was commanded to make in 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 menora

of Moses alone.

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

Since it is written “golden menora,” which is the singular form, it implies that he would kindle only one menora.

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Judah 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 ordinance before the Inner Sanctuary, refined gold.”

And it implies that all the menorot were made so that the lamps would be kindled upon them, and not only Moses’ menora.

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

and the flower-work, and the lamps and the tongs

—gold, perfected gold.”

And the Gemara explains what is the meaning of the expression “perfected gold

that they consumed Solomon’s gold,

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

Rav Judah taught in the name of Asi:

When King Solomon made the menorot of the Temple,

Solomon would take one thousand talents of gold and put them into the furnace,

so that they would be melted in the fire and purified of the refuse,

and he would take them out,

and again put them in and take them out,

until

he

set them at

one talent of gold

one.

To fulfill what is stated

concerning Moses’ menora:

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

For pure gold, refined of refuse, is required.

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

in its weight

that of

the

menora that Moses made in the wilderness

by the weight of

one gold dinar, and they put it into 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 so? But our eyes see that when gold is put into a furnace in the fire, it decreases.

And we answer: Indeed, when gold is put into the fire, it decreases from its weight. But this is specifically

until it has reached its purity

[as long as the gold has not reached its purity], when it has not yet been fully refined and purified, for then

it would decrease greatly

[it decreases greatly] through the fire.

However,

once it has reached its purity,

from the time that it has already reached its purity and has been fully refined, then even if they put it into the fire eighty times,

it does not decrease anything.

Halakha 4 — Mishna:

At the beginning of the chapter it was explained in the Mishna that there were thirteen boxes made in the form of a shofar, narrow above and wide below, and they were called shofarot. In them they placed the money designated for the offerings of the community and of an individual, according to their various types. And each shofar served a different purpose. And our Mishna comes to explain the names of these shofarot, and what they served for.

There were thirteen shofarot in the Temple

—in the Temple Courtyard,

and written upon them were

their names. And these are they:

a.

“New shekels”

[new shekels], in which they would place the new shekels that the community contributed every year, as explained below in our Mishna.

b.

and “old shekels”

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

c.

“Bird pairs,”

it will be explained below.

d.

and “young doves for burnt offerings,”

it will be explained below.

e.

“Wood,”

one who volunteered to bring wood for the arrangement would place its value in the shofar upon which “wood” was written, and afterward the kohanim would take this money and purchase wood for the arrangement with it.

f.

and “frankincense.”

One who volunteered frankincense for the altar would place its value in the shofar upon which “frankincense” was written.

g.

“Gold for the atonement covering,”

in which they would place the money of one who volunteered gold for plating the Holy of Holies, or who volunteered gold for sacred vessels, which are also called “atonement covering,” for in the Book of Ezra blood bowls are called “golden atonement vessels,” because the kohen wipes the blood from his finger on the edge of the bowl between one sprinkling and another, as explained in Zevahim [25a].

And additionally,

six

shofarot were

for

burnt offerings

of freewill offerings.

For anyone who set aside money for his sin offering or his guilt offering and purchased his offering, and money remained from the money, would place the remainder of the money in the shofarot of freewill offerings. And with this money they would purchase burnt offerings for the summer of the altar, as explained later in our Mishna. For when the altar was idle, without offerings, they would bring burnt offerings from there. And the reason that six shofarot were required for the surplus money will be explained in the Gemara.

And now the Mishna explains the use of these shofarot.

The shofar upon which was written

“New shekels”

was used to place in it the new shekels

of every year and every year.

For one who did not bring his shekel in Adar would bring it whenever he wished until before the division of the festival of Sukkot, and would place it in this shofar; and when the time of the contribution of the chamber arrived, the treasurer would remove the shekels from the shofar and place them in the chamber, in order to contribute from them, as explained above.

And the shofar upon which was written “old

shekels”

served for

one who did not bring

his shekel

last year

[in the previous year], whose law is that he should

weigh for the coming year,

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

And from this money they would not bring communal offerings, since the offerings are required to come from the contribution of the chamber of this year, whereas this shekel was given for the past year; rather, they would take it to the remainder of the chamber, and they would use it for many of the needs of the Temple, as explained above, chapter 4, mishna 2.

The shofar upon which was written

“Bird pairs” —

they are turtledoves

large ones. And one who vowed or volunteered to bring turtledoves for the altar would place their value in the shofar upon which “bird pairs” was written, and with this money the kohanim would purchase turtledoves for him and burn them for him.

And “young doves for burnt offerings” are fledglings

small ones, for one who vowed or volunteered small fledglings would place their value in the shofar upon which “young doves for burnt offerings” was written.

And all of them—

the two shofarot of bird pairs and young doves for burnt offerings; from their value they bring only

burnt offerings, the words of Rabbi Judah—

who holds that the shofarot were only for freewill-offering bird pairs, and bird pairs brought as freewill offerings are only burnt offerings, and there are no sin offerings among them.

But for obligatory bird pairs, such as the nest of a zav or a zava and a poor woman after childbirth, who are obligated to bring a nest of birds, two turtledoves or two fledglings, one for a sin offering and one for a burnt offering, there was no shofar at all. Rather, they would give the money or the birds directly into the hand of the kohen, and in the Gemara its reason will be explained.

And the Sages say:

There was not one shofar for freewill-offering turtledoves and another shofar for fledglings brought as freewill offerings.

Rather, the shofar upon which was written

“Bird pairs”

was used to place in it the money for obligatory bird pairs, both for turtledoves and for fledglings, and from each nest they would bring [a pair]

one sin offering and one burnt offering.

And

the shofar upon which was written

“Young doves for burnt offerings”

was designated for freewill-offering nests, both for turtledoves and for small fledglings, and from

all of them they bring only burnt offerings

according to the law of freewill-offering nests, which are only burnt offerings.

It is explained in our Mishna that there were three additional shofarot: for one who volunteered wood, frankincense, or gold, who placed their value in these shofarot. And incidentally, the Mishna explains what amount the one who vowed wood, gold, or frankincense must give, but it did not explain how much.

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

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

may not give less than two logs

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

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

frankincense,”

and did not specify how much,

may not give less than a handful

of frankincense, which is the measure of the frankincense that comes with the meal offering.

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

gold

for the repair of the House,” and did not specify which coin,

may not give less than a gold dinar,

which is a small coin of gold.

And the Mishna explains what they would do with the money in the

six

shofarot that were

for freewill offerings,

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

Freewill offerings—

what would they do with it?

They would purchase with it

[with the money of 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 upon the altar according to the law of a burnt offering, which is burned entirely.

And the hides

of the burnt offerings were divided

among the kohanim.

And what we said—that with this money remaining from the value of sin offerings and guilt offerings they purchase burnt offerings, the flesh is burned, and the hides are given to the kohanim—we learn from the “interpretation of Jehoiada the High Priest” [who lived in the days of King Jehoash].

This is the interpretation that Jehoiada the High Priest expounded:

It is written in the passage concerning the guilt offering:

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

And seemingly there is a contradiction in the wording of the verse: At its beginning it is written, “It is a guilt offering,” implying that its law is like that of a definite guilt offering, whose flesh is given to the kohanim, as it is written, “Like the sin offering, like the guilt offering, one law applies to them.” And at the end of the verse it is written, “a guilt offering for the Lord,” implying that all of it is for the Lord, like a burnt offering. How is this so?

Rather,

this is the principle

that the verse comes to teach us:

every

offering

that comes because of sin and because of guilt,

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

burnt offerings are purchased with it.

The flesh

is entirely burned

for the sake of the altar, and the hides

are divided

among the kohanim

[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 mentioned verses

are found

to stand.

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 for the Lord”

—this is the flesh, which is entirely burned.

“A guilt offering for the kohen”

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

And where do we find that Jehoiada expounded this?

And it says

[II Kings 12:17]: For Jehoiada says:

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

they shall belong to the kohanim.”

And it is impossible to explain this according to its simple meaning, that the money set aside for a sin offering and a guilt offering should be given to the kohanim, for they must purchase with it the offerings for which it was set aside and offer them.

Rather, the intention of the verse is to say that the money remaining from the money that those obligated in sin offerings and guilt offerings set aside to purchase their offerings was not used for the House of the Lord, for the repair of the House; rather, they would give it to the kohanim, and they would purchase freewill-offering burnt offerings with it, whose hides have the same law as the hides of the sin offering and the guilt offering, which are given to the kohanim.

Gemara:

It is explained in the Mishna that Rabbi Judah and the Sages disagreed whether there was a shofar in the Temple for the money of obligatory bird pairs. And the Gemara explains the reason of Rabbi Judah, who holds that there was no shofar for obligatory bird pairs.

a. There is a distinction between obligatory bird pairs and freewill-offering bird pairs:

One who volunteers a nest of birds brings two burnt offerings, whereas one obligated to bring a nest, such as a zav, a zava, or a poor woman after childbirth, brings as his offering two turtledoves or two fledglings, one for a sin offering and one for a burnt offering.

b. One who set aside his sin offering or money for his sin offering and died—the law of the offering is death, and the law of the money is that it should be cast into the Dead Sea. For this is the law: a sin offering whose owners died shall die.

And it is one of the “five sin offerings that die,” which were stated as a halakha given to Moses at Sinai.

It was taught: Rabbi Judah said: There was no shofar for bird pairs in Jerusalem because of mixtures.

For they were concerned

lest one die

of the zavot or women after childbirth who had placed their money in the shofar for the purchase of their offering, and it would follow that half of her money, which was 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 die.

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

the money of “sin offerings that die” was found mixed among it,

and all the money would have to be lost.

And because of this concern, they instituted that those obligated in bird pairs should give their money into the hand of the kohen, and he would guard the money of each one separately, and the money would not be placed in a shofar.

And we challenge this:

But it was taught:

a. A woman after childbirth must bring an offering when the days of her purification are completed, and this offering permits her to eat consecrated food.

And her offering is a lamb for a burnt offering and a turtledove or a fledgling for a sin offering; and if she is poor, she brings two turtledoves or two fledglings [called a “nest”], one for a burnt offering and one for a sin offering.

b. A zava must bring, after she has become pure from her ritual impurity, two turtledoves or two fledglings, one for a burnt offering and one for a sin offering, and through bringing them she is permitted to eat consecrated food.

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

of turtledoves or fledglings, for my childbirth or for my discharge,”—

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

and relies upon the kohanim to offer bird pairs with it that very day.

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