Shekalim 18b — the Talmud in English

And she eats of the consecrated offerings

in the evening.

And she is not concerned lest a koen have been negligent

and the koen did not offer them on that day, because there is a presumption regarding an agent that he carried out his agency, and he purchased pairs with her money and offered them immediately.

And

likewise,

the koen is not concerned lest the money of sin-offerings whose owners have died be mixed among them,

but he purchases pairs with all the money in the offering box and offers them.

It is thus explained that we do not need to be concerned lest one of the owners of the offering die.

And in this beraita we do not find that Rabbi Yehuda disagreed. It follows that he disagreed only concerning the fact that there was no offering box for obligatory pairs. But where they had already placed it in an offering box, and the koen took money from the offering box—he properly offers them, and is not concerned lest their owners have died.

And this is difficult: Why does Rabbi Yehuda hold that there was no offering box for obligatory pairs?

And we answer: Indeed, Rabbi Yehuda agrees that we are not concerned lest one of them die. Therefore, as long as we do not know with certainty that one of the owners of the pairs has died, it is possible to offer them on the presumption that their owners are alive.

And

when we say

that we are concerned about sin-offerings whose owners have died, and for that reason there was no offering box for obligatory pairs, that is

with sin-offerings whose owners have certainly died.

For we are concerned that one of them may die and we will learn that she has died. And since we know with certainty that one of the owners of the pairs has died, we cannot use all the money of the offerings, since the money of sin-offerings whose owners have died is mixed among it.

The tannaim disagreed in several places whether we say, “there is retroactive clarification.” That is, whether it is possible to perform an act whose effect takes effect now, but the clarification of the effect will occur only afterward.

And we raise an objection:

And if we say

that generally there is

retroactive clarification,

why did Rabbi Yehuda say that one must refrain from making an offering box for the money of obligatory pairs, because if one of the owners of the pairs dies, all the money will be lost?

But they could establish a condition: If one of the owners of the pairs dies,

we shall select four zuz

[which are the money for one bird, as explained in Keritot 6a: the price of a pair is eight zuz, and a pair contains two birds, one for an olah and one for a sin-offering; and when one of the owners of the offering dies, it is sufficient to remove from the mixture the money for the sin-offering, for only a sin-offering whose owner has died is subject to being lost, whereas this does not apply to an olah],

and cast them into the river

[and cast them into the river to be lost].

And they would stipulate at the outset, at the time of placing the money in the offering box: If one of the owners of the pairs dies, that money which they will cast away will be consecrated for the deceased, and the remaining money will be consecrated for the living.

And then, if one of them dies afterward, they will cast four zuz away, and it will become clear that this money belongs to the deceased,

and the other

money

will become permitted.

And all the remaining money will be fit to purchase birds with it for offering [according to Tosafot Yeshanim, Yoma 55b].

And we answer: Indeed, according to those who hold “there is retroactive clarification,” it is properly possible to do so. However, Rabbi Yehuda, who said that one does not make an offering box for obligatory pairs because of the mixture of the money of sin-offerings whose owners have died, cannot say this.

For

we said generally

in several places

that Rabbi Yehuda does not hold of “retroactive clarification.”

And what we select at the end—four zuz—and cast away will not help.

We learned in our Mishna: One who says, “It is incumbent upon me to bring wood for the altar” may not bring fewer than two pieces of wood, corresponding to the measure that he brings each day for the daily offering.

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Bun said: Rabbi Ba bar Memel raised a question:

[He was uncertain:] What is the reason that one who vows wood for the altar may not bring fewer than two pieces of wood?

Is it because this is the measure of a wood offering?

Or is it possible, from the perspective of the laws of the offering, to bring one piece of wood, and only because he vowed wood—and the minimum of “wood” is two—must he bring two?

And the practical difference in this matter is if

he said, “It is incumbent upon me to bring a piece of wood”

for the altar: Does he

bring one piece of wood,

since he spoke in the singular? Or even in such a case must he bring two pieces of wood, because there is no offering with fewer than two pieces of wood?

And we resolve it:

Rabbi Elazar said: The beraita says so

[It is explained in a beraita thus:] Where he did not use the plural expression, he brings one piece of wood.

For the beraita explains that those two pieces of wood that came with the daily offering and were placed upon the wood of the arrangement are not one offering of “two pieces of wood,” but

this

piece of wood is

an offering in its own right.

And this

second piece of wood is

an offering in its own right.

And where do we hear this in the beraita?

As we learned there

in tractate Yoma [26b], concerning the bringing of the daily offering to the altar:

Two

of the kohanim took

two pieces of wood in their hands,

each one taking one piece, and they brought them to the altar.

And from the fact that one koen did not take both pieces together, it is proven that each one is an offering in its own right.

And since this is so, it is obvious that if he vowed a piece of wood for the altar, he brings only one piece.

And now the Gemara explains from where it is derived that a person may voluntarily bring a wood offering.

For it is written: “When a person brings an offering, a meal-offering.”

And from the word

“offering”

we derive

to include the wood.

For we find that wood is called “offering,” as it is written: “And we cast lots concerning the offering of the wood,” teaching us that a person may voluntarily bring a wood offering.

The Gemara now explains what the size and measure were of the pieces of wood that were placed on the altar with the daily offering, or as an individual offering.

Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said: Their thickness

of the pieces

was one cubit, with a generous cubit

[a spacious one], such that the cubit was measured in large handbreadths [as explained in tractate Eruvin 3b, that there are large and spacious handbreadths and there are constricted handbreadths].

And their length

of the pieces was one cubit,

with a truncated cubit

[short and constricted].

Rabbi Honi in the name of Rabbi Ami said:

The measure of the length and thickness of these pieces of wood was equal, with a constricted cubit,

like a balance beam

[like the rod of a balance, whose sides are equal], like the place of the arrangement on the altar, as follows.

Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak said: Since the place of the arrangement

on the altar was not spacious

but

was only

one cubit by one cubit, therefore it did not have

placed

in it but

pieces in the measure of a

truncated cubit,

so that they would not project beyond the arrangement and prevent the kohanim from going around the altar. For it is impossible to make pieces of one cubit fit exactly into the place of the arrangement.

And it was taught

in a beraita

thus,

that the place of the arrangement was only one cubit by one cubit.

For it was taught: The altar that Moses made had at its base a projection with a width of

one cubit,

which served as the

foundation

of the altar. And its height was one cubit.

And at a height of five cubits, the width of the altar was reduced all around by the measure of

one cubit,

and there was formed there a place one cubit wide called the

surrounding ledge,

upon which the kohanim would walk to place the blood of the sin-offerings on the horns of the altar.

And from there onward, at a height of three cubits, there was a square five cubits by five cubits.

And at the top of the altar there was

a cubit of the “ledge”,

which was a groove made for the place where the kohanim walked upon the altar. It occupied one cubit on each side, for the kohanim ascended by the ramp and went around the altar from the south to the east and from the north to the west.

And a cubit of horns

was at the four corners of the altar, each horn one cubit by one cubit. And between one horn and another there was an open place for the kohanim to walk. But they could not go around the altar there because the horns obstructed them. Therefore they required a cubit of ledge, inside the cubit of the horns.

It follows that at the top of the altar there was only a place

one cubit

by one cubit for

the arrangement,

in the center of the altar, since two cubits on each side were for the horns and the ledge.

We learned in the Mishna: One who says, “It is incumbent upon me to bring

frankincense”—

may not bring less than a handful.

And the Gemara explains: From where do we know that the measure of frankincense brought by itself is a handful?

[This passage is explained according to the version of the Vilna Gaon.]

It is stated here,

in the passage concerning a voluntary meal-offering, regarding frankincense brought with the meal-offering [for anyone who voluntarily brings a meal-offering brings frankincense with it],

“remembrance.”

For it is written: “And he shall take from it with his handful, from the fine flour of the meal-offering and from its oil, and all the frankincense that is upon the meal-offering, and he shall burn it on the altar, a pleasing fragrance, its remembrance for the Lord.”

And it is stated there,

concerning the frankincense brought with the showbread, the expression

“remembrance.”

For it is written: “And you shall place pure frankincense on each arrangement, and it shall be for the bread as a remembrance-offering, a fire-offering for the Lord.”

And we derive:

Just as the “remembrance” stated there,

regarding the frankincense brought with the showbread, whose measure of frankincense is

a full handful,

for each one of the two arrangements of bread, as we learned in tractate Menachot [106b],

so too the “remembrance” stated here,

in the frankincense brought with the other meal-offerings, we learn that its measure is

a full handful.

And now, since we have learned that the measure of frankincense brought with the meal-offering is a handful, it is reasonable to say that even one who voluntarily brings frankincense by itself has a measure of a handful.

And we raise an objection: Since we learn the essential measure of frankincense from the frankincense brought with the showbread, let us also say:

If so, just as the “remembrance” stated there

in the showbread, whose measure is

two handfuls.

For there were two arrangements of bread, and for each arrangement one handful of frankincense was brought. And if so,

so too the “remembrance” stated here,

in the other meal-offerings, let us say that he must bring

two handfuls

[both frankincense brought with the meal-offering and frankincense brought by itself].

And we answer:

Rabbi Ila said: Did they in fact learn the measure of frankincense to be a

measure of frankincense that is

a handful

from the frankincense brought with

the showbread,

that you raise an objection that we should learn from there that two handfuls are required!?

Did we not learn the measure of frankincense

rather from the meal-offering?

As we said in Menachot [106b]: It is written concerning a voluntary meal-offering: “And he shall take from it with his handful, from the fine flour of the meal-offering and from its oil, and all the frankincense.” It compares frankincense to the taking from the meal-offering itself.

Just as the taking from the meal-offering is the taking of a handful from the fine flour and the oil, as it is written, “And he shall take from it with his handful,” so too the measure of frankincense is a handful.

And from here we learned that one who vows to bring frankincense by itself may not bring less than a handful, for this is the measure of burning frankincense everywhere.

And now that we learn the measure of frankincense from the handful of the meal-offering, we may add and learn further:

Just as there,

in the meal-offering,

“a deficient handful-taking” is valid.

For if he took a handful from the meal-offering and the handful became deficient, it is valid.

So too here,

in frankincense,

“a deficient handful-taking” is valid.

For if the handful became deficient, whether in frankincense brought with the meal-offering or in frankincense brought by itself, it is valid; and its law is not like the frankincense of the showbread, which, if its handfuls were diminished, is disqualified according to everyone.

Rabbi Yosei said: Rabbi Ila’s statement teaches

[It is proven from Rabbi Ila’s words] that

one who voluntarily brings frankincense

and must bring at least the measure of a handful, as stated,

brings it

according to the measure of the

handful of the koen

who burns it, and not according to the measure of the hand of the owner.

For Rabbi Ila holds that we compare the law of frankincense to that of the meal-offering completely, both stringently and leniently, as we said. And we must also compare it in that we measure the handful according to the measure of the koen’s hand, like the handful-taking of the meal-offering, which is performed by the koen’s hand.

Rabbi Hezekiah in the name of Rabbi Jeremiah

said: One who voluntarily brings frankincense may measure the handful

even by the handful of the owner.

For we learn from the meal-offering only the essential measure of the burning, which is a handful; but the measure of the handful—whether it is like the koen’s handful or like the owner’s handful—we do not learn from the meal-offering.

And it is reasonable that the owner’s handful is sufficient, since frankincense does not require the handful-taking of a koen, but is burned as it is, and need only be in the measure of the owner’s handful.

We learned in our Mishna: One who says, “It is incumbent upon me to bring” ...

gold, may not bring less

than a gold dinar.

Rabbi Elazar said: This is when he mentioned

in his vow

a coin-form.

For the one who vows said, “It is incumbent upon me to bring this gold coin.” Therefore he may not bring less than a gold dinar, since an unspecified coin is not less than a dinar.

But if he did not mention

in his vow

a coin-form,

his intention is only a piece of gold. Therefore he

brings even a small fork

[a small fork]. For even this small utensil is fit for the work of the Temple, to stir the lamp wicks with it and to wipe the ash from the lamps with it.

We learned in the Mishna that

six

offering boxes were designated

for voluntary offerings,

to purchase from the money communal olot of voluntary offerings and offer them when the altar was idle from offerings, a time called “the summer of the altar.”

And we inquire about it: For what purpose did they require six separate offering boxes, and not place them in one offering box, since all were designated for the same purpose?

Hezekiah said: Corresponding to the six priestly divisions

of the kohanim.

For the kohanim in the Temple were divided into twenty-four watches; each watch served for one week, and each watch was divided into six priestly divisions, one different “priestly division” each day of the week, while on Shabbat they all served.

And on a day when they brought vow-offerings and voluntary offerings to the Temple, and the altar was not idle, they did not take from the offering boxes to offer olot from them. But on a day when they did not bring vow-offerings and voluntary offerings, and the altar was idle, they offered olot purchased with money taken from the offering boxes.

And since the hides of the olot of communal voluntary offerings were given to the kohanim, the kohanim of that priestly division which served on a day when the altar was not idle, and the hides of communal voluntary offerings were not given to the kohanim, might come to quarrel with the priestly division of the day when the altar was idle and the hides fell to the share of those kohanim. For they would claim: We have no hides from communal voluntary offerings, while you have them!

Therefore the Sages instituted six offering boxes for them—one offering box for each priestly division—so that each priestly division would take from its own offering box and offer them on that day, whether many or few, and the hides would belong to it.

Bar Padda said:

These six offering boxes are

corresponding to six animals

that are fit for an olah:

A bull and a calf, a he-goat, a ram, a kid, and a lamb.

For the names of these animals were written on the offering boxes, and one who vowed one of them as an olah brought the value of that animal and placed it into the offering box whose name was the same as the animal he had vowed.

And the kohanim purchased from each offering box the animals whose names were written on that offering box, and offered them on behalf of those who vowed.

And this is according to Rabbi, who said: One who vows a small animal and brings a large one has not fulfilled his obligation. Therefore a separate offering box is needed for each animal. For according to the Sages, six offering boxes are not needed for this, since the money for a calf and the money for a bull can be placed in one offering box, and bulls can be purchased with it, for even one who vows a small calf fulfills his obligation with a large bull [Menachot 107b].

[In the book Olat Shlomo on tractate Menachot, he explained that according to Bar Padda this concerns an individual who voluntarily brought an offering and transferred it to the community for “the summer of the altar,” for our Mishna says “six for voluntary offerings,” which means a communal voluntary offering.]

Shmuel said:

These six offering boxes were made

corresponding to

the surplus money of

six

types of

offerings.

a.

Pairs of zavim and pairs of zavot.

b.

Pairs of women after childbirth.

c.

Sin-offerings,

d.

and guilt-offerings,

e.

the meal-offerings—

that is, the surplus of the meal-offering of a sinner, whereas the surplus of an individual’s voluntary meal-offering does not go to the offering boxes to purchase a communal offering with it; rather, he adds from his own money and brings another meal-offering.

f.

And the tenth of an ephah,

which the High Priest offers every day, called “the griddle-offering.” And if he set aside money for the tenth of an ephah of that day and money remained, he can no longer add it to tomorrow’s meal-offering; rather, the money falls into the offering boxes for the purpose of a communal voluntary offering.

Rabbi Yohanan said:

The fact that there were six offering boxes was not because of the reasons stated, but

because

[on account of]

the voluntary offering was abundant—

they increased many offering boxes for it,

and they did not place everything in one offering box, so that the money would not become moldy.

[This passage is interpreted according to the version of the Vilna Gaon.]

At the time of the construction of the First Temple, Jehoiada the High Priest stood up to strengthen the repairs of the House, and he made a chest in which to place the people’s donations for the repairs of the House.

And

it is written

in II Chronicles [24:14]:

“And when they had finished, they brought the remainder of the money before the king and Jehoiada.

And he made it into vessels for the House of the Lord, vessels of service.”

And it is explained that from the surplus of the money collected for the House of the Lord they made vessels of service.

And

in II Kings [12:10]

it is written

concerning this matter: “And they gave the money that was weighed out into the hands of the workers who were appointed over the House of the Lord, and they brought it out to the carpenters and to the builders who worked on the House of the Lord” ...

“But from the money brought into the House of the Lord, no silver cups, snuffers, bowls, trumpets,

any vessel of gold or vessel of silver,”

were made.

It follows that they did not use this money to make vessels of service. How are these two verses reconciled?

Rabbi Shmuel bar Nahmani in the name of Rabbi Yonatan said:

Indeed, they did not make vessels of service from the money for the repairs of the House. Rather,

Jehoiada made two donations

—one for the repairs of the building and one for vessels of service.

And the verse of Chronicles, which says that from the remainder of the money they made vessels of service, deals with those coins that came from the donation that was made for the sake of vessels of service, and not from the donation for the maintenance of the Temple mentioned in the Book of Kings.