Shekalim 19a — the Talmud in English

The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught:

You must always explain and say that only

one donation

was there, and it was for the repairs of the Temple. And from the money for the repairs of the Temple, sacred vessels are not purchased.

And what is written in Chronicles, that they brought the money for the purpose of sacred vessels, that refers specifically to the surplus of the money. And as it is written there: “And when they had finished, they brought ... the rest of the money

What is ‘when they had finished’?

After they had left a surplus!”

From that money which remained from the work of the construction, it is permitted to purchase sacred vessels, because “the heart of the court stipulates concerning them” that if there is a surplus, it will be for the purpose of sacred vessels. But the verse in the Book of Kings speaks before the money remained, when all the money was designated for the workers of the work, and not for sacred vessels.

And this is difficult for Rabbi Yishmael,

who holds that there was only one donation.

But

it is written

there in the Book of Kings:

“And Jehoiada the priest took one chest, and bored a hole in its door, and placed it beside the altar

on the right ... and there the priests, the keepers of the threshold, placed all the money brought to the House of the Lord.”

It follows that the donation chest was placed inside the Temple.

And

on the other hand,

it is written

there in Chronicles:

“And the king said, and they made one chest and placed it at the gate of the House of the Lord

outside.”

And necessarily there were two chests: one was placed inside beside the altar, and one was placed outside the Temple.

And since we find that there were two chests, it is reasonable that both of them were not designated for one purpose, but one was for the donation for the repairs of the Temple and one was for the donation for sacred vessels. And as Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said, this is difficult for Rabbi Yishmael.

And we answer:

Rav Huna said:

Indeed, there were two chests, as the verses demonstrate.

However, both of them served for the donation for the repairs of the Temple. And it was necessary to make an additional chest outside

because of the impure,

who cannot enter the Temple; therefore they added a chest outside.

R. Hiyya in the name of Rav Yosef said:

From here it can be learned that he made one donation:

As it is written in the Book of Kings II [12:

“But there shall not be made

for the House of the Lord bowls of silver, snuffers,”

but rather, “they shall give it to the workers of the work”!

We have completed the thirteenth chapter, “Collection Chests.”

Halakha 1 — Mishna:

Money that was found

between the collection boxes that were in the Temple, as we learned in the Sixth Chapter, that there were thirteen collection boxes.

If money was found

between

the box of

shekalim

designated for communal offerings

and

the box of

voluntary offerings

designated for an individual’s voluntary offering [because these two boxes stood one beside the other, as the Gemara explains], and now we are uncertain from which box they fell.

If they were found

near

the box of

shekalim,

it is reasonable that they came from there, and

they shall fall to the shekalim.

And if they were found near

the

box of

voluntary offerings, they shall fall to the voluntary offerings.

And if they were found at an equal distance,

half and half, they shall fall to the voluntary offerings

because of the uncertainty; and the Gemara explains the reason.

Money that was found

between

the box of money designated for

wood

and the box of money designated

for frankincense:

If they were found

near the wood, they shall fall to the wood.

Near

the frankincense, they shall fall to the frankincense.

Half and half, they shall fall to the frankincense

because of the uncertainty.

Because wood is only an accessory of the offering, whereas frankincense itself is offered upon the altar.

Money that was found

between

the box of

bird offerings [

designated for poor women who had given birth, zavim, and the other people obligated to bring bird offerings, who would bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one as an ola and one as a sin offering] and the box designated

for young birds of an ola,

from which all are an ola].

If they were found

near the bird offerings, they shall fall to the bird offerings.

If they were found

near the young birds of an ola, they shall fall to the young birds of an ola.

And if they were found

half and half, they shall fall to the young birds of an ola,

since in that way all will be offered as an ola, which is entirely [burned] on the altar.

Money that a person found in his house

between

the box of

non-sacred [money] and

the box

of Second Tithe:

If they were found

near the non-sacred [money], they shall fall to the non-sacred [money]; near the Second Tithe, they shall fall to the Second Tithe; half and half, they shall fall to the Second Tithe.

For because of the uncertainty, they are stringent and treat them with the sanctity of Second Tithe.

This is the general rule:

they follow

in a case of uncertainty

after what is near,

even

to be lenient,

and when they are found

half and half,

they follow

the stringent ruling.

Gemara:

And we raise the following question concerning what we learned in the Mishna, that money was found between the box of shekalim and the box of voluntary offerings:

Were these boxes not adjacent?

The Gemara assumed that the boxes stood in a row, one after the other. Accordingly, the box of shekalim was at the beginning of the row, whereas the box of voluntary offerings was at the end of the row, as we learned in the Mishna at the end of the Sixth Chapter, that the box of shekalim was first and the box of voluntary offerings was last.

And if so,

it was not necessary

for the tanna to write, “Money that was found between the shekalim and the voluntary offerings,”

but rather, ‘between the shekalim and the bird offerings,’

between the box of shekalim and the box of bird offerings, which were adjacent.

He said,

Rabbi Avun in the name of Rabbi Pinhas:

The boxes were not arranged in a row. Rather,

they were made like a kavlaim [

a circle],

they were made.

accordingly.

It follows that the box of voluntary offerings, which was last and was at the end of the circle, was adjacent to the box of shekalim, which was first in the circle, and thus it was adjacent to it.

And the Gemara explains the matter in which we say that if the money was

half and half

and it was an evenly balanced uncertainty,

it shall fall to the voluntary offerings:

There are those who wished to say [

there were those who wished to say] as the reason that it shall fall to the voluntary offerings, and these monies should not go to the contribution of the shekalim, because

perhaps

there will be more than the offerings require, and then

they shall fall to the remnants of the chamber,

from which the city wall is built.

Therefore, the money shall fall to the voluntary offerings, for the voluntary offerings are more stringent than it, since the voluntary offering always goes for offerings.

And there are those who wished to say [

and there were those who wished to say] as the reason that money found

half and half

shall fall to the voluntary offerings and not to the shekalim for the communal offerings: for if they truly came from a voluntary offering that an individual brought, it is impossible to offer communal offerings from them, since they are offered only from what was brought as an obligation by the community.

And this is comparable

to one who

set aside his shekel

and died.

And as

Rabbi Yasa said: While I was there, I heard Rabbi Yehuda’s voice when he asked Samuel

[when I was in Babylonia, I heard Rabbi Yehuda’s voice when he asked Samuel]:

He set aside his shekel

for the half-shekel

and died

before it reached the chamber—what should be done with it?

And

he said to him,

that shekel

shall fall to the voluntary offerings,

and they shall offer from it an ola brought as an individual’s voluntary offering, and it shall not go to the shekalim. For if so, it would be found that a communal offering was offered from a shekel that was not brought as an obligation. Since he died, he was no longer obligated in the half-shekel, and this is not a shekel brought as an obligation.

And likewise, with a found shekel, this shekel shall not fall to the communal shekalim, because perhaps it truly came from a voluntary offering, and it is not valid for the shekalim of the communal offerings, since they come only from an obligation.

And we say:

The surplus of his tenth of an ephah,

of the High Priest, who offered every day the minhat havitin [which came from a tenth of an ephah, which he divided, offering half in the morning and half in the evening]: if he set aside money for the tenth of an ephah of that day and there remained some—what should he do with it?

Rabbi Yohanan said:

They should not offer it, but

he shall take it to the Salt Sea,

and it is forbidden to benefit from it; and if he benefited from it, he does not bring a sacrifice for misuse of consecrated property.

Rabbi Elazar said: It shall fall to the voluntary offerings,

like the law of the surplus of a sin offering, for the Merciful One called the minhat havitin a “sin offering.”

We learned in the Mishna: Money found between bird offerings and young birds of an ola—half and half, it shall fall to the young birds of an ola:

And it is difficult

with this ruling:

But

is it possible that money set aside for a

sin offering

shall be

offered

from it

as an ola?!

For there is concern that perhaps the money was from the box of bird offerings, from which a sin offering is also offered; how now can it be given to the box of young birds of an ola, since it would be found that an ola was offered from the money of a sin offering?

He said,

Hezekiah in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish:

Everyone who gives money to the boxes gives it with the understanding of the court.

And it is a stipulation of the court concerning the surplus

that remains from what was set aside for a sin offering, and likewise concerning uncertainties where they do not know whether they are from a sin offering or from an ola—

that they be offered

for the sake of

olas.

And we further challenge: Is there not concern that this money came from the box of obligatory bird offerings, where a woman who had given birth gave her money so that the priests would bring with it a nest for her obligation? And if they bring young birds of an ola with it, it is found that she did not bring her obligation.

And if so,

this woman—

with what is she atoned for?

Rabbi Yitzhak said:

Even this

is a stipulation of the court: the one who supplies the bird offerings

to the Temple treasury

supplies replacements for those that are invalid and those that are lost.

That is, the person from whom the Temple treasury purchases the birds for the obligatory bird offerings undertakes responsibility to provide bird offerings in place of the bird offerings found to be invalid, and likewise in place of the money for the bird offerings that was lost.

And this woman will be atoned for by the nest that this supplier will provide in place of this money that was found between the boxes.

And we challenge: Why did we learn in the Mishna only the law of money found between shekalim and voluntary offerings, between wood and frankincense, and between bird offerings and young birds of an ola?

But

was it not necessary

to teach [was it not also necessary to teach] the law concerning money found

between incense and wood,

and between

frankincense and the gold

designated

for the Ark cover?

And we answer: All this is included in

what it taught at its end [

what is taught at the end of the Mishna]: This is the general rule:

they follow what is near.

Half and half—

the stringent ruling.

Halakha 2 — Mishna:

Money that was found

in Jerusalem

before cattle merchants is always

presumed to be money

of Second Tithe,

because most animals in Jerusalem are purchased with money of Second Tithe.

Second-Tithe produce is permitted to be eaten only in Jerusalem. Anyone who has Second-Tithe produce in his possession and does not wish to bring it up to Jerusalem may redeem it onto money, and through this the sanctity of Second Tithe is transferred to the money, while the produce becomes non-sacred. He brings the money up to Jerusalem, purchases food with it, and eats it in Jerusalem.

And because the pilgrims were not able to eat all the Second-Tithe money in their possession while they were still in Jerusalem, they would give it to the inhabitants of the city in exchange for some benefit, and the people of Jerusalem would eat it with its sanctity throughout the entire year.

The principal eating of Second-Tithe money was through the meat of peace offerings, with which they would purchase animals and offer them as peace offerings. For as long as a person has Second-Tithe money, he does not purchase his offerings with non-sacred money.

And since most of the animals in Jerusalem are purchased with Second-Tithe money, most of the money that fell from the hands of those purchasing animals and was found before cattle merchants was Second-Tithe money. Therefore, we follow the majority concerning it, and assume that it is Second-Tithe money.

And although it is possible that the money fell from the hands of the sellers after the animals had been purchased from them, and it had already been redeemed, nevertheless it is an uncertainty, and in an uncertainty concerning a prohibition, the stringent ruling applies.

And

if the money was found

on the Temple Mount,

it is always presumed to be

non-sacred.

And even during a Festival, when Second-Tithe money is more abundant in Jerusalem than non-sacred money, one does not assume that it is Second Tithe, because we follow the majority of the year and assume that it did not fall during the Festival, but during the other days of the year, when most money is non-sacred.

And

money that was found

in Jerusalem—

during all the other days of the year

it is presumed to be

non-sacred,

because during the year most purchasers of animals purchase with non-sacred money.

And if it was found

during the Festival—

all of it is Second Tithe,

because most of the money in Jerusalem during the Festival is Second-Tithe money.

Here we do not follow the majority of the days of the year and say that it is non-sacred, because the markets of Jerusalem are swept every day on account of the mud; if the money had fallen before the Festival, it would have been found at the time of the sweeping and removed from there. Therefore, we assume that it fell now, during the Festival.

But the Temple Mount is not swept every day, since there is no need for this, because it is sloped and the wind sweeps the dirt from it. Likewise, a person does not enter it with his money, and it is possible that it did not fall now, but before the Festival.

And for this reason, even if money was found on it during the Festival, it is non-sacred. For we follow the majority of the days of the year, and assume that the money fell during them, and during the other days of the year most of the money in Jerusalem is non-sacred.

Meat found in the Temple courtyard,

and we are uncertain whether it is the meat of an ola, which must be burned on the altar, or perhaps it is the meat of a sin offering, which is eaten—if it was found when it was cut into

limbs

and was not cut into pieces, we assume that it is the meat of

olas.

And

if it was found when it was cut

into pieces,

we assume that it is the meat of

sin offerings.

For everything that is eaten is cut into pieces. But the ola, since all of it is for the fire, need only be cut into limb by limb.

And

if meat was found

in Jerusalem,

we assume that it is from

peace offerings,

because most of the meat in Jerusalem is peace-offering meat [as we explained above concerning money found before cattle merchants].

Both this and that,

both the meat found in the Temple courtyard and that found in Jerusalem, may not be offered, because perhaps it became invalid through overnight lodging, for there is concern that the night passed since the time it was slaughtered, and it can no longer be offered.

And it may not be eaten either, because perhaps the time for eating passed and it became notar.

Therefore,

its form shall be allowed to pass.

That is, they shall leave this meat until it becomes invalid and certainly becomes notar [and this is called “the passing of the form,” because through leaving it its form passes and changes].

The meat found in the Temple courtyard, which is either an ola or a sin offering—they shall leave it for one night, which is its time for eating or offering, and afterward it becomes notar.

And the meat found in Jerusalem, which we assume is peace-offering meat—they shall leave it for two days, and then it certainly becomes notar.

And

after it has been left,

the meat shall go

to

the place of burning,

as is the law of invalid consecrated meat, whose law is that it is burned.

But before this time it is impossible to burn it, because it is not certainly notar, and perhaps it is valid consecrated meat, and it is forbidden to burn it.

And do not challenge this: Since both this and that go to burning, what difference does it make whether it is an ola or a sin offering?

There is a practical difference: A priest who eats an ola is flogged, since its law is that it is offered entirely on the altar. But a priest who eats a sin offering is not flogged; on the contrary, its law is that it is eaten by the priests.

And there is a practical difference between sin offerings and olas, on the one hand, and peace offerings, on the other: whether they are to be left for one day or two days before they are taken out to the place of burning.

And if

meat was found

in

the outlying areas,

in any place outside Jerusalem—if it was cut

into limbs,

it is presumed to be

animal carcasses.

For this is the practice: carcasses are cut into limbs and thrown into the streets so that the dogs may eat them.

And

if it was cut

into pieces,

they are

permitted.

For the practice is to cut into small pieces only meat that is fit, in order to sell it or put it into a pot.