Shekalim 19a (יט.) — 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 Temple maintenance. And from Temple maintenance funds, sacred vessels are not purchased.

As for what is written in Chronicles, that they brought the money for the sacred vessels, this refers specifically to the surplus funds. As it is written there: “And when they had finished, they brought … the remainder of the money

What is meant by ‘when they had finished’—

after they had left a surplus!”

It may be that from those funds that remained from the building work, it was permitted to purchase sacred vessels, because the court stipulates concerning them that if there is a surplus, it will be used for sacred vessels. But the verse in Kings speaks of the time before the funds remained, when all the money was designated for the workers and not for sacred vessels.

And this is difficult for Rabbi Yishmael,

who maintains that there was only one donation.

This

is written

there in the Book of Kings:

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

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

Thus, 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”.

It is therefore necessary to say that there were two chests: one was placed inside, beside the altar, and one was placed outside the Temple.

Since we find that there were two chests, it is logical that they were not both designated for the same purpose; rather, one was for the donation for Temple maintenance, and one was for the donation for sacred vessels. And as Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani said: This is difficult for Rabbi Yishmael.

And we answer:

Rav Huna said:

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

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

because of the ritually impure,

who could not enter the Temple; therefore, they added a chest outside.

Rabbi Hiyya said in the name of Rav Yosef:

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

As it is written in II Kings [12]:

“But he shall not make

the House of the Lord into silver bowls and shears,”

but rather, “They shall give it to the workers!”

We have returned to you, chapter “Thirteen Chests.”

Halakha 1 — Mishna:

Money found

between the collection boxes that were in the Temple, as we learned in the sixth chapter, where it was taught that there were thirteen collection boxes.

If the money was found

between

the box for

shekels

designated for communal offerings

and

the box for

voluntary offerings,

designated for an individual’s voluntary offering [because these two boxes stood next to one another, as the Gemara explains], and we are now uncertain from which box the money fell,

if it was found

near

the box of

shekels,

it is presumed to have come from there, and

it is allocated to the shekels.

And if it was found near

the

box for

voluntary offerings, it is allocated to voluntary offerings.

And if it was found at an equal distance,

halfway between them, it is allocated to voluntary offerings

because of the uncertainty; the Gemara explains the reason.

Money found

between

the box containing money designated for

wood

and the box containing money designated

for frankincense:

If it was found

near the wood, it is allocated to the wood.

If it was found near

the frankincense, it is allocated to the frankincense.

If it was halfway between them, it is allocated to the frankincense

because of the uncertainty.

This is because wood is merely an accessory to the offering, whereas frankincense itself is offered upon the altar.

Money found

between

the box for

bird offerings [

designated for poor women after childbirth, zavim, and others obligated to bring bird offerings, who would bring either two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one as an olah and one as a sin offering] and the box designated

for young birds for olot,

from which all the offerings are olot.

If it was found

near the bird offerings, it is allocated to the bird offerings.

If it was found

near the young birds for olot, it is allocated to the young birds for olot.

And if it was found

halfway between them, it is allocated to the young birds for olot,

since in that case all of it will be offered as an olah, which is entirely consumed upon the altar.

Money that a person found in his home

between

the box for

non-sacred money and

the box

for Second Tithe:

If it was found

near the non-sacred money, it is allocated to non-sacred money; if it was found near the Second Tithe, it is allocated to Second Tithe; and if it was halfway between them, it is allocated to Second Tithe.

For purposes of the uncertainty, they rule stringently and treat it with the sanctity of Second Tithe.

This is the general rule:

one follows

in a case of uncertainty

the nearer item,

even

to be lenient;

but when it is found

halfway between them,

one follows

the stringent position.

Gemara:

And we raise the following difficulty concerning what we learned in the Mishna, that money was found between the box for shekels and the box for voluntary offerings:

Were these boxes not positioned close to one another?

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

If so,

there was no need

for the tanna to write, “Money found between the shekels and the voluntary offerings,”

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

between the box for shekels and the box for 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 kovelim [

a circle];

they were arranged

accordingly.

It follows that the box for voluntary offerings, which was last and stood at the end of the circle, was adjacent to the box for shekels, which was first in the circle; thus, it stood next to it.

The Gemara explains the statement that if the money was found

halfway between them,

and the uncertainty was evenly balanced,

it is allocated to voluntary offerings:

Some sought to explain [

there were those who wished to say] that the reason it is allocated to voluntary offerings, rather than having the money go to the collection of shekels, is that

perhaps

there is more money in it than is needed for the offerings, in which case

it would be allocated to the remainder of the chamber funds,

from which the city wall would be built.

Therefore, the money is allocated to voluntary offerings, since voluntary offerings are more stringent than the shekels: Money given for a voluntary offering always goes toward offerings.

And some sought to explain [

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

halfway between them

is allocated to voluntary offerings rather than to shekels for communal offerings is that if it truly came from the voluntary offerings brought by an individual, communal offerings may not be offered from it, since communal offerings are brought only from money given as an obligation by the community.

This is analogous

to one who

set aside his shekel

and died.

And similarly,

as Rabbi Yasa said: When I was there, I heard Rabbi Yehuda’s voice as he asked Shmuel [

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

If one 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

is to be allocated to voluntary offerings,

and an olah brought as an individual’s voluntary offering is offered from it; it does not go to the shekels. For if it did, it would emerge that a communal offering was offered from a shekel that was not given as an obligation. Since the person died, he is no longer obligated to give the half-shekel, and this is not a shekel given as an obligation.

So too, in the case of a shekel that was found, this shekel does not go to the communal shekels, because perhaps it truly came from a voluntary offering and is unfit for the shekels used for communal offerings, which come only from obligatory contributions.

And we say:

The remainder of his tenth of an ephah,

that of the High Priest, who offered the daily griddle-offering, which came from a tenth of an ephah that he divided, offering half in the morning and half in the evening: If he set aside money for that day’s tenth of an ephah and some remained, what should be done with it?

Rabbi Yohanan said:

It may not be offered; rather,

he must take it to the Dead Sea

and it is forbidden to derive benefit from it. If he did derive benefit from it, he does not bring an offering for misuse of consecrated property.

Rabbi Elazar said: It is allocated to voluntary offerings,

like the law governing the remainder of a sin offering, since the Torah calls the griddle-offering a “sin offering.”

We learned in the Mishna: Money found between the bird offerings and the young birds for olot is allocated to the young birds for olot when it is halfway between them:

And this is difficult

concerning this ruling:

Is it possible

that money set aside for a

sin offering

should be

offered

from it

as an olah?!

There is reason for concern that perhaps the money came from the box for bird offerings, from which a sin offering is also brought. How, then, can it now be placed in the box for young birds for olot? It would emerge that an olah was offered from the money of a sin offering.

He said,

Hezekiah in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish:

Anyone who gives money to the collection boxes gives it subject to the determination of the court.

And the stipulation of the court applies to surplus funds

left over from money set aside for a sin offering, and likewise to cases of uncertainty, when it is not known whether the money is from a sin offering or from an olah:

that they shall be offered

for the sake of

olot.

The Gemara raises another difficulty: Is there not concern that this money came from the box for obligatory bird offerings, into which a woman after childbirth gave her money so that the priests would bring a bird offering on her behalf? If young birds for olot are brought from it, it emerges that she did not bring her obligatory offering.

If so,

this woman—

with what does she achieve atonement?

Rabbi Yitzhak said:

This too

is subject to the stipulation of the court: The one who supplies the bird offerings

to the Temple treasury

also supplies replacements for those found unfit and those that were lost.

That is, the person from whom the Temple treasury purchases birds for obligatory bird offerings assumes responsibility for providing bird offerings in place of those found unfit, and likewise in place of the value of those that were lost.

And this woman achieves atonement through the bird offering that this supplier provides in place of the money found between the collection boxes.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Why does the Mishna teach only the law concerning money found between the shekels and voluntary offerings, between the wood and the frankincense, and between the bird offerings and the young birds for olot?

Is it

not necessary

to teach [Is it not also necessary to teach] the law when money is found

between the incense and the wood,

or between

the frankincense and the gold

designated

for the curtain of the Ark?

And we answer: All of this is included in

what is taught at its conclusion [

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

One follows the nearer item.

If it is halfway between them—

the stringent position.

Halakha 2 — Mishna:

Money found

in Jerusalem

before livestock merchants is always

presumed to be

Second Tithe money,

because most livestock in Jerusalem is purchased with Second Tithe money.

Second Tithe produce may be eaten only in Jerusalem. Anyone who has Second Tithe produce and does not wish to bring it to Jerusalem may redeem it with money; thereby the sanctity of Second Tithe is transferred to the money, and the produce becomes non-sacred. He brings the money to Jerusalem, purchases food with it, and eats it in Jerusalem.

Since the pilgrims were unable to eat all the Second Tithe money in their possession while they were still in Jerusalem, they would give it to the residents of the city in exchange for some benefit, and the people of Jerusalem would eat it with its sanctity throughout the year.

The principal use of Second Tithe money was for the meat of peace offerings: They would purchase livestock with it 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.

Since most livestock in Jerusalem was purchased with Second Tithe money, most of the money that fell from the hands of livestock buyers and was found before livestock merchants was Second Tithe money. Therefore, we follow the majority in this matter and presume that it is Second Tithe money.

[Although it is possible that the money fell from the sellers after the livestock had been purchased from them, in which case it had already been redeemed, nevertheless, this is a case of uncertainty, and in a case of uncertain prohibition one rules stringently.]

And

if the money was found

on the Temple Mount,

it is always presumed to be

non-sacred.

Even during a pilgrimage festival, when Second Tithe money is more plentiful in Jerusalem than non-sacred money, one does not presume that it is Second Tithe money, because we follow the majority of the year and presume that it did not fall during the pilgrimage festival but during the rest of the year, when most money is non-sacred.

And

money found

in Jerusalem—

during all the other days of the year

is presumed to be

non-sacred,

because during the year most buyers of livestock purchase it with non-sacred money.

And if it was found

during a pilgrimage festival—

it is all Second Tithe,

because most of the money in Jerusalem during a pilgrimage festival is Second Tithe money.

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

But the Temple Mount is not swept every day, since there is no need for this: It is sloped, and the wind clears it of its dust. Likewise, a person does not enter it with his money, and it is possible that the money did not fall now but before the festival.

Therefore, even if money is found there during the pilgrimage festival, it is non-sacred. We follow the majority of the days of the year and presume that the money fell then, and during the rest of the year most money in Jerusalem is non-sacred.

Meat found in the Temple courtyard,

when there is uncertainty whether it is the meat of an olah, which must be burned upon the altar, or perhaps the meat of a sin offering, which is eaten—if it is found cut into

limbs

rather than cut into pieces, we presume that it is meat of

olot.

And

if it is found cut

into pieces,

we presume that it is meat of

sin offerings.

For anything that is eaten is cut into pieces, whereas an olah, since it is entirely for the altar fire, need only be cut into limbs.

And

if meat is found

in Jerusalem,

we presume that it is from

peace offerings,

because most of the meat in Jerusalem is from peace offerings [as we explained above concerning money found before livestock merchants].

In both cases,

both the meat found in the Temple courtyard and that found in Jerusalem may not be offered, because perhaps it became disqualified through being left overnight: We are concerned that the night may have passed since the time it was slaughtered, after which it can no longer be offered.

Nor may it be eaten, because perhaps the time for eating it has passed and it has become notar.

Therefore,

its form must be allowed to change.

That is, the meat is left until it becomes disqualified and is certainly notar [and this is called “the passing of its form,” because by leaving it, its form passes and changes].

Meat found in the Temple courtyard, which is either an olah or a sin offering, is left for one night, which is the period during which it may be eaten or offered, and afterward it becomes notar.

Meat found in Jerusalem, which we presume is from peace offerings, is left for two days, after which it certainly becomes notar.

And

after it has been left,

the meat

goes

to the place of burning,

as is the law concerning disqualified sacred offerings, which must be burned.

But before this time it may not be burned, because it is not certainly notar; perhaps it is still a valid sacred offering, and it is forbidden to burn it.

And do not raise the difficulty: Since in either case it is destined to be burned, what difference does it make whether it is an olah or a sin offering?

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

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

And if

meat

is found

in the outlying areas,

anywhere outside Jerusalem—if it was cut

into limbs,

it is presumed to be

neveilot,

for this is the usual practice: Neveilot are cut into limbs and thrown into the streets so that the dogs will 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.