Shekalim 20b — the Talmud in English

And

afterward

he again performs them:

the animals that he brings in their place,

as burnt-offerings.

That is:

He brings two animals and says concerning one of them: “If this found one is a burnt-offering, this one shall be consecrated in its place, and the second animal that I brought shall be a voluntary peace-offering.”

And if this found one is a peace-offering, the second one concerning which I said that it shall be a voluntary peace-offering shall be in its place. And the first animal shall be a voluntary burnt-offering.

It follows that the two animals that he brought have become consecrated: one certainly for a burnt-offering, and the other certainly for a peace-offering.

And this found one has gone out to the non-sacred, for although inherent sanctity cannot be transferred, that is specifically where he did not intend to bring it out to the non-sacred; but here, he indeed intended to bring it out to the non-sacred.

Rabbi Asi said to Rabbi Yaakov son of Rabbi Aḥa: And

is

this not

a transfer of sanctity

deliberately?!

For he transfers the sanctity of the animal that he found deliberately.

And Rabbi Yehuda holds [in tractate Kiddushin] that consecrated property is not transferred deliberately [and it is not satisfactory to establish this according to Rabbi Meir, who holds that it is transferred deliberately, since the halakha is not according to him].

He said to him,

Rabbi Yaakov bar Aḥa:

Since it is a stipulation of the court

that he should do so, and he intends to rectify [the matter]—

this is not deliberate,

and the transfer of sanctity takes effect.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him:

Behold, it is forbidden to transfer the sanctity of an unblemished animal. And do they

say to a person: Go and misuse sacred property?!

Rather,

Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

We follow the majority with regard to them.

What they said—if males, burnt-offerings; if females, peace-offerings—this is what they said:

If

he found a herd of animals, and

the majority

of the animals in it are

males,

we attribute it, in accordance with the majority, that they are all

burnt-offerings. For peace-offerings are brought both from males and from females. And since there is a majority of males in this herd, we attribute it [to the fact] that the majority of those who brought their offerings from this herd brought them for burnt-offerings; and we follow the majority, saying that every male among them is a burnt-offering.

[No separate source segment: the preceding segment continues.]

And if the majority

of the herd is

females,

then it is evident that the majority of those who bring their offerings brought them in this herd for peace-offerings [for females are not fit for burnt-offerings]; and then we follow the majority and say that the males too are

peace-offerings.

Rabbi Zeira said,

to explain it in another manner: This that we say that a found male is brought as a burnt-offering, although there is room to doubt whether it was consecrated for a peace-offering, is because of a stipulation of the court: they stipulated concerning a found animal that if it is a male, they shall offer it as a burnt-offering.

And

just as you say there

[as we said there], concerning money found between the box into which money is placed for the obligatory bird-pairs [from which offerings brought from two turtledoves or two young pigeons are offered, one for a sin-offering and one for a burnt-offering], and the box into which money is placed for purchasing birds brought as burnt-offerings. For we say that, because of the doubt, birds for burnt-offerings should be purchased with it.

And there we raised the issue: How may they do so, when it is possible that they are bringing burnt-offerings from money designated for a sin-offering?

And there we answered: Everyone who places money in the box gives it with the understanding of the court, and it is a stipulation of the court concerning lost money that burnt-offerings should be brought with it.

And just as we say there, likewise

you say also here

[likewise we say here too]: the males found between Jerusalem and Migdal Eder, although it is possible that they are peace-offerings, nevertheless they are brought as burnt-offerings, for

a stipulation of the court

is

concerning

the

lost

animals—that they should be brought as burnt-offerings.

Rabbi Yasa said: While I was there, I heard Rabbi Yehuda asking Samuel

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

He set aside his shekel

for the half-shekel, and

died

before it reached the chamber—what shall they do with it?

And

he said to him:

That shekel

shall fall to voluntary offerings, and they shall offer from it a burnt-offering brought from an individual’s voluntary offering. And it shall not go to the shekels, for if it goes to the shekels, it follows that a communal offering is being offered from a shekel that does not come as an obligation.

For since he died, he is no longer obligated in the half-shekel, and this is not a shekel that comes as an obligation.

And likewise here, this shekel shall not fall to the communal shekels, for perhaps it truly came from a voluntary offering, and it is not fit for the shekels of communal offerings, which come only from [money given as] an obligation.

And we say:

“

The remainder of his tenth of an ephah,

that of the High Priest [who offered every day the griddle-cake offering, which came from a tenth-measure, for he divided the tenth-measure and offered half of it in the morning and half of it in the evening]—if he set aside money for the tenth of an ephah of that day and there was some left over, what shall he do with it?”

Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

He shall not offer it, but

he shall take it to the Salt Sea,

and it is forbidden to benefit from it; and if one benefited from it, he does not bring a guilt-offering for misuse.

Rabbi Eleazar says: It shall fall to voluntary offerings,

like the law of the remainder of a sin-offering, for the Merciful One called the griddle-cake offering a sin-offering.

The tenth of an ephah of the High Priest,

which came from a tenth-measure of flour, which he divided and offered half of it in the morning and half of it in the evening—the Sages disputed when he consecrated it:

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: He divides it, and afterward

he

consecrates it

in a service vessel, each half-tenth separately in one vessel.

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: He consecrates it

when it is a complete tenth-measure,

and afterward

he

divides it.

And we challenge: Let us say that

the Mishna disagrees with Rabbi Yoḥanan.

For it is stated in the Mishna in tractate Menahot: A High Priest who brought his offering in the morning, half a tenth-measure, and died before he brought the second half of the offering in the evening, and another High Priest was appointed in his place that same day, shall not bring half a tenth-measure from his house, nor shall he offer the half-tenth-measure of the first one that remained from the morning.

Rather, the appointed priest brings a complete tenth-measure from his house, divides it, and

offers half. And

half

that remains—

is lost.

And this is difficult: If he consecrated only half at first, as Rabbi Yoḥanan says, and the second half was not consecrated in a service vessel, then it still has only the sanctity of value, for which there is redemption; why does it go to loss? And we answer:

He explains it

Rabbi Yoḥanan: The fact that the second half was lost is not because it possesses inherent sanctity, which cannot be redeemed.

Rather, this is the reason:

for

Rabbi Yoḥanan held that

even money

of the tenth of an ephah of the High Priest that remained—

he shall take it to the Salt Sea,

even though money certainly has redemption.

Therefore, that half, although it was not consecrated and has redemption, is lost.

And we challenge further: Let us say that

the Mishna disagrees with Rabbi Yoḥanan:

[the version of the Vilna Gaon].

For we learned at the end of the aforementioned Mishna:

It is found

now that

two halves are offered. For the first High Priest offered half of a complete tenth-measure in the morning, and likewise the second offered half of a complete tenth-measure in the evening.

And

the

two

halves

remaining from the first and from the second—

are lost.

And it teaches

there in a beraita:

The half

that was lost of the

first, and the half

that was lost

of the second—

their form shall pass

through an overnight stay, whereby they become invalid through the disqualification of “overnight,”

and they shall go

to be burned in

the House of Burning,

according to the law of disqualified sacred offerings.

But if it is according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, that those halves were not consecrated with inherent sanctity, and their entire law of being lost is like the law of leftover money, whose law is that it is taken to the Salt Sea, then they do not become “leftover” through an overnight stay; and what law of “burning” applies to them? And we answer:

He explains it

Rabbi Yoḥanan and says to you: The Mishna is

according to

the opinion of

Rabbi Ishmael

—it is.

For he says: “A tenth-measure,”

the vessel in which the tenth-measure of flour is measured is consecrated with inherent sanctity like a service vessel, and it

consecrates

the tenth-measure of flour measured in it with inherent sanctity.

And since everyone agrees that the High Priest brings it from his house as a complete tenth-measure [as we say in the Babylonian Talmud, Menahot 8a], and only afterward divides it, then according to Rabbi Ishmael, who says that this vessel consecrates the offering, Rabbi Yoḥanan agrees that the offering was consecrated with inherent sanctity. Therefore it also becomes leftover, and its law is burning.

It was stated:

When the

ordinary

priest first approaches the service,

that is, the first time that he begins to serve in the Temple, he

brings

as a meal-offering

his tenth of an ephah,

and it is called the “offering of initiation.” And we derive it from the verse, “This is the offering of Aaron and his sons, which they shall offer to the Lord on the day that He anoints him,”

and he performs it

[he performs the act of the service of the meal-offering with this offering that he brought]

with his hand,

and through this he is “initiated” into his service.

And although ideally the priest must bring this offering at the beginning of his initiation, nevertheless,

both a High Priest and an ordinary priest who served before they brought

[before they brought] the offering of initiation,

their tenth of an ephah—

their service is valid.

Rabbi Mana sought to say

[said]: A priest who had never served, and

on the very day that he first approached the service, on that very day

also

was appointed to be High Priest—

he brings two

[two meal-offerings],

one for his initiation,

as is the law of every priest the first time he serves, that he brings an offering of initiation,

and one for the obligation of the day. For every High Priest brings the griddle-cake offering, a tenth of an ephah every day, for the obligation of the day.

Ведь каждый первосвященник ежедневно приносит хлебное приношение хавитин, десятину эфы, как обязательное приношение этого дня.

Now the Gemara expounds the verse stated in the section of Tzav [chapter 6] concerning the meal-offering of the High Priest, in order to know the manner of preparing it: “

This is the offering of Aaron and his sons: a tenth of an ephah of fine flour as a continual meal-offering.

Half of it in the morning and half of it in the evening.

On a griddle, with oil it shall be made; well-blanched, you shall bring it—an offering of baked pieces; you shall offer it as a pleasing fragrance to the Lord.”

And we expound: “You shall bring it”—

“you shall bake it.”

At the time of bringing it,

in the morning,

you shall bake it,

you shall bake it.

And in the morning

before dawn,

you shall not bake it.

That is, you shall bake it at the time of bringing it—in the morning, before bringing “half of it in the morning,” and not at night before dawn. And in the evening you shall bake it before bringing the evening half.

And we challenge:

But we learned

in tractate Tamid, when it explains the order of the service in the Temple:

They stationed

before dawn the priest

who prepares

the

griddle-cake offering, to prepare the griddle-cake offering.

And “griddle-cake offering” means the meal-offering of the High Priest.

We see, then, that it was baked before the day.

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Aḥa said:

They did not station him to bake it, but only

to prepare

[to heat]

hot water for the well-blanched preparation,

to scald the flour with boiling water. As it is written, “well-blanched.” But in fact, its baking was close to its offering.

In the griddle-cake offering, frying is stated—“On a griddle, with oil it shall be made”—and baking is also stated—“you shall bake an offering of baked pieces.” The Gemara now discusses which of the two he performed first:

He said,

Rabbi Yasa in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: He fries it

on a griddle with oil,

and afterward

he

bakes it.

Rabbi Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina

said: Not so; rather, he

bakes it, and afterward fries it.

And the Gemara explains that their dispute depends on a dispute among tannaim, who disputed the interpretation of the verse “you shall bake it”:

For it was taught:

“You shall bake it”—

“bake it, please.”

This is the view of the first tanna, who expounded “you shall bake it” as a notarikon, as though it were written “bake it, please,” so that it should be slightly cooked at the time of its baking [“please” is an expression of slight cooking, as it is said concerning the Passover-offering, “You shall not eat from it raw”].

Rabbi says: “

You shall bake it”—

“bake it beautifully.”

So that it should be beautiful at the time of its baking.

Rabbi Dosa says: “You shall bake it”—

he multiplied

many bakings for it.

For he holds that first he bakes it, afterward fries it, and then bakes it again.

And we explain:

These disputes correspond to those disputes.

This dispute among the amoraim depends on the dispute among the tannaim in interpreting the verse, as he explains:

The one who says, “bake it beautifully,”

holds

like the one who says, “he bakes and afterward fries it.”

For if he fried it first, the offering would become dark from the oil and the griddle, and would no longer be beautiful at the time of baking. Rather, according to him, certainly they bake first and afterward fry.

And the one who says, “bake it, please,”

holds

like the one who says, “he fries it and afterward bakes it.”

For through this, at the time of baking the offering is already slightly cooked, and the verse is fulfilled: bake it when it is “please,” when it has already been slightly cooked.

We learned in the Mishna in Menahot: A High Priest who brought half a tenth-measure as a morning meal-offering and died, and another priest was appointed in his place—the appointed priest brings a complete tenth-measure from his house and offers half of it.

And we say:

It is not only

that this law was stated, that the second priest brings a complete offering from his house specifically

when

the High Priest died.

Rather, even

if the first one only

became impure,

the law is so.

But there is room to doubt:

Even

when the first one was only

removed

from his service

because of

a

blem

that was found in him, do they offer in the evening the second half of the tenth-measure of his offering that he offered in the morning, or here too does the second one appointed in his place bring a complete tenth-measure from his house, divide it, and offer his offering in the evening?

And we resolve the doubt:

Rabbi Yehuda ben Pazi of Bardela taught

[the name of a place]:

And even if he was removed

the first priest

because of

a

blem—

the second priest offers the offering brought in the evening from his house.

We learned in the Mishna: A High Priest died, and another priest had not yet been appointed in his place: the first tanna said that his offering is offered from the communal [funds], while Rabbi Yehuda said, from the heirs’ [funds]:

The Sages taught:

From where [do we know] that a High Priest who died, and they did not appoint

another priest

in his place, that his offering should be offered from the heirs’ [funds]?

The verse says: “

And the anointed priest in his place

from among his sons shall perform it.”

And we expound: Whoever among his sons is fit to be in his place—he shall perform it.

Could he bring it

the griddle-cake offering after the death of the High Priest who inherited it

in halves,

like the offering of the High Priest while he is alive, who brings a tenth-measure and offers half of it in the morning and half of it in the evening?

The verse says: “

And the anointed priest in his place, from among his sons, shall perform

it.”

And we expound: “It”—

I said the whole of it,

and not half of it,

the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Shimon says: It does not come

from the heirs’ [funds]

but from the community’s [funds].

As it is stated

concerning it,

“an eternal statute,”

and we expound: that it comes

from the eternal [community].

And we further expound: That which is written,

“It shall be wholly burned”—

that it should be entirely

wholly burned!

That is, it is not eaten even when it comes from communal [funds], although now it is not the offering of a priest. [Version of the Vilna Gaon.]

And we challenge the beraita, in which it is explained that according to Rabbi Shimon the offering of the High Priest after his death comes from communal [funds]:

Rabbi Ba bar Memel raised an objection

[he challenged]:

Rabbi Shimon’s method is contradicted!

It appears to be reversed [there is a contradiction in his method].

For

there,

in our Mishna, he

said

that this offering comes

from the heirs’ [funds]

of the High Priest, for he said in the Mishna that the court stipulated that it should come from communal [funds].

It is evident, then, that according to the fundamental law it was to come from the heirs’ [funds], and they merely stipulated that it should come from communal [funds].

And

if

here,

in the beraita, he

said

and expounded from the Torah that it

comes from communal [funds]

—?