Shekalim 21a — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Hiyya said: ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

Bar Ba: And this is not proper [well]

[подходящее]

—is he posing a difficulty?!

For this is a powerful difficulty.

Rabbi Yaakov bar Aha came and said in the name of Rabbi Abahu in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

In fact,

according to Torah law, it is to come from the public funds,

as Rabbi Shimon expounded in a beraita from what is written, “an eternal statute”: it is to be from the property of the public.

And

when they saw [that they saw] during the time of the Second Temple that there were more than three hundred High Priests, each one of whom did not complete his year, and they delayed appointing another, and they realized

[что во времена Второго Храма сменилось более трехсот первосвященников, каждый из которых не прослужил и года, а нового первосвященника назначали лишь спустя некоторое время, и поняли],

that it was becoming pressed—

that the

chamber

was being pressed by this expenditure every year for an extended period—

I would say [they enacted and said]:

[что постановили и сказали]:

They should collect it from the heirs,

and they should deliver it to the public.

And

when they saw that

they

were neglecting it,

the heirs, and were not bringing it, they went back and

enacted that it should come from the chamber contribution,

as Torah law requires,

It follows that according to Torah law it comes from the property of the public, and this does not contradict what we learned in the Mishna, that it comes from the property of the public by a condition of the court. For they needed this condition, since they had previously enacted that it should come from the heirs.

We learned in the Mishna: And the minhat havitin was offered whole when the High Priest died and they did not appoint another in his place. Since according to Rabbi Shimon it comes from the property of the public, or according to Rabbi Yehuda from the heirs, the law of “half of it,” stated in the Torah, does not apply to it; rather, they offer a whole issaron [in the morning. Or also in the evening, as will be explained below].

Rabbi Yose said: Rabbi Yohanan inquired

about this law:

Does it come

whole in the morning and whole between the evenings,

two issaronot each day?

Or

perhaps it comes only

whole in the morning,

and no more. Since the law of half does not apply to it. And they were commanded only concerning a tenth of an eifa each day.

And

the offering of the minhat havitin

between the evenings is canceled.

[The version of the Vilna Gaon]

Rabbi Yohanan returned

and considered it,

and it was obvious to him [and the doubt was resolved for him] that he offers

[и разрешил свое сомнение], что приношение следует приносить

a whole one in the morning and a whole one between the evenings.

And

still

this requires him [he was doubtful about this]: What is the law concerning the oil?

[этот вопрос]: каков закон относительно масла?

For before the High Priest died, he would place

three log

for mixing the meal-offering each day: one and a half log for the half-issaron in the morning, and one and a half log between the evenings.

But now, when he has died, and they bring this meal-offering in his place, which has a whole issaron in the morning and an issaron between the evenings—

what

is the measure of its oil?

Shall we say that the quantity of oil was also doubled, and he brings

three log in the morning and three log between the evenings?

Or

perhaps

one and a half log in the morning and one and a half log between the evenings?

Rabbi Hezekiah said: This too requires him [this too is subject to doubt]

concerning the measure of the frankincense that he brings with it.

Since for the minhat havitin he would place a handful of frankincense. And before he died he would place half a handful of frankincense in the morning and half a handful between the evenings. And now, when he has died and the measure of the fine flour has been doubled, the question arises:

Does he bring

a handful

of frankincense

in the morning and a handful between the evenings?

Or half a handful in the morning and half a handful between the evenings.

Rabbi Yose said

to resolve the question concerning the measure of the frankincense:

Is it so—

when they

derived

the fundamental law of

a handful

of frankincense in the minhat havitin, that

they did not derive it from the showbread

?

For concerning the minhat havitin a handful is not written at all, and necessarily they derived it from the showbread, by a gzera shava, since “an eternal statute” is stated concerning both.

And since they derived it from the showbread, you can say:

Just as there,

with the showbread, they bring

two handfuls

of frankincense, one handful for each of the two rows of bread,

so here too,

with the minhat havitin, they bring

two handfuls

of frankincense, one handful for each burning.

Rabbi Hezekiah said

to resolve the first question, whether the quantity of oil was doubled:

Is it so

when they

derived

the measure of the oil of the minhat havitin, that it should be

three log,

and

did they not derive it from

the sacrifice of the

daily offering,

as we learned in the Sifra [Torat Kohanim]:

Rabbi Ishmael, the son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka, says: It is written concerning the minhat havitin, “a meal-offering always.” This comes to teach that it is like the meal-offering of the daily offering.

Just as with the daily offerings, the measure of oil for their meal-offering is

three log, so too

the measure of its oil for the minhat havitin is three log.

And if so, you can say: Just as there, with the daily offering, they bring

three log

in the morning with the morning daily offering, and three log in the evening with the daily offering between the evenings,

so here too,

with the minhat havitin, they bring

three log

in the morning and three log in the evening.

We learned in the Mishna: One of the seven matters that the court enacted is: “And concerning the cow,

that they should not

derive benefit from its ashes.”

Rabbi Shimon bar Nahman said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan: According to

Torah

law, it

was required

that

those who benefit from the ashes of the cow

should misuse them,

and they should bring a sacrifice for misuse.

And they [the court of the Sages]

[мудрецовский суд]

decreed

and enacted

that they should not misuse them.

That is, that those who benefit from it should not be considered misusers, and should not bring a sacrifice for misuse.

And we challenge this: Is it only because of a condition of the court that there is no misuse of the ashes of the cow?

But it was taught

in a beraita: That which is written concerning the red cow,

“It is a sin-offering,”

the verse comes

to teach

that only “it”—the cow itself—is called a sin-offering,

and there is misuse of it.

And only

in it is there misuse, and there is no misuse of its ashes.

Thus we see that according to Torah law there is no misuse of its ashes, and it is not because of a condition of the court.

Rabbi Abahu said:

Indeed, according to the fundamental law, according to Torah law there is no misuse of its ashes.

Rather, the Sages saw

at first [in the beginning] that

they

were rattling it [treating it lightly, an expression of rattling]

[пренебрегали им; от слова, обозначающего беспорядочное перемешивание],

and placing it

for healing

on top of their wounds.

Therefore,

they decreed that there should be misuse of it

by rabbinic law.

And

when

they saw that the people were misusing even the ashes of the cow, they were apprehensive and did not wish to come and receive sprinkling for one who had become impure through contact with a dead body, because they feared that they were misusing the cow.

And when the Sages saw

that they had been restrained

and the people had refrained from sprinkling upon the impure person, they went back and

decreed [enacted]

[установили]

that there should not be misuse of it.

And the law returned to its original state, according to Torah law: there is no misuse of the ashes of the cow.

It follows that it is correct that according to Torah law we derive that there is no misuse of the ashes of the cow; nevertheless, they needed the enactment of the court so that they would not be considered misusers.

We learned in the Mishna: A condition of the court is

concerning the bird-pairs

that are disqualified, that they should bring other bird-pairs in their place from the property of the public.

There,

at the beginning of our chapter,

we learned:

Money that was found in the Temple between the box in which money is placed to bring bird-pairs from it and the box in which money is placed to bring from it young birds of burnt-offerings for voluntary offerings: if it was found at a distance,

half for

this

and half

for that, for it is an evenly balanced doubt—

they should bring

from it

young birds of burnt-offerings,

and the reason is explained there. [The version of the Vilna Gaon].

And we challenge this: Is there not reason for concern that perhaps this money came from the box of obligatory bird-pairs, where a woman who had given birth placed her money so that a bird-pair for her obligation would be brought with it? And if they bring young birds of burnt-offerings with it, it turns out that she did not bring her obligation.

And if so,

this woman—

with what does she attain atonement?

Rabbi Yitzhak said: It is a condition of the court

that

the one who supplies the bird-pairs

for the sacred property

supplies the disqualified ones and the lost ones.

That is, the person from whom the sacred property purchases the birds for the obligatory bird-pairs assumes responsibility to provide bird-pairs in place of the bird-pairs that were found disqualified, and likewise in place of the bird-pairs that were lost; and this woman attains atonement through that bird-pair which this supplier will provide in place of this money that was found between the boxes.

We have completed for you the chapter “Money That Was Found.”

Halakha 1 - Mishna:

The spittle of a zav and of a menstruant is a primary source of ritual impurity, and renders a person and vessels impure by Torah law. And the Sages decreed concerning every spittle that is found that it renders impure, because of the uncertainty whether it is the spittle of a zav or the spittle of a menstruant.

The Mishna explains the law of spittle found in Jerusalem:

All spittle found in Jerusalem is pure,

because in Jerusalem they did not decree impurity upon it, and by law it should not be rendered impure, for we follow the majority, and the majority of spittle is that of pure people.

Except for

spittle found in

the upper market

of Jerusalem, which renders impure, as the Gemara explains the reason,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yose says:

Spittle that is found

during all the other days of the year

[not during the pilgrimage festival], if it is found

in the middle

of the roads, it is

impure.

For during the days of the year impure people are common, and since they are the majority, they walk in the middle of the road; whereas the pure, who are the minority, walk along the sides of the roads so that they should not become impure through them. Therefore, spittle found in the middle of the road, we presume that it came from the impure.

And spittle

that

is found

on the sides is pure,

since presumably it is from the pure.

And

that spittle which is found

during the pilgrimage festival,

when most of Israel is pure, and the impure, who are the minority, withdraw and go along the sides of the roads, the law is that the spittle

that

is found

in the middle

of the road is

pure,

for presumably it came from the pure,

and that on the sides is impure,

for we presume that it came from the impure,

because

the

minority always withdraws to the sides.

And the Mishna explains the law of ordinary vessels that are found:

All vessels found in Jerusalem,

if they are found on

the way

of

the descent to the ritual bath,

they are

impure,

for there were two roads leading to the ritual bath: on one they descended to it, and on the other they ascended from it.

And a vessel found on the way of descent is certainly impure. For presumably they brought it there in order to immerse it, and it fell before they immersed it.

And

if they are found on

the way of ascent

from the ritual bath, they have the presumption of

purity,

for it is reasonable that they had already been immersed and were now brought up from the ritual bath after becoming pure.

Because

unlike their descent

to the ritual bath,

their ascent

is such that on their descent they are impure, and on their ascent they are pure, since they have already been immersed. These are

the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yose says: They are all pure,

for they did not decree impurity, because of uncertainty, upon vessels found in Jerusalem.

Except for the basket

in which they would gather the bones of the dead when they transferred him from a temporary grave to the grave of his ancestors,

and

except for

the rake,

with which they would rake together the bones of the dead when they were scattered,

and

except for

the maritza

[the Gemara explains what it is],

which were designated for graves,

since, because they were designated for graves, they have the presumption of impurity.

This law stated by Rabbi Yose, that vessels found in Jerusalem are pure, was stated only concerning non-sacred property; but concerning sacred property they were stringent, as follows:

A knife

for slaughter

that is found

in Jerusalem

on the fourteenth

of Nisan has the presumption of purity, and

he slaughters with it immediately,

for we say that even if it had been impure, its owners certainly immersed it yesterday, so that it would become pure at sunset and be fit to slaughter with it today, on the eve of Passover.

For a vessel that became impure and was immersed may not be used for sacred property as long as it is a “daytime immersion,” and only after sunset, that is, after the stars emerge, does it become completely pure.

If the knife is found

on the thirteenth

of Nisan, we are concerned that it may be impure; and since there is time to immerse it until evening [in order to purify it at sunset], we are concerned that its owners may not yet have immersed it.

Therefore he

immerses it again,

and slaughters the Passover offering with it on the fourteenth, since sunset has already occurred.

If he finds

a cleaver,

which is a large knife made for breaking bones with it, since it is not intended for slaughtering sacred offerings, and likewise it is not used for breaking the bones of the Passover offering, for it is stated, “and you shall not break a bone in it,” therefore we do not presume that its owners immersed it. Accordingly, whether

in this

case or

in that,

that is, whether it was found on the thirteenth or whether it was found on the fourteenth, he

immerses it again

and only then is it pure.

In the Babylonian Gemara, tractate Pesachim [folio 70a], they raised the objection: Behold, the cleaver is fit for cutting the bones of the Festival offering brought together with the Passover offering on the fourteenth of Nisan [but it is not fit for the Passover offering, since it is forbidden to break a bone with it]. If so, here too one should say that it was immersed on the thirteenth so that it would be fit for this purpose; and why, if he found it on the fourteenth, does he immerse it again?

And the Gemara establishes the Mishna as referring to a case in which the prince was dying on the thirteenth of Nisan. For if he were to die, the entire public would be impure, since it is a mitzva for all Israel to attend to him, and they would offer the Passover offering in impurity, and would not need to purify the vessels.

Therefore, a knife intended for slaughtering the Passover offering, a person immerses it, lest the prince not die and they need a pure knife. Consequently, a knife found on the fourteenth is used immediately, for it has the presumption that its owners immersed it yesterday in order to slaughter the Passover offering with it on the fourteenth.

But concerning a cleaver, there are two uncertainties as to whether they will need it.

a. Perhaps the prince will die and they will perform the Passover offering in impurity, in which case they do not offer a Festival offering in impurity, and they will not need the cleaver.

b. Even if the prince does not die, perhaps they will not register many people for the Passover offering, and there will be sufficient meat in the Passover offering for the entire group, in which case the law is that they do not bring a Festival offering with it.

And since there are two uncertainties, no person immerses the cleaver, lest he nevertheless need it. Therefore it has the presumption of impurity, and the one who finds it must immerse it.

If

the fourteenth falls on Shabbat

and he finds a cleaver on that day, he

slaughters

with it

immediately,

and he does not need to immerse it. Although he does not need the cleaver today to break the bones of the Festival offering, since a Festival offering is not brought on Shabbat, nevertheless he needs it tomorrow, on the fifteenth of Nisan, for the Festival offering that he will offer then. And since vessels are not immersed on Shabbat, certainly its owners immersed it on the thirteenth, and it is already pure.