Shekalim 22a (כב.) — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Eliezer says:

The matter depends not on the location where it contracted impurity, but only on the severity of its impurity.

Therefore: that

contracted impurity through a primary source of impurity, whether

it contracted impurity

inside or

it contracted impurity

outside, shall be burned outside.

And that

contracted impurity through an offspring of impurity, whether

it contracted impurity

outside or

it contracted impurity

inside, shall be burned inside

the Temple courtyard.

Rabbi Akiva says:

The matter depends not on the severity of its impurity, but only on the location where it contracted impurity. And wherever

it contracted its impurity, there

shall

its burning be;

if it contracted impurity inside, it shall be burned inside, and if it contracted impurity outside, it shall be burned outside.

Gemara:

Bar Kappara said:

The distinction made in the Mishna between

a primary source of impurity

and an offspring of impurity does not refer to an actual primary source of impurity and an actual offspring of impurity.

Rather, when it teaches that it contracted impurity through a primary source of impurity, it means that it contracted impurity

by Torah law.

[And it calls it a primary source of impurity because a primary source of impurity is always a matter of Torah law, as there is no rabbinic primary source of impurity.]

And when it teaches that it contracted impurity

through an offspring of impurity,

it means that it contracted impurity

by rabbinic law,

for example, when the meat touched liquids that had touched food, which are a first degree of impurity only by rabbinic law.

And

Rabbi Yohanan said: In both this case and that case,

that is, both in the case referred to as a primary source of impurity and in the case referred to as an offspring of impurity, their impurity

is by Torah law

.

And Rabbi Yohanan’s statement presents a difficulty according to the opinion of Beit Shammai.

That is, the statement of Beit Shammai is difficult to reconcile according to Rabbi Yohanan, who says that all the impurities discussed in the Mishna are by Torah law.

For Beit Shammai say: Everything shall be burned inside, except for that which contracted impurity through a primary source of impurity outside.

But if even that which contracted impurity through an offspring of impurity has impurity by Torah law, then

what

is the distinction

between

that which contracted impurity through a

primary source of impurity outside,

which is not brought inside to be burned in the courtyard, because an impure object may not be brought into the courtyard,

and

that which contracted impurity through an

offspring of impurity outside?

And is

this and that not a matter of Torah law!?

Since both are impure by Torah law, they may not be brought into the courtyard.

And we ask:

Does this present no difficulty even according to Beit Hillel?!

After all, Rabbi Yohanan’s statement—that all the impurities discussed in the Mishna are by Torah law—is also difficult according to the statement of Beit Hillel.

For Beit Hillel say: Everything shall be burned outside, except for that which contracted impurity through an offspring of impurity inside.

And this is difficult: If that which contracted impurity through an offspring of impurity also has impurity by Torah law, then

what is the distinction between

that which contracted impurity

through an offspring of impurity inside,

which is burned in the sacred area because it contracted impurity in the sacred area,

and

that which contracted impurity through a

primary source of impurity inside,

which likewise, since it contracted impurity inside, should be burned inside? And is

this and that not a matter of Torah law?!

And we conclude:

The Sages raised their discussion only regarding Bar Kappara’s statement.

That is, in light of these difficulties, the Sages did not debate the interpretation of the Mishna according to Rabbi Yohanan’s interpretation, but according to Bar Kappara, who says that when the Mishna states that it contracted impurity through a primary source of impurity, it means that it contracted impurity by Torah law, whereas when it states that it contracted impurity through an offspring of impurity, it means that it contracted impurity by rabbinic law.

And even according to his view, the Gemara raises a difficulty:

And Bar Kappara’s statement presents a difficulty according to Beit Shammai.

That is, the statement of Beit Shammai is difficult according to Bar Kappara:

For Beit Shammai say: Everything shall be burned inside, except for that which contracted impurity through a primary source of impurity outside.

And this is difficult:

What

is the distinction

between a primary source of impurity

[in the case of an object that contracted impurity through a primary source of impurity]

between

an object that contracted impurity

outside

and

between

an object that contracted impurity

inside?

And is

this and that not a matter of Torah law!?

After all, that which contracted impurity through a primary source of impurity is impure by Torah law; why, then, if it contracted impurity outside is it burned outside, whereas if it contracted impurity inside it is burned inside?

And we answer:

Because of

[for the sake of] Rabbi Akiva’s reasoning; that is, Beit Shammai agrees with the reasoning mentioned in Rabbi Akiva’s statement,

for Rabbi Akiva said: Wherever it contracted impurity, there shall its burning be.

Beit Shammai likewise holds this way. Therefore, they distinguish between an object that contracted impurity outside, which is burned outside, and one that contracted impurity inside, which is burned inside. They disagree with Rabbi Akiva only in that he holds that the same law applies even when it contracted impurity by rabbinic law, whereas Beit Shammai holds that if it contracted impurity by rabbinic law, it is always burned inside.

We raise another difficulty:

And does this present no difficulty even according to Beit Hillel?!

That is, it is difficult even according to Beit Hillel:

For Beit Hillel say: Everything shall be burned outside, except for

that

which contracted impurity through an offspring of impurity inside.

And this is difficult:

What

is the distinction

between

that which contracted impurity through an

offspring of impurity

[what is the distinction in the case of an offspring of impurity]

between

that which contracted impurity

inside and

that which contracted impurity

outside?

And is

this and that not a matter of rabbinic law?!

After all, everything is impure by rabbinic law, while by Torah law it is pure; why, then, should it not be brought inside to be burned?

And we answer:

Because of

Rabbi Shimon’s reasoning; that is, because of a law found in Rabbi Shimon’s statement, Beit Hillel stated their ruling that an object with rabbinic impurity is not brought inside to be burned in the courtyard.

For Rabbi Shimon said: The food and drink of a leper,

which the leper touched, may not be

brought

into

the three camps

from which he is sent away [namely, the camp of Israel, the camp of the Levites, and the camp of the Divine Presence], since they are impure.

And we see that although these items may not be brought in, nevertheless they are not sent outside the three camps.

Thus, there is a distinction between bringing in and taking out. Likewise, Beit Hillel holds that sacred meat that contracted rabbinic impurity may not be brought into the courtyard, but nevertheless need not be taken out of it; rather, it is burned there, in the courtyard.

Halakha 4 — Mishna:

On the southern side of the altar there was a ramp, resembling an inclined bridge, by which they ascended to the altar. It was thirty-two cubits long and sixteen cubits wide.

When the priests brought up the limbs of the daily offering, they did not bring them immediately to the pyre atop the altar. Rather, they first placed them on the ramp, and went to the Chamber of Hewn Stone to recite the Shema. Afterwards, they brought them up onto the altar.

The Mishna comes to explain where on the ramp they placed the limbs in the interim:

a. The limbs of the daily offering were placed

from the midpoint of

the

ramp downward.

That is, on the lower sixteen cubits of the ramp,

on

the side of the ramp—that is, on its eastern eight cubits.

And the limbs

of

the offerings of the

additional offerings

were

placed from the midpoint of the ramp downward,

on those eight cubits at the side.

And the limbs of the additional offerings

of the New Moons

were

placed on the ledge of the altar,

that is, on the altar itself, on the outermost cubit of the altar, between the altar’s horns.

b. The contribution of

the shekels,

and the bringing of

the first fruits—

are practiced only when the Temple is standing.

But when the Temple is not standing, they are not practiced.

Shekels are required because they are needed for offerings, and when there are no offerings, there are no shekels. And as for first fruits, it is written: “You shall bring to the house of the Lord your God.” And we derive: As long as you have the house of the Lord, you have first fruits; if you do not have the house of the Lord, you do not have first fruits.

But

the separation of teruma and

tithe

that come from

grain, and

the mitzvot of separating and consecrating

the animal tithe, and

the sanctity of

the firstborn—

are practiced both when the Temple is standing and when it is not standing.

Teruma and tithe depend on the sanctity of the Land, and the sanctity of the Land was not nullified.

And the animal tithe was likened to the grain tithe.

And the firstborn involve an obligation of the person, and their sanctity begins from the womb; therefore, they are practiced even nowadays.

One who consecrates shekels and first fruits

nowadays, his consecration takes effect, and

they are sacred.

He leaves the first fruits until they decay, while the shekels are placed in storage or taken to the Dead Sea.

Rabbi Shimon says: One who says

nowadays concerning

the first fruits, “

These are

sacred”—

his consecration does not take effect, and

they are not sacred,

since it is explicitly written concerning them: “You shall bring to the house of the Lord your God,” and now there is no Temple.

But if one consecrates shekels nowadays, his consecration takes effect, since there is no explicit verse teaching that one may not consecrate them nowadays.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: The limbs of the additional offerings of the New Moons are placed on the ledge of the altar.

And we explain:

What is the ledge of the altar?

It is

the cubit

at the outer edge of the altar

between one horn

of the altar

and this horn

of the altar. At the top of the altar, at its four corners, there were four horns, each one cubit by one cubit; the area between them, together with the additional cubit inward from them, was

the place where the priests’ feet walked.

And this is what is called the ledge.

The Gemara is uncertain:

The additional offerings of Shabbat

and

the additional offerings of the New Moon—

which

of them comes

first

to be offered?

Rabbi Yirmeya reasoned

[said]:

The additional offerings of the New Moon come first,

and they are offered first.

His support

[his proof]

for Rabbi Yirmeya is from this

[from this law]:

As it was taught: When the New Moon occurs on Shabbat, and both

the song of Shabbat and the song of the New Moon

are applicable,

the song of the New Moon comes first,

and they recite only the song of the New Moon, not the song of Shabbat.

It follows that the New Moon is preferable. And just as it is preferable with regard to the song, so too it is preferable with regard to which additional offering is offered first.

And we reject this:

Rabbi Yose said: It is different.

That is, there is no proof from there, for there it is different, as

there

the reason that the song of the New Moon overrides the song of Shabbat is

because Rabbi Hiyya said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

The reason that they recite the song of the New Moon rather than the song of Shabbat is

in order to publicize and make known

to everyone

that it is the New Moon.

For not everyone sees the moon when it is renewed, and if they did not recite the song of the New Moon, they would not know that the month had been sanctified.

However

[but]

here, when

the

additional offerings of Shabbat and the additional offerings of the New Moon

stand before them,

the additional offerings of Shabbat come first, on the basis of

[because of the principle]

“Whatever is more frequent than its counterpart

—

comes before its counterpart.”

And how would he act?

He would

slaughter the additional offerings of

the

Shabbat

first, since they are more frequent.

And he would recite over them the song of the New Moon

in order to publicize that it was the New Moon.

We learned in the Mishna: One who consecrates nowadays

shekels and first fruits

—they are sacred, Rabbi Shimon says: One who says concerning first fruits that they are sacred, they are not sacred.

And we infer: It appears that he disagrees with the first tanna only with regard to the law of first fruits, holding that they cannot be consecrated nowadays;

but shekels,

which he consecrated nowadays, he too agrees that

they become sacred.

And Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda

said

in the name of Rabbi Shimon: Neither the former nor the latter became sacred,

for he maintains that even shekels consecrated nowadays do not become sacred.

We learned in tractate Keritot: A convert who converts must bring a nest of two birds for an offering. Nowadays, although he does not offer it, nevertheless this does not prevent his conversion.

And it was taught

in a beraita:

A convert nowadays must bring

and set aside for

his nest,

which he will bring when the Temple is rebuilt,

a quarter of a silver coin.

That is, a dinar, which is the value of a nest.

And Rabbi Shimon said: Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai abolished this,

and said that one should not set aside this money

because of the possible mishap,

as there is concern that he might benefit from it and thereby commit misuse of consecrated property.

And we explain:

What

is meant by the statement

“because of the possible mishap”?

It is like that which was taught

[in a similar matter to that which we learned]:

One may not consecrate

objects to the Temple treasury,

and

likewise

one may not make an evaluation vow

[that is, say “My valuation is upon me” and bring the amount specified by the Torah to the Temple treasury],

nor may one designate property for the Temple treasury

for the Temple’s maintenance

nowadays,

because of concern about a possible mishap.

And if he consecrated, or made an evaluation vow, or designated property.

Then

the garment

that he consecrated

shall be burned.

And the animal shall be left to die

[it shall die].

How

does he do this?

He locks the door before it, and it dies on its own,

since it is prohibited to kill a consecrated animal directly.

And the money

that he designated for the Temple’s maintenance

shall go to the Dead Sea,

and he should not keep it because of the possible mishap.

And we inquire: If

the convert transgressed

and

consecrated

a quarter-sela for his nest, what is the law? Did his consecration take effect or not?

And we resolve it:

From what

[from the fact]

that Rabbi Shimon said

with regard to setting aside a nest for the convert’s offering:

Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai abolished it because of the possible mishap—

this indicates

[that is to say] that

if he transgressed and consecrated it, it became sacred.

For it follows that it was abolished only because of the possible mishap, but post facto the consecration takes effect.