Shekalim 22a — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Eliezer says:

the matter depends not on the place of its impurity, but only on the severity of its impurity.

And therefore: that

became impure through a primary source of impurity, whether

it became impure

inside or

it became impure

outside shall be burned outside.

And that

became impure through an offspring of impurity, whether

it became impure

outside or

it became impure

inside shall be burned inside

in the Temple courtyard.

Rabbi Akiva says:

the matter depends not on the severity of its impurity, but only on the place of its impurity. And always, in

the place of its impurity, there

shall be

its burning:

if it became impure inside, it shall be burned inside, and if it became impure outside, it shall be burned outside.

Gemara:

Bar Kappara said:

the distinction that they made in the Mishna between

a primary source of impurity

and an offspring of impurity does not mean an actual primary source of impurity and an actual offspring of impurity.

Rather, that which it teaches: “that became impure through a primary source of impurity,” means that it became impure

by Torah law [and it calls it a primary source of impurity because a primary source of impurity is always from Torah law, for there is no primary source of impurity by rabbinic enactment].

[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 that which it teaches: “that became impure”

through an offspring of impurity

means that it became impure with impurity

by rabbinic enactment

—for example, the flesh touched liquids that had touched food, which are a first degree of impurity only by rabbinic enactment.

And

Rabbi Yohanan said: Between this and that,

that is, both what it teaches as a primary source of impurity and what it teaches as an offspring of impurity, their impurity

is by Torah law

.

And Rabbi Yohanan’s [opinion] is difficult in relation to that of the House of Shammai.

That is, the words of the House of Shammai are difficult to reconcile according to Rabbi Yohanan, who says that all the impurity of which the Mishna speaks is from Torah law.

For the House of Shammai says: Everything shall be burned inside, except that which became impure through a primary source of impurity outside.

And if that which became impure through an offspring of impurity also has impurity by Torah law, then it is difficult:

what

is the distinction

between

that which became impure through

a primary source of impurity outside,

which they do not bring inside to burn it in the Temple courtyard, because impurity is not brought into the Temple courtyard,

and between

that which became impure through

an offspring of impurity outside?

And is

this and that not a matter of Torah law!?

And since both are impure by Torah law, they should not be brought into the Temple courtyard.

And we raise a difficulty:

Is it not difficult even concerning the House of Hillel?!

Behold, Rabbi Yohanan’s words—that all the impurities of which the Mishna speaks are a matter of Torah law—are also difficult from the words of the House of Hillel.

For the House of Hillel say: Everything shall be burned outside, except that which became impure through an offspring of impurity inside.

And it is difficult: if that which became impure through an offspring of impurity also has impurity from Torah law, then

what is the distinction between

that which became impure

through an offspring of impurity inside,

whose burning is in the sacred area, since its impurity occurred in the sacred area,

and between

that which became impure through

a primary source of impurity inside,

which likewise, since its impurity occurred inside, its burning shall be inside. And is

this and that not a matter of Torah law?!

And we conclude:

the Sages dealt only with Bar Kappara’s statement.

Because of these difficulties, the Sages did not deliberate in interpreting the Mishna according to Rabbi Yohanan’s interpretation, but according to Bar Kappara’s view, who says that when we say in the Mishna “that became impure through a primary source of impurity,” the meaning is that it became impure by Torah law; and when we say “that became impure through an offspring of impurity,” the meaning is that it became impure by rabbinic enactment.

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

And Bar Kappara’s statement is difficult in relation to the House of Shammai.

That is, the words of the House of Shammai are difficult according to Bar Kappara:

for the House of Shammai says: Everything shall be burned inside, except that which became impure through a primary source of impurity outside.

And it is difficult:

what

is the distinction

between a primary source of impurity [in the case of one that became impure through a primary source of impurity]

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

between

that which became impure

outside

and

and between

that which became impure

inside?

And is

this and that not a matter of Torah law!?

For one that became impure through a primary source of impurity is impure by Torah law, and why, if it became impure outside, shall it be burned outside, while if it became impure inside, it shall be burned inside?

And we answer:

because of [for the sake of] Rabbi Akiva’s reason; that is, the House of Shammai agree with the reason mentioned in Rabbi Akiva’s words,

[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: In the place of its impurity, there shall be its burning.

And the House of Shammai likewise hold this way. Therefore, they distinguished between one that became impure outside, in which case its burning is outside, and one that became impure inside, in which case its burning is inside. And they differed from Rabbi Akiva only in that he held that even if it became impure with impurity by rabbinic enactment, the law is so, whereas the House of Shammai hold that if it became impure with impurity by rabbinic enactment, its burning is always inside.

And we raise another difficulty:

And is it not difficult even according to the House of Hillel?!

That is, it is also difficult according to the House of Hillel:

For the House of Hillel say: Everything shall be burned outside, except for

that

which became impure through an offspring of impurity inside.

And it is difficult:

what

is the distinction

between

one that became impure through

an offspring of impurity [what is the distinction concerning an offspring of impurity]

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

between

one that became impure

inside and

one that became impure

outside?

And is

this and that not by rabbinic enactment?!

For everything is impure by rabbinic enactment, and by Torah law it is pure, so why should they not bring it inside to burn it?

And we answer:

because of

Rabbi Shimon’s reason; that is, because of the law that we find in Rabbi Shimon’s words, the House of Hillel stated their law that they do not bring impurity by rabbinic enactment inside to burn it in the Temple courtyard.

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

that the leper touched, they do not

bring

it

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 they do not bring them inside, nevertheless they are not sent outside the three camps.

Thus there is a distinction between bringing in and taking out; and so too, the House of Hillel hold that sacrificial flesh that became impure with impurity by rabbinic enactment is not brought into the Temple courtyard, but nevertheless it need not be taken out of it, and it is burned there, in the Temple courtyard.

Halakha 4 — Mishna:

On the southern side of the altar there was a ramp built, like an inclined bridge by which they ascended to the altar. Its length was thirty-two cubits and its width sixteen cubits.

And when the priests brought up the limbs of the daily offering, they did not immediately bring them up to the pyre upon the altar; rather, they first placed them on the ramp, and went to the Chamber of Hewn Stone to recite the Shema, and afterward brought them up onto the altar.

The Mishna comes to explain in which place on the ramp they would temporarily place the limbs:

a.

The limbs of the daily offering were placed from halfway

of the

ramp and below.

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

on

one side of the ramp, namely, on its eight eastern cubits.

And the limbs

of

the offerings of the

additional offerings

were

placed from halfway down the ramp

on those eight cubits on 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 horns of the altar.

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—because they are needed for offerings, and when there are no offerings, there are no shekels. And first fruits—for it is written: “You shall bring [them 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

animal tithe, and

the sanctity of

the firstborn—

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

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

And animal tithe was equated with grain tithe.

And the firstborn are obligations of the person, and their sanctity is from the womb; therefore they are practiced also nowadays.

One who consecrates shekels and first fruits

nowadays, his consecration takes effect, and

this is sacred;

he leaves the first fruits until they decay, and the shekels must be hidden away or he must take them 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 written explicitly concerning them: “You shall bring [them to] the House of the Lord your God,” and now there is no Temple.

But one who 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?

This is the

cubits

on the outer side of the altar

that is between one horn

of this 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; and the area between them, together with one cubit inward from them, is

the place where the priests’ feet walk.

And it is called the ledge.

And the Gemara is uncertain:

the additional offerings of Shabbat

and

the additional offerings of the New Moon—

which

of them

comes first

for offering?

Rabbi Yirmeya thought to say [said]

[said]:

the additional offerings of the New Moon come first,

and they offer them first.

The force

of Rabbi Yirmeya’s [argument and]

proof is from this

[law]:

As it was taught: When the New Moon occurs on Shabbat and there applies to it

the song of Shabbat and the song of the New Moon,

the law is that

the song of the New Moon comes first,

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

Thus, the New Moon is preferable. And just as it is preferable with regard to the song, so it is preferable with regard to its additional offering being 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, because

there

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

because Rabbi Hiyya said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

the reason that they say the song of the New Moon and not the song of Shabbat is

in order to publicize it and make known

to everyone

that it is the New Moon.

For not everyone sees the moon in its renewal, and if they did not say the song of the New Moon, they would not know that they had sanctified the month.

However [but]

[but]

here,

where

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

stand before them, the offering of

the additional offerings of Shabbat comes first, because of [because of the principle]

[because of the principle]

“Whatever is more frequent than its fellow

comes before its fellow.”

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 say over them the song of the New Moon

in order to publicize that it is the New Moon.

We learned in the Mishna: One who consecrates nowadays

shekels and first fruits

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

And we infer: It implies that he disagrees with the first tanna only concerning the law of the first fruits, holding that it is impossible to consecrate them nowadays;

but shekels

that he consecrated nowadays, he too agrees that

they became sacred.

And Rabbi Shimon ben Judah

said

in the name of Rabbi Shimon: Neither these nor those became sacred,

for even one who consecrates shekels nowadays does not make them sacred.

We learned in tractate Keritot: A convert who converted must bring a nest of two birds for a burnt offering. And 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

to set aside for the purpose of

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 it,

and said that he should not set aside this money

because of the mishap,

for there is reason for concern that perhaps he will benefit from it and commit sacrilege.

And we explain:

What

is this that we say,

“because of the mishap”?

As that which was taught

[in accordance with that which we learned]:

One may not consecrate

objects for the Temple treasury,

and

likewise

one may not make a valuation [that is, one who says, “My valuation is upon me,” and brings the amount specified in the Torah to the repair of the Temple],

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

and one may not declare property devoted

for the repair of the Temple

nowadays,

because of concern for a mishap.

And if one consecrated, or made a valuation, or declared property devoted.

Then

the garment

that he consecrated

shall be burned.

And the animal shall be left to die

[it shall die].

How

does he act?

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

because it is forbidden to kill a consecrated animal by hand.

And the money

that he declared devoted for the repair of the Temple

shall go to the Dead Sea,

and he may not keep it because of the mishap.

And we raise the question: If

the convert transgressed

and

consecrated

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

And we resolve it:

From what [from that]

[from the fact]

Rabbi Shimon said

concerning setting aside a nest for the convert’s offering:

Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai abolished it because of the mishap—

this teaches

[that is to say]

that if he transgressed and consecrated it, it became sacred.

For it implies that it was abolished only because of the mishap, but after the fact it became sacred.