Shekalim 6b — the Talmud in English

Halakha 4 — Mishna:

a.

One who gathered and collected coins and said, “These are for the contribution of the half-shekel,” and found that they were more than the measure of a half-shekel, behold,

“the surplus of the shekels is non-sacred.”

Since he intended to consecrate only what was needed for the contribution of the half-shekel [and the Mishna states the law according to the view of Beit Hillel, above, halakha 3].

b.

The surplus

of the money from the money that he designated for purchasing

a tenth of an ephah

for a meal-offering—that is, what remained in his possession after he purchased a meal-offering [and the Gemara will explain which meal-offering is meant].

And likewise

the surplus

of the money from the money that he designated for purchasing

the nests of zavim

or

the nests of zavot and the nests of women who gave birth.

For the poor zav, the poor zavah, and the poor woman who gave birth are required to bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one as a sin-offering and one as a burnt-offering, and these are called a nest; and if he purchased a nest with the money and money from this money remained in his possession.

And likewise the surplus of the money that the sinner designated for purchasing

sin-offerings and guilt-offerings.

The law of all these is

their surplus—

which goes to

a free-will offering.

That is, to purchase with it burnt-offerings, which they offer when the altar stands idle, without offerings.

This is the general rule: Everything

that

comes for the sake of a sin and for the sake of a guilt-offering—

its surplus is a free-will offering.

And this is learned from a verse below, at the end of chapter 6, that the surplus of a sin-offering is changed into a free-will offering.

c.

The surplus

of the money that he set aside to purchase with it

a burnt-offering

—its law is that it goes

to a burnt-offering,

so that he himself brings with it another burnt-offering.

d.

The surplus

of the money that he set aside to purchase with it an offering

of a meal-offering,

its law is that it goes

to a meal-offering,

so that he brings with it another meal-offering.

e.

The surplus

of the money that he set aside to purchase with it

peace-offerings,

its law is that it goes

to peace-offerings,

so that he brings with it an additional animal as a peace-offering.

f.

The surplus

of the money that he set aside to purchase with it an offering

of the Passover-offering,

goes

to peace-offerings,

so that he brings with it a peace-offering.

g.

The surplus

of the money that a person set aside for the needs of the offerings of

poor nazirites,

who do not have money to bring an offering of their own, and money from that money remained in his possession, he shall give the surplus

to

the offerings of

other nazirites.

h.

h.

The surplus

of the money that the

nazirite

himself set aside for the needs of his offerings shall go

to

the burnt-offering of

a free-will offering,

which they offer when the altar stands idle, without offerings.

Gemara:

Rabbi Yose said: While I was there,

when I was there, in Babylonia, before I ascended to the Land of Israel,

I heard

the

voice [

sound ] of

Rabbi Yehuda,

when he

asked

this question before

Shmuel:

One who

set aside his shekel

for the contribution of the shekels to the Temple

and died—

what shall they do with his shekel?

He said to him,

Shmuel:

It shall fall to a free-will offering.

Behold, we see that Shmuel also held that the surplus of the shekels, since they are consecrated articles of the highest sanctity, should therefore fall to a free-will offering.

And also

Rabbi Elazar

held this way.

For it was stated:

A High Priest who set aside money with which to purchase flour for his daily griddle-offering [which he brought in the morning and in the evening, and which consisted of a tenth of an ephah of flour, divided into two; he offered half a tenth in the morning and half in the evening].

If he set aside money, and after he purchased the flour money remained in his possession, the amoraim disagreed concerning what to do with

the surplus of his tenth of an ephah: Rabbi Yohanan said: He shall take it to the Dead Sea,

and it is forbidden to benefit from it, but if he benefited from it, he does not bring an offering for misuse.

Rabbi Elazar says: It shall fall to a free-will offering.

Thus, he too holds that what remains from what was set aside for offerings of the highest sanctity shall go to a free-will offering.

And we object: Shall we say that

our teaching,

our Mishna,

disagrees with Rabbi Yohanan?

For it is stated in the Mishna:

The surplus of the shekels—

non-sacred.

The surplus of a tenth of an ephah,

and likewise

the surplus of the nests of zavim and the nests of zavot,

and likewise

the surplus of the nests of women who gave birth, and of sin-offerings and guilt-offerings—

their surplus is a free-will offering.

And the Gemara understood that the surplus of the tenth of an ephah is the surplus of the meal-offering that the High Priest brings every day.

If so, it is explicitly stated in the Mishna that its law is to go to a free-will offering and that it does not go to the Dead Sea, unlike what Rabbi Yohanan said?

What did Rabbi Yohanan do with it,

what does he do with this objection? [And the Gra does not have these words].

And we answer:

He explained it, [

he will answer and interpret it, ] that the intention of the Mishna is the law of

the surplus of the tenth of an ephah of the sin-offering of an Israelite.

That is, one who sinned through a false oath, or entered the Temple while impure, who must bring a female sheep as a sin-offering. And if his means do not suffice, he brings two turtledoves or two young pigeons. “

And if his means do not suffice for two turtledoves or two young pigeons, then he shall bring his offering for the sin that he committed: a tenth of an ephah of fine flour as a sin-offering.”

And if money remained from what he set aside to purchase the tenth of an ephah, they shall bring burnt-offerings for a free-will offering from the surplus. But the surplus of the tenth of an ephah of the High Priest shall always go to the Dead Sea, in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan.

One who consecrates a lamb for the sake of the Passover-offering not at the time of the Passover-offering, but during the other days of the year, offers it as a peace-offering. And we learn this from a verse.

And the Gemara explains the source for this:

Rabbi Yose said: Concerning this,

concerning this matter,

Abba bar Ba

disputed

Abba bar Ba,

who was Shmuel’s father,

that they

the Babylonians

say [

that they said ] :

From where is it established that the Passover-offering,

which one offers not at its proper time,

changes to the designation of peace-offerings?

The verse states: “And if his offering is from the flock

for a sacrifice of peace-offerings

to the Lord.”

And we expound:

Everything

that

is

coming

from the flock,

such as the Passover-offering, is

coming

and offered for the sake of

peace-offerings.

But if one offers a Passover-offering [which comes from the flock] on the eve of Passover for the sake of peace-offerings, it is invalid.

From here, the verse comes to inform us that a Passover-offering that one comes to offer during the other days of the year must be offered for the sake of peace-offerings, for this is what makes it fit to be offered not at its proper time.

And concerning this

they objected [

he objected to them ] Rabbi Yose: From where is it established that the verse speaks of a lamb that he set aside for the sake of a Passover-offering? Perhaps the verse is speaking of the “surplus of a burnt-offering.”

For

behold,

also

a burnt-offering

comes

from the flock.

And the verse comes to teach us that if one set aside a lamb for his burnt-offering, and it was lost, and he set aside another lamb in its place, and the first lamb was found, one of them is offered for the sake of a burnt-offering, while the second becomes the “surplus of a burnt-offering,” and he offers it for the sake of peace-offerings?

And we answer: The verse states, “And if it is from the flock.” And it implies that it speaks of

something that comes only from the flock,

namely, the Passover-offering, which comes only from sheep and goats.

A burnt-offering is excluded, for it comes even from cattle.

They objected [

they further objected to them ] : Perhaps the verse speaks of the surplus of a guilt-offering. For

behold,

also

a guilt-offering

does not come from cattle, but only from the flock.

Rabbi Bun bar Kahana said:

The verse states

“from the flock,”

and it implies

something that comes from all of the flock,

such as the Passover-offering, which comes both from sheep and from goats.

A guilt-offering is excluded, for it comes only from sheep [

the version of the Gra ]

alone,

and does not come from goats.

And we object: How can you learn from the word “from” that the verse speaks of all the flock, when this is the opposite of the way they ordinarily expound?

For

in every place you say [

you say ] that where it is written

“from,”

the intention of the verse is

to exclude [

for example: “from cattle,” and not all cattle—to exclude an animal with a fatal injury or one with which bestiality was performed ]. But here

you

or

say

that the intention of the verse

“from

the flock” is

to include

something that comes from all the flock, and not from part of the flock!?

Rabbi Mana said: Here too,

we learn from the verse

“from

the flock”

to exclude.

And the

exclusion

is

that

the Passover-offering

does not come

from a two-year-old ram.

And another

exclusion, that

the Passover-offering

does not come from a female.

And thus we expound this verse: “From” is an exclusion, that he should not bring a female or a two-year-old animal. And “flock” denotes something that includes the entire flock, both sheep and goats. And it teaches us that the verse does not speak of a guilt-offering.

They objected [

they further objected ] : Why did you expound this verse to teach that the Passover-offering changes to the designation of peace-offerings? Do you not have another verse from which to expound that the Passover-offering changes to the designation of a burnt-offering?

As it is written: “And if his offering is from the flock, from the sheep or from the goats, for a burnt-offering.”

Say

from now on: The surplus of the Passover-offering comes

and offers an offering

of a burnt-offering.

And let us expound thus: Everything that comes from sheep or from goats changes and comes as a burnt-offering!

Rabbi Avun said:

Since you can learn from one verse that the Passover-offering changes to peace-offerings, and you can learn from another verse that it changes to a burnt-offering, it is reasonable that we learn that it changes to peace-offerings, since

we change something that is

standing

for eating,

namely, the Passover-offering,

into something that is

standing

for eating,

namely, peace-offerings.

But we do not change something that is

standing

for eating into something that is not

standing

for eating,

but rather for burning, namely, a burnt-offering.

And further

Rabbi Yose son of Rabbi Bun said:

The Passover-offering and peace-offerings are offerings of lesser sanctity, while a burnt-offering is an offering of the highest sanctity.

And it is logical that

we change offerings of lesser sanctity for the sake of offerings of lesser sanctity, but we do not change offerings of lesser sanctity for the sake of offerings of the highest sanctity.

Rabbi Yohanan said: Concerning this [

concerning this matter ] that the Babylonians said,

Rabbi Hanina

disputed them.

For

they say [

that they said ] :

There is no

lamb that was consecrated for the sake of a

Passover-offering

not at its proper time that

changes

and is offered

for the sake of peace-offerings, unless he slaughtered it for the sake of peace-offerings.

But if he slaughtered it for the sake of a burnt-offering, it is invalid.

And

if

I say: Even if he slaughtered it

it

for the sake of a burnt-offering,

it is nevertheless offered as a peace-offering.

Rabbi Ila said:

This is

the reason of Rabbi Yohanan,

that even if he slaughtered the Passover-offering for the sake of a burnt-offering it is offered as a peace-offering, because he expounds the verse as follows:

It is written

“If his offering is from the flock

for a sacrifice of peace-offerings.”

And from here we expound that something coming from the flock, namely, the Passover-offering, changes so as to be offered as peace-offerings.

And the verse could have said merely “for peace-offerings”; and since it writes “for a sacrifice of peace-offerings,” we expound:

Every

Passover-offering

that

is offered not at its proper time for the sake of any

sacrifice

is offered and

comes as peace-offerings.

The following discussion is explained according to the commentary of the Kehillot Yaakov on Tractate Zevahim, responsum 24.

a.

We learned in Tractate Zevahim, chapter 1, mishna 1: All offerings that were slaughtered not for their sake, meaning that they were slaughtered for the sake of another offering, are valid, except for the Passover-offering and the sin-offering, which, if they were slaughtered not for their sake, are invalid.

b.

The Passover-offering, concerning which we said that if one slaughtered it not for its sake it is invalid, is specifically when he slaughtered it at its proper time, on the eve of Passover. But if he slaughtered it not at its proper time for the sake of another offering, it is valid and is offered as a peace-offering, as we expounded above from the verse.

c.

One who slaughters an offering with the intention of eating from its flesh after the time fit for eating it, or with the intention of sprinkling its blood on the altar after its time, has rendered it pigul, and the offering is disqualified, while one who eats from its flesh is liable for karet.

d.

When are these words said? When the offering was offered according to its mitzva and there was no other disqualification in it. But if it had another disqualification, for example, if one slaughtered a Passover-offering or a sin-offering not for its sake, the offering is not rendered pigul by the pigul intention that he had to eat beyond its time. Rather, it is merely a disqualified offering, and the designation “pigul” does not apply to it, and one who eats it is not liable for karet.

And the Gemara is uncertain: One who offers the Passover-offering not at its proper time for the sake of a burnt-offering, and had a pigul intention in it, for example, he intended to sprinkle its blood tomorrow—does the offering

change

to

a disqualifying intention, or not?

For a Passover-offering not at its proper time is not disqualified by an intention not for its sake, and its law is not like that of a Passover-offering at its proper time, which is disqualified by an intention not for its sake.

And the reason for this is that with a Passover-offering not at its proper time, when he intended to offer it not for its sake, he thereby uprooted its designation as a Passover-offering, and consequently its law is like that of any offering, which is not disqualified by an intention not for its sake.

The Gemara now asks whether, when he slaughtered the Passover-offering not at its proper time for the sake of a burnt-offering, and also had a pigul intention in it, to sprinkle its blood tomorrow,

this too is considered uprooting, and its law is like that of another offering, which is not disqualified by an intention not for its sake,

or perhaps, if at its slaughter he had a disqualifying intention of pigul, this is not considered uprooting, and its law is like that of a Passover-offering offered not for its sake, which is invalid.

And we object:

How is it done

—what are the circumstances in which he had a disqualifying intention?

If

he slaughtered it

not for the sake of a Passover-offering, but

for the sake of a burnt-offering,

with a pigul intention,

with the intention of sprinkling its blood tomorrow,

then what practical difference is there whether this intention is considered uprooting it from the designation of a Passover-offering or not? For

in any event it is disqualified,

since he had a pigul intention in it!

And we answer: Indeed, whether the “disqualifying intention” is considered uprooting or whether it is not considered uprooting, the offering is indeed disqualified.

Nevertheless, there is a practical difference:

Whether the offering becomes pigul, making one liable for karet for eating it, or whether it is not rendered pigul but is merely disqualified, so that one is not liable for karet for eating it.

For

if you say [

if you say ] that the designation of the offering

changes

through the intention that he had to offer it for the sake of a burnt-offering, despite the fact that he also had in it

a disqualifying intention

of pigul, then this is uprooting, and its law is not like that of a Passover-offering, and the intention that he had to offer it not for its sake did not disqualify it.

If so, its law is like that of a valid offering concerning which he intended to sprinkle its blood beyond its time, and it is

pigul,

and one who eats from its flesh is liable for karet.

But

if you say [

if you say ] that

the designation of the offering does not

change

change

through the intention that he had to offer it not for its sake, since he also had in it

a disqualifying intention

of sprinkling the blood beyond its time, then its law remains like that of a Passover-offering, in which an intention not for its sake disqualifies it. And again it is like an offering offered not according to its mitzva, which a pigul intention does not render pigul; it is merely an offering

disqualified,

but it does not become pigul, and one who eats from its flesh is not liable for karet.

A Passover-offering that one consecrated before its proper time and slaughtered before its proper time: if he slaughtered it for the sake of a Passover-offering, it is invalid, for a Passover-offering not at its proper time is invalid.

And if he slaughtered it for the sake of peace-offerings, meaning not for its sake, it is valid, since the designation of a Passover-offering was uprooted from it and the designation of peace-offerings took effect upon it, as we said above.

And we are uncertain: One who slaughters the Passover-offering [not at its proper time]

for its sake [

which is a disqualifying intention ]

and not for its sake [

which is a valid intention ]

during the other days of the year,

that is, not at its proper time—what is the law?

Does the intention “not for its sake,” which makes it valid, come and remove the disqualifying intention “for its sake,” thereby making the offering valid, or not?

Rabbi Bun bar Hiyya said in the name of Shmuel bar Abba:

Just as one who slaughters the Passover-offering in silence, and afterward, during the continuation of the slaughter, says that he is slaughtering it not for its sake, it is valid,

and although, when one slaughters in silence, we say that its unspecified intention is for its sake, as though he explicitly slaughtered it for the sake of a Passover-offering, nevertheless, if afterward he intended not for its sake, it is valid—thus, evidently, the intention not for its sake comes and removes the unspecified intention, which is considered like an intention for its sake.

If so, here too,

since he said

at first that he was slaughtering it for its sake,

and

again

said

that he was slaughtering it

not for its sake—

he becomes like one slaughtering in silence, and

afterward explicitly said that he was

not for its sake.

And it is valid,

because the intention not for its sake nullifies what he initially intended for its sake.

He said to him: If so,

that there is no distinction between one who slaughters in silence—for we say that his unspecified intention is for the sake of the Passover-offering—and one who slaughters with an explicit statement that it is for the sake of the Passover-offering; even in this case we say that the intention not for its sake that he had at the end of the slaughter removes the intention for its sake that he had at the beginning and renders it valid,

then

even

where

he slaughtered it

for the Passover-offering, and throughout the entire slaughter he intended that he was slaughtering it

for its sake with the intention of sprinkling its blood not for its sake,

we should likewise say that the intention not for its sake that he has afterward, at the time of the sprinkling, comes and renders it valid. And

it shall become

as though

from the outset, when slaughtering it, he intended for its sake and not for its sake, and it is valid.

Rabbi Abba Mari said:

There is no proof that one who slaughters it for its sake and sprinkles its blood not for its sake is valid, from the case of one who slaughters in silence and sprinkles its blood not for its sake [the version of the Gra].

For

from where do you know

that the one who slaughters

in silence

from beginning to end is

valid?

Perhaps

since he slaughtered the entire slaughtering

in silence,

we say: he slaughtered it implicitly for its sake, and this is

invalid.

And it is not similar to [the case of] one who slaughtered in silence and afterward said that [he had slaughtered it] not for its sake, for there he conceived [the intention] not for its sake during that same service.

But here, during the slaughter itself, he did not conceive [the intention] not for its sake, but slaughtered in silence; and the offering had already become invalid, and what he conceived during the service of the sprinkling—not for its sake—will not make it valid.

The law of the nazirite is that after his days of naziriteship have been completed, he brings three offerings: a sin offering, a burnt offering, and peace offerings.

And if he has already offered the burnt offering and the peace offerings, but has still not designated an animal for his sin offering, it is found that the remaining money is designated for the sin offering. And if he brought an animal as a sin offering with part of the money, the remainder is considered the leftover of a sin offering.

But if he offered the sin offering first, and there remained for him to bring the other offerings, the money remaining at the end is not the leftover of a sin offering, but the leftover of a burnt offering or of peace offerings.

We learned in the Mishna:

leftover

from the money that

the nazirite

set aside for his offerings, they shall offer from it an offering

of freewill: