Shekalim 9a (ט.) — the Talmud in English

It was taught: Half an eighth according to the Tiberian measure

the old one. Rabbi Yohanan said: This is our measure.

And why does he call it

this measure

old,

even though it is still used now?

Because [

because]

in its time it was [

in earlier times]

small,

small.

And

afterward

it became large [

the measure increased].

And

again

it became smaller,

it contracted and returned to its former small size,

as it had been [

as it had been] previously.

Therefore he calls it “old,” to tell you that today it is measured according to its small size, which is like its ancient measure, and not according to the time when it was enlarged.

The Gemara discusses:

What is its measure,

that

a cup

for the Four Cups on the Seder night must contain according to a measurement of volume?

He said:

Rabbi Yosei in the name of Rabbi Yosei ben Pazi, and

so said

Rabbi Yosei bar Bibi in the name of Shmuel:

the measure of the cup is

two fingerbreadths

two fingers [a handbreadth contains four fingers] in length,

by two fingerbreadths

in width.

By a height of [

in height]

one and a half fingers

and another

third

of a finger.

It was taught:

If one carried wine on Shabbat from one domain to another,

solid [

congealed], the measure for which he becomes liable is

an olive-bulk, the statement of Rabbi Natan.

This is because a quarter-log of wine that congeals has the volume of an olive-bulk.

And with congealed wine, the measure for carrying it is calculated as a full quarter-log, rather than according to the measure of diluted wine, since congealed wine cannot be diluted.

The Sages of Caesarea

said, and

so said

Rabbi Yosei bar

Bibi in the name of Shmuel: This

matter

that

said

Rabbi Natan,

that the measure of a quarter-log of liquid that congeals is an olive-bulk—

is in accordance

with the method of

Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda.

For Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda said, concerning the statement of Beit Hillel, who said, “The blood of unslaughtered animal carcasses imparts impurity like the carcass itself”: They rendered impure only blood that contains at least a quarter-log, since a quarter-log is a measure capable of congealing and amounting to an olive-bulk.

And just as,

in the same way that

Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda

said that the measure of a liquid which, when it congeals, amounts to an olive-bulk, is

a quarter-log, so Rabbi Natan said: a quarter-log,

which, when it congeals, will contain an olive-bulk.

That is, the methods of Rabbi Natan and Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda are identical: according to both, the measure of a quarter-log that congeals amounts to an olive-bulk.

Rabbi Simon

said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: An incident

occurred

with the mule

of

Rabbi, which died, and they deemed its blood pure.

And they said that it does not impart impurity

because of

the impurity of

a carcass.

And Rabbi Eliezer asked Rabbi Simon: How much

is the measure of blood of a carcass that is deemed pure?

And

Rabbi Simon

paid him no attention

and did not answer his question.

And

Rabbi Eliezer asked

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi:

What is the measure below which the blood of carcasses is pure?

And he said to him: Up to a quarter-log

of blood, it is

pure. More than a quarter-log—

it is

impure.

And

Rabbi Eliezer

was angered because Rabbi Simon did not repeat the tradition to him, [

Rabbi Eliezer was angered because Rabbi Simon did not give him an answer].

Rav Bibi was sitting and

was

teaching this incident,

sitting and reviewing the incident in which the blood of the carcass was deemed pure.

And Rabbi Yitzhak bar Kahana said to him,

asking him: Is it only

up to a quarter-log of blood that is pure,

and

more than this is impure?

And he kicked him

Rav Bibi [he pushed him with his foot] and did not answer him.

Rabbi Zerika said to him

Rav Bibi: Is it because

he asked you a question that you kicked him?

Is it because Rabbi Yitzhak asked you this question that you rejected and pushed him?!

He said to him: Because

since

my mind was not

settled,

I kicked him,

and I rejected him and did not give him an answer.

For Rabbi Hanan said:

With regard to whom does the verse speak in the section of curses in Ki Tavo:

“And your life shall hang in the balance before you”?

This is one who

is

purchasing [

buying]

wheat for the year,

from which he eats, but he has no field of his own and must purchase wheat every year. His life hangs in the balance, as he does not know whether he will have the means to purchase it the following year.

And regarding what is stated [there],

“And you shall fear night and day”—

this is one who purchases

wheat from

the grain merchant,

who sells produce little by little, and every day he fears that perhaps there will be none for him on the following day.

And regarding what is written,

“And you shall not believe in your life”—

this is one who purchases

baked bread

from the baker [

the bread-maker], who buys bread each time he eats and is constantly concerned that he may not have bread for the next meal.

And Rav Bibi continued and said:

And I—

rely on the baker! [

And I purchase bread from the baker]. Therefore, because of the burden of earning a livelihood, my mind was not settled, and for that reason I rejected him and did not answer him.

And what is the conclusion? [

Like “What was the outcome?” What is the conclusion—how much of the carcass’s blood did they deem pure?]

We learned: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Peraḥya testified concerning the blood of a carcass that it is pure!

This implies that even more than a quarter-log it is pure.

And the Gemara rejects this: It may be said that

what is “pure”

that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Peraḥya said is

pure with regard to rendering susceptible.

Food does not become susceptible to impurity until liquid comes upon it, and the blood of a carcass is not considered a liquid and therefore does not render food susceptible to impurity.

But with regard to imparting impurity,

the impurity of a carcass, it may be said

that it does impart impurity.

And we say: It is impossible to say that the blood of a carcass imparts impurity but does not render food susceptible.

For there we learned: The blood of a creeping animal

has the same law

as its flesh.

Just as the flesh of a dead creeping animal

imparts impurity,

the impurity of a creeping animal,

but does not render food susceptible

to impurity, since flesh is not a liquid, so too the blood of a creeping animal imparts the impurity of a creeping animal but does not render food susceptible to impurity.

And the Mishna concludes:

And we have no parallel to it.

The Gemara understood this to mean that we have found no other substance of this kind, one that does not render food susceptible but does impart impurity.

Since no similar substance has been found, it necessarily follows that if the blood of a carcass does not render food susceptible, it also does not impart impurity. For if we say that it does not render food susceptible but does impart impurity, then we have found another parallel to the flesh of a creeping animal, which imparts impurity but does not render food susceptible.

The Gemara rejects this:

Perhaps

when we say concerning the flesh of a creeping animal, “And we have no parallel to it,” this does not mean that we have found no other substance that imparts impurity but does not render food susceptible.

Rather, it was only

with

regard

to the measure of its impurity that they said

that

its blood

of the creeping animal

imparts impurity like its flesh,

at the same measure.

That is, just as the flesh of a creeping animal imparts impurity even in a small measure, the size of a lentil [a type of legume], so too the blood of a creeping animal imparts impurity in that measure.

But with regard to the blood of carcasses, although it is said of it that it “imparts impurity like its flesh,” the measure of its impurity is not equal to that of its flesh, because flesh imparts impurity at an olive-bulk, whereas if the blood imparts impurity only at a quarter-log [since it can congeal and amount to an olive-bulk].

It follows that there is no proof from Rabbi Yehoshua ben Peraḥya’s testimony concerning the blood of a carcass that it is pure that it is completely pure. For it may be said that it is pure only with regard to rendering food susceptible to impurity, but with regard to imparting impurity, it does impart impurity.

The Gemara concludes:

Rabbi Yosei said: Two amoraim disagree concerning this:

One said

the blood of a carcass is

impure [

at a quarter-log].

And one said it is pure,

completely, even when it is more than a quarter-log.

The Gemara explains the dispute:

The one who says it is impure

holds

in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda,

in tractate Eduyot, who said that there are six matters in which Beit Shammai are lenient and Beit Hillel stringent. One of them is the blood of carcasses: Beit Shammai deem it pure, whereas Beit Hillel deem it impure.

And the halakha follows Beit Hillel over Beit Shammai, that it is impure.

And the one who says it is pure,

holds

in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Peraḥya,

mentioned above, who testified that the blood of carcasses is pure.

Rav Avduma of Min Nəhota said to

Rabbi Yosei, who had said that the one who says the blood of a carcass is impure holds in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda:

And it is fitting!

It is correct that you said that Rabbi Yehuda deems the blood of carcasses impure.

Since

Rabbi Yehuda was

the halakhic decisor of the house of the Nasi.

He would issue rulings in the house of the Nasi, that is, in the presence of Rabbi. Rabbi’s mule died, and he ruled according to his position: since there was less than a quarter-log of blood there, he therefore deemed it pure.

We learned in the Mishna: The one who contributes may not enter the chamber while wearing garments in which money could be concealed,

lest he become poor, and they say:

he became poor through stealing from the chamber’s funds.

Rabbi Yishmael taught: One with uncut hair [

with abundant hair, from the expression “his locks are curled”]

may not contribute

to the chamber

because of suspicion,

lest they suspect him of taking money from the chamber and placing it among his hair.

It was taught: The treasurers would rub through their hair with a comb,

rubbing the hair of their beards where the hairs clung together because of perspiration, in order to separate the hairs so that he could not place money there.

It was taught: They would speak

the treasurers

with him from the moment he entered

to contribute

until the moment he left,

so that he would not be able to place money in his mouth.

The Gemara asks: Why was this necessary?

Let us say that there is another solution:

“He should fill his mouth with water,”

so that he would not be able to place anything in his mouth.

Rabbi Tanḥuma said:

They did not do so

because of the blessing!

The contributor must recite a blessing over setting aside the contribution, just as one recites a blessing over setting aside the contribution at the threshing floor. And when his mouth is filled with water, he cannot recite the blessing.

Rabbi

Shmuel ben Naḥman said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan: In the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings we find

a source

that a person must be clear in the eyes of people,

so that they will not suspect him,

just as he must be clear in the eyes of God.

From the Torah, from where?

As it is written,

Moses said to the descendants of Gad and the descendants of Reuben that if they went as an advance force and fought, and afterward returned, then:

“And you shall be clear before the Lord and before Israel.”

From the Prophets, from where? As it is written,

in the Book of Joshua, concerning the descendants of Gad and the descendants of Reuben, when the Israelites suspected them of building an altar in order to rebel against Him.

They said:

“God, the Lord, God, the Lord! And Israel shall know.”

From the Writings, from where? As it is written

in Proverbs:

“And find favor and good understanding in the eyes of God and man.”

Gamaliel Zugah [

that was his name]

asked Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Bun: Which

of these verses

is the clearest of them all,

the one that most explicitly states that a person must clear himself even in the eyes of other people?

He said to him:

The verse

“And you shall be clear before the Lord and before Israel”

is the most explicit verse.

Halakha 3 — Mishna:

A. His agent

of the house of Rabban Gamaliel,

when he brought the half-shekel,

would enter

while the contributor was contributing,

and

he would take the money from the chamber into the baskets.

And his shekel

was placed

between his fingers, and he would throw it before the contributor, and the contributor would direct it and push it

from the chamber

into the basket

of three seahs in which he contributed, and from it they took funds for the communal sacrifices.

This was because Rabban Gamaliel wanted to ensure that sacrifices would be brought from his shekel, and that his shekel would not remain in the chamber and become part of the “surplus of the chamber,” from which the wall of Jerusalem and the Temple courtyard were built.

B. The contributor entered the chamber, while the guards stood outside.

And the contributor would not contribute until he

said

to them: “Shall I contribute?”

And they

would answer

and say to him: “Contribute!”

And he would ask again: “Shall I contribute?” And they would say to him

“Contribute!”

And he would ask again: “Shall I contribute?” And they would say to him

“Contribute!”

And in this manner he would ask

three times,

and they would answer him.

This is also the practice of the Sages: they repeat matters three times, as we find concerning the reaping of the omer, when he asks, “Shall I reap?” and they answer him, “Reap,” three times. [

From here the Ya'avetz proved in his Leḥem Shamayim that for every mitzva a person must prepare himself.]

C.

He contributed the

contribution

first [

at the beginning of Passover]

and covered [

covered] all the shekels remaining in the chamber

with leather coverings,

tanned leather, so that the shekels that would arrive from the countries surrounding the Land of Israel, which could not be brought before Passover, could be placed upon them. They would arrive from Passover until Shavuot and be placed on top of the covering, so that he could contribute from them at the beginning of Shavuot.

He contributed the contribution

second

at the beginning of Shavuot, and again

covered

the remaining shekels with leather coverings, and all the shekels

that were brought

from Babylonia, Media, and the distant countries were placed upon them; from these they contributed at the beginning of the festival of Sukkot.

But after the contribution

third,

at the beginning of the festival, he no longer covered them, since no further contribution followed it.

And why did he cover

after the first and second contributions?

If he did not cover them, there was concern

lest he forget

and again

contribute from what had already been contributed. Once he covered them, the covered money became “surplus,” and he contributed from what lay on the covering.

When he covered them, the covered coins became “remainder,” and he collected from what was on the leather cover.

D.

He contributed the

contribution

first for the sake of

shekels that came

from the Land of Israel.

And

the contribution

second

he contributed

for the sake of

the shekels that came

from the surrounding regions [

the nearby ones]

to it [

to the Land of Israel].