Yoma 55b (נה:) — the Talmud in English

Rav Yosef explained it to him:

Rabbi Yehuda

does not accept writing;

one may not rely on the writing, because sometimes he does not pay attention to examine the inscription, and he will consequently exchange an olah for a hatta⁠t—

Rather,

this is how

we learned

according to Rabbi Yehuda’s view in our Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda says: There was only one stand there

on which he placed both the blood of the bull and the blood of the goat; he would take this one and place that one—

And

two

stands—

why not? Because they would become confused

with one another, and when he came to take the blood of the bull, he might find himself taking that of the goat. Therefore, he placed them on a single stand: He first took the blood that had been placed on it and put down the one in his hand. In this way, the rites would be performed in the proper order: those of the goat followed by those of the bull inside, those of the bull followed by those of the goat in the Sanctuary [Rashi].

But

in any event,

let us make two

stands

and write on them

on the bowls [Ra’AL]:

which

bowl is

the bull’s and which

bowl is

the goat’s?!

Rather,

you are compelled to say that

according to Rabbi Yehuda, he does not accept writing.

The Gemara raises an objection: There were thirteen collection boxes in the Temple, and it was written on them: New shekels, old shekels, bird offerings, birds for olot, wood, frankincense, and gold for the cover, and six

additional collection boxes were for

voluntary offerings,

and it was written on them: “Voluntary offering”—as will be explained shortly.

On the first of Adar, the court would send messengers throughout all the cities of Israel and announce that the people should bring their shekels, meaning the half-shekel that each person was obligated to bring to the Temple every year for the purchase of communal offerings.

The shekels were deposited in a special chamber, and three times a year—on the fifteenth day before Passover, Shavuot, and Sukkot—the treasurers would take a portion from the chamber, the “contribution of the chamber”; that is, they would take money from the chamber and place it into three boxes, each containing three se’a, in order to purchase communal offerings from the boxes, as well as the other items detailed in Shekalim, chapter 4, Mishna 1, and in—

From the money remaining in the chamber after the contribution to the boxes, the “remainder of the chamber,” they would take funds for the city wall, its towers, and all the needs of the city, as well as the other items detailed there in Mishna 2.

And the Mishna explains:

“New shekels”: These are the shekels of each and every year,

meaning that one who did not bring them at the proper time in Adar could bring them whenever he wished and place them in the collection box for new shekels. The treasurers would take the money from the collection boxes and place it in the chamber, and would use it to fill the boxes.

“Old shekels”: One who did not give a shekel the previous year should give one for the coming year,

and when he gives it, he places it in this collection box; the law governing this money is the same as that governing the “remainder of the chamber.”

“Bird offerings”: These are turtledoves,

and one who vows to donate two turtledoves places the money in the collection box for bird offerings [Ritva].

“Birds for olot”: These are

for the purchase of

young pigeons,

and one who vows to donate young pigeons places the money in the collection box for birds, as it is written: “A turtledove and a young bird”;

moreover, the term “young bird” indicates something small, as it is written: “Like an eagle rousing its nest, hovering over its young.” And we have established: “Turtledoves” means adults and not young birds, while “young pigeons” means young birds and not adults [Ritva in the name of Tosafot].

Therefore, separate collection boxes were required for turtledoves and for young pigeons, because one who vowed to donate young pigeons and brought turtledoves, or vice versa, did not fulfill his obligation [Tosafot HaRosh].

“Wood”: One who vows to donate wood gives money to that collection box, and not less than the value of two logs of wood.

“Frankincense”: One who vows to donate frankincense gives money to that collection box, and frankincense is purchased with it and offered as a voluntary offering on the outer altar in the Temple courtyard.

“Gold for the cover”: That is, for the golden bowls called “golden covers.”

“Six collection boxes for voluntary offerings”: The Sages said regarding sin offerings and guilt offerings that they should be allowed “to graze until they become unfit, then sold, and their value contributed to voluntary offerings.” This money was placed in the collection boxes, and with it olah offerings were brought when the altar was idle because there were no offerings available to bring. This was called “the summer fruit of the altar.”

And all of them,

both the bird offerings and the birds for olot,

are olot,

voluntary offerings and not sin offerings,

the words of Rabbi Yehuda,

in accordance with his view, as explained above: There were no collection boxes for obligatory bird offerings that included a sin offering, whereas voluntary bird offerings consist only of olot. We have thus learned that Rabbi Yehuda too accepts writing, for it states: “And it was written on them” [Rashi ]; and if so, it is impossible to explain “because of the confusion” as Rav Yosef explained it, since writing provides a solution?!

When Rav Dimi came, he said: They say in the West

to explain what they said, “because of the confusion”:

a decree on account of

the concern that money from

a sin offering whose owner has died might be mixed into the collection box—

That is, if there had been collection boxes for obligatory bird offerings, we would have had to be concerned that one of the owners who had deposited money in the collection box might die. Since obligatory bird offerings include sin offerings, money for a sin offering whose owner had died would be mixed into the collection boxes; such money must be cast into the Dead Sea. Consequently, all the money would be unfit for offering.

And we challenge this:

Do we really take into consideration

death?!

But we learned: One who sends his sin offering from overseas, they offer it on the presumption that he is alive,

and we do not fear that it is a sin offering whose owner has died and that it must be cast away, because we maintain the owners’ presumption that they are alive [Gittin 28b, the statement of Rava there].

And we answer: Do not say, “Perhaps one of the owners died”;

rather,

it is a decree

on account of a sin offering whose owner is certainly known to have died,

that is, perhaps it will become known to us with certainty that one of the owners died. Since we do not know which money was his, it will be forbidden to offer all of it.

And we still challenge this:

Let us identify four zuz,

which are the value of the dead person’s sin offering [see note ], and

cast

them

into the water [namely, throw them into the Dead Sea], and rely on the principle of “retroactive designation,” saying that this money is the money of the sin offering whose owner died;

and

then

automatically

these

remaining funds in the collection box

will be permitted ?!

[will become permitted]?!

And we answer:

Rabbi Yehuda does not accept retroactive designation;

he does not rely on it to permit a prohibition [Rashi].

From where do we know that Rabbi Yehuda holds that “there is no retroactive designation”?

If you say it is from this that we learned [the version is: “that we were taught,” Tosafot]:

One who purchases wine from the Samaritans,

who are not suspected of separating teruma and tithes when they sell to others, since they are suspected of transgressing “and do not place a stumbling block before the blind” [Tosafot ],

on Friday evening as

darkness approaches

when he has no vessels with which to separate teruma and tithes—

He stands and says [for example, if there were one hundred log of wine]:

nightfall approaching,

and he has no vessels with which to separate the offerings and tithes—

Two log [the amount of the average eye, which designates one-fiftieth for teruma gedola]

that I will eventually separate

after I begin to drink,

“Two log

[the amount that an average eye separates as the great offering, one-fiftieth]

I will eventually separate”

after I begin drinking.