diff --git "a/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Moed/English Explanation of Mishnah Shekalim/English/merged.json" "b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Moed/English Explanation of Mishnah Shekalim/English/merged.json"
new file mode 100644--- /dev/null
+++ "b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Moed/English Explanation of Mishnah Shekalim/English/merged.json"
@@ -0,0 +1,363 @@
+{
+ "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Shekalim",
+ "language": "en",
+ "versionTitle": "merged",
+ "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/English_Explanation_of_Mishnah_Shekalim",
+ "text": {
+ "Introduction": [
+ "In Exodus 30:11:16 God tells Moses that when he counts the children of Israel, he shouldn’t do a simple head count but rather each person should donate half a shekel. The simple meaning of these verses is that the half-shekel is a one time donation, or at most a donation that is given only when a census is taken. ",
+ "However, the rabbis understood the half-shekel to be an annual donation given to the Temple for the Temple’s upkeep, and for the purchase of the daily tamid and other offerings. These offerings had to be paid for with public money. Individuals could not buy them in order to donate them to the Temple. It is possible that the custom of collecting an annual “tax” from every Israelite already existed in the First Temple period (see II Kings 12:5 and II Chronicles 6:9; see also Nehemiah 10:33, where they give a third of a shekel). We should note that the Sadducees vehemently disagreed with this halakhah. They held that an individual could donate the tamid offering and they denied that there was a yearly half-shekel tax. ",
+ "The value of a “half-shekel” might vary from time to time, because the half-shekel which they are referring to is a Torah half-shekel. In the Mishnah they assume that a shekel is worth a “sela”, which is four dinars (a Roman currency). Therefore, half a shekel is assumed to be two dinars. This two dinars is usually called a “shekel”. Hence, throughout the tractate when the mishnah says “shekel” it is referring to the half-shekel (I realize that this is confusing). ",
+ "According to the Mishnah, they began to remind people to donate the half-shekel in the beginning of the month of Adar. This is where the custom, observed to this day, developed to read “Parshat Shekalim”, the above mentioned passage in Exodus, on the first Shabbat of Adar of every year. ",
+ "Our tractate deals with many of the details of these laws, how the half-shekel was collected, what was done with it and who handles Temple funds. There is a lot of information in this tractate about the financing of the Temple, so perhaps it will be interesting to any accountants out there! The Babylonian Talmud does not contain a commentary on this tractate, as it does for all of the other tractates in Seder Moed. This is assumedly because none of the tractate was practically applicable after the destruction of the Temple. However, there is commentary in the Palestinian Talmud (the Yerushalmi). ",
+ "Good luck learning Shekalim!"
+ ],
+ "": [
+ [
+ [
+ "Introduction\nIn the introduction to the tractate I explained what the half-shekel is and what it was used for. Our mishnah teaches that on the first of Adar they would make public announcements telling people to start preparing their half-shekels. The mishnah also teaches other public events that occur in Adar.",
+ "On the first of Adar they make a public announcement about the shekels and concerning kilayim. On the first of Adar, the month before Nisan (the month in which Pesah falls) they begin to make announcements reminding people to bring their shekels, or more specifically half-shekels. They also announce that people should go out to their fields and vineyards to uproot any “kilayim” that may have sprung up. “Kilayim” are diverse seeds which have sprung up in the same area.",
+ "On the fifteenth: they read the Megillah [Esther] in walled cities, and they fix the roads and the streets and the ritual water baths, and they perform all public duties, and they mark the graves, and [messengers] go forth also concerning kilayim. The mishnah now begins to teach things that occur, or begin to occur on the fifteenth of the month. The first thing is that on the fifteenth of the month, people in walled cities read the book of Esther, the Megillah. We will learn much more about this when we learn Tractate Megillah. The reason that the mishnah mentions the date upon which it was read in walled cities is that this date coincides with the other things done in the continuation of the mishnah. The second thing is that they begin to fix the public roads and ritual baths because Pesah is coming in one month. People would need to travel to Jerusalem and purify themselves in order to take part in the pesah sacrifice. Also, Adar is the beginning of the dry season (actually, it can still rain in Adar). It would have been difficult to fix the roads when the rains were still coming down. In addition they performed all sorts of other public duties that could not be done during the rainy season. They would mark graves with lime so that priests could see where the graves were and avoid them. During the winter the lime would wash away. Therefore, during Adar, once the rains had stopped they would reapply the plaster. Above we learned that on the first of Adar they would announce to people that they should go out and check to make sure that there were no kilayim in their fields. On the fifteenth, they would send out messengers to make sure that this had been done. We can see that this was an issue of great importance to them. The rabbis seem to have been especially concerned about kilayim because one cannot tell from looking at picked grain or grapes whether they grew in a field that had kilayim in it. This is true of other food-related problems as well."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Introduction\nAt the end of yesterday’s mishnah we learned that on the fifteenth of Adar the court would send out agents to uproot kilayim, shoots that have grown from mixed seeds. In today’s mishnah we learn how this was done.",
+ "Rabbi Judah said: at first they used to uproot [the kilayim], and throw them down before them. [But] when transgressors increased in number, they used to uproot them and throw them on the roads. [Finally], they decreed that they should make the whole field ownerless. At first the court would merely uproot the kilayim plants to prevent them from continuing to grow. They didn’t bother throwing them away, but would just uproot them and leave them in their place. The problem with this was that people would use the plants that the court’s agents had uprooted. If they were not fit for human consumption they would feed them to their animals. This is prohibited because it is prohibited to derive any benefit from kilayim. To remedy this, they began to throw the plants out onto the roads where anyone could take them. However, even this was not sufficient. People did not seem to care that the court’s agents would come around and uproot their plants. Indeed, they may have even thanked the court for doing their weeding for them! Therefore the court had to decree that if they found kilayim in someone’s field, they would declare the entire field ownerless. Basically this is penalizing the person by making him lose his field. This was a far more effective measure; since people knew they might lose their field they were far more cautious about allowing kilayim to grow."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Introduction\nThis mishnah returns to dealing with the half-shekel.",
+ "On the fifteenth of [Adar] they would set up tables [of money changers] in the provinces. The half-shekel had to be given in Israeli currency. In order to help people exchange their currency they would set up money changer tables in the provinces to change money. The money changers could also exchange large currency for smaller coins.",
+ "On the twenty-fifth they set them up in the Temple. As the first of Nisan approached, the time when they would begin to use the shekalim collected from the previous year, they would stop having money changers throughout the land and limit their presence to the Temple.",
+ "When [the tables] were set up in the Temple, they began to exact pledges [from those who had not paid]. At this point, they would begin to take pledges from people who had not yet paid. A “pledge” means that they would take something away from the person and only return it when the half-shekel had been paid.",
+ "From whom did they exact pledges? From Levites and Israelites, converts and freed slaves, but not women or slaves or minors. Pledges were not taken from everyone, but rather only from free adult Jewish men (excluding priests, as we shall see below), those who are obligated to give the half-shekel. They didn’t take pledges from women, slaves or minors because women, slaves and minors are exempt from the half-shekel. Women are exempt because Exodus 30:12 states, “each man (ish) shall pay a ransom for himself” the word “man” is understood as exempting women. Slaves are usually in the same category as women so they too are exempt. Exodus 30 explicitly excludes minors under the age of 20 (Ex. 30:14).",
+ "Any minor on whose behalf his father has begun to pay the shekel, may not discontinue it again. Sometimes fathers would begin to donate the half-shekel on behalf of their sons, even though they were not obligated to do so. The mishnah teaches that if they had begun to give the half-shekel, in subsequent years they must continue to do so.",
+ "But they did not exact pledges from the priests, because of the ways of peace. The only category of free adult male from whom they did not exact a pledge is the priest. They didn’t do so in order to avoid fights. Albeck explains that the priests thought that they were exempt from the half-shekel. Although they are indeed obligated, the court seems not to have wanted to get into a fight with them over the subject. Tomorrow’s mishnah will deal with the priests obligation to pay the shekel. We might note that if many of the priests were Sadducees and the Sadducees seem to have rejected the whole practice of giving the yearly half-shekel, then we have here evidence of the Pharisees not wanting to provoke a fight with the Sadducees."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Introduction\nIn this mishnah we see two early tannaim arguing over whether or not a priest donates the half-shekel.",
+ "Rabbi Judah said: Ben Bukri testified at Yavneh that a priest who paid the shekel is not a sinner. Ben Bukri assumes that a priest is exempt from the shekel offering. The midrash which explains this appears below, in section two. His testimony is that despite the fact that the priest need not donate the half-shekel, if he does donate it he has not transgressed. We might have thought that person who is not liable to pay the half-shekel may not donate it. The problem with a voluntary donation of the half-shekel is that public sacrifices must come from the entire public, meaning from the half-shekel. A voluntary donation may be seen as an individual paying for a public sacrifice. Ben Bukri testifies that we don’t perceive of the priest’s half-shekel in that way. Rather it is a gift to the community, which belongs to the community as a whole. As such it may be used to purchase public sacrifices.",
+ "But Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai said to him: not so, but rather a priest who did not pay the shekel was guilty of a sin, only the priests expounded this verse for their own benefit: “And every meal-offering of the priest shall be wholly burnt, it shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 6:16), since the omer and the two loaves and the showbread are [brought] from our [contributions], how can they be eaten? Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai reasons the exact opposite from Ben Bukri. He holds that the priest is liable to donate the half-shekel and if he doesn’t do so, he transgresses in much the same way that any person who doesn’t give the half-shekel transgresses. The priests tried to use some midrashic reasoning to get out of giving the half-shekel. The Torah states that any minhah, a meal-offering, given by a priest, must be wholly burnt. The half-shekel is used to purchase certain meal offerings, namely the omer (the barley offering brought between Pesah and Shavuot), the two loaves brought on Shavuot, and the weekly showbread. All of these are eaten by priests and not burnt. The priests claim that the fact that these are eaten proves that the priests did not pay for any of them, for had they paid for them they would have had to have been wholly burnt. Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai says that the priests’ midrash is mistaken. Only individual minhah offerings of the priest are wholly burnt. Public minhah offerings paid for partly by priests may be eaten. Hence the priests are liable to pay the half-shekel. We should note that aside from the technical aspects of this debate, there may be an underlying social/religious issue. The question is, are the priests a part of the people or are they a separate class, with their own unique relationship to God? This might be an interesting way of examining Jewish religious leadership in general are leaders a part of the Jewish people, or are they a class on their own. Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai’s answer would seem to be clear the priests must give their half-shekel, they are part of the Jewish people and not above, or even truly separate from the rest."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Introduction\nMost of this mishnah deals with Gentiles who wish to make donations to the Temple. We should note that this was a sensitive and realistic issue in the Second Temple Period. There were some groups of Jews, notably the Dead Sea Sect, which adamantly opposed accepting donations from the Gentiles. A quote from the book of Ezra which we will see below also seems to express this approach. In contrast, the rabbis are more open to Gentile donations. In fact, I don’t believe that they were opposed in principle. Rather they felt that when their understanding of the Torah allowed such donations, it was sanctioned. The rabbis seem to be trying to walk a fine line to make Jews responsible for the ultimate upkeep of the Temple and yet to not totally exclude Gentiles from participating in what they may have perceived as worship to the one, true, God.",
+ "Even though they said, “they don’t exact pledges from women, slaves or minors, [yet] if they paid the shekel it is accepted from them. We learned in mishnah three that women, slaves and minors are exempt from paying the half-shekel, and hence pledges are not taken from them to get them to pay their shekels. In our mishnah we learn that shekels are accepted from them. As we stated above with regard to the priest, as long as they give the shekel with the intent of it becoming a communal possession, the shekels can be used to buy public sacrifices. The only problem would be if they gave it thinking that they were making an individual donation for a public sacrifice. In such a case, their shekels would have to be rejected, since public sacrifices must come from only public money.",
+ "If a non-Jew or a Samaritan paid the shekel they do not accept it from them. In contrast, shekels given by non-Jews or Samaritans are rejected. This is so that the public sacrifices, which come to afford atonement for the entire Jewish people, should paid for by the Jewish people themselves. As we shall see below, other sacrifices are accepted from non-Jews.",
+ "And they do not accept from them the bird-offerings of zavin or bird-offerings of zavot or bird-offerings of women after childbirth, This section refers to sacrifices which a person must bring at the end of their period of impurity. The Yerushalmi explains that the mishnah here teaches that Samaritans, who are in some matters considered Jews, do not bring these sacrifices. Assumedly the reason is that they do not count the period of their impurity correctly, and hence they bring the sacrifices at the wrong time. Gentiles cannot bring these sacrifices because they are not obligated for them.",
+ "Or sin-offerings or guilt-offerings. There are two different versions of this mishnah and the two differ with regard to whether sin and guilt offerings are accepted. According to one version they are not accepted from Gentiles or Samaritans because these are sacrifices cannot be donated (see below). Rather these are two types of atonement offerings incurred by people for various sins, and these laws govern only Jews. The other version says that guilt and sin offerings are accepted. According to this version, the line refers only to Samaritans, from whom these offerings are accepted in the hope that they will repent and return to being “real Jews.”",
+ "But vow-offerings and freewill-offerings they do accept from them. This is the general rule: all offerings which can be made as a vow-offering or a freewill-offering they do accept from them, but offerings which cannot be made as a vow-offering or a freewill-offering they do not accept from them. A “vow offering” is when one says, “I vow to bring an offering.” A “free-will offering” is when one says, “I vow to bring this animal.” Both types of sacrifices are accepted from Gentiles and Samaritans. This halakhah is derived midrashically from Leviticus 22:18, which twice uses the word “ish” (man). The double appearance is taken to mean that these offerings are accepted from both Jews and Gentiles alike.",
+ "And thus it is explicitly stated by Ezra, as it is said: “You have nothing to do with us to build a house unto our God” (Ezra 4:3). In the preceding verses in Ezra some enemies of the Jews come to Zerubbabel and the chiefs of the clans and say, “Let us build with you, since we too worship your God.” The Jewish leaders respond, “It is not for you and us to build a House to our God, but we alone will build it to the Lord God of Israel.” From here the rabbis conclude that non-Jews may not participate in the funding of the public sacrifices. However, as we noted above, other types of sacrifices are accepted from them."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Introduction The rabbis added onto the half-shekel a surcharge which is called a “kalbon.” Rabbi Meir and the other rabbis disagree over the nature of the kalbon and therefore over who has to pay it. According to Rabbi Meir everyone who gives the shekel has to pay the kalbon. Rabbi Meir reasons that the kalbon is a surcharge because they coin he is giving is probably not as pure as the coin demanded by the Torah. Hence, there is always an obligation to give the kalbon. The other sages understand the kalbon to be a surcharge because when he gives a coin they will have to exchange it with a moneychanger. Therefore they hold that anyone who gives his half-shekel in one coin to the Temple need not give the kalbon, because there is no exchange. If two together give one shekel then the two must add one kalbon, because had they split their coin into two, they would have had to pay the moneychanger. The sages decreed that the money saved by not giving it to the moneychanger should go to the Temple. In our mishnah and in the following one we learn some details about who pays the kalbon.",
+ "The following are liable [to pay] the kalbon (surcharge): Levites and Israelites and converts and freed slaves; but not priests or women or slaves or minors. This is the same list that appeared above in mishnah three with regard to taking pledges. The kalbon was paid only by those from whom they took pledges in order to collect the half-shekel. The kalbon was not taken from those who don’t owe the half-shekel in the first place. The one exception may be the priests, whom according to our mishnah do not pay the kalbon. Albeck explains that the priests were lenient on themselves. Another explanation might be that this mishnah goes according to Ben Bukri in mishnah four who said that priests do not have to give the half-shekel. Finally, there are some manuscripts that do not have the word “priest” in this mishnah.",
+ "If a man paid the shekel on behalf of a priest, or on behalf of a woman, or on behalf of a slave, or on behalf of a minor, he is exempt. Since the person for whom the shekel is being paid is exempt, the one who pays it on their behalf is also exempt.",
+ "If a man paid the shekel on his own behalf and on behalf of his fellow he is liable for one kalbon. Rabbi Meir says: two kalbons. The first opinion is that of the sages, which I explained in the introduction. They are only liable for one kalbon because only one exchange was made. Rabbi Meir holds that everyone is always individually liable for a kalbon. Hence, if one person pays on behalf of him and another person, he must add two kalbons.",
+ "If one gave a sela and received a shekel, he is liable to pay two kalbons. In this case a person gives the Temple treasurer a sela, which is the value of a Torah shekel. This is twice the amount he needs to give. He takes back in change a “mishnaic shekel”, which is a Torah half-shekel. In this case he must pay a kalbon for the shekel he gave and for the shekel he took, since both exchanges carry surcharges. We see from here that high banking fees are no modern invention!"
+ ],
+ [
+ "If one paid the shekel on behalf of a poor man or on behalf of his neighbor or on behalf of his fellow-townsman, he is exempt [from the kalbon]. But if he loaned [it] to them he is liable.
Brothers who are partners who are obligated for the kalbon are exempt from the tithe of beasts.
But when they are liable to the tithe of beasts they are exempt from the surcharge.
And how much is the kalbon? A silver ma'ah, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: half a ma'ah.
This mishnah continues to discuss the kalbon, the extra surcharge paid with the shekel.
Section one: If someone pays the shekel for a friend as a gift, the rabbis did not make him pay the kalbon as well. The same is true, as we shall see below, if a father pays the kalbon on behalf of his son. However, one who pays the shekel on someone else’s behalf as a loan does have to pay the kalbon.
Section two: This section refers to two different types of partnerships between brothers who have inherited from their father. The first type is when they have already divided up the inheritance and then pooled their money together to form a business partnership. In such a case they are liable for the kalbon as are all partners who pay each other’s kalbon, but they are exempt from paying the tithe on beasts (domesticated animals) since partners do not pay this tithe on their shared animals. The second partnership is one in which they have not yet divided up the inheritance. In such a case the money is treated as if it still belonged to one person, their father. They are liable for the tithe but they are exempt from the kalbon, since this is similar to as case in which a father pays the shekel on his son’s behalf.
Section three: Rabbi Meir holds that the kalbon is a ma’ah, which is 1/12 of a half-shekel. This matches Rabbi Meir’s understanding of the kalbon as compensation for the non-pure elements which are customarily put into silver coins. This ma’ah is supposed to increase the silver of the shekel so that it now reaches the value of the Torah’s half-shekel. The sages, however, hold that the kalbon is in place of a fee paid to the moneychanger. The fee is a lesser amount, only half a ma’ah."
+ ]
+ ],
+ [
+ [
+ "Introduction\nThis mishnah contains several laws about the journey that the shekalim will make from the provinces from where they are collected to the Temple in Jerusalem.",
+ "They may change shekels into darics because of the load of the journey. If people don’t want to shlepp their individual shekels all the way to the Temple, they may pool them together and turn them into larger coins called “darics.” “Darics” are mentioned in Ezra 8:27 and I Chronicles 1:29.",
+ "Just as there were shofar-shaped chests in the Temple so there were shofar-shaped chests in the provinces. When the shekels were brought to their deposit points, they were put into chests that were shaped like a shofar, wide at the bottom and thin at the top. This was to prevent people from being able to pull coins out (like mailboxes, for those of you who remember when we used to send real letters). Just as they had these types of chests in the Temple, they also had them outside the Temple in the provinces. This made collection much easier.",
+ "The townspeople who had sent their shekels and they were stolen or lost: If the appropriation had already been made [the messengers] swear an oath to the treasurers; But if the appropriation had not yet been made they swear to the townspeople, and the townspeople must pay [new] shekels in the place of the [lost] shekels. [If the lost shekels] were found, or if the thieves restored them, then both [the first shekels and their substitutes] are [sacred] shekels and they cannot be credited [to the account] of the coming year. The mishnah now discusses a scenario in which people’s shekels get lost on their way to the Temple. Three times a year the Temple treasurers would count up the shekels that had already been collected and they would start spending them on buying sacrifices (see below 3:1). When reckoning the shekels, they would also count shekels which they knew were on their way from the provinces (called creative accounting). So if the messenger loses the shekels after this appropriation has already been made, the townspeople who sent their money get credit. The messenger then must make an oath to the treasurers that he did not steal the money himself. However, if the money is lost or stolen before the appropriation is made then the townspeople do not get credit and they must send new shekels. In this case, the messenger swears to them that he did not steal the money himself. If the coins are found or if the thieves are found and return the stolen coins, both the new coins and the original coins go to the Temple. The townspeople who twice had to send shekels do not get credit for the following year."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with various scenarios in which a person paid his shekel from money which did not belong to him.",
+ "One who gave his shekel to his fellow to pay it on his behalf, but [his fellow] paid it on behalf of himself: if the appropriation had already been made [his fellow] is guilty of sacrilege. A person received a shekel from his friend to pay his friend’s shekel but then used this money to pay his own shekel. If the shekel had already been counted in the Temple’s appropriation (and an animal purchased with that money and sacrificed, see below), then he is guilty of sacrilege. Sacrilege means that one has misappropriated funds or property which belongs to the Temple. Since this shekel had already been counted as belonging to the Temple and indeed had already been used, his action counts as sacrilege. He must now bring a special sacrifice and restore the value of that which he misappropriated (a shekel) plus another fifth.",
+ "One who paid his shekel out of money belonging to the sanctuary: If the appropriation had already been made and an animal [bought out of the appropriation] had already been offered, he is guilty of sacrilege. In this case the person had in his possession money which he had previously donated to the Temple. He then tried to use that money to pay his shekel. Again the mishnah teaches that if the appropriation had already been made and if the shekel had been used to buy a sacrifice then he is guilty of sacrilege. We should note that according to the Talmud, in the previous section as well an animal had to have been sacrificed for it to be considered sacrilege.",
+ "[If he paid his shekel with] money that had been used to redeem the second tithe or the value of seventh year produce, he must eat food equal to its value. Second tithe is usually redeemed with money and then the money is brought to Jerusalem and used there to buy food. If one sells seventh year produce, the proceeds from the sale have the same rules and restrictions that the produce itself has any food which is purchased from this money must be used before seventh year produce must be removed from one’s house (which is when that type of food is no longer found in the field). In the case in this mishnah someone uses this money (second tithe or seventh year produce proceeds) to pay his shekel. What he must now do is take another shekel and use it as if it was second tithe or seventh year produce money. This is sufficient to restore the shekel that he used to pay his shekel tax."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Introduction\nThis mishnah discusses various scenarios in which a person set aside some money to use for his shekel or for another sacrifice and after he counted up the money he had set aside there was a surplus. The question is whether or not the surplus money is sacred and therefore must be used for a free-will offering.",
+ "One who gathered some coins and said: “Behold, these are for my shekel.” Bet Shammai say: the surplus [is used to purchase] freewill-offerings. But Bet Hillel say: the surplus is non-sacral property. The person gathered some coins together and declared that he would use them to bring his shekel. It turned out that there was more than a shekel’s worth of coins there. Bet Shammai say that since they had been set aside to give to the Temple, they are sacred and therefore they must be used to purchase free-will offerings. Bet Hillel, on the other hand, hold that the surplus is not sacred because when he collected the money his intention was that only a shekel’s worth of the coins should be given to the Temple.",
+ "[If he said:] “From them I shall bring my shekel,” they agree that the surplus is non-sacral property. In this case, instead of saying “These are for my shekel” he says “From them I shall bring my shekel”. It is clear that his intention is to use only whatever adds up to a shekel and therefore Bet Shammai agree that the surplus is not sacred.",
+ "[If he said]: “These [coins] are for a sin-offering, they agree that the surplus [goes to the chests of] freewill-offerings. In this case Bet Hillel agree with Bet Shammai that the surplus is sacred. Tomorrow’s mishnah will explain the difference between shekels and sin-offerings such that Bet Hillel agrees in the case of the latter.",
+ "[If he said]: “From these I shall bring a sin-offering, they agree that the surplus is non-sacral property. This is the same rule as in section two as long as he says “From these I will bring ….” the surplus is not sacred."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Introduction\nThis mishnah explains the difference between shekels and a sin-offering such that Bet Hillel holds that the surplus of coins set aside for a sin-offering are sacred whereas the surplus of coins set aside for a shekel are not.",
+ "Rabbi Shimon says: what is the difference between shekels and a sin-offering? Shekels have a fixed value, but a sin-offering has no fixed value. Shekels have a fixed value. Hence one who says, “These coins are for my shekel” intends to make sacred only the value of a shekel. On the other hand, a sin-offering has no fixed value and therefore, one who says, “These coins are for a sin-offering” may have intended for all of the coins to be sacred, even the surplus.",
+ "Rabbi Judah says: shekels also have no fixed value. For when the Israelites came up out of the diaspora they used to pay the shekel in darics, then they paid the shekel in selas, then they paid it in tibs, and finally they wanted to pay it in dinars. Rabbi Judah says that the shekel also doesn’t have a fixed value. When the people of Israel first returned from the Babylonian exile they brought coins called “darics” (see above, mishnah one). A daric is a Persian coin worth four shekels. They then began to bring selas, which are worth two shekels. They then began to bring tibs, which are worth a shekel, which is equivalent to the half-shekel of the Torah. Finally, the people wanted to pay in dinars. According to the Talmud, the rabbis did not let them pay in dinars because this is less than the mandated half-shekel of the Torah. It seems like we have in this mishnah a record of different coins that were in use in different periods. According to one commentary, in each period they would give half of the coin that was commonly used. In any case, since the value of the shekel changed over time, Rabbi Judah says that the shekel too has no fixed value.",
+ "But Rabbi Shimon said: nevertheless they are all of the same value for everyone, whereas [in the case of] a sin-offering one man may bring it of the value of one sela, another may bring it of the value of two selas, and another in the value of three selas. Rabbi Shimon responds that when he said that the shekel has a fixed value he meant that at any given time everyone brings the same value, and not that that value could not change over time. If people were bringing darics, everyone brought the same daric. In contrast, people can bring animals worth different amounts as sin-offerings. This explains Bet Hillel in the previous mishnah."
+ ],
+ [
+ "The surplus of [money set aside for] shekels is non-sacred property.
The surplus of [money set aside for the] tenth of the ephah, and the surplus of [money set aside for] bird-offerings of zavim, for bird-offerings of zavot, for bird-offerings of women after childbirth, and sin-offerings and guilt-offerings, their surplus [is used to purchase] freewill-offerings. This is the general rule: all [money set aside] for a sin-offering or for a guilt-offering, the surplus [is used to purchase] freewill-offerings.
The surplus of [money set aside for] a burnt-offering [must be used] for a burnt-offering.
The surplus of [money set aside for] a meal-offering [must be used] for a meal-offering.
The surplus of [money set aside for] a peace-offering [must be used] for a peace-offering.
The surplus of [money set aside for] a pesach [must be used] for a wellbeing offering.
The surplus of [money set aside for] the offerings of nazirites [must be used] for the offerings of other nazirites. The surplus of [money set aside for] the offerings of a [particular] nazirite [is used to purchase] freewill-offerings.
The surplus of [money raised for] the poor [must be used] for other poor. The surplus of [money raised for] a [particular] poor person [must be given] to that [poor person].
The surplus of [money raised for the ransom of] captives [must be used] for [the ransom of other] captives. The surplus of [money raised for the ransom of] a [particular] captive [must be given] to that captive.
The surplus of [the money raised for the burial of] the dead [must be used] for [the burial of other] dead. The surplus of [the money raised for the burial of] a [particular] dead person [must be given] to his heirs. Rabbi Meir says: the surplus of [money raised for the burial of] a [particular] dead person must be laid aside until Elijah comes. Rabbi Natan says: the surplus of [money raised for the burial of] a [particular] dead person [must be used] for building a monument for him over his grave.
In the previous mishnayot we dealt with the subject of what surplus money is used for. This mishnah discusses surpluses left over from money set aside for various other uses, mostly sacrifices or charity.
Section one: This halakhah is according to Bet Hillel’s opinion in mishnah three.
Section two: The tenth of the ephah (a measure of grain) is the sin-offering of a poor person. The bird-offerings mentioned here are brought by men or women who have had abnormal genital discharge (zavim and zavot, see above 1:5) or by women after childbirth. Money set aside for any of these offerings or for a sin-offering or a guilt-offering must be used to purchase freewill offerings. They can’t be used for other bird-offerings, sin-offerings or guilt-offerings because these can only be purchased for the sake of a specific sin or abnormal discharge. However, the surplus is still sacred because these offerings don’t have a fixed amount (see above mishnah 2).
Sections three-five: In all of these cases the extra money is used to buy another of the same type of sacrifice.
Section six: The extra money which was set aside for a pesah cannot be used as a pesah, because the surplus is only created when the holiday is already over. Rather the surplus is used to buy a wellbeing offering. In Pesahim we saw that the pesah is a type of wellbeing offering (see Pesahim 9:6-7).
Section seven: If charity collectors set aside money to buy nazirite offerings for nazirites who cannot afford to pay their offerings, then the surplus is used to buy other nazirite offerings. However, if the money is set aside for a specific nazirite it cannot be used to buy an offering for a different nazirite. Rather the surplus is used to purchase freewill offerings.
Section eight: Obviously, surplus charity should be used for more charity. However, if there is money set aside for a particular poor person, and there is surplus from that money, it too must go to that poor person. The charity collector may not say to himself, “That poor person doesn’t need all of that money. I’ll give the rest to someone else.” Rather, if the donor directed it to one person, the entire amount must be given to that person.
Section nine: Surplus from money collected to redeem captives is used to redeem other captives. However, if money was collected to redeem a specific captive, the surplus goes directly to that captive.
Section ten: Surplus money collected to bury the dead is used to bury other dead people. However, if the money was collected to bury a specific dead person there are three different opinions as to what to do with it. According to the first opinion, the money goes to the dead person’s inheritors. According to Rabbi Meir, it is forbidden to use it at all it must go untouched until Elijah comes. Finally, Rabbi Natan says it is used to build a tombstone over his grave."
+ ]
+ ],
+ [
+ [
+ "Introduction\nOur mishnah teaches that three times a year they would take the gathered shekels out of the chamber in the Temple and appropriate them to buy public sacrifices. This time is connected to the period in which animals are tithed. In the remainder of the mishnah there are two other opinions as to when animals are tithed, and therefore as to when the shekels are appropriated.",
+ "At three periods of the year the appropriation is made [from the shekels] in the chamber: Half a month before Pesah, half a month before Shavuot, and half a month before Sukkot, and these are also the threshing floors [the seasons] for the tithe of beasts, the words of Rabbi Akiva. According to Rabbi Akiva the shekels are appropriated at the same time of year that animals are tithed. I have translated “A half-month before” based on the Talmud. The mishnah itself says only “Before”, but uses a word which implies that this must occur at least a half-month before. The word “threshing floors” is borrowed from tithes for grain. The meaning is that in these three periods it becomes forbidden to eat any animal until every tenth animal has been tithed. The tithed animal still belongs to its owners, but its blood must be sprinkled on the altar and its meat eaten in Jerusalem. It seems likely to me that Rabbi Akiva said that animals were tithed before the holidays so that people would bring them to Jerusalem when they made their festival pilgrimages.",
+ "Ben Azzai says: on the twenty-ninth of Adar, and on the first of Sivan, and on the twenty-ninth of Av. The remaining sages disagree as to when animals are tithed. Ben Azzai gives dates that are more precise and slightly differ from those given by Rabbi Akiva. The twenty-ninth of Adar is basically the same, as it is half a month before Pesah. The first of Sivan is only 7 days before Shavuot. He seems to give more time because there is not a lot of time between Pesah and Shavuot in which animals might be born. The third tithe is at the end of Av, because Ben Azai holds that animals born in Elul are tithed separately.",
+ "Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say: on the first of Nisan, on the first of Sivan, and on the twenty-ninth of Elul. Why did they say, “On the twenty-ninth of Elul and not on the first of Tishre? Because the first of Tishre is a holy day, and it is not permitted to tithe on a festival, therefore they moved it up to the twenty-ninth of Elul. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon that the animals are tithed on the first of Nissan, which is similar to both Rabbi Akiva and one day after Ben Azai’s time. The second tithing period is on the first of Sivan, the same as Ben Azai. The third tithing period is on the twenty-ninth of Elul. The mishnah explains that they would have said the first of Tishre but one can’t tithe on the first of Tishre because it is a holiday, namely Rosh Hashanah. It seems that in this case he basically agrees with Rabbi Akiva who said half a month before Sukkot."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Introduction\nThis mishnah begins to teach how the appropriation of the shekels was made.",
+ "In three baskets each of [the capacity of] three seahs they make the appropriation [of shekels] from the chamber. There were three baskets in the chamber, each containing enough space for three seahs worth of coins. This means that altogether in the year they expected 27 seahs worth of coins. If you’re wondering, a seah is about 8 liters, so we’re talking about 216 liters of volume of coins. I don’t know exactly how many coins this is.",
+ "And on them was inscribed: Aleph, Beth, Gimmel. Rabbi Ishmael says: Greek was inscribed on them, alpha, beta, gamla. The baskets were numbered, so that whichever one filled up first would be used first to buy public sacrifices. The sages debate whether the writing was in Greek or in Hebrew. It seems that one opinion demanded Hebrew because this is the Temple and Hebrew is the “lashon hakodesh” the holy language. Rabbi Ishmael allowed Greek because Greek may have been the more official business language of the time.",
+ "The one who made the appropriation did not enter the chamber wearing either a bordered cloak or shoes or sandals or tefillin or an amulet, lest if he became poor people might say that he became poor because of a sin committed in the chamber, or if he became rich people might say that he became rich from the appropriation in the chamber. For it is one’s duty to seem be free of blame before others as before God, as it is said: “And you shall be guiltless before the Lord and before Israel” (Numbers 32:22), and it says: “And you will find favor and good understanding in the eyes of God and man” (Proverbs 3:4). The person who went in to count the coins and make the appropriation could not wear any piece of clothing that would cause others to suspect that he might have stolen something. This could only lead to bad results if he grew poor they would suspect him of being punished for having stolen the shekels, if he grew rich they would suspect of being rich because of the stolen money. The mishnah finishes with an important moral note. A person must carefully guard his public reputation, even if in his heart he knows that he is not sinning and even if he knows that in God’s all-seeing eyes he is not sinning. This is especially true of a person with a position of public responsibility. It is not enough to just be honest, one must also give the outward appearance of honesty as well. I believe that this is an important life’s lesson. A person’s reputation of honesty is important both for the moral character of that person himself and for the proper functioning of society."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Introduction\nThis mishnah continues to teach how the appropriation of the shekels was actually performed.",
+ "[The members] of Rabban Gamaliel’s household used to enter [the chamber] with their shekel between their fingers, and throw it in front of him who made the appropriation, while he who made the appropriation purposely pressed it into the basket. The mishnah reads “….of Rabban Gamaliel’s household.” I have interpreted this as “the members” but it also may be interpreted to refer to an agent who brings the shekels from his household. In any case, the purpose of the arrangement described here is to get the shekel immediately into the basket so that it can count toward the next appropriation. The person bringing the shekel to the chamber would arrive on the day upon which the appropriation was made and would arrange so that the shekel was not just left in the chamber for a while but rather was put right into the basket.",
+ "He who made the appropriation did not make it until he first said to them: “Should I make the appropriation?” And they say to him three times: “Make the appropriation! Make the appropriation! Make the appropriation!” The ceremony described here was probably intended as a polemic against those groups of Second Temple Jews, perhaps Sadducees, who opposed the institution of the yearly shekel donation. In order to make it loud and clear that the shekels are being appropriated and that the public sacrifices will be bought from this money, they made public declarations and affirmations that the appropriation was being done with the consent of the people."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Introduction\nOur mishnah concludes the description of how the appropriation was made.",
+ "[After] he made the first appropriation, he covers [what is left] with leather covers. [After he made the] second appropriation, he covers [what is left] with leather covers. [But after] the third appropriation he would not cover [what was left]. [And why would he cover?] Lest he should forget and make a [fresh] appropriation from shekels from which had already been appropriated. After the first appropriation, done at Pesah time, he would cover the left over shekels so that they would not be used for the next appropriation. The new shekels that were collected during the next period would be placed on top of the leather coverings. Similarly, after the second appropriation, he would cover the remaining already appropriated shekels with a leather covering and new shekels would go on top. However, after the third appropriation, done at Sukkot time, he would not cover the shekels. The mishnah then explains why he would cover after each appropriation. The reason is that we don’t want shekels that have already been counted in one appropriation to count towards another appropriation. Doing so would be an ancient version of “cooking the books.” The leather covers were placed there to prevent this from happening. Since there is no appropriation after the third one, there was no need to cover the remaining coins. A different explanation is offered by the Rambam. He holds that there were three large baskets in the chamber from which they would fill three smaller baskets, Aleph, Bet and Gimmel. At the first appropriation they would fill up the small basket with the Aleph on it from the first large basket and then cover the first large basket. They would then fill the small basket with the letter Bet on it from the second large basket and cover the second large basket. They would then fill the third basket from the third large basket but they would not cover that basket so that when the next appropriation time would arrive (fifteen days before Shavuot), they would know to begin filling the small basket with the Aleph from the third large basket. In this way, in the space of the year, each small basket would be filled from each larger basket. There is yet another explanation, one which Albeck prefers. That is that the question is not “and why would he cover [the first two]” but rather “why didn’t he cover the third?” The answer is that they would leave the third uncovered because the third appropriation is not really finished until the end of the year. They would leave the remaining coins uncovered to remind themselves to continue to appropriate from them and from new ones that would come in after Sukkot and not the coins underneath which had already been appropriated.",
+ "He would make the first appropriation on behalf of the Land of Israel, and the second on behalf of the surrounding cities, and the third on behalf of Babylon and on behalf of Medea and on behalf of [other] distant countries. Each appropriation was symbolically attributed to different regions where Jews lived. The one performing the appropriation would at the first appropriation say, “Behold this appropriation is from the Land of Israel for all of Israel” and similarly for the next two. The order is the order of proximity to Jerusalem. It can be assumed that the people who live in Israel will get their shekels to the Temple first, the people who live in the bordering areas will come next and finally those living in Babylonian and Persia will bring their shekels."
+ ]
+ ],
+ [
+ [
+ "Introduction\nThis mishnah begins to discuss what they did with the money from the appropriation.",
+ "What did they do with the appropriation? They bring with it the daily burnt-offerings ( and the additional burnt-offerings ( and their libations, the omer and the two loaves and the showbread and all the other public offerings. This section contains a list of some of the public offerings that were purchased from the appropriation. Tamidim see Exodus 29:38, Numbers 28:3; musafim see Numbers 28:9 ff.; the omer Leviticus 23:10-11; the two loaves Leviticus 23:16-17; the showbread Leviticus 24:5-9.",
+ "Those who guard the aftergrowths of the seventh year take their wages out of the appropriation from the chamber. Rabbi Yose says: [if a man wished] he could volunteer to watch without payment. But they said to him: you too admit that they can only be offered out of public funds. While it is forbidden to work the land during the seventh year, it is permitted to eat produce that grows on its own. This produce was necessary for the omer, the grain brought between Pesah and Shavuot, and the two loaves, brought on Shavuot, because these both had to come from newly harvested produce. To make sure that there was some grain in the fields the Temple would hire guards to watch the aftergrowths. These guards took their salary from the shekels. Rabbi Yose says that if an individual wishes to guard the fields without pay, he is free to do so. The other sages respond that his opinion is problematic. Rabbi Yose agrees that public sacrifices, those listed in section one, must come from public funds and not from individual donations. If one were to volunteer to watch the aftergrowths, he would by law become their owner and it would turn out that the omer and the two loaves would be coming from private donations. Therefore, individuals must take payment in return for guarding the fields."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Introduction\nThis mishnah continues to discuss what was done with the appropriation of the chamber and then what surplus money was used for.",
+ "The [red] heifer and the scapegoat and the strip of scarlet came out of the appropriation of the chamber. The red heifer (Numbers 19:2 ff.) and the Yom Kippur scapegoat (Leviticus 16:21) were both purchased with the appropriation money. There are two ceremonies in which the Torah prescribes that a strip of scarlet should be used: 1) the red heifer (Numbers 19:6); 2) and the leper purification (Leviticus 14:4). This strip of scarlet was purchased with the appropriation money.",
+ "The ramp for the [red] heifer and the ramp for the scapegoat and the strip of scarlet which was between its horns, and [the maintenance of] the pool of water and the wall of the city and its towers and all the needs of the city came out of the remainder in the chamber. This section lists things which were paid for with money which was left over after the three yearly appropriations were made. We can immediately notice that none of the things on this list are sacrifices. Rather most of them are general issues of upkeep. I will explain each separately. The ramp for the [red] heifer: they would build a ramp to lead the red heifer to the Mount of Olives (this is mentioned in Mishnah Parah 3:6). The ramp for the scapegoat: this was used to get the scapegoat out of the city (see Mishnah Yoma 3:6). And the strip of scarlet which was between its horns: they would take a strip of scarlet and place it between the horns of the scapegoat. We will learn more about this when we learn Yoma 6:4. The remaining items on the list are all maintenance for the major structures of the Temple and Jerusalem. I assume that the shekels were not sufficient for all upkeep, and the mishnah does not say that they were. All that the Mishnah states is that the extra shekels would go to this upkeep.",
+ "Abba Shaul says: the ramp for the [red] cow the high priests made out of their own [means]. Abba Shaul states that the ramp for the red heifer did not come from money left over from the appropriation but rather from the high priests. According to the Tosefta and the Yerushalmi, whenever a red heifer was burnt, the officiating high priest would build a new ramp rather than use a ramp built by a previous high priest."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Introduction\nThis mishnah continues to deal with money that was left over after all of the needs in the previous mishnah had been taken care of.",
+ "What did they do with the surplus of the remainder in the chamber?
They would buy with it wines, oils and fine flours, and the profit belonged to the Temple, the words of Rabbi Ishmael. According to Rabbi Ishmael, the money left over in the chamber was used to buy wine, oil and fine flour, which they would then sell to people who needed to bring these items for offerings. The profit would then go to the Temple’s treasury.",
+ "Rabbi Akiva says: one may not make a profit with the property of the Temple, nor with the property of the poor. Rabbi Akiva says that this is not allowed and that it is potentially disgraceful to turn sacred items or charity into a profit. Furthermore, there is a potential problem of the Temple or poor people losing money on the deal. Rabbi Akiva doesn’t state what he thinks should be done with the extra money. According to one interpretation of the mishnah, the money is used for those things listed in mishnah two, above. According to the Rambam, the money is used for those things listed below in mishnah four."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Introduction\nWhereas in yesterday’s mishnah we learned what they did with the surplus from the shekels which remained in the chamber after the appropriation had been made, today’s mishnah teaches what they would do with the surplus of the appropriation itself. For instance, when the first of Nisan comes along they would begin to buy public sacrifices with a new appropriation, so what did they do with money left over from the old appropriation?",
+ "What was done with the surplus of the appropriation?
[They would buy] plates of gold for covering the interior of the Holy of Holies. According to the first opinion, the extra money from the appropriation would be used to buy plates of gold to cover the walls and ceiling of the Holy of Holies.",
+ "Rabbi Ishmael says: the surplus [from the sale] of the produce was used for the altar’s ‘dessert’, and the surplus of the appropriation was used for the ministering vessels. Rabbi Ishmael says that the surplus from the appropriation was used to buy ministering vessels. He holds that since this money was intended to be used for sacrifices it can also be used to buy the vessels which are used in offering the sacrifices. In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that with the money left in the chamber Rabbi Ishmael said they should buy wines, oils and flours and sell them for a profit. Here he says that the profit is used for the altar’s “dessert.” This refers to wholly burnt offerings that they would offer on the altar when there were no other sacrifices to be offered. This is like a “dessert” for the hungry altar.",
+ "Rabbi Akiba says: the surplus of the appropriation was used for the altar’s ‘dessert’, and the surplus of the libations was used for the ministering vessels. Rabbi Akiva says that “dessert” for the Temple comes from the surplus of the appropriation. The ministering vessels, on the other hand, were bought from the surplus of libations. This refers to extra flour and wine which were bought to make libations. The “extra” can happen when merchants promise to provide three seahs worth of flour for a sela (a coin). If the price of flour goes down to four seahs for a sela, the merchants have to bring four seahs, even though only three seahs are to be consecrated as libations. The Temple’s treasurers can sell the extra seah and with the profit pay for the ministering vessels.",
+ "Rabbi Hananiah the chief of the priests says: the surplus of the libations was used for the altar’s ‘dessert’, and the surplus of the appropriation was used for the ministering vessels. Rabbi Hananiah, the chief of priests, has yet another opinion about what to do with the extra money (doesn’t everyone love extra money!). His opinion is an opposite version of Rabbi Akiva’s. I find it interesting that we have here a priest, someone who would seemingly have known very well what went on in the Temple, and yet his opinion does not count any more than any of the other rabbi’s opinion.",
+ "Neither of these [two sages] allowed [a profit from the sale of] the produce. The mishnah ends by noting that both Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Hananiah agree that they don’t use the shekels to buy produce and then sell it to make a profit, as was the opinion of Rabbi Ishmael. It seems that the editor of the mishnah strongly disagrees with Rabbi Ishmael and hence wishes to emphasize that all of the other sages disagree with him."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with the extra incense. Every day there were two incense offerings, one in the morning and one in the evening (Exodus 30:7-8). The incense for 365 days and for three extra incense offerings on Yom Kippur was prepared ahead of time. The lunar year is only 354 years, so the extra incense was to be saved up for the leap year, when they would add a month. The problem is that from the first of Nisan the incense had to be offered using the new shekels. Our mishnah describes a way in which they could save the incense for the following year and yet still pay for it with new shekels.",
+ "What was done with the surplus of the incense?
They would separate from it the wages of the craftsmen, and they would exchange it for the wages of the craftsmen, and they would give it to the craftsmen as their wages, and then they would buy it back again out of a new appropriation. This is how they would turn the incense for the previous year into incense for the following year. First they would separate an amount of incense that would be used to pay the wages of those who make the incense. Then they would redeem that incense with money set aside to pay those craftsmen. The money then would become sacred and the incense would be non-sacred. They then would give the non-sacred incense to the craftsmen as their wages and then they would buy back the incense with new shekels. The craftsmen would have their wages, and the incense was bought with new shekels. They could have done all this in a much simpler way they could simply sell the old incense and then buy it back with new money. However, the rabbis thought that the arrangement of using it for the craftsmen’s wages was more appropriate for sacred money.",
+ "If the new month had arrived in time they would bring it with the new appropriation, but if not, they from the old one. If the first of Nisan came on time, meaning that Adar had only twenty-nine days, then they would immediately begin to use the new appropriation to buy the incense and all of the public sacrifices. However, if Nisan did not come on time, meaning Adar had thirty days, they would bring it from the incense bought with the old shekels."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with a person who dedicates some of his possessions to the Temple and among them are things which can be used as public sacrifices but not as individual sacrifices. This would include, for instance, the ingredients for making the incense. We should note that these cannot just simply be used for public sacrifices because as we have learned on several occasions, public sacrifices must be paid for with public money and not individual donations.",
+ "If one dedicated his possessions to the Temple, and there was among them things which was fit for public offerings, they should be given to the craftsmen as their wages; the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Akiva says that if among the dedicated property there are things which can be used for public offerings, those things should go as payment to the craftsmen. Rabbi Akiva holds that things which are dedicated to the Temple can become regular non-sacred items if they are used in payment for work done for the Temple.",
+ "Ben Azzai said to him: this method is not correct. Rather, they separate from them the wages of the craftsmen, and then they exchange them for the money due to the craftsmen, and then they give them to the craftsmen as their wages, and then they buy them back again out of a new appropriation. Ben Azzai says that Rabbi Akiva’s halakhah is incorrect, because he treats this incense differently from the way in which the extra incense was treated above in mishnah five. Ben Azzai holds that the cases are similar and should therefore be treated in the same way. He also disagrees with Rabbi Akiva about things becoming non-sacred by being used to pay for work done in the Temple. Accordingly, Ben Azzai says that the same procedure described in yesterday’s mishnah should be performed here as well. First they separate from the dedicated property an amount equal to the wages owed to the craftsmen. Then they redeem this property with coins that are to go to the craftsmen. They then give the incense to the craftsmen as their wages and then buy the incense back with money from the new appropriation. This is the exact same procedure described above, in yesterday’s mishnah."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Introduction\nYesterday’s mishnah discussed what is done with things dedicated to the Temple that can be used as public sacrifices but not as individual sacrifices. Today’s mishnah discusses things dedicated to the Temple that can be used for individual sacrifices.",
+ "The case under discussion is one in which a person dedicated his possessions to the Temple and these possessions included animals which could be offered as individual sacrifices, and not public sacrifices as was the case in yesterday’s mishnah. The question is: what is to be done with these animals? The main debate in the mishnah is over what was the man’s intention that the animals should be completely put on the altar, meaning they should be burnt offerings, which are completely burnt on the altar, or that all of his property should go to the Temple for its upkeep.",
+ "One who dedicated his possessions to the Temple and there was among them an animal fit for the altar, males or females,
Rabbi Eliezer says: males should be sold for the use of burnt-offerings and females should be sold for the use of offerings of wellbeing, and the proceeds should be lumped together with the rest of the possessions for the repair of the temple. Rabbi Eliezer holds that the male animals should be sold to people who wish to offer a burnt offering whereas the female animals, which cannot be used for burnt offerings, should be sold to people who wish to offer an offering of wellbeing. The proceeds from the sales and any of other dedicated property are used for the repairs and upkeep of the Temple. Rabbi Eliezer holds that unspecified dedications to the Temple are directed at paying for the upkeep of the Temple.",
+ "Rabbi Joshua says: the males themselves should be offered as burnt-offerings and the females should be sold for the use of offerings of wellbeing, and with the proceeds burnt offerings should be brought, and the other possessions should go to the repair of the temple. Rabbi Joshua says that the male animals should be sacrificed as burnt offerings and not sold. Rabbi Joshua holds that when the person dedicated to the Temple animals which can be sacrificed he intended them to be whole burnt offerings and not that they should pay for the upkeep of the Temple. The female animals are sold to become wellbeing offerings and then the money is used to purchase more burnt offerings which are offered on the altar. They aren’t offered as wellbeing offerings, because parts of the wellbeing offerings are eaten and Rabbi Joshua says the intention was that all of the animal would go to the altar. The other property is used for the upkeep of the Temple.",
+ "Rabbi Akiva says: I prefer the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer over the opinion of Rabbi Joshua, for Rabbi Eliezer applied a uniform rule, but Rabbi Joshua differentiated. Rabbi Akiva says that Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion is preferable because he is consistent both the males and females are sold and the proceeds from both sales go to the repair of the Temple, as does the other property which was dedicated to the Temple. In contrast, Rabbi Joshua said that the animals fit for the altar are used either as whole burnt offering or are sold to buy other whole burnt offerings, whereas the other dedicated property is used for the upkeep. Rabbi Akiva prefers the consistent of Rabbi Eliezer and hence rules accordingly. We should note that this preference for consistency is a function of Rabbi Akiva’s own logic, and not of a received tradition. In other words, in the absence of any foreknowledge of who is correct, he tries his best to determine the correct halakhah from the opinions of his two teachers.",
+ "Rabbi Papias said: I have heard [a tradition in accordance] with both of their opinions: that one who dedicates to the Temple with explicitness, it is according to the words of Rabbi Eliezer, but one who dedicates to the Temple without specifying it is according to the opinion of Rabbi Joshua. In contrast, Rabbi Papias says that he has a received tradition, one which mediates between Rabbi Eliezer’s position and Rabbi Joshua’s. When one specifies that his dedication is for the upkeep of the Temple, the law follows Rabbi Eliezer. However, if he doesn’t specify then the tradition is according to Rabbi Joshua."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with a person who dedicated his belongings to the Temple and there were among them things which could be offered on the altar, but they were not animal sacrifices, as was the case in mishnah 7.",
+ "One who dedicated his possessions to the Temple and there were among them things fit for the altar, [such as] wines, oils, and birds: Rabbi Elazar says: they should be sold for the use of [offerings of] each particular kind, and they should bring with the proceeds burnt offerings, and the other possessions should go to the repair of the Temple. Rabbi Elazar says that the wines, oils and birds should be sold to people who need to bring wines for libations, oils to accompany minhah (grain) offerings or various bird offerings. The proceeds from the sale should be used to buy burnt offerings, and then, as is standard, all of the other dedicated possessions should go to the upkeep of the Temple. The Rambam explains how this situation differs from the situation in mishnah seven, where Rabbi Eliezer said that animals dedicated to the Temple should be sold to people who need them for sacrifices and the proceeds go to the repair of the Temple. That mishnah discussed animals and not wines, oils and birds as does our mishnah. Animals dedicated as sacrifices can be, under certain circumstances, redeemed. If the animal becomes blemished, it is redeemed with money and the money becomes sacred and is used to buy another sacrifice. Since the money becomes sacred, when these animals are sold it is as if the mitzvah has been already performed and the money can be used for the repair of the Temple. In contrast, wine, oil and birds cannot be redeemed with money. Therefore, when they are sold the money itself does not become holy. Since the money is not holy, the mitzvah has not been performed and therefore the money must be used to buy burnt offerings, through which the mitzvah can be performed."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Introduction\nThis mishnah teaches how prices were fixed on behalf of the Temple such that the Temple would always get the better of the deal, should there be price changes.",
+ "Once in thirty days prices were fixed [on behalf of] the chamber. Once every thirty days the prices of oil, fine flour and wine were set so that the Temple (the chamber) would be able to buy at that price for the entire month. This means that if the market price went up, the Temple could still buy at the lower rate. However, if the market price of these items went down, the Temple could buy the items at the new lower rate. The mishnah shall now illustrate.",
+ "Anyone who had accepted upon himself to supply fine flours at four [se'ahs for a sela] and they now stood at three [se'ahs for a sela] he must [still] supply four. If a merchant agreed to sell flour at four se’ahs (a measure of volume) for a sela (a coin) and then the price went up to three se’ahs for a sela, the merchant takes the loss. The Temple can still give him a coin and get four se’ahs.",
+ "[If he had accepted to supply fine flours] at three [se'ahs for a sela] and they now stood at four, he must [also] supply at four, for the sanctified property has the upper hand. However, if the price was three se’ahs for a sela and it went down to four se’ahs for a sela, he must provide four se’ahs. The mishnah notes that the Temple (i.e. the sanctified property) always has the upper hand.",
+ "If the fine flour became worm-eaten the loss is his; if the wine became sour the loss is his. For he is not entitled to his money until the altar has accepted [the offering]. If the Temple buys some produce but before the produce is offered it goes bad, the merchant must replace the produce. This is because the money is not considered to belong to the merchant until the flour, wine or oil has actually been offered. Since the money is not yet his, he must replace the ruined product in order to keep the money which the Temple’s treasurers gave him."
+ ]
+ ],
+ [
+ [
+ "These were the officers in the Temple:
Yohanan the son of Pinchas was over the seals.
Ahiyah over the libations.
Mattityah the son of Shmuel over the lots.
Petahiah over the bird-offering. (Petahiah was Mordecai. Why was his name called Petahiah? Because he ‘opened’ matters and expounded them, and he understood the seventy tongues.)
The son of Ahijah over the sickness of the bowels.
Nehuniah, the digger of ditches.
Gevini, the crier.
The son of Gever over the locking of the gates.
The son of Bevai over the strips [for lighting the menorah].
The son of Arza over the cymbal.
Hugras the son of Levi over the song.
The house of Garmu over the making of the showbread.
The house of Avtinas over the preparing of the frankincense.
Elazar over the curtains.
And Pinchas over the priestly vestments.
This mishnah lists and names fifteen officers who performed various services in the Temple. There are various interpretations as to the names. Albeck explains that in every generation the officers who filled these functions were called by these names. Another explanation is that this is the list of the names of those who served in the Temple at the time when this mishnah was composed.
1) Yohanan the son of Pinchas was over the seals: This will be explained below in mishnayot 3-5.
2) Ahiyah over the libations: This too will be explained in mishnayot 3-5.
3) Mattityah the son of Shmuel over the lots: Lots were cast between the priests in order to determine who got to offer which sacrifice.
4) Petahiah over the bird-offering. (Petahiah was Mordecai. Why was his name called Petahiah? Because he ‘opened’ matters and expounded them, and he understood the seventy tongues): Petahiah sold bird-offerings to those who needed to bring them. The section in parentheses is a late addition to the mishnah that is missing from most manuscripts. Petahiah comes from the word “petach” which means to open and can refer to the opening of a midrashic sermon.
5) The son of Ahiyah over the sickness of the bowels: Many priests had gastrointestinal ailments. This is probably due to their frequent contact with raw meat and infected water. The son of Ahiyah was responsible for the medicines and other cures for these illnesses.
6) Nehuniah, the digger of ditches: Nehuniah oversaw the digging of wells, cisterns and irrigation channels.
7) Gevini, the announcer: Gevini would cry out each morning, “Rise up priests to your worship (avodah), Levites to your stands and Israelites to your stations (maamadot).”
8) The son of Gever over the locking of the gates: He would close the gates in the evening.
9) The son of Bevai over the strips: these were the wicks used in lighting the menorah.
10) The son of Arza over the cymbal: The cymbal was used to signal to the Levites to begin to sing.
11) Hugras the son of Levi over the song: he conducted the Levites in their daily songs.
12) The house of Garmu over the making of the showbread: this house of priests was responsible for baking the twelve loaves that were on the table throughout the week.
13) The house of Avtinas over the preparing of the frankincense: they crushed the herbs and prepared the mixture.
14) Elazar over the curtains: he sewed the curtains and then maintained them.
15) And Pinchas over the priestly vestments: he made the vestments, put them on the priests and then took them off when their service was completed."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with two other offices in the Temple. The difference between today’s mishnah and yesterday’s is that since the offices described have responsibility to deal with money they were filled by more than one person to prevent dishonesty.",
+ "They did not have less than three treasurers. The treasures were responsible for the Temple’s finances. One of their important functions was to redeem sanctified property so that they could use the money for necessary projects. (Sort of like selling Temple stock!)",
+ "Or less than seven superintendents. The seven superintendents held the seven keys to the Temple courtyard. They each needed to be there before the Temple courtyard could be opened. When the doors were opened the treasurers could gain entrance.",
+ "Nor create positions of authority over the public in matters of money [with] less than two [officers], except [in the case] of the son of Ahiyah who was over the sickness of the bowels and Elazar who was over the veil, for these had been accepted by the majority of the public. In all positions of monetary authority it was necessary to appoint at least two officers. This seems to be a way of limiting the possibilities of dishonesty and fraud. The only exceptions are the two single officers in the Temple, the son of Ahiyah and Elazar, who had monetary authority over the public (to buy spices and materials for the curtains). This was acceptable because the public had trusted and allowed them to fill these positions as individuals."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Introduction\nAbove in mishnah one we learned that Yohanan the son of Pinchas was responsible for the seals and that Ahiyah was responsible for the libations. In today’s mishnah and in tomorrow’s we will learn what their responsibilities are.\nThe libations refers to grain offerings which include flour mixed with oil and a libation of wine. These grain offerings accompany certain animal sacrifices: an offering of well-being, a burnt offering and the sin and guilt offerings of a leper. The amount of grain, oil and wine would vary depending upon the animal used in the sacrifice. The following chart should be helpful:\nFlour\nOil\nWine\nSheep or goat (one year old)\n1/10 of a measure\n1/4 hin\n1/4 hin\nRam (two years old)\n2/10\n1/3 hin\n1/3 hin\nCow or calf\n3/10\n1/2 hin\n1/2 hin\nSomeone who needed to bring a libation (a grain offering) with his/her sacrifice could buy the exact amount of flour, oil and wine directly from the Temple. This would ensure that the offering was pure. He would pay the money to Yochanan ben Pinchas who would give him a note with a stamp on it. He would then take the note to Ahiyah who would give him the correct amount of flour, oil and wine.",
+ "There were four seals in the Temple, and on them was inscribed [respectively]: ‘calf’, ‘ram’, ‘kid’, ‘sinner’. According to the first opinion there were four seals, one for each of the three types of animals described above in the chart and one inscribed with the word “sinner”, for the leper who brings three offerings, a guilt offering, a sin offering and a burnt offering, each of which come from various types of sheep (see Leviticus 14). Since the leper brings three sheep he therefore brings three times the amount of flour, oil and water that is brought for one sheep (see the chart). In addition he brings one extra log (a small measure=1/12 of a hin) of oil which was placed on his right earlobe, right thumb and right big toe (Leviticus 14:15-18). Each seal would signify that he has paid for that amount of libation flour, oil and wine.",
+ "Ben Azzai says: there were five and on them was inscribed in Aramaic [respectively]” ‘calf’, ‘ram’, ��kid’, ‘poor sinner’, and ‘rich sinner’. Ben Azzai has two disagreements with the previous opinion. First of all, he holds that the inscriptions were in Aramaic and not in Hebrew, since Aramaic was the language with which most people were more familiar. Secondly, he says that there were two types of inscriptions for the leper, one for the poor sinner who only brings one sheep and its libations (Lev. 14:21-31), and the one extra log of oil described above. The other for the rich sinner who brings three sheep, as described above. The opinion in section one according to which there was only one inscription for the leper holds that the poor leper, who brings one sheep, buys the libations of a sheep and brings the extra log of oil from his home.",
+ "[The seal inscribed] ‘calf’ served for the libations of cattle, both large and small, male and female. The mishnah now explains what each seal is for. “Calf” is for all cattle, meaning cows and bulls, whether they are male which are used as whole burnt offerings or females used as offerings of wellbeing.",
+ "[The seal inscribed] ‘kid’ served for the libations of flock animals, both large and small, male and female, with the exception of rams. The seal of the kid was used to buy libations for all flock offerings (sheep and goats) as long as they were a year or less old. From thirteen months and older the sheep is considered to be a ram.",
+ "[The one inscribed] ‘ram’ served for the libations of rams alone. The seal of the ram was used to buy libations for the ram only.",
+ "[The one inscribed] ‘sinner’ served for the libations of the three animals [offered] by lepers. The seal upon which was inscribed the word “sinner” was used to buy the libations for the three animals that a leper brings, plus the additional log as we described in section one."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Introduction\nThis mishnah explains how a person would buy libation offerings, meaning the flour, oil and wine which we described in yesterday’s mishnah.",
+ "If one required libations he would go to Yohanan who was the officer over the seals, and give him money and receive from him a seal. Then he would go to Ahiyah who was the officer over the libations, and give him the seal, and receive from him the libations. This is the process through which a person could buy his libation offerings.",
+ "And in the evening these two [officers] would come together, and Ahiyah would bring out the seals and receive money for their value. And if there was more [than their value] the surplus belonged to the sanctuary, but if there was less [than their value] Yohanan would pay [the loss] out of his own pocket; for the Temple has the upper hand. Here we get an early description of Jewish accounting! In the evening, after the day’s work at the Temple was done, the two officers would get together to check the accounts. Ahiyah would take out the seals which he had received and collect the money from Yohanan. If there was extra money then that money belonged to the Temple. However, if there was not enough money to cover the seals, then Yohanan would have to make up the difference from his own pocket. The mishnah notes that the Temple’s treasury has the upper hand it can gain from someone’s mistake but not lose. As they say it’s good to be the Temple."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Introduction\nThis mishnah describes what happens if someone loses his seal, meaning he claims that he gave the money to Yohanan but by the time he got to Ahiyah to buy his libations the seal was lost.",
+ "If one lost his seal his case they wait [to deal] with him until the evening. If he lost his seal, then they tell him to wait until evening when they reckon the accounts.",
+ "If they found [money left over] to the value of his lost seal, they give [it] to him and if not he gets nothing. If they find extra money equivalent to the amount his seal is worth, then they give him back the money or give him the flour, oil and wine for the libations he needs to bring. But if there is no extra money then he gets nothing, since it is possible that he is lying.",
+ "On the seals was inscribed the name of the day because of the defrauders. They would put dates on the seals to stop fraud, or at least make it more difficult. The dates would prevent a person from claiming that he lost his seal and waiting until the end of the day in the hopes that Yohanan would have extra money. In such a case the person could get his money back and then take out the seal and get the libations from Ahiyah. By putting on dates this particular form of fraud became impossible."
+ ],
+ [
+ "There were two chambers in the Temple, one the chamber of secret gifts and the other the chamber of the vessels.
The chamber of secret gifts: sin-fearing persons used to put their gifts there in secret, and the poor who were descended of the virtuous were secretly supported from them.
The chamber of the vessels: whoever offered a vessel as a gift would throw it in, and once in thirty days the treasurers opened it; and any vessel they found in it that was of use for the repair of the temple they left there, but the others were sold and their price went to the chamber of the repair of the temple.
This mishnah discusses how people could give charity in secret either to the Temple or to the poor. We should note that in the Rambam’s discussion of charity he states that the second best form in which to give tzedakah is neither for the giver to know the receiver nor for the receiver to know the giver. The only way which is preferred over secrecy is to help a person earn his own living.
The mishnah is clear and doesn’t seem to need any explanation. However, I will offer some historical commentary.
The Temple in Jerusalem was clearly a repository of wealth, as were most Temples in the ancient world. When Josephus describes how Antiochus came to pillage Jerusalem (the events that preceded the Hasmonean revolution) he writes (Antiquities of the Jews XII, chapter 5, section four:
“The king came up to Jerusalem, and, pretending peace, he got possession of the city by treachery; at which time he spared not so much as those that admitted him into it, on account of the riches that lay in the temple; but, led by his covetous inclination, (for he saw there was in it a great deal of gold, and many ornaments that had been dedicated to it of very great value,) and in order to plunder its wealth, he ventured to break the league he had made. So he left the temple bare, and took away the golden candlesticks, and the golden altar [of incense], and table [of shew-bread], and the altar [of burnt-offering]; and did not abstain from even the veils, which were made of fine linen and scarlet. He also emptied it of its secret treasures, and left nothing at all remaining.”
The secret treasures referred to here may be similar to that which Josephus describes. What interests me, beyond the sheer parallel between the Mishnah and Josephus, is that the rabbis assume that some of these treasures must have gone to tzedakah. According to the rabbis, the Temple must have at least partially functioned as a repository where people could give money secretly. In the rabbinic mind, the Temple’s treasures could not just have been designated to make its leaders wealthier or to pay for more ornament decorations. The money must have gone to the poor as well. I do not know if this is historically accurate but to me it makes no difference. What the Mishnah is telling us is that our religious centers, be it the Temple or the synagogue, must also be points of tzedakah, and not just tzedakah for the organization itself, but tzedakah for the poor. The Temple/synagogue is the exchange center by which Jews can give charity secretly."
+ ]
+ ],
+ [
+ [
+ "Introduction\nOur mishnah describes certain physical features of the Temple. Fans of the Raiders of the Lost Ark series will enjoy this mishnah, as well as tomorrow’s.",
+ "There were in the Temple thirteen chests, thirteen tables and thirteen prostrations. There were thirteen chests in the Temple to collect money for various items. These will be explained below in mishnah five. There were thirteen tables, which will be explained below in mishnah four. Finally, there were thirteen places in which people would prostrate themselves and these will be explained in mishnah three. Notice the chiastic order chests, tables and prostrations and below we will see prostrations, tables and chests.",
+ "[Members] of the household of Rabban Gamaliel and of Rabbi Hananiah the chief of the priests used would prostrate fourteen [times. And where was the additional [prostration]? In front of the wood storage yard, for they had a tradition from their forefathers that the Ark was hidden there. The people of the household of Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Hananiah the chief of the priests would do an extra prostration. They would do this extra prostration in front of the wood storage yard, the place where the wood that was used to fuel the altar was stored. They prostrated there because they had a tradition that that was where the Ark of the Covenant was buried. There are two main traditions concerning the fate of the Ark in rabbinic literature. The first holds that King Josaiah buried it in the Temple and the second holds that it was carried off to Babylonia when the Temple was destroyed. The third holds that it is sitting in a storehouse in Washington D.C. (just kidding)."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Introduction\nThis mishnah continues to discuss the hidden location of the Ark of the Covenant.",
+ "It once happened that a priest who was busy [there] noticed that the floor [of the wood storage area] was different from the others. He went and told it to his friend but before he had time to finish his words his soul departed. Then they knew for certain that there the Ark was hidden. In this legendary tale a priest is busy chopping wood in the wood storage area of the Temple when he notices that the floor looks a little different. He rushes off to tell his friend about what he saw but before he can get the words out of his mouth, he dies (I hope his face didn’t start to melt off. Indy should have told him to just close his eyes!). From this the other priests knew for certain that the Ark was hidden there."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Introduction\nThis mishnah teaches that the thirteen prostrations mentioned in mishnah one above were made in front of the thirteen gates in the Temple. The mishnah proceeds to name the gates. The commentators explain that the prostrations were to thank God for the glory of the Temple.",
+ "And where did they make the prostrations? Four [times] in the north, four [times] in the south, three [times] in the east, and twice in the west, in front of the thirteen gates. This section teaches where in the Temple the thirteen gates were located.",
+ "The southern gates close to the west [side were]: the Upper Gate, the Fuel Gate, the Gate of the Firstborn [Animals], and the Water Gate. Why was it called the Water Gate? Because through it was brought in the flask of water for the libation on Sukkot. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: through it the waters trickle forth and in the time to come “they will come forth from under the threshold of the Temple” (Ezekiel 47:1). The Upper Gate was on the southwestern side, which was the highest point of the Temple. The Fuel Gate was used to bring in the wood used to fuel the altar’s fires. The firstborn animals were brought in through the Firstborn Animal’s Gate (should be obvious, but still..). The mishnah offers two explanations for why the Water Gate was called as such. The first explanation is that this is where the water libation, offered on Sukkot (we will learn this eventually in Sukkah 4:9), was brought into the Temple. The second is that in the future, when clean living water flows out of the Temple and cleanses the salty water of the Dead Sea, the water will begin to trickle forth from this gate (see Ezekiel 47). There is no Nixon connection.",
+ "On the opposite side in the north close to the west were: Jechoniah’ Gate, the Gate of the Offerings, the Gate of the Women, and the Gate of Song. And why was it called the Jechoniah’ Gate? Because through it Jechoniah went out into his captivity. On the opposite side, in the North, there were four more gates. Jechoniah’s Gate was named after the King Jechoniah who was taken captive and put into exile by Nebuchadnezzar (see II Kings 24:15). Sacrifices, which were slaughtered in the northern part of the Temple, were brought in through the Offerings Gate. The Woman’s Gate was a special entrance for women when they brought their sacrifices. The Gate of Song was used to bring in the musical instruments which the Levites used.",
+ "In the east was the Nicanor’s Gate, and it had two small gates, one to the right and one to the left. In the east was Nicanor’s Gate, named after Nicanor who according to legend brought the gates from Egypt. Nicanor’s gates were surrounded by two smaller gates that were included in the tally of thirteen gates.",
+ "There were also two gates in the west which had no name. The western gates were infrequently used and hence had no special name."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Introduction\nThis mishnah lists the thirteen tables mentioned in mishnah one.",
+ "There were thirteen tables in the Temple:
Eight of marble in the place of slaughtering and on them they would rinse the entrails. In the slaughtering section of the Temple there were eight marble tables upon which they would rinse out the entrails of the sacrificial animals.",
+ "And two to the west of the ramp [which ascends the altar], one of marble and one of silver; on that of marble they would place the limbs [of the offerings], and on that of silver the ministering vessels. To the west of the ramp used to ascend to the altar were two more tables, one of marble and one of silver. They would put the limbs of the sacrifices on the marble table where they would wait until they were offered on the altar. The marble was cool and hence slowed down the deterioration of the meat. On the silver table they would place the ministering vessels. These were 93 vessels which were brought out each morning and which would be used in worship during the day.",
+ "And there were two tables in the Porch on the inside of the entrance to the Temple, one of marble and the other of gold; on that of marble they would place the showbread placed when it was brought in, and on that of gold [they would place the showbread] when it was taken out, because things sacred may be raised [in honor] but not lowered. The Porch was the open section of the Temple right outside the Sanctuary. There were two tables there, one of marble and one of gold. Both of these tables were used for the showbread. When the bread was baked on Friday it would be placed on the marble table so that it wouldn’t begin to mold before it was brought into the Sanctuary on Shabbat. When it was taken out of the Sanctuary on the following Shabbat, it was placed on the golden table before it was divvied up to the priests. The mishnah notes that this follows an important halakhic rule sacred things such as the showbread should rise up in holiness and not be lowered down. Since it was on a golden table inside the Sanctuary, it had to be on a golden table when it was brought out. The most famous application of this rule is that on Hannukah we add a candle each night because we are to increase in holiness and not decrease.",
+ "And there was one [table] of gold on the inside of the Sanctuary on which the showbread lay continually. During the week, the showbread was placed on a golden table, as we mentioned above."
+ ],
+ [
+ "There were thirteen chests in the Temple and on them was inscribed [respectively]:
“new shekels”;
“New shekels” those for each year;
“old shekels”;
“Old shekels” whoever has not paid his shekel in the past year may pay it in the coming year;
“bird-offerings”;
“Bird-offerings” these are turtle-doves;
“young pigeons for burnt-offerings”;
“Young pigeons for burnt-offerings” these are young pigeons.
“wood”;
“frankincense”;
“gold for the kapporet”;
and on six, “freewill offerings”. Both [these two chests] are for burnt-offerings, the words of Rabbi Judah. But the sages say: “bird-offerings” one [half] is for sin-offerings and the other [half] for burnt-offerings, but “young pigeons for burnt-offerings” all goes to burnt-offerings.
This mishnah describes the thirteen chests that were in the Temple, as we learned above in mishnah one. We should note that the mishnah first lists all of the chests, and then below it explains more fully four of them. I shall explain them all in my explanation of the first section.
Section one: The “new shekels” chest was for shekels that were collected during each year. From this chest the shekels would later be brought into the chamber.
Section two: The “old shekels” chest was for people who failed to bring their shekels during the year.
Sections three and four: The “bird-offerings” are turtledoves (sorry, no partridge in a pear tree). The “young pigeons for burnt offerings” are, as might be obvious young pigeons. The sages dispute what these bird offerings are used for. According to Rabbi Judah both the bird-offerings and the young pigeons are used for burnt offerings. He holds that people who put money into both of these chests are bringing voluntary offerings, and voluntary bird offerings are only offered as burnt offerings. If someone needed to bring a mandated bird offering (such as a leper or a woman after childbirth) she didn’t put the money in the box but rather gave the offering directly to a priest.
The other sages agree that the box marked “young pigeons for burnt-offerings” goes exclusively for burnt offerings. This box, and only this box, was where people who wanted to make voluntary bird offerings put their money. The box marked “bird offerings” is intended for those who are obligated to bring a pair of birds, one for a sin offering and one for a burnt offering. There is actually an entire tractate (Tractate Kinim) about these bird offerings.
Section five: This was for people who wished to donate wood to fuel the altar.
Section six: For people who wished to donate the frankincense.
Section seven: One who said, “Behold I am donating gold” would bring golden dinarim (a type of coin) and put them in this box. The dinarim would then be used to buy gold to make various coverings for the Holy of Holies. The word “kapporet” in the Torah refers to the cover of the Ark, but here in this mishnah it refers to all golden coverings.
Section eight: There were six other chests upon which was inscribed “freewill offerings.” This was parallel to the six things listed above in 2:5 whose surplus goes to freewill offerings. See there for an explanation as to what these six things were."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Introduction\nThe first half of our mishnah explains what one who volunteers to bring wood, frankincense or gold, three of the chests mentioned in yesterday’s mishnah (sections 5-7), must bring.\nThe second half of the mishnah deals with the eighth section of yesterday’s mishnah, which mentions the six boxes upon which was inscribed “for freewill offerings.”",
+ "One who says: “Behold, I am obligated to bring wood”, he may not bring less than two logs. [If he says: “Behold, I am obligated to bring] frankincense”, he may not bring less than a handful of it. [If he says: “Behold, I am obligated to bring] gold”, he may not bring less than a gold denar. This section spells out how much wood, frankincense or gold one must bring if one makes a vow to bring one of these items without specifying how much he will bring. If he specifies how much he will bring, then he brings that amount.",
+ "“On six [was inscribed] “for freewill-offerings”: What was done with the freewill-offerings? They would buy with them burnt-offerings, the flesh [of which] was for the name [of God] and the hides for the priests. As we learned yesterday, on six of the chests was inscribed “freewill offerings.” The mishnah now teaches that this money was used to buy burnt offerings. The flesh of the offering would be completely burnt on the altar but the hides would go to the priests.",
+ "The following is the midrash which was expounded by Yehoyada the high priest: “It is a guilt-offering; it is a guilt offering, it goes to the Lord” (Leviticus 5:19). This is the general rule: anything which is brought because of a sin or because of guilt, they should purchase with it burnt offerings, the flesh [of which] was for the name [of God] and the hides for the priests. Thus the two verses are fulfilled: a guilt offering for the Lord and a guilt offering for the priests, and it says: “Money brought as a guilt offering or as a sin offering was not deposited in the House of the Lord; it went to the priests” (II Kings 12:17). In this section we read a midrash which explains how we derive the halakhah in the previous section, that the priests receive the hides and the flesh is totally burnt. This is justified through a midrashic reading of Leviticus 5:19, which I have translated to facilitate its midrashic understanding. This verse seems to state that a guilt offering goes to God like a burnt offering, whereas we know from other places that the guilt offering goes to the priests. Yehoyada solves this riddle by stating that any surplus from money dedicated to purchasing a sin or guilt offering is used to buy burnt offerings, the flesh goes to the altar and the hides go to the priest. This is the now the interpretation of the verse in II Kings 12 which contains an extended explanation of how Yehoyada would collect money for the Temple. Verse 17 states that “Money brought as a guilt offering or as a sin offering was not deposited in the House of the Lord; it went to the priests.” This cannot be explained to simply mean that money set aside to purchase guilt or sin offerings went directly to the priests, since they had to buy the sacrifices. Rather the explanation is that if money was left over after the requisite sacrifices were purchased, they would buy with it burnt-offerings as voluntary offerings, and they would keep the hides for themselves."
+ ]
+ ],
+ [
+ [
+ "Introduction\nThe first mishnah of this chapter deals with the status of coins found in between the money chests that were in the Temple (see above, chapter 6:5). The three mishnayot which follow will also deal with various items found in a certain place in which their status is uncertain. The rabbis seem to be enamored with this type of discussion how do we determine the status of something whose status is doubtful?",
+ "The general rule for this mishnah is found only at the end, but since it applies to the entire mishnah, I shall explain it now. If coins are found between two other groups of coins, they are considered to be of the status of the coins to which they are closest. This is true even if that creates a leniency, as we shall see as we proceed. However, if they are found equidistant between the two, then they go to the coins which are treated with greater stringency. In essence, this mishnah becomes a statement about which of two items is “more important” or at least which has to be dealt with with greater stringency.",
+ "Coins which were found between the [chest inscribed] “shekels” and the [chests inscribed] “freewill-offerings: Nearer to [the chest inscribed] “shekels”, they go to the shekels; [Nearer to the chests inscribed] “freewill-offerings”, they go to freewill-offerings; Half way in between, they go to freewill-offerings. In this case “freewill offerings” is more stringent since these coins go to purchase burnt offerings. Therefore, only if the coins fall closer to the “shekalim” chest, whose shekels are used for various purposes (see above 4:1-2), are the coins considered “shekalim.”",
+ "[Coins which were found] between [the chest inscribed] “wood” and [the chest inscribed] “frankincense”: Nearer to [the chest inscribed] “wood”, they go to the wood; [Nearer to the chest inscribed] “frankincense”, they go to frankincense; Half way in between, they go to frankincense. “Frankincense” is considered more stringent, or in this case important, than “wood” because the frankincense is itself a type of sacrifice while the wood is only an instrument used to burn other sacrifices.",
+ "[Coins which were found] between [the chest inscribed] “bird-offerings” and [the chest inscribed] “young pigeons for burnt-offerings”: Nearer to [the chest inscribed] “bird-offerings” they go to bird-offerings; [Nearer to the chest inscribed] “young pigeons for burnt-offerings”, they go to young pigeons for burnt-offerings; Half way in between, they go to young pigeons for burnt-offerings. The chest for “young pigeons for burnt offerings” is considered more stringent because all of the money in this chest goes for burnt offerings. In contrast, the money in the chest inscribed with “bird offerings” goes partly for burnt offerings and partly for sin offerings, as was the opinion of the sages above in 6:5. Since only part goes for burnt offerings, money found halfway in between the two chests goes to the chest marked “young pigeons for burnt offerings.”",
+ "[Coins which were found] between non-sacred [money] and [second] tithes [money]: Nearer to the non-sacred [money], they go to common [money]; Nearer to the [second] tithes [money], they go to [second] tithes; Half way in between, they are considered [second] tithes. This section has nothing to do with the chests in the Temple. The mishnah is now beginning to expand the discussion to general cases of money whose status is doubtful. If one has a pile of money that is not sacred and a pile of money that is “second tithe”, meaning that it is money which was used to redeem second tithe produce, coins which are found in between the two piles go to whichever pile they are closer to. If they are halfway in between then they go to second tithe because the rules governing second tithe are more stringent it can be used only in Jerusalem and only to buy food products.",
+ "This is the general rule: the go to that which is nearer [even if this] is lenient; but if half way in between, [they must go] to that which is the more stringent. This is the general rule that governs all of the previous sections of the mishnah."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Introduction\nYesterday’s mishnah dealt with money found in between the money chests of the chamber in the Temple. This mishnah continues to deal with money found in various places, and with how to determine its status.",
+ "Money which was found in front of animal dealers [in Jerusalem], it is always [second] tithes [money]; The money that is derived from second tithes must be used to buy food products in Jerusalem. One common use of this money was to buy an animal and offer it as wellbeing offering. Most of the animals purchased in Jerusalem throughout the entire year, and not just at festival time, are purchased through second tithes money. Hence, if money is found in front of an animal dealer in Jerusalem we must be concerned lest it is second tithe money, and it therefore must be treated as if it is.",
+ "[If it was found] on the Temple Mount it is non-sacred [money]. Non-priests who come to the Temple Mount do not generally bring money with them, therefore this money can be assumed to have come from a priest or Levite while they were working there and not from one of the pilgrims during a festival. This money is considered to be non-sacred even during a festival. Although people do bring second tithe money to Jerusalem, they don’t generally bring it to the Temple Mount.",
+ "[If it was found] in Jerusalem during the time of a festival, it is [second] tithes [money]. Money found anywhere in Jerusalem (except for the Temple Mount) during a festival is deemed to be second tithe money because most of the money that people bring with them on their pilgrimage is second tithe money. Since Jerusalem is full of pilgrims at this time of year it can be assumed that the money is not from the smaller number of residents.",
+ "But all the rest of the year it is non-sacred [money]. During the rest of the year it can be assumed that the money fell from one of the residents of Jerusalem and not from a pilgrim. Hence it is not deemed second tithe and it may be treated as non-sacred."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with meat found in various places and how a person should treat that meat do we assume that it comes from a sacrifice? Is it kosher?",
+ "Meat which was found in the Temple courtyard: Limbs: [they must be treated as belonging to] whole burnt-offerings; Pieces: [they must be treated as belonging to] sin-offerings. Burnt-offerings are cut up into limbs before they are brought up to the altar. Therefore, if one finds whole limbs in the Temple courtyard, one must assume that they belong to burnt-offerings. Sin-offerings are eaten by the priests and therefore they are cut up into pieces. If one finds a piece of meat in the Temple courtyard, he therefore must assume that it is a sin-offering.",
+ "[Meat which was found] in Jerusalem, [must be treated as belonging to] wellbeing-offerings. Wellbeing offerings can be eaten anywhere in Jerusalem. Therefore, if meat is found outside of the Temple but within Jerusalem, it must be treated as if it was a wellbeing offering.",
+ "In both cases it must be left to become disqualified and must then go out to the place of burning. In all of the cases in the above two sections, the meat cannot be eaten lest it is impure or “remnant” sacrificial meat which should have already been eaten. It also cannot be burned lest it be fully pure and not remnant and it is prohibited to burn sacrificial meat which can be eaten. What they must do is wait until the meat becomes disqualified from being eaten, one day and night for a sin-offering and two days and one nigh for a wellbeing offering. Then it may be burned outside of the Temple where they burn disqualified meat.",
+ "[Meat which was] found within the borders [of Israel but outside of Jerusalem]: Limbs: [they must be treated as] carrion; Pieces: they are permitted. But [if found] during the time of a festival, when meat is abundant, it is permitted [to eat it] even when cut up in limbs. If it is found outside of Jerusalem, then it is not assumed to be sacrificial meat. If it is in limbs, meaning not cut into proper pieces, then it must be assumed that the animal was not slaughtered properly and that the owner intended to cast the meat to the dogs. This meat cannot be eaten. If it is cut into pieces than we can assume that the meat is kosher, because people don’t bother cutting the meat into proper pieces if it cannot be eaten. However, in the time of the festival when many people eat meat and meat is in abundance even found limbs may be eaten. They may have come from a kosher animal and someone may have had just so much meat that they didn’t bother to cut it properly."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with beasts (cattle) found in proximity to Jerusalem. Since many animals around Jerusalem may be escaped sacrifices (probably lost, but escaped sounds more interesting) we must treat them as if they were sacrifices.",
+ "Beasts which were found in Jerusalem as far as Migdal Eder and within the same distance in any direction: The exact location of Migdal Eder is no longer known. It is mentioned in Genesis 35:21 and in Micah 4:8. It is very close to Jerusalem.",
+ "Males are [considered as] burnt-offerings; Males found in this area are treated as burnt-offerings. This is the most stringent of the offerings that the male animal might be. It is also true that the majority of male animals are burnt-offerings. The Talmud Yerushalmi explains that there was a special decree in Jerusalem that all lost male animals are to be treated as burnt offerings.",
+ "Females are [considered as] peace-offerings. Female animals are treated as peace-offerings, since they cannot be offered as burnt offerings. Most female animals in Jerusalem are peace-offerings which were purchased with second tithe money (see above mishnayot 2-3).",
+ "Rabbi Judah says: that which is fit for a pesach offering, is [considered as] a pesach-offerings [when found] within thirty days before the pilgrimage [of Pesach]. Rabbi Judah explains that if the animal was fit to be a pesah offering, that is it is a year-old goat or sheep, and it is found within thirty days before Pesah, it is to be treated as a pesah offering. Thirty days is the period of time before Pesah in which the sages began to teach the laws of Pesah and hence at this time people began to set aside animals for use as a pesah offering. One who finds such an animal may use it as his own personal pesah sacrifice. If the owners come and claim the animal, then he must pay them its value but he may keep the animal."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Introduction\nThis mishnah is a direct continuation of yesterday’s.",
+ "In olden times they used to take a pledge from any one who had found such a [stray] animal, until he brought its libation-offerings. Then people would leave the animal and run away. So the court decreed that its libation-offerings should come from public funds. In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that one who finds an animal in close proximity to Jerusalem must treat it as if it were a sacrifice, usually either a burnt offering or a wellbeing offering. These sacrifices also require libations to be brought with them (oil, grain and wine, see above 5:3). At first they used to force the people who found the animals to bring the libations as well. They would enforce this by taking collateral from those who found the animal and holding on to the collateral until they brought the necessary libations. This caused a problem people would leave the animal and run away rather than admit that they had found an animal near Jerusalem. Therefore, the court decreed that the libations should come from public money. We should note that the mishnah has an interesting approach to that which people might be expected to do. It does not expect that people will take the animal home and treat it as if it was theirs. In other words, the Mishnah expects that people will do the right thing and admit that they found the animal near Jerusalem. However, people will not do the “right thing” if by doing so they will have to pay money out of their own pocket. Note again, the people leave the animal and run away they do not take it for themselves. People seem to respect the fact that this animal might indeed be a sacrifice but they are not willing to go broke in dealing with it."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Introduction\nAccording to Rabbi Shimon, the decree of the court that appeared at the end of yesterday’s mishnah was one of seven things that the court decreed. The first two are similar to the decree mentioned yesterday.",
+ "Rabbi Shimon said: there were seven things that the court decree and that was one of them. [The others were the following:]
A non-Jew who sent a burnt-offering from overseas and he sent with it its libation-offerings, they are offered out of his own; But if [he did] not [send its libation-offerings], they should be offered out of public funds. If a non-Jew sent a sacrifice from overseas and he sent with it the proper libation offerings or money with which to purchase these offerings, then the libations are offered from what he sent. However, if he didn’t send the libation offerings, and it is difficult to reach him in order to ask him to do so, the libations are made with public funds. If this was a Jew who had sent an offering from overseas, evidently they would chase after him and not offer the sacrifice until he had sent the libations, or money to cover the costs. We should also note that the idea of gentiles sending sacrifices to the Temple in Jerusalem is an interesting phenomenon, and one that is described in other places. These may have been admirers of Jews, or perhaps pluralistic idol-worshippers who wished to “cover all of their bets” and therefore offered sacrifices to all sorts of Gods, including the God of the Jews.",
+ "So too [in the case of] a convert who had died and left sacrifices, if he had also left its libation-offerings they are offered out of his own; But if not, they should be offered out of public funds. When a convert dies and does not have any subsequent children, he/she dies without any heirs. In other words, his relatives from before he converted do not inherit his estate. If he dies and he leaves a sacrifice and libations, then the libations are offered with the sacrifice. However, if he doesn’t leave money for the libations, the libations are provided for by public funds. If the person who died had inheritors, as do all Jews, then the inheritors are liable to provide the funds for the libations.",
+ "It was also a condition laid down by the court in the case of a high priest who had died that his minhah should be offered out of public funds. Rabbi Judah says: [it was offered out] of the property of his heirs, And had to be offered of the whole [tenth]. The High Priest offers a daily minhah (grain) sacrifice of a tenth of an ephah (see Leviticus 6:13), half in the morning and half in the night. If the High Priest dies and they have not yet appointed a new High Priest to take his place, this grain offering is provided for by public funds. Rabbi Judah disagrees and holds that the offering comes from the money that the High Priest’s inheritors get from him. Both Rabbi Judah and the other sages agree that in this case an entire ephah is sacrificed in the morning and evening, instead of the usual half-ephah. This is discussed in greater depth in Mishnah Menahot 4:5."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Introduction\nThis mishnah contains the final three of the seven decrees mentioned by Rabbi Shimon in yesterday’s mishnah.",
+ "[They further decreed] concerning the salt and the wood that the priests may benefit from them. The court decreed that salt and wood which had been donated to the Temple could be used by the priests to salt and cook the sacrificial meat. However, they could not use this salt or wood to salt or cook non-sacrificial meat.",
+ "And concerning the [red] heifer that using its ashes is not considered sacrilege. The red heifer, used in the ritual to purify people from corpse-impurity, was paid for by the shekels collected in the chamber (see above 4:2). Furthermore, the heifer is called a “sin-offering” in Numbers 19:9. Nevertheless, one who makes non-sacred use of this heifer’s ashes has not committed sacrilege (illicit use of sacred property). The ashes are not considered to be like the sin-offering, only the live animal is, and therefore only one who makes illicit use of the live cow itself has committed sacrilege.",
+ "And concerning bird-offerings which had become unfit [for sacrifice], that [others] should be offered [in their place] out of public funds. Rabbi Yose says: the one who supplied the bird-offerings was bound to supply [those which had to be offered in the place of] those which had become unfit. The last decree of the court was that if bird offerings purchased with public funds (see above 6:5) should become unfit for sacrifice, their replacements should come from public funds as well. Rabbi Yose holds that the merchant who supplied the birds is obligated to supply replacements. It’s not that it is the merchant’s fault that they became unfit. Rather, the Temple had an agreement with him that if the birds become unfit, he would supply a replacement."
+ ]
+ ],
+ [
+ [
+ "Introduction\nThis mishnah continues to deal with scenarios in which we determine the status of something based on a majority, a topic which we began discussing in the beginning of chapter seven.\nThe specific topic is spit found in the streets of Jerusalem. If such spit comes from an impure person than the spit is unclean.",
+ "Any spit found in Jerusalem is clean except that which is [found] in the upper market, the words of Rabbi Meir. According to Rabbi Meir, we can assume that all spit found in Jerusalem is clean except spit found in the upper marketplace. In most areas people who are unclean are extra cautious since they know that in Jerusalem people need to be extra careful about issues of purity and impurity. This is because in Jerusalem many people eat sacred food, which needs to be eaten in purity. In contrast, outside of Jerusalem we must be concerned lest the spit is unclean. The only exception within Jerusalem is the upper market, towards the southwest of Jerusalem, where non-Jews and unclean persons used to congregate. There, found spit is considered to be unclean.",
+ "Rabbi Yose says: at other times of the year [spit found] in the middle [of the road] is unclean but [spit found] at the sides [of the road] is clean; but at festivals time [spit found] in the middle [of the road] is clean, while [that which is found] at the sides [of the road] is unclean, since they are few in number, they remove themselves to the sides of the road. Rabbi Yose distinguishes between times of the year and places in the road in his determining whether we must consider the spit to be unclean. During non-festival times, most of the people of Jerusalem are impure, just as they are in other cities. At these times the pure people walk on the sides of the road to avoid the impure people who are walking in the middle of the road. Hence, spit found in the middle of the road is impure whereas spit found on the sides is pure. The opposite is true during the time of the festivals, when most people are pure. They walk in the middle of the road and the impure people walk on the sides of the road (this seems quite courteous of theme). Hence, only spit found on the sides of the road is considered impure."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Introduction\nYesterday’s mishnah dealt with the purity of spit found in Jerusalem; today’s mishnah deals with the purity of vessels found in Jerusalem.",
+ "All vessels found in Jerusalem on the way going down to the place of immersion are unclean, [but those found] on the way going up [from the place of immersion] are clean; for the way down is not the same as the way up, the words of Rabbi Meir. The place of immersion was a place below the Temple Mount where people could go to immerse themselves and their vessels (you can visit there today and still see many mikvaot). According to Rabbi Meir, there was one path to go down and a different path to go up. Furthermore, they would also carry the vessels down in a different way than they would carry them up. Hence, it was possible to distinguish between a vessel making its way down and one making its way up. Obviously, one making its way down is assumed to be unclean and one making its way back up to the Temple Mount was assumed to be clean.",
+ "Rabbi Yose says: they are all clean, except the basket and the shovel or pick which are specially connected with [work in] cemeteries. Rabbi Yose says that in Jerusalem people are extra careful to make sure that they don’t leave unclean vessels lying in the streets. Therefore all vessels are unclean except for vessels which were most likely to have been used in cemeteries. The basket referred to here was one in which bones were put into and moved to an ossuary. The shovel was used to collect them and the pick was used to dig graves. Since these almost certainly came into contact with a corpse or with bones, they have to be assumed to be unclean."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with a knife found in Jerusalem around the time of Pesah when many people will need to slaughter their pesach sacrifices. The question is: can he rely on the fact that the knife is pure or must he immerse it before he slaughters with it?",
+ "A [slaughtering] knife which was found on the fourteenth [of Nisan] he may slaughter with it immediately. [If it was found] on the thirteenth [of Nisan] he must immerse it again. If the slaughtering knife is found on the fourteenth of Nisan, he may use it to slaughter his pesah immediately, without bringing it to be immersed. In this case we assume that its owners immersed it on the thirteenth, knowing that it would need to be pure the following day, the day on which the pesah is slaughtered. However, if it was found on the thirteenth we must assume that it has not yet been immersed and therefore is unclean. Even though we established in the previous mishnah that all vessels (which includes knives) are assumed to be pure, when it comes to a vessel which will be used with a sacrifice we must be more stringent.",
+ "But a chopping knife whether [found] on the fourteenth or on the thirteenth, he must immerse it again. If the fourteenth fell on Shabbat, he may slaughter with it immediately. [If found] on the fifteenth, he may slaughter with it immediately. The knife described here is not used for slaughtering but for cutting meat and bones of an already slaughtered animal. The mishnah uses the word “slaughter” with regard to this knife as well, but the intention is not slaughter but to chop. This type of knife will be used during the festival, already on the fifteenth, but it will not be used on the fourteenth. Since we cannot assume that this type of knife was immersed on the thirteenth of Nisan, it must be immersed on the fourteenth in order to use it on the fifteenth and during the remainder festival. If it was found on the fourteenth of Nisan which fell on Shabbat, then we can assume that it was immersed on the thirteenth because it is forbidden to immerse vessels on Shabbat. They would have immersed it on the thirteenth so that they could use it to chop meat and bones on the fifteenth and during the remainder of the festival. If he found it on the fifteenth, he can assume that it was immersed on the fourteenth. Therefore he may use it without immersing it again.",
+ "If [the chopping knife] was found tied to a [slaughtering] knife it may be treated as the knife. Finally, if he finds the chopping knife tied to the slaughtering knife, he should treat the chopping knife the same way he treats the slaughtering knife."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Introduction This mishnah discusses the impurity of the curtain which separated the Holy of Holies from the remainder of the Temple.",
+ "If the curtain [separating the Holy of Holies from the rest of the Temple] was defiled by a derived uncleanness, they immerse it within [the precincts of the Temple] and they bring it back in again. This section discusses a case where the curtain (parochet) was made unclean by a “derived uncleanness”. This term refers to something that has become unclean by virtue of its contact with something that is a “principal uncleanness”. From the Torah (deoraita), only liquids which come into contact with “derived uncleanness” are made unclean. “Derived uncleannesses” do not cause things or people to become unclean. Therefore, the curtain in this case has been made impure with only a low level of impurity, one that is considered to be “derabbanan” of rabbinic origin. The rabbis nevertheless required that it be immersed but they allowed it to be immersed in the mikveh (ritual pool) that was in the precincts of the Temple. Furthermore, it could be brought back again immediately. If it had contracted “deoraita” toraitic impurity, it could not be used again until nightfall, as we shall see in the next clause.",
+ "But if it was defiled by a principal uncleanness, they immerse it outside and spread out in the Hel. If it was new it was spread out on the roof of the colonnade, so that the people might behold its workmanship which is beautiful. If it came into contact with a principal uncleanness, for instance a zav or zavah (people with unusual genital discharge), or with a sheretz (a creeping animal) then it must be taken out of the Temple to be immersed. There in an area known as the “Hel”, which was inside the gates of the outer walls but outside the “Ezrat Nashim” (the women’s courtyard) it is let out to dry. If the curtain was new, they would spread it out in a place where people could see it from far off for it was very beautiful. In its normal place, right in front of the Holy of Holies, few people would have the chance to see this magnificent work."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Introduction\nThis mishnah describes the curtain in all of its glory. Interestingly, Josephus (Wars of the Jews, Book V, Chapter Five, four) also describes the curtain in exceedingly glorious terms. He writes:\n“But then this house, as it was divided into two parts, the inner part was lower than the appearance of the outer, and had golden doors of fifty-five cubits altitude, and sixteen in breadth; but before these doors there was a veil of equal largeness with the doors. It was a Babylonian curtain, embroidered with blue, and fine linen, and scarlet, and purple, and of a contexture that was truly wonderful. Nor was this mixture of colors without its mystical interpretation, but was a kind of image of the universe; for by the scarlet there seemed to be enigmatically signified fire, by the fine flax the earth, by the blue the air, and by the purple the sea; two of them having their colors the foundation of this resemblance; but the fine flax and the purple have their own origin for that foundation, the earth producing the one, and the sea the other. This curtain had also embroidered upon it all that was mystical in the heavens, excepting that of the [twelve] signs, representing living creatures.”",
+ "Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says in the name of Rabbi Shimon the son of the chief [of the priests]: the curtain was a handbreadth in thickness and was woven on seventy-two cords, and on each cord there were twenty-four threads. Obviously the curtain was simply a tremendous piece of work. There is a description of the Tabernacle’s curtain in Exodus 26:1. There we learn that it is made of four types of thread: blue, purple, scarlet and fine linen (see also Josephus above). Each type had six strings, which means that there were twenty-four threads on each cord.",
+ "It was forty cubits long and twenty cubits broad, and was made by eighty-two young girls. The entrance to the hall of the Temple which this curtain hung in front of was forty cubits long and twenty cubits broad. It took 82 young girls to weave the curtain. We should note that this explanation is according to a certain version of the text. According to another textual reading, the curtain was made up of 820,000 strings.",
+ "Two curtains were made every year, and three hundred priests were needed to immerse it. According to the Tosefta’s explanation of this clause, there were two curtains in the Temple, one spread out to cover the doors and one folded up. If the spread out one became impure they would spread out the folded up one and purify the other (see yesterday’s mishnah). On the eve of Yom Kippur they would bring in a new curtain and take out the old one. Because of its great thickness and weight, it required three hundred priests to immerse the curtain outside of the Temple and to spread it out in the Hel (see yesterday’s mishnah). The Talmud admits that three hundred may be an exaggeration, but it still lets us know what a massive undertaking this must have been."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Introduction\nThis mishnah discusses “most holy” sacrifices such as burnt-offerings, guilt offerings or sin offerings which were defiled either within the Temple or outside of it. That these sacrifices must be burnt is clear and agreed to by all. However, Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel disagree whether the sacrifice is burned inside or outside of the Temple.",
+ "Meat of most holy things which was defiled, whether by a principal uncleanness or by a derived uncleanness, whether inside or outside [the precincts of the temple]:
Bet Shammai say: it must all be burnt within, except when defiled outside by a principal uncleanness. According to Bet Shammai all of these unclean sacrifices must be burned within the Temple precincts, in the place within the courtyard where the ashes were placed (called the “Place of the Ashes”). The only exception is a sacrifice which was defiled by a principal uncleanness while it was outside of the Temple. Since this sacrifice acquired a more serious form of uncleanness it is not brought into the Temple. However, if it had only become unclean through contact with a derived uncleanness, it is brought in and burned in the Temple.",
+ "But Bet Hillel say: it must all be burnt outside, except that which was defiled by a derived uncleanness within. Bet Hillel hold that all of these sacrifices are burned outside of the Temple. Anything that was made unclean outside the Temple is not brought inside. Furthermore, they hold that if it came into contact with a serious form of uncleanness within the Temple, it must be brought out and burned outside of the Temple. The only exception to their rule is that if one of the “most holy” sacrifices became impure with a light form of purity within the Temple, it need not be removed and may be burned within the Temple."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Introduction\nThis mishnah continues the topic begun in yesterday’s mishnah sacrificial “holy of holies” meat which became unclean either within or outside the Temple.",
+ "Rabbi Eliezer says: [Sacrificial meat] which was defiled by a principal uncleanness, whether inside or outside [the Temple precincts], must be burned outside [the Temple]. [Sacrificial meat] which was defiled with a derived uncleanness whether inside or outside the Temple, is burned inside the Temple. According to Rabbi Eliezer, the operative distinction is only the level of uncleanness of the sacrifice. If it has a high level of uncleanness it must be burned outside the Temple. This is in order to distance seriously unclean things from the Temple. However, if its uncleanness is of a lower level then it may be burned within the Temple, even if it became unclean outside of the Temple.",
+ "Rabbi Akiva says: where it was defiled there it is burned. According to Rabbi Akiva the operative distinction is where the meat became unclean. In order to expedite burning the unclean sacrifice, it should be burned wherever the the impurity was incurred."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Introduction\nThe first half of this last mishnah teaches where the limbs of certain sacrificial animals were placed before they were burned on the altar. We should note that it is quite uncertain as to why this mishnah is placed here.\nThe second half teaches that the laws of shekels and first fruits were only in force when the Temple in Jerusalem still stood.",
+ "The limbs of the daily burnt-offering were placed on the half of the ramp [to the altar] downwards on the west side. On the southern side of the altar there was a ramp, 32 cubits long and 16 cubits wide. When the priests would bring the sacrifices up to the altar, they would not bring them all up at once. Rather they would bring them half way up, place them on the west side of the altar, go back down, read the shema and then they would bring them all the way up to the top of the altar.",
+ "Those of the additional offering ( were placed on the half of the ramp downwards on the east side. The limbs of the additional offering were placed on the east side so as not to confuse them with those of the daily offerings.",
+ "While those of the new moon offerings were placed on top of the rim of the altar. Again, in order to distinguish between the different sacrifices, they put the limbs of the new moon offerings on a rim that went around the altar, instead of on the ramp.",
+ "[The laws of] the shekels and of the first-fruit are in force only when the Temple stands, but [the laws of] the tithe of grain and of the tithe of cattle and of the firstborn are in force both when the Temple exists and when the Temple does not exist. The first fruits (bikkurim) and the shekels must be brought to the Temple. Hence, when the Temple no longer stands, these laws are no longer in force. In contrast, tithes of grain, cattle and the first-born of animals are given to priests and Levites and hence these laws remain in force even when the Temple no longer stands. The cattle tithe and first-born animals cannot be eaten immediately. Rather they wait until the animal becomes somehow flawed and thereby unfit for sacrifice. Then it may be eaten. We should note that according to the Talmud, the rabbis said that the laws of animal tithes are no longer in force, lest someone eats them before they become flawed.",
+ "One who dedicates shekels or first-fruits [when the Temple does not exist], they are holy. Rabbi Shimon says: one who says “the first-fruit be holy,” they are not holy. This section deals with someone who dedicates shekels or first fruits to the Temple at a time when the Temple no longer stands. According to the first opinion, the shekels or first-fruits are holy. They therefore both become prohibited for common usage. The shekels must be buried and the fruits are left until they rot. Alternatively, they may be thrown into the Dead Sea or some other place where no one will derive any benefit from them. Rabbi Shimon holds that since the Temple no longer stands, he can’t even dedicate the first fruits to the Temple. His statement is therefore meaningless. Congratulations! We have finished Shekalim. It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us to finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. Shekalim is a tractate dedicated to the financial operation of the Temple in Jerusalem. It is interesting that the Mishnah sees this subject as being as worthy of study as any other topic, including the holidays, Shabbat, marital law etc. The financial support of the Temple is a commandment, one to be fulfilled properly and with a sense of its great import. Indeed, by financially supporting the Temple, Jews throughout the world were able to participate in its services. I am not USCJ’s fundraiser, but I would be amiss if I did not use this brief opportunity to thank those who support the Mishnah Yomit project and the other projects of the USCJ. May you continue to show your support by learning and by continuing to help others to learn as well. Most importantly, congratulations on learning another tractate of Mishnah. May you have the strength and time to keep on learning more! Tomorrow we begin Yoma."
+ ]
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ "versions": [
+ [
+ "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp",
+ "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/"
+ ]
+ ],
+ "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה שקלים",
+ "categories": [
+ "Mishnah",
+ "Modern Commentary on Mishnah",
+ "English Explanation of Mishnah",
+ "Seder Moed"
+ ],
+ "schema": {
+ "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה שקלים",
+ "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Shekalim",
+ "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Shekalim",
+ "nodes": [
+ {
+ "heTitle": "הקדמה",
+ "enTitle": "Introduction"
+ },
+ {
+ "heTitle": "",
+ "enTitle": ""
+ }
+ ]
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file