Ketubot 106

האי עשה והאי עשה עשה דכבוד תורה עדיף סלקיה לדינא דיתמי ואחתיה לדיניה כיון דחזא בעל דיניה יקרא דקא עביד ליה איסתתם טענתיה

This is a positive mitzva, for judges to judge cases properly, and this is a positive mitzva, to honor Torah scholars and their families. Rav Naḥman concluded that the positive mitzva of giving honor to the Torah takes precedence. Therefore, he put aside the case of the orphans and settled down to judge the case of that man, under the mistaken assumption that he was a relative of Rav Anan. Once the other litigant saw the honor being accorded to that man by the judge, he grew nervous until his mouth, i.e., his ability to argue his claim, became closed, and he lost the case. In this manner, justice was perverted by Rav Anan, albeit unwittingly and indirectly.

רב ענן הוה רגיל אליהו דאתי גביה דהוה מתני ליה סדר דאליהו כיון דעבד הכי איסתלק יתיב בתעניתא ובעא רחמי ואתא כי אתא הוה מבעית ליה בעותי

Elijah the Prophet was accustomed to come and visit Rav Anan, as the prophet was teaching him the statements that would later be recorded in the volume Seder deEliyahu, the Order of Elijah. Once Rav Anan did this and caused a miscarriage of justice, Elijah departed. Rav Anan sat in observance of a fast and prayed for mercy, and Elijah came back. However, when Elijah came after that, he would scare him, as he would appear in frightening forms.

ועבד תיבותא ויתיב קמיה עד דאפיק ליה סידריה והיינו דאמרי סדר דאליהו רבה סדר אליהו זוטא

And Rav Anan made a box where he settled himself down and he sat before Elijah until he took out for him, i.e., taught him, all of his Seder. And this is what the Sages mean when they say: Seder deEliyahu Rabba, the Major Order of Elijah, and Seder Eliyahu Zuta, the Minor Order of Elijah, as the first order was taught prior to this incident and the second came after it.

בשני דרב יוסף הוה ריתחא אמרי ליה רבנן לרב יוסף ליבעי מר רחמי אמר להו השתא ומה אלישע דכי הוו רבנן מיפטרי מקמיה הוו פיישי תרי אלפן ומאתן רבנן בעידן ריתחא לא הוה בעי רחמי אנא איבעי רחמי

§ The Gemara relates: In the years of Rav Yosef there was a divine anger, manifested by world hunger. The Sages said to Rav Yosef: Let the Master pray for mercy concerning this decree. He said to them: Now, if in the case of the prophet Elisha, when the Sages would take their leave of him, 2,200 Sages would remain behind whom he would support from his own pocket, and yet he would not pray for mercy at a time of divine anger and famine, should I pray for mercy?

וממאי דפיישי הכי דכתיב ויאמר משרתו מה אתן זה לפני מאה איש מאי לפני מאה איש אילימא דכולהו לפני מאה איש בשני בצורת טובא הוו אלא דכל חד וחד קמי מאה איש

The Gemara asks: And from where is it derived that this number of scholars would remain behind with Elisha? As it is written: “And his servant said: How should I set this before a hundred men” (II Kings 4:43). What is the meaning of “before a hundred men”? If we say that all of the gifts that he had received, i.e., the first fruits, twenty loaves of barley, and fresh ears of corn mentioned in the preceding verse, were meant to be placed before one hundred men, in years of drought and famine this was a good deal of food, which would have sufficed for them. Rather, it must mean that each and every one of the loaves was to be placed before one hundred men. Since he had twenty loaves plus two meals of first-fruits and ears of corn, there must have been 2,200 people present.

כי הוו מיפטרי רבנן מבי רב הוו פיישי אלפא ומאתן רבנן מבי רב הונא הוו פיישי תמני מאה רבנן רב הונא הוה דריש בתליסר אמוראי כי הוו קיימי רבנן ממתיבתא דרב הונא ונפצי גלימייהו הוה סליק אבקא וכסי ליה ליומא ואמרי במערבא קמו ליה ממתיבתא דרב הונא בבלאה

§ Incidentally, the Gemara relates: When the Sages would take their leave from the school of Rav, 1,200 Sages would remain behind to continue their studies. When the Sages would take their leave from the school of Rav Huna, eight hundred Sages would remain behind. Rav Huna would expound the lesson by means of thirteen speakers, who would repeat his statements to the crowds that had gathered to hear him. When the Sages would arise from listening to lectures in the yeshiva of Rav Huna and dust off their cloaks, the dust would rise and block out the sun, forming a dust cloud that could be seen from afar. And they would say in the West, in Eretz Yisrael: The scholars have just arisen in the yeshiva of Rav Huna the Babylonian.

כי מיפטרי רבנן מבי רבה ורב יוסף הוו פיישי ארבע מאה רבנן וקרו לנפשייהו יתמי כי הוו מיפטרי רבנן מבי אביי ואמרי לה מבי רב פפא ואמרי לה מבי רב אשי הוו פיישי מאתן רבנן וקרו נפשייהו יתמי דיתמי

When the Sages would take their leave from the school of Rabba and Rav Yosef, four hundred Sages would remain behind, and they would refer to themselves as orphans, as they were the only ones left from the entire crowd. When the Sages would take their leave from the school of Abaye, and some say from the school of Rav Pappa, and some say from the school of Rav Ashi, two hundred scholars would remain behind, and they would refer to themselves as orphans of orphans.

אמר רבי יצחק בר רדיפא אמר רבי אמי מבקרי מומין שבירושלים היו נוטלין שכרן מתרומת הלשכה אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל תלמידי חכמים המלמדין הלכות שחיטה לכהנים היו נוטלין שכרן מתרומת הלשכה

§ The Gemara returns to the issue of those who receive their wages from public funds. Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Redifa said that Rabbi Ami said: Inspectors of blemishes of consecrated animals in Jerusalem, who would examine all animals brought to be sacrificed in the Temple to verify that they were free of any blemishes that would disqualify them from being sacrificed on the altar, would take their wages from the collection of the Temple treasury chamber. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Torah scholars who teach the halakhot of slaughter to the priests of the Temple would take their wages from the collection of the chamber.

אמר רב גידל אמר רב תלמידי חכמים המלמדים הלכות קמיצה לכהנים נוטלין שכרן מתרומת הלשכה אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן מגיהי ספרים שבירושלים היו נוטלין שכרן מתרומת הלשכה

Rav Giddel said that Rav said: Torah scholars who teach the halakhot of the removal of a handful to the priests would take their wages from the collection of the chamber. All these scholars were constantly engaged in work necessary for the functioning of the Temple, and therefore they would receive their wages from the Temple treasury. Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The proofreaders of the Torah scrolls in Jerusalem would take their wages from the collection of the chamber.

אמר רב נחמן אמר רב נשים האורגות בפרכות נוטלות שכרן מתרומת הלשכה ואני אומר מקדשי בדק הבית הואיל ופרכות תחת בנין עשויות

Rav Naḥman said that Rav said: The women who weave the curtains that separate the Temple Sanctuary from the Holy of Holies would take their wages from the collection of the chamber. Rav Naḥman added: But I say that they would not be paid from the collection of the chamber; rather, their salary would come from the funds consecrated for Temple maintenance. Why? Since the curtains served in place of the solid construction of the building, they were part of the Temple itself. Therefore, any work performed for the curtains should be paid for from money allocated for building purposes, not from the funds collected to pay for offerings and the daily needs of the Temple.

מיתיבי נשים האורגות בפרכות ובית גרמו על מעשה לחם הפנים ובית אבטינס על מעשה הקטרת כולן היו נוטלות שכרן מתרומת הלשכה

The Gemara raises an objection to this: The women who weave the curtains, and the house of Garmu, who were in charge of the preparation of the shewbread, and the house of Avtinas, who were in charge of the preparation of the incense, all would take their wages from the collection of the chamber. This contradicts Rav Naḥman’s claim.

התם בדבבי דאמר רבי זירא אמר רב שלשה עשר פרכות היו במקדש שני שבעה כנגד שבעה שערים אחד לפתחו של היכל ואחד לפתחו של אולם שנים בדביר שנים כנגדן בעליה

The Gemara answers: There, it is referring to the curtains of the gates, which were not considered part of the actual Temple building but were decorative in purpose. As Rabbi Zeira said that Rav said: There were thirteen curtains in the Second Temple, seven opposite, i.e., on the inside of, seven gates, one at the entrance to the Sanctuary, one at the entrance to the Entrance Hall, two additional curtains within the partition, in the Holy of Holies in place of the one-cubit partition, and two corresponding to them above in the upper chamber.

תנו רבנן נשים המגדלות בניהן לפרה היו נוטלות שכרן מתרומת הלשכה אבא שאול אומר נשים יקרות שבירושלים היו זנות אותן ומפרנסות אותן

The Sages taught: With regard to the women who raise their children for the red heifer, i.e., who would raise their children in special places so that they would live their entire lives up to that point in a state of ritual purity, enabling them to draw the water for the purposes of the ritual of the red heifer, these women would take their wages from the collection of the chamber. Abba Shaul said: Their wages would not come from the collection of the chamber. Instead, wealthy and prominent women of Jerusalem would sustain them and provide them with a livelihood.

בעא מיניה רב הונא מרב

Rav Huna raised a dilemma before Rav:

כלי שרת מהו שיעשו מקדשי בדק הבית צורך מזבח נינהו ומקדשי בדק הבית אתו או צורך קרבן נינהו ומתרומת הלשכה היו עושין אותן אמר ליה אין נעשין אלא מתרומת הלשכה

Concerning Temple service vessels, what is the halakha with regard to the possibility that they may be prepared by using money consecrated for Temple maintenance? The Gemara explains the two sides of the dilemma: Are they requirements of the altar, and therefore they came from money consecrated for Temple maintenance, or are they requirements of offerings, and therefore they were prepared from the collection of the Temple treasury chamber? Rav said to him: They are prepared only from the collection of the chamber.

איתיביה וככלותם הביאו לפני המלך ויהוידע (הכהן) את שאר הכסף ויעשהו כלים לבית ה׳ כלי שרת וגו׳

Rav Huna raised an objection to this from a verse that deals with those in charge of maintaining the Temple structure: “And when they had made an end, they brought the rest of the money before the king and Jehoiada, of which were made vessels for the house of the Lord, vessels with which to minister, and buckets, and pans, and vessels of gold and silver” (II Chronicles 24:14). This indicates that vessels may be prepared with money consecrated for Temple maintenance.

אמר ליה דאקרייך כתובי לא אקרייך נביאי אך לא יעשה בית ה׳ ספות וגו׳ כי לעשי המלאכה יתנהו

Rav said to him: Whoever taught you the Writings did not teach you the Prophets, as you forgot about the parallel verse in the Prophets: “But there were not made for the house of the Lord cups of silver, snuffers, basins, trumpets, any vessels of gold, or vessels of silver, of the money that was brought into the house of the Lord; for they gave that to those who did the work” (II Kings 12:14–15). This verse proves that vessels were not prepared with the money donated for Temple maintenance.

אי הכי קשו קראי אהדדי לא קשיא כאן שגבו והותירו כאן שגבו ולא הותירו

The Gemara asks: If so, the verses contradict each other, as in one place it states that the Temple vessels may be funded with the money donated for Temple maintenance, while in the other verse it states that this money was used exclusively for those involved in the actual work of Temple maintenance. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult; here it is speaking of a case where they collected funds and there was money left over. These funds could be used for Temple vessels. Conversely, here, the verse is referring to a situation where they collected funds and there was nothing left over, and therefore all of the money was allocated to actual Temple maintenance.

וכי גבו והותירו מאי הוי אמר רבי אבהו לב בית דין מתנה עליהן אם הוצרכו הוצרכו ואם לאו יהו לכלי שרת

The Gemara asks: And if they collected money and there was some left over, what of it? After all, that money was consecrated for another purpose. If the Temple vessels could not be prepared with money consecrated for Temple maintenance, how were they able to use any of these funds for this purpose? Rabbi Abbahu said: The court initially sets a mental stipulation about the money collected: If it is required for Temple maintenance, it is required and is allocated accordingly, and if not, it will be used for the service vessels.

תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל כלי שרת באין מתרומת הלשכה שנאמר את שאר הכסף איזהו כסף שיש לו שיריים הוי אומר זה תרומת הלשכה

The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The funding for the service vessels of the Temple comes from the collection of the Temple treasury chamber, as it is stated: “The rest of the money” (II Chronicles 24:14). Which money has a remainder? You must say that this is referring to the collection of the chamber. After the money was brought into the chamber, a certain portion of it would be set aside for the requirements of the offerings, while the remainder was used for other purposes.

ואימא שיריים גופייהו כדאמר רבא העולה עולה ראשונה הכי נמי הכסף כסף ראשון

The Gemara asks: But one can say that the remainder itself was used for the Temple vessels, and the phrase “the rest of the money” does not refer to the funds of which there is a remainder, but to the remainder of the donations left in the chamber after the first collection was removed. The Gemara answers: This is as Rava said elsewhere, that the phrase “the burnt-offering” (Leviticus 6:5), with the definite article, is referring to the first burnt-offering; so too, the term “the money” (II Chronicles 24:14) is referring to the first money, i.e., the money removed from the collection of the chamber.

מיתיבי הקטורת וכל קרבנות צבור באין מתרומת הלשכה מזבח הזהב ולבונה וכלי שרת באין ממותר נסכים

The Gemara raises an objection from the following source: The funds for the incense and all communal offerings come from the collection of the Temple treasury chamber. The funds for the golden altar, located inside the Sanctuary and upon which the incense was offered, the frankincense, and the service vessels all come from the leftover money of the funds set aside for the libations.

מזבח העולה הלשכות והעזרות באין מקדשי בדק הבית חוץ לחומת העזרה באין משירי הלשכות זו היא ששנינו חומת העיר ומגדלותיה וכל צרכי העיר באין משירי הלשכה

The funds for the upkeep of the altar of burnt-offerings, which was located outside the Sanctuary and on which most offerings were burned, and for the chambers, and for the various courtyards, come from money consecrated for Temple maintenance. Funds for those matters that are outside the walls of the Temple courtyard come from the remainder of the chambers. And with regard to this we learned: The wall of the city, its towers, and all of the requirements of the city of Jerusalem likewise come from the remainder of the chamber. According to this source, the funds for the sacred vessels came from the leftover money of the funds set aside for the libations, not the collection of the Temple treasury chamber.

תנאי היא דתנן מותר תרומה מה היו עושין בה ריקועי זהב ציפוי לבית קדשי הקדשים רבי ישמעאל אומר מותר פירות לקיץ המזבח מותר תרומה לכלי שרת

The Gemara answers: It is a dispute between tanna’im, as we learned in a mishna (Shekalim 6a): What would they do with the leftover funds of the collection of shekels that had not been spent on communal offerings? They would purchase golden plates as a coating for the walls and floor of the Holy of Holies. Rabbi Yishmael says: There were different types of remainders in the Temple, each of which had separate regulations. The leftover produce was used to purchase the repletion [keitz] of the altar, i.e., burnt-offerings sacrificed when the altar would otherwise be idle. The leftover funds of the collection were used to purchase service vessels.

רבי עקיבא אומר מותר תרומה לקיץ המזבח מותר נסכים לכלי שרת רבי חנינא סגן הכהנים אומר מותר נסכים לקיץ המזבח מותר תרומה לכלי שרת וזה וזה לא היו מודים בפירות

Rabbi Akiva says: The leftover funds of the collection of shekels were used to purchase the animals for the repletion of the altar, as they had originally been collected for offerings. The leftover libations were used to purchase service vessels. Rabbi Ḥanina, the deputy High Priest, says: The leftover libations were used to purchase animals for the repletion of the altar, while the leftover funds of the collection of shekels were used to purchase service vessels. Both this Sage, Rabbi Akiva, and that Sage, Rabbi Ḥanina, did not agree with Rabbi Yishmael’s opinion with regard to the leftover produce.

פירות מאי היא דתניא מותר תרומה מה היו עושין בה לוקחין פירות בזול ומוכרין אותם ביוקר והשכר מקיצין בו את המזבח וזו היא ששנינו מותר פירות לקיץ המזבח

The Gemara asks: What is this produce? As it is taught in a baraita: What would they do with the leftover funds of the collection? They would use it to buy produce at a cheap price and subsequently sell that produce at an expensive price, and the profit earned from this trade would be used for the repletion of the altar. And with regard to this we learned: The leftover funds of produce were used to purchase the animals for the repletion of the altar.

מאי זה וזה לא היו מודין בפירות דתנן מותר שירי לשכה מה היו עושין בהן לוקחין בהן יינות שמנים וסלתות והשכר להקדש דברי רבי ישמעאל רבי עקיבא אומר אין משתכרין בשל הקדש אף לא בשל עניים

The Gemara asks: If so, what is the reason that both this Sage, Rabbi Akiva, and that Sage, Rabbi Ḥanina, did not agree with Rabbi Yishmael’s opinion with regard to the leftover produce? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Akiva is consistent with his opinion elsewhere, as we learned in a mishna (Shekalim 6a): What would they do with the leftover remainder of the chamber? They would purchase wine, oil, and fine flour and sell them to those who needed them for their private offerings. And the profit from these sales would go to consecrated property, i.e., to the Temple treasury. This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: One may not generate profit by selling consecrated property, nor may one profit from funds set aside for the poor.

בשל הקדש מאי טעמא לא אין עניות במקום עשירות בשל עניים מאי טעמא לא דלמא מתרמי להו עניא וליכא למיתבא ליה

The Gemara explains the reason for Rabbi Akiva’s ruling: What is the reason that one may not use consecrated property to generate a profit? It is because there is no poverty in a place of wealth, i.e., the Temple must always be run in a lavish manner. Therefore, one may not use Temple funds to generate small profits in the manner of paupers. What is the reason that one may not use funds set aside for the poor to make a profit? It is because perhaps one will encounter a poor person and there will be nothing to give him, as all of the money is invested in some business transaction.

מי שהלך למדינת הים איתמר רב אמר

§ The Gemara returns to the mishna, which deals with the case of one who went overseas and his wife is demanding sustenance. It was stated that amora’im debated the following issue. Rav said: