Ketubot 106
הַאי עֲשֵׂה וְהַאי עֲשֵׂה — עֲשֵׂה דִּכְבוֹד תּוֹרָה עֲדִיף. סַלְּקֵיהּ לְדִינָא דְּיַתְמֵי וְאַחֲתֵיהּ לְדִינֵיהּ, כֵּיוָן דַּחֲזָא בַּעַל דִּינֵיהּ יְקָרָא דְּקָא עָבֵיד לַיהּ, אִיסְתַּתֻּם טַעְנָתֵיהּ.
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.
רַב עָנָן הֲוָה רְגִיל אֵלִיָּהוּ דְּאָתֵי גַּבֵּיהּ, דַּהֲוָה מַתְנֵי לֵיהּ סֵדֶר דְּאֵלִיָּהוּ. כֵּיוָן דַּעֲבַד הָכִי, אִיסְתַּלַּק. יְתֵיב בְּתַעֲנִיתָא וּבְעָא רַחֲמֵי וַאֲתָא. כִּי אֲתָא, הֲוָה מְבַעֵית לֵיהּ בַּעוֹתֵי.
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.
וַעֲבַד תֵּיבוּתָא וִיתֵיב קַמֵּיהּ עַד דְּאַפֵּיק לֵיהּ סִידְרֵיהּ. וְהַיְינוּ דְּאָמְרִי: סֵדֶר דְּאֵלִיָּהוּ רַבָּה, סֵדֶר אֵלִיָּהוּ זוּטָא.
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.
בִּשְׁנֵי דְּרַב יוֹסֵף הֲוָה רִיתְחָא. אָמְרִי לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לְרַב יוֹסֵף: לִיבְעֵי מָר רַחֲמֵי. אֲמַר לְהוּ: הַשְׁתָּא וּמָה אֱלִישָׁע דְּכִי הֲווֹ רַבָּנַן מִיפַּטְרִי מִקַּמֵּיהּ, הֲווֹ פָּיְישִׁי תְּרֵי אַלְפֵי וּמָאתַן רַבָּנַן, בְּעִידָּן רִיתְחָא לָא הֲוָה בָּעֵי רַחֲמֵי, אֲנָא אֶיבְעֵי רַחֲמֵי?
§ 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?
וּמִמַּאי דְּפָיְישִׁי הָכִי? דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמֶר מְשָׁרְתוֹ מָה אֶתֵּן זֶה לִפְנֵי מֵאָה אִישׁ״. מַאי ״לִפְנֵי מֵאָה אִישׁ״? אִילֵימָא דְּכוּלְּהוּ, לִפְנֵי מֵאָה אִישׁ בִּשְׁנֵי בַצּוֹרֶת טוּבָא הֲווֹ! אֶלָּא דְּכֹל חַד וְחַד קַמֵּי מֵאָה אִישׁ.
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.
כִּי הֲווֹ מִיפַּטְרִי רַבָּנַן מִבֵּי רַב, הֲווֹ פָּיְישִׁי אַלְפָּא וּמָאתַן רַבָּנַן. מִבֵּי רַב הוּנָא, הֲווֹ פָּיְישִׁי תַּמְנֵי מְאָה רַבָּנַן. רַב הוּנָא הֲוָה דָּרֵישׁ בִּתְלֵיסַר אָמוֹרָאֵי. כִּי הֲווֹ קָיְימִי רַבָּנַן מִמְּתִיבְתָּא דְּרַב הוּנָא וְנָפְצִי גְּלִימַיְיהוּ הֲוָה סָלֵיק אַבְקָא וְכָסֵי לֵיהּ לְיוֹמָא, וְאָמְרִי בְּמַעְרְבָא: קָמוּ לֵיהּ מִמְּתִיבְתָּא דְּרַב הוּנָא בַּבְלָאָה.
§ 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.
כִּי מִיפַּטְרִי רַבָּנַן מִבֵּי רַבָּה וְרַב יוֹסֵף, הֲווֹ פָּיְישִׁי אַרְבַּע מְאָה רַבָּנַן, וְקָרוּ לְנַפְשַׁיְיהוּ: ״יַתְמֵי״. כִּי הֲווֹ מִיפַּטְרִי רַבָּנַן מִבֵּי אַבָּיֵי, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ מִבֵּי רַב פָּפָּא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ מִבֵּי רַב אָשֵׁי, הֲווֹ פָּיְישִׁי מָאתַן רַבָּנַן, וְקָרוּ נַפְשַׁיְיהוּ ״יַתְמֵי דְּיַתְמֵי״.
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.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר רְדִיפָא אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: מְבַקְּרֵי מוּמִין שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, הָיוּ נוֹטְלִין שְׂכָרָן מִתְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים הַמְלַמְּדִין הִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה לְכֹהֲנִים, הָיוּ נוֹטְלִין שְׂכָרָן מִתְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה.
§ 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.
אָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל אָמַר רַב: תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים הַמְלַמְּדִים הִלְכוֹת קְמִיצָה לַכֹּהֲנִים, נוֹטְלִין שְׂכָרָן מִתְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה. אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַגִּיהֵי סְפָרִים שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, הָיוּ נוֹטְלִין שְׂכָרָן מִתְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה.
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.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַב: נָשִׁים הָאוֹרְגוֹת בַּפָּרֹכוֹת, נוֹטְלוֹת שְׂכָרָן מִתְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה. וַאֲנִי אוֹמֵר, מִקׇּדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת. הוֹאִיל וּפָרֹכוֹת תַּחַת בִּנְיָן עֲשׂוּיוֹת.
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.
מֵיתִיבִי: נָשִׁים הָאוֹרְגוֹת בַּפָּרֹכוֹת, וּבֵית גַּרְמוּ עַל מַעֲשֵׂה לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים, וּבֵית אַבְטִינָס עַל מַעֲשֵׂה הַקְּטֹרֶת — כּוּלָּן הָיוּ נוֹטְלוֹת שְׂכָרָן מִתְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה!
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.
הָתָם בִּדְבָבֵי. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר רַב: שְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה פָּרֹכוֹת הָיוּ בְּמִקְדָּשׁ שֵׁנִי, שֶׁבַע כְּנֶגֶד שִׁבְעָה שְׁעָרִים, אַחַת לְפִתְחוֹ שֶׁל הֵיכָל, וְאַחַת לְפִתְחוֹ שֶׁל אוּלָם. שְׁתַּיִם בַּדְּבִיר, שְׁתַּיִם כְּנֶגְדָּן בָּעֲלִיָּה.
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.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: נָשִׁים הַמְגַדְּלוֹת בְּנֵיהֶן לַפָּרָה — הָיוּ נוֹטְלוֹת שְׂכָרָן מִתְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר: נָשִׁים יְקָרוֹת שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם הָיוּ זָנוֹת אוֹתָן וּמְפַרְנְסוֹת אוֹתָן.
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.
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַב הוּנָא מֵרַב:
Rav Huna raised a dilemma before Rav:
כְּלֵי שָׁרֵת מַהוּ שֶׁיֵּעָשׂוּ מִקׇּדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת? צוֹרֶךְ מִזְבֵּחַ נִינְהוּ, וּמִקׇּדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת אָתוּ? אוֹ צוֹרֶךְ קׇרְבָּן נִינְהוּ, וּמִתְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין אוֹתָן? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵין נַעֲשִׂין אֶלָּא מִתְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה.
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.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: ״וּכְכַלּוֹתָם הֵבִיאוּ לִפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ וִיהוֹיָדָע (הַכֹּהֵן) אֶת שְׁאָר הַכֶּסֶף וַיַּעֲשֵׂהוּ כֵלִים לְבֵית ה׳ כְּלֵי שָׁרֵת וְגוֹ׳״!
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דְּאַקְרְיָיךְ כְּתוּבֵי לָא אַקְרְיָיךְ נְבִיאֵי, ״אַךְ לֹא יֵעָשֶׂה בֵּית ה׳ סִפּוֹת וְגוֹ׳ כִּי לְעֹשֵׂי הַמְּלָאכָה יִתְּנֻהוּ״.
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.
אִי הָכִי, קָשׁוּ קְרָאֵי אַהֲדָדֵי! לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן שֶׁגָּבוּ וְהוֹתִירוּ, כָּאן שֶׁגָּבוּ וְלֹא הוֹתִירוּ.
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.
וְכִי גָּבוּ וְהוֹתִירוּ מַאי הָוֵי? אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: לֵב בֵּית דִּין מַתְנֶה עֲלֵיהֶן, אִם הוּצְרְכוּ — הוּצְרְכוּ, וְאִם לָאו — יְהוּ לִכְלֵי שָׁרֵת.
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.
תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: כְּלֵי שָׁרֵת בָּאִין מִתְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אֶת שְׁאָר הַכֶּסֶף״, אֵיזֶהוּ כֶּסֶף שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שִׁירַיִים — הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר זֶה תְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה.
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.
וְאֵימָא שִׁירַיִים גּוּפַיְיהוּ? כִּדְאָמַר רָבָא: ״הָעוֹלָה״ — עוֹלָה רִאשׁוֹנָה, הָכִי נָמֵי: ״הַכֶּסֶף״ — כֶּסֶף רִאשׁוֹן.
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.
מֵיתִיבִי: הַקְּטוֹרֶת וְכׇל קׇרְבְּנוֹת צִבּוּר — בָּאִין מִתְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה, מִזְבַּח הַזָּהָב וּלְבוֹנָה וּכְלֵי שָׁרֵת — בָּאִין מִמּוֹתַר נְסָכִים.
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.
מִזְבַּח הָעוֹלָה, הַלְּשָׁכוֹת וְהָעֲזָרוֹת — בָּאִין מִקׇּדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת. חוּץ לְחוֹמַת הָעֲזָרָה — בָּאִין מִשְּׁיָרֵי הַלְּשָׁכוֹת. זוֹ הִיא שֶׁשָּׁנִינוּ: חוֹמַת הָעִיר וּמִגְדְּלוֹתֶיהָ וְכׇל צׇרְכֵי הָעִיר בָּאִין מִשְּׁיָרֵי הַלִּשְׁכָּה.
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.
תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, דִּתְנַן: מוֹתַר תְּרוּמָה, מָה הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין בָּהּ? רִיקּוּעֵי זָהָב צִיפּוּי לְבֵית קׇדְשֵׁי הַקֳּדָשִׁים, רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: מוֹתַר פֵּירוֹת — לְקֵיץ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. מוֹתַר תְּרוּמָה — לִכְלֵי שָׁרֵת.
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.
רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: מוֹתַר תְּרוּמָה — לְקֵיץ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, מוֹתַר נְסָכִים — לִכְלֵי שָׁרֵת. רַבִּי חֲנִינָא סְגַן הַכֹּהֲנִים אוֹמֵר: מוֹתַר נְסָכִים לְקֵיץ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, מוֹתַר תְּרוּמָה לִכְלֵי שָׁרֵת. וְזֶה וָזֶה, לֹא הָיוּ מוֹדִים בְּפֵירוֹת.
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.
״פֵּירוֹת״ מַאי הִיא? — דְּתַנְיָא: מוֹתַר תְּרוּמָה מָה הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין בָּהּ? לוֹקְחִין פֵּירוֹת בְּזוֹל וּמוֹכְרִין אוֹתָם בְּיוֹקֶר, וְהַשָּׂכָר — מְקַיְּצִין בּוֹ אֶת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. וְזוֹ הִיא שֶׁשָּׁנִינוּ: מוֹתַר פֵּירוֹת לְקֵיץ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ.
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.
מַאי ״זֶה וָזֶה לֹא הָיוּ מוֹדִין בְּפֵירוֹת״? דִּתְנַן: מוֹתַר שְׁיָרֵי לִשְׁכָּה מָה הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין בָּהֶן? לוֹקְחִין בָּהֶן יֵינוֹת שְׁמָנִים וּסְלָתוֹת, וְהַשָּׂכָר — לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אֵין מִשְׂתַּכְּרִין בְּשֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ, אַף לֹא בְּשֶׁל עֲנִיִּים.
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.
בְּשֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ מַאי טַעְמָא לָא — אֵין עֲנִיּוּת בִּמְקוֹם עֲשִׁירוּת. בְּשֶׁל עֲנִיִּים מַאי טַעְמָא לָא — דִּלְמָא מִתְרְמֵי לְהוּ עַנְיָא וְלֵיכָּא לְמִיתְּבָא לֵיהּ.
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.
מִי שֶׁהָלַךְ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם. אִיתְּמַר, רַב אָמַר:
§ 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:
