Shekalim 10

שׁוֹמְרֵי סְפִחִים בַּשְּׁבִיעִית נוֹטְלִין שְׂכָרָן מִתְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה. רִבִּי יוֹסֵה אוֹמֵר אַף הָרוֹצֶה מִתְנַדֵּב שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם. אָֽמְרוּ לוֹ אַף אַתָּה אוֹמֵר שֶׁאֵין בָּאִין אֶלָּא ^{[דף י.]} מִשֶּׁל צִיבּוּר:

§ The guards of the sefiḥin, grain that grew without being purposely planted, during the Sabbatical Year, ensured that people did not take this ownerless grain, so that it remained available to be used for the omer and the offering of the two loaves. They collect their wages from the collection of the Temple treasury chamber. Rabbi Yosei says: One who so desires may even volunteer his services and guard the grain as an unpaid bailee. The Rabbis said to him: Even you must say that the omer and the two loaves come only ^[10a] from communal funds and not from any one individual. If one were to volunteer his services, he would acquire the grain for himself by guarding it and transporting it to the Temple. In that case, these offerings would have come from an individual. So that the offerings come solely from communal funds, the guards must receive payment from the half-shekels removed from the chamber.

הלכה הַתְּרוּמָה מֶה הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין בָּהּ כול׳. מָה רָאָה זְמַן עֲצֵי כֹהֲנִים וְהָעָם לְהִימָּנוֹת.

GEMARA: The mishna mentions a dispute about whether an individual may volunteer his services and guard the grain to be used for the omer and the two loaves. This dispute depends on whether something owned or donated by an individual may be brought as a communal offering. With regard to this issue, the Gemara cites a baraita related to a mishna (Ta’anit 26a). The mishna lists days on which special offerings were brought, including wood donated on a regular basis by particular families for use on the altar. This time period was referred to as the time of the wood of the priests and of the nation. It was taught in a baraita: Why was the time of the wood of the priests and of the nation fit to be counted in the mishna when any individual may donate wood at any time? What makes these families and these times unique?

אֶלָּא בְשָׁעָה שֶׁעָלוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל מִן הַגּוֹלָה וְלֹא מָֽצְאוּ עֵצִים בַּלִּישְׁכָּה וְעָֽמְדוּ אֵילּוּ וְנִתְנַדְּבוּ עֵצִים מִשֶּׁלְעַצְמָן וּמְסָרוּם לַצִּיבּוּר וְקָֽרְבוּ מֵהֶן קָרְבְּנוֹת צִיבּוּר. וְהִתְנוּ עִמָּהֶן הַנְּבִיאים שֶׁבֵּינֵיהֶן שֶׁאֲפִילוּ לִשְׁכָּה מְלֵיאָה עֵצִים וְעָֽמְדוּ אֵילּוּ וְנִתְנַדְּבוּ עֵצִים מִשֶּׁלְעַצְמָן שֶׁלֹּא יִהֵא קָרְבָּן מִתְקָרֵב אֶלָּא מִשֶּׁלָּהֶן תְּחִילָּה.

The baraita explains: Rather, at the time that the Jewish people ascended from the Babylonian exile and returned to Eretz Yisrael with Ezra, they did not find wood in the Temple chamber of wood for the altar, due to a lack of funds in the Temple treasury. And these families took the initiative and donated wood from their own property and gave it to the community; and they offered communal offerings with it. And the prophets among them stipulated with them that, in the future, even if the chamber were full of wood, if these families took the initiative and donated wood from their own property, the offerings would be brought using only theirs first. Consequently, the baraita indicates that communal offerings may come from individual funds.

אָמַר רִבִּי אָחָא. דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵה הִיא. דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵה אָמַר. אַף הָרוֹצֶה מִתְנַדֵּב שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אִילָא. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא. מַה פְלִיגִין. בְּגוּפוֹ שֶׁלְקָרְבָּן. אֲבָל בְּמַכְשִׁירֵי קָרְבָּן כָּל־עַמָּא מוֹדֵיי שֶׁהוּא מִשְׁתַּנֶּה קָרְבָּן יָחִיד לְקָרְבָּן צִיבּוּר.

Rabbi Aḥa said: This baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as Rabbi Yosei says: One who so desires may even volunteer his services and guard the grain as an unpaid bailee. However, according to the opinion of the Rabbis, which maintains that one may not donate his services, an individual may not donate the wood for the pyre on the altar. Rabbi Yosei, an amora, said in the name of Rabbi Ila: That baraita is a statement accepted by all. If so, with regard to what do the Rabbis and Rabbi Yosei, the tanna, disagree? With regard to the offering itself. However, with regard to items that merely facilitate an offering, everyone agrees that an individual offering may be changed to a communal offering, i.e., that an individual may donate items that facilitate the sacrifice of a communal offering.

תַּנֵּי. [אִ]שָּׁה שֶׁעָשָׂת כֻּתּוֹנֶת לִבְנָהּ צְרִיכָה לִמְסוֹר לְצִיבּוּר.

The Gemara raises a similar issue. It was taught in a baraita: In the case of a woman who made a tunic, one of the priestly vestments, for her son to wear while he serves in the Temple, the tunic is valid. However, since the priestly vestments must come from communal funds, the priest may use his mother’s tunic in the Temple only provided that she completely transfers ownership of the tunic to the community.

אָמַר רִבִּי אָחָא. דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי הִיא. דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר. אַף הָרוֹצֶה מִתְנַדֵּב שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם. רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אִילָא. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא. מַה פְלִיגִין. בְּגוּפוֹ שֶׁלְקָרְבָּן. אֲבָל בְּמַכְשִׁירֵי קָרְבָּן כָּל־עַמָּא מוֹדֵיי שֶׁהוּא מִשְׁתַּנֶּה קָרְבָּן יָחִיד לְקָרְבָּן צִיבּוּר.

Rabbi Aḥa said: This baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as Rabbi Yosei says: One who so desires may donate even his services and guard the grain as an unpaid watchman. Rabbi Yosei, an amora, said in the name of Rabbi Ila: That baraita is a statement accepted by all. If so, with regard to what do the Rabbis and Rabbi Yosei disagree? With regard to the offering itself. However, with regard to items that merely facilitate an offering, everyone agrees that an individual offering may be changed to a communal offering.

מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אוֹתָן הַיָּמִים נוֹהֲגִין בִּשְׁעַת קָרְבָּן וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת קָרְבָּן. רִבִּי יוֹסֵה אוֹמֵר. אֵינָן נוֹהֲגִין אֶלָּא בִּשְׁעַת קָרְבָּן.

A baraita disagrees with Rabbi Aḥa’s explanation of the dispute between Rabbi Yosei and the Rabbis: Those days of family celebrations, on the occasion of donating wood for the altar, are observed both during the time when one can bring an offering, i.e., when the Temple stands, and during the time when no offering can be brought, i.e., when there is no Temple; nevertheless the family still holds a celebration on those dates. Rabbi Yosei says: They are observed only during the time of offering. This baraita demonstrates that even the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yosei, admit that individuals can donate wood for the pyre, which is why they celebrated this event during the time of the Temple.

וְעוֹד מִן הָדָא דְתַנֵּי. אָמַר רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֵּירִבִּי צָדוֹק. אָנוּ הָיִינוּ מִבְּנֵי סְנָאָה בֶן בִּנְיָמִן וְחָל תִּשְׁעָה בְאָב לִהְיוֹת בַּשַּׁבָּת וְדָחִנוּ אוֹתוֹ לְמוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת וְהָיִינוּ מִתְעַנִּין וְלֻא מַשְׁלִימִין .

The Gemara cites an additional source with regard to this topic, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok, said: We were among the descendants of Senaah, son of the tribe of Benjamin, a family that donated wood to the Temple on the tenth of Av. And one year, the Ninth of Av occurred on Shabbat, and we postponed the fast until the conclusion of Shabbat, in accordance with the halakha. And we fasted but did not complete the fast, due to our family celebration. Apparently, the family continued to commemorate the offering of wood even after the destruction of the Temple, as there was no fast of the Ninth of Av while the Temple stood. Had the original donation of wood been only for individual offerings, the celebration of that donation would not have continued after the destruction of the Temple. Therefore, this baraita indicates that Rabbi Ila’s understanding is correct, and even the Rabbis agree that with regard to items that facilitate an offering, an individual offering may be changed into a communal offering.

הָעוֹמֶר וּשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם וְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים. מַתְנִיתָא דְרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. דְרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אָמַר. אֵין הָעוֹמֶר בָּא מִן הַסּוּרִיָּת. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. כָּל־קָרְבְּנוֹת הַיָּחִיד וְהַצִּיבּוּר בָּאִין מִן הָאָרֶץ וּמִחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. מִן הֶחָדָשׁ וּמִן הַיָּשָׁן. חוּץ מִן הָעוֹמֶר וּשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם. שֶׁאֵין בָּאִין אֶלָּא מִן הֶחָדָשׁ וּמִן הָאָרֶץ.

§ The mishna teaches that the collection of the Temple treasury was used to purchase the necessary items for the omer, and the two loaves, and the shewbread, and all communal offerings, as well as for the salary of those guarding the sefiḥin. We learned in a mishna there (Menaḥot 83b): All the grain for individual and communal offerings may come both from Eretz Yisrael and from outside of Eretz Yisrael. It may come both from new grain that grew after the offering of the omer the previous year and from old grain, except for the omer itself and the two loaves, which may come only from new grain and from Eretz Yisrael.

רִבִּי חוּנָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. דְרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל הִיא. דְרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אָמַר. אֵין הָעוֹמֶר בָּא מִן הַסּוּרִיָּא.

Rav Ḥuna said in the name of Rabbi Yirmeya: The mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, as Rabbi Yishmael says: The omer may not come from Syria or any other location outside of Eretz Yisrael.

תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. עֶשֶׂר קְדוּשּׁוֹת הֵן. אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת מִכָּל־הָאֲרָצוֹת. וּמַה הִיא קְדוּשָּׁתָהּ. שֶׁמְּבִיאִים מִמֶּנָּה הָעוֹמֶר וְהַבִּיכּוּרִים וּשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם. מַה שֶּׁאֵין מְבִיאִין כֵּן מִכָּל הָאֲרָצוֹת׃ רִבִּי חוּנָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. דְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל הִיא. דְרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אָמַר. אֵין הָעוֹמֶר בָּא מִן הַסּוּרִיָּא.

The Gemara cites a similar discussion. We learned in a mishna there (Kelim 1:6): There are ten levels of sanctity. Eretz Yisrael is more sanctified than all other lands. And through what halakha is its sanctity expressed? It is evident in the halakha that they must bring from it the omer, the first fruits, and the two loaves, which may not be brought from the produce of any other lands. Rabbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rabbi Yirmeya: This mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, as Rabbi Yishmael said: The omer may not come from Syria or any other location outside of Eretz Yisrael.

תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר. מֶה חָרִישׁ רְשׁוּת אַף קָצִיר רְשׁוּת. יָצָא קְצִיר הָעֹמֶר׃ שֶׁהוּא מִצְוָה.

Similarly, we learned elsewhere in a mishna (Shevi’it 1:4) that Rabbi Yishmael says that the verse “In plowing time and in harvest you shall rest” (Exodus 34:21) is not referring to the prohibition against farming the land during the Sabbatical Year, as the Rabbis explain. Rather, it is referring to the prohibition against performing labor on Shabbat. The reason that the verse mentions these two particular forms of labor is to teach that just as the plowing that is prohibited on Shabbat is an otherwise voluntary act, as plowing is never required by the Torah, so too, the harvesting that is prohibited on Shabbat is voluntary. The harvesting of the omer is excluded from the prohibition, as it is a mitzva. The barley for the omer must be harvested on the sixteenth of Nisan, even if it occurs on Shabbat.

רבי ישמעאל כדעתיה דרבי ישמעאל דאמר אין העומר בא מן הסוריא כדעתיה דאמר יצא קציר העומר שהוא מצוה

Rabbi Yishmael is consistent with his own opinion in this matter, as it is Rabbi Yishmael who said: The omer may not come from Syria or any other location outside of Eretz Yisrael. This is consistent with his opinion stated elsewhere, as he said: The harvesting of the omer is excluded from the prohibition on Shabbat, as it is a mitzva. Since Rabbi Yishmael requires that the omer come from Eretz Yisrael, it must be permitted to harvest it during the Sabbatical Year, despite the fact that harvesting is generally prohibited during the Sabbatical Year. This is consistent with Rabbi Yishmael’s opinion that the omer is excluded from the category of prohibited labor on Shabbat because harvesting it is a mitzva; the same holds true for the Sabbatical Year as well.

הֲוֵי מָאן תַּנָּא שׁוֹמְרֵי סְפִיחִים בַּשְּׁבִיעִית נוֹטְלִין שְׂכָרָן מִתְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה. רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא. לֹא מָצָאוּ בְסוּרִיָּא מְבִיאִין אוֹתוֹ מִסְּפִיחִין שֶׁבְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל.

The Gemara asks with regard to the mishna: Who is the tanna who taught: The guards of sefiḥin during the Sabbatical Year collect their wages from the collection of the Temple treasury chamber? It is Rabbi Yishmael. It is apparent from the mishna that the omer must come from Eretz Yisrael; otherwise, there would be no need to hire guards to ensure that there be barley available to use, as it could be imported from outside Eretz Yisrael. Rabbi Yosei said: The mishna is a statement accepted by all, even by those who hold that the omer may be brought from outside of Eretz Yisrael. According to this opinion, if they could not find barley in Syria or anywhere else outside of Eretz Yisrael, they would bring the omer from sefiḥin that were in Eretz Yisrael. Therefore, the guards were still necessary.

הָהֵן עוֹמֶר מָהוּ שֶׁיִּזָּרַע לָכֵן מִתְּחִילָּה. רִבִּי חִייָה בַּר אָדָא בְעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא. לֹא נִמְצָא כְקוֹמֵץ עַל הַשְּׁיֵרִיים שֶׁאֵינָן נֶאֱכָלִין.

Since it is permitted to harvest the omer even during the Sabbatical Year, the Gemara asks: With regard to that omer, if it becomes clear that there are no sefiḥin in a particular Sabbatical Year, what is the halakha concerning planting it ab initio? When Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Adda heard this question, he asked, in the presence of Rabbi Mana: In general, a handful of a meal-offering is burned on the altar, and the remainder of the meal-offering may be eaten by the priests. If the remainder may not be eaten by the priests, the entire offering is invalid. In the case under discussion, if one were to plant barley during the Sabbatical Year, would it not be comparable to the case of a handful of a meal-offering whose remainder may not be eaten, as it is prohibited to eat produce that is planted during the Sabbatical Year?

אָמַר לֵיהּ. נַעֲשֶׂה כַחֲמִשָּׁה דְבָרִים שֶׁהֵן בָּאִין בְּטוּמְאָה וְאֵינָן נֶאֱכָלִין בְּטוּמְעָה .

Rabbi Mana said to him: The omer is nonetheless valid, as it becomes like the five offerings that may be brought in a state of ritual impurity but may not be eaten in a state of impurity. There is a mishna in tractate Pesaḥim (76b) that lists five communal offerings that are offered in a state of impurity under certain circumstances; however, they may not be eaten in a state of impurity. Similarly, the omer that is brought from barley that was planted during the Sabbatical Year is valid, despite the fact that after the handful is burned on the altar, the remainder of the meal mixture may not be eaten.

כֵּיצַד הוּא עוֹשֶׂה. נוֹטֵל מָעוֹת מִן הָשּׁוּלְחָנִי וְנוֹתֵן לַקּוֹצְרִין וּלְשׁוֹמְרִין עַד שֶׁלֹּא יַקְרִב הָעוֹמֶר. מֵבִיא מָעוֹת מִתְּרוּמַת הִַלִּשְׁכָּה וּמְחַלְלָן עָלָיו.

§ The Gemara asks: How does the treasurer do this, i.e., pay the salaries to the guards and harvesters from the chamber collection? The money in the Temple treasury is consecrated property, and consecrated property may be desacralized only through redemption (Arakhin 33a). The Gemara answers: He takes money from the money changer and gives that money as payment to the harvesters and to the guards before the omer is offered. Once the time for offering the omer arrives, he brings money from the collection of the Temple treasury chamber and desacralizes it by transferring its sanctity onto the barley that is to be used for the omer. This money now becomes unconsecrated and is used to repay the money changer.

וְטָבוּ כֵן. רִבִּי אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי בָּא. כָּל־מַה שֶׁיִּתֵּן הֵן הֵן דָּמָיו מִשָּׁעָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה.

The Gemara asks: Is this acceptable? The monetary value of the omer, which is used to desacralize the funds, is far less than the amount paid to the harvesters and guards. The Gemara answers. Rabbi Aḥa said in the name of Rabbi Ba: Whatever the treasurer gives them as payment is considered to be its monetary value from the beginning of the process, even if the barley is worth considerably less on the open market.

תַּנֵּי. אַף בְּפַתָּחֵי אֲבָנִים כֵּן. כֵּיצַד הוּא עוֹשֶׂה. נוֹטֵל מָעוֹת מִשּׁוּלְחָנִי וְנוֹתֵן לַחוֹצְבִין וּלְסַתָּתִין עַד שֶׁלֹּא תִינָּתֵן עַל גַּבֵּי הַדֹּימוֹס. [אַחַר כָּךְ] מֵבִיא מָעוֹת מִתְּרוּמַת הִַלִּשְׁכָּה וּמְחַלְלָן עָלֶיהָ.

On a similar note, it was taught in a baraita: It is even so with regard to stoneworkers, who hew stones from mountains and cut them for use in the Temple. They too receive their salary from the Temple treasury. How does the treasurer do this? He takes money as a loan from a money changer and gives it as payment to the ledgemen and to the stonecutters before the stone is placed on the row [dimos] that is being built. Once it is placed on the row, he brings money from the collection of the chamber and desacralizes it onto the stones. In this way, the stones become consecrated and the money becomes unconsecrated. That money is then used to repay the money changer.

וְטָבָא הִיא כֵן. רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן בְּשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל. כָּל־מַה שֶׁיִּתֵּן הֵן הֵן דָּמָיו מִשָּׁעָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה .

The Gemara asks: Is this acceptable? The workers are paid for all their labor, yet some of the stones become broken and unfit for use. Therefore, the amount of money spent by the treasury is more than the actual value of the stones placed on the structure of the Temple. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Bun, said in the name of Shmuel: Whatever the treasurer gives them as payment is considered to be the monetary value of the stones from the beginning. The value of the stones that are used includes the value of the stones that broke during the process.

^{[דף י:]} משנה פָּרָה וְשָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ וְלָשׁוֹן שֶׁל זְהוֹרִית בָּאִין מִתְּרוּמַת הַלִשְׁכָּה. ^[10b]

Halakha 2 · MISHNA The red heifer, the scapegoat, and the strip of crimson wool used in the process of burning the red heifer all come from the collection of the Temple treasury chamber, despite the fact that they are not sacrificial offerings.

כֶּבֶשׁ פָּרָה וְכֶבֶשׁ שָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ וְלָשׁוֹן שֶׁבֵּין קַרְנָיו וְאַמַּת הַמַּיִם וְחוֹמַת הָעִיר וּמִגְדְּלוֹתֶיהָ וְכָל־צָרְכֵי הָעִיר בָּאִין מִשְּׁיֵרֵי הַלִּשְׁכָּה. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר כֶּבֶשׁ פָּרָה כֹּהֲנִים גְּדוֹלִים עוֹשִׂין אוֹתוֹ מִשֶּׁל עַצְמָן׃

The same is true for the ramp built from the Temple Mount to the location on the Mount of Olives, where they would slaughter the red heifer; the ramp built to lead the scapegoat out of the city; the strip of crimson wool that was tied between its horns; any repairs required for the aqueduct that ran through the Temple courtyard and the walls of the city and its towers; and for all the needs of the city, such as street repairs, security, and the like. All of these come from the remains of the chamber, i.e., from the money that remained in the chamber after the three collections of money were taken to use for communal offerings. Abba Shaul says: The High Priests construct the ramp for the red heifer from their own funds.

מוֹתַר שְׁיֵרֵי לִשְׁכָּה מֶה הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין בָּהֶן. לוֹקְחִין בָּהֶן יֵינוֹת שְׁמָנִים וּסְלָתוֹת וְהַשָּׂכָר לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר אִין מִשְׁתַּכְּרִין בְּשֶּׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ אַף לֹא מִשֶּׁל עֲנִיִּים:

What would they do with the leftover remains of the chamber after all the items mentioned above had been attended to? 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, neither may one profit from funds set aside for the poor.

מוֹתַר הַתְּרוּמָה מֶה הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין בָּהּ. רִקּוּעֵי זָהָב צִיפּוּי לְבֵית קָדְשֵׁי הַקֳּדָשִׁים. רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר מוֹתַר הַפֵּירוֹת קַיייָץ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. מוֹתַר תְּרוּמָה לִכְלֵי שָׁרֵת.

What would they do with the leftover funds of the collection 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: The leftover produce was used to purchase the repletion of the altar, i.e., burnt-offerings sacrificed at times when the altar was idle. The leftover funds of the collection were used to purchase sacred vessels.

רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר מוֹתַר תְּרוּמָה קַייָץ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. מוֹתַר נְסָכִים לִכְלֵי שָׁרֵת. רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה סְגַן הַכֹּהֲנִים אוֹמֵר מוֹתַר נְסָכִים קַייָץ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ מוֹתַר תְּרוּמָה לִכְלֵי שָׁרֵת. זֶה וָזֶה לֹא הָיוּ מוֹדִין בַּפֵּירוֹת:

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

הלכה פָּרָה וְשָׂעִיר כול׳. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹנָתָן. שְׁלֹשָׁה לְשׁוֹנוֹת הֵן. שֶׁלְשָׂעִיר בְּסֶלַע. שֶׁלְמְצוֹרָע בְּשֶׁקֶל. שֶׁלְפָּרָה בִּשְׁתֵּי סְלָעִים.

GEMARA: Since the mishna mentions both the ramp used to transport the red heifer and the strip of crimson wool, the Gemara relates that Rabbi Yishmael, son of Naḥman, said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan: There are three strips of crimson, each of which is a different weight. That of the scapegoat is the weight of a sela, as it had to be divided into two, one to tie between the scapegoat’s horns and one to tie on a rock. It is sufficient for the strip of crimson wool used in the purification of a leper to weigh a shekel, half of a sela, as it is not divided in half. The strip of crimson wool that was used in the process of burning the red heifer is of two sela. In order to sink into the mass of burning material, it had to be the heaviest of strips.

רִבִּי חוֹנִייָה דִבְרַת חַווְרָן רִבִּי בָּא בַּר זַבְדָּא בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר חַלְפוּתָא. שֶׁלְפָּרָה בִּשְׁתֵּי סְלָעִים וּמֶחֱצָה. וְאִית דְּמַפְקִין לִישְׁנָא. בָּעֲשָׂרָה (זִין) [זוּז].

Rabbi Ḥunya from the city of Berat Ḥavrin said that Rabbi Ba, son of Zavda, said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Ḥalafta: The crimson strip of the red heifer is of two and a half sela. Some expressed his statement using the language: Of ten zuz. This is the equivalent of two and a half sela; however, it is important to quote one’s teacher using the identical language that his teacher used.

רַב יְהוּדָה בְשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל. תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים הַמְלַמְּדִין אֶת הַכֹּהֲנִים הִילְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה הִילְכוֹת קַבָּלָה הִילְכוֹת זְרִיקָה נוֹטְלִין שְׂכָרָן מִתְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה. רִבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר רְדִיפָה בְשֵׁם אִימִּי. מְבַקְּרֵי מוּמֵי קֳדָשִׁים נוֹטְלִין שְׂכָרָן מִתְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה. רִבִּי אָחָא רִבִּי תַנְחוּם בַּר חִייָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׂמְלַאי. מַגִּיהֵי סֵפֶר הֶעֲזָרָה נוֹטְלִין שְׂכָרָן מִתְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה.

§ The Gemara cites additional opinions with regard to the items that are purchased with the remains of the chamber. Rabbi Yehuda said in the name of Rabbi Shmuel: The Torah scholars who teach the priests the halakhot of slaughtering, the halakhot of collecting the blood of an offering in a sacred vessel, and the halakhot of sprinkling the blood on the altar collect their wages from the collection of the chamber. Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Redifa said in the name of Rabbi Imi: Inspectors of blemishes of consecrated animals collect their wages from the collection of the chamber. Rabbi Aḥa said that Rabbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Rabbi Simlai: The proofreaders of the Torah scroll that was kept in the Temple courtyard collect their wages from the collection of the chamber.

גִּידּוּל בַּר בִּנְיָמִן בְּשֵׂם אַסִּי. שְׁנֵי דַייָנֵי גְזֵילוֹת נוֹטְלִין שְׂכָרָן מִתְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה. שְׁמוּאֵל אַמַר. נָשִׁים הָאוֹרְגוֹת בַּפְּרָכוֹת נוֹטְלוֹת שְׂכָרָן מִתְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה. רַב חוּנָה אָמַר. מִתְּרוּמַת בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת. מַה וּפְלִיג. שְׁמוּאֵל עֲבֲד לָהּ כְּקָרְבָּן. רַב חוּנָה עֲבֲד לָהּ כְּבִּינְייָן.

Giddel, son of Binyamin, said in the name of Rabbi Asi: The two chief judges in Jerusalem, who establish fines and adjudicate cases of thefts, collect their wages from the collection of the chamber. Shmuel says: The women who weave the curtain that separates the Temple Sanctuary from the Holy of Holies collect their wages from the collection of the chamber. Rav Ḥuna said: They collect their wages from the collection for Temple maintenance. With regard to what do they argue? Shmuel considers it like an offering, as the blood of certain offerings is sprinkled on the curtain. Rav Ḥuna considers it like part of the building, and funds for the building itself come from the collection for Temple maintenance.

אָמַר רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה. תַּנָּא רִבִּי יְהוּדָה גְרוֹגְרוֹת. הַקְּטוֹרֶת וְכָל־קָרְבְּנוֹת הַצִּיבּוּר בָּאִין מִתְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה. מִזְבַּח הַזָּהָב וְכָל־כְּלֵי שָׁרֵת בָּאִין מִמּוֹתָרֵי נְסָכִים. מִזְבַּח הָעוֹלָה וְהַהֵיכָל וְהָעֲזָרוֹת בְּאִין מִשְּׁיֵּרֵי הַלִּשְׁכָּה. חוּץ לָעֲזָרוֹת בָּאִין מִלִּשְׁכַּת בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת.

Rabbi Ḥizkiya said that Rabbi Yehuda Gudgadot taught: 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 on which the incense was offered, and all sacred vessels come from the leftover money of that set aside for the libations. The funds for the altar of burnt-offering, which was located outside the Sanctuary and on which most offerings were burned; and for the Sanctuary itself; and the various courtyards come from the remains of the chamber. Funds for whatever was outside the courtyards come from the money stored in the chamber for Temple maintenance.

וְהָא תַנֵּי. אַבְנֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ הַהֵיכָל וְהָעֲזָרוֹת מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן. וְכִי יֵשׁ מְעִילָה בִּשְׁיֵרִים. אֶלָּא כְרִבִּי מֵאִיר. דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר אָמַר. מוֹעֲלִין בִּשְׁיֵרִיִים.

The Gemara asks: Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that one who derives benefit from the stones of the altar, the Sanctuary, or the courtyards thereby misuses consecrated property? Therefore, if one does so unwittingly, he is liable to repay to the Temple treasury the value of the loss he caused or benefit he gained, in addition to a fine of one-fifth of that amount, and he must bring a guilt-offering. And is there misuse of consecrated property with regard to items purchased with the remains of the chamber? The Gemara answers: Rather, the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as Rabbi Meir says: One misuses consecrated property even if he derives benefit from items purchased with the remains of the chamber.

אָמַר רִבִּי חִינְנָא. כְּלוּם אָמַר רִבִּי מֵאִיר אֶלָּא בְתוֹךְ שְׁנָתוֹ. וְהָכָא חוּץ לִשְׁנָתוֹ אֲנָן קַייָמִין.

Rabbi Ḥiyya said in response to this suggestion: Did Rabbi Meir say this statement other than within its year? Even Rabbi Meir agrees that one violates the prohibition against misusing consecrated property by deriving benefit from the remains of the chamber only within the year for which those coins were donated. Since the funds could still be used for communal offerings if needed during that year, the prohibition applies. But here, we are dealing with funds that are outside the year of their collection, as the remains of the chamber were not used to purchase stones until after the year was over. Therefore, the baraita is not in accordance with Rabbi Meir, and the challenge to Rabbi Yehuda Gudgadot remains.

אָמַר רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה. תַּנָּא רִבִּי יְהוּדָה גְרוֹגְרוֹת. הַשּׁוּלָחָן וְהַמְּנוֹרָה וְהַמִּזְבְּחוֹת וְהַפְּרָכוֹת מְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַקָּרְבָּן. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְ‌ְרִין אֵין לָךְ מְעַכֵּב אֶת הַקָּרְבָּן אֶלָּא הַכֵּיּוֹר וְהַכָּן בִּלְבַד.

Having cited Rabbi Yehuda Gudgadot, referred to now as Rabbi Yehuda Gudganiyot, the Gemara cites another of his rulings. Rabbi Ḥizkiya said that Rabbi Yehuda Gudganiyot taught: If the table and the candelabrum and the altars and the curtain are incomplete or are not in their proper location, they prevent offerings from being brought; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. The Rabbis say: The only items that prevent the offering from being brought are the water basin and the base alone, as the Temple rite may not be performed if the basin and its base are not in place.

וְלֹא אָמַר כֵּן. רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּן חֲנִינָה תְּרֵיהוֹן אָ‍ֽמְרִין. כָּל־הֵן דִּכְתִיב נֹכַח מְעַכֵּב. צֶלַע אֵינוֹ מְעַכֵּב.

However, didn’t Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yosei ben Ḥanina both say: Wherever it is written: Opposite, in describing the proper location for one of the sacred vessels, its absence prevents offerings from being brought. For example, with regard to the candelabrum, the verse states: “And the candelabrum opposite the table” (Exodus 26:35). Wherever the verse states: Side, the absence of the vessel does not prevent offerings from being brought. For example, with regard to the table, the verse states: “And you shall place the table on the south side” (Exodus 26:35).

וְאָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹנָתָן. וַאֲפִילוּ צֶלַע מְעַכֵּב. וְאָמַר רִבִּי אִילָא בְשֵׁם ^{[דף יא.]} רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן. וַאֲפִילוּ שִׂימָה מְעַכֶּבֶת.

And Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan: Even absence of a vessel whose location is described with the side, prevents offerings from being brought. And Rabbi Ila said in the name of ^[11a] Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman: And even correct placement, is necessary for offerings to be valid. According to this view, if the candelabrum, either of the two altars, the table, the curtain, or the basin is invalid or not in its proper location, sacrificial offerings are not accepted. All of the amora’im cited here apparently disagree with the opinion of the Rabbis cited in the baraita, who maintain that the only vessels that invalidate offerings are the basin and its base.