Today's Daf Yomi
April 3, 2021 | כ״א בניסן תשפ״א
Masechet Shekalim is sponsored by Sarene Shanus and Harold Treiber in memory of their parents, “who taught us the value of learning and of being part of the Jewish community.”
-
This month's learning is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.
Shekalim 13
Rabbi Elazar said in the mishna that if one consecrates all of one’s possessions and there are birds, wine and oil, they are only sanctified for their value, not they themselves. They sell to someone wanting to use them on the altar and the money is used to purchase burnt offerings. What is the source for this? A source is brought to support one reading of Rabbi Shimon that if one consecrated a female animal for a burnt offering, it would be only sanctified for its financial value. However, the gemara raises a question on that source and an alternative explanation of that verse is brought. That explanation also has a question raised against it. Prices were set each month for items needed to be bought by the temple treasury and if the price fluctuated, the temple was always favored – if prices went up, they bought at the lower price, if they went down, they bought also for the lower price. The mishna lists people who were in charge of certain jobs in the temple. Why were specifically those people mentioned? Why were certain rabbis called soferim? The organized laws in numbers to make them easier to remember/understand. The rabbis saw themselves as much less knowledgeable than those who came before them and compared themselves to the earlier rabbis as humans to angels or donkeys to people. A story is told of the donkey of Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair who starved itself for 3 days as it was unwilling to eat demai, produce that was possibly untithed. This donkey is used as a comparison to the later generations as they are not even comparable to that donkey. Pitchiya was known to have unique skills and was able to understand things that others could not, such as signals that a mute was making to tell the rabbis where they could find barley for the Omer offering in a year where there was a drought. Why was there a need for a special doctor for the priests specializing in intestinal diseases?
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Podcast (דף יומי לנשים - עברית): Play in new window | Download
[דף יג.] אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. קִײַמְתִּיהָ כָּהִיא דְאָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי זְעוּרָה. כָּל־שֶׁאֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לִקָּרֵב לֹא הִיא וְלֹא דָמֶיהָ לֹא קָֽדְשָׁה אֶלָּא הֶקְדֵּשׁ דָּמִים. וְאָמַרְתָּ יְאוּת. לְהַקְרִיבוֹ אֵין אַתְּ יָכוֹל. דִּכְתִיב בַּבָּקָ֕ר. לֹא עוּפוֹת. לִפְדוֹתוֹ אֵין אַתְּ יָכוֹל. שֶׁאֵין לָעוֹף פִּדְיוֹן. לְפוּם כָּךְ צָרַךְ מֵימַר. לֹא קָֽדְשָׁה אֶלָּא קְדוּשַׁת דָּמִים. [13a]
The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yosei said: I established Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion as being in accordance with that which Rabbi Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi Ze’eira: Anything that cannot be sacrificed on the altar, neither itself nor its monetary value, as it cannot be redeemed, is consecrated only with sanctity that inheres in its monetary value. And therefore, you, Rabbi Eliezer, said correctly: You are not able to sacrifice this bird on the altar, as it is written: “Of the cattle,” and not birds. You are not able to redeem the bird were it to have inherent sanctity, as there is no concept of redemption for birds. Therefore, you must say that it is consecrated only with sanctity that inheres in its value.
חֲבֵרַייָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. רִבִּי אַייְבוֹ בַּר נַגָּרִי אָמַר קוֹמֵי רִבִּי אִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. טַעֲמָא דְהֵין תַּנָּייָא. וְאִם֙ כָּל־בְּהֵמָ֣ה טְמֵיאָה אֲ֠֩שֶׁר לֹֽא־יַקְרִ֧יבוּ מִמֶּ֛נָּה קָרְבָּ֖ן לַֽיי.
§ In the baraita cited above, Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda said in the name of Rabbi Shimon that if one consecrates a female animal for a burnt-offering, a Paschal lamb, or a guilt-offering, it is endowed only with sanctity that inheres in the animal’s value, since a female animal is invalid for these offerings. Consequently, a substitute cannot be made from it. The group of students said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan, and Rabbi Ayyevu bar Nagri said in the presence of Rabbi Ila, in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: The source for the opinion of this tanna, Rabbi Shimon, is the verse in the passage about substitution: “And if it be any unclean animal, of which they may not bring an offering to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:11), which indicates that an unclean animal that was consecrated cannot make a substitution.
מַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר טְמֵ֔אָה. אֶלָּא אֲפִילוּ טְמֵיאָה בְאוֹתוֹ הַשֵּׁם.
What is the meaning when the verse states “unclean,” as it certainly is not referring to an animal of an unclean species of animal, i.e., a non-kosher animal, since they are already disqualified by a different verse? Rather, it is referring even to an animal of a clean, kosher species that is only unclean, i.e., unsuitable, for that particular category of offering.
וְקַשְׁיָא. בְּדָא כְתִיב וְהֶֽעֱמִ֥יד וְהֶֽעֱרִ֤יךְ.
The Gemara notes: It is difficult to justify this source as the basis for Rabbi Shimon’s opinion because, with regard to this, it is written in the continuation of the verse: “Then he shall stand the animal before the priest. And the priest shall value it” (Leviticus 27:11–12), indicating that before being redeemed, the animal must be stood before the priest for valuation. However, Rabbi Shimon himself holds that this process is necessary only for animals that have inherent sanctity. Perforce, this verse and the previous one are referring to cases where the animal has inherent sanctity. If so, these verses cannot be used as the basis for Rabbi Shimon’s opinion in the baraita.
רִבִּי זְעוּרָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. לֹא אָמַר כֵן אֶלָּא וְאִם֙ כָּל־בְּהֵמָ֣ה טְמֵאָ֔ה אֲ֠֩שֶׁר לֹֽא־יַקְרִ֧יבוּ מִמֶּ֛נָּה קָרְבָּ֖ן לַֽיי. כָּל־שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה לִיקָּרֵב לֹא כָאן וְלֹא בְמָקוֹם אַחֵר אֵינָהּ עוֹשָׂה תְמוּרָה.
Rabbi Ze’eira, in the name of Rabbi Elazar, did not say that this verse is the basis of Rabbi Shimon’s opinion. Rather, he explained it as the basis for the opposing opinion: “And if it be any unclean animal, of which they may not bring an offering to the Lord.” The superfluous word “offering” indicates that any animal that is not suitable to be sacrificed, neither here, for the type of offering for which it was consecrated, nor anywhere else, as any other type of offering, is never endowed with inherent sanctity. Therefore, a substitute cannot be made from it.
יָצָאת נְקֵיבָה שֶׁבָּעוֹף שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה לִיקָּרֵב כָּאן רְאוּיָה לִיקָּרֵב בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר.
This principle excludes the case of a female animal that was consecrated for a burnt-offering. Although it is not suitable to be sacrificed here, as an animal burnt-offering, it is suitable to be sacrificed in another place, such as a bird burnt-offering. This verse therefore serves as a source for the opinion of the first tanna in that baraita, who holds that a female animal consecrated for a burnt-offering, a guilt-offering, or a Paschal lamb is endowed with inherent sanctity, and therefore a substitute can be made from it.
רִבִּי בִּין וְרִבִּי בּוּן בְּעוֹן קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעוּרָה. הֲרֵי הַרוֹבַע וְהַנִּרְבַּע הֲרֵי אֵינָן רְאוּיִן לִיקָּרֵב לֹא כָאן וְלֹא בְמָקוֹם אַחֵר וַהֲרֵי הֵן עוֹשִׂין תְּמוּרָה. אָמַר לוֹן. אַף אֲנִי לֹא אָמַרְתִּי אֶלָּא טְמֵאָה מַמָּשׁ.
The Gemara challenges this principle: Rabbi Avun and Rabbi Bun asked in the presence of Rabbi Ze’eira: But there is the case of an animal that sodomizes a person or an animal that is sodomized, which are not suitable to be sacrificed, neither here, for the kind of offering for which it was consecrated, nor anywhere else as any other kind of offering, and yet a substitute can be made from it. The Gemara answers: He said to them: Even I said this principle only with regard to an animal that is actually unclean, i.e., from a non-kosher species. But it does not apply to an animal of a kosher species that is disqualified for some other reason.
וְקַשְׁיָא. בְּדָא כְתִיב וְהֶֽעֱמִ֥יד וְהֶֽעֱרִ֤יךְ.
The Gemara notes: But it is difficult to claim that “unclean” is referring to an animal of an unclean, non-kosher species, because with regard to this, it is written in the subsequent verses: “Then he shall stand the animal before the priest. And the priest shall value it” (Leviticus 27:11–12), indicating the procedure for redeeming the animal. This certainly cannot refer to an animal of a non-kosher species, since a verse later on (Leviticus 27:27) addresses that case. Rabbi Ze’eira’s derivation is therefore problematic.
משנה אַחַת לִשְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם מְשַׁעֲרִין אֶת הַלִּשְׁכָּה. כָּל־הַמְקַבֵּל עָלָיו לְסַפֵּק סְלָתוֹת מֵאַרְבַּע עָֽמְדוּ מִשָּׁלֹשׁ יְסַפֵּק מֵאַרְבַּע. מִשָּׁלֹשׁ וְעָֽמְדוּ מֵאַרְבַּע יְסַפֵּק מֵאַרְבַּע שֶׁיַּד הֶקְדֵּשׁ עַל הָעֶלְיוֹנָה.
Halakha 5 · MISHNA Once every thirty days, the prices at which the Temple supplies such as wine, flour, or oil will be purchased are set for the Temple chamber. This set price is implemented in the following way: Any merchant who undertakes to provide fine flour after the chamber set a price of four se’a per sela, even if the general market price rose and stood at three se’a per sela, he must provide fine flour based on the set price of four se’a per sela. However, if the chamber’s set price was three se’a per sela, and the general market price rose to four se’a per sela, he must now provide fine flour based on the new market price of four se’a per sela. This is in order that the Temple treasury of consecrated property always has the upper hand.
אִם הִתְלִיעָה סוֹלֶת הִתְלִיעָה לוֹ וְאִם הֶחְמִיץ יַיִן הֶחְמִיץ לוֹ. אֵינוֹ מְקַבֵּל אֶת מְעוֹתָיו עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא הַמִּזְבֵּחַ מְרַצֶּה׃
If the fine flour became wormy, it became wormy for the merchant, i.e., he bears the loss of the ruined fine flour and must provide new fine flour in its place. Similarly, if the wine turned to vinegar, it turned to vinegar for the merchant. This is because the merchant only receives, i.e., earns, his money once the altar is satisfied, i.e., the transaction is only realized once the items have been sacrificed on the altar.
הלכה תַּנֵּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. מִיַּד הָיוּ מְקַבְּלִין אֶת מָעוֹתָיו. וְהַכֹּהֲנִים זְרִיזִין הֵן.
GEMARA: It was taught in a baraita in the name of Rabbi Shimon: The merchants would immediately receive their money. And there was no concern that the items would spoil, because priests are vigilant and ensure that no item has a chance to spoil.
הדרן עלך פרק התרומה
משנה אֵילּוּ הֵן הַמְמוּנִּין שֶׁהָיוּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ. יוֹחָנָן בֶּן פִּינְחָס עַל הַחוֹתָמוֹת. אֲחִייָה עַל הַנְּסָכִים. מַתְיָה בֶּן שְׁמוּאֵל עַל הַפְּייָסוֹת.
Halakha 1 · MISHNA These are the officials who served in specific positions in the Temple: Yoḥanan ben Pineḥas was responsible for the seals. One who paid for a specific type of sacrificial item received a seal, which he presented to the Temple official in exchange for that item. Aḥiyya was responsible for the libations, i.e., the wine, oil, and flour prepared with the level of ritual purity necessary for the libation offerings and the meal-offerings, which accompanied many animal offerings. Aḥiyya supplied the libations to those who presented the appropriate seal. Matya ben Shmuel was responsible for the lotteries, which were used to select priests for the various Temple services each day.
פְּתַחְיָה עַל הַקִּינִּים
Petaḥya was responsible for the pairs of birds, i.e., the turtledoves or pigeons, brought by a zav, a zava, a woman after childbirth, and a leper. They placed the appropriate sum of money into the horn designated for this purpose, and each day Petaḥya oversaw the purchase of birds from that money and their sacrifice in the proper manner.
פְּתַחְיָה זֶה מָרְדְּכָי. וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ פְּתַחְיָה שֶׁהָיָה פּוֹתֵחַ בִּדְבָרִים וְדוֹרְשָׁן וְיוֹדֵעַ בְּשִבְעִים לָשׁוֹן.
Incidentally, the Gemara mentions: Petaḥya is Mordecai from the book of Esther. And why was he named called Petaḥya, which resembles the word for opening [petaḥ]? The reason is that he would open, i.e., elucidate, difficult topics and interpret them to the people, and because he knew all seventy languages known at the time.
בֶּן אֲחִייָה עַל חוֹלֵי מֵעַיִם. נְחוּנְייָה חוֹפֵר שִׁיחִין. גְּבִינֵי כָרוֹז. בֶּן גֶּבֶר עַל נְעִילַת שְׁעָרִים.
The mishna resumes the list of officials. Ben Aḥiyya was responsible for the care of the priests who suffered from intestinal disease. Neḥunya was the well digger for pilgrims on their way to Jerusalem for the Festivals. Gevini was the Temple crier who would awaken the priests and the Levites for their Temple duties. Ben Gever was responsible for locking the Temple gates in the evening and for unlocking them in the morning.
בֶּן בֵּבָי מְמוּנֶּה עַל הַפָּקִיעַ .בֶּן אַרְזָה עַל הַצִּלְצָל. הוּגְדַּס בֶּן לֵוִי עַל הַשִּׁיר.
Ben Bevai was appointed over the shreds of garments, which were formed into wicks for the Temple candelabra. He also supervised the twisting of those wicks into the appropriate thickness for the various nights during the different seasons of the year. Ben Arza was responsible for the cymbal, which was rung as a signal that the Levites should commence their song. Hugras ben Levi was responsible for the song. He taught and conducted the singers in the Temple.
בֵּית גַּרְמוּ עַל מַעֲשֵׂה לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים. בֵּית אַבְטִינָס עַל מַעֲשֵׂה הַקְּטֹרֶת. אֶלְעָזָר עַל הפָּרוֹכוֹת וּפִנְחָס הַמַּלְבִּישׁ.
The house of Garmu was responsible for the preparation of the shewbread; the house of Avtinas was responsible for the preparation of the incense; and Elazar was responsible for weaving the Temple curtains; and Pineḥas was the valet, who assisted the priests in fitting their clothes and dressing themselves for their Temple service.
הלכה אֵילּוּ הֵן הַמְמוּנִּין שֶׁהָיוּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ כול׳. רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר. רִבִּי סִימוֹן וְרַבָּנִן. חַד אָמַר. כְּשֵׁירֵי כָּל־דּוֹר וָדוֹר בָּא לִמְנוֹת [עֲלֵהֶן]. וְחוֹרָנָה אָמַר. מִי שֶׁהָיָה בְאוֹתוֹ הַדּוֹר מָנָה מַה שֶׁבְּדוֹרוֹ.
GEMARA: The mishna lists fifteen names of officials who filled specific positions in the Temple, despite the fact that during the many years of the Temple there must have been far more than fifteen officials who served those functions. Rabbi Ḥizkiyah said that Rabbi Simon and the Rabbis disagreed as to why the mishna mentions only these fifteen names. One of them said: The mishna comes to enumerate those who were the most fit of all the officials who served in each position, from whatever generation they were from. And the other said: The tanna who was in that generation enumerated those functionaries who served in his generation.
מָאן דְּאָמַר. כְּשֵׁירֵי כָּל־דּוֹר וָדוֹר בָּא לִמְנוֹת. עַל כּוּלָּן הוּא אוֹמֵר. זֵיכֶר צַדִּיק לִבְרָכָה.
Several of these officials are also mentioned in the mishna in Yoma, some for praise (37a), and others for censure (38a). The Gemara notes that this issue is related to the aforementioned dispute. The one who said that the mishna comes to enumerate the most fit of those who served from whatever generation claims that when the mishna in Yoma says: “The memory of a righteous person shall be for a blessing” (Proverbs 10:7) it is in reference to all of them. According to this opinion, the tanna in Yoma maintains that the reason these officials did not teach their specialties to others was because they wanted to prevent their knowledge from being used for idol worship. The only officials censured are those like ben Kamtzar, who refused to divulge their secrets for unworthy reasons, but these people are not mentioned in the mishna.
מָאן דְּאָמַר. מִי שֶׁהָיָה בְאוֹתוֹ הַדּוֹר מָנָה מַה שֶׁבְּדוֹרוֹ. עַל כּוּלָּם הוּא אוֹמֵר. וְשֵׁם רְשָׁעִים יִרְקָב׃ עַל מִי נֶאֱמַר זֵכֶר צַדִּיק לִבְרָכָה. עַל בֶּן קָטִין וַחֲבֵירָיו.
Conversely, the one who said that the tanna who was in that generation enumerated those officials who served in his generation, he claims that the mishna in Yoma says: “But the name of the wicked shall rot” (Proverbs 10:7) in reference to all of them. And with regard to whom is the tanna in Yoma speaking when he cites the verse: “The memory of a righteous person shall be for a blessing”? He is referring only to ben Katin, who improved the basin for the priests in the Temple, and his colleagues.
[דף יג:] אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה. כְּתִיב לָכֵ֞ן אֲחַלֶּק־ל֣וֹ בָֽרַבִּ֗ים וְאֶת־עֲצוּמִים֘ יְחַלֵּ֣ק שָׁלָל֒. זֶה רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה שֶׁהִתְקִין מִדְרַשׁ הֲלָכוֹת וְהַגָּדוֹת. [13b]
§ After recording the praises of certain historical figures, the Gemara continues in a similar vein. Rabbi Yona said that it is written: “Therefore will I divide him a portion among the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the mighty; because he bared his soul until death, and was numbered with the transgressors” (Isaiah 53:12). This verse is referring to Rabbi Akiva, who conveyed the Oral Law to the people by arranging the halakhic and homiletic midrash.
וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים. אֵילּוּ אַנְשֵׁי כְנֶסֶת הַגְּדוֹלָה. מַה שֶׁהִתְקִין זֶה כְלָלִין וּפְרָטִין.
And some say that the members of the Great Assembly arranged these compilations of Torah knowledge. But if so, what did this Sage, Rabbi Akiva, arrange? He arranged the interpretive method of generalizations and details.
אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. כְּתִיב מִשְׁפְּח֤וֹת סֽוֹפְרִים֙ יֹוֹשְׁבֵי יַעְבֵּ֔ץ. מַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר סֽוֹפְרִים֙. אֶלָּא שֶׁעָשׂוּ אֶת הַתּוֹרָה סְפוּרוֹת סְפוּרוֹת.
Rabbi Abbahu said: The lineage of Salma, son of Caleb, son of Hur, is listed in the book of Chronicles. It is written there: “And the families of scribes that dwelt at Jabez: The Tirathites, the Shimeathites, the Sucathites; these are the Kenites that came of Hammath, the father of the house of Rechab” (I Chronicles 2:55). What is the meaning when the verse states the word scribes, literally, counters? It does not mean that they were scribes; rather, it means that they crafted the halakhot of the Torah into numbered groups. They categorized and brought together disparate halakhot into a mnemonic device to assist learners.
חֲמִשָּׁה לֹא יִתְרוֹמוּ. חֲמִשָּׁה דְבָרִים חַייָבִין בַּחַלָּה חֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה נָשִׁים פּוֹטְרוֹת צָרוֹתֵיהֶן. שְׁלשִׁים וָשֵׁשׁ כְּרֵיתוֹת בַּתּוֹרָה. שְׁלשָׁה עָשָׂר דָּבָר בְּנִבְלַת הָעוֹף הַטָּהוֹר. אַרְבַּע אֲבוֹת נְזִיקִין. אֲבוֹת מְלָאכוֹת אַרְבָּעִים חָסֵר אֶחָת
The Gemara lists some examples of this numerical categorization: Five categories of people may not separate teruma; five types of grain require the separation of ḥalla from their dough; fifteen categories of women exempt their co-wives from levirate marriage and ḥalitza if they were both married to the same man who died childless; thirty-six transgressions for which one is liable to receive karet are listed in the Torah; thirteen matters are stated with regard to the unslaughtered carcass of a kosher bird; there are four primary categories of damages; and the number of primary categories of labor prohibited on Shabbat is forty-less-one.
אָמַר רִבִּי אָחָא. כְּתִיב לְעֶזְרָ֥א הַכֹּהֵ֖ן הַסּוֹפֵר. מַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר סוֹפֵֽר. אֶלָּא כְשֵׁם שֶׁהָיָה סוֹפֵר בְּדִבְרֵי תוֹרָה כָּךְ הָיָה סוֹפֵר בְּדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים.
The Gemara cites a different interpretation for the Hebrew word for scribe. Rabbi Eliezer said: It is written: “Now this is the copy of the letter that the king Artaxerxes gave to Ezra the priest the scribe, a scribe of the words of the mitzvot of the Lord, and of His statutes to Israel” (Ezra 7:11). What is the meaning when the verse states the word scribe [sofer] twice? “Scribe” can be interpreted as scholar. The verse is not redundant; rather, it means that just as Ezra was a scholar in matters of Torah, so was he a scholar in matters of the Sages, i.e., the Oral Law.
רִבִּי חַגַּיי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחָמָן. הָרִאשׁוֹנִים חָֽרְשׁוּ וְזָֽרְעוּ נִיכְּשׁוּ כִּיסְּחוּ עִידְּרוּ קָֽצְרוּ עִימִּירוּ דָּשׁוּ זָרוּ טָחֲנוּ הִרְקִידוּ לָשׁוּ קִיטִּיפוּ וְאָפוּ. וְאָנוּ אֵין לָנוּ פֶה לוֹכַל.
Rabbi Ḥaggai said in the name of Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman: The former Sages, i.e., the scholars of earlier generations, metaphorically plowed and planted, weeded, cleared thorns, hoed, harvested, gathered sheaves into a pile, threshed the sheaves, winnowed the threshed grain, separated the bad grain form the good, ground the remainder into flour, sifted the flour in a sieve, kneaded the dough, smoothed the surface of the unbaked loaves with liquid, and baked the bread. They prepared everything so that we should be able to grasp Torah concepts; and yet, after all that, we have nothing to eat, as we are still unable to understand the Torah properly.
רִבִּי אַבָּא בַּר זְמִינָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי זְעוּרָא. אִין הֲווֹן קַדְמָאֵיי מַלְאָכִין אֲנָן בְּנֵי אֵינַשׁ. וְאִין הֲווֹן בְּנֵי אֵנַשׁ אֲנָן חֲמָרִין. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. בְּהַהִיא שַׁעְתָּא אָֽמְרִין. אֲפִילוּ לַחֲמַרְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי פִינְחָס בֶּן יָאִיר לָא אִידְמִינָן.
The Gemara cites another metaphor with regard to the relationship between the earlier and later generations. Rabbi Abba bar Zemina said in the name of Rabbi Ze’eira: If the former generations were akin to angels, we are akin to humans; and if they were akin to humans, we are akin to donkeys. Rabbi Mana said: At that hour, when the previous statement was issued, they also said: We are not even comparable to the female donkey of Rabbi Pineḥas ben Yair.
חֲמַרְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי פִינְחָס בֶּן יָאִיר גְּנַבְתָהּ לִיסְטָאֵי בַלֵּילִיָּא. עֲבְדַּת טְמִירָא גַבּוֹן תְּלָתָא יוֹמִין וְלֹא טַעֲמָה כְלוּם. בְּתַר תְלָתָה יוֹמִין אִימְלָכוּן מַחְזַרְתָּהּ. אָֽמְרוּן. אַפְקוּנַהּ מִן הָכָא דְלָא תֵימוּת גָּבָּן. אַפְקוּנַהּ. אָֽזְלַת וְקָמַת עַל תִּרְעָא דָמָרָהּ. שְׁרִײַת מְנַהֲקָה. אֲמַר לוֹן. פָּֽתְחוּן לָהָדָא עֲלִיבְתָא דְּאִית לָהּ תְּלָתָה יוֹמִין דְּלָא טַעֲמָה כְלוּם. פָּֽתְחוּן לָהּ וְעָלַת לָהּ.
§ The Gemara explains the reference to this particular donkey. The donkey of Rabbi Pineḥas ben Yair was stolen by robbers one night. It was kept hidden by them for three days, and yet it did not eat anything. After three days, they reconsidered and decided to return it. They said: Let’s get it out of here, so that it shouldn’t die in our possession and leave a stench in our cave. When they set it free it went and stood by its master’s gate and began braying. Rabbi Pineḥas said to the members of his household: Open up for that poor creature, which has gone three days without eating anything. They opened the gate for it, and it entered Rabbi Pineḥas’ courtyard.
אֲמַר לוֹן. יְהָבוּ לָהּ תֵּיכוּל. יְהָבוּן קוֹמָהּ סְעָרִין וְלָא בָעַת מִיכוּל. אָֽמְרוּן לֵיהּ. רִבִּי. לָא בָעַת מִיכוּל. אֲמַר לוֹן. מְתַקְּנִין אִינּוּן. אָֽמְרוּ לֵיהּ. אִין. אֲמַר לוֹן. וָאַרִימִיתוּן דְּמַיִין.
He told them: Give it something to eat. They placed barley before it, but it would not eat. They said to him: Rabbi, it will not eat. He said to them: Has the barley been tithed so that it is fit to eat? They replied: Yes. He then asked them: And have you separated their doubtfully tithed produce? Did you tithe the grain about which there is doubt as to whether it has been tithed properly?
אָֽמְרוּן לֵיהּ. לֹא כֵן אַלְפָּן רִבִּי. הַלּוֹקֵחַ זֶרַע לִבְהֵמָה קֶמַח לְעוֹרוֹת שֶׁמֶן לָאוֹר פָּטוּר מִן הַדְּמַאי. אֲמַר לוֹן. מַה נַעֲבִיד לָהָדָא עֲלִיבְתָא דְּהִיא מַחְמְרָא עָל גַּרְמָהּ סַגִּין. וָאַרִימוֹן דְּמַיִין וְאָֽכְלָת.
They replied: Didn’t you teach us the following, Rabbi: One who purchases grain for feeding an animal, or flour for processing animal hides, or oil for lighting a lamp, is exempt from separating doubtfully tithed produce? There is no need to separate tithes from doubtfully tithed produce to feed a donkey. He said to them: What can we do for that poor creature, which is very strict with itself and will not eat even from doubtfully tithed produce, despite this exemption? And they therefore separated tithes from the doubtfully tithed produce, and the donkey finally ate the barley grains.
פְּתַחְיָה עַל הַקִּנִּים. בּוֹא וּרְאֵה מַה גָדוֹל הוּא כוֹחוֹ שֶׁלְאוֹתוֹ הָאִישׁ שֶׁהוּא פּוֹתֵחַ בִּדְבָרִים וְדוֹרְשָׁן וְיוֹדֵעַ שִבְעִים לָשׁוֹן. תַּנֵּי. סַנְהֶדְרִין שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ שְׁנַיִם שֶׁיּוֹדְעִין לְדַבֵּר וְכוּלָּן רְאוּיִין לִשְׁמוֹעַ הֲרֵי זוֹ רְאוּיָה לְסַנְהֶדְרִין.
§ The mishna states that Petaḥya was responsible for the pairs of birds. The Gemara mentions some of the talents of this Petaḥya. Come and see how great was the skill of that man. He could open, i.e., elucidate, difficult topics and interpret them. As mentioned in the mishna, he understood all seventy languages. The Gemara adds: It was taught in a baraita: A Sanhedrin that includes two members who are able to speak all the seventy languages, and all of its members are at least capable of understanding those languages, this court is minimally fit to serve as a Sanhedrin.
שְׁלֹשָׁה הֲרֵי זוֹ בֵינוֹנִית. אַרְבָּעָה הֲרֵי זוֹ חֲכָמָה. וּבְיַבְנֶה הָיוּ בָהּ אַרְבָּעָה. בֶּן עַזַּאִ וּבֶן זוֹמָא בֶּן חֲכִינַאִי וְרִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן מַתְיָה.
If it has three who can speak those languages, it is a medium level Sanhedrin. If it has four, it is a wise Sanhedrin. In Yavne, the Sanhedrin included four who could speak all seventy languages: Ben Azzai, ben Zoma, ben Ḥakhinai, and Rabbi Elazar ben Matya.
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא. פַּעַם אַחַת יָֽבְשָׁה אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל (וְקָֽלְטוּ לְגַגּוֹת צְרִיפִין.) [וְלֹא יָדְֽעוּ מֵהֵיכָן לְהָבִיא.
The Gemara cites a story that exemplifies Petaḥya’s skills at understanding linguistic allusions. Rabbi Ḥisda said: Once Eretz Yisrael dried up. There was a drought, no grain grew there, and the Sages did not know from where they could bring the omer, the measure of barley brought as a communal offering on the sixteenth of Nisan.
וַהֲוָה תַמָּן חַד אִלֵּם דַּהֲוַה יְהִיב חַד יָדֵיהּ עַל גַּגּוֹת יִחָדָא יָדֵיהּ עַל צְרִיפָה. אַיְתוּנֵיהּ קַמֵּיהּ דִּפְתַחָא. אֲמַר לָהוּ. אִי אֲתַר דְּמִתְקָרֵי גַגּוֹת צְרִיפִין אוֹ צְרִיפִין גַּגּוֹת. אָֽזְלִין תַּמָּן וְאַשְׁכְּחוֹן.]
And there was a mute present there who knew where barley was growing that year. He came to the Sages and gestured to them with his hands. He placed one of his hands on roofs [gagot] and the other hand on huts [tzerifin], alluding to the name of the place where barley could be found. Since they did not understand his allusions, they brought Petaḥya before him, who observed the actions of the mute and said to them: Is there a place called Gagot Tzerifin or Tzerifin Gagot? They remembered that there was indeed such a place. They went there and found barley for the omer offering.
אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. פַּעַם אַחַת נִשְׂרַף כָּל־הָעוֹלָם כּוּלּוֹ וְלֹא הָיוּ יוֹדְעִין מֵאֵיכָן לְהָבִיא. וַהֲוָה תַמָּן חַד אִילֵּם וַהֲוַה יְהִיב יָדֵיהּ עַל עֵייְנֵיהּ וְיָדֵ͏יהּ עַל סוֹכְרָא. אַיְתוּנֵיהּ גַּבֵּי פְתַחְיָה. אֲמַר לוֹן. אִית אֲתַר דְּמִתְקָרֵי עֵין סוֹכֵר אוֹ סוֹכֵר עַיִן. וְאָֽזְלִין תַּמָּן וְאַשְׁכְּחוֹן.
The Gemara relates a similar story. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Bun, said: Once all the grain in the entire world was blighted, and the Sages did not know from where they could bring barley for the omer. And again there was a mute present there who knew where barley was growing. He came before the Sages and gestured to them with his hands. He placed one hand on his eye and the other hand on a doorjamb [sokhara]. Since the Sages were unable to understand his allusions, they brought Petaḥya before him, who observed his actions and said to them: Is there a place called Ein Sokher or Sokher Ein? They remembered that there was indeed such a place. They went there and found barley for the omer offering.
שָׁלֹשׁ נָשִׁים הֵבִיאוּ קִינֵּיהֶן. אַחַת אוֹמֶרֶת. לְעֵינָתִי. וְְְאַחַת אוֹמֶרֶת לְיַמָּתִי. וְאַחַת אוֹמֶרֶת. לְזִיבָתִי.
The Gemara cites yet another story that exemplifies Petaḥya’s deciphering skills. There were three women who brought their own pair of birds to the Temple. It was not clear which type of offering each of them intended to bring. One of the women said: This pair of birds is for my fountain; and the second one said: It is for my sea; and the third one said: It is for my ziva.
זוֹ שֶׁאָֽמְרָה. לְעֵינָתִי. סָֽבְרִין מֵימַר. שׁוֹפַעַת כְמַעֲייָן. אֲמַר לוֹן. בְּעֵייְנָהּ סְכָנָת.
With regard to that woman who said: For my fountain, the Rabbis thought to say that she meant that her post-menstrual blood was flowing like a fountain. She was therefore bringing the pair of birds of a zava, as a sin-offering and a burnt-offering for her ritual purity. However, Petaḥya said to them: She was endangered in a fountain. She has brought this pair of birds as a thanks-offering for her escape from that life-threatening situation.
זוֹ שֶׁאָֽמְרָה. לְיַמָּתִי. סָֽבְרִין מֵימַר. שׁוֹפַעַת כַּיָּם. אֲמַר לוֹן. בְּיַמָּהּ סְכָנָת.
With regard to that woman who said: For my sea, the Rabbis thought to say that she meant that her post-menstrual blood was flowing like the sea, which likewise means that she was a zava bringing her offerings for ritual purity. But Petaḥya said to them: She was endangered in the sea, so she too has brought this pair of birds as a thanks-offering.
זוֹ שֶׁאָֽמְרָה. לְזִיבָתִי. סָֽבְרִין מֵימַר. זָבָה מַמָּשׁ. אֲמַר לוֹן. זְאֵב בָּא לִיטּוֹל אֶת בְּנָהּ.
Finally, with regard to that woman who said: For my ziva, the Rabbis thought to say that she meant that she was an actual zava, and she was therefore bringing an offering for ritual purity. But Petaḥya said to them: A wolf [ze’ev], a word that is similar to the one she used, came and attempted to snatch her son, but he was ultimately saved. She, too, has brought this pair of birds as a thanks-offering.
בֶּן אֲחִייָה עַל חוֹלֵי מֵעַיִם. עַל יְדֵי שֶׁהָיוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים מְהַלְּכִין יְחֵיפִים עַל הָרִצְפָּה וְהָיוּ אוֹכְלִין בָּשָׂר וְשׁוֹתִין מַיִם הָיוּ בָאִין לִידֵי חוֹלֵי מֵיעַיִם. וַהֲוָה יְדַע אֲהֵײ דֵין חֲמַר טַב לִמְעַייָא. וְהֵיי דֵין חֲמַר סְמַס לִמְעַייָא.
§ The mishna states that ben Aḥiyya was appointed to treat those priests who suffered from intestinal disease. The Gemara explains why priests were particularly susceptible to this ailment. Since the priests would walk barefoot on the floor, even when it was cold, as their feet had to be in contact with the stones of the Temple floor, and since they would eat a lot of meat from the offerings and drink a lot of water, they would contract intestinal disease. And ben Aḥiyya knew that this particular type of wine was good for healing the intestines, and that this other type of wine was effective intestinal medicine.
נְחוּנְייָה חוֹפֵר שִׁיחִין. שֶׁהָיָה חוֹפֵר שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת. וַהֲוָה יְדַע [דף יד.] הֵיי דֵין כֵּיף מְקוֹרֵר מַיָא וְהֵײ דֵין כֵּיף אִית בֵּיהּ שַׁרְבְּרוּבֵי וְעַד מַטֵּי הֵן שַׁרְבְּרוּבִיתֵיהּ מַטָייָה. אָמַר רִבִּי אָחָא. וּמֵת [בְּנוֹ] בַצָּמָא.
The mishna states that Neḥunya was the well digger. The Gemara explains that he would dig wells and caves, where rainwater would collect, for pilgrims to use on their way to Jerusalem for the Festivals. And he knew [14a] which rock contains water, and which rock contains fissures in which water may be found, and how far those fissures extend. This would enable him to calculate how deep he had to dig to reach water. Rabbi Eliezer said: And his son died of thirst.
Masechet Shekalim is sponsored by Sarene Shanus and Harold Treiber in memory of their parents, “who taught us the value of learning and of being part of the Jewish community.”
-
This month's learning is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.
Subscribe to Hadran's Daf Yomi
Want to explore more about the Daf?
See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners
Shekalim 13
The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria
[דף יג.] אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. קִײַמְתִּיהָ כָּהִיא דְאָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי זְעוּרָה. כָּל־שֶׁאֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לִקָּרֵב לֹא הִיא וְלֹא דָמֶיהָ לֹא קָֽדְשָׁה אֶלָּא הֶקְדֵּשׁ דָּמִים. וְאָמַרְתָּ יְאוּת. לְהַקְרִיבוֹ אֵין אַתְּ יָכוֹל. דִּכְתִיב בַּבָּקָ֕ר. לֹא עוּפוֹת. לִפְדוֹתוֹ אֵין אַתְּ יָכוֹל. שֶׁאֵין לָעוֹף פִּדְיוֹן. לְפוּם כָּךְ צָרַךְ מֵימַר. לֹא קָֽדְשָׁה אֶלָּא קְדוּשַׁת דָּמִים. [13a]
The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yosei said: I established Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion as being in accordance with that which Rabbi Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi Ze’eira: Anything that cannot be sacrificed on the altar, neither itself nor its monetary value, as it cannot be redeemed, is consecrated only with sanctity that inheres in its monetary value. And therefore, you, Rabbi Eliezer, said correctly: You are not able to sacrifice this bird on the altar, as it is written: “Of the cattle,” and not birds. You are not able to redeem the bird were it to have inherent sanctity, as there is no concept of redemption for birds. Therefore, you must say that it is consecrated only with sanctity that inheres in its value.
חֲבֵרַייָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. רִבִּי אַייְבוֹ בַּר נַגָּרִי אָמַר קוֹמֵי רִבִּי אִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. טַעֲמָא דְהֵין תַּנָּייָא. וְאִם֙ כָּל־בְּהֵמָ֣ה טְמֵיאָה אֲ֠֩שֶׁר לֹֽא־יַקְרִ֧יבוּ מִמֶּ֛נָּה קָרְבָּ֖ן לַֽיי.
§ In the baraita cited above, Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda said in the name of Rabbi Shimon that if one consecrates a female animal for a burnt-offering, a Paschal lamb, or a guilt-offering, it is endowed only with sanctity that inheres in the animal’s value, since a female animal is invalid for these offerings. Consequently, a substitute cannot be made from it. The group of students said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan, and Rabbi Ayyevu bar Nagri said in the presence of Rabbi Ila, in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: The source for the opinion of this tanna, Rabbi Shimon, is the verse in the passage about substitution: “And if it be any unclean animal, of which they may not bring an offering to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:11), which indicates that an unclean animal that was consecrated cannot make a substitution.
מַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר טְמֵ֔אָה. אֶלָּא אֲפִילוּ טְמֵיאָה בְאוֹתוֹ הַשֵּׁם.
What is the meaning when the verse states “unclean,” as it certainly is not referring to an animal of an unclean species of animal, i.e., a non-kosher animal, since they are already disqualified by a different verse? Rather, it is referring even to an animal of a clean, kosher species that is only unclean, i.e., unsuitable, for that particular category of offering.
וְקַשְׁיָא. בְּדָא כְתִיב וְהֶֽעֱמִ֥יד וְהֶֽעֱרִ֤יךְ.
The Gemara notes: It is difficult to justify this source as the basis for Rabbi Shimon’s opinion because, with regard to this, it is written in the continuation of the verse: “Then he shall stand the animal before the priest. And the priest shall value it” (Leviticus 27:11–12), indicating that before being redeemed, the animal must be stood before the priest for valuation. However, Rabbi Shimon himself holds that this process is necessary only for animals that have inherent sanctity. Perforce, this verse and the previous one are referring to cases where the animal has inherent sanctity. If so, these verses cannot be used as the basis for Rabbi Shimon’s opinion in the baraita.
רִבִּי זְעוּרָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. לֹא אָמַר כֵן אֶלָּא וְאִם֙ כָּל־בְּהֵמָ֣ה טְמֵאָ֔ה אֲ֠֩שֶׁר לֹֽא־יַקְרִ֧יבוּ מִמֶּ֛נָּה קָרְבָּ֖ן לַֽיי. כָּל־שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה לִיקָּרֵב לֹא כָאן וְלֹא בְמָקוֹם אַחֵר אֵינָהּ עוֹשָׂה תְמוּרָה.
Rabbi Ze’eira, in the name of Rabbi Elazar, did not say that this verse is the basis of Rabbi Shimon’s opinion. Rather, he explained it as the basis for the opposing opinion: “And if it be any unclean animal, of which they may not bring an offering to the Lord.” The superfluous word “offering” indicates that any animal that is not suitable to be sacrificed, neither here, for the type of offering for which it was consecrated, nor anywhere else, as any other type of offering, is never endowed with inherent sanctity. Therefore, a substitute cannot be made from it.
יָצָאת נְקֵיבָה שֶׁבָּעוֹף שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה לִיקָּרֵב כָּאן רְאוּיָה לִיקָּרֵב בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר.
This principle excludes the case of a female animal that was consecrated for a burnt-offering. Although it is not suitable to be sacrificed here, as an animal burnt-offering, it is suitable to be sacrificed in another place, such as a bird burnt-offering. This verse therefore serves as a source for the opinion of the first tanna in that baraita, who holds that a female animal consecrated for a burnt-offering, a guilt-offering, or a Paschal lamb is endowed with inherent sanctity, and therefore a substitute can be made from it.
רִבִּי בִּין וְרִבִּי בּוּן בְּעוֹן קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעוּרָה. הֲרֵי הַרוֹבַע וְהַנִּרְבַּע הֲרֵי אֵינָן רְאוּיִן לִיקָּרֵב לֹא כָאן וְלֹא בְמָקוֹם אַחֵר וַהֲרֵי הֵן עוֹשִׂין תְּמוּרָה. אָמַר לוֹן. אַף אֲנִי לֹא אָמַרְתִּי אֶלָּא טְמֵאָה מַמָּשׁ.
The Gemara challenges this principle: Rabbi Avun and Rabbi Bun asked in the presence of Rabbi Ze’eira: But there is the case of an animal that sodomizes a person or an animal that is sodomized, which are not suitable to be sacrificed, neither here, for the kind of offering for which it was consecrated, nor anywhere else as any other kind of offering, and yet a substitute can be made from it. The Gemara answers: He said to them: Even I said this principle only with regard to an animal that is actually unclean, i.e., from a non-kosher species. But it does not apply to an animal of a kosher species that is disqualified for some other reason.
וְקַשְׁיָא. בְּדָא כְתִיב וְהֶֽעֱמִ֥יד וְהֶֽעֱרִ֤יךְ.
The Gemara notes: But it is difficult to claim that “unclean” is referring to an animal of an unclean, non-kosher species, because with regard to this, it is written in the subsequent verses: “Then he shall stand the animal before the priest. And the priest shall value it” (Leviticus 27:11–12), indicating the procedure for redeeming the animal. This certainly cannot refer to an animal of a non-kosher species, since a verse later on (Leviticus 27:27) addresses that case. Rabbi Ze’eira’s derivation is therefore problematic.
משנה אַחַת לִשְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם מְשַׁעֲרִין אֶת הַלִּשְׁכָּה. כָּל־הַמְקַבֵּל עָלָיו לְסַפֵּק סְלָתוֹת מֵאַרְבַּע עָֽמְדוּ מִשָּׁלֹשׁ יְסַפֵּק מֵאַרְבַּע. מִשָּׁלֹשׁ וְעָֽמְדוּ מֵאַרְבַּע יְסַפֵּק מֵאַרְבַּע שֶׁיַּד הֶקְדֵּשׁ עַל הָעֶלְיוֹנָה.
Halakha 5 · MISHNA Once every thirty days, the prices at which the Temple supplies such as wine, flour, or oil will be purchased are set for the Temple chamber. This set price is implemented in the following way: Any merchant who undertakes to provide fine flour after the chamber set a price of four se’a per sela, even if the general market price rose and stood at three se’a per sela, he must provide fine flour based on the set price of four se’a per sela. However, if the chamber’s set price was three se’a per sela, and the general market price rose to four se’a per sela, he must now provide fine flour based on the new market price of four se’a per sela. This is in order that the Temple treasury of consecrated property always has the upper hand.
אִם הִתְלִיעָה סוֹלֶת הִתְלִיעָה לוֹ וְאִם הֶחְמִיץ יַיִן הֶחְמִיץ לוֹ. אֵינוֹ מְקַבֵּל אֶת מְעוֹתָיו עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא הַמִּזְבֵּחַ מְרַצֶּה׃
If the fine flour became wormy, it became wormy for the merchant, i.e., he bears the loss of the ruined fine flour and must provide new fine flour in its place. Similarly, if the wine turned to vinegar, it turned to vinegar for the merchant. This is because the merchant only receives, i.e., earns, his money once the altar is satisfied, i.e., the transaction is only realized once the items have been sacrificed on the altar.
הלכה תַּנֵּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. מִיַּד הָיוּ מְקַבְּלִין אֶת מָעוֹתָיו. וְהַכֹּהֲנִים זְרִיזִין הֵן.
GEMARA: It was taught in a baraita in the name of Rabbi Shimon: The merchants would immediately receive their money. And there was no concern that the items would spoil, because priests are vigilant and ensure that no item has a chance to spoil.
הדרן עלך פרק התרומה
משנה אֵילּוּ הֵן הַמְמוּנִּין שֶׁהָיוּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ. יוֹחָנָן בֶּן פִּינְחָס עַל הַחוֹתָמוֹת. אֲחִייָה עַל הַנְּסָכִים. מַתְיָה בֶּן שְׁמוּאֵל עַל הַפְּייָסוֹת.
Halakha 1 · MISHNA These are the officials who served in specific positions in the Temple: Yoḥanan ben Pineḥas was responsible for the seals. One who paid for a specific type of sacrificial item received a seal, which he presented to the Temple official in exchange for that item. Aḥiyya was responsible for the libations, i.e., the wine, oil, and flour prepared with the level of ritual purity necessary for the libation offerings and the meal-offerings, which accompanied many animal offerings. Aḥiyya supplied the libations to those who presented the appropriate seal. Matya ben Shmuel was responsible for the lotteries, which were used to select priests for the various Temple services each day.
פְּתַחְיָה עַל הַקִּינִּים
Petaḥya was responsible for the pairs of birds, i.e., the turtledoves or pigeons, brought by a zav, a zava, a woman after childbirth, and a leper. They placed the appropriate sum of money into the horn designated for this purpose, and each day Petaḥya oversaw the purchase of birds from that money and their sacrifice in the proper manner.
פְּתַחְיָה זֶה מָרְדְּכָי. וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ פְּתַחְיָה שֶׁהָיָה פּוֹתֵחַ בִּדְבָרִים וְדוֹרְשָׁן וְיוֹדֵעַ בְּשִבְעִים לָשׁוֹן.
Incidentally, the Gemara mentions: Petaḥya is Mordecai from the book of Esther. And why was he named called Petaḥya, which resembles the word for opening [petaḥ]? The reason is that he would open, i.e., elucidate, difficult topics and interpret them to the people, and because he knew all seventy languages known at the time.
בֶּן אֲחִייָה עַל חוֹלֵי מֵעַיִם. נְחוּנְייָה חוֹפֵר שִׁיחִין. גְּבִינֵי כָרוֹז. בֶּן גֶּבֶר עַל נְעִילַת שְׁעָרִים.
The mishna resumes the list of officials. Ben Aḥiyya was responsible for the care of the priests who suffered from intestinal disease. Neḥunya was the well digger for pilgrims on their way to Jerusalem for the Festivals. Gevini was the Temple crier who would awaken the priests and the Levites for their Temple duties. Ben Gever was responsible for locking the Temple gates in the evening and for unlocking them in the morning.
בֶּן בֵּבָי מְמוּנֶּה עַל הַפָּקִיעַ .בֶּן אַרְזָה עַל הַצִּלְצָל. הוּגְדַּס בֶּן לֵוִי עַל הַשִּׁיר.
Ben Bevai was appointed over the shreds of garments, which were formed into wicks for the Temple candelabra. He also supervised the twisting of those wicks into the appropriate thickness for the various nights during the different seasons of the year. Ben Arza was responsible for the cymbal, which was rung as a signal that the Levites should commence their song. Hugras ben Levi was responsible for the song. He taught and conducted the singers in the Temple.
בֵּית גַּרְמוּ עַל מַעֲשֵׂה לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים. בֵּית אַבְטִינָס עַל מַעֲשֵׂה הַקְּטֹרֶת. אֶלְעָזָר עַל הפָּרוֹכוֹת וּפִנְחָס הַמַּלְבִּישׁ.
The house of Garmu was responsible for the preparation of the shewbread; the house of Avtinas was responsible for the preparation of the incense; and Elazar was responsible for weaving the Temple curtains; and Pineḥas was the valet, who assisted the priests in fitting their clothes and dressing themselves for their Temple service.
הלכה אֵילּוּ הֵן הַמְמוּנִּין שֶׁהָיוּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ כול׳. רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר. רִבִּי סִימוֹן וְרַבָּנִן. חַד אָמַר. כְּשֵׁירֵי כָּל־דּוֹר וָדוֹר בָּא לִמְנוֹת [עֲלֵהֶן]. וְחוֹרָנָה אָמַר. מִי שֶׁהָיָה בְאוֹתוֹ הַדּוֹר מָנָה מַה שֶׁבְּדוֹרוֹ.
GEMARA: The mishna lists fifteen names of officials who filled specific positions in the Temple, despite the fact that during the many years of the Temple there must have been far more than fifteen officials who served those functions. Rabbi Ḥizkiyah said that Rabbi Simon and the Rabbis disagreed as to why the mishna mentions only these fifteen names. One of them said: The mishna comes to enumerate those who were the most fit of all the officials who served in each position, from whatever generation they were from. And the other said: The tanna who was in that generation enumerated those functionaries who served in his generation.
מָאן דְּאָמַר. כְּשֵׁירֵי כָּל־דּוֹר וָדוֹר בָּא לִמְנוֹת. עַל כּוּלָּן הוּא אוֹמֵר. זֵיכֶר צַדִּיק לִבְרָכָה.
Several of these officials are also mentioned in the mishna in Yoma, some for praise (37a), and others for censure (38a). The Gemara notes that this issue is related to the aforementioned dispute. The one who said that the mishna comes to enumerate the most fit of those who served from whatever generation claims that when the mishna in Yoma says: “The memory of a righteous person shall be for a blessing” (Proverbs 10:7) it is in reference to all of them. According to this opinion, the tanna in Yoma maintains that the reason these officials did not teach their specialties to others was because they wanted to prevent their knowledge from being used for idol worship. The only officials censured are those like ben Kamtzar, who refused to divulge their secrets for unworthy reasons, but these people are not mentioned in the mishna.
מָאן דְּאָמַר. מִי שֶׁהָיָה בְאוֹתוֹ הַדּוֹר מָנָה מַה שֶׁבְּדוֹרוֹ. עַל כּוּלָּם הוּא אוֹמֵר. וְשֵׁם רְשָׁעִים יִרְקָב׃ עַל מִי נֶאֱמַר זֵכֶר צַדִּיק לִבְרָכָה. עַל בֶּן קָטִין וַחֲבֵירָיו.
Conversely, the one who said that the tanna who was in that generation enumerated those officials who served in his generation, he claims that the mishna in Yoma says: “But the name of the wicked shall rot” (Proverbs 10:7) in reference to all of them. And with regard to whom is the tanna in Yoma speaking when he cites the verse: “The memory of a righteous person shall be for a blessing”? He is referring only to ben Katin, who improved the basin for the priests in the Temple, and his colleagues.
[דף יג:] אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה. כְּתִיב לָכֵ֞ן אֲחַלֶּק־ל֣וֹ בָֽרַבִּ֗ים וְאֶת־עֲצוּמִים֘ יְחַלֵּ֣ק שָׁלָל֒. זֶה רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה שֶׁהִתְקִין מִדְרַשׁ הֲלָכוֹת וְהַגָּדוֹת. [13b]
§ After recording the praises of certain historical figures, the Gemara continues in a similar vein. Rabbi Yona said that it is written: “Therefore will I divide him a portion among the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the mighty; because he bared his soul until death, and was numbered with the transgressors” (Isaiah 53:12). This verse is referring to Rabbi Akiva, who conveyed the Oral Law to the people by arranging the halakhic and homiletic midrash.
וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים. אֵילּוּ אַנְשֵׁי כְנֶסֶת הַגְּדוֹלָה. מַה שֶׁהִתְקִין זֶה כְלָלִין וּפְרָטִין.
And some say that the members of the Great Assembly arranged these compilations of Torah knowledge. But if so, what did this Sage, Rabbi Akiva, arrange? He arranged the interpretive method of generalizations and details.
אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. כְּתִיב מִשְׁפְּח֤וֹת סֽוֹפְרִים֙ יֹוֹשְׁבֵי יַעְבֵּ֔ץ. מַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר סֽוֹפְרִים֙. אֶלָּא שֶׁעָשׂוּ אֶת הַתּוֹרָה סְפוּרוֹת סְפוּרוֹת.
Rabbi Abbahu said: The lineage of Salma, son of Caleb, son of Hur, is listed in the book of Chronicles. It is written there: “And the families of scribes that dwelt at Jabez: The Tirathites, the Shimeathites, the Sucathites; these are the Kenites that came of Hammath, the father of the house of Rechab” (I Chronicles 2:55). What is the meaning when the verse states the word scribes, literally, counters? It does not mean that they were scribes; rather, it means that they crafted the halakhot of the Torah into numbered groups. They categorized and brought together disparate halakhot into a mnemonic device to assist learners.
חֲמִשָּׁה לֹא יִתְרוֹמוּ. חֲמִשָּׁה דְבָרִים חַייָבִין בַּחַלָּה חֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה נָשִׁים פּוֹטְרוֹת צָרוֹתֵיהֶן. שְׁלשִׁים וָשֵׁשׁ כְּרֵיתוֹת בַּתּוֹרָה. שְׁלשָׁה עָשָׂר דָּבָר בְּנִבְלַת הָעוֹף הַטָּהוֹר. אַרְבַּע אֲבוֹת נְזִיקִין. אֲבוֹת מְלָאכוֹת אַרְבָּעִים חָסֵר אֶחָת
The Gemara lists some examples of this numerical categorization: Five categories of people may not separate teruma; five types of grain require the separation of ḥalla from their dough; fifteen categories of women exempt their co-wives from levirate marriage and ḥalitza if they were both married to the same man who died childless; thirty-six transgressions for which one is liable to receive karet are listed in the Torah; thirteen matters are stated with regard to the unslaughtered carcass of a kosher bird; there are four primary categories of damages; and the number of primary categories of labor prohibited on Shabbat is forty-less-one.
אָמַר רִבִּי אָחָא. כְּתִיב לְעֶזְרָ֥א הַכֹּהֵ֖ן הַסּוֹפֵר. מַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר סוֹפֵֽר. אֶלָּא כְשֵׁם שֶׁהָיָה סוֹפֵר בְּדִבְרֵי תוֹרָה כָּךְ הָיָה סוֹפֵר בְּדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים.
The Gemara cites a different interpretation for the Hebrew word for scribe. Rabbi Eliezer said: It is written: “Now this is the copy of the letter that the king Artaxerxes gave to Ezra the priest the scribe, a scribe of the words of the mitzvot of the Lord, and of His statutes to Israel” (Ezra 7:11). What is the meaning when the verse states the word scribe [sofer] twice? “Scribe” can be interpreted as scholar. The verse is not redundant; rather, it means that just as Ezra was a scholar in matters of Torah, so was he a scholar in matters of the Sages, i.e., the Oral Law.
רִבִּי חַגַּיי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחָמָן. הָרִאשׁוֹנִים חָֽרְשׁוּ וְזָֽרְעוּ נִיכְּשׁוּ כִּיסְּחוּ עִידְּרוּ קָֽצְרוּ עִימִּירוּ דָּשׁוּ זָרוּ טָחֲנוּ הִרְקִידוּ לָשׁוּ קִיטִּיפוּ וְאָפוּ. וְאָנוּ אֵין לָנוּ פֶה לוֹכַל.
Rabbi Ḥaggai said in the name of Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman: The former Sages, i.e., the scholars of earlier generations, metaphorically plowed and planted, weeded, cleared thorns, hoed, harvested, gathered sheaves into a pile, threshed the sheaves, winnowed the threshed grain, separated the bad grain form the good, ground the remainder into flour, sifted the flour in a sieve, kneaded the dough, smoothed the surface of the unbaked loaves with liquid, and baked the bread. They prepared everything so that we should be able to grasp Torah concepts; and yet, after all that, we have nothing to eat, as we are still unable to understand the Torah properly.
רִבִּי אַבָּא בַּר זְמִינָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי זְעוּרָא. אִין הֲווֹן קַדְמָאֵיי מַלְאָכִין אֲנָן בְּנֵי אֵינַשׁ. וְאִין הֲווֹן בְּנֵי אֵנַשׁ אֲנָן חֲמָרִין. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. בְּהַהִיא שַׁעְתָּא אָֽמְרִין. אֲפִילוּ לַחֲמַרְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי פִינְחָס בֶּן יָאִיר לָא אִידְמִינָן.
The Gemara cites another metaphor with regard to the relationship between the earlier and later generations. Rabbi Abba bar Zemina said in the name of Rabbi Ze’eira: If the former generations were akin to angels, we are akin to humans; and if they were akin to humans, we are akin to donkeys. Rabbi Mana said: At that hour, when the previous statement was issued, they also said: We are not even comparable to the female donkey of Rabbi Pineḥas ben Yair.
חֲמַרְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי פִינְחָס בֶּן יָאִיר גְּנַבְתָהּ לִיסְטָאֵי בַלֵּילִיָּא. עֲבְדַּת טְמִירָא גַבּוֹן תְּלָתָא יוֹמִין וְלֹא טַעֲמָה כְלוּם. בְּתַר תְלָתָה יוֹמִין אִימְלָכוּן מַחְזַרְתָּהּ. אָֽמְרוּן. אַפְקוּנַהּ מִן הָכָא דְלָא תֵימוּת גָּבָּן. אַפְקוּנַהּ. אָֽזְלַת וְקָמַת עַל תִּרְעָא דָמָרָהּ. שְׁרִײַת מְנַהֲקָה. אֲמַר לוֹן. פָּֽתְחוּן לָהָדָא עֲלִיבְתָא דְּאִית לָהּ תְּלָתָה יוֹמִין דְּלָא טַעֲמָה כְלוּם. פָּֽתְחוּן לָהּ וְעָלַת לָהּ.
§ The Gemara explains the reference to this particular donkey. The donkey of Rabbi Pineḥas ben Yair was stolen by robbers one night. It was kept hidden by them for three days, and yet it did not eat anything. After three days, they reconsidered and decided to return it. They said: Let’s get it out of here, so that it shouldn’t die in our possession and leave a stench in our cave. When they set it free it went and stood by its master’s gate and began braying. Rabbi Pineḥas said to the members of his household: Open up for that poor creature, which has gone three days without eating anything. They opened the gate for it, and it entered Rabbi Pineḥas’ courtyard.
אֲמַר לוֹן. יְהָבוּ לָהּ תֵּיכוּל. יְהָבוּן קוֹמָהּ סְעָרִין וְלָא בָעַת מִיכוּל. אָֽמְרוּן לֵיהּ. רִבִּי. לָא בָעַת מִיכוּל. אֲמַר לוֹן. מְתַקְּנִין אִינּוּן. אָֽמְרוּ לֵיהּ. אִין. אֲמַר לוֹן. וָאַרִימִיתוּן דְּמַיִין.
He told them: Give it something to eat. They placed barley before it, but it would not eat. They said to him: Rabbi, it will not eat. He said to them: Has the barley been tithed so that it is fit to eat? They replied: Yes. He then asked them: And have you separated their doubtfully tithed produce? Did you tithe the grain about which there is doubt as to whether it has been tithed properly?
אָֽמְרוּן לֵיהּ. לֹא כֵן אַלְפָּן רִבִּי. הַלּוֹקֵחַ זֶרַע לִבְהֵמָה קֶמַח לְעוֹרוֹת שֶׁמֶן לָאוֹר פָּטוּר מִן הַדְּמַאי. אֲמַר לוֹן. מַה נַעֲבִיד לָהָדָא עֲלִיבְתָא דְּהִיא מַחְמְרָא עָל גַּרְמָהּ סַגִּין. וָאַרִימוֹן דְּמַיִין וְאָֽכְלָת.
They replied: Didn’t you teach us the following, Rabbi: One who purchases grain for feeding an animal, or flour for processing animal hides, or oil for lighting a lamp, is exempt from separating doubtfully tithed produce? There is no need to separate tithes from doubtfully tithed produce to feed a donkey. He said to them: What can we do for that poor creature, which is very strict with itself and will not eat even from doubtfully tithed produce, despite this exemption? And they therefore separated tithes from the doubtfully tithed produce, and the donkey finally ate the barley grains.
פְּתַחְיָה עַל הַקִּנִּים. בּוֹא וּרְאֵה מַה גָדוֹל הוּא כוֹחוֹ שֶׁלְאוֹתוֹ הָאִישׁ שֶׁהוּא פּוֹתֵחַ בִּדְבָרִים וְדוֹרְשָׁן וְיוֹדֵעַ שִבְעִים לָשׁוֹן. תַּנֵּי. סַנְהֶדְרִין שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ שְׁנַיִם שֶׁיּוֹדְעִין לְדַבֵּר וְכוּלָּן רְאוּיִין לִשְׁמוֹעַ הֲרֵי זוֹ רְאוּיָה לְסַנְהֶדְרִין.
§ The mishna states that Petaḥya was responsible for the pairs of birds. The Gemara mentions some of the talents of this Petaḥya. Come and see how great was the skill of that man. He could open, i.e., elucidate, difficult topics and interpret them. As mentioned in the mishna, he understood all seventy languages. The Gemara adds: It was taught in a baraita: A Sanhedrin that includes two members who are able to speak all the seventy languages, and all of its members are at least capable of understanding those languages, this court is minimally fit to serve as a Sanhedrin.
שְׁלֹשָׁה הֲרֵי זוֹ בֵינוֹנִית. אַרְבָּעָה הֲרֵי זוֹ חֲכָמָה. וּבְיַבְנֶה הָיוּ בָהּ אַרְבָּעָה. בֶּן עַזַּאִ וּבֶן זוֹמָא בֶּן חֲכִינַאִי וְרִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן מַתְיָה.
If it has three who can speak those languages, it is a medium level Sanhedrin. If it has four, it is a wise Sanhedrin. In Yavne, the Sanhedrin included four who could speak all seventy languages: Ben Azzai, ben Zoma, ben Ḥakhinai, and Rabbi Elazar ben Matya.
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא. פַּעַם אַחַת יָֽבְשָׁה אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל (וְקָֽלְטוּ לְגַגּוֹת צְרִיפִין.) [וְלֹא יָדְֽעוּ מֵהֵיכָן לְהָבִיא.
The Gemara cites a story that exemplifies Petaḥya’s skills at understanding linguistic allusions. Rabbi Ḥisda said: Once Eretz Yisrael dried up. There was a drought, no grain grew there, and the Sages did not know from where they could bring the omer, the measure of barley brought as a communal offering on the sixteenth of Nisan.
וַהֲוָה תַמָּן חַד אִלֵּם דַּהֲוַה יְהִיב חַד יָדֵיהּ עַל גַּגּוֹת יִחָדָא יָדֵיהּ עַל צְרִיפָה. אַיְתוּנֵיהּ קַמֵּיהּ דִּפְתַחָא. אֲמַר לָהוּ. אִי אֲתַר דְּמִתְקָרֵי גַגּוֹת צְרִיפִין אוֹ צְרִיפִין גַּגּוֹת. אָֽזְלִין תַּמָּן וְאַשְׁכְּחוֹן.]
And there was a mute present there who knew where barley was growing that year. He came to the Sages and gestured to them with his hands. He placed one of his hands on roofs [gagot] and the other hand on huts [tzerifin], alluding to the name of the place where barley could be found. Since they did not understand his allusions, they brought Petaḥya before him, who observed the actions of the mute and said to them: Is there a place called Gagot Tzerifin or Tzerifin Gagot? They remembered that there was indeed such a place. They went there and found barley for the omer offering.
אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. פַּעַם אַחַת נִשְׂרַף כָּל־הָעוֹלָם כּוּלּוֹ וְלֹא הָיוּ יוֹדְעִין מֵאֵיכָן לְהָבִיא. וַהֲוָה תַמָּן חַד אִילֵּם וַהֲוַה יְהִיב יָדֵיהּ עַל עֵייְנֵיהּ וְיָדֵ͏יהּ עַל סוֹכְרָא. אַיְתוּנֵיהּ גַּבֵּי פְתַחְיָה. אֲמַר לוֹן. אִית אֲתַר דְּמִתְקָרֵי עֵין סוֹכֵר אוֹ סוֹכֵר עַיִן. וְאָֽזְלִין תַּמָּן וְאַשְׁכְּחוֹן.
The Gemara relates a similar story. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Bun, said: Once all the grain in the entire world was blighted, and the Sages did not know from where they could bring barley for the omer. And again there was a mute present there who knew where barley was growing. He came before the Sages and gestured to them with his hands. He placed one hand on his eye and the other hand on a doorjamb [sokhara]. Since the Sages were unable to understand his allusions, they brought Petaḥya before him, who observed his actions and said to them: Is there a place called Ein Sokher or Sokher Ein? They remembered that there was indeed such a place. They went there and found barley for the omer offering.
שָׁלֹשׁ נָשִׁים הֵבִיאוּ קִינֵּיהֶן. אַחַת אוֹמֶרֶת. לְעֵינָתִי. וְְְאַחַת אוֹמֶרֶת לְיַמָּתִי. וְאַחַת אוֹמֶרֶת. לְזִיבָתִי.
The Gemara cites yet another story that exemplifies Petaḥya’s deciphering skills. There were three women who brought their own pair of birds to the Temple. It was not clear which type of offering each of them intended to bring. One of the women said: This pair of birds is for my fountain; and the second one said: It is for my sea; and the third one said: It is for my ziva.
זוֹ שֶׁאָֽמְרָה. לְעֵינָתִי. סָֽבְרִין מֵימַר. שׁוֹפַעַת כְמַעֲייָן. אֲמַר לוֹן. בְּעֵייְנָהּ סְכָנָת.
With regard to that woman who said: For my fountain, the Rabbis thought to say that she meant that her post-menstrual blood was flowing like a fountain. She was therefore bringing the pair of birds of a zava, as a sin-offering and a burnt-offering for her ritual purity. However, Petaḥya said to them: She was endangered in a fountain. She has brought this pair of birds as a thanks-offering for her escape from that life-threatening situation.
זוֹ שֶׁאָֽמְרָה. לְיַמָּתִי. סָֽבְרִין מֵימַר. שׁוֹפַעַת כַּיָּם. אֲמַר לוֹן. בְּיַמָּהּ סְכָנָת.
With regard to that woman who said: For my sea, the Rabbis thought to say that she meant that her post-menstrual blood was flowing like the sea, which likewise means that she was a zava bringing her offerings for ritual purity. But Petaḥya said to them: She was endangered in the sea, so she too has brought this pair of birds as a thanks-offering.
זוֹ שֶׁאָֽמְרָה. לְזִיבָתִי. סָֽבְרִין מֵימַר. זָבָה מַמָּשׁ. אֲמַר לוֹן. זְאֵב בָּא לִיטּוֹל אֶת בְּנָהּ.
Finally, with regard to that woman who said: For my ziva, the Rabbis thought to say that she meant that she was an actual zava, and she was therefore bringing an offering for ritual purity. But Petaḥya said to them: A wolf [ze’ev], a word that is similar to the one she used, came and attempted to snatch her son, but he was ultimately saved. She, too, has brought this pair of birds as a thanks-offering.
בֶּן אֲחִייָה עַל חוֹלֵי מֵעַיִם. עַל יְדֵי שֶׁהָיוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים מְהַלְּכִין יְחֵיפִים עַל הָרִצְפָּה וְהָיוּ אוֹכְלִין בָּשָׂר וְשׁוֹתִין מַיִם הָיוּ בָאִין לִידֵי חוֹלֵי מֵיעַיִם. וַהֲוָה יְדַע אֲהֵײ דֵין חֲמַר טַב לִמְעַייָא. וְהֵיי דֵין חֲמַר סְמַס לִמְעַייָא.
§ The mishna states that ben Aḥiyya was appointed to treat those priests who suffered from intestinal disease. The Gemara explains why priests were particularly susceptible to this ailment. Since the priests would walk barefoot on the floor, even when it was cold, as their feet had to be in contact with the stones of the Temple floor, and since they would eat a lot of meat from the offerings and drink a lot of water, they would contract intestinal disease. And ben Aḥiyya knew that this particular type of wine was good for healing the intestines, and that this other type of wine was effective intestinal medicine.
נְחוּנְייָה חוֹפֵר שִׁיחִין. שֶׁהָיָה חוֹפֵר שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת. וַהֲוָה יְדַע [דף יד.] הֵיי דֵין כֵּיף מְקוֹרֵר מַיָא וְהֵײ דֵין כֵּיף אִית בֵּיהּ שַׁרְבְּרוּבֵי וְעַד מַטֵּי הֵן שַׁרְבְּרוּבִיתֵיהּ מַטָייָה. אָמַר רִבִּי אָחָא. וּמֵת [בְּנוֹ] בַצָּמָא.
The mishna states that Neḥunya was the well digger. The Gemara explains that he would dig wells and caves, where rainwater would collect, for pilgrims to use on their way to Jerusalem for the Festivals. And he knew [14a] which rock contains water, and which rock contains fissures in which water may be found, and how far those fissures extend. This would enable him to calculate how deep he had to dig to reach water. Rabbi Eliezer said: And his son died of thirst.
