Today's Daf Yomi
April 8, 2021 | כ״ו 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 shiurim are sponsored by Bill Futornick in memory of Rabbi David Teitelbaum Z"L, who led Congregation Beth Jacob in Redwood City, CA for 38 years. He was an extraordinary leader, teacher, moral exemplar and family man who truly fought for equality and deeply embraced ahavat tzion.
-
This month's learning is sponsored by Sami Groff in honor of Shoshana Keats Jaskoll and Chochmat Nashim.
Shekalim 18
Today’s Daf is dedicated for Yom HaShoah in memory of all those who died in the Holocaust. And by Di Gittel Kuchar “in honor of her father’s second yartzeit, Moshe Ben Abraham Neuhauser a Holocaust survivor. Dad often spoke about life before and during the Shoah. At times I suffered from survivor’s guilt as a child of survivors, but then I turned it around from Dad’s example. One survives to fulfill a mission to learn, teach and live yiddishkeit. He would be so proud of all of us on our daily Daf journey as he too loved his daily learning.” And by Ellen Werlin in honor of her sister, Rachel Geballe, on the occasion of her birthday. “With thanks to her for introducing myself and her niece, Avigayil, to the daf, as well as for other blessings of having her as a sister and an aunt.”
Where was the golden altar situated? The menorah? In the time of King Solomon, there were also 10 menorahs. Where were they situated? Were they lit or was only the main one used? What were the 13 shofarot for collecting money in the Temple used for? There is a debate regarding some of them – were they used only for voluntary offerings or also for obligatory ones? According to Rabbi Yehuda, the one labeled “pairs” was not used for obligatory offerings in case one of those who put money in died. If that were to happen, the money would need to be destroyed and as it is now mixed with other money, all the money would be prohibited. If one volunteers wood or frankincense, what is the amount of each that needs to be brought?
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Podcast (דף יומי לנשים - עברית): Play in new window | Download
מָאן דְּאָמַר. מִזְרַח וּמַעֲרָב. נִיחָא. כּוּלְּהֹן רְאוּיִין לְשֵׁירוּת. מָאן דְּאָמַר. צָפוֹן וְדָרוֹם. נִמְצָא שׁוּלְחָן בַדָּרוֹם [דף יח.] וּמְנוֹרָה בַצָּפוֹן. וְהָא תַנֵּי. הַשֻּׁלְחָן הָיָה נָתוּן מֵחֲצִי הַבַּיִת וְלִפְנִים מָשׁוּךְ מִן הַכּוֹתֶל כִּשְׁתֵּי אַמּוֹת כְּלַפֵּי הַצָּפוֹן וּמְנוֹרָה כְנֶגְדּוֹ בְדָרוֹם.
According to the one who said that the tables were placed from east to west it works out well, as they are all suitable for service. The tables were positioned in a manner that rendered them all fit for service, as the table could be used only in the northern part of the Sanctuary, in accordance with the verse: “And you shall put the table on the north side” (Exodus 26:35). However, according to the one who said that they were placed from north to south, the table, i.e., five of the tables, are found in the southern part of the Sanctuary, [18a] and the candelabrum in the north of the Sanctuary. But wasn’t it taught in a baraita: The shewbread table was situated from the halfway point of the House and inward, in the inner half of the Sanctuary, drawn two and a half cubits away from the wall to the north. The priests who arranged the shewbread on the table would stand in this space. And the candelabrum was situated opposite it, in the south of the Sanctuary, likewise two and a half cubits from the wall.
מִזְבַּח הַזָּהָב הָיָה נָתוּן בְאֶמְצַע הַבַּיִת חוֹלֵק אֶת הַבַּיִת וְלִפְנִים מָשׁוּךְ קִימְעָא כְּלַפֵּי הַצָּפוֹן. וְכוּלְּהֹם הָיוּ נְתוּנִין מִשְּׁלִישׁ הַבַּיִת וְלִפְנִים.
The golden altar was situated in the middle of the House, dividing the House from its halfway point and inward, i.e., equidistant from the north and south walls, slightly drawn back from the place of the table and the candelabrum toward the outside. Since the length of the entire area was sixty cubits, twenty for the Holy of Holies, and forty for the Sanctuary, all the vessels were situated from a third of the entire House and inward, i.e., the vessels were all contained in the second third of the entire area.
עֶשֶׂר מְנוֹרוֹת עָשָׂה שְׁלֹמֹה. [שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר] וַ֠יַּעַשׂ אֶת־מְנוֹרוֹת הַזָּהָ֛ב עֶ֖שֶׂר כְּמִשְׁפָּטוֹ. אּין תֵּימַר. חָמֵשׁ בַּצָּפוֹן וְחָמֵשׁ בַּדָּרוֹם.
King Solomon constructed ten candelabra, modeled after the one that Moses crafted, as it is stated: “And he made the ten candlesticks of gold according to the ordinance concerning them; and he set them in the Sanctuary, five on the right, and five on the left” (II Chronicles 4:7). Before completing its citation of the baraita, the Gemara asks: If you say that right and left refer to the sides of the entrance to the Sanctuary, which would mean that Solomon set up five candelabra in the north of the Sanctuary, to the left of its entrance, and five in the south of the Sanctuary, to the right of its entrance, this is difficult.
וַהֲלֹא אֵין הַמְּנוֹרָה כְשֵׁירָה אֶלָּא בַדָּרוֹם. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְאֶת־הַמְּנוֹרָה֙ נֹ֣כַח הַשֻּׁלְחָ֔ן עַ֛ל צֶ֥לַע הַמִּשְׁכָּ֖ן תֵּימָ֑נָה. מַה תַלָמוּד לוֹמַר. חָמֵשׁ מִיָּמִ֖ין וְחָמֵשׁ מִשְּׂמֹ֑אול. אֶלָּא חָמֵשׁ מִיָּמִין מְנוֹרָתוֹ שֶׁלְמֹשֶׁה וְחָמֵשׁ מִשְּׂמאֹלָהּ.
The Gemara explains the difficulty: Isn’t the candelabrum fit only if it is in the south of the Sanctuary, as it is stated: “And the candelabrum over against the table on the side of the Tabernacle toward the south” (Exodus 26:35). What, then, is the meaning when the verse states: “Five on the right, and five on the left”? Rather, it must mean that the candelabrum that Moses made was located in the Sanctuary, while five of the candelabra that Solomon crafted were placed to the right of the candelabrum of Moses, and five to its left.
אַף עַל פִּי כֵן לֹא הָיָה מַבְעִיר אֶלָּא שֶׁלְמֹשֶׁה בִּלְבַד. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וּמְנוֹרַ֨ת הַזָּהָ֤ב וְנֵֽרוֹתֶיהָ לְבָעֵר֙ בָּעֶ֣רֶב בָּעֶ֔רֶב. רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בֵּירִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר. עַל כּוּלָּם הָיָה מַבְעִיר. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְאֶת־הַמְּנוֹרוֹת וְנֵרוֹתֵיהֶם לְבַֽעֲרָ֧ם כַּמִּשְׁפָּ֛ט לִפְנֵ֥י הַדְּבִ֖יר זָהָ֥ב סָגֽוּר׃
Even so, i.e., despite the fact that there were so many candelabra in the Sanctuary, the priest would kindle only the candelabrum of Moses alone, as it is stated: “And the candelabrum of gold with its lamps, to burn every evening” (II Chronicles 13:11). The singular form indicates that only one candelabrum was lit. Conversely, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: He would kindle all eleven candelabra, one of Moses and ten of Solomon, each one in turn, as it is stated: “And the candelabra with their lamps, that they should burn according to the ordinance before the Sanctuary, of pure gold” (II Chronicles 4:20). The plural “candelabra” indicates that they were all lit.
וְהַפֶּ֧רַח וְהַנֵּ֛רוֹת וְהַמֶּלְקָחַ֖יִם זָהָ֑ב ה֖וּא מִכְל֥וֹת זָהָֽב. הֵן כִּילוּ זְהָבוֹ שֶׁלְשְׁלֹמֹה.
The baraita analyzes the subsequent verse: “And the flowers, and the lamps, and the tongs, of gold, and that perfect gold [mikhelot zahav]” (II Chronicles 4:21). This means that the candelabrum completely depleted [killu] the gold of Solomon. As the gold was repeatedly purified until it reached the required level of purity, a large quantity of gold evaporated.
רַב יְהוּדָה בְשֵׁם אַסִּי. הָיָה שְׁלֹמֹה נוֹטֵל אֶלֶף כִּכְּרֵי זָהָב וּמַכְנִיסָן (לָאוֹר) [לַכּוּר] וּמוֹצִיאָן עַד שֶׁהוּא מַעֲמִידָן עַל אֶחָד. לְקַייֵם מַה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כִּכָּ֛ר זָהָ֥ב טָה֖וֹר עָשָׂ֣ה אֹתָ֑הּ וגו׳.
The Gemara cites a related baraita. Rav Yehuda taught in the name of the Sage Asi: Solomon would take a thousand talents of gold and insert them into the crucible and remove them.He repeated this process until the gold was so refined that he established its weight as one talent of gold, to fulfill that which is stated about the original candelabrum in the Tabernacle: “Of a talent of pure gold made he it, etc.” (Exodus 37:24).
תַּנֵּי. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי יְהוּדָה. מַעֲשֶׂה בִמְנוֹרַת זָהָב שֶׁעָשָׂה מֹשֶׁה בַמִּדְבָּר וְהָֽיְתָה יְתֵירָה דֵינָר זָהָב. וְהִכְנִיסוּהָ לַכּוּר שְׁמוֹנִים פַּעַם וְלֹא חָֽסְרָה כְלוּם.
It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, said: There was an incident involving the candelabrum of gold that Moses made in the desert, which exceeded the weight set by the Torah, one talent, by one dinar of gold. And they inserted it into the crucible eighty times, to further refine it and reduce its weight, but it was not reduced by anything.
וְיֵאוּת. עַד שֶׁלֹּא יְקוּם עַל בְּרָרֵיהּ הוּא חָסֵר סַגִּין. מִן דּוּ קַייָם עַל בְּרָרֵיהּ לֹא חָסֵר כְּלוּם.
And this is proper, for as long as it had not achieved its correct state of purity, it would decrease greatly, as its refinement in the crucible removed all the impurities, thereby reducing its weight. However, from when it had achieved its correct state of purity, it was not reduced at all. Unlike the gold of Moses, the gold Solomon used was not originally free of impurity and therefore required refinement.
משנה שְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר שׁוֹפָרוֹת הָיוּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ וְכָתוּב עֲלֵיהֶן תִּקְלִין חַדְתִּין וְתִקְלִין עַתִּיקִין קִינִּין וְגוֹזְלֵי עוֹלָה עֵצִים לְבוֹנָה זָהָב לַכַּפֹּרֶת. שִׁשָּׁה לִנְדָבָה.
Halakha 4 · MISHNA There were thirteen collection horns in the Temple, and the intended use of the funds was written upon each one, as follows: New shekels, old shekels, pairs of birds, fledglings designated for burnt-offerings, wood for the arrangement on the altar, frankincense that accompanied meal-offerings, and gold donated for the Ark cover. The remaining six horns were designated for communal free-will offerings.
תִּקְלִין חַדְתִּין שֶׁבְּכָל־שָׁנָה וְשָׁנָה. וְעַתִּיקִין מִי שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא אֶשְׁתָּקַד שׁוֹקֵל לְשָׁנָה הַבָּאָה.
The horn labeled new shekels was designated for the half-shekel donation that was brought every year for the needs of that year. The horn labeled old shekels was for one who did not bring his half-shekel the previous year, who would contribute his shekel for the following year.
קִינִּין הֵן תּוֹרִין. וְגוֹזְלֵי עוֹלָה הֵן בְּנֵי יוֹנָה. כּוּלָּן עוֹלוֹת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
The funds in the horn labeled pairs of birds are designated for the turtledoves used for bird-offerings, and the one labeled fledglings for burnt-offerings are used to purchase young pigeons as burnt-offerings. All of these, i.e., the funds in both horns, were used exclusively for voluntary burnt-offerings. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.
וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים קִינִּין אֶחָד חַטָּאת וְאֶחָד עוֹלָה. גּוֹזְלֵי עוֹלָה כּוּלָּן עוֹלוֹת׃
And the Rabbis say: The funds in both the horn labeled pairs of birds and the horn labeled fledglings were for young pigeons and turtledoves. The distinction between them is that the funds in the horn labeled pairs of birds were designated for the obligatory offerings of a zav, a zava, a woman after childbirth, and a leper. These offerings included a pair of birds, one brought for a sin-offering, and the other one brought for a burnt-offering. Conversely, the funds in the horn labeled fledglings for burnt-offerings were all used exclusively for voluntary burnt-offerings.
הָאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי עָלַי עֵצִים לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִשְּׁנֵי גִּיזְירִין. לְבוֹנָה לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִקּוֹמֶץ. זָהָב לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִדִּינַר זָהָב.
One who says: It is incumbent upon me to donate wood to the Temple, must donate no fewer than two logs for the arrangement on the altar. One who says: It is incumbent upon me to donate frankincense, must donate no less than a handful of frankincense, the amount brought with a meal-offering. One who says: It is incumbent upon me to donate gold, must donate no less than a dinar of gold.
שִׁשָּׁה לִנְדָבָה. נְדָבָה מֶה הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין בָּהּ לוֹקְחִין בָּהּ עוֹלוֹת הַבָּשָׂר לַשֵּׁם וְהָעוֹרוֹת לַכֹּהֲנִים. It was stated that six horns were designated for communal free-will offerings. The Mishna asks: With regard to the money designated for communal free-will offerings, what would they do with this money? The Mishna answers that they used it to purchase animals for burnt-offerings, as the meat from these offerings was offered on the altar to God and the hides were given to the priests.
זֶה מִדְרָשׁ דָּרַשׁ יְהוֹיָדָע כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל אָשָׁם הוּא אָֹשׂם אָשַׁם לַיְיָ. This midrash was taught by Jehoiada the High Priest: There is an apparent contradiction between two verses. With regard to the guilt-offering, the verse states: “It is a guilt-offering; he is certainly guilty before the Lord” (Leviticus 5:19). This verse indicates that the guilt-offering goes to God, not the priests. However, a different verse states: “As is the sin-offering, so is the guilt-offering; there is one law for them; the priest who makes atonement with it, he shall have it” (Leviticus 7:7). This verse indicates that the offering is designated for the priests alone. How can these two verses be reconciled?
זֶה הַכְּלָל כֹּל שֶׁהוּא בָּא מִשֵּׁם חֵטְא וּמִשֵּׁם אַשְׁמָה יִלָּקַח בּוֹ עוֹלוֹת הַבָּשָׂר לַשֵּׁם וְהָעוֹרוֹת לַכֹּהֲנִים. נִמְצְאוּ שְׁנֵי כְּתוּבִין קַייָמִין אָשָׁם לַיי וְאָשָׁם לַכֹּהֵן.
The Mishna explains that this is the principle: Any funds that come due to a sin-offering or due to a guilt-offering, i.e., leftover coins designated for one of these offerings, they should be used for the purchase of animals for a voluntary burnt-offering, as the meat will be offered on the altar to God, and the hides will go to the priests. In this manner the two verses are found to be fulfilled, as it is both a guilt-offering to God as well as a guilt-offering to the priest.
וְאוֹמֵר כֶּסֶף אָשָׁם וְכֶסֶף חַטָּאוֹת לֹא יוּבָא בֵּית יי לַכֹּהֲנִים יִהְיוּ׃ And this halakha also explains the verse that says: “The guilt-offering money and the sin-offering money was not brought into the House of the Lord; it was for the priests” (II Kings 12:17). This verse is understood to refer to the hides given to the priests.
הלכה תַּנֵּי. אָמַר רִבִּי יְהוּדָה. וְלֹא הָיָה שׁוֹפָר שֶׁלְקִינִּים בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם מִפְּנֵי הַתַּעֲרוֹבֶת. שֶׁמָּא תָמוּת אַחַת מֵהֶן וְנִמְצְאוּ דְמֵי חַטָּאוֹת מֵיתוֹת מְעוּרָבוֹת בָּהֶן.
GEMARA: It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said: There was no collection horn for pairs of birds in the Temple in Jerusalem, due to the mixtures. The concern was that perhaps one of the women obligated to bring a pair of birds would die after putting her money in the horn. And if that happens, it would turn out that the funds for sin-offerings left to die are mixed with the rest of the money in the horn. When the owner of funds designated for a sin-offering passes away, the designated money must be destroyed. Since there is no way to distinguish between the coins, all the money is prohibited.
[וְהָ]תַנֵּי. הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁאָֽמְרָה. הֲרֵי עָלַי קַן. מֵבִיאָה דְמֵי קַן וְנוֹתְנָתוֹ בַשּׁוֹפָר [דף יח:] וְאוֹכֶלֶת בַקֳּדָשִׁים וְאֵינָהּ חוֹשֶׁשֶׁת שֶׁמָּא נִתְעַצֵּל כֹּהֵן. וְאֵין הַכֹּהֵן חוֹשֵׁשׁ שֶׁמָּא דְמֵי חַטָּאוֹת מֵיתוֹת מְעוּרָבוֹת בָּהֶן.
The Gemara raises a difficulty against this conclusion. But wasn’t it taught in a baraita that with regard to a woman who said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a pair of birds, that she brings the funds for the purchase of a pair of birds to the Temple and places them in the collection horn. [18b] And after she has ritually immersed for her purification and the sun has set, she may eat consecrated foods. And she need not be concerned that perhaps the priest was lazy and neglected to sacrifice her offering, which would cause her to lack atonement and be prohibited from eating sacrificial food. And the priest need not be concerned that perhaps one of the women who placed funds in this horn has died, which would mean that the funds for sin-offerings left to die are mixed with the rest of the coins. Since this ruling is undisputed, it is evidently accepted by all the Sages, including Rabbi Yehuda. If so, how can it be claimed that Rabbi Yehuda said there were no horns for obligatory pairs of birds due to the concern that one of the women who placed money there had died?
[כִּי קָאָֽמְרִינָן. בְּחַטָּאת שֶׁמֵּתוּ בַעֲלֵיהֶן וַדַּאִי.
The Gemara answers: When we say this opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, we are referring to a case where it is known that one of the women had died, which means that the funds she gave have the status of a sin-offering whose owner had certainly died. In this case the coins definitely cannot be used for an offering, and they invalidate the other coins with which they are mingled in the horn. To avoid this scenario, Rabbi Yehuda maintains that there was no horn for obligatory pairs of birds.
וְאִי אָֽמְרִינָן. נִבְרוֹר ד׳ זוּזֵי וְנַשְׁדֵּי בִּנְהָרָא וְאִידָּךְ לִישְׁתְּרוּ.
The Gemara asks: But even if we say that there is a concern that the horn contains invalidated coins, the following remedy can be applied: Let us select four zuz, the value of one pair of birds (see Keritot 1:7), and declare that these are the invalidated coins, and throw them into the river so that they will be destroyed, and the remainder will be permitted. If so, even according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, there should be no problem with a horn for pairs of birds.
הָא אָֽמְרִינָן בָעָֽלְמָא. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה לֵית לֵיהּ בְּרֵירָה.]
The Gemara answers: This is not an effective solution according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, because we generally say: Rabbi Yehuda does not accept the principle of retroactive designation. According to Rabbi Yehuda, a doubtful state of affairs cannot be clarified retroactively. Consequently, one cannot resolve this problem by setting aside four zuz, and he maintains that there was no horn for obligatory pairs of birds.
רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן אָמַר. רִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל בָּעֵי. אָמַר הֲרֵי עָלַי עֵץ. מְבִיא גֵּיזָר אֶחָד.
§ It was taught in the mishna that if one said: It is incumbent upon me to donate wood, he must donate no fewer than two logs. The Gemara addresses a similar case: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Bun, said that Rabbi Ba bar Memel raised a dilemma: What is the ruling if one said: It is incumbent upon me to donate a log of wood? Does he bring only one log?
אָמַר רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. מַתְנִיתָה אָֽמְרָה כֵן. שֶׁזֶּה קָרְבָּן בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְזֶה קָרְבָּן בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ.
Rabbi Elazar said: The Mishna says so; i.e., a mishna provides a solution to our dilemma. We learned that the two logs added each day to the arrangement on the altar, before the daily morning offering and before the daily afternoon offering, were not considered one offering, as this log was an offering to itself and that log was an offering to itself. Since each log was a separate offering, evidently one may donate even a single log.
כָּהִיא דְתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. שְׁנַיִם בְּיָדָם שְׁנֵי גְיזִירֵי עֵצִים.
Where was this ruling taught? As we learned in a mishna there, with regard to the order of the daily afternoon offering: Two priests ascended to the altar, and in their hands were two logs of wood for the arrangement, each holding one log in his hand. This statement indicates that each log was a separate offering, as each was held by a different priest.
לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הָעֵצִים.
The Gemara asks: From where is it derived that even an individual can pledge wood for the arrangement? From the verse: “And when any one brings a meal-offering to the Lord” (Leviticus 2:1). The word offering comes to include the wood, which is also referred to as an offering in the verse: “And we cast lots, the priests, the Levites, and the people, for the wood-offering” (Nehemiah 10:35). Furthermore, the phrase “any one” teaches that even an individual can pledge wood.
רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אָמַר. עוֹבְייָן (כַּמָּה חוֹקוֹת) [בָּאַמָּה שׁוֹחֲקוֹת]. וְאָרְכָּן (אַמָּה גַמּוּדָה) [כְּאַמָּה גְּרוֹמָה]. רִבִּי חוֹנִי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אִמִּי. כְּמִין טוֹרְטָנִי.
As the Gemara is discussing the donation of logs for the arrangement, it mentions their measurements. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The thickness of this wood was a cubit of the expanded cubits, and their length was measured by the shortened cubits. Rabbi Ḥoni said in the name of Rabbi Ammi: The measurement of their thickness was as on a scale [turtanei], i.e., it was exactly one cubit.
אָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק. לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה מְקוֹם הַמַּעֲרָכָה אֶלָּא אָמָּה עַל אֶמָּה לְפִיכָךְ לֹא הָיָה בוֹ אֶלָּא אַמָּה (גַמּוּדָה) [גְּרוֹמָה]. וְתַנֵּי כֵן. אַמָּה הַיְּסוֹד אַמָּה סוֹבֵב אַמָּה כַּרְכּוֹב וְאַמָּה קְרָנוֹת וְאַמָּה מַעֲרָכָה.
Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak explained why a shortened cubit was used for the measurement of the wood and said: As the area of the arrangement on the bronze altar built by Moses was only one cubit by one cubit, therefore, the length of the log was only a shortened cubit, as it would otherwise protrude from the arrangement. And it was likewise taught in a baraita: The breadth of the base of the altar made by Moses was a cubit, the surrounding ledge was a cubit, the rim a cubit, the corners a cubit, and the breadth of the place of the arrangement was likewise a cubit.
לְבוֹנָה לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִקּוֹמֶץ. נֶאֱמַר כָּאן אַזְכָּרָה וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן אַזְכָּרָה.
§ It was taught in the mishna that if one pledges frankincense without specifying an amount, he must donate no less than a handful. The Gemara cites the verbal analogy that is the source for this halakha. It is stated here: “And you shall put pure frankincense with each row, that it may be to the bread for a memorial-part” (Leviticus 24:7). And it is stated there, with regard to the meal-offering of a sinner: “And the priest shall take his handful of it as its memorial-part” (Leviticus 5:12).
מַה אַזְכָּרָה הָאֲמוּרָה לְהַלָּן מְלֹא קוֹמֶץ אַף כָּאן מְלֹא קוֹמֶץ.
The Gemara interprets the verbal analogy: Just as the term “memorial-part” that is stated below must be a handful, so too, the term “memorial-part” that is stated here, with regard to the frankincense brought with the shewbread, must be a handful. This shows that when an unspecified amount of frankincense is pledged as an independent free-will offering, the obligation is to bring a handful.
אִי מַה אַזְכָּרָה הָאֲמוּרָה לְהַלָּן שְׁנֵי קְמָצֵים אַף כָּאן שְׁנֵי קְמָצֵים.
The Gemara asks: If so, one can derive the opposite conclusion from the same verbal analogy: Just as the memorial-part that is stated below, by the shewbread, must be two handfuls, one for each arrangement of bread, so too the term memorial-part stated here, with regard to the free-will offering of frankincense, should be a measure of two handfuls.
אָמַר רִבִּי לָא. כְּלוּם לָֽמְדוּ לְקוֹמֶץ אֶלָּא מִלֶּחֶם הַפָּנִים. מַה לְהַלָּן קוֹמֶץ הֶחָסֵר פָּסוּל אַף כָּאן קוֹמֶץ הֶחָסֵר פָּסוּל.
Rabbi Ila said in response: Didn’t we derive the measurement of a handful of frankincense only from the meal-offering of a sinner? Just as there, in the case of the meal-offering of a sinner, an incomplete handful is invalid, so too, here, with regard to frankincense of the shewbread, an incomplete handful should be invalid. It is possible to invalidate the frankincense of the shewbread only if each handful is considered an independent mitzva. If the two handfuls together were considered one mitzva, they would remain valid even if one of them were incomplete, as they contain a total amount greater than a handful. This proves that each handful is an independent mitzva, which means that if one of them is incomplete, the second does not complete it and it is invalidated. From here it can be inferred that every measurement of the frankincense, including a free-will offering of frankincense, requires a handful.
אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. מִילְּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי אִילָא אָֽמְרָה. הַמִּתְנַדֵּב מִנְחָה מֵבִיאָהּ בְקוּמְצוֹ שֶׁלְכֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל. רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. וַאֲפִילוּ בְּקוֹמֶץ הַבְּעָלִים.
Rabbi Yosei said: From the statement of Rabbi Ila, that the measurement of a handful of frankincense for a free-will offering is derived from the handful that came with the shewbread, which is measured according to the handful of the largest of the priests, it can be said that one who donates incense brings it according to the measure of the handful of a priest who has the largest hands, not the handful of the one who brings it. Rabbi Ḥizkiya said in the name of Rabbi Yirmeya: One who donates incense can approximate the handful of any priest, and even use the handful of the owners.
זָהָב לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִדִּינַר זָהָב. אָמַר רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. וְהוּא שֶׁהִזְכִּיר צוּרָה. אֲבָל אִם לֹא הִזְכִּיר צוּרָה מֵבִיא אֲפִילוּ צִינּוֹרָה.
The mishna taught that one who pledges gold without specifying the amount must donate no less than a dinar of gold. Rabbi Elazar said: And this is the case if he mentioned a form by saying: It is incumbent upon me to bring a gold coin. However, if he did not mention a form, but merely said: It is incumbent upon me to bring gold, he may bring even a small hook of any size.
שִׁשָּׁה לִנְדָבָה. חִזְקֶה אָמַר. כְּנֶגֶד שִׁשָּׁה בָתֵּי אָבוֹת.
The mishna states that there were six collection horns for communal free-will offerings, in which the remainder of the funds for sin-offerings and burnt-offerings were placed, for the purchase of free-will offerings. Ḥizkiya said: There six horns correspond to the six extended patrilineal families of priests who served each week in the Temple. There was one collection horn for each family, to prevent quarrels among the priests.
בַּר פְּדָיָה אָמַר. כְּנֶגֶד שֵׁשׁ בְּהֵמוֹת. פָּר וְעֶגֶל וְשָׂעִיר אֵיִל וּגְדִי וּטְלֵה. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. כְּנֶגֶד שֵׁשׁ קָרְבָּנוֹת. קִינֵּי זָבִים קִינֵּי זָבוֹת קִינֵּי יּוֹלְדוֹת חַטָּאוֹת וָאֲשָּׁמוֹת הַמְּנָחוֹת וָעֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה.
Bar Pedaya said: The six horns correspond to the six types of animals from which burnt-offerings can be brought: Bulls, calves, goats, rams, kids, and lambs. Each collection horn was for the funds designated for a particular type of animal. Shmuel said: They correspond to the six obligatory offerings whose leftover funds were used for the purchase of burnt-offerings: (1) Pairs of birds offered in the purification ritual of a zav, pairs of birds of a zava; (2) pairs of birds of a woman after childbirth; (3) sin-offerings; (4) guilt-offerings; (5) meal-offerings of a sinner; and (6) the tenth part of an ephah brought each day by the High Priest as a meal-offering.
אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. עַל יְדֵי שֶֽׁהַנְּדָבָה מְרוּבָּה רִיבוּ לָהּ שׁוֹפָרוֹת הַרְבֶּה.
Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Since the free-will offerings are plentiful, i.e., much money was donated for this purpose, there was a concern that if too many coins were placed in one horn, only the uppermost coins would be taken and the bottom ones would deteriorate. Therefore they instituted many horns, so that each horn contained fewer coins and the funds would be preserved properly.
[שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר] וּכְכַלּוֹתָ֡ם הֵבִ֣יאוּ לִפְנֵי֩ הַמֶּ֨לֶךְ וִיהֽוֹיָדָ֜ע וגו׳. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹנָתָן [אָמַר]. שְׁתֵּי נְדָבוֹת [עָשָׂה].
The Gemara discusses the midrash of Jehoiada the High Priest mentioned in the mishna. It is written: “And when they had made an end, they brought the rest of the money before the king and Jehoiada, from which they made vessels for the house of the Lord, even vessels used in the Temple service” (II Chronicles 24:14). In explanation of this verse, Rabbi Shimon bar Naḥman said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Jehoiada made two chests for two different types of voluntary donations, one for maintaining the Temple and the other for free-will offerings.
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 shiurim are sponsored by Bill Futornick in memory of Rabbi David Teitelbaum Z"L, who led Congregation Beth Jacob in Redwood City, CA for 38 years. He was an extraordinary leader, teacher, moral exemplar and family man who truly fought for equality and deeply embraced ahavat tzion.
-
This month's learning is sponsored by Sami Groff in honor of Shoshana Keats Jaskoll and Chochmat Nashim.
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 18
The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria
מָאן דְּאָמַר. מִזְרַח וּמַעֲרָב. נִיחָא. כּוּלְּהֹן רְאוּיִין לְשֵׁירוּת. מָאן דְּאָמַר. צָפוֹן וְדָרוֹם. נִמְצָא שׁוּלְחָן בַדָּרוֹם [דף יח.] וּמְנוֹרָה בַצָּפוֹן. וְהָא תַנֵּי. הַשֻּׁלְחָן הָיָה נָתוּן מֵחֲצִי הַבַּיִת וְלִפְנִים מָשׁוּךְ מִן הַכּוֹתֶל כִּשְׁתֵּי אַמּוֹת כְּלַפֵּי הַצָּפוֹן וּמְנוֹרָה כְנֶגְדּוֹ בְדָרוֹם.
According to the one who said that the tables were placed from east to west it works out well, as they are all suitable for service. The tables were positioned in a manner that rendered them all fit for service, as the table could be used only in the northern part of the Sanctuary, in accordance with the verse: “And you shall put the table on the north side” (Exodus 26:35). However, according to the one who said that they were placed from north to south, the table, i.e., five of the tables, are found in the southern part of the Sanctuary, [18a] and the candelabrum in the north of the Sanctuary. But wasn’t it taught in a baraita: The shewbread table was situated from the halfway point of the House and inward, in the inner half of the Sanctuary, drawn two and a half cubits away from the wall to the north. The priests who arranged the shewbread on the table would stand in this space. And the candelabrum was situated opposite it, in the south of the Sanctuary, likewise two and a half cubits from the wall.
מִזְבַּח הַזָּהָב הָיָה נָתוּן בְאֶמְצַע הַבַּיִת חוֹלֵק אֶת הַבַּיִת וְלִפְנִים מָשׁוּךְ קִימְעָא כְּלַפֵּי הַצָּפוֹן. וְכוּלְּהֹם הָיוּ נְתוּנִין מִשְּׁלִישׁ הַבַּיִת וְלִפְנִים.
The golden altar was situated in the middle of the House, dividing the House from its halfway point and inward, i.e., equidistant from the north and south walls, slightly drawn back from the place of the table and the candelabrum toward the outside. Since the length of the entire area was sixty cubits, twenty for the Holy of Holies, and forty for the Sanctuary, all the vessels were situated from a third of the entire House and inward, i.e., the vessels were all contained in the second third of the entire area.
עֶשֶׂר מְנוֹרוֹת עָשָׂה שְׁלֹמֹה. [שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר] וַ֠יַּעַשׂ אֶת־מְנוֹרוֹת הַזָּהָ֛ב עֶ֖שֶׂר כְּמִשְׁפָּטוֹ. אּין תֵּימַר. חָמֵשׁ בַּצָּפוֹן וְחָמֵשׁ בַּדָּרוֹם.
King Solomon constructed ten candelabra, modeled after the one that Moses crafted, as it is stated: “And he made the ten candlesticks of gold according to the ordinance concerning them; and he set them in the Sanctuary, five on the right, and five on the left” (II Chronicles 4:7). Before completing its citation of the baraita, the Gemara asks: If you say that right and left refer to the sides of the entrance to the Sanctuary, which would mean that Solomon set up five candelabra in the north of the Sanctuary, to the left of its entrance, and five in the south of the Sanctuary, to the right of its entrance, this is difficult.
וַהֲלֹא אֵין הַמְּנוֹרָה כְשֵׁירָה אֶלָּא בַדָּרוֹם. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְאֶת־הַמְּנוֹרָה֙ נֹ֣כַח הַשֻּׁלְחָ֔ן עַ֛ל צֶ֥לַע הַמִּשְׁכָּ֖ן תֵּימָ֑נָה. מַה תַלָמוּד לוֹמַר. חָמֵשׁ מִיָּמִ֖ין וְחָמֵשׁ מִשְּׂמֹ֑אול. אֶלָּא חָמֵשׁ מִיָּמִין מְנוֹרָתוֹ שֶׁלְמֹשֶׁה וְחָמֵשׁ מִשְּׂמאֹלָהּ.
The Gemara explains the difficulty: Isn’t the candelabrum fit only if it is in the south of the Sanctuary, as it is stated: “And the candelabrum over against the table on the side of the Tabernacle toward the south” (Exodus 26:35). What, then, is the meaning when the verse states: “Five on the right, and five on the left”? Rather, it must mean that the candelabrum that Moses made was located in the Sanctuary, while five of the candelabra that Solomon crafted were placed to the right of the candelabrum of Moses, and five to its left.
אַף עַל פִּי כֵן לֹא הָיָה מַבְעִיר אֶלָּא שֶׁלְמֹשֶׁה בִּלְבַד. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וּמְנוֹרַ֨ת הַזָּהָ֤ב וְנֵֽרוֹתֶיהָ לְבָעֵר֙ בָּעֶ֣רֶב בָּעֶ֔רֶב. רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בֵּירִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר. עַל כּוּלָּם הָיָה מַבְעִיר. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְאֶת־הַמְּנוֹרוֹת וְנֵרוֹתֵיהֶם לְבַֽעֲרָ֧ם כַּמִּשְׁפָּ֛ט לִפְנֵ֥י הַדְּבִ֖יר זָהָ֥ב סָגֽוּר׃
Even so, i.e., despite the fact that there were so many candelabra in the Sanctuary, the priest would kindle only the candelabrum of Moses alone, as it is stated: “And the candelabrum of gold with its lamps, to burn every evening” (II Chronicles 13:11). The singular form indicates that only one candelabrum was lit. Conversely, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: He would kindle all eleven candelabra, one of Moses and ten of Solomon, each one in turn, as it is stated: “And the candelabra with their lamps, that they should burn according to the ordinance before the Sanctuary, of pure gold” (II Chronicles 4:20). The plural “candelabra” indicates that they were all lit.
וְהַפֶּ֧רַח וְהַנֵּ֛רוֹת וְהַמֶּלְקָחַ֖יִם זָהָ֑ב ה֖וּא מִכְל֥וֹת זָהָֽב. הֵן כִּילוּ זְהָבוֹ שֶׁלְשְׁלֹמֹה.
The baraita analyzes the subsequent verse: “And the flowers, and the lamps, and the tongs, of gold, and that perfect gold [mikhelot zahav]” (II Chronicles 4:21). This means that the candelabrum completely depleted [killu] the gold of Solomon. As the gold was repeatedly purified until it reached the required level of purity, a large quantity of gold evaporated.
רַב יְהוּדָה בְשֵׁם אַסִּי. הָיָה שְׁלֹמֹה נוֹטֵל אֶלֶף כִּכְּרֵי זָהָב וּמַכְנִיסָן (לָאוֹר) [לַכּוּר] וּמוֹצִיאָן עַד שֶׁהוּא מַעֲמִידָן עַל אֶחָד. לְקַייֵם מַה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כִּכָּ֛ר זָהָ֥ב טָה֖וֹר עָשָׂ֣ה אֹתָ֑הּ וגו׳.
The Gemara cites a related baraita. Rav Yehuda taught in the name of the Sage Asi: Solomon would take a thousand talents of gold and insert them into the crucible and remove them.He repeated this process until the gold was so refined that he established its weight as one talent of gold, to fulfill that which is stated about the original candelabrum in the Tabernacle: “Of a talent of pure gold made he it, etc.” (Exodus 37:24).
תַּנֵּי. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי יְהוּדָה. מַעֲשֶׂה בִמְנוֹרַת זָהָב שֶׁעָשָׂה מֹשֶׁה בַמִּדְבָּר וְהָֽיְתָה יְתֵירָה דֵינָר זָהָב. וְהִכְנִיסוּהָ לַכּוּר שְׁמוֹנִים פַּעַם וְלֹא חָֽסְרָה כְלוּם.
It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, said: There was an incident involving the candelabrum of gold that Moses made in the desert, which exceeded the weight set by the Torah, one talent, by one dinar of gold. And they inserted it into the crucible eighty times, to further refine it and reduce its weight, but it was not reduced by anything.
וְיֵאוּת. עַד שֶׁלֹּא יְקוּם עַל בְּרָרֵיהּ הוּא חָסֵר סַגִּין. מִן דּוּ קַייָם עַל בְּרָרֵיהּ לֹא חָסֵר כְּלוּם.
And this is proper, for as long as it had not achieved its correct state of purity, it would decrease greatly, as its refinement in the crucible removed all the impurities, thereby reducing its weight. However, from when it had achieved its correct state of purity, it was not reduced at all. Unlike the gold of Moses, the gold Solomon used was not originally free of impurity and therefore required refinement.
משנה שְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר שׁוֹפָרוֹת הָיוּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ וְכָתוּב עֲלֵיהֶן תִּקְלִין חַדְתִּין וְתִקְלִין עַתִּיקִין קִינִּין וְגוֹזְלֵי עוֹלָה עֵצִים לְבוֹנָה זָהָב לַכַּפֹּרֶת. שִׁשָּׁה לִנְדָבָה.
Halakha 4 · MISHNA There were thirteen collection horns in the Temple, and the intended use of the funds was written upon each one, as follows: New shekels, old shekels, pairs of birds, fledglings designated for burnt-offerings, wood for the arrangement on the altar, frankincense that accompanied meal-offerings, and gold donated for the Ark cover. The remaining six horns were designated for communal free-will offerings.
תִּקְלִין חַדְתִּין שֶׁבְּכָל־שָׁנָה וְשָׁנָה. וְעַתִּיקִין מִי שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא אֶשְׁתָּקַד שׁוֹקֵל לְשָׁנָה הַבָּאָה.
The horn labeled new shekels was designated for the half-shekel donation that was brought every year for the needs of that year. The horn labeled old shekels was for one who did not bring his half-shekel the previous year, who would contribute his shekel for the following year.
קִינִּין הֵן תּוֹרִין. וְגוֹזְלֵי עוֹלָה הֵן בְּנֵי יוֹנָה. כּוּלָּן עוֹלוֹת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
The funds in the horn labeled pairs of birds are designated for the turtledoves used for bird-offerings, and the one labeled fledglings for burnt-offerings are used to purchase young pigeons as burnt-offerings. All of these, i.e., the funds in both horns, were used exclusively for voluntary burnt-offerings. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.
וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים קִינִּין אֶחָד חַטָּאת וְאֶחָד עוֹלָה. גּוֹזְלֵי עוֹלָה כּוּלָּן עוֹלוֹת׃
And the Rabbis say: The funds in both the horn labeled pairs of birds and the horn labeled fledglings were for young pigeons and turtledoves. The distinction between them is that the funds in the horn labeled pairs of birds were designated for the obligatory offerings of a zav, a zava, a woman after childbirth, and a leper. These offerings included a pair of birds, one brought for a sin-offering, and the other one brought for a burnt-offering. Conversely, the funds in the horn labeled fledglings for burnt-offerings were all used exclusively for voluntary burnt-offerings.
הָאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי עָלַי עֵצִים לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִשְּׁנֵי גִּיזְירִין. לְבוֹנָה לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִקּוֹמֶץ. זָהָב לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִדִּינַר זָהָב.
One who says: It is incumbent upon me to donate wood to the Temple, must donate no fewer than two logs for the arrangement on the altar. One who says: It is incumbent upon me to donate frankincense, must donate no less than a handful of frankincense, the amount brought with a meal-offering. One who says: It is incumbent upon me to donate gold, must donate no less than a dinar of gold.
שִׁשָּׁה לִנְדָבָה. נְדָבָה מֶה הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין בָּהּ לוֹקְחִין בָּהּ עוֹלוֹת הַבָּשָׂר לַשֵּׁם וְהָעוֹרוֹת לַכֹּהֲנִים. It was stated that six horns were designated for communal free-will offerings. The Mishna asks: With regard to the money designated for communal free-will offerings, what would they do with this money? The Mishna answers that they used it to purchase animals for burnt-offerings, as the meat from these offerings was offered on the altar to God and the hides were given to the priests.
זֶה מִדְרָשׁ דָּרַשׁ יְהוֹיָדָע כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל אָשָׁם הוּא אָֹשׂם אָשַׁם לַיְיָ. This midrash was taught by Jehoiada the High Priest: There is an apparent contradiction between two verses. With regard to the guilt-offering, the verse states: “It is a guilt-offering; he is certainly guilty before the Lord” (Leviticus 5:19). This verse indicates that the guilt-offering goes to God, not the priests. However, a different verse states: “As is the sin-offering, so is the guilt-offering; there is one law for them; the priest who makes atonement with it, he shall have it” (Leviticus 7:7). This verse indicates that the offering is designated for the priests alone. How can these two verses be reconciled?
זֶה הַכְּלָל כֹּל שֶׁהוּא בָּא מִשֵּׁם חֵטְא וּמִשֵּׁם אַשְׁמָה יִלָּקַח בּוֹ עוֹלוֹת הַבָּשָׂר לַשֵּׁם וְהָעוֹרוֹת לַכֹּהֲנִים. נִמְצְאוּ שְׁנֵי כְּתוּבִין קַייָמִין אָשָׁם לַיי וְאָשָׁם לַכֹּהֵן.
The Mishna explains that this is the principle: Any funds that come due to a sin-offering or due to a guilt-offering, i.e., leftover coins designated for one of these offerings, they should be used for the purchase of animals for a voluntary burnt-offering, as the meat will be offered on the altar to God, and the hides will go to the priests. In this manner the two verses are found to be fulfilled, as it is both a guilt-offering to God as well as a guilt-offering to the priest.
וְאוֹמֵר כֶּסֶף אָשָׁם וְכֶסֶף חַטָּאוֹת לֹא יוּבָא בֵּית יי לַכֹּהֲנִים יִהְיוּ׃ And this halakha also explains the verse that says: “The guilt-offering money and the sin-offering money was not brought into the House of the Lord; it was for the priests” (II Kings 12:17). This verse is understood to refer to the hides given to the priests.
הלכה תַּנֵּי. אָמַר רִבִּי יְהוּדָה. וְלֹא הָיָה שׁוֹפָר שֶׁלְקִינִּים בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם מִפְּנֵי הַתַּעֲרוֹבֶת. שֶׁמָּא תָמוּת אַחַת מֵהֶן וְנִמְצְאוּ דְמֵי חַטָּאוֹת מֵיתוֹת מְעוּרָבוֹת בָּהֶן.
GEMARA: It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said: There was no collection horn for pairs of birds in the Temple in Jerusalem, due to the mixtures. The concern was that perhaps one of the women obligated to bring a pair of birds would die after putting her money in the horn. And if that happens, it would turn out that the funds for sin-offerings left to die are mixed with the rest of the money in the horn. When the owner of funds designated for a sin-offering passes away, the designated money must be destroyed. Since there is no way to distinguish between the coins, all the money is prohibited.
[וְהָ]תַנֵּי. הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁאָֽמְרָה. הֲרֵי עָלַי קַן. מֵבִיאָה דְמֵי קַן וְנוֹתְנָתוֹ בַשּׁוֹפָר [דף יח:] וְאוֹכֶלֶת בַקֳּדָשִׁים וְאֵינָהּ חוֹשֶׁשֶׁת שֶׁמָּא נִתְעַצֵּל כֹּהֵן. וְאֵין הַכֹּהֵן חוֹשֵׁשׁ שֶׁמָּא דְמֵי חַטָּאוֹת מֵיתוֹת מְעוּרָבוֹת בָּהֶן.
The Gemara raises a difficulty against this conclusion. But wasn’t it taught in a baraita that with regard to a woman who said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a pair of birds, that she brings the funds for the purchase of a pair of birds to the Temple and places them in the collection horn. [18b] And after she has ritually immersed for her purification and the sun has set, she may eat consecrated foods. And she need not be concerned that perhaps the priest was lazy and neglected to sacrifice her offering, which would cause her to lack atonement and be prohibited from eating sacrificial food. And the priest need not be concerned that perhaps one of the women who placed funds in this horn has died, which would mean that the funds for sin-offerings left to die are mixed with the rest of the coins. Since this ruling is undisputed, it is evidently accepted by all the Sages, including Rabbi Yehuda. If so, how can it be claimed that Rabbi Yehuda said there were no horns for obligatory pairs of birds due to the concern that one of the women who placed money there had died?
[כִּי קָאָֽמְרִינָן. בְּחַטָּאת שֶׁמֵּתוּ בַעֲלֵיהֶן וַדַּאִי.
The Gemara answers: When we say this opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, we are referring to a case where it is known that one of the women had died, which means that the funds she gave have the status of a sin-offering whose owner had certainly died. In this case the coins definitely cannot be used for an offering, and they invalidate the other coins with which they are mingled in the horn. To avoid this scenario, Rabbi Yehuda maintains that there was no horn for obligatory pairs of birds.
וְאִי אָֽמְרִינָן. נִבְרוֹר ד׳ זוּזֵי וְנַשְׁדֵּי בִּנְהָרָא וְאִידָּךְ לִישְׁתְּרוּ.
The Gemara asks: But even if we say that there is a concern that the horn contains invalidated coins, the following remedy can be applied: Let us select four zuz, the value of one pair of birds (see Keritot 1:7), and declare that these are the invalidated coins, and throw them into the river so that they will be destroyed, and the remainder will be permitted. If so, even according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, there should be no problem with a horn for pairs of birds.
הָא אָֽמְרִינָן בָעָֽלְמָא. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה לֵית לֵיהּ בְּרֵירָה.]
The Gemara answers: This is not an effective solution according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, because we generally say: Rabbi Yehuda does not accept the principle of retroactive designation. According to Rabbi Yehuda, a doubtful state of affairs cannot be clarified retroactively. Consequently, one cannot resolve this problem by setting aside four zuz, and he maintains that there was no horn for obligatory pairs of birds.
רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן אָמַר. רִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל בָּעֵי. אָמַר הֲרֵי עָלַי עֵץ. מְבִיא גֵּיזָר אֶחָד.
§ It was taught in the mishna that if one said: It is incumbent upon me to donate wood, he must donate no fewer than two logs. The Gemara addresses a similar case: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Bun, said that Rabbi Ba bar Memel raised a dilemma: What is the ruling if one said: It is incumbent upon me to donate a log of wood? Does he bring only one log?
אָמַר רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. מַתְנִיתָה אָֽמְרָה כֵן. שֶׁזֶּה קָרְבָּן בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְזֶה קָרְבָּן בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ.
Rabbi Elazar said: The Mishna says so; i.e., a mishna provides a solution to our dilemma. We learned that the two logs added each day to the arrangement on the altar, before the daily morning offering and before the daily afternoon offering, were not considered one offering, as this log was an offering to itself and that log was an offering to itself. Since each log was a separate offering, evidently one may donate even a single log.
כָּהִיא דְתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. שְׁנַיִם בְּיָדָם שְׁנֵי גְיזִירֵי עֵצִים.
Where was this ruling taught? As we learned in a mishna there, with regard to the order of the daily afternoon offering: Two priests ascended to the altar, and in their hands were two logs of wood for the arrangement, each holding one log in his hand. This statement indicates that each log was a separate offering, as each was held by a different priest.
לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הָעֵצִים.
The Gemara asks: From where is it derived that even an individual can pledge wood for the arrangement? From the verse: “And when any one brings a meal-offering to the Lord” (Leviticus 2:1). The word offering comes to include the wood, which is also referred to as an offering in the verse: “And we cast lots, the priests, the Levites, and the people, for the wood-offering” (Nehemiah 10:35). Furthermore, the phrase “any one” teaches that even an individual can pledge wood.
רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אָמַר. עוֹבְייָן (כַּמָּה חוֹקוֹת) [בָּאַמָּה שׁוֹחֲקוֹת]. וְאָרְכָּן (אַמָּה גַמּוּדָה) [כְּאַמָּה גְּרוֹמָה]. רִבִּי חוֹנִי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אִמִּי. כְּמִין טוֹרְטָנִי.
As the Gemara is discussing the donation of logs for the arrangement, it mentions their measurements. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The thickness of this wood was a cubit of the expanded cubits, and their length was measured by the shortened cubits. Rabbi Ḥoni said in the name of Rabbi Ammi: The measurement of their thickness was as on a scale [turtanei], i.e., it was exactly one cubit.
אָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק. לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה מְקוֹם הַמַּעֲרָכָה אֶלָּא אָמָּה עַל אֶמָּה לְפִיכָךְ לֹא הָיָה בוֹ אֶלָּא אַמָּה (גַמּוּדָה) [גְּרוֹמָה]. וְתַנֵּי כֵן. אַמָּה הַיְּסוֹד אַמָּה סוֹבֵב אַמָּה כַּרְכּוֹב וְאַמָּה קְרָנוֹת וְאַמָּה מַעֲרָכָה.
Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak explained why a shortened cubit was used for the measurement of the wood and said: As the area of the arrangement on the bronze altar built by Moses was only one cubit by one cubit, therefore, the length of the log was only a shortened cubit, as it would otherwise protrude from the arrangement. And it was likewise taught in a baraita: The breadth of the base of the altar made by Moses was a cubit, the surrounding ledge was a cubit, the rim a cubit, the corners a cubit, and the breadth of the place of the arrangement was likewise a cubit.
לְבוֹנָה לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִקּוֹמֶץ. נֶאֱמַר כָּאן אַזְכָּרָה וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן אַזְכָּרָה.
§ It was taught in the mishna that if one pledges frankincense without specifying an amount, he must donate no less than a handful. The Gemara cites the verbal analogy that is the source for this halakha. It is stated here: “And you shall put pure frankincense with each row, that it may be to the bread for a memorial-part” (Leviticus 24:7). And it is stated there, with regard to the meal-offering of a sinner: “And the priest shall take his handful of it as its memorial-part” (Leviticus 5:12).
מַה אַזְכָּרָה הָאֲמוּרָה לְהַלָּן מְלֹא קוֹמֶץ אַף כָּאן מְלֹא קוֹמֶץ.
The Gemara interprets the verbal analogy: Just as the term “memorial-part” that is stated below must be a handful, so too, the term “memorial-part” that is stated here, with regard to the frankincense brought with the shewbread, must be a handful. This shows that when an unspecified amount of frankincense is pledged as an independent free-will offering, the obligation is to bring a handful.
אִי מַה אַזְכָּרָה הָאֲמוּרָה לְהַלָּן שְׁנֵי קְמָצֵים אַף כָּאן שְׁנֵי קְמָצֵים.
The Gemara asks: If so, one can derive the opposite conclusion from the same verbal analogy: Just as the memorial-part that is stated below, by the shewbread, must be two handfuls, one for each arrangement of bread, so too the term memorial-part stated here, with regard to the free-will offering of frankincense, should be a measure of two handfuls.
אָמַר רִבִּי לָא. כְּלוּם לָֽמְדוּ לְקוֹמֶץ אֶלָּא מִלֶּחֶם הַפָּנִים. מַה לְהַלָּן קוֹמֶץ הֶחָסֵר פָּסוּל אַף כָּאן קוֹמֶץ הֶחָסֵר פָּסוּל.
Rabbi Ila said in response: Didn’t we derive the measurement of a handful of frankincense only from the meal-offering of a sinner? Just as there, in the case of the meal-offering of a sinner, an incomplete handful is invalid, so too, here, with regard to frankincense of the shewbread, an incomplete handful should be invalid. It is possible to invalidate the frankincense of the shewbread only if each handful is considered an independent mitzva. If the two handfuls together were considered one mitzva, they would remain valid even if one of them were incomplete, as they contain a total amount greater than a handful. This proves that each handful is an independent mitzva, which means that if one of them is incomplete, the second does not complete it and it is invalidated. From here it can be inferred that every measurement of the frankincense, including a free-will offering of frankincense, requires a handful.
אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. מִילְּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי אִילָא אָֽמְרָה. הַמִּתְנַדֵּב מִנְחָה מֵבִיאָהּ בְקוּמְצוֹ שֶׁלְכֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל. רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. וַאֲפִילוּ בְּקוֹמֶץ הַבְּעָלִים.
Rabbi Yosei said: From the statement of Rabbi Ila, that the measurement of a handful of frankincense for a free-will offering is derived from the handful that came with the shewbread, which is measured according to the handful of the largest of the priests, it can be said that one who donates incense brings it according to the measure of the handful of a priest who has the largest hands, not the handful of the one who brings it. Rabbi Ḥizkiya said in the name of Rabbi Yirmeya: One who donates incense can approximate the handful of any priest, and even use the handful of the owners.
זָהָב לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִדִּינַר זָהָב. אָמַר רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. וְהוּא שֶׁהִזְכִּיר צוּרָה. אֲבָל אִם לֹא הִזְכִּיר צוּרָה מֵבִיא אֲפִילוּ צִינּוֹרָה.
The mishna taught that one who pledges gold without specifying the amount must donate no less than a dinar of gold. Rabbi Elazar said: And this is the case if he mentioned a form by saying: It is incumbent upon me to bring a gold coin. However, if he did not mention a form, but merely said: It is incumbent upon me to bring gold, he may bring even a small hook of any size.
שִׁשָּׁה לִנְדָבָה. חִזְקֶה אָמַר. כְּנֶגֶד שִׁשָּׁה בָתֵּי אָבוֹת.
The mishna states that there were six collection horns for communal free-will offerings, in which the remainder of the funds for sin-offerings and burnt-offerings were placed, for the purchase of free-will offerings. Ḥizkiya said: There six horns correspond to the six extended patrilineal families of priests who served each week in the Temple. There was one collection horn for each family, to prevent quarrels among the priests.
בַּר פְּדָיָה אָמַר. כְּנֶגֶד שֵׁשׁ בְּהֵמוֹת. פָּר וְעֶגֶל וְשָׂעִיר אֵיִל וּגְדִי וּטְלֵה. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. כְּנֶגֶד שֵׁשׁ קָרְבָּנוֹת. קִינֵּי זָבִים קִינֵּי זָבוֹת קִינֵּי יּוֹלְדוֹת חַטָּאוֹת וָאֲשָּׁמוֹת הַמְּנָחוֹת וָעֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה.
Bar Pedaya said: The six horns correspond to the six types of animals from which burnt-offerings can be brought: Bulls, calves, goats, rams, kids, and lambs. Each collection horn was for the funds designated for a particular type of animal. Shmuel said: They correspond to the six obligatory offerings whose leftover funds were used for the purchase of burnt-offerings: (1) Pairs of birds offered in the purification ritual of a zav, pairs of birds of a zava; (2) pairs of birds of a woman after childbirth; (3) sin-offerings; (4) guilt-offerings; (5) meal-offerings of a sinner; and (6) the tenth part of an ephah brought each day by the High Priest as a meal-offering.
אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. עַל יְדֵי שֶֽׁהַנְּדָבָה מְרוּבָּה רִיבוּ לָהּ שׁוֹפָרוֹת הַרְבֶּה.
Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Since the free-will offerings are plentiful, i.e., much money was donated for this purpose, there was a concern that if too many coins were placed in one horn, only the uppermost coins would be taken and the bottom ones would deteriorate. Therefore they instituted many horns, so that each horn contained fewer coins and the funds would be preserved properly.
[שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר] וּכְכַלּוֹתָ֡ם הֵבִ֣יאוּ לִפְנֵי֩ הַמֶּ֨לֶךְ וִיהֽוֹיָדָ֜ע וגו׳. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹנָתָן [אָמַר]. שְׁתֵּי נְדָבוֹת [עָשָׂה].
The Gemara discusses the midrash of Jehoiada the High Priest mentioned in the mishna. It is written: “And when they had made an end, they brought the rest of the money before the king and Jehoiada, from which they made vessels for the house of the Lord, even vessels used in the Temple service” (II Chronicles 24:14). In explanation of this verse, Rabbi Shimon bar Naḥman said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Jehoiada made two chests for two different types of voluntary donations, one for maintaining the Temple and the other for free-will offerings.
