Shekalim 7

^{[דף ז.]} אָמַר. וְהוּא שֶׁקָּֽרְבָה חַטָּאתוֹ בַסּוֹף. אֲבָל אִם קָֽרְבוּ שְׁלָמִים בַּסּוֹף מוֹתָרָן שְׁלָמִים.

The mishna taught: The leftover money gathered by the nazirite beyond what he needs for his offerings must be used for free-will offerings. On this point, Rav Ḥisda ^[7a] said: That is only when the nazirite’s sin-offering was sacrificed last, after he offered his burnt-offering and his peace-offering. In that case, any extra leftover money must be used for a free-will offering, as taught earlier in the mishna. However, if he already brought his burnt-offering and sin-offering, and the peace-offering was sacrificed last, the leftover money that he set aside for his sacrifices must be used for a peace-offering, as with all leftover funds of peace-offerings.

אָמַר רִבִּי זְעוּרָה. וַאֲפִילוּ קָֽרְבוּ שְׁלָמִים בַּסּוֹף הֲלָכָה אַחַת הִיא בְנָזִיר שֶׁתְּהֵא מוֹתָרָהּ נְדָבָה.

Rabbi Ze’eira said: This is not so. Rather, even if the peace-offering was sacrificed last, there is one consistent halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai with regard to the nazirite, that the leftover money from that which he set aside for his nazirite offerings must be used for free-will offerings.

מַתְנִיתָה מְסַייְעָה לְדֵין וּמַתְנִיתָא מְסַייְעָא לְדֵין. מַתְנִיתָה מְסַייְעָה לְרִבִּי זְעוּרָה. אֲפִילוּ הֵן מָעוֹת סְתוּמִין. כָּל־שֶׁדְּמֵי חַטָּאוֹת מֵיתוֹת מְעוּרָבוֹת בָּהֵן. וַאֲפִילוּ הִפרִישׁ דְּמֵי חַטָּאוֹת מֵיתוֹת מִתּוֹכָהּ מָעוֹת סְתוּמִין הֵן.

The Gemara comments: A baraita supports this one and a different baraita supports that one. One baraita supports the opinion of Rabbi Ze’eira, as it was taught in a mishna (Me’ila 11b) that in the case of a nazirite who dies after he had set aside a lump sum for all his sacrifices, the money is to be used for free-will burnt-offerings. The baraita elaborates: Which coins are considered unspecified coins? Any money that has money mixed in it for sin-offerings whose owners have died, as when he set aside this money he specified that it would be used for all of his sacrifices, including the sin-offering. And even if he had set aside the money for sin-offerings from the rest of the money designated for the offerings, all the money is considered unspecified money. Once the nazirite dies, the money that he set aside is used for free-will offerings. Apparently, this applies even if he brought the peace-offering last. Therefore, this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ze’eira.

מַתְנִיתָא מְסַייְעָא לְרַב חִסְדָּא. אֵילּוּ לְחַטָּאתִי וְהַשְּׁאָר לִשְׁאָר נְזִירוּתִי. וָמֵת. מוֹעֲלִין בְּכוּלָּן וְאֵין מוֹעֲלִין מִקְצָתָן.

A baraita supports the opinion of Rav Ḥisda, as it was taught with regard to a nazirite who set aside money for his sacrifices and did not initially specify which coins were designated for which sacrifice, and then took some of that money and said: This money is designated for my sin-offering, and the rest is designated for the rest of my nazirite offerings, and he died before actually purchasing the offerings. The money designated for the sin-offering must be cast into the Dead Sea. With regard to the rest of the money, half must be used for burnt-offerings and half for peace-offerings. If one used the money that was designated for peace-offerings and burnt-offerings for his own purposes he is guilty of misuse of consecrated property only if he used all the money, as that certainly included the money designated for a burnt-offering. However, he is not guilty of misuse of consecrated property if he used only some of it, as it is possible that he used only the portion of the money that was meant for peace-offerings; one who uses that money is not guilty of misuse of consecrated property, since the meat of a peace-offering may be eaten by the owner (Me’ila 7b).

וְלֹא אָמַר. אִם מֵתִי יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה.

Since the author of this baraita did not say: If he died the money must be allocated for communal free-will burnt-offerings, but rather that they are to be used for both burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, it seems that he holds in accordance with Rav Ḥisda; once the nazirite separated the money for his sin-offering from the rest of the money that he set aside, the leftover amount may be used for a peace-offering. This is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ze’eira, who holds that all the money must be used for free-will burnt-offerings.

רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר. מוֹתַר לַחְמוֹ שֶׁלְנָזִיר יִירְקָב.

Since the Gemara mentioned the halakha with regard to the leftover money of a nazirite’s offerings, it discusses the leftover portion of his meal-offering as well. Rav Ḥisda said: With regard to the leftover portion of a nazirite’s loaves, i.e., if the nazirite set aside fine flour for his meal-offering and found that he had set aside more than was necessary, the rest of the fine flour must be left to spoil. Similarly, if he set aside money for his meal-offering and then found that he had set aside more than was necessary, he must cast the leftover money in the Dead Sea.

אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְיֵאוּת. לְהַקְרִיבוֹ בִפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ אֵין יָכוֹל. שֶׁאֵין לְךָ לֶחֶם קָרֵב לְעַצְמוֹ. לְהַקְרִיבוֹ אִם נְזִירוּת אֲחֶרֶת אֵין אַתְּ יָכוֹל. שֶׁאֵין לָךְ נְזִירוּת בָּאָה בְלֹא לֶחֶם. לְפוּם כָּךְ צָרִיךְ מֵימַר מוֹתַר לַחְמוֹ שֶׁלְנָזִיר יִירְקָב.

Rabbi Yosei said: And Rav Ḥisda is right. You cannot offer it on its own, as loaves are never brought as an offering on their own; they are offered only along with a sheep as a burnt-offering or along with a ram as a peace-offering. You cannot offer it with the burnt-offering or peace-offering belonging to another nazirite, as no offering of a nazirite is offered without loaves; when the other nazirite took his vow upon himself, he obligated himself to bring his offerings along with his meal-offerings from his own funds, and he has no need for this leftover fine flour. Therefore, one must say that the leftover portion of a nazirite’s loaves must be left to spoil, as it has no other use.

סָֽבְרִין מֵימַר. הוּא לַחְמוֹ הוּא מוֹתַר נְסָכָיו. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. מוֹתַר נְסָכָיו קָדְשֵׁי קָדָשֶׁים אִינּוּן וְיִפְּלוּ לִנְדְבָה. §

When a nazirite set aside wine or money to purchase wine for his libations and there was more than necessary, the students of the study hall thought to say that the halakha with regard to the leftover portion of his loaves and the halakha of the leftover portion of his libations is the same, and that the leftover portion of libations must also be left to spoil. Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Bun said: The leftover portion of libations is different, as it is an offering of the most sacred order and therefore must be allocated for communal free-will offerings.

עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵה בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. שְׁמוּאֵל וְרַב חִסְדָּא וְרִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר שְׁלָשְׁתָּן אָֽמְרוּ דָבָר אֶחָד.

The Gemara comments: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Bun, it becomes apparent that three Rabbis all said the same thing: Shmuel, according to the opinion of Rav Ḥisda with regard to the leftover portion of libations; Rav Ḥisda himself; and Rabbi Elazar all agree that the leftover portion of offerings of the most sacred order must be allocated to communal free-will offerings.

רַב חִסְדָּא אָהֵן דְּהָכָא. The Gemara elaborates: The opinion of Rav Ḥisda is evident from that which we have said. Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Bun’s opinion that the leftover portion of libations must be allocated for free-will offerings is based on Rav Ḥisda’s opinion that only the leftover portion of a peace-offering is to be destroyed, but not the leftover portion of libations. This is due to the fact that they are offerings of the most sacred order.

שְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יָסָא. עַד דַּאֲנָא תַמָּן שְׁמָעִית קָל רַב יְהוּדָה שְׁאַל לִשְׁמוּאֵל. הִפְרִישׁ שִׁקְלוֹ וָמֵת. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה.

The opinion of Shmuel is evident, as Rabbi Yosei said: While I was still there, in Babylonia, I heard the voice of Rabbi Yehuda ask his teacher Shmuel: If one set aside his shekel and died before he contributed it to the Temple treasury, what is to be done with this money? Shmuel said to him: It must be allocated for communal free-will offerings. These shekels were used to purchase communal burnt-offerings, which are of the most sacred order. Therefore, it seems that the allocation of these shekels follows the same principle as do the offerings intended to be purchased with the shekels and the leftover money must be allocated for free-will offerings.

רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. מוֹתַר עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵפָה שֶׁלּוֹ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. יוֹלִיכֵם לְיַם הַמֶּלַח. רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר אָמַר. יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה.

The opinion of Rabbi Elazar is evident from that which he says with regard to the leftover money from the High Priest’s tenth of an ephah. The High Priest would offer a tenth of an ephah of fine flour made into griddle-cakes daily, half in the morning and half in the evening. When the High Priest died during the day, half would be left over. The amora’im disputed what should be done with the leftovers: Rabbi Yoḥanan said: He must cast it into the Dead Sea. Rabbi Elazar says: It must be allocated for communal free-will offerings, as it is an offering of the most sacred order.

משנה מוֹתַר שְׁבוּיִים לַשְּׁבוּיִים מוֹתַר שָׁבוּי לְאוֹתוֹ שָׁבוּי. מוֹתַר עֲנִיִּים לָעֲנִיִּים מוֹתַר עָנִי לְאוֹתוֹ עָנִי. מוֹתַר הַמֵּתִים לַמֵּתִים מוֹתַר הַמֵּת לְיוֹרְשָׁיו. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר מוֹתַר הַמֵּת יְהֵא מוּנָּח עַד שֶׁיָּבוֹא אֵלִיָהוּ. רִבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר מוֹתַר הַמֵּת בּוֹנִין לוֹ נֶפֶשׁ עַל קִבְרוֹ:

Halakha 5 · MISHNA The leftover money collected for freeing unspecified captives must be allocated to freeing captives. The leftover money collected for freeing a specific captive is given as a gift to that captive. The leftover money collected as charity for the poor must be allocated to the poor. The leftover money collected for a specific poor person is given as a gift to that poor person. The leftover money collected for burying the dead must be allocated to burying the dead. The leftover money collected to bury or provide burial shrouds for a particular deceased person is given to his heirs. Rabbi Meir says: It is uncertain what should be done, and therefore the leftover money for the deceased should be placed in a safe place until Elijah comes and teaches what should be done. Rabbi Natan says: With the leftover money collected for a deceased person they build a monument [nefesh] on his grave for him.

הלכה גְּבוּ לוֹ בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁאֵין לֹו וְנִמְצָא שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה סְבַר מֵימַר. מוֹתַר הַמֵּת לְיוֹרְשָׁיו.

GEMARA: With regard to a case where the community collected money to finance the expenses of burying a deceased person with the presumption that he did not have money in his estate to cover these expenses and it was subsequently found that he had money, Rabbi Yirmeya thought to say that the halakha should be in accordance with the first tanna in the mishna, that the leftover money for a deceased person is given as a gift to his heirs. There is no difference whether only a portion of the money was needed and a portion was left, or whether there was no need at all for the money and all of it now remains.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי אִידִי דְחוּטְרֵיהּ. הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ דְּלָה כִווְנוּן אֶלָּא [לֵיהּ. אֲמַר] לֵיהּ. אֲנָא [לָאַ] אָֽמְרִית. אַתְּ מְנָן לָךְ.

Rabbi Idi of Ḥutra said to him: Bring yourself [hagga atzmekha] to consider the matter and you will see that the two cases are not similar, as surely the townspeople intended to contribute their money only for him, for the deceased. They do not mind if the heirs receive any extra money, as it is difficult to collect precisely the right amount for the burial. However, had they known that their money would not be used for the burial at all, and that the entire amount would be given to the heirs, they presumably would not have initially agreed to contribute. Rabbi Yirmeya said in response to Rabbi Idi of Ḥutra: I didn’t say that this was the definitive halakha, as I merely suggested what I think should be done. However, from where do you derive the distinction you are making? The Gemara leaves the issue unresolved.

תַּנֵּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי נָתָן. מוֹתַר הַמֵּת יִבְנֶה לוֹ נֶפֶשׁ עַל קִבְרוֹ וְיַעֲשֶׂה לוֹ (זלח) [זִילּוּף] עַל גַּבֵּי מִיטָּתוֹ. §

It was taught in the name of Rabbi Natan: With the leftover money that was collected for burying a deceased person a monument is built on his grave, and wine is bought for spraying over his bier to make a pleasant odor.

תַּנֵּי אֵין פּוֹדִין שָׁבוּי בְשָׁבוּי וְאֵין גּוֹבִין טַלִּית בְטַלִּית. וְאֵין מַמְחִין בְּיַד פַּרְנָסִין לְכָךְ.

The mishna teaches that the leftover money for freeing a specific captive or for the support of a particular poor person is given to that person. Similarly, it was taught in a baraita: One may not redeem a captive with money that was collected for another captive. Similarly, one may not purchase a garment for one poor person with charity collected to to purchase a garment for a different poor person. Nonetheless, one does not protest against the leaders [parnasim] of the community about this if they choose to do so in exigent circumstances.

תַּנֵּי. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר. אֵין עוֹשִׂין נְפָשׁוֹת לַצַּדִּיקִים. דִּבְרֵיהֶן הֵן זִכְרוֹנָן. After discussing building a monument for a deceased person, the Gemara adds that it was taught in a baraita that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One does not construct monuments for the graves of righteous people. The purpose of a monument is to remember the dead person, and Torah scholars do not need a monument, as their words of Torah that continue to be taught are their memorial.

[רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן הֲיָה מַסְמִיךְ וְאָזִיל עַל רִבִּי חִייָא בַּר אַבָּא וַהֲוָה רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר חֲמִי לֵיהּ וּמִטַּמֵּר לֵיהּ מִקַּמֵּיהּ וַאֲמַר. הָלֵין תַּרְתֵּין מִילַּיָּא הָדֵין בַּבְלָאָה עֲבִיד בֵּיהּ. חָדָא דְלָא שְׁאִיל בִּשְׁלוֹמֵיהּ וְחָדָה מִיטָּמַר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידִי כָּךְ נַהֲגִין גַּבְּהוֹן. זְעִירָא לַא שְׁאִיל בִּשְׁלוּמֵיהּ דְּרַבָּה. דְּאִינּוּן נְהִגִין וּמְקַייְמִין רָא֣וּנִי נְעָרִ֣ים וְנֶחְבָּ֑אוּ וִֽ֝ישִׁישִׁים קָ֣מוּ עָמָֽדוּ׃

Rabbi Yoḥanan was walking while leaning on the shoulder of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, and Rabbi Eliezer was watching him and hiding from him. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This Babylonian has done two improper things to me. One, he didn’t inquire after my welfare; and another, he is hiding from me, as though he doesn’t want to speak with me. Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi tried to placate Rabbi Yoḥanan and said to him: This is the custom among them, i.e., among Babylonians. The small, less prominent people do not inquire after the welfare of great, prominent people; they only respond to them. That is the reason he did not inquire after your welfare. Their custom is to fulfill that which is written in the verse: “The young men saw me and hid themselves, and the aged rose up and stood” (Job 29:8).

אֲמַר לֵיהּ. מָהוּ לְמֵיעֲבַד קַמֵּי דַאֲרוּרָא צִילְמָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. מַה אַתְּ פְּלִיג לֵיהּ יְקָר. אֲבוֹר קַמּוֹהִי וְסַמִּי עֵינוֹיי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. יְאוּת רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר עֲבוּד דְּלָא עֲבַר קַמָּךְ.

When Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi saw that Rabbi Yoḥanan was not mollified, he said to him: What is the halakha with regard to passing in front of the Adura statue? Does that fall into the category of giving honor to idolatry? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: What honor are you giving it by merely passing in front of it? You could pass in front of it and blind its eyes, meaning that you could pass in front of it and insult it. Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi said to him: If so, Rabbi Eliezer was right not to pass in front of you, since if he had passed in front of you but maintained the custom of Babylonians not to inquire after your welfare, it would have been a slight to your honor.

וְעוֹד עֲבִיד הָא בַּבְלָאָה דְלָא אֲמַר שְׁמַעְתָּא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ. נִכְנְסוּ לְפָנָיו רִבִּי אִמּי וְרִבִּי אַסִּי. אָֽמְרוּ לוֹ. רִבִּי. כָּךְ הָיָה מַעֲשֶׂה בֵּית הַכְּנֶסֶת שֶׁל טַרְסִיִּים הָיָה בְּנַגָּר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְרֹאשׁוֹ גְלוּסְטְרָא.

Rabbi Yoḥanan continued: That Babylonian did something else wrong, in that he did not say a halakha in my name, as he repeated without attribution something I taught him. Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi entered. In order to appease Rabbi Yoḥanan they said to him: Rabbi, there was an incident that occurred in the synagogue of the weavers [tarsiyyim], where they were discussing the halakhic status of a door bolt, a vertical bar that is affixed to the door in order to push into the ground, which has a knob [gelustera] protruding at its top.

שֶׁנֶּחְלְקוּ ^{[דף ז:]} רִבִּי אֶלְאָזָר וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי עַד שֶׁקָּֽרְעוּ סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה בָחַמָּתָן. וְקָֽרְעוּ סַלְקָָא דַּעְתָּךְ. אֶלָּא שֶׁנִיקְרַע סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה. וְהָיָה שָׁם זָקֵן אֶחָד. וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן קִיסְמָא. אָמַר. תְּמוֹהָנִי אִם לֹא הֲוָה בֵּית הַכְּנֶסֶת זֵה עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. ^[7b]

Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yosei disagreed about this issue until it reached a point that they tore up a Torah scroll in their anger. Before the Gemara resumes the story, it asks: Could it enter your mind that these Sages tore up a Torah scroll? Rather, it means that as each of them pulled it in his own direction, a Torah scroll was torn. The Gemara returns to the story told by Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi: There was a certain old man, one of the Sages, named Rabbi Yosei ben Kisma, and he said: I will be surprised if this synagogue does not become a house of idolatry, since the Sages say that whoever is angry should be in your eyes like an idol worshipper.

וְחָזַר וְאָמַר. הָֽכְדֵין מֵחַבְרֵיהּ. The Gemara relates that although Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi thought that Rabbi Yoḥanan would be appeased after hearing this story disparaging anger between Torah scholars, Rabbi Yoḥanan responded and said: This is an incident between colleagues. How can you compare that to my situation, as Rabbi Eliezer is my disciple?

נִיכְנַס לְפָנָיו רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידִי. אָמַר לוֹ כְּתִיב כָּל־אֲשֶׁר צִוָּ֤ה יְי אֶת־מֹשֶׁ֣ה עַבְדּ֔וֹ כֵּן־צִוָּ֥ה יְהוֹשֻׁ֔עַ וגו׳. וְכִי כָל־דִּיבּוּר וְדִיבּוּר שֶׁהָיָה יְהוֹשֻׁעַ יוֹשֵׁב וְדוֹרֵשׁ הָיָה אוֹמֵר. כָּךְ אָמַר מֹשֶׁה.

Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi entered before Rabbi Yoḥanan and said to him that it is written: “As God commanded Moses His servant, so did Moses command Joshua and so did Joshua; he left nothing undone from all that God had commanded Moses” (Joshua 11:15). From here it is evident that Joshua taught the Jewish people all of the Torah that he learned from Moses. Is it possible to conceive that with every statement that Joshua made while sitting and expounding to the Jewish people he would diligently say: Thus said Moses?” This does not seem plausible.

אֶלָּא יְהוֹשֻׁעַ יוֹשֵׁב וְדוֹרֵשׁ וְיוֹדְעִין שֶׁהַתּוֹרָה שֶׁל מֹשֶׁה הִיא. אַף אַתָּה אֶלְעָזָר יוֹשֵׁב וְדוֹרֵשׁ. הַכֹּל יוֹדְעִין שֶׁתּוֹרָה שֶׁלָּךְ הִיא. אָמַר לָהֶן. מִפְּנֵי מַה אֵי אַתֵּם יוֹדְעִין לָרַצּוֹת כְּבֶן אִידִי חֲבֵירֵינוּ.

Rather, Joshua would sit and expound, and everyone knew that it is the Torah of Moses. Similarly, you, Rabbi Yoḥanan, should know that Eliezer, your disciple, is sitting and expounding before his own disciples, and although he does not say so explicitly, everyone knows that it is your Torah. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi, who had tried unsuccessfully to appease him: Why is it that you do not know how to appease like ben Idi our colleague?

וְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מַאי כוּלֵּי הַאי. דְּבָעֵי דְּיֵימְרוּן שְׁמַעְתָּא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ. דְּאַף דָּוִד בִּיקֵּשׁ עָלֶיהָ רַחֲמִים. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר אָג֣וּרָה בְ֭אָהָלְךָ עוֹלָמִית אֶֽ֘חֱ֤סֶה בְסֵתֶ֭ר כְּנָפֶ֣יךָ סֶּֽלָה׃ וְכִי עָֽלְתָה עַל דַּעְתוֹ שֶׁל דָּוִד שֶׁיְּהֵא חַי וְקַייָם לְעוֹלָמִים. אֶלָּא כָךְ אָמַר דָּוִד לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא. רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם. אֶזְכֶּה שֶׁיְּהוּ דְבָרַיי נֶאֱמָרִין בְּבָתֵּי כְנֶסִיּוֹת וּבְבָתֵּי מִדְרָשׁוֹת.

The Gemara asks: What is the reason that Rabbi Yoḥanan was so insistent that people say the halakha in his name? The Gemara answers: Since even King David entreated God with regard to this issue to have mercy on him, as it is stated: “I will dwell in Your tent forever; I will take refuge in the covert of Your wings, Selah” (Psalms 61:5). Did David imagine that he would live and endure forever? Rather, this is what David said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, may I merit that my words will be said in my name in synagogues and study halls, and through this I will attain perpetual life for myself.

שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן נְזִירָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יִצְחָק אָמַר. כְּלֽ־תַּלְמִיד חָכָם שֶׁאוֹמְרִים דְּבַר הֲלָכָה מִפִּיו בָעוֹלָם הַזֶּה שְׂפָתָיו רוֹחֲשׁוֹת עִמּוֹ בַקֶּבֶר. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר דּוֹבֵב֭ שִׂפְתֵ֥י יְשֵׁנִֽים. מַה כֹמֶר שֶׁל עֲנָבִים זֶה כֵּיוָן שֶׁמַּנִּיחַ אָדָם אֶצְבָּעוֹ עָלָיו מִיַּד דוֹבֵב אַף שִׂפתּוֹתֵיהֶם שֶׁל צַדִּיקִים כֵּיוָן שֶׁאוֹמְרִין דְּבַר הֲלָכָה מִפִּיהֶם שֶׁל צַדִּיקִים שִׂפְתּוֹתֵיהֶן מְרַחֲשׁוֹת עִמָּהֶן בַקֶּבֶר.

The Gemara adds that Shimon ben Nezira said in the name of Rabbi Yitzḥak: Every Torah scholar from whose mouth people quote a matter of halakha in this world, even after his death, his lips move along with it in the grave, as it is stated: “And your palate is like the best wine…moving gently the lips of those that sleep” (Song of Songs 7:10). Just as with regard to a mass of heated grapes, once a person places his finger on them, they immediately issue froth, as the wine bubbles up and moves around, so too, with regard to the lips of the righteous, when people quote matters of halakha from the mouths of the righteous, their lips move with them in the grave.

מַה הֲנְָאָה לוֹ. בַּר נְזִירָא אָמַר. כְּבָדֵין דְּשָׁאתֵי קוֹנְדִּיטוֹן. רִבִּי יִצְחָק אָמַר. כְּבָדֵין דְּשָׁאת חֲמַר עָתִיק. אַף עַל גַּב דְּלֵית לֵיהּ טַעֲמָא.

The Gemara asks: What pleasure is there for a righteous person when his lips move in the grave? Shimon bar Nezira said: He derives pleasure like one who drinks spiced wine. Rabbi Yitzḥak said: His pleasure is like that of one who drinks aged wine. Even after he drinks it, the taste of the wine remains in his mouth. Similarly, when a Torah scholar’s teachings are quoted in his name in this world, his soul in the Garden of Eden enjoys the feeling.

גִּדּוּל אָמַר. כָּאן שְׁמוּעָה בְשֵׁם אוֹמְרָהּ יִרְאֶה בַּעַל שְׁמוּעָה כְּאִילּוּ עוֹמֵד לְנֶגְדּוֹ. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר אַךְ־בְּצֶ֤לֶם ׀ יִתְהַלֶּךְ־אִ֗ישׁ.

Rabbi Giddel said: One who quotes a teaching in the name of the one who said it should see in his mind’s eye the author of the teaching as if he were standing opposite him at that moment, as it is stated: “Surely man walks as a semblance” (Psalms 39:7). When one thinks of another by quoting the Torah he taught, one should visualize the image or semblance of that person.

רָב־אָדָ֗ם יִ֭קְרָא אֶת אִ֣ישׁ חַסְדּ֑וֹ. זֶה שְׁאָר כָּל־אָדַם. וְאִ֥ישׁ אֱ֝מוּנִ֗ים מִ֣י יִמְצָֽא. זֶה רִבִּי זְעִירָא. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. לָמָּה לִי שֶׁאֲנִי צְרִיכִין רְחוּשִׁין לִשְׁמַעְתֵּיהּ דְּרַב שֵׁשֶׁת דְּהוּא גַבְרָא מְפַתְחָא.

On a related note, the Gemara continues. It is written: “Most men will proclaim every man his own goodness” (Proverbs 20:6). This is referring to all other people, meaning that most people will quote another person’s Torah thoughts without attributing them to their author. However, the verse continues: “But a faithful man who can find?” That is, who is faithful and accurate in reporting others’ teachings? This is referring to Rabbi Ze’eira, who took great care to maintain the accuracy of the tradition. As Rabbi Ze’eira said: We need not concern ourselves with the traditions of Rav Sheshet, as he is an open-eyed man, a euphemism for a blind person. Since he could not see his master’s face while studying with him, it is possible that he did not report his master’s words accurately.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי זְעִירָא לְרִבִּי אַסִּי. חֲכִים רִבִּי לְבַר פַּתְייָה דְאָתָא אֲמַר שְׂמוּעָתָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָֽמְרָהּ מִשְׁמֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי זְעִירָא לְרִבִּי אַסִּי. חֲכִים רִבִּי לְרַב דְאַתּ אֲמַר שְׂמוּעָתָא מִן שְׁמֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. רַב אָדָא בַּר אַהֲבָה אָֽמְרָן מִשְּׁמֵיהּ.

The Gemara relates another incident that illustrates Rabbi Ze’eira’s concern with the accurate conveyance of tradition. Rabbi Ze’eira said to Rabbi Asi: Did the Rabbi, i.e., Rabbi Asi, know bar Petayya, that you quote teachings in his name? Rabbi Asi said to him: I heard them from Rabbi Yoḥanan who said them in his name. Rabbi Ze’eira said to Rabbi Asi: Did the Rabbi, i.e., Rabbi Asi, know Rav, that you quote teachings in his name? He said to him: I heard them from Rabbi Adda bar Ahava, who said them in his name.

אֵין דּוֹר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ לֵיצָנִין. בְּדוֹרוֹ שֶׁל דָּוִד מֶה הָיוּ פְרוּצֵי הַדּוֹר עוֹשִׂין. הָיוּ הוֹלְכִים אֶצֶל חֲלוֹנוֹתָיו שֶׁל דָּוִד. אוֹמְרִין לוֹ. דָּוִד דָּוִד. אֵימָתַי יִבָּנֶה בֵית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ. אֵימָתַי בֵּית יי נֵלֵךְ.

Having mentioned a verse in which David expressed a wish that after his death people would say teachings in his name in this world, the Gemara cites other requests by David. There is no generation without scoffers. In David’s generation, what would the ridiculers of his generation do, when they heard that David was not permitted to build the Temple and only his son Solomon would merit to build it? They would go near David’s windows and say to him: David, David, when will the Temple be built? When will we be able to say: “Let us go to the House of the Lord” (Psalms 122:1) as David himself had requested?

וְהָיְה דָּוִד אֹמֵר. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמִתְכַּווְנִין לְהַכְעִיסֵנִי יָבֹאוּ עָלַי אִם לֹא שָׂמַחְתִּי בְדִבְרֵיהֶם. דִּכְתִיב שָׂ֭מַחְתִּי בְּאֹמְרִ֣ים לִי֑ בֵּי֭ת יְהֹוָ֣ה נֵלֵֽךְ׃ יְהָיָה כִּ֣י ׀ יִמְלְא֣וּ יָמֶ֗יךָ וְשָֽׁכַבְתָּ֙ עִם אֲבֹתֶ֔יךָ. אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְדָוִד. יָמִים שְׁלֵמִים אֲנִי מוֹנֶה לְךָ וְלא̈ יָמִים חֲסֵרִים. כְּלוּם שְׁלֹמֹה בִנְךָ יִבְנֶה בֵית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ אֶלָּא לְהַקְרִיב קָרְבְּנוֹת צִיבּוּר. חָבִיב עָלַי צְדָקָה וּמִשְׁפָּט שֶׁאַתָּה עוֹשֶׂה יוֹתֵר מִן הַקָּרְבַּן. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר עֲ֭שֶֹׂה צְדָקָ֣ה וּמִשְׁפָּ֑ט נִבְחָר֭ לַֽה׳ מִזָּֽבַח:]

And David would respond with a kind of oath: Even though they intend to anger me, may evil come upon me if I do not rejoice in their words, as I too want the Temple to be built soon, even if it means that I must leave this world before my time, as it is written: “I rejoiced when they said to me: Let us go to the House of the Lord” (Psalms 122:1). When David said this, God answered him: “When your days are fulfilled and you will sleep with your fathers” (II Samuel 7:12). This verse indicates that this is what the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to David: I reckon full days for you and not deficient days, i.e., I will not deduct any days from your life. Won’t Solomon, your son, build the Temple only in order to sacrifice communal offerings? The righteousness and justice that you perform are more pleasant to me than offerings, as it is stated: “To perform righteousness and justice is more acceptable to the Lord than an offering” (Proverbs 21:3).

משנה בִּשְׁלשָׁה פְּרָקִים בַּשָּׁנָה תּוֹרְמִין אֶת הַלִּשְׁכָּה

Halakha 1 · MISHNA

On three occasions during the year the ceremony of the collection of the Temple treasury chamber is performed. During the ceremony, a priest enters the treasury chamber with three containers, lifts up [torem] some of the coins, and places them in the containers. These funds, known as the collection of the chamber, are used to purchase animals for communal offerings and other needs of the Temple.

בְּפַרְס הַפֶּסַח בְּפַרְס עֲצֶרֶת בְּפַרְס הֶחָג

These three occasions are: Half a month, fifteen days, before Passover, on the day before the first of the month of Nisan; half a month before Shavuot, on or around the twentieth of Iyar; half a month before the festival of Sukkot, on the day before Rosh HaShana.

וְהֵן גְּרָנוֹת שֶׁל מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה.

These three days are also the due dates that were established by the Sages for the setting aside of animal tithes. On each of these days one is obligated to tithe the animals that were born during the intervening period, and it is prohibited for him to eat or sell them until he does so. This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva.

בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹמֵר בְּעֶשְׂרִים וְתִשְׁעָה בַּאֲדָר בְּאֶחָד בְּסִיוָן בְּעֶשְׂרִים וְתִשְׁעָה בְּאָב.

Ben Azzai says that the dates established by the Sages for the setting aside of animal tithes are the twenty-ninth of Adar, the first of Sivan, and the twenty-ninth of Av.

רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמְרִים בְּאֶחָד בְּנִיסָן בְּאֶחָד בְּסִיוָן בְּעֶשְׂרִים וְתִשְׁעָה בֶּאֱלוּל.

Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say that the dates for the animal tithes are the first of Nisan, the first of Sivan, and the twenty-ninth of Elul.

וְלָמָּה אָֽמְרוּ בְּעֶשְׂרִים וְתִשְׁעָה בֶּאֱלוּל וְלֹא אָֽמְרוּ בְּאֶחָד בְּתִשְׁרֵי מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא יוֹם טוֹב וְאֵי אֶפְשָׁר לְעַשֵּׂר בְּיוֹם טוֹב לְפִיכָךְ הִקְדִּימוּהוּ בְּעֶשְׂרִים וְתִשְׁעָה בֶּאֱלוּל:

And why did Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say the twenty-ninth of Elul and not the first of Tishrei, as they said the first of Nisan and Sivan? Because the first of Tishrei is the festival of Rosh HaShana, and it is not permitted to tithe on a Festival. Therefore, the Sages advanced the day of tithing the animals born over the course of the summer to the twenty-ninth of Elul.

הלכה בִּשְׁלשָׁה פְּרָקִים בַּשָּׁנָה כוּל׳. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. כָּל־הֵן דְּתַנִּינָן פַּרְס פַּלְגָא. [פַּלְגָּא בִשְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם קוֹדֶם לַמּוֹעֵד שֶׁדּוֹרְשִׁין בְּהִלְכוֹתָיו.]

GEMARA: It was taught in the mishna that funds are collected from the Temple treasury chamber three times a year: Before Passover, before Shavuot, and before Sukkot. The term preceding the name of the Festival that is used in the mishna is bifros. With regard to this word, Rabbi Abbahu said: Wherever it is taught to us in the mishna using the term peras, which is from the same root as bifros, it means half. In this case it is referring to half of the thirty-day period preceding each of the Festivals, when lectures on the halakhot of the upcoming Festival are delivered.

אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן פִּירְקֵי לֵידָה.

The mishna continues: And these three days when funds were collected from the Temple treasury chamber are also the due dates for animal tithes. With regard to this Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Why did the Sages choose these specific times as the due dates for animal tithes? These dates were chosen because they mark the birthing periods of animals. Some animals give birth before Passover, others deliver only before Shavuot, and yet others have their young between Shavuot and Sukkot. The Sages fixed the tithing times to correspond to the periods during which animals usually give birth.

רִבִּי אָחָא רִבִּי תַנְחוּם בַּר חִייָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. כְּדֵי שֶׁתָּהֵא בְהֵמָה מְצוּיָה לְעוֹלֵי רְגָלִים.

Rabbi Aḥa and Rabbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi offered a different reason: So that animals will be readily available for those going up to Jerusalem for the pilgrim Festivals. The animals are tithed shortly before each of the Festivals so that there should be ample numbers of non-sacred animals ready to be sold for food and offerings to those on their way to Jerusalem.

אְמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן. שֶׁלֹּא יָבוֹא לִידֵי בַּל תַּאַחֵר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. כָּל־הַמַּשְׁהֶא טִיבְלוֹ עוֹבֵר.

Rabbi Yudan said: The reason is so that one should not come to violate the prohibition against delaying an offering that he was obligated to bring to the Temple (Deuteronomy 23:22). If animal tithes would be due only after the Festival, three Festivals might pass without him bringing his animal tithes to Jerusalem to be offered, and therefore he would violate this prohibition. The Sages, therefore, established these days as the due dates for animal tithes so that they should serve as a reminder of the times by which the tithes must be brought to the Temple. Rabbi Yosei said: Anyone who procrastinates and fails to tithe his untithed animals at the proper time transgresses the prohibition against delaying bringing his offerings.