If one makes his property hekdesh, and it includes beasts fit for the altar, male and female — R. Eliezer says: The males are sold to those who need burnt-offerings and the females to those who need peace-offerings and the monies revert with the rest of the property to Temple maintenance. [He holds that "hekdesh," unqualified, reverts to Temple maintenance, even with things that are fit for the altar. But what is fit for the altar does not "evade" the altar. For if one dedicates whole (i.e., unblemished) animals for bedek habayith (Temple maintenance), they are redeemed only for the altar and the monies revert to bedek habayith.] R. Yehoshua says: The males themselves are sacrificed as burnt-offerings and the females are sold to those who need peace-offerings, and burnt-offerings are bought with their monies and the rest of the property reverts to bedek habayith. [He holds that what is fit for the altar may be assumed to have been dedicated to the altar. Therefore, the males themselves are sacrificed as burnt-offerings and the females are sold to those who need peace-offerings, and burnt-offerings are bought with their monies. But they themselves are not sacrificed as peace-offerings. For if one dedicates his property, he wishes it all to go to "on High." Therefore, beasts which are fit to be sacrificed as burnt-offerings are sacrificed as burnt-offerings and females are sold to those who need peace-offerings, and burnt-offerings are bought for their monies. For since they are fit for the altar, the sanctity of the altar attaches to them. And even the females, whose bodies are not fit for what he wishes to dedicate them for (i.e., burnt-offerings), still, since they are fit for offerings, in general, the sanctity of bedek habayith does not attach to them and burnt-offerings are bought for their monies.] R. Akiva says: I see (i.e., I prefer) the words of R. Eliezer to those of R. Yehoshua. For R. Eliezer "equalized his measure" (everything going to bedek habayith) and R. Yehoshua divided it (the animals to the altar; the rest, to bedek habayith)]. R. Papyas said: I heard (the ruling given) according to the words of both: that if one dedicates explicitly, [saying: "My animals and (the rest of) my property to hekdesh"], (the halachah is) in accordance with R. Eliezer. [For since he explicitly distinguished between them and yet did not say: "The animals to the altar and the property to bedek habayith," it is clear that he intended both to go to the same place (i.e., bedek habayith)]; but if one dedicates [all of his property] unexplicitly, (the halachah is) in accordance with R. Yehoshua. [For it may be assumed that his intent is to dedicate each thing for what it is fit. The halachah is in accordance with R. Akiva.]
Bartenura on Mishnah Shekalim
זכרים ימכרו לצרכי עולות כו' ודמיהם יפלו לשאר הנכסים לבדק הבית – for he holds that undefined things dedicated to the Temple is for the repair and upkeep of the Temple and even with something that is appropriate for the Altar, but that which is appropriate for the Altar does not leave from the Altar for someone who dedicates pure things to the repair and upkeep of the Temple are not redeemed other than for the Altar and their monies will fall to the repair and upkeep of the Temple.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Shekalim
Introduction
Yesterday’s mishnah discussed what is done with things dedicated to the Temple that can be used as public sacrifices but not as individual sacrifices. Today’s mishnah discusses things dedicated to the Temple that can be used for individual sacrifices.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Shekalim
ויביא בדמיהן עולות – for he holds that a thing that is appropriate for the Altar without any qualification is sanctified for the Altar; therefore, males themselves should be offered as burnt offerings and females should be sold for the needs of peace-offerings and he can bring with their monies burnt offerings, but they themselves are not offered as peace offerings, for a person who dedicates his possessions, his intention is that it should all be for “On High,” therefore, cattle which are appropriate to be offered as burnt offerings should be offered as burnt offerings. But females should be sold for the needs of peace-offerings and you can, with their monies, bring burnt-offerings, for since they are appropriate for the Altar, the sanctity of the Altar applies to them. And even for the females, where their bodies are not appropriate, for what he intends to sanctify them for, since it is for the sake of a sacrifice, however, they are worthy, [but] the sanctify of the repair/maintenance of the Temple does not apply to them and he should bring with their monies burnt-offerings.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Shekalim
The case under discussion is one in which a person dedicated his possessions to the Temple and these possessions included animals which could be offered as individual sacrifices, and not public sacrifices as was the case in yesterday’s mishnah. The question is: what is to be done with these animals? The main debate in the mishnah is over what was the man’s intention that the animals should be completely put on the altar, meaning they should be burnt offerings, which are completely burnt on the altar, or that all of his property should go to the Temple for its upkeep.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Shekalim
המקדיש בפירוש – that said that cattle and my possessions are given over to the Temple property for since he dedicated them and separated them one from the other, and even though he didn’t say, the cattle to the altar and my possessions to the upkeep and maintenance of the Temple, it comes to tell us that his intention was that regardless of whether speaking of his cattle or his possession everything should go to one place. But when one sanctifies something all of his possessions undefined, his intention is to dedicate each thing for what is appropriate, and the Halakha is according to Rabbi Akiva.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Shekalim
One who dedicated his possessions to the Temple and there was among them an animal fit for the altar, males or females, Rabbi Eliezer says: males should be sold for the use of burnt-offerings and females should be sold for the use of offerings of wellbeing, and the proceeds should be lumped together with the rest of the possessions for the repair of the temple. Rabbi Eliezer holds that the male animals should be sold to people who wish to offer a burnt offering whereas the female animals, which cannot be used for burnt offerings, should be sold to people who wish to offer an offering of wellbeing. The proceeds from the sales and any of other dedicated property are used for the repairs and upkeep of the Temple. Rabbi Eliezer holds that unspecified dedications to the Temple are directed at paying for the upkeep of the Temple.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Shekalim
Rabbi Joshua says: the males themselves should be offered as burnt-offerings and the females should be sold for the use of offerings of wellbeing, and with the proceeds burnt offerings should be brought, and the other possessions should go to the repair of the temple. Rabbi Joshua says that the male animals should be sacrificed as burnt offerings and not sold. Rabbi Joshua holds that when the person dedicated to the Temple animals which can be sacrificed he intended them to be whole burnt offerings and not that they should pay for the upkeep of the Temple. The female animals are sold to become wellbeing offerings and then the money is used to purchase more burnt offerings which are offered on the altar. They aren’t offered as wellbeing offerings, because parts of the wellbeing offerings are eaten and Rabbi Joshua says the intention was that all of the animal would go to the altar. The other property is used for the upkeep of the Temple.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Shekalim
Rabbi Akiva says: I prefer the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer over the opinion of Rabbi Joshua, for Rabbi Eliezer applied a uniform rule, but Rabbi Joshua differentiated. Rabbi Akiva says that Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion is preferable because he is consistent both the males and females are sold and the proceeds from both sales go to the repair of the Temple, as does the other property which was dedicated to the Temple. In contrast, Rabbi Joshua said that the animals fit for the altar are used either as whole burnt offering or are sold to buy other whole burnt offerings, whereas the other dedicated property is used for the upkeep. Rabbi Akiva prefers the consistent of Rabbi Eliezer and hence rules accordingly. We should note that this preference for consistency is a function of Rabbi Akiva’s own logic, and not of a received tradition. In other words, in the absence of any foreknowledge of who is correct, he tries his best to determine the correct halakhah from the opinions of his two teachers.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Shekalim
Rabbi Papias said: I have heard [a tradition in accordance] with both of their opinions: that one who dedicates to the Temple with explicitness, it is according to the words of Rabbi Eliezer, but one who dedicates to the Temple without specifying it is according to the opinion of Rabbi Joshua. In contrast, Rabbi Papias says that he has a received tradition, one which mediates between Rabbi Eliezer’s position and Rabbi Joshua’s. When one specifies that his dedication is for the upkeep of the Temple, the law follows Rabbi Eliezer. However, if he doesn’t specify then the tradition is according to Rabbi Joshua.
