(Beth-din instituted) that the Cohanim may make use of the salt and the wood (of hekdesh) [only for the eating of offerings. But as far as chullin is concerned, they may not make use of it even for the salting of chullin eaten in the azarah together with the offerings so that the offerings be eaten in satiety.], and (they instituted) that the ashes of the red heifer not be subject to me'ilah (abuse of consecrated property). [For by Torah law its ashes are not subject to me'ilah, it being written (Numbers 19:9) "it is a sin-offering" — it (the red heifer) is subject to me'ilah, but its ashes are not subject to me'ilah. When they saw people "cheapening" the ashes, they decreed that they (the ashes) be subject to me'ilah. When they saw them shunning sprinklings of doubtful (instances of dead body uncleanliness), they re-established it as Torah law (that the ashes not be subject to me'ilah)], and (they instituted) that unfit kinin be replaced by the congregation. [Those who are obligated to offer kinin bring money and place it in the shofar. Beth-din take the money and buy kinin and the owners leave and rely upon beth-din to sacrifice their kinin. If the kinin fly away or are found to be unfit, it is a condition of beth-din that they buy others from the money of the lishkah and bequeath them to the owners so that they thereby fulfill their obligation.] R. Yossi says: He who supplies the kinin replaces the unfit ones. [The one who regularly supplies the kinin (i.e., the one who stipulates with the treasurers to sell them all the kinin that they need for a certain sum) — he is obliged to replace whatever is found to be unfit. (As we learned above (4:9): "He (the supplier) does not receive his money until it (the flour or the wine) is accepted upon the altar." So that if the wine turns sour or the flour becomes wormy, it is returned to the merchant.) Similarly, if the bird becomes unfit after it is bought, it is returned to the buyer and he returns the money. The halachah is in accordance with R. Yossi. For thus is it stated in the Yerushalmi: "It is a condition of beth-din that the supplier of the kinin replaces (the birds) that are lost or that become unfit."]
Bartenura on Mishnah Shekalim
שיהיו הכהנים נאותין בהן – specifically regarding the consuming of the sacrifices. But, regarding the eating of non-holy things, even the salting of non-holy things that are eaten in the Temple courtyard with the sacrifices in order that the sacrifices would be eaten with satiation, they don’t enjoy them (i.e., the salt and the wood).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Shekalim
Introduction
This mishnah contains the final three of the seven decrees mentioned by Rabbi Shimon in yesterday’s mishnah.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Shekalim
שלא היו מועלין באפרה – for from the Torah, they cannot commit religious sacrilege with its ashes, as it is written (Numbers 19:9): “[A man who is clean shall gather up the ashes of the ow and deposit them outside the camp in a clean place, to be kept for water of lustration for the Israelite community.] It is for cleansing.” Through it they commit religious sacrilege but they don’t commit religious sacrilege through its ashes, but since they saw that they were despising it, they decreed that through its ashes is religious sacrilege because they saw that they separated themselves from the doubt of sprinklings, they established it as from the Torah.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Shekalim
[They further decreed] concerning the salt and the wood that the priests may benefit from them. The court decreed that salt and wood which had been donated to the Temple could be used by the priests to salt and cook the sacrificial meat. However, they could not use this salt or wood to salt or cook non-sacrificial meat.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Shekalim
ועל הקינין הפסולות – those obligated for bird-offerings they bring the money and place it into shofar-shaped chest and the Jewish court takes the money and purchases with them the bird-offerings and the owners go to them and rely upon the Jewish court that they will offer their bird-offerings but if the birds flew off or were found to be invalid, it is a condition of the Jewish court that they would take others from the monies of the chamber and give possession to the owners and fulfill through the their religious obligation.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Shekalim
And concerning the [red] heifer that using its ashes is not considered sacrilege. The red heifer, used in the ritual to purify people from corpse-impurity, was paid for by the shekels collected in the chamber (see above 4:2). Furthermore, the heifer is called a “sin-offering” in Numbers 19:9. Nevertheless, one who makes non-sacred use of this heifer’s ashes has not committed sacrilege (illicit use of sacred property). The ashes are not considered to be like the sin-offering, only the live animal is, and therefore only one who makes illicit use of the live cow itself has committed sacrilege.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Shekalim
רבי יוסי אומר – the one who regularly supplied the bird-offerings who fixed the price with the treasurers to sell them all the bird sacrifices that are needed, he is obligated to exchange all that is found in them something invalid, as is taught in the Mishnah (nine) above in the chapter “The Sacred Contributions”/"התרומה", he doesn’t receive his funds until the Altar is satisfied. But if the wine fermented or the fine flour became wormy, they return it to him and he returns the money, and the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yosi, for this is what we say in the Jerusalem Talmud that it is a condition of the Jewish court that whomever supplies the bird offerings supplies that which becomes lost or that is invalid.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Shekalim
And concerning bird-offerings which had become unfit [for sacrifice], that [others] should be offered [in their place] out of public funds. Rabbi Yose says: the one who supplied the bird-offerings was bound to supply [those which had to be offered in the place of] those which had become unfit. The last decree of the court was that if bird offerings purchased with public funds (see above 6:5) should become unfit for sacrifice, their replacements should come from public funds as well. Rabbi Yose holds that the merchant who supplied the birds is obligated to supply replacements. It’s not that it is the merchant’s fault that they became unfit. Rather, the Temple had an agreement with him that if the birds become unfit, he would supply a replacement.
