Commentaire sur Shekalim 7:8

מעות שנמצאו. קרוב לשקלים יפלו לשקלים – for after what is near we follow, as It is written (Deuteronomy 21:3): “The elders of the town nearest to the corpse,” and the one who states majority and near, follows after the majority; our Mishnah establishes that such as a case when Shekalim and freewill donations are equivalent.

Introduction The first mishnah of this chapter deals with the status of coins found in between the money chests that were in the Temple (see above, chapter 6:5). The three mishnayot which follow will also deal with various items found in a certain place in which their status is uncertain. The rabbis seem to be enamored with this type of discussion how do we determine the status of something whose status is doubtful?

מחצה על מחצה יפלו לנדבה – for they (i.e., freewill offerings) are more stringent than Shekalim, since they are all burnt offerings, but sometimes Shekalim are brought as sin-offerings which are consumed by Kohanim. But furthermore, the remnants of the Shekalim are used for the walls of the city and its towers.

The general rule for this mishnah is found only at the end, but since it applies to the entire mishnah, I shall explain it now. If coins are found between two other groups of coins, they are considered to be of the status of the coins to which they are closest. This is true even if that creates a leniency, as we shall see as we proceed. However, if they are found equidistant between the two, then they go to the coins which are treated with greater stringency. In essence, this mishnah becomes a statement about which of two items is “more important” or at least which has to be dealt with with greater stringency.

מחצה על מחצה יפלו ללבונה – for frankincense is itself a sacrifice but wood is the requirement of a sacrifice.

Coins which were found between the [chest inscribed] “shekels” and the [chests inscribed] “freewill-offerings: Nearer to [the chest inscribed] “shekels”, they go to the shekels; [Nearer to the chests inscribed] “freewill-offerings”, they go to freewill-offerings; Half way in between, they go to freewill-offerings. In this case “freewill offerings” is more stringent since these coins go to purchase burnt offerings. Therefore, only if the coins fall closer to the “shekalim” chest, whose shekels are used for various purposes (see above 4:1-2), are the coins considered “shekalim.”

מחצה על מחצה יפלו לגוזלי עולה – In the Jerusalem Talmud (Shekalim 19a), it raises an objection: it is all right if it is closer to young pigeons for burnt offerings, since according to the Torah, we follow after that which is nearer as if they are definitively from the young pigeons for burnt offerings. But, if it is half-way between them, out of doubt, we cast them in a stringency to the young pigeons for burnt offerings, but the woman who brought these monies, with what shall she gain atonement? For perhaps, they fell from obligatory bird-offerings and when you offer from them pigeon burnt-offerings, with what shall the woman gain atonement? And it (i.e., the Jerusalem Talmud) responds that the Jewish court that is appointed over the bird-offerings takes from the community [offerings] according to those monies that were found and causes them to be acquired by the owners of the monies that were found and they offer from them bird-offerings on the doubt, and the sin-offering will not be consumed.

[Coins which were found] between [the chest inscribed] “wood” and [the chest inscribed] “frankincense”: Nearer to [the chest inscribed] “wood”, they go to the wood; [Nearer to the chest inscribed] “frankincense”, they go to frankincense; Half way in between, they go to frankincense. “Frankincense” is considered more stringent, or in this case important, than “wood” because the frankincense is itself a type of sacrifice while the wood is only an instrument used to burn other sacrifices.

[Coins which were found] between [the chest inscribed] “bird-offerings” and [the chest inscribed] “young pigeons for burnt-offerings”: Nearer to [the chest inscribed] “bird-offerings” they go to bird-offerings; [Nearer to the chest inscribed] “young pigeons for burnt-offerings”, they go to young pigeons for burnt-offerings; Half way in between, they go to young pigeons for burnt-offerings. The chest for “young pigeons for burnt offerings” is considered more stringent because all of the money in this chest goes for burnt offerings. In contrast, the money in the chest inscribed with “bird offerings” goes partly for burnt offerings and partly for sin offerings, as was the opinion of the sages above in 6:5. Since only part goes for burnt offerings, money found halfway in between the two chests goes to the chest marked “young pigeons for burnt offerings.”

[Coins which were found] between non-sacred [money] and [second] tithes [money]: Nearer to the non-sacred [money], they go to common [money]; Nearer to the [second] tithes [money], they go to [second] tithes; Half way in between, they are considered [second] tithes. This section has nothing to do with the chests in the Temple. The mishnah is now beginning to expand the discussion to general cases of money whose status is doubtful. If one has a pile of money that is not sacred and a pile of money that is “second tithe”, meaning that it is money which was used to redeem second tithe produce, coins which are found in between the two piles go to whichever pile they are closer to. If they are halfway in between then they go to second tithe because the rules governing second tithe are more stringent it can be used only in Jerusalem and only to buy food products.

This is the general rule: the go to that which is nearer [even if this] is lenient; but if half way in between, [they must go] to that which is the more stringent. This is the general rule that governs all of the previous sections of the mishnah.

לעולם מעשר – even all of the entire year, since the pilgrims for the Festivals do not manage to spend all of their Second Tithe [monies] and leave them for their relatives or their beloved ones to consume them all year in Jerusalem. And the essential Mitzvah of consuming Second Tithe is peace-offerings. Therefore, most of the cattle that is sold in Jerusalem on all the days f the year are acquired with the money of the [Second] Tithe, and even though that one can say that perhaps they fell from the sellers and were already redeemed, since the buyers are the majority since several people purchase from one merchant, we state that they are purchases but not redeemed, and they are [Second] Tithe.

Introduction Yesterday’s mishnah dealt with money found in between the money chests of the chamber in the Temple. This mishnah continues to deal with money found in various places, and with how to determine its status.

ובהר הבית חולין – and even on the Festival (i.e., the Intermediate Days), for most of the monies in people’s hands are of [Second] Tithe which are non-holy, and we follow according to [what the case is] the majority of the year. Devoted objects/sacrifices from before the Festival, young birds are found near their nests.

Money which was found in front of animal dealers [in Jerusalem], it is always [second] tithes [money]; The money that is derived from second tithes must be used to buy food products in Jerusalem. One common use of this money was to buy an animal and offer it as wellbeing offering. Most of the animals purchased in Jerusalem throughout the entire year, and not just at festival time, are purchased through second tithes money. Hence, if money is found in front of an animal dealer in Jerusalem we must be concerned lest it is second tithe money, and it therefore must be treated as if it is.

בירושלים – that is not in the market for cattle.

[If it was found] on the Temple Mount it is non-sacred [money]. Non-priests who come to the Temple Mount do not generally bring money with them, therefore this money can be assumed to have come from a priest or Levite while they were working there and not from one of the pilgrims during a festival. This money is considered to be non-sacred even during a festival. Although people do bring second tithe money to Jerusalem, they don’t generally bring it to the Temple Mount.

בשעת הרגל הכל מעשר – for we do not follow after the majority of the year because the market places/streets of Jerusalem used to be swept every day and if it would fall earlier, it is already found. But the Temple Mount was not swept because it is high and the wind sweeps and removes all the dust and also no man is permitted to enter the Temple Mount with the dust that is on his feet, therefore, there is no dust found there.

[If it was found] in Jerusalem during the time of a festival, it is [second] tithes [money]. Money found anywhere in Jerusalem (except for the Temple Mount) during a festival is deemed to be second tithe money because most of the money that people bring with them on their pilgrimage is second tithe money. Since Jerusalem is full of pilgrims at this time of year it can be assumed that the money is not from the smaller number of residents.

But all the rest of the year it is non-sacred [money]. During the rest of the year it can be assumed that the money fell from one of the residents of Jerusalem and not from a pilgrim. Hence it is not deemed second tithe and it may be treated as non-sacred.

אברים עולות – since it has been dissected in the manner of the dissection that has been explained for burnt-offerings, it is known that they are of the burnt offerings.

Introduction This mishnah deals with meat found in various places and how a person should treat that meat do we assume that it comes from a sacrifice? Is it kosher?

חתיכות חטאות – for we consume nothing in the Temple courtyard other than sin-offerings and guilt-offerings.

Meat which was found in the Temple courtyard: Limbs: [they must be treated as belonging to] whole burnt-offerings; Pieces: [they must be treated as belonging to] sin-offerings. Burnt-offerings are cut up into limbs before they are brought up to the altar. Therefore, if one finds whole limbs in the Temple courtyard, one must assume that they belong to burnt-offerings. Sin-offerings are eaten by the priests and therefore they are cut up into pieces. If one finds a piece of meat in the Temple courtyard, he therefore must assume that it is a sin-offering.

ובירושלים זבחי שלמים – for most of the meat eaten in Jerusalem is that of peace-offerings.

[Meat which was found] in Jerusalem, [must be treated as belonging to] wellbeing-offerings. Wellbeing offerings can be eaten anywhere in Jerusalem. Therefore, if meat is found outside of the Temple but within Jerusalem, it must be treated as if it was a wellbeing offering.

זה וזה – whether it is found in the Temple courtyard or whether it is found in Jerusalem.

In both cases it must be left to become disqualified and must then go out to the place of burning. In all of the cases in the above two sections, the meat cannot be eaten lest it is impure or “remnant” sacrificial meat which should have already been eaten. It also cannot be burned lest it be fully pure and not remnant and it is prohibited to burn sacrificial meat which can be eaten. What they must do is wait until the meat becomes disqualified from being eaten, one day and night for a sin-offering and two days and one nigh for a wellbeing offering. Then it may be burned outside of the Temple where they burn disqualified meat.

תעובר צורתן – because they have been defiled through being given up/discarding from the mind and are prohibited for eating but we cannot despise them and burn them until they have clearly been defiled. Therefore, they require that its status must be altered/let its appearance be gone (i.e., the flesh looks disfigured by beginning to decay), which is that they be defiled through portions of sacrifices left over beyond the legal time and bound to be burned or the status must be altered for peace-offerings – which is until the third day.

[Meat which was] found within the borders [of Israel but outside of Jerusalem]: Limbs: [they must be treated as] carrion; Pieces: they are permitted. But [if found] during the time of a festival, when meat is abundant, it is permitted [to eat it] even when cut up in limbs. If it is found outside of Jerusalem, then it is not assumed to be sacrificial meat. If it is in limbs, meaning not cut into proper pieces, then it must be assumed that the animal was not slaughtered properly and that the owner intended to cast the meat to the dogs. This meat cannot be eaten. If it is cut into pieces than we can assume that the meat is kosher, because people don’t bother cutting the meat into proper pieces if it cannot be eaten. However, in the time of the festival when many people eat meat and meat is in abundance even found limbs may be eaten. They may have come from a kosher animal and someone may have had just so much meat that they didn’t bother to cut it properly.

נמצאו בגבולים – in the cities of Israel.

אברים נבלות – for it is the manner that we sever the carrions (i.e., animals that died a natural death) into limbs and cast them into the streets so that the dogs would eat them.

חתיכות מותרים – for it was not customary to dissect the carrions to pieces but the fit parts, it was customary to cut them into small pieces to sell them to Jews or to place it into the pot, and this law applies in a city that is completely Jewish; but in a city where there are heathens, even the pieces are forbidden.

שהבשר מרובה – we don’t dissect the flesh into small pieces but cook it by limbs.

זכרים עולות – for we assign that it (i.e., the animal) left from Jerusalem for most of the males that are in Jerusalem are burnt offerings, and most of the females are peace offering sacrifices.

Introduction This mishnah deals with beasts (cattle) found in proximity to Jerusalem. Since many animals around Jerusalem may be escaped sacrifices (probably lost, but escaped sounds more interesting) we must treat them as if they were sacrifices.

הראוי לפסחים – a year-old male from the sheep or the goats.

Beasts which were found in Jerusalem as far as Migdal Eder and within the same distance in any direction: The exact location of Migdal Eder is no longer known. It is mentioned in Genesis 35:21 and in Micah 4:8. It is very close to Jerusalem.

פסחים – and he who finds it is permitted to him to offer it as his Passover offering. But if its owner comes afterwards, he should give him its monetary value.

Males are [considered as] burnt-offerings; Males found in this area are treated as burnt-offerings. This is the most stringent of the offerings that the male animal might be. It is also true that the majority of male animals are burnt-offerings. The Talmud Yerushalmi explains that there was a special decree in Jerusalem that all lost male animals are to be treated as burnt offerings.

קודם לרגל שלשים יום – from the time that they begin to expound upon the laws of Passover, and a person separates his Passover-offering. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.

Females are [considered as] peace-offerings. Female animals are treated as peace-offerings, since they cannot be offered as burnt offerings. Most female animals in Jerusalem are peace-offerings which were purchased with second tithe money (see above mishnayot 2-3).

Rabbi Judah says: that which is fit for a pesach offering, is [considered as] a pesach-offerings [when found] within thirty days before the pilgrimage [of Pesach]. Rabbi Judah explains that if the animal was fit to be a pesah offering, that is it is a year-old goat or sheep, and it is found within thirty days before Pesah, it is to be treated as a pesah offering. Thirty days is the period of time before Pesah in which the sages began to teach the laws of Pesah and hence at this time people began to set aside animals for use as a pesah offering. One who finds such an animal may use it as his own personal pesah sacrifice. If the owners come and claim the animal, then he must pay them its value but he may keep the animal.

היו ממשכנין את מוצאיה – a person who would find a burnt offering or a peace offering, they would exact a pledge from him until he would bring its libations from his own – three-tenths of an Ephah for a bull and two-tenths of an Ephah for a ram and one-tenth for a lamb.

Introduction This mishnah is a direct continuation of yesterday’s.

מניחין אותה ובורחים – in order that he would not be liable for its libations.

In olden times they used to take a pledge from any one who had found such a [stray] animal, until he brought its libation-offerings. Then people would leave the animal and run away. So the court decreed that its libation-offerings should come from public funds. In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that one who finds an animal in close proximity to Jerusalem must treat it as if it were a sacrifice, usually either a burnt offering or a wellbeing offering. These sacrifices also require libations to be brought with them (oil, grain and wine, see above 5:3). At first they used to force the people who found the animals to bring the libations as well. They would enforce this by taking collateral from those who found the animal and holding on to the collateral until they brought the necessary libations. This caused a problem people would leave the animal and run away rather than admit that they had found an animal near Jerusalem. Therefore, the court decreed that the libations should come from public money. We should note that the mishnah has an interesting approach to that which people might be expected to do. It does not expect that people will take the animal home and treat it as if it was theirs. In other words, the Mishnah expects that people will do the right thing and admit that they found the animal near Jerusalem. However, people will not do the “right thing” if by doing so they will have to pay money out of their own pocket. Note again, the people leave the animal and run away they do not take it for themselves. People seem to respect the fact that this animal might indeed be a sacrifice but they are not willing to go broke in dealing with it.

שבעה דברים – that he considered for them and continuing.

Introduction According to Rabbi Shimon, the decree of the court that appeared at the end of yesterday’s mishnah was one of seven things that the court decreed. The first two are similar to the decree mentioned yesterday.

נכרי ששלח עולתו – for we expound [the words] "איש איש"/”every person” which teaches that heathens make votive offerings and freewill offerings like Jews do.

Rabbi Shimon said: there were seven things that the court decree and that was one of them. [The others were the following:]
A non-Jew who sent a burnt-offering from overseas and he sent with it its libation-offerings, they are offered out of his own; But if [he did] not [send its libation-offerings], they should be offered out of public funds. If a non-Jew sent a sacrifice from overseas and he sent with it the proper libation offerings or money with which to purchase these offerings, then the libations are offered from what he sent. However, if he didn’t send the libation offerings, and it is difficult to reach him in order to ask him to do so, the libations are made with public funds. If this was a Jew who had sent an offering from overseas, evidently they would chase after him and not offer the sacrifice until he had sent the libations, or money to cover the costs. We should also note that the idea of gentiles sending sacrifices to the Temple in Jerusalem is an interesting phenomenon, and one that is described in other places. These may have been admirers of Jews, or perhaps pluralistic idol-worshippers who wished to “cover all of their bets” and therefore offered sacrifices to all sorts of Gods, including the God of the Jews.

שתהא מנחתו – one-tenth of an Ephah that the High Priest would offer each day, one-half of it in the morning and one-half of in the evening.

So too [in the case of] a convert who had died and left sacrifices, if he had also left its libation-offerings they are offered out of his own; But if not, they should be offered out of public funds. When a convert dies and does not have any subsequent children, he/she dies without any heirs. In other words, his relatives from before he converted do not inherit his estate. If he dies and he leaves a sacrifice and libations, then the libations are offered with the sacrifice. However, if he doesn’t leave money for the libations, the libations are provided for by public funds. If the person who died had inheritors, as do all Jews, then the inheritors are liable to provide the funds for the libations.

קריבה משל צבור – as it is written (Leviticus 6:11): [“Only the males among Aaron’s descendants may eat of it, as their due] for all time [throughout the ages from the LORD’s offerings by fire].” This law will be for eternity, meaning to say, from the community, from the sacred donations of the chamber.

It was also a condition laid down by the court in the case of a high priest who had died that his minhah should be offered out of public funds. Rabbi Judah says: [it was offered out] of the property of his heirs, And had to be offered of the whole [tenth]. The High Priest offers a daily minhah (grain) sacrifice of a tenth of an ephah (see Leviticus 6:13), half in the morning and half in the night. If the High Priest dies and they have not yet appointed a new High Priest to take his place, this grain offering is provided for by public funds. Rabbi Judah disagrees and holds that the offering comes from the money that the High Priest’s inheritors get from him. Both Rabbi Judah and the other sages agree that in this case an entire ephah is sacrificed in the morning and evening, instead of the usual half-ephah. This is discussed in greater depth in Mishnah Menahot 4:5.

רבי יהודה אומר משל יורשים – as it is written (Leviticus 6:15): “And so shall the priest, anointed from among his son to succeed him, [shall prepare it; it is the LORD’s – a law for all time – to be turned entirely into smoke],” and this implies that the Kohen that was anointed who died, succeeding him, one of his sons shall prepare it.

ושלימה היתה קריבה – when it comes from the community, according to Rabbi Shimon, or from the heirs, according to Rabbi Yehuda. A full tenth was offered and not a one-half tenth. Rabbi Shimon derives it from "כליל תקטר"/”to be turned entirely into smoke” (Leviticus 6:15), that he should not offer incense in halves but whole, when it comes from the community. But Rabbi Yehuda derives it as it is written (Leviticus 6:15): “from among his son to succeed him, prepare it,” that one of his sons will offer incense after his father dies, that is, the heirs will prepare it and not half of it, and the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda that it comes from the heirs. But that our Mishnah states that the Jewish court instituted a condition, according to the words of Rabbi Shimon that it should come from the community. But it is not from the Torah – the Gemara (Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 20b) explains that there were two enactments at first that from the Torah it was offered from the community, since it was written “ a law for all time” (Leviticus 6:15) as we have stated. Since we saw that the chamber was hurried, they enacted that it would be collected from the heirs. Since they saw that they were negligent with it, they established to be from the Torah, and it was found now to be offered from the community with the condition of the Jewish court that it would be established by the Torah.

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).

Introduction This mishnah contains the final three of the seven decrees mentioned by Rabbi Shimon in yesterday’s mishnah.

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.

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.