Komentarz do Szekalim 4:13

התרומה מה היו עושין בה – that they placed into the boxes – what did they do with them?

Introduction This mishnah begins to discuss what they did with the money from the appropriation.

וכל קרבנות הצבור – including incense.

What did they do with the appropriation? They bring with it the daily burnt-offerings ( and the additional burnt-offerings ( and their libations, the omer and the two loaves and the showbread and all the other public offerings. This section contains a list of some of the public offerings that were purchased from the appropriation. Tamidim see Exodus 29:38, Numbers 28:3; musafim see Numbers 28:9 ff.; the omer Leviticus 23:10-11; the two loaves Leviticus 23:16-17; the showbread Leviticus 24:5-9.

ספיחים – grain that comes up on its own from what was fell off/dropped at the harvest, and we give payment to the guards (i.e., these men were hired to prevent people from collecting the aftergrowth) so that poor people would not glean/gather them in the Seventh year, and bring from the Omer on Passover and the two loaves on Atzeret/Shavuot, for these do not come other than from חדש/new grain and from the Land of Israel. And we give them their payment from the Terumah/sacred donations, for the needs of the sacrifice are considered like the sacrifice itself.

Those who guard the aftergrowths of the seventh year take their wages out of the appropriation from the chamber. Rabbi Yose says: [if a man wished] he could volunteer to watch without payment. But they said to him: you too admit that they can only be offered out of public funds. While it is forbidden to work the land during the seventh year, it is permitted to eat produce that grows on its own. This produce was necessary for the omer, the grain brought between Pesah and Shavuot, and the two loaves, brought on Shavuot, because these both had to come from newly harvested produce. To make sure that there was some grain in the fields the Temple would hire guards to watch the aftergrowths. These guards took their salary from the shekels. Rabbi Yose says that if an individual wishes to guard the fields without pay, he is free to do so. The other sages respond that his opinion is problematic. Rabbi Yose agrees that public sacrifices, those listed in section one, must come from public funds and not from individual donations. If one were to volunteer to watch the aftergrowths, he would by law become their owner and it would turn out that the omer and the two loaves would be coming from private donations. Therefore, individuals must take payment in return for guarding the fields.

שומר חנם – and even though he acquired them for that which was ownerless, for when he guarded them for free and brought them, they are his. Rabbi Yosi holds that an individual sacrifice is different from the community sacrifice.

אף אתה אומר כו' – that is to say, if you admit that they don’t come other than frm the community, and if you guarded them for free and brought them, he takes possession of them. It is found that they do not come from the community [offerings] since the Rabbis hold that an individual sacrifice does not change into a community [sacrifice], and the Halakha is according to the Sages.

פרה אדומה ושעיר המשתלח – [the Scapegoat] for Azazel.

Introduction This mishnah continues to discuss what was done with the appropriation of the chamber and then what surplus money was used for.

באין מתרומת הלשכה – come from the Temple fund/treasury chamber Even though the [red] heifer is not slaughtered in the Temple courtyard it comes from the Temple fund/treasury chamber, for the All-Merciful calls it a “sin-offering” (Numbers 19:9 – which is translated as “It is for cleansing.”). And the scapegoat – because it requires taking two goats and it is not known upon which of them will come up the lot “for God” (Leviticus 16:10).

The [red] heifer and the scapegoat and the strip of scarlet came out of the appropriation of the chamber. The red heifer (Numbers 19:2 ff.) and the Yom Kippur scapegoat (Leviticus 16:21) were both purchased with the appropriation money. There are two ceremonies in which the Torah prescribes that a strip of scarlet should be used: 1) the red heifer (Numbers 19:6); 2) and the leper purification (Leviticus 14:4). This strip of scarlet was purchased with the appropriation money.

ולשון של זהורית – the scarlet yarn/crimson thread that they cast into the burning of the heifer; and the same law applies to the cedar wood and hyssop, but it (i.e., the Mishnah) took the language of the crimson thread alone to distinguish between this crimson thread and the language of the thread upon the scapegoat.

The ramp for the [red] heifer and the ramp for the scapegoat and the strip of scarlet which was between its horns, and [the maintenance of] the pool of water and the wall of the city and its towers and all the needs of the city came out of the remainder in the chamber. This section lists things which were paid for with money which was left over after the three yearly appropriations were made. We can immediately notice that none of the things on this list are sacrifices. Rather most of them are general issues of upkeep. I will explain each separately. The ramp for the [red] heifer: they would build a ramp to lead the red heifer to the Mount of Olives (this is mentioned in Mishnah Parah 3:6). The ramp for the scapegoat: this was used to get the scapegoat out of the city (see Mishnah Yoma 3:6). And the strip of scarlet which was between its horns: they would take a strip of scarlet and place it between the horns of the scapegoat. We will learn more about this when we learn Yoma 6:4. The remaining items on the list are all maintenance for the major structures of the Temple and Jerusalem. I assume that the shekels were not sufficient for all upkeep, and the mishnah does not say that they were. All that the Mishnah states is that the extra shekels would go to this upkeep.

כבש פרה – they would make two bridges, one on top of the other because of the grave in the depth (i.e., a covered-up uncleanness discovered) from the Temple Mount to the Mount of Olives and upon them, they would remove the heifer.

Abba Shaul says: the ramp for the [red] cow the high priests made out of their own [means]. Abba Shaul states that the ramp for the red heifer did not come from money left over from the appropriation but rather from the high priests. According to the Tosefta and the Yerushalmi, whenever a red heifer was burnt, the officiating high priest would build a new ramp rather than use a ramp built by a previous high priest.

וכבש [שעיר] – they would make a kind of bridge until the exit from the city, and upon it would go the scapegoat because of the Babylonians who would pluck out its hair and say: “take and leave so that our sins will not tarry.

ולשון שבין קרניו – to know if it had turned white and the sins of the Jewish people had been atoned for, and these do not require a sacrifice. Therefore, they do not come from the Terumah/sacred contributions that were separated for the sake of sacrifices but rather, from what remained in the compartment after the separation of the Terumot/sacred contributions.

ואמת המים – that passes through the Temple courtyard if it needs repair.

וכל צרכי העיר – to dig cisterns, pits and caves, and the repair of its streets, its marketplaces and the guarding of the city.

אבא שאול אומר כו'- but the Halakha is not according to Abba Sahul.

מותר שירי הלשכה – what remained after the repairs for the needs of the city were made from them.

Introduction This mishnah continues to deal with money that was left over after all of the needs in the previous mishnah had been taken care of.

לוקחים מהן יינות שמנים וסלתות – and they sell it to those who need wine for libations and oils and fine flour for meal-offerings.

What did they do with the surplus of the remainder in the chamber?
They would buy with it wines, oils and fine flours, and the profit belonged to the Temple, the words of Rabbi Ishmael. According to Rabbi Ishmael, the money left over in the chamber was used to buy wine, oil and fine flour, which they would then sell to people who needed to bring these items for offerings. The profit would then go to the Temple’s treasury.

אין משתכרין משל הקדש – for the poor people are not in the place of the rich ones, and it is a disgrace to the Temple property.

Rabbi Akiva says: one may not make a profit with the property of the Temple, nor with the property of the poor. Rabbi Akiva says that this is not allowed and that it is potentially disgraceful to turn sacred items or charity into a profit. Furthermore, there is a potential problem of the Temple or poor people losing money on the deal. Rabbi Akiva doesn’t state what he thinks should be done with the extra money. According to one interpretation of the mishnah, the money is used for those things listed in mishnah two, above. According to the Rambam, the money is used for those things listed below in mishnah four.

ואף לא בשל עניים – lest a poor person donate it and there is none to give him, and the Halakha is according to Rabbi Akiva.

מותר תרומה – that is what remains in the boxes/baskets on Rosh Hodesh Nisan, for then we bring sacrifices from the new sacred donations.

Introduction Whereas in yesterday’s mishnah we learned what they did with the surplus from the shekels which remained in the chamber after the appropriation had been made, today’s mishnah teaches what they would do with the surplus of the appropriation itself. For instance, when the first of Nisan comes along they would begin to buy public sacrifices with a new appropriation, so what did they do with money left over from the old appropriation?

צפוי לבית קדש הקדשים – for the floor and the walls.

What was done with the surplus of the appropriation?
[They would buy] plates of gold for covering the interior of the Holy of Holies. According to the first opinion, the extra money from the appropriation would be used to buy plates of gold to cover the walls and ceiling of the Holy of Holies.

מותר פירות – Rabbi Yishmael, according to his reasoning, who said above that the surplus of the leftovers of the chamber, we purchase with them wines, oils and fine flour and the income that we make through them is called "מותר הפירות"/surplus of the gains of the produce – that is to say, what remained and was earned from the produce that they bought.

Rabbi Ishmael says: the surplus [from the sale] of the produce was used for the altar’s ‘dessert’, and the surplus of the appropriation was used for the ministering vessels. Rabbi Ishmael says that the surplus from the appropriation was used to buy ministering vessels. He holds that since this money was intended to be used for sacrifices it can also be used to buy the vessels which are used in offering the sacrifices. In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that with the money left in the chamber Rabbi Ishmael said they should buy wines, oils and flours and sell them for a profit. Here he says that the profit is used for the altar’s “dessert.” This refers to wholly burnt offerings that they would offer on the altar when there were no other sacrifices to be offered. This is like a “dessert” for the hungry altar.

קיץ למזבח – when the altar is idle, we bring from them burnt offerings like the manner of human beings to bring up all kinds of sweets on to the table at the conclusion of the meal, so to, after they have completed bringing the obligatory [offerings] of the day, they bring these burnt offerings, when there are no votive or freewill offerings and the altar is idle.

Rabbi Akiba says: the surplus of the appropriation was used for the altar’s ‘dessert’, and the surplus of the libations was used for the ministering vessels. Rabbi Akiva says that “dessert” for the Temple comes from the surplus of the appropriation. The ministering vessels, on the other hand, were bought from the surplus of libations. This refers to extra flour and wine which were bought to make libations. The “extra” can happen when merchants promise to provide three seahs worth of flour for a sela (a coin). If the price of flour goes down to four seahs for a sela, the merchants have to bring four seahs, even though only three seahs are to be consecrated as libations. The Temple’s treasurers can sell the extra seah and with the profit pay for the ministering vessels.

מותר תרומה לכלי שרת (see Chapter 3, Mishnah 2 of Tractate Shekalim) – a Biblical verse is expounded regarding this (II Chronicles 24:14): “[When they had finished, they brought] the money that was left over [to the king and Jehoiada (the High Priest); it was made into utensils for the House of the LORD,” What is the money that has leftovers? I would state that this is the sacred donations to the chamber.

Rabbi Hananiah the chief of the priests says: the surplus of the libations was used for the altar’s ‘dessert’, and the surplus of the appropriation was used for the ministering vessels. Rabbi Hananiah, the chief of priests, has yet another opinion about what to do with the extra money (doesn’t everyone love extra money!). His opinion is an opposite version of Rabbi Akiva’s. I find it interesting that we have here a priest, someone who would seemingly have known very well what went on in the Temple, and yet his opinion does not count any more than any of the other rabbi’s opinion.

מותר תרומה לקיץ המזבח – for the needs of the sacred donations that were separated.

Neither of these [two sages] allowed [a profit from the sale of] the produce. The mishnah ends by noting that both Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Hananiah agree that they don’t use the shekels to buy produce and then sell it to make a profit, as was the opinion of Rabbi Ishmael. It seems that the editor of the mishnah strongly disagrees with Rabbi Ishmael and hence wishes to emphasize that all of the other sages disagree with him.

מותר נסכים – the treasurers of the Temple treasury would furnish money to the owners of the wine, oils and fine flour to provide for the meal-offerings and libations all year. But if he (i.e., the owner) accepted upon himself to provide three Se’ah for a Sela and it (i.e., the going market price) stood at four Se’ah for a Sela, it was necessary for him to give four Se’ah and that Se’ah was the surplus from the libations. For just as they measure for the Temple treasury, so would measure that was cut through from end to end and overflowing. But the treasurer would erase the measure that was cut through from end to end which is called the surplus from the libations and make of them vessels of the ministry that the libations would be sanctified in vessels of the ministry.

מותר נסכים לקיץ המזבח – when the libations ran out and the burnt offerings ran out.

זה וזה – Rabbi Akiba and Rabbi Hanina.

לא היו מודים בפירות – just as Rabbi Akiba said above (Mishnah three of this chapter): They may not make profit from sacred property, and the conclusion is that it is a condition of the Jewish court regarding the surpluses that all of them should be offered as burnt offerings, and this is the Halakha.

נותר הקטורת – that remains every year.

Introduction This mishnah deals with the extra incense. Every day there were two incense offerings, one in the morning and one in the evening (Exodus 30:7-8). The incense for 365 days and for three extra incense offerings on Yom Kippur was prepared ahead of time. The lunar year is only 354 years, so the extra incense was to be saved up for the leap year, when they would add a month. The problem is that from the first of Nisan the incense had to be offered using the new shekels. Our mishnah describes a way in which they could save the incense for the following year and yet still pay for it with new shekels.

מה היו עושין בה – to offer as incense to God in the next year, for there is no year without surplus for the incense was made into three-hundred and sixty-eight minas for three-hundred and sixty-five minas is like the three hundred and sixty-five days of the solar [year] and three minas that from them, the High Priest would bring in his handfuls on Yom Kippur but they would not all enter with their handfuls. And furthermore, in each ordinary year, there was a surplus since an ordinary year had three-hundred and fifty-four days.

What was done with the surplus of the incense?
They would separate from it the wages of the craftsmen, and they would exchange it for the wages of the craftsmen, and they would give it to the craftsmen as their wages, and then they would buy it back again out of a new appropriation. This is how they would turn the incense for the previous year into incense for the following year. First they would separate an amount of incense that would be used to pay the wages of those who make the incense. Then they would redeem that incense with money set aside to pay those craftsmen. The money then would become sacred and the incense would be non-sacred. They then would give the non-sacred incense to the craftsmen as their wages and then they would buy back the incense with new shekels. The craftsmen would have their wages, and the incense was bought with new shekels. They could have done all this in a much simpler way they could simply sell the old incense and then buy it back with new money. However, the rabbis thought that the arrangement of using it for the craftsmen’s wages was more appropriate for sacred money.

מפרישין ממנה – from the chamber.

If the new month had arrived in time they would bring it with the new appropriation, but if not, they from the old one. If the first of Nisan came on time, meaning that Adar had only twenty-nine days, then they would immediately begin to use the new appropriation to buy the incense and all of the public sacrifices. However, if Nisan did not come on time, meaning Adar had thirty days, they would bring it from the incense bought with the old shekels.

שכר האומנין – from the pounding of the incense, they would take their payment from the chamber of the sacred donations and they would take possession of the monies for artisans through one hand from the treasurers and they are non-holy [produce], and even though what is holy does not become non-holy if they don’t bring something else in its place for holiness. The sacred donations of the chamber are different since the Jewish court makes a condition upon them to give them for several things. But after the monies were transferred for the needs of the artisans, they would redeem the incense with those monies. But the sacred monies from the old sacred donations, they would give the incense to the artisans as their payment and go back and repurchase it from them with monies of the new sacred donations. And in this way, the matter was much more discreet to not sell it and then go back and repurchase it.

אם בא חודש בזמנו – that they brought new Shekalim prior to Rosh Hodesh Nisan which is the time for the new sacred donations, they purchase the surplus of the incense from the new sacred donations through redemption as we explained above.

ואם לאו – they had not yet brought their new Shekalim, they purchase it from the old sacred donations if they redeemed it already, and if they had not redeemed it, they offer incense for since the new [donations] had not yet come, they must bring it from the old.

המקדיש נכסיו – and an undefined dedication to Temple property is for the repair and upkeep of the Temple.

Introduction This mishnah deals with a person who dedicates some of his possessions to the Temple and among them are things which can be used as public sacrifices but not as individual sacrifices. This would include, for instance, the ingredients for making the incense. We should note that these cannot just simply be used for public sacrifices because as we have learned on several occasions, public sacrifices must be paid for with public money and not individual donations.

והיו בהם דברים הראויים לקרבנות צבור – such as incense or wines, oils and fine flour.

If one dedicated his possessions to the Temple, and there was among them things which was fit for public offerings, they should be given to the craftsmen as their wages; the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Akiva says that if among the dedicated property there are things which can be used for public offerings, those things should go as payment to the craftsmen. Rabbi Akiva holds that things which are dedicated to the Temple can become regular non-sacred items if they are used in payment for work done for the Temple.

ינתנו לאומנין בשכרן – and they go out to the status of “non-holy,” even though no other thing enters in its place, for he holds that something dedicated to the Temple can be redeemed through service as it is written (Exodus 25:8): “And let them make Me a sanctuary [that I may dwell among them],” that the service/work will be accomplished from that which is donated to the Temple.

Ben Azzai said to him: this method is not correct. Rather, they separate from them the wages of the craftsmen, and then they exchange them for the money due to the craftsmen, and then they give them to the craftsmen as their wages, and then they buy them back again out of a new appropriation. Ben Azzai says that Rabbi Akiva’s halakhah is incorrect, because he treats this incense differently from the way in which the extra incense was treated above in mishnah five. Ben Azzai holds that the cases are similar and should therefore be treated in the same way. He also disagrees with Rabbi Akiva about things becoming non-sacred by being used to pay for work done in the Temple. Accordingly, Ben Azzai says that the same procedure described in yesterday’s mishnah should be performed here as well. First they separate from the dedicated property an amount equal to the wages owed to the craftsmen. Then they redeem this property with coins that are to go to the craftsmen. They then give the incense to the craftsmen as their wages and then buy the incense back with money from the new appropriation. This is the exact same procedure described above, in yesterday’s mishnah.

אינה מן המדה – that is to say, that this measure that you are stating is not like the measure mentioned above with the incense and it is not appropriate but rather that your qualities should be harmonized. Therefore, we separate out the payment of the artisans, etc., as we stated above concerning the surplus of the incense for whatever is dedicated to the Temple is not redeemed through service, and the Halakha is according to Ben Azzai.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

יינות שמנים וסלתות – which are appropriate for meal-offerings and libations.

Introduction This mishnah deals with a person who dedicated his belongings to the Temple and there were among them things which could be offered on the altar, but they were not animal sacrifices, as was the case in mishnah 7.

ועופות – doves and pigeons.

One who dedicated his possessions to the Temple and there were among them things fit for the altar, [such as] wines, oils, and birds: Rabbi Elazar says: they should be sold for the use of [offerings of] each particular kind, and they should bring with the proceeds burnt offerings, and the other possessions should go to the repair of the Temple. Rabbi Elazar says that the wines, oils and birds should be sold to people who need to bring wines for libations, oils to accompany minhah (grain) offerings or various bird offerings. The proceeds from the sale should be used to buy burnt offerings, and then, as is standard, all of the other dedicated possessions should go to the upkeep of the Temple. The Rambam explains how this situation differs from the situation in mishnah seven, where Rabbi Eliezer said that animals dedicated to the Temple should be sold to people who need them for sacrifices and the proceeds go to the repair of the Temple. That mishnah discussed animals and not wines, oils and birds as does our mishnah. Animals dedicated as sacrifices can be, under certain circumstances, redeemed. If the animal becomes blemished, it is redeemed with money and the money becomes sacred and is used to buy another sacrifice. Since the money becomes sacred, when these animals are sold it is as if the mitzvah has been already performed and the money can be used for the repair of the Temple. In contrast, wine, oil and birds cannot be redeemed with money. Therefore, when they are sold the money itself does not become holy. Since the money is not holy, the mitzvah has not been performed and therefore the money must be used to buy burnt offerings, through which the mitzvah can be performed.

Rabbi Eleazar is our reading and not Rabbi Eliezer. The reason of Rabbi Eleazar is explained in the Jerusalem Talmud, as it is written (Leviticus 22:18): “[When any man of the house of Israel or of the strangers in Israel] presents a burnt offering as his offering for any of the votive or any of the freewill offerings [that they offer to the LORD],” all that they vow or donate from things that they donate to the LOD, even wines, oils and fine-flour will be for a burnt offering – he is able to offer with their monetary value a burnt offering of fowl or if he first gave a fowl, he shall offer it as a burnt offering, the inference teaches us (Leviticus 22:19): “from cattle or sheep or goats.” Surely, he does not with all what he donated other than only a burnt offering of cattle.

משערין את הלשכה – they calculate the market price for wines, oils and fine-flour and this market price will stand for thirty days. And they purchase every day from the sellers of wine, oils and fine flour what they need for that sum that they established. But if the cost went up, they do no t add monies, and if it became less expensive, they purchase according to the cheaper price.

Introduction This mishnah teaches how prices were fixed on behalf of the Temple such that the Temple would always get the better of the deal, should there be price changes.

המקבל עליו לספק סלתות – in the days of the wheat harvest and the vintage of the grapes and olive harvest, the treasurers would advance money to the storekeeper and the storekeeper would accept upon himself to supply wine, oils and fine flour all year long. But if they were then sold four Se’ah for a Sela and their price increased and stood at three Se’ah for a Sela, one must give four Se’ah. For that which is dedicated to a sacred purpose/Temple property acquires with money, as it is written (Leviticus 27:19 – though the quote is not exact, but all of the sources refer to this verse): “[And if he who consecrated the land wishes to redeem it, he must add one-fifth to the sum at which it was assessed,] and it shall pass to him.” But if he accepted to supply three Se’ah for a Sela and the price became cheaper and stood at four [Se’ah] for a Selah, he gives the four [Se’ah] for a Selah, for he is not worse than a commoner, that does not acquire other than through משיכה/”pulling.”

Once in thirty days prices were fixed [on behalf of] the chamber. Once every thirty days the prices of oil, fine flour and wine were set so that the Temple (the chamber) would be able to buy at that price for the entire month. This means that if the market price went up, the Temple could still buy at the lower rate. However, if the market price of these items went down, the Temple could buy the items at the new lower rate. The mishnah shall now illustrate.

התליע לו – even if the treasurer pulled and gave the monies for the property which may be resorted to in case of non-payment on behalf of the storekeeper.

Anyone who had accepted upon himself to supply fine flours at four [se'ahs for a sela] and they now stood at three [se'ahs for a sela] he must [still] supply four. If a merchant agreed to sell flour at four se’ahs (a measure of volume) for a sela (a coin) and then the price went up to three se’ahs for a sela, the merchant takes the loss. The Temple can still give him a coin and get four se’ahs.

אינו מקבל את מעותיו – that is to say, they are not considered the monies of the storekeeper nor did he take possession of them, and even though he received them from the treasurer.

[If he had accepted to supply fine flours] at three [se'ahs for a sela] and they now stood at four, he must [also] supply at four, for the sanctified property has the upper hand. However, if the price was three se’ahs for a sela and it went down to four se’ahs for a sela, he must provide four se’ahs. The mishnah notes that the Temple (i.e. the sanctified property) always has the upper hand.

עד שיהיה המזבח מרצה – Therefore, if the wine soured or the fine-flour became infected with worms, the responsibility is upon is the storekeeper.

If the fine flour became worm-eaten the loss is his; if the wine became sour the loss is his. For he is not entitled to his money until the altar has accepted [the offering]. If the Temple buys some produce but before the produce is offered it goes bad, the merchant must replace the produce. This is because the money is not considered to belong to the merchant until the flour, wine or oil has actually been offered. Since the money is not yet his, he must replace the ruined product in order to keep the money which the Temple’s treasurers gave him.