Torah Community Connections

Week 26 - Thursday - 25 May 2000

SHEKALIM: CHAPTER 4: MISHNA 6

One who consecrates his possessions and among them were things suitable for public sacrifices, they should be given to the artisans as their wages; the words of R. Akiva. Ben Azzai said to him: This is not the method, but they set aside from these the wages of the artisans, and they redeem them with the wages of the artisans, and they give them to the artisans as their wages, and they repurchase them form the new withdrawal funds.

Kehati

One who consecrates his possessions - To the Temple, and unless specified otherwise, items are assumed to be meant for the upkeep of the Temple. And among them were things suitable for public sacrifices - Such as incense (Jerusalem Talmud) or the spices from which the incense is made (Babyl. Talmud Keritot 6a), They should be given to the artisans - Those who perform services for the Temple, As their wages - And they are redeemed with the salary for work performed by the artisans and become unconsecrated. Afterwards the treasurers repurchase these items back from them, as explained at the end of the mishnah(see Tosefot Yom Tov); The words of R. Akiva - Who holds that consecrated objects can be redeemed with work, as it states (Ex. 25:8), "They shall make for Me a sanctuary," "for Me" implying "from mine" that the work is to be paid out of Temple funds. Ben Azzai said to him - To R. Akiva: This is not the method - That you described above (in the previous mishnah) for the surplus of the incense, and it would be proper to have the same method apply in both cases, But they set aside from these - From these assets, The wages of the artisans - As explained above, And they redeem them - The incense or the spices used in the incense, With the wages of the artisans - And thus the incense or the spices become unconsecrated, And they give them to the artisans as their wages - As explained above in regard to the surplus of the incense, for in the view of Ben Azzai consecrated items cannot be redeemed with work,

And they repurchase them - The incense or spices from the artisans, From the new withdrawal funds - as explained in the previous mishnah. This last statement is in accordance with all opinions, as we explained above regarding the words of R. Akiva. The halakhah follows Ben Azzai (Rambam).

SHEKALIM: CHAPTER 4: MISHNA 7

One who consecrates his possessions and among them were things suitable for the altar, males and females - R. Eliezer says, Males should be sold for needs of burnt offerings, and females should be sold for needs of peace sacrifices, and their proceeds should fall with the rest of the property for the upkeep of the Temple. R. Yehoshua says, Males themselves are offered as burnt offerings, but females should be sold for needs of peace sacrifices, and burnt offerings are purchased with their proceeds, and the rest of the possessions should fall to the upkeep of the Temple. R. Akiva says, I see the words of R. Eliezer over the words of R. Yehoshua, for R. Eliezer applied his method uniformly but R. Yehoshua makes a distinction. R. Papieas said, I have heard in accordance with both views that one who consecrates explicitly according to the words of R. Eliezer, and one who does not consecrate explicitly according to the words of R. Yehoshua.

Kehati

One who consecrates his possessions - To the Temple, And among them were things suitable for the altar - Animals which are suitable for offerings, Males and females - Such as rams and ewes,

R. Eliezer says, Males should be sold for needs of burnt offerings - Males that are suitable for burnt offerings should be sold to those people that require animals for burnt offerings, And females - That are not suitable for burnt offerings, Should be sold for needs of peace sacrifices - For those who require animals for peace offerings, And their proceeds - of these animals, Should fall with the rest of the property for the upkeep of the Temple - R. Eliezer holds that unless specified otherwise consecrated items are meant for the upkeep of the Temple, and even items suitable for the altar. Nevertheless, anything suitable for the altar may not be used for another purpose, so that such an animal may only be sold to a person who requires that type of a sacrifice, while the proceeds go to the Temple treasury for the upkeep of the Temple.

R. Yehoshua says, Males themselves are offered as burnt offerings - male animals among these assets should be sacrificed as burnt offerings and may not be sold, but females - Which are not suitable for burnt offerings, Should be sold for needs of peace sacrifices - To people who require animals for peace offerings, And burnt offerings are purchased with their proceeds - R. Yehoshua holds that anything suitable for the altar was presumably consecrated with the intent that it be offered on the altar, namely a burnt offering. Therefore, animals that are suitable as burnt offerings are themselves offered as burnt offerings. Females, though not suitable as burnt offerings, but suitable for the altar, are therefore not consecrated for the upkeep of the Temple but are consecrated for the altar. However, since the owner had in mind burnt offerings they are sold to those requiring peace offerings and the proceeds are used to purchase burnt offerings. And the rest of the possessions should fall to the upkeep of the Temple - And whatever is not suitable for the altar is to be used for the upkeep of the Temple.

R. Akiva says, I see the words of R. Eliezer over the words of R. Yehoshua - I prefer the opinion of R. Eliezer over that of R. Yehoshua, For R. Eliezer applied his method uniformly - R. Eliezer established a single rule, that all assets are to be used for the upkeep of the Temple, either the assets themselves or the proceeds from their sale, And R. Yehoshua makes a distinction - That animals are to be sacrificed, while the other assets are for the upkeep of the Temple; furthermore, R. Yehoshua differentiated between male and female animals.

R. Papias said, I have heard in accordance with both views, - R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua, That one who consecrates explicitly - Who says: "My animals and my assets are to be consecrated," According to the words of R. Eliezer - Since he specified animals and other assets and did not specify "my animals for the altar and my other assets for the upkeep of the Temple," the assumption is that he wanted the same type of consecration to apply to both, namely for the upkeep of the Temple. And there are those who explain this as follows: one who consecrates explicitly - to the upkeep of the Temple (Hameiri; Rivevan), according to the words of R. Eliezer, And one who does not consecrate explicitly - As when he states, "all my assets are consecrated," According to the words of R. Yehoshua - That one who consecrates without explicit designation intended that each item should be consecrated for whatever it is suitable. The halakhah follows R. Eliezer, since R. Akiva favors his view (Rambam Hil. Arakhin 5:7).

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives