Torah Community Connections

Week 26 - Wednesday - 24 May 2000

SHEKALIM: CHAPTER 4: MISHNA 4

The surplus of the withdrawal funds, what was done with it? Gold sheets for plating the Holy of Holies. R. Yishmael says, The surplus of the fruits for the altar's dessert, and the surplus of the withdrawal funds for utensils used in the Temple service. R. Akiva says, The surplus of the withdrawal funds for the altar's dessert, and the surplus of libations for utensils used in the Temple service. R. Haninah the segan of the kohanim says, the surplus of the libations for the altar's dessert, and the surplus of the withdrawal funds for utensils used in the Temple service. Neither one nor the other admitted concerning the fruits.

Kehati

The surplus of the withdrawal funds - Whatever was left in the chests of the withdrawal funds after the first day of the month of Nisan, from which date on they used the money from the following year's withdrawal funds, What was done with it? Gold sheets - They would purchase thin beaten gold plates,

For plating the Holy of Holies - To cover its floor, walls and ceiling. R. Yishmael says, The surplus of the fruits - The profit made (according to him) from the sale of wine, oil and fine flour purchased with the surplus of the remainder of the chamber, as discussed in the previous mishnah, For the altar's dessert - Would be used to purchase burnt offerings, to be burned when the altar was idle and there were no obligatory or donative offerings to be offered. These sacrifices were known as the kayitz of the altar, the word kayitz meaning fruit (II Sam. 16:2; Amos 8:1), and just as people are accustomed to place fruit and assorted sweet desserts on the table after the meal, these offerings came as a type of "dessert" on the altar, And the surplus of the withdrawal funds - Whatever was left of the withdrawal funds of the chamber, For utensils used in the Temple service - for making utensils for the Temple service, for R. Yishmael holds that those utensils used for the sacrifices are considered as sacrifices, and as such they can be funded from the same sources. In Tractate Ketubot the Talmud explains the reason of R. Yishmael, who deduces this from the verse (II Chr. 24:14), "And when they had finished it, they brought the remainder of the money before the king and Yehoyaida, and from it they made utensils for the house of the Lord, vessels to minister." Of which fund is there a surplus? This must refer to the withdrawal funds of the chamber (see Tractate Ketubot 106b).

R. Akiva says, The surplus of the withdrawal funds - Of the chamber, For the altar's dessert - For the donative burnt sacrifices when the altar stood idle, as explained above, for the withdrawal funds of the chamber were set aside for sacrifices. And the surplus of libations - The Temple treasurer would pay the Temple suppliers of wine, oil and fine flour for a full year, and if the supplier undertook to supply fine flour at the price of three se'ah a sela and the price fell to four se'ah per sela, they were obligated to supply four se'ah per sela at the lower price, that fourth se'ah is included in the remainder of the libation. Similarly, the suppliers were required to use a "heaping measure," while when the sacrifices were offered they only used a "level measure." The difference between the two measures was also "the surplus of libations," and R. Akiva holds that this surplus is For utensils used in the Temple service - They would sell the surplus and would use the money for making utensils for use in the Temple service. And even though R. Akiva stated (in the previous mishnah) that one does not engage in business with consecrated property, this case is different for there is no deliberate attempt to engage in business. Rather, the business comes of itself, and there is also no possibility here of suffering a loss (Tosefot Yom Tov; Tiferet Yisrael).

R. Haninah the segan of the kohanim says the surplus of the libations for the altar's dessert - For donative burnt offerings, for libations and burnt offerings are burnt entirely on the altar; And the surplus of the withdrawal funds for utensils used in the Temple service - as in the reason of R. Yishmael - Neither this one nor the other - Neither R. Akiva nor R. Hanina segan of the kohanim, admitted - to R. Yishmael, Concerning the fruits - That there were any profits from the proceeds, as stated by R. Akiva in the previous mishnah, that one is not permitted to engage in business with the property of the Temple.

SHEKALIM: CHAPTER 4: MISHNA 5

The surplus of the incense, what did they do with it? They set aside from it the wages of the artisans, and would redeem it with artisans' wages, and they would give it to the artisans as their wages, and they would repurchase it with the new withdrawal funds. If the new came in its time, they purchase it from the new withdrawal funds, and if not - from the old.

Kehati

The surplus of the incense, what did they do with it - Twice a day incense would be offered up (Ex. 30:7-8), and they would prepare the incense for the whole year, as we learned in a baraita (Keritot 6a): "The incense was made with three hundred and sixty-eight maneh, three hundred and sixty-five in accordance with the number of days of the solar year (a maneh each day; half in the morning and half in the afternoon) and three extra maneh, from which the kohen gadol would remove two handfuls on Yom Kippur. As a result every year there was surplus incense because the three maneh were too much for the handfulls of the kohen gadol on Yom Kippur. Moreover, an ordinary lunar year has three hundred and fifty-four days, thus leaving eleven maneh for a leap year. Hence the question of our mishnah: The surplus of the incense, what did they do with it? - to enable its use the following year, for from the beginning of Nisan they were required to use incense purchased from the following year's withdrawal funds.

They set aside from it - From the withdrawal funds of the chamber (Rambam in his commentary on this mishnah; Rashi Tractate Shevuot 10b); Hameiri; Bartenura), The wages of the artisans - Who prepare the incense; the money was paid to the artisans by one of the treasurers, whereupon it became hulin - unconsecrated (and even though consecrated property cannot be rendered unconsecrated unless replaced by something else, the withdrawal fund of the chamber is different, because the bet din makes their consecration conditional, and when the money was appropriated for any of these purposes it became unconsecrated - (Bartenura; Tosafot, Shevuot 10b); And would redeem it - The remaining incense, With the artisans' wages - i.e., after the money had been appropriated for the artisans, the surplus incense was exchanged for that money, and became unconsecrated. And they would give it - The exchanged incense To the artisans as their wages - For after the incense had been exchanged, the money took its consecrated status, meaning the sanctity of the previous year's withdrawal fund. The incense was now unconsecrated and was given to the artisans as their wages.

And they would repurchase it - The incense was repurchased from the artisans, With the new withdrawal funds - From the money of the new withdrawal funds, and by this means the incense attained the sanctity of the new withdrawal funds. This could have been done in a more simple manner, by selling the remaining incense and then repurchasing it from the new withdrawal funds, but this lengthy procedure was adopted as it was more appropriate for the Temple (Bartenura; Tosafot). Others explain, They set aside from it - from the salary (or for other artisans working for the Temple repairs), and would redeem it - and they redeemed what had been set aside from the surplus incense, with the artisans' wages. Another version reads, on the coins of the artisans, namely on the money that was set aside to pay the artisans' salary, and the money became consecrated while the incense now became unconsecrated, and they gave it to the artisans as their wages, and they repurchase it from the new withdrawal funds - as we explained above (Taklin Hadetin; Rashi Tractate Me'ilah 14b; Tiferet Yisrael).

If the new came in its time - If the new shekels came in time, namely before Rosh Hodesh Nisan, They purchase it - The surplus of the incense, From the new withdrawal funds - As explained above, And if not - If the new shekels had not yet arrived, From the old - It was purchased with money from the old withdrawal fund, if this had already been exchanged; and if it had not been exchanged, they offered incense from the old one (Bartenura). Others have a textual version which reads, if the new moon came in time (rather than "if the new came in time," as we have), and this means: if the month of Nisan came at the right time, namely that witnesses testified that they saw the new moon on the thirtieth of Adar and the bet din proclaimed Rosh Hodesh that day, then they purchase it from the new withdrawal funds - on the thirtieth of Adar, for that is the first day of Nisan, and it is obligatory to use the new withdrawal funds; and if not - they did not proclaim the new month of Nisan until the thirty-first day of Adar - from the old one - on the thirtieth day of Adar they offer the incense from the old withdrawal funds (Jerusalem Talmud Rosh HashanahI 3:1; Tosefot R. Akiva Eiger in the name of Tureir Even).

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives