Torah Community Connections

Week 28 - Monday - 5 June 2000

SHEKALIM: CHAPTER 7 : MISHNA 7

Regarding the salt and the wood, that the kohanim should enjoy them, and regarding the heifer that its ashes should be exempt from misappropriation, and regarding disqualified nests that they should come from the community. R. Yose says, The one who supplies the bird pairs, must supply the disqualified ones.

Kehati

This is a continuation of the previous mishnah, regarding the seven ordinances of the bet din.

Regarding the salt and the wood - Which had been consecrated, the bet din instituted that the kohanim should enjoy them - Enjoy the use of them, by salting the meat of the sacrifices that they ate, and by using the wood to cook them. Others explain that they were permitted to use the wood to heat the Chamber of the Hearth, so that they would be warm (Rashas; and see Mishnah Shabbat 1:11). As to the non-consecrated meat that the kohanim ate even in the Temple courtyard together with the sacrificial meat so that the sacrificial meat should be eaten when they were no longer hungry, neither the salt nor the wood could be used in preparing this meat (Tractate Menahot 21b).

And regarding the heifer - the Red Heifer, they instituted that its ashes should be exempt from misappropriation - The Talmud explains that indeed according to Torah law the ashes are exempt from me'ilah (secular use of consecrated property) as it states concerning the Red Heifer (Num. 19:9), "it is a sin offering," upon which our Sages expounded: It itself is a sin offering, but its ashes are not a sin offering, namely that misappropriation (me'ilah) applies to the heifer itself, but not to its ashes. As, however, the bet din saw that people were treating the ashes with disrespect and were using them to heal their wounds and cuts, they decreed that it applies to ashes as well; and when the bet din saw that the kohanim were refraining from sprinkling the water from these ashes on people whose impurity was doubtful (for the kohanim feared that if the person did not need the sprinkling, they - the kohanim - would be guilty of misappropriation, the Sages again reverted to Torah law, that it does not apply to the ashes of the Red Heifer.

And regarding disqualified nests that they should come from the community - We have already learned that those obligated to bring a pair of birds, namely two turtle-doves or two pigeons, one for a sin-offering and one for a burnt offering placed the money in the chest for nests, and the bet din would use the money from the chest to purchase bird pairs and sacrifice them on behalf of the owners. The bet din instituted that if any of the bird pairs were disqualified, the replacements would come from the withdrawal funds of the chamber.

R. Yose says, The one who supplies the bird pairs - to the Temple, who had an agreement to supply all the bird pairs required, must supply the disqualified ones - must supply other pairs to replace those that were disqualified, as learned (Above 4:9), that if the flour became wormy or the wine sour, the loss is his and he does not receive his money until the altar atones. The Jerusalem Talmud states that even if the birds were lost, as, for example, when they flew away, the supplier was responsible and had to replace them. The halakhah follows R. Yose, for we are told in the Jerusalem Talmud: "It is a condition of the bet din that whoever supplies the bird pairs replaces those that are lost or that are disqualified."

SHEKALIM: CHAPTER 8 : MISHNA 1

All spittle found in Jerusalem is tahor except for that of the upper market; the words of R. Meir. R. Yose says, At other times of the year, in the middle is tameh and at the sides is tahor, and at the time of the festival, in the middle is tahor and at the sides is tameh, because since they are a minority they withdraw to the sides.

Kehati

All spittle found in Jerusalem is tahor - Ritually pure, and we are not afraid that it might be of a zav or zavah, whose spittle would render both people and utensils unclean - because we follow the majority, and even though in other places the Sages took into account even the minority and decreed that spittle of doubtful origin must be treated as tameh, lest it be of a zav or zavah, they waived the decree in Jerusalem, seeing sacrifices were eaten throughout the city, the zavs would be careful to avoid contaminating the residents of Jerusalem (Rashas; Hameiri), except for that of the upper market - For there were non-Jewish laundrymen there, and the Sages decreed that non-Jews are to be accorded the status of a zav in every way. Others explain that even those Jewish zavs who avoided people would be in that area (Jerusalem Talmud; Babylon Talmud Pesahim 19b; Bartenura);

The words of R. Meir. R. Yose says, At other times of the year - Not during the festival; when most people are tameh, in the middle - The spittle in the middle of the street is tameh - Because most people walk in the middle, including zavs, And at the sides - And the spittle at the sides of the streets, Is tahor - Because those people who are tahor walk at the sides of the streets, so as not to become tameh, And at the time of the festival - when most Jews cleanse so they can come to the Temple, in the middle is tahor - The spittle in the middle of the street is tahor, and at the sides is tameh - And the spittle at the sides is tameh, because since they are a minority - As there are few people that are tameh, they withdraw to the sides - not to contaminate people, and those who are tahor, who are the majority, walk in the middle of the road. The halakhah follows R. Yose.

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives