Torah Community Connections

Week 28 - Sunday- 4 June 2000

SHEKALIM: CHAPTER 7 : MISHNA 5

At first they would seize a pledge from their finder, until he brought its libations. When they began to abandon and flee, the bet din instituted that its libations should come from the community.

Kehati

At first they would seize a pledge from their finder - If a person found an animal in Jerusalem or close by (between Jerusalem and Migdal Eder) the bet din would seize a pledge from him, (by removing something from his house), until he brought its libations - until the finder brought the libations required to accompany the sacrifice he found, as explained above (Mishnah 5:3).

Then they began to abandon it and flee - When people saw that taking care of a lost animal resulted in a financial loss, they would simply abandon such animals, so as not to be responsible to bring a libation, the bet din instituted that its libations should come from the community - namely from the withdrawal funds of the chamber.

SHEKALIM: CHAPTER 7 : MISHNA 6

R. Shimon said, the bet din instituted seven ordinances, and this is one of them. A non-Jew who sent his burnt offering from a far away country, and sent drink libations with it - they are offered from his, and if not - they are offered from the community. And it was a condition of the bet din regarding a kohen gadol who died, that his meal offering be offered from that of the community. R. Yehudah says, Of the heirs. And it was offered whole.

Kehati

R. Shimon said: The Bet Din instituted seven ordinances - Regarding libations and other matters, as detailed below, and this is one of them - One of these ordinances was the one mentioned in the previous mishnah, that a person who finds an animal in Jerusalem or close by, and who wishes to offer it, the accompanying libation is paid for by the community. And these are the other six ordinances (as detailed in this mishnah and the following one): b) A non-Jew who sent his burnt offering from a far-away country - And we have learned above (Mishnah 1:5) that donative offerings and vows are accepted from non-Jews, and sent libations with it - i.e., he sent money to produce libations, for had he sent the libations themselves, they would have been ritually impure (Reshas), they are offered from his - From the money he sent, and if not - And if he did not send a libation with his sacrifice, they are offered from the community - The libations are brought from the withdrawal funds of the chamber. There are those who explain that the mishnah made a point of specifying "a far away country" as the Sages were speaking of their time, when there were very few non-Jews residing in Eretz Yisrael. Rambam, though, writes (Hil. Shekalim 4:3): "A non-Jew who sent his burnt offering from another country;" and it is possible that he is telling us that if the non-Jew lives in Eretz Yisrael, he is told, "bring its libations" (Tosefot Yom Tov).

c)Likewise, a convert who died and left sacrifices - And he has no heirs to bring the libations for his sacrifices, If he had libations - If he set aside libations during his life-time (Tosafot Menahot 51b), they offer of his - of his libations, and if not - If he did not set aside libations during his life-time, and all his possessions are ownerless, they offer of the community - the libations are bought from the withdrawal funds of the chamber. If, however, a Jew died and left sacrifices, his heirs bring libations for his sacrifices from his property.

d)And it was a condition of the bet din - The bet din stipulated, and instituted regarding a kohen gadol who died - and a successor had not yet been appointed, that his meal offering be offered from that of the community - The kohen gadol would bring a meal offering every day at his own expense, known as minhat havitin, consisting of a tenth of an ephah of fine flour, half in the morning and half in the evening (see Lev. 6:3). In reality, however, the kohen gadol did not bring a twentieth of an ephah each time, but rather he would bring a tenth of an ephah each morning, which he would divide into half, then he would knead each half into six matzot, for one obtains twelve matzot from a tenth of an ephah, and then he would offer half in the morning and half in the evening. If the kohen gadol died after he had brought the morning offering and a new kohen gadol was appointed that day, he would not bring the remaining half left by his predecessor, nor would he bring his own half. Instead, he would bring his own tenth of an ephah and divide it up, and offer half of it that evening. The second half would be left overnight, thus invalidating it, and it would then be burned. The same applies to the half left by the previous kohen gadol (Mishnah Menahot 4:5). Our mishnah here tells us that if the kohen gadol died after he had offered half his meal offering in the morning and a successor had not yet been appointed, the bet din instituted that the minah havitin be offered out of public funds, namely from the withdrawal funds of the chamber.

R. Yehudah says: Of the heirs - The meal offering is offered out of the funds of the heirs of the kohen gadol who had died until such time as a successor is appointed. And it was offered whole - A full tenth of an ephah, and not half, was brought, namely a full tenth of an ephah in the morning and a full tenth of an ephah in the evening, regardless of whether we follow the view of R. Shimon, that it was paid for by the withdrawal funds of the chamber, or whether we follow the view of R. Yehudah, that the heirs paid for it. In Tractate Menahot 51b, a baraita is cited: A kohen gadol who died and they did not appoint another in his place, how do we know that his meal offering is sacrificed out of (the funds of) the heirs? For it says (Lev. 6:15): "And the anointed kohen or his sons in place of him shall offer it". (And R. Yehudah expounds: And the anointed kohen - either the kohen gadol is to bring his meal offering while he is alive, or one of his sons in place of him shall offer it - where he died and another was not appointed in his stead). I might imagine that he (the heir) should offer it by halves. It therefore states: "it" - in its entirety and not part of it; the words of R. Yehudah. R. Shimon says, "An everlasting statute (the continuation of that verse) - that it comes from everlasting (i.e., from the community), "it shall be entirely consumed" - that it shall all be burned (that the entire amount be burned each time and not half each time as long as it is being funded by the community). And the halakhah follows R. Yehudah (Rambam Hil. Tmidim Umsafin 3:22; and see Tosefot Yom Tov). And what we learned in our mishnah that according to R. Shimon it was a condition of the bet din that the meal offering be paid out of the communal funds (and not that that is Torah law), is explained in the Talmud there (and the Jerusalem Talmud here), that there were two ordinances. At first, according to Torah law the sacrifice was paid for out of communal funds, as cited above in the baraita; when the Sages saw that the funds were running low and they had to economize, they decreed that the heirs should pay; then, when they saw that the heirs sinned and did not bring the offering at all, the Sages reverted to Torah law, so that now the law was that this was to be paid out of communal funds by an ordinance of the bet din, that had the ruling revert to Torah law.

Har Efraim (on Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim) writes: "From the language of the Talmud, "that they should collect it from the heirs," one can deduce that he ordinance was only a financial one, but not in terms of bringing the havitin, for the obligation to bring the havitin always devolved on the community, as we see from the words "an everlasting statute;" but regarding the financial aspect, when they saw that the chamber was running short, they decreed that they should collect from the heirs; and we must explain that the heirs would give this to the community and the minhat havitin was offered as it is obligated from the community. And it appears that that was the reason why the heirs were negligent and did not bring the money, because it was not their obligation. R. Yehudah, though, holds that by Torah law the obligation to bring the minhat havitin is incumbent on the heirs, as he derives from the verse, "And the anointed kohen or his sons in place of him shall offer it." We do not find in the Talmud that the heirs were negligent in not bringing it, for as this was their obligation, they were not negligent in it fulfillment.

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives