1Rebbi Ḥizqiah said that Rebbi Jehudah Dried Figs 56 It is impossible to determine his time of activity. stated: The table, the candelabrum, the altars 62 Since obviously in the absence of an altar there can be no sacrifice, the reference is to the golden incense altar in the Sanctuary, not the large altar outside. Babli Zevaḥim 62a . , and the gobelins 55 For use in the Temple Hall, to separate between the holy and the holiest of holies. obstruct the sacrifice, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, the sacrifice is only obstructed by the wash basin and its base 63 Since the priests are forbidden to officiate unless they wash hands and feet from the Temple wash basin on its base, Ex. 30:17–21 , 40:30–32 . . Otherwise, Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina both say, everywhere “opposite 64 The following refers to the commandment how the Tabernacle had to be organized ( Ex. 26:32–37 ; 40:1–16) and the report how this was executed (( Ex. 40:1–17–33 .) The candelabrum was put “opposite the table”. ( Ex. 40:24 ). ” is written it is obstructive, “on the side 65 The table has to be put “on the North side”, the candelabrum “on the South side”; ( Ex. 26:35 ). ” is not obstructive, but Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan said, even “on the side” is obstructive, and Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Jonathan said, even “putting 66 Moses “put” all the furniture of the Tabernacle at its correct places ( Ex. 40:18 ff.) ” is obstructive. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, here for service inside, there for service outside 67 Since one may bring sacrifices on the altar without a Temple ( Mishnah Idiut 8:6 ), for any offering on the large altar one only needs the wash basin and its base. But for any offering inside the Sanctuary, e. g., the daily incense burning, all pieces have to be available at the correct places. .
268 Discussion of the statement of Abba Shaul in Mishnah 2 , that the ramp for the Cow (including a bridge over the Kidron valley) was made new every time on the High Priest’s expense. It is implied that the High Priest either oversaw the ceremony himself or appointed one of his sons. Rebbi Ḥanina said, there was much arrogance among the sons of the High Priests, for more than 60 Me`ilah is defined ( Lev. 5:15 ) as “larceny committed on the Eternal’s sancta ”, where the usual interpretation is that sancta are only sacrifices and their appurtenances; cf. Halakhah 3:4, Note 66 . talents of gold 69 That would be 180’000 sheqel or 360’000 denar . One should take note of the reading of B, “silver” instead of “gold”. [did they spend on it.] 70 Addition by the corrector, an adaptation to the formulation in B; not supported by any Genizah fragment. If the ramp for the Cow was still standing, no one was leading out his cow on the other’s ramp, but he tore it down and was building it anew. Rebbi Ulla objected before Rebbi Mana: Was it not stated that Simeon the Just made two Cows; on the ramp on which he took out one he did not take out the other 71 Since he was in office for 40 years, after about 35 years probably not much of the first ramp was still in existence. . Could you say that Simeon the Just was arrogant? What about it? Because they gave eminence to the Cow, ornaments they made for the Cow. It was stated: Ledges and walls were on both sides so that the priests could not look down and become impure 72 Since the Kidron valley was used as burial ground at least from First Temple times, if the Cohen was not protected by the wooden floor of the ramp which separated him from the “tent impurity” emanating from the graves, the Cohen would become severely impure and not able to conduct the ceremony. Therefore one made it impossible for the Cohen to lean out over the railings. The scribe’s reading. “could not look down” is preferable over that of the other sources, “leave”. Tosephta Parah 3:7 . .
379 This does not belong to Mishnah 4 but is the discussion of the statement of Rebbi Aqiba that one does not invest capital of funds for the poor. Only if he wants that the loss be his and the gain for the endowment 80 While originally this means “property of the Temple”, it is used in the sense common in the Middle Ages, “endowment of a fund for the poor”, “welfare fund.” The text shows that this includes property administered by a guardian for the benefit of underage orphans. it is permitted 81 As agreement between adults, that the risk of investments is borne solely by the agent but any gain split between agent and investor, it is forbidden as hidden payment of interest. But if the investment is for a charitable fund for minor orphans it is permitted. Babli Bava Meṣia` 70a. . As the following: Bar Zemina was appointed for property of orphans. He came and asked Rebbi Mana, who told him, if you want that the loss be yours and the gain be split among you it is permitted. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada was appointed for property of orphans and acted in this way.
4It 85 The statement in Mishnah 4 about the leftover of produce, whose existence is denied by R. Aqiba and R. Ḥanina. is all Rebbi Ismael’s. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph explains the Mishnah: The leftover of produce 74 The gain made by the Temple in providing flour, oil, and wine, for private sacrifices. is the gain of the Temple 86 The money made by the Temple in selling for a profit flour, oil, and wine, for flour offerings and libations. ; the leftover of libations is the fourth seah 87 As explained in Mishnah 11, the Temple does not have to hedge its purchases of produce because it is protected against changes in the market place at all times. If the Temple contracted for flour at the rate of 3 seah per tetradrachma and at the time of delivery it was 4 seah per tetradrachma, the provider has to deliver 4. But if the contract was for 4 and the price went up and now stands at 3 for a tetradrachma, the provider has to deliver 4 while the Temple will sell at the going rate. . Rebbi Joḥanan explains the Mishnah, The leftover of produce is the fourth seah; the leftover of libations is the overflow 88 In order to avoid the sin of me`ilah , the suppliers of produce of all kinds to the Temple have to deliver slightly more than the measure which was contracted for, while the Temple will distribute this product for private libations and flour offerings at the exact measure. The small differences will add up to a considerable amount during a full year; this kind of gain is approved also by the opponents of R. Ismael. . Does Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph not have overflow? Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, what is counted for the fourth seah is overflow 89 He holds that the reason that the Temple always is the beneficiary of changes in the market place also is to serve as a precaution against me`ilah infractions; both kinds of additions have the same status. . The opinion of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph is understandable. “one does not gain neither for the Temple nor funds for the poor,” therefore “neither of them did agree about produce.” The opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan is difficult. We have stated 87 As explained in Mishnah 11, the Temple does not have to hedge its purchases of produce because it is protected against changes in the market place at all times. If the Temple contracted for flour at the rate of 3 seah per tetradrachma and at the time of delivery it was 4 seah per tetradrachma, the provider has to deliver 4. But if the contract was for 4 and the price went up and now stands at 3 for a tetradrachma, the provider has to deliver 4 while the Temple will sell at the going rate. : “if the going rate was three, he has to deliver for four” and we have stated, “neither of them did agree about produce.” They did not agree about produce to adorn the altar; they did agree for Service vessels 90 Since Mishnah 11 is unanimous opinion, the opponents of R. Ismael cannot deny that the Temple always makes money which has to be used for definite purposes. . So far overflow of public {sacrifices}. Even overflow for private {sacrifices}. Would then not Service vessels come from private donations? It is as it was stated, “a woman who made a coat for her son has to surrender it to the public. 91 This was discussed earlier, Note 14 . ” So far the overflow of fluids; even the overflow of dry goods; as that which we stated 92 Mishnah Menaḥot 7:4 . This is not directly overflow but a third way in which the Temple accumulates a surplus. If a sacrifice was brought and the offerer bought the libations including the flour offering from the Temple, if then these flour offerings could not be used because the sacrifice was disqualified, the priests in charge may use the flour, etc., for the next sacrifice. In this case the Temple is paid twice for the same produce; Tosephta Menaḥot 10:8 states that the money accumulated in this way is given to the gift account to buy elevation offerings for the idle altar. , “in case libations were sanctified in a vessel when the sacrifice was found disqualified, if there is another sacrifice they should be brought with it; otherwise they will become disqualified by staying overnight.”
5MISHNAH: What did one do with the excess of incense 82 Which from the start was intended to be sufficient for an intercalary year and therefore had guaranteed leftovers in a regular year. ? One sets apart the artisans’ wages and redeems them on the artisan’s money; one gives them to the artisans as their wages and then buys them back from them from the new disbursement 83 Since the expenses of the Temple service each year have to be paid by the sheqalim of that year, one cannot simply take the leftover as incense for the next year. On the other hand, since profane use of incense prepared in the proportions prescribed for Temple service is a deadly sin ( Ex. 30:38 ), the incense cannot be used outside of the Temple. One takes money from the sheqalim to pay the artisans who prepare the next year’s batch of incense, then uses this money in order to redeem the incense and make it profane, a possible object of trade. Then one pays the artisans in kind with the incense, and since they could do nothing with it one buys the incense back from them with the money earmarked to this effect. Then the artisans are paid at the same time the incense for the new year is paid with money from the new Temple year starting at Nisan 1. . If the new money is available at its time one takes them from the new disbursement, otherwise from the old 84 Since the insistence on new money is customary, not biblical, if the new Temple tax was not collected by Nisan 1, one takes the money from the prior disbursement to effect the trade. .
6HALAKHAH: 94 Here starts the discussion of Mishnah 5 . What is gained by redeeming incense with Temple money, which is not profane? Would not Temple property be redeemed by Temple property? What does he do? Rebbi Simeon bar Carsana said, he brings coins and redeems them for the building 95 Both the scribe’s text and that of B are difficult to understand. While it is accepted that the Temple is built as profane building and only sanctified when completed (Babli Me`ilah 14a), once it is sacred it cannot be redeemed. If the money is legitimately paid for a sacrificial animal, it belongs to the owner of the animal and is no longer available for Temple use. Tosephta Me`ilah 1:23 reads: “A worker who did work for the Temple for a mina or two may not say, give me this cow for a mina or this garment for 50 {denar} since Temple property cannot be redeemed for work but only for coins. What does one do? One takes the wages of the artisans {from the sheqalim } and redeems them on the artisans’ money, gives them to the artisans as their wages; then buys them back from the disbursement of the lodge to pay back the workers for the coins they earlier gave to the Temple.” A similar text seems to be intended here. ; brings incense and redeems it for them, and gives it 96 The incense. to the artisans as their wages. What should be done with those coins? Rebbi says, I am saying that they should be given to the family Garmu and the family Eutinos who were experts in compounding the incense and in making the shew-bread 97 Cf. Mishnah Yoma 3:11 . . Rebbi Samuel bar Rav <isaac< 98 Name added from B. said, only if they were due to them beforehand 99 Since Temple money can only become profane for actual debts incurred by the Temple. Advance payments are not possible. . Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked, what if they were not due beforehand? There came Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One uses them to adorn the altar 75 It is given to the gift account to buy elevation sacrifices in times when the altar otherwise would have been idle. . Rebbi Abba bar Cohen asked before Rebbi Yose: The opinion of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba seems inverted. Here it is questionable for him; there it is obvious for him 100 How can he ask when he himself teaches the answer which his teacher had given? He does not question that a possible use is to give the money to the gift account; he questions whether this is the only possible use. The inverse order in B must be a scribal error. . He told him, where it is questionable for him, for Service vessels; where it is obvious for him, to adorn the altar.