1Solomon made ten tables: Solomon made ten tables and deposited them in the Temple Hall, five to the right and five to the left 115 2Chr. 4:8 . . If you would say, five to the North and five to the South, but the table is only qualified in the North, as it is said, and the table put on the North side 116 Ex. 26:35 . . Why does the verse say, five to the right and five to the left ? Five to the right of Moses’s table, and five to its left. Nevertheless, only Moses’s alone was used, as it is said 117 1K. 7:49 . , the table on which is the shew-bread. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, all of them were used, for it is said 118 2Chr. 4:19 . , the tables on which the shew-bread is . It was stated: They were put East and West, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, they were put North and South. He who says East and West is understandable; all of them are proper for Service 119 As prescribed in Ex. 40:22 ,, the table at the North side of the Tabernacle, and Ex. 40:24 , the candelabrum at the South side, standing East-West, opposite the table. . He who says, North and South, would then not the table be in the South and the candelabrum in the North? But was it not stated, the table was in the middle of the Temple, more to the inside, about two cubits away from the wall to the North, and opposite it the candelabrum in the South 120 If they are all in one line, at the North side of the Temple, the long side oriented East-West, all pentateuchal requirements are satisfied. Babli Menaḥot 99a . . The golden altar was in the middle of the Temple, dividing the Temple, inside, a little bit drawn to the North 121 While the center of the golden altar exactly determines the middle of the Temple hall for distances measured East-West, i. e., between the entrance and the gobelins shielding the Holiest of Holies, it does not exactly determine the middle of the center of the distance of North to South walls. . All were put inside of a third of the Temple 122 The first third of the distance between entrance and the Holiest of Holies was empty. .
2Solomon made ten candelabra, [as it is said] 123 Corrector’s insert following B. , he made the ten candelabra according to its rules 124 2 Chr . 4:7. In the other two sources correctly “their rules”, and they add the end of the verse, to which the next argument refers: and put them in the Temple Hall, five to the right and five to the left. Cf. Babli Menaḥot 98b–99a . . If you would say, five to the North and five to the South, but the candelabrum is only qualified in the South, as it is said, and the candelabrum opposite the table on the South side 116 Ex. 26:35 . . Why does the verse say, five to the right and five to the left ? Five to the right of Moses’s candelabrum, and five to its left. Nevertheless, only Moses’s alone was kindled, as it is said 125 2 Chr. 13:11, showing actual practice.\ , and the golden candelabrum and its lights to kindle evening by evening. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, all of them were kindled, for it is said 126 2 Chr . 4:20–21. , the candelabra and their lights, to kindle them regularly in the Temple Hall, closed gold 127 Cf. Yoma 4:4, Note 101 . , and the flower 128 According to Rashi, the ornament of the candelabrum mentioned in Num . 8:4 but not in the original instructions, Ex. 25:31–40 . , and the lights, and the pincers of gold, this uses up the gold. These used up Solomon’s gold. Rav Jehudah in the name of Assi 129 In B a Tannaitic text, a statement of R. Jehudah in the name of Issy. : Solomon took 1’000 talents of silver, put them repeatedly into the (fire) [smelting furnace] 130 The scribe’s text (in parentheses) is confirmed by the Genizah text; the corrector’s [in brackets] is from B. until they were reduced to one, to fulfill what is written 131 Ex. 37:24 . , from one talent of pure gold he made it . It was stated, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah said, 132 The following is from Yoma 4:4, Notes 107–108 . it happened that the golden candelabrum which Moses made in the desert was in excess of one gold denar, and they returned it to the fire eighty times and it did not lose anything 133 This seems to contradict the preceding story of Solomon’s refining smelter. . This is correct. Before it is refined it loses a lot, once it is refined it will not miss anything.
3MISHNAH: Thirteen horns 1 The “horns” were chests for the money given to the Temple for various reasons, as detailed in Mishnah 7 . A person putting money into one of the chests could not put his hand into it, he had to let the coins drop in from the top. were in the Temple, and it was written on them: New sheqalim , and old sheqalim , nests 134 Obligatory purification or reparation offerings, as prescribed in Lev. In all cases, two birds are required, one as purification and one as elevation offering, following different rules. , young birds for elevation sacrifices 135 Voluntary offerings which may be for a single bird. , wood 136 A person vowing firewood for the Temple does not bring wood but the money for it. , and incense, gold for the cover 137 To cover the Holiest of Holies in the absence of the Ark; Mishnah 4:4 . , and six for voluntary gifts 138 As explained in the Halakhah and in Tosephta 3:7 . . New sheqalim for the current year, and old ones, one who did not bring the past year, gives it for the next one 139 New sheqalim are given for current use; sheqalim for past years are treated directly as remainders from that year ( Mishnah 4:3 ). . “Nests” are turtle doves and “young birds as elevation offerings” are pigeons, all for elevation offerings, the words of Rebbi Jehudah 147 It was explained in the preceding Halakhah that R. Jehudah cannot accept the explanation of Mishnah 7 given in Note 134, but must require that a person offering two birds to be able to partake in sancta , the woman after childbirth ( Lev. 12:8 ), the poor person healed from skin disease ( Lev. 14:22 ), the male healed from gonorrhea ( Lev. 15:14 ) and the female from flux ( Lev. 15:29 ), personally deliver the birds to the Cohen who thereby is assured that the person is alive. As a consequence, for him the money deposited for “nests” is for elevation sacrifices; the distinction from “young birds for elevation offerings” only is in the amount of money required and the kind of birds bought. Mishnah 7 was explained following the Sages in Mishnah 8 . . But the Sages say, of “nests” one is a purification offering and one an elevation offering; “young birds as elevation offerings” are all elevation offerings. If one says, “I am obligated for wood logs”, he may not give less than for two logs; “incense”, he may not give less than for a fistful; “gold”, he may not give less than for a gold denar 148 25 silver denars, or their equivalent in small change. . “Six for voluntary gifts.” What did they do with this? One buys with it elevation offerings 149 As with any money delivered to the gift account. ; the flesh is for the Eternal and the skins are for the Cohanim. This explanation did Jehoyada the High Priest explain: It is a reparation offering, repairing, a reparation offering for the Eternal 150 Lev. 5:19 . ; this is the principle: Elevation offerings should be bought from anything coming 151 It is obvious that money given to the Temple for purification or reparation offerings must be used for the kind of offering specified. Money “coming from” these kinds of offerings are excess monies, not used for the obligatory offerings. Since obligatory offerings cannot be brought voluntarily, nor can monies dedicated to the Temple be returned, the excess has to be deposited in the gift account and used for elevation offerings. because of sin or reparation; the flesh is for the Eternal and the skins are for the Cohanim. It turns out that both parts of the verse are fulfilled, a reparation offering for the Eternal and reparation for the Cohanim. And it says, money for reparation offerings and money for purification offerings are not to be brought to the Eternal’s House, it shall be for the Cohanim 152 2K. 12:17 . The money is not for the Cohanim but the Cohanim receive the skins of the animals bought with the excess monies. .
4HALAKHAH: It was stated 140 Babli Yoma 55a . This paragraph is two texts in one. The Yerushalmi text is that of the scribe of the Leiden manuscript; the Babli text ( Yoma 55b ) is reproduced in Babylonian Aramaic in B and the corrector’s text given in brackets here. : “Rebbi Jehudah said, there was no horn for nests in Jerusalem because of mix-up. 141 Tosephta 3:3 . ” Maybe one of them would die and it turn out that moneys of dying purification sacrifices were mixed up in them 142 This is the Yerushalmi’s explanation for R. Jehudah’s statement, as noted in Yoma 55b . An animal dedicated as a purification sacrifice whose owner died between dedication and sacrifice cannot be used for anything, but it has to be let to die ( Mishnah Temurah 4:1 ). Moneys dedicated for a purification sacrifice under the same circumstances have to be destroyed; in Israel this means to be thrown into the Dead Sea. R. Jehudah holds that such money mixed up with other moneys makes everything unusable and worthless. . [But did we not state] (It was stated): A woman who said, I have to bring a nest, brings the money for the nest and puts it in the horn, and eats from sancta without worry. And the Cohen does not worry that maybe moneys of dying purification sacrifices are mixed up in them 143 The woman is recovering from childbirth or from flux; she may not eat sancta unless a sundown was preceded by her sacrifice. (Therefore ג reads “gets up in the morning and eats.”) The statement implies that the horn for nests was emptied several times every hour and any money deposited there immediately used for the required sacrifice. This makes R. Jehudah’s objection moot; practice follows the Mishnah. In Babylonia, the Galilean explanation was rejected ( Yoma 55b ); therefore, the baraita is read as a question, and an objection to R. Jehudah. Babli Eruvin 32a , Menaḥot 27a . . [For what we are saying is about purification sacrifices whose owner certainly died 144 Everybody agrees that the requirement to destroy the money is rabbinical, restricted to cases of certainty. R. Jehudah’s statement is rejected as a matter of principle. . We could say, let us choose two zuz and throw them into the River 145 The River is the Euphrates, which here appears as Babylonian equivalent of the Dead Sea. The argument is that even in case it is known that a woman died after paying her fee into the horn and the next sacrifices of nests, could not the amount of the Temple’s charge for the nest be taken from the horn, designated as this woman’s contribution, and eliminated? , then the remainder should be permitted, but do we not say in general that Rebbi Jehudah does not accept retroactive choices 146 It is generally agreed that a later choice can retroactively eliminate rabbinic prohibitions but not biblical ones. R. Jehudah represents a minority opinion which rejects retroactivity in all cases. Therefore the remedy proposed according to R. Jehudah cannot be applied; for the majority, whom practice follows, there is a horn for nests, but for R. Jehudah this is an impossibility. ?]