Shekalim 21a

משנה: בְּשַׂר קָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים שֶׁנִּיטְמָא בֵּין בְּאַב הַטּוּמְאָה בְּין בִּוְלַד הַטּוּמְאָה בֵּין בִּפְנִים בֵּין בַּחוּץ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים הַכֹּל יִשָּׂרֵף בִּפְנִים חוּץ מִשֶּׁנִּטְמָא בְּאַב הַטּוּמְאָה בַּחוּץ. בֵּית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים הַכֹּל יִשָּרֵף בַּחוּץ חוּץ מִשֶּׁנִּיטְמָא בִּוְלַד הַטּוּמְאָה בִּפְנִים: רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר שֶׁנִּיטְמָא בְּאַב הַטּוּמְאָה בֵּין בִּפְנִים בֵּין בַּחוּץ יִשָּרֵף בַּחוּץ. שֶׁנִּיטְמָא בִּוְלַד הַטּוּמְאָה בֵּין בִּפְנִים בֵּין בַּחוּץ יִשָּׂרֵף בִּפְנִים. רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר מְקוֹם טוּמְאָתוֹ שָׁם שְׂרֵיפָתוֹ:

MISHNAH: Flesh of most holy sacrifices 47 Elevation, purification, and reparation sacrifices, whose flesh never should leave the sacred precinct. which became impure either by original impurity or by derivative impurity 48 Derivative impurity is rabbinic impurity; according to biblical standards the flesh could be eaten. , whether inside or outside, the House of Shammai are saying that everything has to be burned inside except what became impure outside by original impurity 49 Since most holy sacrifices may not leave the sacred precinct, flesh disqualified for the altar must be burned in the courtyard. Only if the flesh was taken outside and became biblically impure can it not be returned and must be disposed of by being burnt outside. . The House of Hillel are saying that everything has to be burned outside except what became impure inside by derivative impurity 50 They hold that flesh impure by biblical standards has to be removed as quickly as possible from the sacred precinct; then it can be burned outside in leisurely fashion. Flesh inside which is considered impure only by common usage, not biblical decree, may be burned in the courtyard. No flesh impure in any way may be introduced into the sacred precinct. . Rebbi Eliezer says, what became impure by original impurity, whether inside or outside, shall be burned outside. But what became impure by derivative impurity, whether inside or outside, shall be burned inside 51 In the matter of burning, he considers rabbinic impurity as nonexistent. . Rebbi Aqiba said, the place of its impurity is the place of its burning 52 This is his interpretation of the hidden meaning of Lev. 6:23 , as explained in Sifra Saw Pereq 8(5–6), where also additional opinions of RR. Meïr and Jehudah are reported. .

הלכה: בַּר קַפָּרָא אָמַר. אַב הַטּוּמְאָה דְּבַר תּוֹרָה. וְולַד הַטּוּמְאָה מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. בֵּין זֶה וּבֵין זֶה דְּבַר תּוֹרָה. וְקַשְׁיָא דְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן עַל דְּבֵית שַׁמַּי. דְּבֵית שַׁמַּי אוֹמְרִין הַכֹּל יִשָּׂרֵף בִּפְנִים חוּץ מִשֶּׁנִּיטְמָא בְּאַב הַטּוּמְאָה בַחוּץ. מַה בֵין [אַב] הַטּוּמְאָה בַחוּץ מַה בֵין וְולַד הַטּוּמְאָה בַחוּץ. זֶה וָזֶה לֹא דְבַר תוֹרָה הוּא. וַאֲפִילוּ עַל דְּבֵית הִלֵּל לֹא מֲקְשִׁיָיא. דְּבֵית הִלֵּל אָמְרִין הַכֹּל יִשָּרֵף בַּחוּץ חוּץ מִשֶּׁנִּיטְמָא בִּוְולַד הַטּוּמְאָה בִפְנִים. מַה בֵין וְולַד הַטּוּמְאָה בִפְנִים מַה בֵין אַב הַטּוּמְאָה בִפְנִים. זֶה וָזֶה לֹא דְבַר תוֹרָה הוּא. לָא הֲוֵי בָהּ רַבָּנִן אֶלָּא עַל דְּבַר קַפָּרָא. וְקַשְׁיָא דְּבַר קַפָּרָא עַל דְּבֵית שַׁמַּי. דְּבֵית שַׁמַּי אָמְרִין. הַכֹּל יִשָּׂרֵף בִּפְנִים חוּץ מִנִּיטְמָא בְּאַב הַטּוּמְאָה בַחוּץ. מַה בֵין אַב הַטּוּמְאָה בֵין בַּחוּץ בֵּין בִּפְנִים. זֶה וָזֶה לֹא דְבַר תוֹרָה הוּא. בְּגִין דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אָמַר. מְקוֹם טוּמְאָתוֹ שָׁם תְּהֵא שְׂרֵיפָתוֹ. וַאֲפִילוּ עַל דְּבֵית הִלֵּל לֵית הִיא מֲקְשִׁיָיא. דְּבֵית הִלֵּל אָמְרִין. הַכֹּל יִשָּרֵף בַּחוּץ חוּץ מִשֶּׁנִּיטְמָא בִּוְלַד הַטּוּמְאָה בִפְנִים. מַה בֵין וְולַד הַטּוּמְאָה בֵּין בִּפְנִים בֵּין בַּחוּץ. זֶה וָזֶה לֹא מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם הוּא. בְּגִין רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אָמַר. מַאֲכָלוֹ וּמַשְׁקוֹ שֶׁלְמְצוֹרָע מִשְׁתַּלְּחִין חוּץ (בִשְׁלֹשׁ) [לִֹשְלֹשׁ] מַחֲנוֹת.

HALAKHAH: 53 The same statement is found in Ma`aser Šeni 3:8 (Note 103) and Pesaḥim 1:7, Notes 166,167. Bar Qappara said, original impurity is a word from the Torah, derivative impurity is of their words. Rebbi Joḥanan said, both these and those are words of the Torah 54 In Lev. 7:19 one reads: Any meat which touches anything impure may not be eaten, in fire it shall be burned . Since it is not stated “touches any impure person”, one has to conclude that anything impure refers to implements or similar things which became impure from the touch of an impure person. Therefore it is clear that by biblical standards there exist derivative impurities. Bar Qappara holds that anything which makes something else impure is called original impurity. Since the verse does not refer to the meat as impure, he will hold that it is disqualified but its touch will not make the implement touched impure. He restricts the term “impure” to matter able to transmit impurity; matter disqualified is classifioed as “derivative impurity”. R. Joḥanan will hold that the meat, two touches distant from original impurity, still is impure by biblical standards (even though it is not called so in the text.) Everybody will agree that further impurities, 3 and 4 touches separated from original impurity, are rabbinic (or customary) categories of impurity. . 55 Similar discussions, referring to other Mishnaiot, are in Ma`aser Šeni 3:8 (Note 103) and Pesaḥim 1:7, Notes 166,167. The House of Shammai is difficult for Rebbi Joḥanan, since the House of Shammai said, “everything has to be burned inside except what became impure outside by original impurity.” What is the difference between [original] 56 Correct addition by the corrector. (The clause is missing in B.) impurity and derivative impurity outside, are not both of them words of the Torah? And even the House of Hillel is difficult for him, since the House of Hillel say, “everything has to be burned outside except what became impure inside by derivative impurity.” What is the difference between derivative impurity inside and original impurity inside, are not both of them words of the Torah? The rabbis only discuss Bar Qappara’s opinion 57 Since the objections to R. Joḥanan’s opinion cannot be answered, his statement cannot be valid in rabbinic tradition. . The House of Shammai is difficult for Bar Qappara, since the House of Shammai said, “everything has to be burned inside except what became impure outside by original impurity.” What is the difference between original impurity outside or inside, are not both of them words of the Torah? Because of Rebbi Aqiba, who said “the place of its impurity shall be the place of its burning. 58 The House of Shammai will accept R. Aqiba’s interpretation of Lev. 6:23 ; this explains their position without reference to Bar Qappara’s statement. ” Would not the House of Hillel also be difficult for him, since the House of Hillel say, “everything has to be burned outside except what became impure inside by derivative impurity.” What is the difference for derivative impurity inside or outside, are not both of them their words? Because of Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said, food and drink of a person afflicted with skin disease are sent outside the three camps 59 This is a complicated formulation of the simple statement of Note 50 . It is inferred from Num . 5:2–4 ( Sifry Num . 1) that there were three encampments in the desert, the holy precinct of the Tent of Meeting, the encampment of the Levites, and that of the Israelites. These are represented by the Temple enclosure, the Temple Mount, and Jerusalem (or any walled city in the Holy Land). Then it is stated that from the categories of people excluded from the holy sites, people impure in the impurity of the dead are excluded from the Temple precinct, those suffering from gonorrhea (or anybody whose impurity is caused by his own body) is excluded from the Temple Mount, and the sufferer from skin disease is excluded from the city. R. Simeon explains that the sufferers from skin disease under no circumstance can enter the city; this is a paradigm for the statement that anything impure never may be brought into a place from which it is excluded. .

משנה: אֵיבָרֵי הַתָּמִיד נִיתָּנִין מַחֲצִי כֶּבֶשׁ וּלְמַטָּה בַּמַּעֲרָב שֶׁל מוּסָפִין נִיתָּנִין מֵחֲצִי כֶּבֶשׁ וּלְמַטָּה בַּמִּזְבֵּחַ שֶׁל רָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים נִיתָּנִין עַל כַּרְכּוֹב הַמִּזְבֵּחַ מִלְּמַעֲלָן. הַשְּׁקָלִים וְהַבִּיכּוּרִים אֵינָן נוֹהֲגִין אֶלָּא בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת. אֲבָל מַעְשַׂר דָּגָן וּמַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה וּבְכוֹרוֹת נוֹהֲגִין בֵּין בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת וּבֵין שֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת. הַמַּקְדִּישׁ שְׁקָלִים וּבִיכּוּרִים הֲרֵי זֶה קוֹדֶשׁ. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר הָאוֹמֵר בִּיכּוּרִים קוֹדֶשׁ אֵינָן קוֹדֶשׁ:

MISHNAH: The limbs of the daily sacrifice are deposited on the lower part of the ramp to the West 60 As explained in Yoma Chapter 2, the sacrifices were slaughtered and cut into pieces which immediately were carried to the ramp leading up to the altar, but then were taken up one by one to be burned on the relatively small area of the fire on the altar. , those of the musaf sacrifices 61 Of the Sabbaths and holidays. on the lower part of the altar. Those of the days of the New Moon on the rim 62 As explained in the Halakhah, on top of the altar, between its horns, on the place usually reserved for the Cohanim serving at the altar. on the top of the altar. Sheqalim and First Fruits 63 Sheqalim are dedicated for the Temple service; if there is no Temple there are no sheqalim . Of First Fruits it says ( Ex. 23:19 ): Bring the First Fruits of your land to the Eternal’s House ; if there is no House they cannot be brought ( Tosephta 3:24 ). apply only if there is a Temple, but tithes of grain, and tithes of animals, and firstlings 64 Of all these, the verse ( Num . 18:12–19 ) says that these are given to the Eternal ; therefore they are obligations independent of the Temple. , apply whether there is a Temple or there is no Temple. If somebody dedicates sheqalim or First Fruits 65 Today, in the absence of a Temple. R. Simeon holds that a dedication as First Fruits is a vow in error which does not need annulment. , they are sanctified. Rebbi Simeon says, even if somebody designates First Fruits as holy, they are not holy.

הלכה: אֵי זֶהוּ כַּרְכּוֹב הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. אַמָּה בֵין קֶרֶן לַקֶּרֶן. מְקוֹם הִילּוּךְ רַגְלֵי הַכֹּהֲנִים.

HALAKHAH: “What is ‘the rim of the altar 66 The word is a hapax in the Bible, Ex. 27:5 . The explanation is intended also as applicable to the biblical word. Tosephta 3:19 ; Babli Zevaḥim 62a . ’? A cubit between two horns, on the place reserved for the feet of the Cohanim walking.”

מוּסְפֵי שַׁבָּת מוּסְפֵי רֹאשׁ חוֹדֶשׁ מִי קוֹדֵם. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה סְבַר מֵימַר. מוּסְפֵי שַׁבָּת וּמוּסְפֵי רֹאשׁ חוֹדֶשׁ מוּסְפֵי רֹאשׁ חוֹדֶשׁ קוֹדְמִין. חֵיילֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יִרְמְיָה מִן הָדָא. שִׁירוֹ שֶׁלְשַׁבָּת וְשִׁירוֹ שֶׁלְרֹאשׁ חוֹדֶשׁ שִׁירוֹ שֶׁלְרֹאשׁ חוֹדֶשׁ קוֹדֵם. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. שַׁנְיָיא הִיא תַּמָּן דְּאָמַר רִבִּי חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. כְּדֵי לְפַרְסְמוֹ וּלְהוֹדִיעַ שֶׁהוּא רֹאשׁ חוֹדֶשׁ. כֵּיצַד הָיָה עוֹשֶׂה. שׁוֹחֵט מוּסְפֵי שַׁבָּת וְאוֹמְרִים עֲלֵיהֶן שִׁירוֹ שֶׁלְרֹאשׁ חוֹדֶשׁ. בְּרַם הָכָא. מוּסְפֵי שַׁבָּת וּמוּסְפֵי רֹאשׁ חוֹדֶשׁ מוּסְפֵי שַׁבָּת קוֹדְמִין. עַל שֵׁם. כָּל הַתָּדִיר מֵחֲבֵירוֹ קוֹדֵם אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ.

67 This paragraph is copied in Sukkah 5:6 (Note 124 ). Which of the musaf sacrifices of the Sabbath and of the New Moon has precedence 68 The question may be asked here since the limbs of the sacrifices of the New Month are stored much closer to the fire on the altar than those of the Sabbath sacrifices. ? Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say, between the musaf sacrifices of the Sabbath and of the New Month, the musaf sacrifices of the New Month have precedence. The strength of Rebbi Jeremiah is from the following: Between the song of the Sabbath and the song of the New Month 69 Babli Sukkah 54b . , the song of the New Month has precedence. Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference there since Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: To make a proclamation to publicize that it is the start of a new month. How does one do it? One slaughters the musaf sacrifices of the Sabbath and says for them the song of the New Month. But here, between the musaf sacrifices of the Sabbath and of the New Month, the musaf sacrifices of the Sabbath have precedence, under the category: what is more frequent than another precedes the other 70 A general principle, Yoma 2:3 (Note 127 ), Ta`anit 4:5 (68b l.30), Babli Berakhot 51b , Pesaḥim 114a , Zevaḥim 91a . .

הָא שְׁקָלִים קָדְשׁוּ. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה אָמַר מִשֵּׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. בֵּין אֵילּוּ וּבֵין אֵילּוּ לֹא קָדְשׁוּ. תַּנֵּי. הַגֵּר בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא קִינּוֹ רִיבְעַת כֶּסֶף. אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. בִּיטְּלָהּ רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי מִפְּנֵי הַתְּקָלָה. מָהוּ מִפְּנֵי הַתְּקָלָה. כְּהָדָא דְתַנֵּי. אֵין מַקְדִּישִׁין וְלֹא מַעֲרִיכִין וְלֹא מַחֲרִימִין וְלֹא מַגְבִּיהִין [תְּרוּמוֹת וּמַעְשְׂרוֹת] בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה. אִם הִקְדִּישׁ אוֹ הֶעֱרִיךְ אוֹ הֶחֱרִים אוֹ הִגְבִּיהַּ. הַכְּסוּת תִישָּׂרֵף. הַבְּהֵמָה תֵּיעַקֵּר. [כֵּיצַד. נוֹעֵל בְּפָנֶיהָ הַדֶּלֶת וְהִיא מֵתָה מֵאֵילֶיהָ.] וְהַמָּעוֹת יֵלְכוּ לְיַם הַמֶּלַח. עָבַר וְהִקְדִּישׁ. מִן מַה דְאָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. בִּיטְּלָהּ רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי מִפְּנֵי הַתְּקָלָה. הָדָא אָמְרָה. עָבַר וְהִקְדִּישׁ קָדְשׁוּ. רִבִּי יוּדָן עַנְתוֹדְרַיָיא בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. הָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר. קָדְשׁוּ וְהָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר. לֹא קָדְשׁוּ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. תַּמָּן [לָכֵן אֵין מַקְדִּישִׁין לְכַתְּחִילָּה לְפִי שֶׁמִּצְוָה לְהַקְרִיב מִתְּרוּמָה חֲדָשָׁה וְהֵאַיךְ הַוְיָה לָהּ יְשָׁנָה. וְהָכָא מַאי אִית לָךְ לְמֵימַר. הַאי יְשָׁנָה הִיא. אֲבָל לְגַבֵּי הֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת אֲחֵרִים קִנּוֹ שֶׁל גֵּר אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ חֲדָשָׁה. וְאִם הִקְדִּישׁ. קָדוֹשׁ. וְיַנִּיחַ עַד שֶׁיִּבָּנֶה בֵית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ.] שֶׁמָּא יִבָּנֶה הַבַּיִת כְּבָרִאשׁוֹנָה וְתִיתָּרֵם תְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה מִן הַחֲדָשָׁה בִּזְמַנָּהּ בְּאֶחָד בְּנִיסְן. וְהָכָא מָה אִית לָךְ. רַב אָדָא וְרַב הַמְנוּנְא. רַב אָדָא בַּר אַחֲוָה בְשֵׁם רַב. הֲלָכָה כְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.

Did sheqalim therefore 71 Since in the Mishnah R. Simon only states that dedications of First Fruits are ineffective; he is silent about sheqalim . become holy 72 Is a sheqel dedicated today reserved for use in the Temple; in absence of a Temple any use of it would be larceny of sacra . ? Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah in the name of Rebbi Simeon: Both these and those 73 First fruits and sheqalim . did not become holy. It was stated: 74 Cf. Tosephta 3:22 ; Babli Roš Haššanah 31b (in the name of R. Simeon ben Eleazar), Keritut 9a . Sifry zuta Šelaḥ explains the sacrifice as necessary before the proselyte will be permitted to partake of sancta , since every person whose body was the cause of his impurity, once he is pure he needs such a sacrifice to be admitted to sancta (cf. Note 1 ). A proselyte today has to bring for his nest a quarter of a silver {denar}. Rebbi Simeon said, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai already disestablished this because of the mishap. What is “because of the mishap”? As was stated, today one does neither dedicate as sacrifice, nor dedicate one’s value, nor dedicate as ḥerem , nor does one collect [heave and tithes] 75 Corrector’s addtion from B, totally erroneous since heave and tithes are applicable today. Probably the addition “and tithes” is a scribal error in the ms. underlying B, since “heave and tithes” is a common expression. If “and tithes” is deleted, then the reference is not to heave from agricultural produce but to the money taken from the depository of sheqalim for use in the Temple. Therefore, this “lifting” is dedication as sheqalim . . If somebody dedicates as sacrifice, or dedicated one’s value, or dedicated as ḥerem , or collected, cloth must be burned, an animal castrated. [How? One locks it in and it dies by itself.] 76 Corrector’s addtion from B, inappropriate here. It is possible to be careful not to use an animal, but it must be prevented from producing offspring (even though castrating is sinful.) Monies shall go to the Dead Sea 77 Babli Yoma 66a , Bekhorot 23a , Avodah zarah 13a . . If he 78 A person dedicating sheqalim does not sanctify his money according to R. Simeon; a proselyte dedicating money for his sacrifice in case the Temple will be rebuilt does sanctify the money set apart. transgressed and dedicated, since Rebbi Simeon said, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai already disestablished this because of the mishap, this implies if he transgressed and dedicated, it became sanctified. Rebbi Yudan from Antodria asked before Rebbi Yose: here you are saying it became sanctified, and there you are saying, it did not become sanctified 78 A person dedicating sheqalim does not sanctify his money according to R. Simeon; a proselyte dedicating money for his sacrifice in case the Temple will be rebuilt does sanctify the money set apart. . He said to him, there 79 Corrector’s addition from B, best deleted as a wordy paraphrase of the text obtained by deletion. [because of the following one may not dedicate from the start because it is an obligation to bring from the new contribution, and this would be from the old one. Here, what can you say? That one is old. But in respect to other dedications, the proselyte’s nest does not have to be from new money; if he dedicated it is holy;] maybe the Temple will be built like earlier and the heave of the lodge will be lifted on time on the first of Nisan 80 Then any moneys set apart before the First of Adar are not admissible as new sheqalim ; dedicating them before the Temple was rebuilt would be a self-defeating act. . But here, what do you have? Rav Ada and Rav Hamnuna, Rav Ada bar Aḥawa in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Simeon 81 Babli Keritut 9a . The ruling refers to all of R. Simeon’s statements in this paragraph. .