MISHNAH: Coins which are found between the sheqalim and the voluntary gifts, if closer to sheqalim they have to be given to sheqalim , closer to voluntary gifts to voluntary gifts; in the middle they have to be given to voluntary gifts are used for all needs of the Temple, voluntary gifts represent the more holy use. . Between wood and incense, if closer to wood they have to be given to wood, closer to incense to incense; in the middle they have to be given to incense. Between nests and young birds for elevation sacrifices, if closer to nests they have to be given to nests, closer to young birds for elevation sacrifices to young birds for elevation sacrifices; in the middle they have to be given to young birds for elevation sacrifices. Between profane money and Second Tithe \4 , if closer to profane money they have to be given to profane money, closer to Second Tithe to Second Tithe; in the middle they have to be given to Second Tithe. This is the principle: one follows proximity; in the middle one is stringent.
HALAKHAH: “Coins which are found between the sheqalim and the voluntary gifts,” etc. It would only be necessary between sheqalim and nests, how can coins be found between sheqalim and gifts? ! They were arranged like a snail is next to the last box for gifts. If they would be in a straight line then the box near to “nests” is that for “old sheqalim ”, which are never used for sacrifices and therefore the coins found halfway should be given to “nests”. . Would it not be necessary that it be given to sheqalim public ones, the sanctity of sheqalim should be greater than that of “gifts”. ? Some want to say, maybe they would remain with the excess of the lodge. Some want to say, in the middle it is as if he died. Rebbi Yasa said, when I still was there, I heard the voice of Rav Jehudah asking Samuel, if somebody had set his sheqel apart and died? He told him, they shall fall to the gift account. The excess of his tenth of an ephah, Rebbi Joḥanan said, one shall bring them to the Dead Sea. Rebbi Eleazar said, it shall fall to the gift account.
And it is difficult. May purification offering be brought as elevation offering? Rebbi Ḥizqiah (brother) in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: It is a stipulation of the Court that the excesses be brought as elevation sacrifices. By what is that woman atoned for? The sentence and the next are reproduced at the end of the Chapter (7). ? Rebbi Isaac said, it is a stipulation of the Court that the providers of nests also provide the disqualified ones. Would it not also be necessary between incense and wood, and frankincense, and gold for the cover? As it is stated at the end, “one follows nearness; in the middle one is stringent.”
MISHNAH: Coins found near vendors of animals always are Tithe money. On the Temple Mount, profane. In Jerusalem, during the remainder of the year they are profane, during the holidays everything is Second Tithe. Of meat found in the Temple courtyard, limbs are elevation sacrifices and cuts purification sacrifices 1:6 , 12 ) before being brought to the altar, but purification sacrifices have to be eaten by the Cohanim in the holy precinct and for this purpose have to be cut into portions. ; in Jerusalem well-being sacrifices. In either case it has to lose its shape and be taken out to be disposed of by burning. If it was found in the countryside, limbs are carrion, cuts are permitted. On holidays, when meat is abundant, even limbs are permitted.
HALAKHAH: Would it not be necessarily holy on the Temple Mount9:8), how can there be a presumption that monies lost there are profane? ? Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There is a presumption that no Cohen will remove money from the lodge unless it is redeemed by an animal.
Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Diversion of attention requires {loss of} shape34a . . Rav Hoshaia said, the Mishnah says so, “it has to lose its shape and be taken out to be disposed of by burning.” Rebbi Yose says, this is correct. You may not eat it for maybe its shape already is lost. <you may not burn it for maybe its shape is not lost> Therefore it had to say, “it has to lose its shape and be taken out to be disposed of by burning”.
Rebbi Crispus in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: One flogs for carrion limbs because of carrion31; and the Mishnah says so: “limbs are carrion, cuts are permitted.” Are cuts not really permitted? And similarly, one flogs for carrion limbs because of carrion.
Rebbi Crispus in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: If they were strung they are permitted. Ten stores, nine sell carrion and one sells kosher slaughtered meat, if it was switched, he worries. For what is found, one follows the majority. Ten stores, nine sell kosher slaughtered meat and one sells carrion, if it was switched, he worries15a ), “anything whose provenience is fromknown fixed sources is considered as 50–50”, and therefore one has to consider the switched package as coming from the store which sells carrion, whether this is one in ten or nine in ten. . For what is found, one follows the majority.
Rebbi Joḥanan said, what is in the hand of a Gentile is as found on a thoroughfare. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ḥaggai was supporting Rebbi Mana. He saw an Aramean cutting from his horse and feeding his son. He said to him, that is what Rebbi Joḥanan said, what is in the hand of a Gentile is as found on a thoroughfare. He answered him, so said the great Rebbi Yose: Only if they saw him leaving a Jewish butcher shop. . A man in Sepphoris went and wanted to buy red meat from a butcher, but he did not give to him. He told a Roman, who brought him. He said to him, did I not buy against your will? He retorted, did I not give carrion to him? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: A case came before Rebbi who said, it is not believable to forbid the butcher shop of Sepphoris.
2:9, Notes 393-395. The Genizah text here follows the arrangement of Avodah zarah . Rav returned there and saw them taking things lightly and was restrictive with them. A man went to wash a piece of meat in the river. He forgot it and left. Then he went and wanted to sell it. Rav told him, it is forbidden to you, for I am saying the other one was carried away by the river and it brought another piece of carcass meat in its place. A man was carrying meat while walking on the market. There came a vulture, seized it from his hand, and dropped it off. He came back and wanted to sell it. Rav told him, it is forbidden to you, for I am saying that it was carrying carcass meat, dropped it and took the other instead.
Ginai1:3 (Note 144 ), Babli Ḥulin 7a . Since both known authorities called R. Isaac ben Eleazar were Galilean, the river must be a Galilean brook. The statement made here is that even though wineskins may have been used for non-kosher wine, if they were swept away by a brook but then recovered, identification confirms not only ownership but also possibility of use for kosher wine. swept away wineskins. The case came before Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar who said, may the vintners recognize their knots.
A sausage was found in the meeting room of the town council. The case came before Rebbi Jeremiah who said, may the butchers recognize their handiwork.
A roast kid goat was found in the main street of Gufta. They permitted it because of two things, as a find, and because of the majority of passers-by. As a find, as it was stated: If one saves from before a lion, from before an army, from a surge of the sea, or the surge of a river, from a wide road, or a wide plaza, it belongs to him, since the owners give up on them. Because of the majority of passers-by, because of a Gentile’s slaughter. It turned out that it was from the House of Rebbi.
A wheel of cheese was found in the hostelry of Levi. They permitted it because of two things, as a find, and because of the majority of passers-by. As a find, as it was stated: If one saves from before a lion, from before an army, from a surge of the sea, or the surge of a river, from a wide road, or a wide plaza, it belongs to him, since the owners give up on them. Because of the majority of passers-by, because of Gentile’s cheese. It turned out that it was from Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose.
Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose, but do we not see that the rabbis publicize? He told him, if you had been there, you would not have taken it. Your father, Rebbi Jonah, did not say so, but he said, if only I would find it inside from the circular road Chaptrer 8, Note 102; the access road to and from a town along a long-distance road. “Inside” is the major road in the town, where many people are passing by at all times. . Even so, he found and did not take.
MISHNAH: If it was found in the countryside, limbs are carrion, cuts are permitted. On holidays, when meat is abundant, even limbs are permitted. Rebbi Simeon said, the Court stipulated seven things, and this tax. was one of them: If a Gentile sent his elevation offering from overseas also sent its libations, they are brought from his property; otherwise they are brought from public money. Similarly, if a proselyte died and the estate includes well-being offerings; if he also has flour offerings they are brought from his property; otherwise they are brought from public money. It is a stipulation of the Court that the flour offering of a deceased High Priest be brought from public money; Rebbi Jehudah says, from his heirs, and it was brought whole6:13 ); the offering in the interim is brought whole according to everybody. . About salt and wood that the Cohanim may use them to cook the meat and bake maṣsot. , and about the Cow that one does not commit larceny with its ashes money, the ashes are no sancta . . And about disqualified nests after sundown. Since her identity is unknown, she cannot be asked to pay a second time; therefore her nest has to be paid by the public. R. Yose disagrees and holds that the contract with the supplier of birds stipulates that the birds supplied must be qualified. Therefore disqualified birds have to be replaced by the supplier at no cost to the Temple. that they be charged to the public; Rebbi Yose says, he who provides the nests provides the disqualified ones.
HALAKHAH: 2:8 (Notes 202–210 ) of which, however, it is not a direct copy. The elder Rebbi Hoshaia said (more)<to his son>` and making sense. In the translation, the texts in parentheses should be disregarded. this was taught for their monetary value55a . . Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, does one say to a person, go and commit larceny with sacrifices? But they followed the majority of cases: If most are male, they are elevation offerings, if most are female, well-being offerings. But do not well-being offerings come from males and females? What does he do? He redeems them as profane and then turns them into elevation offerings55b , R. Joḥanan holds that the redemption of unblemished animals is never possible. He requires that the animal be put out to graze until it develops a blemish; then it can be redeemed and the proceeds used for another sacrifice. In any case, the answer is unsatisfactory. Since the Mishnah states that people were refraining from picking up stray animals because they did not want to pay for its flour offerings, they certainly do not want to take upon themselves the much greater expense of redemption. . Rebbi Ze`ira said, it is a stipulation by the court that all redundant animals should be brought as elevation offerings, so it is a stipulation by the court that lost animals should be brought as elevation offerings. Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, is that not intentional misuse? He said to him, since it is a stipulation by the court, it is not intentional misuse.
Rebbi Yasa said, when I still was there, I heard the voice of Rav Jehudah asking Samuel, if somebody had set his sheqel apart and died? He told him, they shall fall to gift. The excess of his tenth of an ephah, Rebbi Joḥanan said, one shall bring them to the Dead Sea. Rebbi Eleazar said, it shall fall to gift.
The tenth of an ephah from the High Priest 6:12–16 . . [Rebbi Joḥanan said,] he splits it and then dedicates daily, half in the morning and half in the evening. Since the volume of the flour is prescribed, it must be measured. R. Joḥanan must hold that the measuring vessel is not a Temple vessel which automatically dedicates anything poured into it; otherwise there would be no possibility of dedicating the two parts separately. . Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he dedicates and afterwards splits it. A Mishnah4:5 . disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “He brings half of it; the other half is lost., but only the second half may be used. ” He explains it, because even the money has to be brought to the Dead Sea. A Mishnah4:5 . disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “It turns out that two halves are brought and two halves are lost.” And it was stated on this7:10 . : “If the first one’s, the second half should lose its shape and be brought to the place of burning.” He explains it following Rebbi Ismael, for Rebbi Ismael said, the issaron dedicates. “If a Cohen comes first to serve, he brings his Tenth and officiates himself.3(3 ). He has to bring the tenth of an ephah once in his lifetime, when he officiates in the Temple the first time. Lev. 6:13 . ” The officiating of both a High Priest and a common priest who officiated before they brought their tenth of an ephah is valid. Rebbi Mana wanted to say, if on that very day78a . he was appointed High Priest he brings two, one for his initiation and one as daily obligation.
תּוּפִינֵי 6:14 , a word of unknown etymology. . It has to be תּוּפִינֵי when it is brought, it does not have to be תּוּפִינֵי early in the morning. But did we not state, “they place those who bake the baked goods to make the baked goods”? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, to make the hot water to soften them. תּוּפִינֵי, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina, he fries them and after that bakes them. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina, he bakes them and after that fries them. תּוּפִינֵי, they shall be baked cooked50b . . Rebbi said, they shall be baked softly; Rebbi Dosa said, they shall be baked beautifully. This disagreement is parallel to the other disagreement. He who says, they shall be baked beautifully, is like him who says, he fries them and after that bakes them. He who says, they shall be baked softly is like him who says, he bakes them and after that fries them.
Not only if he died, but even if he became impure; and even if he became disabled by a defect 6:13 reads: this is the offering of Aaron and his sons which they have to offer to the Eternal , the daily flour sacrifice should be offered by the High Priest himself. While the service can be delegated to a common priest, the High Priest must be able to do it himself. If somehow he is disabled, it is as if there were no High Priest. . Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi stated from Bar Delaia: Even if he became disabled by a defect. 51b ; Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 5(3 ). “From where that if a High Priest dies and no other was appointed in his stead that his flour offering is brought from the heirs? The verse says 6:15 . , from his sons he shall make . I could think that he should bring it in halves, the verse says, it , entire I said, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon says, it only comes from the public, for it says, an eternal law , (to whom the creatures belong.), בְּרִית “covenant”, instead of “creatures”. Then, Ravad explains, the expression חָק־עוֹלָ֕ם is compared to the same expression used for the shew-bread ( Lev. 24:9 ) where in v. 8 בְּרִ֥ית עוֹלָֽם is used. The translation then is: “who are in the covenant.” The Babli ( loc. cit. ) simply reads עוֹלָם as in rabbinic Hebrew “public”. Totally it shall be burned , all is for burning.
Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked, the system of Rebbi Simeon seems inverted. There he says, from the heirs, but here he says, from the public he deduces the rule from a biblical verse. . Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, is that not a pertinent question? There came Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is a word from the Torah that it should be brought from the public. I could say, one should tax for it he deduces the rule from a biblical verse. ; they instituted that it should come from what is taken from the lodge.
Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Entire in the morning and entire in the evening, or half in the morning and half in the evening, [or entire in the morning and nothing in the evening] 6:13 ). If the High Priest is dead or disabled and according to the Mishnah his flour offering has to be brought entire, does that mean two offerings per day, or only one in the morning? It is clear that the sentence about bringing two halves has to be deleted and the corrector’s addition from B accepted. ? Then it should be obvious to him, what about three log. 15:4 ) or from the specifics indicated for the daily sacrifice ( Num . 28:5 ) that a tenth of an ephah of flour requires a quarter of a hin , 3 log , of olive oil. This therefore is the quantity of oil required here, even though it is used for frying, not for mixing as in the cases where the quantities are specified. Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 4:1–5; cf. Babli Menaḥot 52b . ? Three log in the morning and three log in the afternoon, or a log and a half in the morning and a log and a half in the afternoon? Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, also the following was a problem for him: Two handful52a , R. Joḥanan reports that the Tenth of the High Priest also requires addition of a handful of incense like other flour offerings. He also reports that there is a dispute whether the living High Priest has to bring one handful, which is split into two, or two separate handfuls for morning and evening services. But since here the question is about the Tenth for the absent or incapacitated High Priest, one infers that the Yerushalmi holds that the living High Priest only brings one handful. in the morning and two handful in the evening or one handful in the morning and one handful in the evening? Rebbi Yose said, did they not the two handful infer from the sinner’s flour offering 5:11 ) is brought without oil and incense. The commentators conjecture an emendation “from the shew bread” which is put onto the table in two rows, each one with a cup of incense. ? Just as there two handful, also here two handful. Just as there it was problematic for him, so here it is problematic for him. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, did one not infer the three log from the daily afternoon sacrifice. 15:4 ) or from the specifics indicated for the daily sacrifice ( Num . 28:5 ) that a tenth of an ephah of flour requires a quarter of a hin , 3 log , of olive oil. This therefore is the quantity of oil required here, even though it is used for frying, not for mixing as in the cases where the quantities are specified. Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 4:1–5; cf. Babli Menaḥot 52b . ? Since there {are} three log, so also here three log. [Just as] there it was problematic for him, [so] here it is (obvious) [problematic] for him1 00 .
Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: It would have been logical, it is clear that until its ashes are collected as required in Num . 19:9 , any action not in accordance with the procedure prescribed in vv. 2–9 will invalidate the procedure and usufruct of correct procedure will be larceny of sacra . According to the general principle that once the required procedures are executed, there can be no longer larceny of sacra , the problem is to decide whether the correct preparation of the ashes is the final step in this regard, or the sprinkling on a person impure in the impurity of the dead, as described in the verses following. To say that it would be logical is tantamount to a statement that one could argue the second position but, since the answer is not clear from the biblical text, it is up to the Court overseeing the Temple to decide which opinion to follow. that one commit larceny with them, but they decided that one does not commit larceny with them. But did we not state51b/52a . : “ it is ḥattat , this teaches that one commits larceny with it. [With it one commits larceny,] with its ashes one does not commit larceny.” Rebbi Abbahu said, at the beginning they were using it as a disinfectant and were putting it on their wounds and therefore they decided that one would commit larceny with it. . When they were fenced in, they decided that one does not commit larceny with it.
By what is that woman atoned for? The sentence and the next are reproduced at the end of the Chapter (7). ? Rebbi Isaac said, it is a stipulation of the Court that the providers of nests also provide the disqualified and the lost ones.