סקר
בעקבות מסכת שקלים - האם תרצה ללמוד עוד מסכת מהתלמוד הירושלמי?





 

Steinsaltz

According to the one who said that the tables were placed from east to west it works out well, as they are all suitable for service. The tables were positioned in a manner that rendered them all fit for service, as the table could be used only in the northern part of the Sanctuary, in accordance with the verse: “And you shall put the table on the north side” (Exodus 26:35). However, according to the one who said that they were placed from north to south, the table, i.e., five of the tables, are found in the southern part of the Sanctuary, [18a] and the candelabrum in the north of the Sanctuary. But wasn’t it taught in a baraita: The shewbread table was situated from the halfway point of the House and inward, in the inner half of the Sanctuary, drawn two and a half cubits away from the wall to the north. The priests who arranged the shewbread on the table would stand in this space. And the candelabrum was situated opposite it, in the south of the Sanctuary, likewise two and a half cubits from the wall.

The golden altar was situated in the middle of the House, dividing the House from its halfway point and inward, i.e., equidistant from the north and south walls, slightly drawn back from the place of the table and the candelabrum toward the outside. Since the length of the entire area was sixty cubits, twenty for the Holy of Holies, and forty for the Sanctuary, all the vessels were situated from a third of the entire House and inward, i.e., the vessels were all contained in the second third of the entire area.

King Solomon constructed ten candelabra, modeled after the one that Moses crafted, as it is stated: “And he made the ten candlesticks of gold according to the ordinance concerning them; and he set them in the Sanctuary, five on the right, and five on the left” (II Chronicles 4:7). Before completing its citation of the baraita, the Gemara asks: If you say that right and left refer to the sides of the entrance to the Sanctuary, which would mean that Solomon set up five candelabra in the north of the Sanctuary, to the left of its entrance, and five in the south of the Sanctuary, to the right of its entrance, this is difficult.

The Gemara explains the difficulty: Isn’t the candelabrum fit only if it is in the south of the Sanctuary, as it is stated: “And the candelabrum over against the table on the side of the Tabernacle toward the south” (Exodus 26:35). What, then, is the meaning when the verse states: “Five on the right, and five on the left”? Rather, it must mean that the candelabrum that Moses made was located in the Sanctuary, while five of the candelabra that Solomon crafted were placed to the right of the candelabrum of Moses, and five to its left.

Even so, i.e., despite the fact that there were so many candelabra in the Sanctuary, the priest would kindle only the candelabrum of Moses alone, as it is stated: “And the candelabrum of gold with its lamps, to burn every evening” (II Chronicles 13:11). The singular form indicates that only one candelabrum was lit. Conversely, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: He would kindle all eleven candelabra, one of Moses and ten of Solomon, each one in turn, as it is stated: “And the candelabra with their lamps, that they should burn according to the ordinance before the Sanctuary, of pure gold” (II Chronicles 4:20). The plural “candelabra” indicates that they were all lit.

The baraita analyzes the subsequent verse: “And the flowers, and the lamps, and the tongs, of gold, and that perfect gold [mikhelot zahav]” (II Chronicles 4:21). This means that the candelabrum completely depleted [killu] the gold of Solomon. As the gold was repeatedly purified until it reached the required level of purity, a large quantity of gold evaporated.

The Gemara cites a related baraita. Rav Yehuda taught in the name of the Sage Asi: Solomon would take a thousand talents of gold and insert them into the crucible and remove them. He repeated this process until the gold was so refined that he established its weight as one talent of gold, to fulfill that which is stated about the original candelabrum in the Tabernacle: “Of a talent of pure gold made he it, etc.” (Exodus 37:24).

It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, said: There was an incident involving the candelabrum of gold that Moses made in the desert, which exceeded the weight set by the Torah, one talent, by one dinar of gold. And they inserted it into the crucible eighty times, to further refine it and reduce its weight, but it was not reduced by anything.

And this is proper, for as long as it had not achieved its correct state of purity, it would decrease greatly, as its refinement in the crucible removed all the impurities, thereby reducing its weight. However, from when it had achieved its correct state of purity, it was not reduced at all. Unlike the gold of Moses, the gold Solomon used was not originally free of impurity and therefore required refinement.

Halakha 4 · MISHNA There were thirteen collection horns in the Temple, and the intended use of the funds was written upon each one, as follows: New shekels, old shekels, pairs of birds, fledglings designated for burnt-offerings, wood for the arrangement on the altar, frankincense that accompanied meal-offerings, and gold donated for the Ark cover. The remaining six horns were designated for communal free-will offerings.

The horn labeled new shekels was designated for the half-shekel donation that was brought every year for the needs of that year. The horn labeled old shekels was for one who did not bring his half-shekel the previous year, who would contribute his shekel for the following year.

The funds in the horn labeled pairs of birds are designated for the turtledoves used for bird-offerings, and the one labeled fledglings for burnt-offerings are used to purchase young pigeons as burnt-offerings. All of these, i.e., the funds in both horns, were used exclusively for voluntary burnt-offerings. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

And the Rabbis say: The funds in both the horn labeled pairs of birds and the horn labeled fledglings were for young pigeons and turtledoves. The distinction between them is that the funds in the horn labeled pairs of birds were designated for the obligatory offerings of a zav, a zava, a woman after childbirth, and a leper. These offerings included a pair of birds, one brought for a sin-offering, and the other one brought for a burnt-offering. Conversely, the funds in the horn labeled fledglings for burnt-offerings were all used exclusively for voluntary burnt-offerings.

One who says: It is incumbent upon me to donate wood to the Temple, must donate no fewer than two logs for the arrangement on the altar. One who says: It is incumbent upon me to donate frankincense, must donate no less than a handful of frankincense, the amount brought with a meal-offering. One who says: It is incumbent upon me to donate gold, must donate no less than a dinar of gold.

It was stated that six horns were designated for communal free-will offerings. The Mishna asks: With regard to the money designated for communal free-will offerings, what would they do with this money? The Mishna answers that they used it to purchase animals for burnt-offerings, as the meat from these offerings was offered on the altar to God and the hides were given to the priests.

This midrash was taught by Jehoiada the High Priest: There is an apparent contradiction between two verses. With regard to the guilt-offering, the verse states: “It is a guilt-offering; he is certainly guilty before the Lord” (Leviticus 5:19). This verse indicates that the guilt-offering goes to God, not the priests. However, a different verse states: “As is the sin-offering, so is the guilt-offering; there is one law for them; the priest who makes atonement with it, he shall have it” (Leviticus 7:7). This verse indicates that the offering is designated for the priests alone. How can these two verses be reconciled?

The Mishna explains that this is the principle: Any funds that come due to a sin-offering or due to a guilt-offering, i.e., leftover coins designated for one of these offerings, they should be used for the purchase of animals for a voluntary burnt-offering, as the meat will be offered on the altar to God, and the hides will go to the priests. In this manner the two verses are found to be fulfilled, as it is both a guilt-offering to God as well as a guilt-offering to the priest.

And this halakha also explains the verse that says: “The guilt-offering money and the sin-offering money was not brought into the House of the Lord; it was for the priests” (II Kings 12:17). This verse is understood to refer to the hides given to the priests.

GEMARA: It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said: There was no collection horn for pairs of birds in the Temple in Jerusalem, due to the mixtures. The concern was that perhaps one of the women obligated to bring a pair of birds would die after putting her money in the horn. And if that happens, it would turn out that the funds for sin-offerings left to die are mixed with the rest of the money in the horn. When the owner of funds designated for a sin-offering passes away, the designated money must be destroyed. Since there is no way to distinguish between the coins, all the money is prohibited.

The Gemara raises a difficulty against this conclusion. But wasn’t it taught in a baraita that with regard to a woman who said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a pair of birds, that she brings the funds for the purchase of a pair of birds to the Temple and places them in the collection horn. [18b] And after she has ritually immersed for her purification and the sun has set, she may eat consecrated foods. And she need not be concerned that perhaps the priest was lazy and neglected to sacrifice her offering, which would cause her to lack atonement and be prohibited from eating sacrificial food. And the priest need not be concerned that perhaps one of the women who placed funds in this horn has died, which would mean that the funds for sin-offerings left to die are mixed with the rest of the coins. Since this ruling is undisputed, it is evidently accepted by all the Sages, including Rabbi Yehuda. If so, how can it be claimed that Rabbi Yehuda said there were no horns for obligatory pairs of birds due to the concern that one of the women who placed money there had died?

Talmud - Bavli - The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren No=C3=A9 Talmud
with commentary by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz Even-Israel (CC-BY-NC 4.0)
אדם סלומון
© כל הזכויות שמורות לפורטל הדף היומי | אודות | צור קשר | הוספת תכנים | רשימת תפוצה | הקדשה | תרומות | תנאי שימוש באתר | מפת האתר