Concerning Temple service vessels, what is the halakha with regard to the possibility that they may be prepared by using money consecrated for Temple maintenance? The Gemara explains the two sides of the dilemma: Are they requirements of the altar, and therefore they came from money consecrated for Temple maintenance, or are they requirements of offerings, and therefore they were prepared from the collection of the Temple treasury chamber? Rav said to him: They are prepared only from the collection of the chamber.

Rav Huna raised an objection to this from a verse that deals with those in charge of maintaining the Temple structure: “And when they had made an end, they brought the rest of the money before the king and Jehoiada, of which were made vessels for the house of the Lord, vessels with which to minister, and buckets, and pans, and vessels of gold and silver” (II Chronicles 24:14). This indicates that vessels may be prepared with money consecrated for Temple maintenance.

Rav said to him: Whoever taught you the Writings did not teach you the Prophets, as you forgot about the parallel verse in the Prophets: “But there were not made for the house of the Lord cups of silver, snuffers, basins, trumpets, any vessels of gold, or vessels of silver, of the money that was brought into the house of the Lord; for they gave that to those who did the work” (II Kings 12:14–15). This verse proves that vessels were not prepared with the money donated for Temple maintenance.

The Gemara asks: If so, the verses contradict each other, as in one place it states that the Temple vessels may be funded with the money donated for Temple maintenance, while in the other verse it states that this money was used exclusively for those involved in the actual work of Temple maintenance. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult; here it is speaking of a case where they collected funds and there was money left over. These funds could be used for Temple vessels. Conversely, here, the verse is referring to a situation where they collected funds and there was nothing left over, and therefore all of the money was allocated to actual Temple maintenance.

The Gemara asks: And if they collected money and there was some left over, what of it? After all, that money was consecrated for another purpose. If the Temple vessels could not be prepared with money consecrated for Temple maintenance, how were they able to use any of these funds for this purpose? Rabbi Abbahu said: The court initially sets a mental stipulation about the money collected: If it is required for Temple maintenance, it is required and is allocated accordingly, and if not, it will be used for the service vessels.

The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The funding for the service vessels of the Temple comes from the collection of the Temple treasury chamber, as it is stated: “The rest of the money” (II Chronicles 24:14). Which money has a remainder? You must say that this is referring to the collection of the chamber. After the money was brought into the chamber, a certain portion of it would be set aside for the requirements of the offerings, while the remainder was used for other purposes.

The Gemara asks: But one can say that the remainder itself was used for the Temple vessels, and the phrase “the rest of the money” does not refer to the funds of which there is a remainder, but to the remainder of the donations left in the chamber after the first collection was removed. The Gemara answers: This is as Rava said elsewhere, that the phrase “the burnt-offering” (Leviticus 6:5), with the definite article, is referring to the first burnt-offering; so too, the term “the money” (II Chronicles 24:14) is referring to the first money, i.e., the money removed from the collection of the chamber.

The Gemara raises an objection from the following source: The funds for the incense and all communal offerings come from the collection of the Temple treasury chamber. The funds for the golden altar, located inside the Sanctuary and upon which the incense was offered, the frankincense, and the service vessels all come from the leftover money of the funds set aside for the libations.

The funds for the upkeep of the altar of burnt-offerings, which was located outside the Sanctuary and on which most offerings were burned, and for the chambers, and for the various courtyards, come from money consecrated for Temple maintenance. Funds for those matters that are outside the walls of the Temple courtyard come from the remainder of the chambers. And with regard to this we learned: The wall of the city, its towers, and all of the requirements of the city of Jerusalem likewise come from the remainder of the chamber. According to this source, the funds for the sacred vessels came from the leftover money of the funds set aside for the libations, not the collection of the Temple treasury chamber.

The Gemara answers: It is a dispute between tanna’im, as we learned in a mishna (Shekalim 6a): What would they do with the leftover funds of the collection of shekels that had not been spent on communal offerings? They would purchase golden plates as a coating for the walls and floor of the Holy of Holies. Rabbi Yishmael says: There were different types of remainders in the Temple, each of which had separate regulations. The leftover produce was used to purchase the repletion [keitz] of the altar, i.e., burnt-offerings sacrificed when the altar would otherwise be idle. The leftover funds of the collection were used to purchase service vessels.

Rabbi Akiva says: The leftover funds of the collection of shekels were used to purchase the animals for the repletion of the altar, as they had originally been collected for offerings. The leftover libations were used to purchase service vessels. Rabbi Ḥanina, the deputy High Priest, says: The leftover libations were used to purchase animals for the repletion of the altar, while the leftover funds of the collection of shekels were used to purchase service vessels. Both this Sage, Rabbi Akiva, and that Sage, Rabbi Ḥanina, did not agree with Rabbi Yishmael’s opinion with regard to the leftover produce.

The Gemara asks: What is this produce? As it is taught in a baraita: What would they do with the leftover funds of the collection? They would use it to buy produce at a cheap price and subsequently sell that produce at an expensive price, and the profit earned from this trade would be used for the repletion of the altar. And with regard to this we learned: The leftover funds of produce were used to purchase the animals for the repletion of the altar.

The Gemara asks: If so, what is the reason that both this Sage, Rabbi Akiva, and that Sage, Rabbi Ḥanina, did not agree with Rabbi Yishmael’s opinion with regard to the leftover produce? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Akiva is consistent with his opinion elsewhere, as we learned in a mishna (Shekalim 6a): What would they do with the leftover remainder of the chamber? They would purchase wine, oil, and fine flour and sell them to those who needed them for their private offerings. And the profit from these sales would go to consecrated property, i.e., to the Temple treasury. This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: One may not generate profit by selling consecrated property, nor may one profit from funds set aside for the poor.

The Gemara explains the reason for Rabbi Akiva’s ruling: What is the reason that one may not use consecrated property to generate a profit? It is because there is no poverty in a place of wealth, i.e., the Temple must always be run in a lavish manner. Therefore, one may not use Temple funds to generate small profits in the manner of paupers. What is the reason that one may not use funds set aside for the poor to make a profit? It is because perhaps one will encounter a poor person and there will be nothing to give him, as all of the money is invested in some business transaction.

§ The Gemara returns to the mishna, which deals with the case of one who went overseas and his wife is demanding sustenance. It was stated that amora’im debated the following issue. Rav said: