A dissenting opinion was taught in a baraita of the school of Rabbi Yishmael: Jehoiada prepared a single chest for one free-will offering, as it is written: "So the king commanded, and they made a chest" (II Chronicles 24:8). The verse specifically states that Jehoiada made only one chest. This is the same chest mentioned elsewhere: And he placed it in the Sanctuary of the House of God, "and he bored a hole in its lid" (II Kings 12:10). The Gemara asks: But isn't it written: "So the king commanded, and they made a chest, and set it without, at the gate of the House of the Lord" (II Chronicles 24:8)? This indicates that that there was an additional chest that was placed outside the Temple. Rav Ḥuna said: There was only one chest, which was originally located inside the Temple by Jehoiada's command. Afterward, however, he instructed that it should be placed outside the Temple because of those people who were ritually impure by contact with a corpse or a dead creeping animal. These people were unable to enter the Temple to insert their money for free-will offerings. Rabbi Ḥanina said in the name of Rabbi Yosef: There were two free-will offerings in the Temple, as it is written: "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 them who did the work, and repaired with it the House of the Lord" (II Kings 12:14). These were for the repairs of the Temple, not for making sacred serving vessels. Conversely, the verses in II Chronicles discuss the construction of the vessels, as it is written: "From which they made vessels for the House of the Lord" (II Chronicles 24:14). As this verse refers to a different chest and a separate free-will offering, it shows that there were in fact two chests.

Halakha 1 · MISHNA If money was found on the floor of the Temple between one of the collection horns marked shekels and the collection horn marked free-will offerings, that is to say, between the first and the thirteenth collection horns, in which funds contributed to the Temple were stored, the following distinctions apply: If the money was found closer to the horn marked shekels, it is allocated to the shekels; if it was found closer to the horn marked free-will offerings, it is allocated to free-will offerings; and if it was equidistant from the horn marked shekels and the horn marked free-will offerings, it is allocated to free-will offerings. If the money was found between the horn marked wood and the horn marked frankincense, that is, between the fifth and sixth horns, if it was closer to the horn marked wood, it is allocated to wood; if it was closer to the horn marked frankincense, it is allocated to frankincense; and if it was found equidistant from both, it is allocated to frankincense. If the money was found between the horn marked pairs of bird-offerings and the horn marked doves for burnt-offerings, i.e., between the third and the fourth horns, if it is closer to the horn marked pairs of bird-offerings, it is allocated to pairs of bird-offerings; if it was found closer to the horn marked doves for burnt-offerings, it is allocated to doves for burnt-offerings; and if it was found equidistant from both, it is allocated to doves for burnt-offerings. And similarly, if money was found anywhere else between a container for ordinary, non-sacred money and one containing second-tithe money, the following distinctions apply: If the money was found closer to the non-sacred money, it is allocated to the non-sacred money; if it was found closer to second-tithe money, it is allocated to second-tithe money; and if it was found equidistant from both, it is allocated to second-tithe money. This is the principle: In cases of doubt, the ruling follows whichever is closer, even if this involves being lenient, but if the money was found equidistant from both, the ruling follows whichever allocation involves being stringent.

GEMARA: The mishna taught the halakha governing the case where money was found between the horn marked shekels and a horn marked free-will offerings. The Gemara asks: Addressing this case was not necessary, as these horns were not adjacent to one another; the one marked shekels was the first horn and the last six were marked free-will offerings. Why should it be presumed that money found in the middle belongs to one or the other and not to one of the horns in between? Rather [dela], the mishna should have addressed the case where money was found between the horn marked old shekels and the horn marked pairs of bird-offerings, as they are adjacent to one another. Rabbi Avun said in the name of Rabbi Pineḥas: The contribution horns in the Temple were arranged like a circle [bukhliyar]. The horns did not stand in a straight row, but rather in a circle, such that the horn marked new shekels and the horn marked free-will offerings were adjacent to one another from the other side. The mishna teaches that if money was found equidistant from the horn marked shekels and the horn marked free-will offerings, it is allocated to free-will offerings. The Gemara asks: The mishna should not have said that the money is allocated to free-will offerings. Rather, it should have said that when money is found equidistant from both, it is allocated to shekels. For the halakha governing the money in the horn marked shekels is more stringent, as the regular communal offerings are bought with that money, whereas the money in the horn marked free-will offerings is used only to buy offerings for those times when there are no regular offerings being sacrificed. The Gemara answers: Some wish to say that the halakha governing the money in the horn marked shekels is less stringent because perhaps the money allocated would not be used for the purchase of offerings, and consequently it would be allocated to the remainders of the chamber funds, i.e., those left over after the public offerings have been bought with the half-shekels collected in the chamber. Such money would be used for repairing the walls and towers of Jerusalem, and not for offerings. It is consequently preferable that the money be allocated to free-will offerings, and therefore be used for offerings. And some wish to say that money that is found equidistant from both is treated like money that has no owner, i.e., like money that was set aside by someone who subsequently died, and the Sages said that such money is allocated to free-will offerings. As Rabbi Yesa said: While I was there in Babylonia, I heard the voice of Rav Yehuda who asked Shmuel the following question: If someone set aside his shekel and subsequently died, what is to be done with the money? Shmuel said to him: It is allocated to free-will offerings. The Gemara now asks a similar question: The High Priest could set aside money to be used for the purchase of his daily griddle-cake offering made from one-tenth of an ephah of flour, half in the morning and half in the evening. If he died before the flour had been bought, what is to be done with the money? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The money must be cast into the Dead Sea, i.e., so that it is destroyed. Rabbi Elazar disagreed and said: The money is allocated to free-will offerings.

The mishna taught that if the money was found equidistant from the horn marked pairs of bird-offerings, i.e., one burnt-offering and one sin-offering, and the horn marked doves for burnt-offerings, it is allocated to doves for burnt-offerings. And this is difficult: Is a sin-offering brought as a burnt-offering? Surely it is possible that the money fell from the horn marked pairs of bird-offerings, and is therefore partially designated for the purchase of sin-offerings. Ḥizkiya said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: A condition of the court stipulates with regard to the remainder of the money originally consecrated for sin-offerings that it is brought as burnt-offerings. Even if the one who consecrated the money did not state such a condition explicitly, he is regarded as having done so, as it is presumed that the money was consecrated in accordance with the court's stipulation. The Gemara asks: If so, with what does this woman, who had placed the money for her offering in the horn marked pairs of bird-offerings, achieve atonement? A woman who had given birth or is a zava must bring a pair of bird-offerings, one as a burnt-offering and the other as a sin-offering, as part of her purification process. If that money has been allocated to doves for burnt-offerings, she has not completed the process. Rabbi Yitzḥak said: A condition of the court stipulates: Whoever supplies the Temple with the pairs of birds, he also supplies extra birds to replace those birds that are disqualified. If one of the birds is disqualified or missing, he provides another bird in its place, and so in any event the woman will have brought both a burnt-offering and a sin-offering. The mishna did not consider all the possible places that money could be found between different horns, and so the Gemara asks: Shouldn't the mishna also discuss additional cases, like where the money was found between the fourth and fifth horns, i.e., between the horn marked incense and the horn marked wood, or between the sixth and seventh horns, i.e., between the horn marked frankincense and the horn marked gold for the Ark cover? The Gemara answers: In fact, this mishna addresses these cases as well, as it teaches at its end: This is the principle: In cases of doubt, the ruling follows whichever is closer, even if this involves being lenient; but if the money was found equidistant from both, the ruling follows whichever attribution involves being stringent.

Halakha 2 · MISHNA This mishna considers other situations in which something is found and its source is unknown. Money found before animal merchants in Jerusalem is always presumed to be second-tithe money. The presumption is based on the fact that in Jerusalem, most of the animals are bought with second-tithe money and sacrificed as peace-offerings. And money found on the Temple Mount is presumed to be non-sacred money. And with regard to money found in the rest of Jerusalem, the following distinction applies: If it was found during the rest of the days of the year, it is presumed to be non-sacred money, but if it was found during the time of a pilgrim Festival, it is all presumed to be second-tithe money, because most of the money found in Jerusalem at the time of a Festival is second-tithe money. The mishna continues: With regard to meat that was found in the Temple courtyard, and it is not known from whence it came, the halakha is as follows: If it is whole limbs of the animal, in the manner that burnt-offerings are brought to the altar, it is presumed to be burnt-offerings. And if it is in small pieces, it is presumed to be sin-offerings. And if the meat, in whatever form, is found in the city of Jerusalem, as opposed to the courtyard, it is presumed to be the meat of peace-offerings, as most of the meat in Jerusalem is the meat of peace-offerings. Since it is possible that the time during which it is permitted to eat any of it has already passed, both this and that, whether it is determined to be the meat of burnt-offerings or the meat of peace-offerings, its form must be allowed to decay, i.e., it must be left until it is definitely disqualified, and then it must be taken out to the place of burning, where offerings that have become disqualified are burned. With regard to meat found in the outlying areas, outside of Jerusalem, if it is in the form of whole limbs, the meat presumably comes from carcasses of animals that were not properly slaughtered, for meat unfit for eating was generally cut up into full limbs, to be fed to dogs or sold to gentiles. But if it is in small pieces, it is presumably kosher and permitted to be eaten, as kosher meat was ordinarily cut up into small pieces.