[דף י:] משנה פָּרָה וְשָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ וְלָשׁוֹן שֶׁל זְהוֹרִית בָּאִין מִתְּרוּמַת הַלִשְׁכָּה. [10b] Halakha 2 · MISHNA The red heifer, the scapegoat, and the strip of crimson wool used in the process of burning the red heifer all come from the collection of the Temple treasury chamber, despite the fact that they are not sacrificial offerings.
כֶּבֶשׁ פָּרָה וְכֶבֶשׁ שָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ וְלָשׁוֹן שֶׁבֵּין קַרְנָיו וְאַמַּת הַמַּיִם וְחוֹמַת הָעִיר וּמִגְדְּלוֹתֶיהָ וְכָל־צָרְכֵי הָעִיר בָּאִין מִשְּׁיֵרֵי הַלִּשְׁכָּה. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר כֶּבֶשׁ פָּרָה כֹּהֲנִים גְּדוֹלִים עוֹשִׂין אוֹתוֹ מִשֶּׁל עַצְמָן׃ The same is true for the ramp built from the Temple Mount to the location on the Mount of Olives, where they would slaughter the red heifer; the ramp built to lead the scapegoat out of the city; the strip of crimson wool that was tied between its horns; any repairs required for the aqueduct that ran through the Temple courtyard and the walls of the city and its towers; and for all the needs of the city, such as street repairs, security, and the like. All of these come from the remains of the chamber, i.e., from the money that remained in the chamber after the three collections of money were taken to use for communal offerings. Abba Shaul says: The High Priests construct the ramp for the red heifer from their own funds.
מוֹתַר שְׁיֵרֵי לִשְׁכָּה מֶה הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין בָּהֶן. לוֹקְחִין בָּהֶן יֵינוֹת שְׁמָנִים וּסְלָתוֹת וְהַשָּׂכָר לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר אִין מִשְׁתַּכְּרִין בְּשֶּׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ אַף לֹא מִשֶּׁל עֲנִיִּים: What would they do with the leftover remains of the chamber after all the items mentioned above had been attended to? 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, neither may one profit from funds set aside for the poor.
מוֹתַר הַתְּרוּמָה מֶה הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין בָּהּ. רִקּוּעֵי זָהָב צִיפּוּי לְבֵית קָדְשֵׁי הַקֳּדָשִׁים. רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר מוֹתַר הַפֵּירוֹת קַייָץ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. מוֹתַר תְּרוּמָה לִכְלֵי שָׁרֵת. What would they do with the leftover funds of the collection 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: The leftover produce was used to purchase the repletion of the altar, i.e., burnt-offerings sacrificed at times when the altar was idle. The leftover funds of the collection were used to purchase sacred vessels.
רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר מוֹתַר תְּרוּמָה קַייָץ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. מוֹתַר נְסָכִים לִכְלֵי שָׁרֵת. רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה סְגַן הַכֹּהֲנִים אוֹמֵר מוֹתַר נְסָכִים קַייָץ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ מוֹתַר תְּרוּמָה לִכְלֵי שָׁרֵת. זֶה וָזֶה לֹא הָיוּ מוֹדִין בַּפֵּירוֹת: Rabbi Akiva says: The leftover funds of the collection were used to purchase the animals used for the repletion of the altar, since they had originally been collected for offerings. The leftover libations were used to purchase sacred vessels. Rabbi Ḥananya, the deputy [segan] High Priest, says: The leftover libations were used to purchase animals for the repletion of the altar, while the leftover funds of the collection were used to purchase sacred vessels. Both this Sage, Rabbi Akiva, and that Sage, Rabbi Ḥananya, did not agree with Rabbi Yishmael’s opinion with regard to the leftover produce.
הלכה פָּרָה וְשָׂעִיר כול׳. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹנָתָן. שְׁלֹשָׁה לְשׁוֹנוֹת הֵן. שֶׁלְשָׂעִיר בְּסֶלַע. שֶׁלְמְצוֹרָע בְּשֶׁקֶל. שֶׁלְפָּרָה בִּשְׁתֵּי סְלָעִים. GEMARA: Since the mishna mentions both the ramp used to transport the red heifer and the strip of crimson wool, the Gemara relates that Rabbi Yishmael, son of Naḥman, said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan: There are three strips of crimson, each of which is a different weight. That of the scapegoat is the weight of a sela, as it had to be divided into two, one to tie between the scapegoat’s horns and one to tie on a rock. It is sufficient for the strip of crimson wool used in the purification of a leper to weigh a shekel, half of a sela, as it is not divided in half. The strip of crimson wool that was used in the process of burning the red heifer is of two sela. In order to sink into the mass of burning material, it had to be the heaviest of strips.
רִבִּי חוֹנִייָה דִבְרַת חַווְרָן רִבִּי בָּא בַּר זַבְדָּא בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר חַלְפוּתָא. שֶׁלְפָּרָה בִּשְׁתֵּי סְלָעִים וּמֶחֱצָה. וְאִית דְּמַפְקִין לִישְׁנָא. בָּעֲשָׂרָה (זִין) [זוּז]. Rabbi Ḥunya from the city of Berat Ḥavrin said that Rabbi Ba, son of Zavda, said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Ḥalafta: The crimson strip of the red heifer is of two and a half sela. Some expressed his statement using the language: Of ten zuz. This is the equivalent of two and a half sela; however, it is important to quote one’s teacher using the identical language that his teacher used.
רַב יְהוּדָה בְשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל. תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים הַמְלַמְּדִין אֶת הַכֹּהֲנִים הִילְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה הִילְכוֹת קַבָּלָה הִילְכוֹת זְרִיקָה נוֹטְלִין שְׂכָרָן מִתְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה. רִבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר רְדִיפָה בְשֵׁם אִימִּי. מְבַקְּרֵי מוּמֵי קֳדָשִׁים נוֹטְלִין שְׂכָרָן מִתְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה. רִבִּי אָחָא רִבִּי תַנְחוּם בַּר חִייָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׂמְלַאי. מַגִּיהֵי סֵפֶר הֶעֲזָרָה נוֹטְלִין שְׂכָרָן מִתְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה. § The Gemara cites additional opinions with regard to the items that are purchased with the remains of the chamber. Rabbi Yehuda said in the name of Rabbi Shmuel: The Torah scholars who teach the priests the halakhot of slaughtering, the halakhot of collecting the blood of an offering in a sacred vessel, and the halakhot of sprinkling the blood on the altar collect their wages from the collection of the chamber. Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Redifa said in the name of Rabbi Imi: Inspectors of blemishes of consecrated animals collect their wages from the collection of the chamber. Rabbi Aḥa said that Rabbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Rabbi Simlai: The proofreaders of the Torah scroll that was kept in the Temple courtyard collect their wages from the collection of the chamber.
גִּידּוּל בַּר בִּנְיָמִן בְּשֵׂם אַסִּי. שְׁנֵי דַייָנֵי גְזֵילוֹת נוֹטְלִין שְׂכָרָן מִתְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה. שְׁמוּאֵל אַמַר. נָשִׁים הָאוֹרְגוֹת בַּפְּרָכוֹת נוֹטְלוֹת שְׂכָרָן מִתְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה. רַב חוּנָה אָמַר. מִתְּרוּמַת בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת. מַה וּפְלִיג. שְׁמוּאֵל עֲבֲד לָהּ כְּקָרְבָּן. רַב חוּנָה עֲבֲד לָהּ כְּבִּינְייָן. Giddel, son of Binyamin, said in the name of Rabbi Asi: The two chief judges in Jerusalem, who establish fines and adjudicate cases of thefts, collect their wages from the collection of the chamber. Shmuel says: The women who weave the curtain that separates the Temple Sanctuary from the Holy of Holies collect their wages from the collection of the chamber. Rav Ḥuna said: They collect their wages from the collection for Temple maintenance. With regard to what do they argue? Shmuel considers it like an offering, as the blood of certain offerings is sprinkled on the curtain. Rav Ḥuna considers it like part of the building, and funds for the building itself come from the collection for Temple maintenance.
אָמַר רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה. תַּנָּא רִבִּי יְהוּדָה גְרוֹגְרוֹת. הַקְּטוֹרֶת וְכָל־קָרְבְּנוֹת הַצִּיבּוּר בָּאִין מִתְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה. מִזְבַּח הַזָּהָב וְכָל־כְּלֵי שָׁרֵת בָּאִין מִמּוֹתָרֵי נְסָכִים. מִזְבַּח הָעוֹלָה וְהַהֵיכָל וְהָעֲזָרוֹת בְּאִין מִשְּׁיֵּרֵי הַלִּשְׁכָּה. חוּץ לָעֲזָרוֹת בָּאִין מִלִּשְׁכַּת בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת. Rabbi Ḥizkiya said that Rabbi Yehuda Gudgadot taught: 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 on which the incense was offered, and all sacred vessels come from the leftover money of that set aside for the libations. The funds for the altar of burnt-offering, which was located outside the Sanctuary and on which most offerings were burned; and for the Sanctuary itself; and the various courtyards come from the remains of the chamber. Funds for whatever was outside the courtyards come from the money stored in the chamber for Temple maintenance.
וְהָא תַנֵּי. אַבְנֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ הַהֵיכָל וְהָעֲזָרוֹת מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן. וְכִי יֵשׁ מְעִילָה בִּשְׁיֵרִים. אֶלָּא כְרִבִּי מֵאִיר. דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר אָמַר. מוֹעֲלִין בִּשְׁיֵרִיִים. The Gemara asks: Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that one who derives benefit from the stones of the altar, the Sanctuary, or the courtyards thereby misuses consecrated property? Therefore, if one does so unwittingly, he is liable to repay to the Temple treasury the value of the loss he caused or benefit he gained, in addition to a fine of one-fifth of that amount, and he must bring a guilt-offering. And is there misuse of consecrated property with regard to items purchased with the remains of the chamber? The Gemara answers: Rather, the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as Rabbi Meir says: One misuses consecrated property even if he derives benefit from items purchased with the remains of the chamber.
אָמַר רִבִּי חִינְנָא. כְּלוּם אָמַר רִבִּי מֵאִיר אֶלָּא בְתוֹךְ שְׁנָתוֹ. וְהָכָא חוּץ לִשְׁנָתוֹ אֲנָן קַייָמִין. Rabbi Ḥiyya said in response to this suggestion: Did Rabbi Meir say this statement other than within its year? Even Rabbi Meir agrees that one violates the prohibition against misusing consecrated property by deriving benefit from the remains of the chamber only within the year for which those coins were donated. Since the funds could still be used for communal offerings if needed during that year, the prohibition applies. But here, we are dealing with funds that are outside the year of their collection, as the remains of the chamber were not used to purchase stones until after the year was over. Therefore, the baraita is not in accordance with Rabbi Meir, and the challenge to Rabbi Yehuda Gudgadot remains.
אָמַר רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה. תַּנָּא רִבִּי יְהוּדָה גְרוֹגְרוֹת. הַשּׁוּלָחָן וְהַמְּנוֹרָה וְהַמִּזְבְּחוֹת וְהַפְּרָכוֹת מְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַקָּרְבָּן. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְְרִין אֵין לָךְ מְעַכֵּב אֶת הַקָּרְבָּן אֶלָּא הַכֵּיּוֹר וְהַכָּן בִּלְבַד. Having cited Rabbi Yehuda Gudgadot, referred to now as Rabbi Yehuda Gudganiyot, the Gemara cites another of his rulings. Rabbi Ḥizkiya said that Rabbi Yehuda Gudganiyot taught: If the table and the candelabrum and the altars and the curtain are incomplete or are not in their proper location, they prevent offerings from being brought; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. The Rabbis say: The only items that prevent the offering from being brought are the water basin and the base alone, as the Temple rite may not be performed if the basin and its base are not in place.
וְלֹא אָמַר כֵּן. רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּן חֲנִינָה תְּרֵיהוֹן אָֽמְרִין. כָּל־הֵן דִּכְתִיב נֹכַח מְעַכֵּב. צֶלַע אֵינוֹ מְעַכֵּב. However, didn’t Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yosei ben Ḥanina both say: Wherever it is written: Opposite, in describing the proper location for one of the sacred vessels, its absence prevents offerings from being brought. For example, with regard to the candelabrum, the verse states: “And the candelabrum opposite the table” (Exodus 26:35). Wherever the verse states: Side, the absence of the vessel does not prevent offerings from being brought. For example, with regard to the table, the verse states: “And you shall place the table on the south side” (Exodus 26:35).
וְאָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹנָתָן. וַאֲפִילוּ צֶלַע מְעַכֵּב. וְאָמַר רִבִּי אִילָא בְשֵׁם [דף יא.] רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן. וַאֲפִילוּ שִׂימָה מְעַכֶּבֶת. And Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan: Even absence of a vessel whose location is described with the side, prevents offerings from being brought. And Rabbi Ila said in the name of [11a] Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman: And even correct placement, is necessary for offerings to be valid. According to this view, if the candelabrum, either of the two altars, the table, the curtain, or the basin is invalid or not in its proper location, sacrificial offerings are not accepted. All of the amora’im cited here apparently disagree with the opinion of the Rabbis cited in the baraita, who maintain that the only vessels that invalidate offerings are the basin and its base.
אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה. כָּאן בָּעֲבוֹדוֹת שֶׁבִּפְנִים וְכָאן בָּעֲבוֹדוֹת שֶׁבַּחוּץ. Rabbi Ḥanina says: There is no disagreement between these amora’im and the Rabbis. Here, the statements of the amora’im are with regard to the rites that are performed inside the Temple, such as bringing the incense, lighting the candelabrum, placing the shewbread on the table, and sprinkling blood on the curtain. The vessels located inside the Temple are essential for the validity of these rites. However, here, the statement of the Rabbis is with regard to the rites that are performed outside of the Sanctuary, i.e., in the courtyard, such as the sacrificing of most offerings. Only the absence of the basin or its base invalidates these rites.
אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. שַׁחַצִית גְּדוֹלָה הָֽיְתָה בִּבְנֵי כֹהֲנִים גְּדוֹלִים. שֶׁיּוֹתֵר מִשִּׁשִּׁים כִּכְּרֵי זָהָב [הָיוּ מוֹצִיאִין בָּהּ.] הָיָה כִבְשָׁהּ שֶׁלְפָּרָה עוֹמֵד וְלֹא הָיָה אֶחָד מֵהֶן מוֹצִיא פָּרָתוֹ בְכִבְשׁוֹ שֶׁלְחֲבֵירוֹ אֶלָּא סוֹתְרוֹ וּבוֹנֶה אוֹתוֹ מִשֶׁלּוֹ. § We learned in the mishna that, according to Abba Shaul, the High Priests would pay for the ramp of the red heifer from their own funds. With regard to this issue, Rabbi Ḥanina said: There was great haughtiness among the High Priests, as they would spend more than sixty talents of gold on it. This expenditure was unnecessary, as the previous ramp of the heifer was still standing. But not one of the High Priests would take out his heifer on his fellow’s ramp. Rather, he would demolish it and build a new one from his own funds.
הָתִיב רִבִּי עוּלָּא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא. וְהָא תַנֵּי. שִׁמְעוֹן הַצַּדִּיק שְׁתֵּי פָרוֹת עָשָׂה. לֹא בְכֶבֶשׁ שֶׁהוֹצִיא אֶת זוֹ הוֹצִיא אֶת זוֹ. אִית לָךְ מֵימַר. שִׁמְעוֹן הַצַּדִּיק שִׁיחֵץ הָיָה. מַיי כְדוֹן. עַל שֶׁם מַעֲלָה הִיא בְפָרָה סִילְסוּל הוּא בְפָרָה. Rabbi Ulla raised an objection in the presence of Rabbi Mana: Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that Shimon HaTzaddik performed the rites of two red heifers, and the ramp on which he took out this one he did not use again to take out that other one? Is it possible for you to say Shimon HaTzaddik was haughty? What, then, is the reason that he constructed a new ramp? It is due to a higher standard that was established with regard to the ceremony of the red heifer; it is due to a higher level of honor [silsul] accorded to the ceremony of the red heifer.
תַּנֵּי. זִיזִין וּכְתָלִין הָיוּ יוֹצְאִין מִיכָּן וּמִיכָּן כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יָצִיצוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים וְיִטַּמּוּ. It was taught in a baraita: Projections and walls would extend from the ramp from here and from there, i.e., on either side, in order that the priests would not peek out over the edge of the ramp and become ritually impure by leaning their bodies over a grave without any interposition.
אֶלָּא אִם רָצָה יְהֵא הַהֶפְסֵד שֶׁלּוֹ. וְהַשָּׂכָר לְהֶקְדֵּשׁ מוּתָּר. § We learned in the mishna that according to Rabbi Yishmael, the leftover remains of the chamber were used to purchase wine, oil, and fine flour. These items were sold to individuals who needed them for their private offerings, and the proceeds went to the Temple treasury. Whereas Rabbi Akiva says: One may not generate profit by selling consecrated property or by using funds set aside for the poor. The Gemara explains that Rabbi Akiva prohibited doing business with consecrated funds only when there was a risk of loss. However, if the seller of the wine, oil, or fine flour wanted to agree that any loss from the subsequent sale of these items would be his, while any profit gained would go to the Temple treasury of consecrated property, it is permitted. The potential profit or loss would result from fluctuations in the market price of these items.
כְּהָדָא בַּר זְמִינָא אִת פְקִיד גַּבֵּיהּ מֵדַל דְּיַתְמִין. אֲתַא וּשְׁאַל לְרִבִּי מָנָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. אִין בְּעִית דִּי הֶפְסֵדְה דִידָךְ וְאַגְרָא דִתְּרַוֵיכוֹן שָׁרֵי. רִבִּי חִייָה בַּר אָדָא אִתְפְקִיד גַּבֵּיהּ מֵדַל דְּיַתְמִין וַעֲבַד כֵּן. An example like this can be found in an incident involving bar Zemina. Funds belonging to orphans were deposited with him. He came and asked Rabbi Mana if he was permitted to invest these funds. Rabbi Mana said to him: If you want to agree that any loss will be yours and any profit will belong to both of you to share, then it is permitted. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Adda had funds belonging to orphans deposited with him and he did so; he accepted all losses and split the profits with the orphans.
כּוּלָּהּ דְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל [הִיא]. רִבִּי חִייָה בַּר יוֹסֵף פָּתַר מַתְנִיתָה. מוֹתַר פֵּירוֹת שָׂכָר לְהֶקְדֵּשׁ. § It was taught in the mishna that according to Rabbi Yishmael, the leftover produce was used to purchase the repletion of the altar, i.e., burnt-offerings sacrificed at times when the altar was idle. This leftover produce discussed in the mishna is referring to the profits earned, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael cited earlier, as Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef explained the mishna as follows: The leftover produce mentioned by Rabbi Yishmael is a reference to his earlier statement that the profits from the sales of wine, oil, and flour went to the Temple treasury of consecrated property.
מוֹתַר נְסָכִים זוֹ סְאָה רְבִיעִית. Regarding the term leftover libations mentioned by Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Ḥananya, the deputy High Priest, this is referring to the fourth se’a. If the treasurer of the Temple paid in advance for a year’s worth of wine, oil, and flour, and the price of these goods later rose, the seller was required to provide the goods at the original, lower price. The treasury then sold these items at the higher price to individuals who needed them for offerings. For example, if the treasurer paid for flour at the price of four se’a for one sela, and the price then rose to three se’a for one sela, the seller would have to provide four se’a for one sela. This fourth se’a was sold, and the profit from this sale was given to the Temple.
רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן פָּתַר מַתְנִיתָה. מוֹתַר פֵּירוֹת זוֹ סְאָה רְבִיעית. מוֹתַר נְסָכִים לְבֵירוּצִים. Rabbi Yoḥanan explained the mishna as follows: The leftover produce, this is referring to the fourth se’a. The leftover libations, this is referring to the overfill [beirutzin] of the substance when measured. When one sells a certain measure of wine, oil, or flour to the Temple treasury, he is required to fill the measuring vessel above the rim, so that he provides more than the exact measurement. However, when the Temple treasurer sells these products, he must be exact in the measurements. The difference between these two amounts is referred to in the mishna as the leftover libations.
וְלֵית לֵיהּ לְרִבִּי חִייָה בַּר יוֹסֵף לְבֵירוּצִים. אָמַר רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה. מַה דִנְפַל לְסְאָה רְבִיעִית נְפַל לְבֵירוּצִים. The Gemara asks: And is Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef not of the opinion that the Temple profits from the overfill? Why, then, does he omit any reference to it in his explanation of the mishna? Rabbi Ḥizkiya said: That which befalls the fourth se’a befalls the overfill as well. Both fall under the same category of leftover libations.
עַל דַּעְתִֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי חִייָה בַּר יוֹסֵף נִיחָא. אֵין מִשְׂתַּכְּרִין מִשֶּׁלְהֶקְדֵּשׁ אַף לֹא מִשֶּׁלְעֲנִיִּם. לְפִיכָךְ זֶה וָזֶה לֹא הָיוּ מוֹדִין בַּפֵּירוֹת. It works out well according to the opinion of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef, which maintains that the leftover produce was sold for profit by the Temple treasury: One may not generate profit by selling consecrated property, and not even with funds set aside for the poor, and therefore the mishna concludes: Both this Sage and that Sage, Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Ḥananya, did not agree with Rabbi Yishmael’s opinion with regard to the leftover produce.
עַל דַּעְתִֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן קַשְׁיָא. תַּנִּינָן עָֽמְדוּ מִשָּׁלֹשׁ יְסַפֵּק מֵאַרְבַּע. וְתַנִּינָן. זֶה וָזֶה לֹא הָיוּ מוֹדִין בַּפֵּירוֹת However, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, which maintains that the leftover produce is referring to the profit gained from the fourth se’a, it is difficult. Didn’t we learn in a mishna that if the treasurer paid for a product at the price of four units per sela, and at the time it was delivered the price had risen and stood at three units per sela, the seller must still provide the produce at the original price of four units per sela, leaving the Temple treasury with an extra unit from which to profit? Apparently, all agree that the treasury may profit in this manner. However, we learned in the mishna that this Sage and that Sage, Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Ḥananya, did not agree with Rabbi Yishmael’s opinion with regard to the leftover produce.
לֹא הָיוּ מוֹדִין בַפֵּירוֹת בְּקַיִיץ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ. אֲבָל מוֹדִין הָיוּ בִכְלֵי שָׁרֵת. The Gemara answers: Everyone agrees that the fourth se’a may be sold on behalf of the Temple treasury. When the mishna says that Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Ḥananya did not agree with regard to the leftover produce, it means that they did not agree that the profits from the produce should be used for purchasing the repletion of the altar. However, they did agree that they may be used for purchasing sacred vessels.
עַד כְּדוֹן בֵּירוּצֵי צִיבּוּר. וַאֲפִילוּ בֵירוּצֵי יָחִיד. וְלֹא נִמְצְאוּ כְלֵי שָׁרֵת בָּאִין מִשֶּׁל יָחִיד. It appears that all agree that profits from the overfill of the measures are used to purchase sacred vessels. The Gemara asks: Until here, it is reasonable to say that the overfill from communal offerings is used to purchase sacred vessels. However, is it possible to say that the sacred vessels could be purchased even with the overfill of individual offerings? Wouldn’t it turn out that the sacred vessels had come from an individual, which is not permitted?
כְּהָדָא דְתַנֵּי. אִשָּׁה שֶׁעָשָׂת כֻּתּוֹנֶת לִבְנָהּ צְרִיכָה לִמְסוֹר לְצִיבּוּר. The Gemara answers that it is like that which we learned in a baraita: In the case of a woman who made a tunic, one of the priestly vestments, for her son to wear while he serves in the Temple, the tunic is valid. However, since the priestly vestments must come from communal funds, the priest may only use his mother’s tunic in the Temple provided that she completely transfers ownership of the tunic to the community. Similarly, if the owner donates the overfill to the public, it is permissible to use the profit to purchase sacred vessels.
עַד כְּדוֹן בֵּירוּצֵי לַח. וַאֲפִילוּ בֵירוּצֵי יָבֵשׁ. Until now, the discussion has concerned liquid overfill, e.g., wine or oil. Since the overfill was originally within the confines of the sacred vessel, it attained consecrated status. Is the same true even for dry overfill, such as fine flour, in which the overfill was piled on top of the already full vessel? If the overfill was never actually within the confines of the vessel, is it consecrated?
כַּהִיא דְתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. הַנְּסָכִים שֶׁקָּדְשׁוּ בַכֶּלִי וְנִמְצָא הַזֶּבַח פָּסוּל. אִם יֵשׁ שָׁם זֶבַח אַחֵר יִקְרְבוּ עִמּוֹ. וְאִם לָאו יִיפָּסְלוּ בְלִינָה. The Gemara answers: The halakha is in accordance with that which we learned in a mishna there (Menaḥot 79a): In the case of the libations, which include fine flour, that were sanctified in a sacred vessel and, subsequently, the offering they were meant to accompany is found to be disqualified, if there is another offering there that requires libations, they may be sacrificed with it. And if not, and they are left overnight, they become disqualified by being left overnight. Since the mishna in Menaḥot does not distinguish between liquid libations and fine flour, the Gemara understands that no distinction should be drawn with regard to the overfill; even dry overfill is consecrated and can be used for the purchase of sacred vessels.