משנה שְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר שׁוֹפָרוֹת הָיוּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ וְכָתוּב עֲלֵיהֶן תִּקְלִין חַדְתִּין וְתִקְלִין עַתִּיקִין קִינִּין וְגוֹזְלֵי עוֹלָה עֵצִים לְבוֹנָה זָהָב לַכַּפֹּרֶת. שִׁשָּׁה לִנְדָבָה. 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.
תִּקְלִין חַדְתִּין שֶׁבְּכָל־שָׁנָה וְשָׁנָה. וְעַתִּיקִין מִי שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא אֶשְׁתָּקַד שׁוֹקֵל לְשָׁנָה הַבָּאָה. 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.
קִינִּין הֵן תּוֹרִין. וְגוֹזְלֵי עוֹלָה הֵן בְּנֵי יוֹנָה. כּוּלָּן עוֹלוֹת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. 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.
וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים קִינִּין אֶחָד חַטָּאת וְאֶחָד עוֹלָה. גּוֹזְלֵי עוֹלָה כּוּלָּן עוֹלוֹת׃ 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.
הָאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי עָלַי עֵצִים לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִשְּׁנֵי גִּיזְירִין. לְבוֹנָה לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִקּוֹמֶץ. זָהָב לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִדִּינַר זָהָב. 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.
שִׁשָּׁה לִנְדָבָה. נְדָבָה מֶה הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין בָּהּ לוֹקְחִין בָּהּ עוֹלוֹת הַבָּשָׂר לַשֵּׁם וְהָעוֹרוֹת לַכֹּהֲנִים. 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.
זֶה מִדְרָשׁ דָּרַשׁ יְהוֹיָדָע כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל אָשָׁם הוּא אָֹשׂם אָשַׁם לַיְיָ. 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?
זֶה הַכְּלָל כֹּל שֶׁהוּא בָּא מִשֵּׁם חֵטְא וּמִשֵּׁם אַשְׁמָה יִלָּקַח בּוֹ עוֹלוֹת הַבָּשָׂר לַשֵּׁם וְהָעוֹרוֹת לַכֹּהֲנִים. נִמְצְאוּ שְׁנֵי כְּתוּבִין קַייָמִין אָשָׁם לַיי וְאָשָׁם לַכֹּהֵן. 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.
וְאוֹמֵר כֶּסֶף אָשָׁם וְכֶסֶף חַטָּאוֹת לֹא יוּבָא בֵּית יי לַכֹּהֲנִים יִהְיוּ׃ 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.
הלכה תַּנֵּי. אָמַר רִבִּי יְהוּדָה. וְלֹא הָיָה שׁוֹפָר שֶׁלְקִינִּים בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם מִפְּנֵי הַתַּעֲרוֹבֶת. שֶׁמָּא תָמוּת אַחַת מֵהֶן וְנִמְצְאוּ דְמֵי חַטָּאוֹת מֵיתוֹת מְעוּרָבוֹת בָּהֶן. 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.
[וְהָ]תַנֵּי. הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁאָֽמְרָה. הֲרֵי עָלַי קַן. מֵבִיאָה דְמֵי קַן וְנוֹתְנָתוֹ בַשּׁוֹפָר [דף יח:] וְאוֹכֶלֶת בַקֳּדָשִׁים וְאֵינָהּ חוֹשֶׁשֶׁת שֶׁמָּא נִתְעַצֵּל כֹּהֵן. וְאֵין הַכֹּהֵן חוֹשֵׁשׁ שֶׁמָּא דְמֵי חַטָּאוֹת מֵיתוֹת מְעוּרָבוֹת בָּהֶן. 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?
[כִּי קָאָֽמְרִינָן. בְּחַטָּאת שֶׁמֵּתוּ בַעֲלֵיהֶן וַדַּאִי. The Gemara answers: When we say this opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, we are referring to a case where it is known that one of the women had died, which means that the funds she gave have the status of a sin-offering whose owner had certainly died. In this case the coins definitely cannot be used for an offering, and they invalidate the other coins with which they are mingled in the horn. To avoid this scenario, Rabbi Yehuda maintains that there was no horn for obligatory pairs of birds.
וְאִי אָֽמְרִינָן. נִבְרוֹר ד׳ זוּזֵי וְנַשְׁדֵּי בִּנְהָרָא וְאִידָּךְ לִישְׁתְּרוּ. The Gemara asks: But even if we say that there is a concern that the horn contains invalidated coins, the following remedy can be applied: Let us select four zuz, the value of one pair of birds (see Keritot 1:7), and declare that these are the invalidated coins, and throw them into the river so that they will be destroyed, and the remainder will be permitted. If so, even according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, there should be no problem with a horn for pairs of birds.
הָא אָֽמְרִינָן בָעָֽלְמָא. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה לֵית לֵיהּ בְּרֵירָה.] The Gemara answers: This is not an effective solution according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, because we generally say: Rabbi Yehuda does not accept the principle of retroactive designation. According to Rabbi Yehuda, a doubtful state of affairs cannot be clarified retroactively. Consequently, one cannot resolve this problem by setting aside four zuz, and he maintains that there was no horn for obligatory pairs of birds.
רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן אָמַר. רִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל בָּעֵי. אָמַר הֲרֵי עָלַי עֵץ. מְבִיא גֵּיזָר אֶחָד. § It was taught in the mishna that if one said: It is incumbent upon me to donate wood, he must donate no fewer than two logs. The Gemara addresses a similar case: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Bun, said that Rabbi Ba bar Memel raised a dilemma: What is the ruling if one said: It is incumbent upon me to donate a log of wood? Does he bring only one log?
אָמַר רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. מַתְנִיתָה אָֽמְרָה כֵן. שֶׁזֶּה קָרְבָּן בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְזֶה קָרְבָּן בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. Rabbi Elazar said: The Mishna says so; i.e., a mishna provides a solution to our dilemma. We learned that the two logs added each day to the arrangement on the altar, before the daily morning offering and before the daily afternoon offering, were not considered one offering, as this log was an offering to itself and that log was an offering to itself. Since each log was a separate offering, evidently one may donate even a single log.
כָּהִיא דְתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. שְׁנַיִם בְּיָדָם שְׁנֵי גְיזִירֵי עֵצִים. Where was this ruling taught? As we learned in a mishna there, with regard to the order of the daily afternoon offering: Two priests ascended to the altar, and in their hands were two logs of wood for the arrangement, each holding one log in his hand. This statement indicates that each log was a separate offering, as each was held by a different priest.
לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הָעֵצִים. The Gemara asks: From where is it derived that even an individual can pledge wood for the arrangement? From the verse: “And when any one brings a meal-offering to the Lord” (Leviticus 2:1). The word offering comes to include the wood, which is also referred to as an offering in the verse: “And we cast lots, the priests, the Levites, and the people, for the wood-offering” (Nehemiah 10:35). Furthermore, the phrase “any one” teaches that even an individual can pledge wood.
רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אָמַר. עוֹבְייָן (כַּמָּה חוֹקוֹת) [בָּאַמָּה שׁוֹחֲקוֹת]. וְאָרְכָּן (אַמָּה גַמּוּדָה) [כְּאַמָּה גְּרוֹמָה]. רִבִּי חוֹנִי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אִמִּי. כְּמִין טוֹרְטָנִי. As the Gemara is discussing the donation of logs for the arrangement, it mentions their measurements. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The thickness of this wood was a cubit of the expanded cubits, and their length was measured by the shortened cubits. Rabbi Ḥoni said in the name of Rabbi Ammi: The measurement of their thickness was as on a scale [turtanei], i.e., it was exactly one cubit.
אָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק. לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה מְקוֹם הַמַּעֲרָכָה אֶלָּא אָמָּה עַל אֶמָּה לְפִיכָךְ לֹא הָיָה בוֹ אֶלָּא אַמָּה (גַמּוּדָה) [גְּרוֹמָה]. וְתַנֵּי כֵן. אַמָּה הַיְּסוֹד אַמָּה סוֹבֵב אַמָּה כַּרְכּוֹב וְאַמָּה קְרָנוֹת וְאַמָּה מַעֲרָכָה. Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak explained why a shortened cubit was used for the measurement of the wood and said: As the area of the arrangement on the bronze altar built by Moses was only one cubit by one cubit, therefore, the length of the log was only a shortened cubit, as it would otherwise protrude from the arrangement. And it was likewise taught in a baraita: The breadth of the base of the altar made by Moses was a cubit, the surrounding ledge was a cubit, the rim a cubit, the corners a cubit, and the breadth of the place of the arrangement was likewise a cubit.
לְבוֹנָה לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִקּוֹמֶץ. נֶאֱמַר כָּאן אַזְכָּרָה וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן אַזְכָּרָה. § It was taught in the mishna that if one pledges frankincense without specifying an amount, he must donate no less than a handful. The Gemara cites the verbal analogy that is the source for this halakha. It is stated here: “And you shall put pure frankincense with each row, that it may be to the bread for a memorial-part” (Leviticus 24:7). And it is stated there, with regard to the meal-offering of a sinner: “And the priest shall take his handful of it as its memorial-part” (Leviticus 5:12).
מַה אַזְכָּרָה הָאֲמוּרָה לְהַלָּן מְלֹא קוֹמֶץ אַף כָּאן מְלֹא קוֹמֶץ. The Gemara interprets the verbal analogy: Just as the term “memorial-part” that is stated below must be a handful, so too, the term “memorial-part” that is stated here, with regard to the frankincense brought with the shewbread, must be a handful. This shows that when an unspecified amount of frankincense is pledged as an independent free-will offering, the obligation is to bring a handful.
אִי מַה אַזְכָּרָה הָאֲמוּרָה לְהַלָּן שְׁנֵי קְמָצֵים אַף כָּאן שְׁנֵי קְמָצֵים. The Gemara asks: If so, one can derive the opposite conclusion from the same verbal analogy: Just as the memorial-part that is stated below, by the shewbread, must be two handfuls, one for each arrangement of bread, so too the term memorial-part stated here, with regard to the free-will offering of frankincense, should be a measure of two handfuls.
אָמַר רִבִּי לָא. כְּלוּם לָֽמְדוּ לְקוֹמֶץ אֶלָּא מִלֶּחֶם הַפָּנִים. מַה לְהַלָּן קוֹמֶץ הֶחָסֵר פָּסוּל אַף כָּאן קוֹמֶץ הֶחָסֵר פָּסוּל. Rabbi Ila said in response: Didn’t we derive the measurement of a handful of frankincense only from the meal-offering of a sinner? Just as there, in the case of the meal-offering of a sinner, an incomplete handful is invalid, so too, here, with regard to frankincense of the shewbread, an incomplete handful should be invalid. It is possible to invalidate the frankincense of the shewbread only if each handful is considered an independent mitzva. If the two handfuls together were considered one mitzva, they would remain valid even if one of them were incomplete, as they contain a total amount greater than a handful. This proves that each handful is an independent mitzva, which means that if one of them is incomplete, the second does not complete it and it is invalidated. From here it can be inferred that every measurement of the frankincense, including a free-will offering of frankincense, requires a handful.
אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. מִילְּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי אִילָא אָֽמְרָה. הַמִּתְנַדֵּב מִנְחָה מֵבִיאָהּ בְקוּמְצוֹ שֶׁלְכֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל. רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. וַאֲפִילוּ בְּקוֹמֶץ הַבְּעָלִים. Rabbi Yosei said: From the statement of Rabbi Ila, that the measurement of a handful of frankincense for a free-will offering is derived from the handful that came with the shewbread, which is measured according to the handful of the largest of the priests, it can be said that one who donates incense brings it according to the measure of the handful of a priest who has the largest hands, not the handful of the one who brings it. Rabbi Ḥizkiya said in the name of Rabbi Yirmeya: One who donates incense can approximate the handful of any priest, and even use the handful of the owners.
זָהָב לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִדִּינַר זָהָב. אָמַר רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. וְהוּא שֶׁהִזְכִּיר צוּרָה. אֲבָל אִם לֹא הִזְכִּיר צוּרָה מֵבִיא אֲפִילוּ צִינּוֹרָה. The mishna taught that one who pledges gold without specifying the amount must donate no less than a dinar of gold. Rabbi Elazar said: And this is the case if he mentioned a form by saying: It is incumbent upon me to bring a gold coin. However, if he did not mention a form, but merely said: It is incumbent upon me to bring gold, he may bring even a small hook of any size.
שִׁשָּׁה לִנְדָבָה. חִזְקֶה אָמַר. כְּנֶגֶד שִׁשָּׁה בָתֵּי אָבוֹת. The mishna states that there were six collection horns for communal free-will offerings, in which the remainder of the funds for sin-offerings and burnt-offerings were placed, for the purchase of free-will offerings. Ḥizkiya said: There six horns correspond to the six extended patrilineal families of priests who served each week in the Temple. There was one collection horn for each family, to prevent quarrels among the priests.
בַּר פְּדָיָה אָמַר. כְּנֶגֶד שֵׁשׁ בְּהֵמוֹת. פָּר וְעֶגֶל וְשָׂעִיר אֵיִל וּגְדִי וּטְלֵה. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. כְּנֶגֶד שֵׁשׁ קָרְבָּנוֹת. קִינֵּי זָבִים קִינֵּי זָבוֹת קִינֵּי יּוֹלְדוֹת חַטָּאוֹת וָאֲשָּׁמוֹת הַמְּנָחוֹת וָעֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה. Bar Pedaya said: The six horns correspond to the six types of animals from which burnt-offerings can be brought: Bulls, calves, goats, rams, kids, and lambs. Each collection horn was for the funds designated for a particular type of animal. Shmuel said: They correspond to the six obligatory offerings whose leftover funds were used for the purchase of burnt-offerings: (1) Pairs of birds offered in the purification ritual of a zav, pairs of birds of a zava; (2) pairs of birds of a woman after childbirth; (3) sin-offerings; (4) guilt-offerings; (5) meal-offerings of a sinner; and (6) the tenth part of an ephah brought each day by the High Priest as a meal-offering.
אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. עַל יְדֵי שֶֽׁהַנְּדָבָה מְרוּבָּה רִיבוּ לָהּ שׁוֹפָרוֹת הַרְבֶּה. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Since the free-will offerings are plentiful, i.e., much money was donated for this purpose, there was a concern that if too many coins were placed in one horn, only the uppermost coins would be taken and the bottom ones would deteriorate. Therefore they instituted many horns, so that each horn contained fewer coins and the funds would be preserved properly.
[שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר] וּכְכַלּוֹתָ֡ם הֵבִ֣יאוּ לִפְנֵי֩ הַמֶּ֨לֶךְ וִיהֽוֹיָדָ֜ע וגו׳. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹנָתָן [אָמַר]. שְׁתֵּי נְדָבוֹת [עָשָׂה]. The Gemara discusses the midrash of Jehoiada the High Priest mentioned in the mishna. It is written: “And when they had made an end, they brought the rest of the money before the king and Jehoiada, from which they made vessels for the house of the Lord, even vessels used in the Temple service” (II Chronicles 24:14). In explanation of this verse, Rabbi Shimon bar Naḥman said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Jehoiada made two chests for two different types of voluntary donations, one for maintaining the Temple and the other for free-will offerings.
[דף יט.] תַּנֵּי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. נְדָבָה אַחַת. [19a] 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).
וְהָא כְתִיב וַיֹּ֣אמֶר הַמֶּ֔לֶךְ וַיַּֽעֲשׂ֖וּ אֲר֣וֹן אֶחָ֑ד וַיִּתְּנֻ֛הוּ בְּשַׁ֥עַר בֵּֽית־יְי חֽוּצָה. 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.
אָמַר רַב חונָה. מִפְּנֵי הָטְּמֵאִים. 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.
רִבִּי חוּנָה בְשֵׁם רַב יוֹסֵף. עַל שֵׁם אַךְ֩ לֹ֨א יֵֽעָשֶׂ֜ה בֵּ֣ית יְי סִפּ֥וֹת כֶּ֨סֶף֙. מִין סִפּוֹת כֶּסֶף לֹא יֵעָשֶׂה בֵית יי. 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.
הדרן עלך פרק שלשה עשר שופרות