משנה אֵיבָרֵי הַתָּמִיד נִיתָּנִין מַחֲצִי כֶּבֶשׁ וּלְמַטָּה בַּמַּעֲרָב שֶׁל מוּסָפִין נִיתָּנִין מֵחֲצִי כֶּבֶשׁ וּלְמַטָּה בַּמִּזְבֵּחַ שֶׁל רָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים נִיתָּנִין עַל כַּרְכּוֹב הַמִּזְבֵּחַ מִלְּמַעֲלָן. Halakha 4 · MISHNA The limbs of the daily offering were not placed directly on the altar fire. Instead, after cutting up the offering, its limbs were placed first on the ramp of the altar, from the halfway point and below, on the lower sixteen cubits of the ramp, on its western side. Limbs of the additional offerings of the Shabbat and Festivals were placed on the ramp from the halfway point and below on its eastern side. Additional New Moon offerings were placed on top of the upper part of the edge [karkov] of the altar.
הַשְּׁקָלִים וְהַבִּיכּוּרִים אֵנָן נוֹהֲגִין אֶלָּא בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת. אֲבָל מַעְשַׂר דָּגָן וּמַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה וּבְכוֹרוֹת נוֹהֲגִין בֵּין בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת וּבֵין שֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת. הַמַּקְדִּישׁ שְׁקָלִים וּבִיכּוּרִים הֲרֵי זֶה קוֹדֶשׁ. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר הָאוֹמֵר בִּיכּוּרִים קוֹדֶשׁ אֵינָן קוֹדֶשׁ: Another law: The obligation to give half-shekels each year and to offer the first fruits is practiced only in the presence of the Temple,as fulfillment of these mitzvot is only possible then. But the mitzvot of produce tithes and grain tithes and of animal tithes and of the sanctified firstborn animals are practiced whether one is in the presence of the Temple, or one is not in the presence of the Temple. Although animal tithes and firstborn cannot be sacrificed without a Temple, once they develop a blemish, they may be eaten by their owners. If, in the present time when there is no Temple, one consecrates shekels for the mitzva of the half-shekel or fruits for the mitzva of first fruits, they are consecrated, and it is prohibited to derive benefit from them. Rabbi Shimon says: One who declared first fruits to be consecrated, in the present time, does not give them that status and they are not consecrated.
הלכה אֵי זֶהוּ כַּרְכּוֹב הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. אַמָּה בֵין קֶרֶן לַקֶּרֶן. מְקוֹם הִילּוּךְ רַגְלֵי הַכֹּהֲנִים. GEMARA: The mishna states that additional New Moon offerings were placed on the karkov. What is the karkov of the altar? It is the cubit-wide area between one horn and the other on the top surface of the altar, and the place allocated for the priests’ passage when they move about the altar performing their duties.
מוּסְפֵי שַׁבָּת מוּסְפֵי רֹאשׁ חוֹדֶשׁ מִי קוֹדֵם. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה סְבַר מֵימַר. מוּסְפֵי שַׁבָּת וּמוּסְפֵי רֹאשׁ חוֹדֶשׁ מוּסְפֵי רֹאשׁ חוֹדֶשׁ קוֹדְמִין. חֵיילֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יִרְמְיָה מִן הָדָא. שִׁירוֹ שֶׁלְשַׁבָּת וְשִׁירוֹ שֶׁלְרֹאשׁ חוֹדֶשׁ שִׁירוֹ שֶׁלְרֹאשׁ חוֹדֶשׁ קוֹדֵם. While on the topic, the Gemara asks: When the New Moon falls on Shabbat and both the additional Shabbat offerings and the additional New Moon offerings must be offered, which of them takes precedence? Rabbi Yirmeya thought to say that when additional Shabbat offerings and additional New Moon offerings are both sacrificed, the additional New Moon offerings take precedence and are offered first. The Gemara comments: The strength of, or support for, Rabbi Yirmeya’s opinion comes from that which was taught in a baraita: When the New Moon falls on Shabbat, the song sung by the Levites in the Temple of Shabbat and the song of the New Moon both need to be sung; the song of the New Moon takes precedence, and likewise, the additional offering of the New Moon is offered first.
אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. שַׁנְייָא הִיא תַּמָּן דְּאָמַר רִבִּי חִייָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. כְּדֵי לְפַרְסְמוֹ וּלְהוֹדִיעַ שֶׁהוּא רֹאשׁ חוֹדֶשׁ. Rabbi Yosei said: The halakha is different there in the case of the Levites’ song, as Rabbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: The reason that the song of the New Moon takes precedence over the song of Shabbat is in order to publicize the occasion and to inform everyone that it is the New Moon. Since the New Moon originally depended upon the Sanhedrin establishing its exact date, there was a need to publicize which day was the first of the month.
כֵּיצַד הָיָה עוֹשֶׂה. שׁוֹחֵט מוּסְפֵי שַׁבָּת וְאוֹמְרִים עֲלֵיהֶן שִׁירוֹ שֶׁלְרֹאשׁ חוֹדֶשׁ. בְּרַם הָכָא. מוּסְפֵי שַׁבָּת וּמוּסְפֵי רֹאשׁ חוֹדֶשׁ מוּסְפֵי שַׁבָּת קוֹדְמִין. עַל שֵׁם. כָּל־הַתָּדִיר מֵחֲבֵירוֹ קוֹדֵם אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ. How precisely would it be done? When would they sing the song for the New Moon, while preserving the precedence of the additional Shabbat offerings? The priest would slaughter the additional Shabbat offerings and the Levites would then sing the song for the New Moon. However [beram] here, with regard to the additional Shabbat offerings and the additional New Moon offerings rather than the songs, the additional Shabbat offerings take precedence, following the principle: When a frequent practice and an infrequent practice clash, the frequent practice takes precedence over the other, the infrequent, practice. Therefore, the Sages said to slaughter the additional Shabbat offering before the additional New Moon offering.
הָא שְׁקָלִים קָֽדְשׁוּ. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה אָמַר מִשֵּׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. בֵּין אֵילּוּ וּבֵין אֵילּוּ לֹא קָֽדְשׁוּ. § The mishna stated that the obligation to give half-shekels each year and to offer the first fruits is only practiced in the presence of the Temple. However, if one consecrates shekels or first fruits in the present day, they are consecrated, and it is prohibited to derive benefit from them. Rabbi Shimon disagrees and says such an attempt to consecrate the first fruits would not be effective. The Gemara points out: Even according to Rabbi Shimon, this indicates that shekels would be consecrated if one did so in the present day. Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda in the name of Rabbi Shimon says, contrary to this implication: Both these, first fruits, and those, shekels, are not consecrated.
תַּנֵּי. הַגֵּר בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא קִינּוֹ רִיבְעַת כֶּסֶף. אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. בִּיטְּלָהּ רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי מִפְּנֵי הַתְּקָלָה. מָהוּ מִפְּנֵי הַתְּקָלָה. The Gemara continues with a discussion of consecrated items in the present day, in the absence of the Temple. It was taught in a baraita: A convert who converts in the present day is obligated to set aside, in lieu of his pair of doves, a quarter-dinar of silver, for that is the cheapest price at which one can purchase them. A convert at the time of the Temple was obligated to offer two doves or pigeons as the conclusion of the conversion process. Rabbi Shimon said: Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Zakkai voided that obligation due to the potential for a mishap, since that money would be consecrated and there is a high risk that it would be misused.
כְּהָדָא דְתַנֵּי. אֵין מַקְדִּישִׁין וְלֹא מַעֲרִיכִין וְלֹא מַחֲרִימִין וְלֹא מַגְבִּיהִין [תְּרוּמוֹת וּמַעְשְׂרוֹת] בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה. What is meant by: Due to the potential for a mishap? Where can it be seen that the Sages were concerned about the possibility of such mishaps? Like that which was taught in a baraita: One may not consecrate an item, or take a valuation vow, i.e., vow that one’s value is dedicated to the Temple, or consecrate objects for use by the priests or the Temple, or separate terumot or tithes in the present day when there is no Temple, lest there be a mishap and one derive prohibited benefit from any of those items.
אִם הִקְדִּישׁ אוֹ הֶעֱרִיךְ אוֹ הֶחֱרִים אוֹ הִגְבִּיהַּ. הַכְּסוּת תִישָּׂרֵף. הַבְּהֵמָה תֵּיעַקֵּר. [כֵּיצַד. נוֹעֵל בְּפָנֶיהָ הַדֶּלֶת וְהִיא מֵתָה מֵאֵילֶיהָ.] וְהַמָּעוֹת יֵלְכוּ לְיַם הַמֶּלַח. And if he violated this rule, and consecrated an item, or took a valuation vow, or consecrated an object for use by the priests or the Temple, or separated terumot or tithes, the clothing that was consecrated is burnt, the animal is destroyed. How is it destroyed? The door of its stall is locked in front of it and it dies by itself, of hunger, as it is prohibited to actively destroy consecrated items. And the money that was consecrated goes to the Dead Sea, i.e., is abandoned where no one will ever find it.
עָבַר וְהִקְדִּישׁ. מִן מַה דְאָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. בִּיטְּלָהּ רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי מִפְּנֵי הַתְּקָלָה. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה. עָבַר וְהִקְדִּישׁ קָֽדְשׁוּ. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Zakkai voided the convert’s obligation to set aside money for a pair of doves. The Gemara asks: If the convert transgressed and ignored the instructions of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Zakkai and consecrated money for a pair of doves, is it effective? The answer to this question can be inferred from that which Rabbi Shimon said in that same baraita: Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Zakkai voided that obligation due to the potential for a mishap. That is to say, from the fact that the potential for a mishap exists, one can infer that if one transgressed and consecrated the money, it is nevertheless consecrated.
רִבִּי יוּדָן עַנְתוֹדְרַייָא בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. הָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר קָֽדְשׁוּ. [דף כב:] וְהָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר. לֹא קָֽדְשׁוּ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. תַּמָּן [לָכֵן אֵין מַקְדִּישִׁין לְכַתְּחִילָּה לְפִי שֶׁמִּצְוָה לְהַקְרִיב מִתְּרוּמָה חֲדָשָׁה וְהֵיאַךְ הַוְיָה לָהּ יְשָׁנָה Rabbi Yodeh Antodarya asked in the presence of Rabbi Yosei: Here in the baraita you [22b] say that the money has been consecrated; and here, in the baraita mentioned before, you say that Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon that if one consecrates shekels in the present day, they are not consecrated. He said to him: There, regarding the shekels, one does not consecrate ab initio because the mitzva is to bring the communal offerings each year from the new collection of half-shekels, those collected for that year, and these shekels, those consecrated in the present day, will necessarily be from the old collection, whenever the Temple is rebuilt, and as such have no use. For this reason, even if he consecrated shekels, they remain non-sacred.
וְהָכָא מַאי אִית לָךְ לְמֵימַר. הַאי יְשָׁנָה הִיא. אֲבָל לְגַבֵּי הֶקְדֵּישׁוֹת אֲחֵרִים קִנּוֹ שֶׁל גֵּר אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ חֲדָשָׁה. וְאִם הִקְדִּישׁ. קָדוֹשׁ. וְיַנִּיחַ עַד שֶׁיִּבָּנֶה בֵית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ.] And here, however, with regard to the convert’s money set aside for his pair of doves, what have you to say? In what sense is this consecrated money old? The disqualification of the old collection only applies to shekels used to purchase communal offerings, and other private consecrated items and a convert’s pair of doves do not need to be purchased from a new collection. Money consecrated now can be used to acquire a convert’s pair of doves. And therefore, if he went ahead and consecrated a quarter-dinar of silver in order to acquire a pair of doves, it is consecrated, and he should set it aside until the Temple is rebuilt.
שֶׁמָּא יִבָּנֶה הַבַּיִת כְּבָרִאשׁוֹנָה וְתִיתָּרֵם תְּרוּמַת הִַלִּשְׁכָּה מִן הַחֲדָשָׁה בִּזְמַנָּהּ בְּאֶחָד בְּנִיסְן. וְהָכָא מָה אִית לָךְ. According to Rabbi Yosei’s reasoning, the shekels are not consecrated because they have no use, as long as the Temple is not rebuilt this year. The Gemara asks: Why are they not consecrated? Perhaps the Temple will be rebuilt again as at first, and the collection of the Temple Treasury chamber will be collected from the new collection in its proper time on the first of Nisan. If that comes to pass, his shekels will be from the current year, and their consecration would have a point. And here too, what have you to say? What are the grounds for a distinction between the convert’s offering whose illicit consecration is effective and the shekels whose illicit consecration is ineffective? The Gemara does not offer an answer.
רַב אָדָא וְרַב הַמְנוּנְא. רַב אָדָא בַּר אַחֲוָה בְשֵׁם רַב. הֲלָכָה כְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. Apropos the dispute in the mishna about someone who went ahead and consecrated first fruits in the present day, Rav Hamnuna and Rav Adda bar Ahava said in the name of Rav: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon that they are not consecrated.