Commentary for Menachot 42:17

סלקא דעתך אמינא

was taken out of the supplies of the community, so the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the salt for the offerings.');">²¹</span> was also taken out of the supplies of the community! - Thereupon R'Mordecai said to R'Ashi, Thus said R'Shisha the son of R'Idi, It was necessary to be stated only according to Ben Bokri's view.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to Ben Bokri's view the priests did not contribute the shekel to the Temple funds and therefore were not entitled to any of the Temple's supplies; hence it was necessary for the Beth din to grant them a concession that they may use the Temple's supplies of wood and salt for their own offerings.');">²²</span> For we have learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shek. I, 4.');">²³</span> R'Judah said, Ben Bokri testified at Jabneh that a priest who paid the shekel<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The annual contribution, corresponding to the half shekel ordained in the Torah (Ex. XXX, 13) , paid before the first of Nisan by every Israelite towards the upkeep of the public offerings in the Temple.');">²⁴</span> has committed no sin.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to law a priest is not liable to pay the shekel, for the expression 'every one that passeth among them that are numbered' (Ex. ibid.) does not apply to the priests (or the Levites) , since these were not numbered together with the rest of the tribes of Israel, but separately.');">²⁵</span> - Rabban Johanan B'Zakkai said to him, Not so, but rather a priest who did not pay the shekel has committed a sin.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The expression in the verse (v. prec. n.) is accordingly interpreted thus: Every one that passeth, that is, every one that passed through the Red Sea; among them that are numbered, that is, however they were numbered, whether separately or with the other tribes of Israel. Hence the priests are Biblically liable to pay the shekel.');">²⁶</span> The priests, however, used to expound the following verse to their advantage, And every meal-offering of the priest shall be wholly burnt; it shall not be eaten;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VI, 16.');">²⁷</span> since the 'Omer-offering and the Two Loaves and the Shewbread are ours, how can they be eaten?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the priests were liable to contribute the shekel to the Temple funds, out of which the three named public meal-offerings were provided, it would follow that these meal-offerings should be wholly burnt and not eaten by the priests; and this would be contrary to Scripture. Hence, the priests argued, they were not to pay the shekel.');">²⁸</span> But according to Ben Bokri, since they are not in the first instance liable to pay the shekel, when they do pay it they have surely committed a sin, for they have brought unconsecrated matter into the Temple! - They bring it and deliver it [whole-heartedly] to the public funds. Now<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This continues the argument as given above 'It was necessary to be stated only according to Ben Bokri's view'. V. supra p. 139, n. 7.');">²⁹</span> one might have thought that

Explore commentary for Menachot 42:17. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.