Mesorat%20hashas for Temurah 46:27

איצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא כי אית ליה נדבה לר"ש בחד סידרא

Pigeons for a burnt-offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He who offered young pigeons for a burnt-offering put the money for this purpose into this box.');">¹⁶</span> Wood,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One who offered wood for the altar put the money for it into this box.');">¹⁷</span> Frankincense,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The person who gave frankincense put the money for it into this box.');">¹⁸</span> Gold for kapporeth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Covering'; one who wished to make offerings of gold foil for the sacred vessels put the money for it into this box. Aliter: 'bowl'; one who wished to offer gold for a sacred vessel, e.g., a bowl, placed it in this box.');">¹⁹</span> And six [horn-shaped] offering boxes were for the freewill-offerings [of the congregation].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Burnt-offerings; v. Shek. VI, 5.');">²⁰</span> And it has been taught with reference to this [Mishnah]: The statement, 'six boxes for a freewill-offering' means for burnt-offerings which come from the sacrificial surpluses,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of sin-offerings and trespass-offerings.');">²¹</span> and the skins do not belong to the priests.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But they are sold again and burnt-offerings are bought with the money.');">²²</span> This is the teaching of R'Judah. R'Nehemiah - some say R'Simeon - said to him: If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the skins do not belong to the priests.');">²³</span> the interpretation of Jehoaida the Priest is nullified, since we have learnt: The following exposition<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. Midrash.');">²⁴</span> was made by Jehoaida the Priest: [Scripture says]: It is a guilt-offering, he is certainly guilty before the Lord,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V, 19. The first part of the text implies that it was eaten by the priest, while the latter part implies that it belonged to the Lord. How do you reconcile this? (R. Gershom.)');">²⁵</span> this includes everything which comes from the surpluses of sin-offerings and guilt-offerings, thus enjoining that burnt-offerings shall be brought with their money, the flesh to be used for the Name [of God]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To be burnt wholly on the altar.');">²⁶</span> and the skins for the priests.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus both parts of the verse are applicable.');">²⁷</span> Consequently we see that R'Simeon holds that there can be a freewill-offering [replacing a sin-offering]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why therefore does R. Ammi need to inform us that R. Simeon holds that a freewill-offering can replace a sin-offering?');">²⁸</span> - It is necessary [for R'Ammi to give us his ruling in connection with R'Simeon]. For you might think. that R'Simeon holds that there can be a freewill-offering<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the surpluses of sin-offerings and guilt-offerings.');">²⁹</span> only in one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., where one heap of coins was set aside for a sin-offering and on the lambs becoming cheap there was a surplus from the money.');">³⁰</span> row,

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Temurah 46:27. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.