תלמוד על שקלים 6:1

HALAKHAH: “Coins which are found between the sheqalim and the voluntary gifts,” etc. It would only be necessary between sheqalim and nests⁵Since Mishnah 6:7 states that the horn for nests is next to the two for sheqalim, how can coins be found between sheqalim and gifts?! They were arranged like a snail⁶Greek κοχλίας, “snail with a spiral shell”. If the horns are arranged almost in a circle, the box for new sheqalim is next to the last box for gifts. If they would be in a straight line then the box near to “nests” is that for “old sheqalim”, which are never used for sacrifices and therefore the coins found halfway should be given to “nests”.. Would it not be necessary that it be given to sheqalim⁷Since “gifts” provide private sacrifices but sheqalim public ones, the sanctity of sheqalim should be greater than that of “gifts”.? Some want to say, maybe they would remain with the excess of the lodge⁸Which are not used for sacrifices.. Some want to say, in the middle it is as if he died. ⁹This text to the end of the paragraph is from Halakhah 2:5, Notes 81–83. The origin of the text is there, since the last two sentences, about the High Priest’s flour offering, have no connection with the topic under discussion here. Rebbi Yasa said, when I still was there, I heard the voice of Rav Jehudah asking Samuel, if somebody had set his sheqel apart and died? He told him, they shall fall to the gift account. The excess of his tenth of an ephah, Rebbi Joḥanan said, one shall bring them to the Dead Sea. Rebbi Eleazar said, it shall fall to the gift account.

There⁹⁵Mishnah Šeqalim 6:8, Menaḥot13:2. The paragraph is also in Šeqalim6:6 (fol. 50b). It seems that the argument is inserted here because “rain” means second rainfall, and “logs” means at least two logs., we have stated: “If somebody says, I am taking upon me [to offer] logs, he should not bring less than two.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked: If he said, I am taking upon me [to offer] a log, does he bring one log? Rebbi Eleazar⁹⁶While all mss. have “Eliezer” both here and in Šeqalim, the name must be Eleazar since there is no known Galilean Amora called Eliezer. said, a Mishnah says that each one is a separate sacrifice, as we have stated⁹⁷Mishnah Yoma 2:5, noting that the daily afternoon sacrifice was brought to the altar by 11 Cohanim, 9 for the parts of the sheep and two holding the logs for burning. Each Cohen is reponsible for a separate sacrifice since it is written (Lev. 1:8): “The sons of Aaron, the Cohanim, should put the pieces, the head and the innards, on the logs that are burning on the altar.” However, for the morning sacrifice, it says (Lev. 6:5): “The Cohen should burn logs on [the altar] every morning;” this indicates that in the morning two logs together form one obligation. Without that difference between morning and afternoon service there never would have been a question whether one log alone could be a sacrifice.: “Two, holding in their hands two wooden logs.”

“And an urn¹⁵²Greek κάλπη. was there with two lots in it. They were of boxwood. What is “of boxwood”? Πύξινον¹⁹⁹Cf. Ketubot 7:11 (Note 177), Gen. r.15(2).. Rebbi Samuel, Rav’s brother, asked: If they were lost, must the replacement be made from gold²⁰⁰After ben Gamla made the lots of gold, may the replacement be made of boxwood as it was originally or must any future replacement be made of gold?
No R. Samuel, Rav’s brother, is otherwise known in talmudic literature. One may conjecture that the name is a scribal error for R. Samuel, R. Berekhiah’s brother.? It shall come following “one increases in holiness but does not decrease²⁰¹Mishnah Šeqalim 6:6..”