Daf Ditty Shekalim 22: Shekels and Bikkurim Post Hurban

Halakha 3 · MISHNA With regard to the flesh of offerings of the most sacred order that
became impure, whether it became impure from a primary source of impurity or from a

1
secondary source of impurity, whether it became impure inside the courtyard or outside, it must
be burned. There is a dispute among the tanna’im with regard to where it is burned. Beit Shammai
say: It all should be burned inside the Temple courtyard, except for that which became impure
from a primary source of ritual impurity outside, as under such circumstances, it is not
appropriate to bring it inside the Temple. Beit Hillel say: It all should be burned outside the
Temple courtyard, except for that which became ritually impure by a secondary source of
impurity inside. In such a case the flesh need not be removed from the courtyard and is burned
there.

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.

Steinzaltz

GEMARA: The opinions in the mishna, with the exception of that of Rabbi Akiva, distinguish
between impurity conferred by a primary source and that conferred by a secondary source. The
Gemara presents a dispute as to the nature of this distinction. Bar Kappara said: The primary
source of ritual impurity mentioned in the mishna is referring to a scenario where the flesh of
the offering became impure by Torah law, and the secondary source of ritual impurity

2
mentioned in the mishna is referring to impurity by rabbinic ordinance. Rabbi Yoḥanan said:
Both this and that, both the primary and secondary sources of ritual impurity mentioned, refer to
cases of impurity by Torah law.

The Gemara asks: And there is a difficulty with Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion that arises from Beit
Shammai’s opinion in the mishna. It was taught in the mishna that Beit Shammai say: It all
should be burned inside the courtyard of the Temple, except for that which became impure
from a primary source of impurity outside. In accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan,
what is the distinction between a primary source of impurity outside and a secondary source
of impurity outside? After all, are not this and that, both the flesh that became impure from the
primary source and that which became impure from the secondary source, impure by Torah
law?

And is this not difficult even according to the opinion of Beit Hillel? As the mishna stated that
Beit Hillel said: It all should be burned outside the courtyard of the Temple, except for what
became ritually impure by a secondary source of impurity inside. In accordance with the
opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, what is the distinction between consecrated flesh that became ritually
impure from a secondary source of impurity inside and consecrated flesh that became ritually
impure from a primary source of impurity inside? Are not this and that Torah law, and
shouldn’t the principle be the same?

3
The Gemara proceeds to ignore these questions with regard to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion,
explaining that the Sages did not discuss the mishna except in accordance with the opinion of
bar Kappara. And there is also a difficulty in accordance with the opinion of bar Kappara
with the statement of Beit Shammai. For it was taught in the mishna that Beit Shammai say: It
all should be burned inside the courtyard of the Temple, except for that which became impure
from a primary source of ritual impurity outside. In accordance with the opinion of bar
Kappara, what is the distinction, with regard to flesh that became impure by a primary source of
impurity, between whether it occurred outside the Temple courtyard or inside? In accordance
with the opinion of bar Kappara, are not this and that Torah law and shouldn’t the rule be the
same? Accordingly, why distinguish between them with regard to where the flesh must be burned?

The Gemara answers: The reason that Beit Shammai distinguish between impurity that occurred
inside the Temple courtyard and that which occurred outside is because they accepted the
reasoning of Rabbi Akiva, who said in the mishna: The place of its impurity is where its
burning should occur. Beit Shammai, however, do not completely agree with Rabbi Akiva. With
regard to items that became impure by Torah law, their opinion is in accordance with the opinion
of Rabbi Akiva, meaning that the items should be burned wherever they are. However, if an item
became impure by rabbinic ordinance, Beit Shammai maintain, against the opinion of Rabbi
Akiva, that it is brought into the courtyard to be burned.

4
The Gemara continues to question the opinion of bar Kappara: And is this not difficult even
according to the opinion of Beit Hillel? As the mishna stated that Beit Hillel said: It all should
be burned outside the courtyard of the Temple, except for that which became ritually impure
by a secondary source of impurity inside. According to bar Kappara what is between, why is
there a distinction, with regard to flesh that became impure by a secondary source of impurity
between whether it occurred outside the Temple courtyard or inside? Aren’t both this and that
instances where the impurity is by rabbinic ordinance?

The Gemara answers: Beit Hillel distinguish between impurity that occurred inside the Temple
courtyard and impurity that occurred outside due to that which Rabbi Shimon said: The food
and drink of a leper is banished from all three of the camps in which the Children of Israel
lived in the desert. These are the camp of the Divine Presence, i.e., the Tabernacle; the camp of
the Levites, who were encamped around the Tabernacle; and the camp of Israel, where the rest of
the nation lived. Once food and drink has become impure through contact with a leper, it is banned
from all three camps, like the leper himself. If it became impure outside the camps, it should not
be brought inside. Beit Hillel follow the same rationale, that an item rendered impure outside, even
if by rabbinic ordinance, may not be brought into the Temple even for the purpose of burning it.

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

5
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.

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.

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.

6
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.

Steinzaltz

7
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.

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.

Summary

Rav Avrohom Adler writes:1

Burning impure sacrifice meat The Mishna cites a dispute about where one burns sacrifice meat
which became impure, whether inside or outside the Bais Hamikdash, and whether it touched a
source or a derivative of impurity.

1. Bais Shamai says that all is burned inside the Bais Hamikdash except that which became impure
outside by touching a source of impurity.

2. Bais Hillel says that all is burned outside, except that which became impure inside by touching
a derivative of impurity.

3. Rabbi Eliezer says that something that touched a source of impurity is burned outside, and
something that touched a derivative is burned inside.

4. Rabbi Akiva says that it is burned in the same place it became impure, regardless of how it
became impure. The chart below details each opinion.

1
http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Shekalim_22.pdf

8
Source vs. derivative

The Gemora cites a dispute about the definition of a source and derivative of impurity. Bar Kapara
says that a source means impurity from the Torah, while a derivative is Rabbinic. Rabbi Yochanan
says that both impurities are from the Torah. The Gemora says that Bais Shamai's position about
something that became impure outside is a challenge to Rabbi Yochanan, as there would seem to
be no reason to distinguish between something impure from a source or something impure from a
derivative. Bais Hillel's position about something that became impure inside is a similar challenge.
The sages only debated Bar Kapara's position.

They asked how he can explain Bais Shamai's distinguishing between whether something that
touched a source of impurity was inside or outside. If a source causes Torah impurity, it should
have the same rule regardless of where it became impure. The Gemora answers that this can be
explained by Rabbi Akiva's principle that something impure is burned in the same place where it
became impure. Bais Shamai accept that principle, but only for something that touched a source
of impurity.

They also asked how he can explain Bais Hillel's distinguishing between whether something that
touched a derivative of impurity was inside or outside, if both are Rabbinic impurity. The Gemora
answers that this follows Rabbi Shimon who says that any impurity must be sent out of the
courtyard of the Bais Hamikdash, even a metzora's food and drink. Therefore, even though it only
became Rabbinically impure, if it is outside, it may not be brought in.

9
Placement of the limbs on the altar

The Mishna says that limbs of the tamid offering were placed on the lower half of the altar's ramp,
on the western side, those of the musaf offering were placed on the lower half, on the eastern side,
and those of Rosh Chodesh were placed on the karkov on top.

Consecration nowadays

The obligation to contribute the half shekel and bring bikurim – first fruit only apply when the
Bais Hamikdash is standing, but ma'aser of produce, ma'aser of animals, and the sanctity of first-
born animals apply regardless. If one consecrates a shekel or bikurim nowadays, it is nonetheless
sanctified, but Rabbi Shimon says that bikurim are not.

Karkov

The Gemora explains that the karkov refers to the amah wide path around the perimeter of the
surface of the altar, where the kohanim could walk around the pyres.

Shabbos and Rosh Chodesh

The Gemora asks which musaf comes first when Rosh Chodesh coincides with Shabbos. Rabbi
Yirmiya thought that Rosh Chodesh would come first, since the braisa says that the Rosh Chodesh
song was sung by the Levi’im before the Shabbos one.

Rabbi Yosse challenged this argument, since Rabbi Chiya quoted Rabbi Yochanan explaining that
the order of the songs was to publicize to all that it was Rosh Chodesh. Rather, Rabbi Yosse
explains that they would first sing the Rosh Chodesh song, but they would first be offering the
Shabbos musaf, following the general rule that something more frequent takes precedence.

Rules about consecrating nowadays

The Gemora infers from Rabbi Shimon's dispute only on the case of bikurim that he agrees that if
one consecrates shekalim nowadays, it is sanctified. The Gemora cites a differing braisa in which
Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda cites Rabbi Shimon saying that neither are sanctified.

The Gemora cites a braisa which says that when a non-Jew converts nowadays must designate a
1/4 dinar for the bird sacrifices which he must bring, even though he cannot actually offer them.
Rabbi Shimon says that Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakai annulled this rule, to prevent people from
accidentally benefiting from this consecrated money.

The Gemora cites a similar braisa which says that one may not consecrate, pledge of value
something or donate an item to the Bais Hamikdash nowadays, lest someone come to benefit from
them. If one did any of these, the items must be destroyed. If it is clothing, it must be burned, if it
is animal, it must be locked up and starved to death, and if it is money, it must be thrown to the

10
Dead sea. The Gemora asks what happens if a convert nonetheless designated money nowadays,
and answers that from the fact that Rabbi Yochanan had to annul this rule to prevent someone from
incorrectly benefiting, we see that it is sanctified.

Rabbi Yehuda Intordraya asked Rabbi Yossi why we say that the money designated by the convert
is sanctified, but Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda in the braisa quotes Rabbi Shimon saying that
shekalim designated nowadays are not sanctified. He answered that one should not donate
shekalim nowadays since the correct way to use shekalim is to separate new money each year, and
the current shekalim will inherently be old ones. Therefore, even if one did donate them, they are
not sanctified, since they are not being done in the correct manner.

However, there is no similar requirement that an individual's sacrifice be new, and therefore the
convert's consecration is being done correctly. Even if he would leave the shekalim in place to be
used for sacrifices, perhaps the Bais Hamikdash will be built on the first of Nissan, making all
earlier shekalim old and unusable for the sacrifices.

Rav Hamnuna and Rav Ada bar Ahava quote Rav who rules like Rabbi Shimon's opinion in the
Mishna, that bikurim nowadays are not sanctified, but shekalim are.

BURNING "TAMEI" MEAT INSIDE THE AZARAH

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:2

Beis Hillel rules that the meat of Kodshei Kodashim that became Tamei must be burned outside the
Azarah. If, however, it became Tamei with Velad ha'Tum'ah while it was inside the Azarah, it may be
burned inside the Azarah. The Gemara quotes Bar Kapara who explains that this Velad ha'Tum'ah
refers to Tum'ah d'Rabanan.

The Gemara challenges Bar Kapara's opinion. According to Bar Kapara's opinion, Beis Hillel should
not differentiate between an object that became Tamei inside the Azarah and one that became Tamei
outside the Azarah. If Velad ha'Tum'ah is a Tum'ah d'Rabanan, then even if the object became Tamei
with Velad ha'Tum'ah outside the Azarah, one should be permitted to bring it back into the Azarah
(and burn it there). The Gemara answers that, according to Bar Kapara, Beis Hillel follows the opinion
of Rebbi Shimon who says that the food of a Metzora must be kept out of the Beis ha'Mikdash (and
out of all three Machanos). Similarly, meat that is Tamei must be sent out of the Beis ha'Mikdash.

If Beis Hillel follows the opinion of Rebbi Shimon, then even if the meat became Tamei with Velad
ha'Tum'ah inside the Azarah, one should be required to send it out of the Azarah. Why is he permitted
to burn it inside the Azarah?

(a) RABEINU MESHULAM and the VILNA GA'ON (as explained by the TIKLIN
CHADTIN) explain that Rebbi Shimon does not mean that the food of a Metzora must be sent
out of the Beis ha'Mikdash. Rather, he means that if it is already out, then it must be kept out.

2
https://www.dafyomi.co.il/shekalim/insites/sk-dt-022.htm

11
 If, however, it is in the Azarah, it does not have to be removed. That is why Beis Hillel
differentiates between meat that became Tamei inside the Azarah and meat that became Tamei
outside the Azarah, according to Bar Kapara who says that it became Tamei with a Velad
ha'Tum'ah.

This implies that if the meat became Tamei with an Av ha'Tum'ah, it must be sent out of the Azarah.
If the food of a Metzora may remain in the Azarah, why must Tamei meat be removed from the Azarah?
Apparently, the requirement to send it out of the Azarah is only a stringency enacted by the Rabanan
due to the severity of the Tum'ah, a Tum'ah d'Oraisa.

(b) RABEINU SHLOMO SIRILIYO explains that Rebbi Shimon stated his ruling only with regard
to the food of a Metzora. Rebbi Shimon derives from the verse, "His dwelling place shall be outside of
the Machaneh" (Vayikra 13:46), that not only must the Metzora himself stay outside of the Machaneh,
but the Metzora's food also must remain outside of the Machaneh. A person's food is called his
"dwelling place" (as the Gemara says in Eruvin 73a).
If the meat becomes Tamei with Velad ha'Tum'ah while it is outside the Azarah, it must remain outside
the Azarah because of this law of the food of a Metzora. Even though the Gemara's case here discusses
meat of Kodshim (and not food of a Metzora), the Rabanan decreed that the meat not be brought into
the Azarah lest people confuse it with the food of a Metzora (both are burned due to their Tum'ah) and
bring the food of a Metzora into the Azarah. However, when the meat becomes Tamei while inside the
Azarah, no one will think that is the food of a Metzora, because there is no way that a Metzora could
have brought his food into Yerushalayim.

In This Day and Age

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:3

The final Mishna in Massekhet Shekalim returns to the rules of the shekalim, and specifically to
their status in contemporary times when the Mikdash is no longer standing. Incidentally it also
touches on some other halakhot that are dependent on the holiness of the Land of Israel and how
they are to be kept in the absence of the Temple.

Since the purpose of the shekalim is to pay for communal sacrifices, there really is no reason to
continue contributing them as long as the Temple is in a state of destruction. The Mishna rules
that shekalim and bikkurim are no longer brought. Nevertheless, if someone sets them aside for
those purposes, they become kodesh (consecrated). Since they cannot be used for their designated
purpose, the bikkurim must be left to rot and the shekalim should be destroyed. Rabbi
Shimon rules that bikkurim cannot be made in our day and age, since they cannot possibly be
brought to the Mikdash as is required by the Torah (see Devarim 26:2).

3
https://steinsaltz.org/daf/shekalim22/

12
The Mishna teaches about a number of other halakhot that apply whether or not the Temple is
standing. Ma’aser dagan and ma’aser behema (tithes of grains and animals) as well as the rules
of bekhor (first born) apply today even without the Mikdash.

Ma’aser dagan are the tithes that are separated from grains and given to the kohen and the levi.
Ma’aser behema is the obligation to set aside one of every ten newly born animals
(see Vayikra 27:32).

Bekhor is the rule obligating that the first-born animal be given to the kohen (see Shemot 13:1-
13 and Bamidbar 18:15-18).

While the obligation of bekhor stems from the fact that there is inherent holiness to the firstborn
animal, ma’aser behema derives from its connection and similarity to ma’aser dagan. The
Bartenura explains that the rules of ma’aser dagan still apply because the holiness attained by the
Land of Israel during the second Temple period remains, even when the Temple is no longer
standing.

Rachel Scheinerman writes:4

And just like that, three weeks after we began, we have arrived at the last page of
Tractate Shekalim.

This tractate has been exceptional in many respects. Until now, we were studying
the Babylonian Talmud, but this tractate was originally composed for the Jerusalem
Talmud and, in keeping with the style of that Talmud, is far more laconic than other
texts we have studied.

We are still in the second order of the Talmud (called Moed), the section dealing
with holidays, but in this tractate we found ourselves discussing a very different
matter — the collection of the half-shekel Temple tax and the general bureaucratic
procedures necessary for keeping God’s house in good working order.

Before this tractate, we had mostly seen the rabbis wrestle with matters we think of
as “religious,” but the concerns of this tractate seem far more “secular.” (The truth
is, the rabbis did not draw a distinction between religious and secular law as we do
in the present day.)

4
Myjewishlearning.com

13
All of which can make this little tractate seem completely archaic — with no obvious
connection to contemporary Jewish practice. After all, we don’t have a Temple, so
we don’t set aside the half shekel tax — right?

Right! On the last page of the tractate, we receive this confirmation. In most of the
Talmud, we find the rabbis thinking, teaching, arguing about the Temple as if it were
still standing. But of course, the Temple was not standing. It had been destroyed in
70 C.E. and a disastrous attempt at bringing about its return, the Bar Kochba Revolt,
had only made reconstruction seem more remote. Yet the rabbis did not give
up hope.

As we close this chapter, we see one of those rare rabbinic discussions that
acknowledges the present, Temple-free reality of the rabbis. It begins with a
mishnah:

The obligations to give a half shekel to the Temple and bring first fruits are
practiced only in the presence of a Temple, though the obligations of grain
tithes, animal tithes and sanctification of firstborn animals take place whether
or not there is a Temple.

However, if (in the present day with no Temple) one does set aside a half shekel
or first fruits, these are consecrated. Rabbi Shimon says: This does not apply to
first fruits (even if set aside, they are not consecrated).

Without a Temple, the rabbis reason, Jews are not obligated to set aside a half shekel
each year. The Gemara discusses what happens if one accidentally does so anyway:
the half shekel is thrown into the Dead Sea — a super salty abyss that will ensure no
one can accidentally benefit from the sacred funds that now belong to God. Likewise
with other items consecrated in the absence of a Temple. Accidentally consecrated
clothing is burned. An accidentally consecrated animal is destroyed: it is closed in
its stall and allowed to starve to death. Please, everyone, do not accidentally
consecrate your animals.

There is also a view that maybe the consecration of shekels in the absence of a
Temple is simply invalid — it doesn’t work. The Gemara reasons this might likewise
apply to a quarter dinar of silver that a new convert might consecrate in order to
purchase a pair of doves for an offering. But then again, maybe that quarter dinar of
silver is consecrated after all because, as we read in one of the last lines in this
tractate:

14
Perhaps the Temple will be rebuilt as at first.

What they clearly mean is that perhaps the Temple will be rebuilt in the lifetime of
that convert. As Jews now still say in the traditional daily prayers, they hoped it
might be rebuilt “speedily in our own day.”

Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:5

As our study of Massechet Shekalim draws to a close, the final lines of Shekalim (22b) refer to the
fact that the Mishkan was first erected in the month of Nissan.

Significantly, during the time-period of the Torah, the months did not actually have names. Instead,
they were simply numbered with the first month being the month when Bnei Yisrael left Egypt
(Shemot 12:1). This meant that each time a date is mentioned in the Torah, it reminds the reader
of Yetziat Mitzrayim (see Ramban’s commentary on Shemot 12:1). Thus we read that ‘in the first
month of the second year [of the Exodus], on the first of the month, the Mishkan was erected’
(Shemot 40:17).

Then, when discussing the building of the First Beit HaMikdash, we are told that ‘in the 480th
year after Bnei Yisrael left Mitzrayim, in the month of Ziv - that is, the second month - in the
fourth year of his reign over Israel, Shlomo began to build the House of the Lord’ (Melachim I
6:1).

In this verse, reference is made to the number of years from Yetziat Mitzrayim, while the name
‘Ziv’ also makes its first appearance in association with this second month (which we now refer
to as the month of Iyar). But, as R’ Alex Israel asks in his ‘I Kings: Torn in Two’ (pp. 82-83), why,
at this point, did Shlomo Hamelech abandon the number system of the months and create new
names?’. To this he suggests that, ‘these new Jewish names reflect Solomon’s perspective on his
era, closing the chapter of the Exodus and opening a new era of a strong nation-state and a stable
monarchy… The Temple represents the culmination of the process of the Exodus; new names
indicate a fresh historical frontier, [and] Solomon’s ambitious reframing of the months of the
year…reflects his anticipation of a new national epoch’.

Interestingly, it was also in the second month that the building of the Second Beit HaMikdash
began (see Ezra 3:8). However, by this point, new names (eg. Nissan, Iyar etc.) which ‘came up
with us from Babylon’ (Yerushalmi, Rosh Hashanah 1:2) had been assigned to the months. As the
Ramban (ibid.) explains while quoting from Yirmiyah 16:14-15 and 23:7-8, this is because, having
experienced exile, a new national epoch and a new frame of reference was added to our calendar
whereby, ‘it will no longer be said, “As Hashem lives, Who took the Children of Israel up from
the land of Egypt,” but rather, “As Hashem lives, Who took up and brought back the Children of
Israel from the land of the North.” What this means is that whenever we refer to the name of a
month, it reminds us of our return from exile to rebuild the Second Beit HaMikdash.

5
www.johnnysolomon.com

15
As mentioned, today’s daf (Shekalim 22a) raises the question whether the future (3rd) Beit
HaMikdash will begin to be built in Nissan like the Mishkan. However, based on what I have
explained, an equally likely – and perhaps even more likely - suggestion is that the foundation for
the future Temple will spring from events occurring in Iyar.

Today we don’t yet have a 3rd Beit HaMikdash. However, 73 years ago, on the 5th of Iyar, a new
national epoch began, and though we continue to use the names of the months which ‘came up
with us from Babylon’, this new national epoch reflects a period where it will no longer be said,
“As Hashem lives, Who took up and brought back the Children of Israel from the land of the
North”, but “As Hashem lives, Who took up and brought back the Children of Israel from the four
corners of the earth.” And what is the currency of Israel in this new epoch? The New Shekel!
Mazal Tov to all those who have completed their study of Massechet Shekalim!

The name of the Massechta, ‫ שקלים‬,is in the plural. This is noteworthy, especially in consideration
of the mitzvah, which is for each person to donate one-half of a shekel. We note that using the
letter transformation system of ‫ ש”ב ת”א‬, the word ‫ שקל‬becomes ‫ כ”בד‬,which has the numerical
value of 26, the same as that of the Name of God. As we find ourselves in exile from our land and
without our Beis HaMikdash, the Name of God is not perceived in its fullest sense. We
acknowledge this by donating half-shekel coins, symbolizing how the “26” is currently not
complete, and to atone for our actions which have resulted in this diminution of the Name.

With the arrival of Mashicah, Hashem will be One and His Name will be One. The mitzvah will
then be for each person to donate a full shekel, as the Torah itself declares (Ex 30:13): “The half-
shekel will be with a holy shekel.” (See Rashi there.) The Torah is hereby hinting that in the future
the donation will be with a full amount, and not a fraction.

Furthermore, the words ‫ הקדש בשקל‬is numerically equal to 839, precisely the same as the words
‫ דוד בן משיח בביאת‬, alluding to the future time when we will donate a full shekel, rather than just a
half-shekel. Parashas for ‫ יוצרות‬the that notes ‫רבי יהודה אדאד זצ”ל‬Shekalim proclaims that we hope
to contribute a full shekel when the Beis HaMikdash is rebuilt: ‫ ונשא נכון בית אשא ושקל‬Here, again,
we must ask, why do we plan to give a full shekel, and not just a half, as is the mitzvah? Every
person by himself, without his fellow Jew, is only half of a person.

Whether it be for Torah or in mundane affairs, no one can function without the assistance of others.
In the days to come, the words of the prophet will come to life, where we find (Isa 11:9): “And the
land will be filled with knowledge of Hashem,” and no one will be dependent upon others. With
the coming of Mashiach, we will also merit to see the fulfillment of (ibid. 36:16): “Each man will
reside under his vineyard and under his fig tree,” which also alludes to this condition of direct
connection to Hashem. This is why the prayer anticipates our contributing a full shekel at that time,
symbolizing that our service of Hashem will not be lacking.

16
The laws of Shekalim and Bikurim apply only when there is a Beis ha'Mikdash, as opposed to
the laws of Ma'aser for produce and animals, and the laws of Bechor, which apply even when
there is no Beis ha'Mikdash.

Tisha B'Av and the Churban Through the Prism of the Mishnah

Ephraim Diamond writes:6

A brief perusal of Shisha Sidre Mishna highlights the intense focus and interest the Tannaim
had with the Beis HaMikdash. Few, but for the earliest Tannaim, lived during the existence of the
Second Temple and the immediate aftermath of its destruction. Yet, its memory loomed large, and
its rituals captured their imagination. The Mishna recounts in detail the rules, laws, rituals and
procedures of the Temple's daily life and sacrificial rites. It expounds on the beauty and
measurements of its physical structure and boundaries. The precise movements of the Priests and
other functionaries are listed with utmost care. Most importantly, the people's (Hamon Am)
relationship, physical* and spiritual, to this sacred space are noted and debated.*^

Less obvious, however, was the impact and effect the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash had on
the sages and the people at large. It was considerable but not insurmountable. Astute and wise
Sages--such as Rabi Yochanan ben Zakkai** and Rabban Gamliel-- did yeoman's job realigning
the nation's focus towards a new, post-destruction era.

As men of law, we would expect, and indeed it was the case, that the destruction manifested itself
in the adoption of new and altered laws and ceremonies. Torah learning and congregational
worship achieved elevated prominence, fealty to Halacha took precedence alongside a renewed
focus on purity laws. Nonetheless, it was imperative for continuity's sake and to orient the future,
that historical practice be retained and memorialized when possible.*** Indeed, the bulk of the
Mishanyos dealing with the Churban approach it from a purely legal perspective--but at times in
surprising and unique ways.

With this in mind, it is possible to identify four categories of Mishnayos dealing with the Churban.
First, are those Mishnayos describing the destruction itself and detailing the laws specific to Tisha
B'av, the most stringent and mournful of the Fast Days commemorating the destruction. Second,
because the destruction was perceived to have wrought cosmic change upon the world--we find a
number of Mishnayos detailing the cataclysmic changes to the natural world. Third, are Mishnayos
listing those Mitzvos that either remain applicable after the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash or
whose applicability ceased as a result. Finally, the destruction is used as an inflection point to
modify continuing Halachik practice.

6
https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/74389.2?lang=he&with=all&lang2=he

17
This last category can be broken down into a number of sub-categories. First, as a time reference,
demarcating the change from historical practice during the era of the Beis HaMikdash to new,
changing practices post-destruction. Second, to preserve historical practice, current practice was
expanded so as to encapsulate, incorporate and mimic the temple practice. Third, in the absence of
the Beis HaMikdash and the need to be bound by its protocols, there was some leeway to alter the
rigidity of certain practices. Finally, in part to imbue the nation with a sense of anticipation for the
imminent rebuilding of the Temple and to ensure that upon its rebuilding people would not
inadvertently violate Temple era prohibition, certain practices and rituals were circumscribed.

* The evidence from the Mishnah would suggest, in line with Pharisaic notions of expansive access
to the Mikdash, that the masses, at times, were allowed to enter the hallowed spaces. See, e.g., M.
Sukkah 4:5 and Chagigah 3:8. For a broad discussion on the contours of this relationship, see Toras
HaZar B'Mikdash, edited by Yosef Shimon Presser (Modiin Ilit 5778) Chapter 4, esp. notes 10 and
117.

*^ Detailed discussion of the proprietary sacrificial rites can be found in Seder Kodshim while the
daily ritual itinerary and spatial dimensions of the Beis HaMikdash can be found specifically in
the collections contained in Mesechtos Tamid and Middos. Other, smaller compendiums
including, the third chapter of Bikkurim, the fifth chapters of both Pesachim and Shekalim, large
portions of Mesechtas Yoma, various Mishnayos in Sukkah, Rosh HaShana, Chagigah and Sotah
discuss specific rituals or functions of the Beis Hamikdash. Most often, these Mishnayos can be
identified by their being anonymous and without dispute. On the nature and structure of Mesechtos
Tamid see Amnon Dokow, Mesechtas Tamid and the Eighth Day of the Inauguration, Nituim Vol
20 pp. 7-31 (Hebrew); Louis Ginzberg, Tamid: The Oldest Treatise of the Mishnah, Journal of
Jewish Lore and Philosophy, Vol.1:1 pp.33-44, Vol. 1:2 pp. 197-209 and Vol. 1:3/4 pp. 265-295
and Meir Bar-Ilan, Are Tamid and Middoth Polemical Tractates?, Sidra Vo. 2989 pp. 27-40
(Hebrew)

**A more fulsome description of RYBZ's activities and his various ordinances is forthcoming.
Recent studies include, Lau, The Sages, Vol. 2; Safrai, Mishnat Eretz Yisroel: Rosh HaShanah,
appendix 1; G. Alon, N'siaso Shel Rabban Yochanan Ben Zakkai, in Mechakrim B'Toldos Yisroel,
(Tel Aviv 5717-5718) (Hebrew); S. Zeitlin, The Takkanot of Rabban Jochanan ben Zakkai, J.Q.R.
Vol. 54:4 (1964) pp. 288-310; J. Neusner, In the Quest of the Historical Rabban Yohanan Ben
Zakkai, H.T.R. Vol. 59 (1966) pp. 391-413 and Studies on the Taqqanot of Yavneh, H.T.R. Vol
63:2 (1973) pp. 183-198; Amram Tropper, Yohanan Ben Zakkai, Amicus Caesaris: A Jewish Hero
in Rabbinic Eyes, Jewish Studies: An Internet Journal, Vol. 4 (2005) available here. See also, G.
Alon, Toldos HaYehudim B'Eretz Yisrael B'Tekufas HaMishna v'Hatalmud, Kibbutz HaM'uchad
1967 (4th Ed.) Vol. 1.

*** For a discussion on various theological responses to the destruction and its contemporary
application, see J. Klawans, Josephus, the Rabbis and Responses to Catastrophes Ancient and
Modern, J.Q.R. Vol. 100:2 (2010) pp 278-309. Baruch Bokser, based in part on mPe'ah 1:1, argues
that, at least from the Mishnah's perspective, the Chachomim made efforts to elide the distinction
between pre and post destruction practice--and merely made efforts to remind the nation that extra-
Temple or extrasacrifical rites exist and have equal meaning. B. Bokser, Rabbinic Responses to
Catastrophe: From Continuity to Discontinuity, Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish

18
Research, Vol 50 (1983) pp. 37-61. See also, R' Prof. A. Walfish, Yimei Tzom V'Yamim Tovim
L'Yisroel: Iyun B'Mishnah Taanis Perek 4 (and email correspondence with this author) noting
other Mishnayos that intermingle both Mikdash and non Mikdash rituals and practices together "in
order to indicate that certain aspects of the spiritual provenance of the Mikdash can (and have)
been extrapolated to realms and practices that take place elsewhere."

Mitzvos Tied to the Existence of the Beis HaMikdash

The observance of any number of Mitzvos may be restricted by time, person and place. Shabbos
and Holidays are fixed in the calendar, certain commandments, for instance, may only be
performed by a Kohein, while other may only be performed while in Eretz Yisroel.

Starting with the Tabernacle (Mishkan), the sacrificial rite (Korbanos) was centralized with minor
exceptions (see Mishnah Megillah 1:11 and Zevachim 14:4-8).* Therefore, it is not surprising that
upon the Temple's destruction, the sacrificial rite came to a halt.** In fact, as noted above, one of
the events giving rise to the fast on the 17th of Tamuz was the abolition and cessation of the daily
Tamid sacrifice.

The absence of sacrifices brought about an existential and theological disconnect for many as they
could no longer seek and receive forgiveness (communal and personal) for their sins by bringing
Korbonos. The Bavli (Megillah 31b) already notes a tradition infusing the recitation of the biblical
passages relating to the Korbonos as having similar religious power as the actual sacrifices.
Nevertheless, the Jews yearned for the reinstatement of sacrifices, and much of the established
Teffilos make reference to, or pray for, such an outcome.

In addition to Korbanos, the Mishnah identifies a number of other Mitzvos that, in the absence of
the Beis HaMikdash, can no longer be fulfilled. The Mishnah/ our daf in Shekalim (8:8) mentions
two, Shekalim and Bikkurim. Shekalim is obvious given that, according to the Chachomim, the
entire purpose of contributing the half-shekel to the public fisc was to ensure the general public's
participation and, more importantly, representation in the public Korbanos. Therefore, with no
Beis Hamikdash and Korbanos, there is no longer a need to contribute the half-shekel.

The second Mitzvah is Bikkurim, the obligation to bring the first fruits up to the Beis HaMikdash
and, after reading the Torah portion related to Bikkurim, leaving them behind for consumption by
the Kohanim. Again, in the absence of the Beis HaMikdash this Mitzvah could no longer be
performed.***

Finally, there are a number of Mishnayos that highlight that a particular Mitzvah is applicable
regardless of the presence of the Beis HaMikdash.**** Their connection to the Beis HaMikdash
is not immediately obvious, although they can be grouped into Mitzvos pertaining to either the
non-ritual slaughtering of animals and animal-related gifts to the Kohein. Given the Beis
HaMikdash's focus on animal sacrifice perhaps these Mishnayos are simply reminding you that
these Mitzvos are independent of the Beis HaMikdash.

19
* The Mishnah makes note of an "auxiliary" temple in Egypt but its use was not countenanced by
the Chachomim (See Mishnah Menachos 13:10). Its widespread use is well documented in other
sources, including Josephus. In TB Megillah 10a, Rav Yitzchok reports that he heard that the
sacrificial cult was alive and well in Beis Choniav. Tosfos (ad. loc. s.v. Sh'mati) goes so far to
suggest that, similar to the actual Beis HaMikdash, some of the purity laws were relaxed at this
temple as well.

** There is a thread in the Mishnayos suggesting that Korbanos can be brought even in the absence
of the Beis HaMikdash (See below, Mishnah Eduyos 8:6), but it is unclear whether the Tana is
stating a practical reality or simply the theoretical possibility. Further, it may be that the Tana is
referencing the period after the Babylonian exile when the Jews first began to rebuild the temple-
-i.e., allowing the bringing of Korbanos while the Temple was being built. See e.g., Sha'arei Toras
Bavel, R' Zev Wolf Rabinovich (edited by E. Melamed, Jerusalem 5721) pp 190 commenting on
this Mishnah). The implications of this Mishnah have been much discussed in present times
regarding the re-institution of Korbanos. See generally, R' Shlomo Yosef Zevin, Hamoadim
B'Halachah (Hebrew) pp 363-364 and references there. For a survey of responsa literature on this
topic see, R' Yisroel Schepansky, Eretz Yisroel in the Responsa Literature, Vol. 3, Chapter 8, pp.
308-343 (Hebrew) (Jerusalem 1978).

Specifically with respect to the Korban Pesach, there is ample evidence suggesting that despite the
absence of the Beis HaMikdash many continued the observance of this Korban. See Mishnah
Pesachim 7:2 and 10:4 and Beitza 2:7. Whether they did so in a formal, sacrificial way or simply
as a remembrance of historical practice remains an open question.

*** See also, Bikkurim 2:3. Although the Mishnah in Bikkurim (2:2) seemingly equates Bikkurim
and Ma'aser Sheini in that they both need to be brought to the Beis HaMikdash and Yerushalyim,
respectively, as noted in our Mishnah (and Bikkurim 2:3) and as shown below, the obligation to
set aside Ma'aser Sheini did not cease with the destruction of Yerushalyim. At most, its
consumption was merely curtailed.

**** See generally:

1. Bikkurim 2:3 (Terumah and Ma'aser Sheini)

2. The series of Mishnayos in Chullin that begin the following Perakim:

• 5th (prohibition of killing both a mother and child animal on the same day),
• 6th (laws of covering the blood of fowl and wild animals),
• 7th (prohibition of consuming the sciatic nerve),
• 10th (gifting of certain animal parts, even from non-sacrificial animals to the Koehin),
• 11th (first shearings of fleece must be given to the Kohein) and
• 12th (Sending away the mother bird prior to taking its eggs)

Bechorot 9:1 (animal tithes) (This Mishnah seems to be from the same compendium of
Mishnayos as those in Chullin). The Bavli (TB Bechoros 53a) already notes that there was
a decree in place to forbid the practice of Ma'aser B'heima in later generations.

20
 Part II: Cosmic Changes
The Beis HaMikdash was the epicenter of the nation. It was from here that holiness radiated
throughout the land and the further removed you were, the less its spiritual impact. (See Mishnayos
Keylim 1:6-9).* In fact, being on just the other side of the Temple's doorstep was seen by some
Ta'anim as being too far away from the Temple. (See Mishnah Pesachim 9:2). Therefore, not
surprisingly, the Chachomim viewed the destruction of the Second Temple as an inflection point
in the history of the Jewish Nation. Time would forever be demarcated as being either pre or post
destruction.** In addition to the legal ramifications affected by the destruction, the Chachomim
perceived a change in the natural order of the world. This effected both nature and the people
themselves. In the absence of the Beis HaMikdash, senses were dulled, nature was impaired,
peoples' capacity for spiritual growth was limited and goodness itself was overridden by more
sinister elements.

The following two Mishnayos, Sotah 9:12 and 9:15 set forth some of these changes. Mishnah
Sotah 9:13 lists a number of other changes that occurred once the people stopped observing ritual
purity and the tithing obligations. While seemingly also tied to the destruction of the Temple, they
aren't explicitly tied to that event and may have happened at a later date (see, e.g., M. Ma'aser
Sheini 4:2 indicating that agricultural gifts continue past the destruction.).

* As part of a discussion of M. Keilim 1:6, many ask why our Mishnah, in addition to the Omer,
Shtei HaLechem and Bikkurim, does not list the many other Mitzvos HaTiluyos B'Aretz, such as
Teruma, Challah and Ma'asros. Rav Yosef Dov Solovechik has a novel understanding of these
Mishnayos, refocusing our attention from the land to the Beis HaMikdash. He suggests that the
ten levels of holiness are not merely steps on a ladder of Holiness; rather, they are concentric
circles of holiness, all emanating from a central source, the Beis HaMikdash. The "Temple
Holiness" that Eretz Yisroel has is that certain Korbonos (and Bikkurim) are brought to the Beis
HaMikdash. Hence, because it is not about the holiness of the land per se, all other Mitzvos
HaTeluyos are irrelevant from this perspective and are not listed. (See Nefesh HaRav, pp. 76 and
Shiurei HaRav on Mesches Challah, Hilchos Terumah, Perek 1 Halacha 5, pp. 131). See also, R'
Menachem Zemba, (Kuntros Otzar HaSifri, Ois Aleph) differentiating between ‫קדושת הארץ וקדושת‬
‫המקדש‬.

** See e.g., Mishnah Gittin 8:5, where the Mishnah prohibits dating a Get to the
building/destruction of the Temple. Nonetheless, you can infer that it was common practice to date
documents to these events. Finally, the Mishnah in Nazir 5:4, in discussing when a person can
nullify his Nazir status based on a change in circumstance, uses the example of a Nazir not knowing
that the Beis HaMikdash was destroyed (and hence, his inability to fulfill his post-Nazir rituals).

The Essential Nature of Bikkurim

21
Rav Moshe Taragin writes:7

Even though Shavuot is known to us as "zeman matan Torateinu," the day on which we received
the Torah, this aspect is omitted in the Biblical description of the holiday. Most of the mitzvot
which the Torah actually prescribes for Shavuot are communal mitzvot relating to the various
sacrificial offerings (shetei ha-lechem, shenei ha-kevasim), as well as the generic holiday mitzvot
of pilgrimage, joy, and chagiga offerings. There is one specific mitzva which begins on Shavuot
and is alluded to by the Torah: "chag ha-katzir BIKUREI ma'asekha" (the festival of harvest of the
first and best fruits). From this description, the gemara assigns Shavuot as the period in which
bikkurim (first fruits) first may be brought to the Mikdash. This shiur will investigate the essential
nature of bikkurim and, particularly, its relationship to the world of korbanot (sacrifices).

At first glance, we might easily associate bikkurim with the realm of matanot kehuna, priestly
gifts. Like teruma and ma'aser, bikkurim are composed of agricultural produce, selected through a
process known as hafrasha, can be eaten only by Kohanim, and lastly, permit the eating of the
remainder of the produce. (Before bikkurim are selected, the entire produce is known as tevel -
prohibited to eat.) In fact, both the mishnayot and the Rambam insert the laws of bikkurim in the
section dealing with Zera'im (agricultural laws), which also contains the laws of teruma, ma'aser,
etc.

If anything, bikkurim seems very similar to ma'aser sheni (the tithe of produce separated on years
1,2,4,5 of the shemitta cycle and transported to Yerushalayim). The second chapter of Mishna
Bikkurim details the respective similarities between bikkurim and teruma, on the one hand, and
between bikkurim and ma'aser sheni, on the other. This corroborates our suspicion that indeed
bikkurim is comparable to priestly gifts given from agricultural produce.

Amidst this list of similarities to teruma and ma'aser sheni, the mishnayot list several UNIQUE
traits of bikkurim which neither teruma nor ma'aser sheni possesses:

1) Unlike the others, bikkurim can be designated (and, according to the simple reading of
the mishna, should be designated) while the fruits are still growing on the trees or from the
ground. Indeed, the mishna (3:1) cites the opinion of Rabbi Shimon that a second selection
should be performed upon harvesting. However, most Rishonim rule against Rabbi Shimon,

7
https://www.etzion.org.il/en/essential-nature-bikkurim

22
instead following the ruling of the Tanna Kama, that it suffices to designate the fruits while
they are still growing. Teruma and ma'aser MUST be designated after the fruits have been
harvested and partially processed.

2) If a person selects bikkurim and they are stolen or lost, he must replace them, unlike
terumot and ma'aser, which do not have to be replaced if lost.

3) Bikkurim are offered along with a korban shelamim (peace offering) - something absent
from teruma or ma'aser.

4) The Levi'im would sing while the bikkurim were offered (see Bikkurim 3:4).

5) The owner and the Kohen performed tenufa - the ceremony of lifting and waving - with
bikkurim. The gemara in Makkot derives the mitzva of tenufa from a linguistic comparison
to korban shelamim.

To be sure, the Yerushalmi and the Rishonim cite sources for each of these additional halakhot,
and these differences can be accommodated without fundamentally distinguishing between
bikkurim and teruma. However, these halakhot and ceremonies of bikkurim are eerily reminiscent
of another mitzva - that of korbanot. Korbanot are selected while still alive, in many cases must be
replaced if lost or destroyed after selection, are accompanied by the singing of the Levi'im during
the sacrifice, and are waved in the ceremony of tenufa.

In fact, one final halakha - which the mishna did not cite - casts this association between bikkurim
and korban in even sharper relief. Indeed, ma'aser sheni is transported to Yerushalayim, but it
doesn't have to be delivered to the Mikdash (Temple). Bikkurim, like korbanot, have to be carried
to the Mikdash, where they are delivered to the Kohen after several ceremonies which are highly
evocative of korbanot.

Can we define bikkurim as a pseudo-korban? Stated otherwise, do we view bikkurim as a hybrid

of matanot kehuna and korbanot? The aforementioned list is certainly suggestive of this, but we
should attempt to locate additional halakhot in order to confirm this suspicion.

23
An interesting issue arises regarding the cancellation of bikkurim in the absence of a Mikdash. The
mishna (2:4) claims that unlike terumot and ma'aser, which apply even without a Beit Ha-Mikdash,
the mitzva of bikkurim is only obligatory in the presence of the Mikdash. This in itself might
indicate the status of bikkurim as korban, but could just as easily be imputed to unrelated factors.
The Rishonim differ as to the source of this limitation of bikkurim. The Rambam and many other
Rishonim cite the verses in Shemot (23:19, 34:26) that the bikkurim should be brought to the
"house of God." The Rivan, in his explanation to the mishna in Shekalim, cites a Sifri which
derives this exemption from another source:

"He should place the bikkurim near the altar" - only during times in which there exists an
altar.

Certainly, the latter source strongly establishes bikkurim as a type of korban which must be offered
on or near the altar.

It should be noted that these two sources are essentially different and certainly don't overlap.
Unlike korbanot, which according to many require only an altar and not a Mikdash, bikkurim
might require both.8

The final mishna in the third chapter of Bikkurim describes the manner of distributing the bikkurim
among Kohanim. Rabbi Yehuda demands that bikkurim be given only to knowledgeable Kohanim,
to insure that they be treated in the appropriate halakhic manner. The bikkurim can be given to any
Kohen who is proficient in the laws of tum'a and tahara (impurity and purity). The Chakhamim
(Sages) argue with Rabbi Yehuda on two accounts. The bikkurim must be evenly distributed
among the Kohanim serving on call in the Mikdash during the week in which one delivers them -
known as the Kohanim of the mishmar. Within this group, any Kohen - even less knowledgeable
ones - may receive bikkurim. The reason which the Chakhamim offer to justify both their claims
is that bikkurim are "just like sacrifices offered on the altar."

If we read this statement literally, we might conclude that Rabbi Yehuda and the Chakhamim argue
over whether bikkurim possess the status of korban. By recognizing this feature, the Chakhamim
are able to demand distribution to the serving group of Kohanim (akin to korban) but allow any
Kohen to partake (again similar to korbanot, which are treated with greater vigilance and therefore

8
See the Ramban [Makkot 19] as to whether bikkurim can be offered if the altar is standing without a Mikdash.

24
unlikely to be abused). Rabbi Yehuda might reject this concept and allow transfer to non-serving
Kohanim, as well as limiting distribution to vigilant ones.

It might be possible to recognize this issue in a fundamental dispute among Tannaim regarding the
ceremony of the bikkurim. The gemara (Makkot 18b) cites a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and
the Chakhamim as to whether the act of placing the bikkurim near the altar is a necessary condition
for the mitzva's fulfillment, such that its non-performance would invalidate the mitzva. According
to Rabbi Yehuda, one can fulfill bikkurim without actually performing hanacha (placing near the
altar), while the Chakhamim demand it.

If there is any part of the bikkurim ceremony that is most similar to korban, it would clearly have
to be the hanacha. The gemara (Makkot 19a) distinguishes between bikkurim and bekhor (the first-
born animal brought to Mikdash and sacrificed), on the one hand, and ma'aser sheni, on the other
hand, by demonstrating that the former miztvot each possesses an element reto altar - in the case
of bekhor the actual sacrifice and in the case of bikkurim the hanacha near the altar. Wouldn't the
Chakhamim's insistence upon the necessity of hanacha indicate their belief that bikkurim contains
features of korban? In fact, this dispute might be consistent with the aforementioned debate
between Rabbi Yehuda and the Chakhamim at the end of the third chapter of Bikkurim regarding
the manner of distribution.

The Yerushalmi (Bikkurim 1:2) cites an additional law that might stem from bikkurim's similarity
to korban. Items which themselves were avoda zara (idols) or which were used in such worship
are forbidden to use. Once they are canceled from being avoda zara, pleasure can be derived from
them. Though they are now permissible for general purposes, they still cannot play any part in a
korban, since they are ma'us (disgusting) because of their past, and korbanot deserve a higher
grade. According to the Yerushalmi, fruit from a tree which was ONCE avoda zara but was since
canceled cannot be part of the bikkurim selection.

This korban-like ruling once again confirms the status of bikkurim as a korban. Interestingly, the
Yerushalmi links this issue to the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Chakhamim cited earlier
regarding the distribution of bikkurim. The Chakhamim, maintaining the status of bikkurim as
korban, would not allow fruits of a tree formerly worshiped as an idol to be used as bikkurim.
Rabbi Yehuda might not accept this designation, and would allow canceled avoda zara to be used
for bikkurim.

25
An additional gemara (Avoda Zara 51a-b) might highlight bikkurim's status as korban. Items
which are placed upon avoda zara for embellishment are forbidden to use; if they are placed in a
belittling manner (hanging ordinary items), they are permitted to use. This distinction applies to
general items. If the hung items happen to be substances which are offered on the altar, they are
forbidden regardless of the manner or purpose in which they were hung. Among the "sacrificial"
items listed are wreaths of grapes. The Rishonim question the classification of bikkurim as
sacrificial items and justify this designation only because grapes can be offered as bikkurim (see
the Ramban's commentary to Avoda Zara). Once again, we notice the korban dimension within
bikkurim.

The Ramban in particular often adopts this association. The verse in Bemidbar (5:8) describes a
type of teruma which is "sacrificed to the Kohen." The Sifri asks, "Is teruma actually sacrificed?"
It must be referring to bikkurim, which are brought to the Mikdash and "sacrificed." In his
commentary to the verse, the Ramban elaborates that the Sifri understood the term "yakrivu"
literally, as referring to the sacrificial procedure, and not figuratively (in the sense of bringing
close). Hence, it could refer only to bikkurim, which are actually brought to the vicinity of the altar
(hagasha) and waved (tenufa). As such, the Ramban continues, the bikkurim belong to the Kohen
who actually presided over the ceremony.9

In his commentary to Devarim 26:2, the Ramban claims that one who brings bikkurim to another
location outside of Mikdash has violated a prohibition similar to shechutei chutz - sacrificing an
animal outside of the Mikdash. Indeed, we might question whether this violation is identical to the
one governing korbanot. The very existence of this prohibition, according to the Ramban, once
again indicates the Ramban's willingness to view a korban component within bikkurim.

Methodological Points:

9
Note - several verses in the Torah suggest that the Kohanim who actually performed the korban receive its relevant parts. The

gemara interprets this to mean that the serving mishmar equally divides the korban. Recall the mishna in Bikkurim (3:11) citing

Rabbi Yehuda, who considers bikkurim "sacred items of the altar" and limits distribution to the Kohanim of the mishmar.

26
1) Often a halakha or mitzva exhibits similarities to several different categories. By inspecting the laws, these
similarities can be proven to reflect authentic associations with multiple categories.

2) Sources for particular laws can often be indicative of their nature. Deriving the limitation of bikkurim to
Mikdash from different verses might affect the nature of this limitation.

The Nahem Controversy: A Brief Summary

Shlomo Brody writes:10

10
http://text.rcarabbis.org/the-nahem-controversy-a-brief-summary-by-shlomo-brody/

27
Particularly since the Six-Day War, there has been an ongoing discussion within Israel
regarding the propriety of stating the Nahem prayer during Mincha of Tisha Be’av.

Why do Jews continue to commemorate Tisha Be’av if Jewish sovereignty has been restored
to Jerusalem?

The 9th of Av (Tisha Be’av) fast day is the bookend of a three-week mourning period that also
begins with a fast on the 17th of Tamuz. Amongst other tragedies, the primary events attributed to
these dates relate to the loss of political sovereignty and the destruction of the Temples (Ta’anit
4:6). The rites of mourning include refraining from festive celebrations, haircuts and shaving, and
consuming meat.

With the return to political autonomy in 1948, and particularly after the unification of Jerusalem
in 1967, some began to question whether such mourning remained appropriate. Based on
Zechariah’s prophecy (8:19), the Sages believed that when peace returns to Israel, the minor fast
days – including the 17th of Tamuz, 10th of Tevet, and fast of Gedaliah – will become holidays
(Rosh Hashanah 18b). Some commentators minimally defined the requisite conditions as the
removal of Gentile rule over the Jewish people (Rashi). Others asserted that the days will become
festivals only with the rebuilding of the Temple (Ritva). The Talmud further asserted that if the
Jewish people found themselves under the non-violent rule of Gentiles, these fast days would be
optional, even as Tisha Be’av would remain obligatory because of the gravity of the day’s
tragedies.

Following the reunification of Jerusalem, the Masorti movement made these fast days optional,
while a group of Orthodox academics shared a le’chaim together at the Western Wall on the 17th of
Tamuz! The Orthodox rabbinate, however, has universally affirmed the continued necessity of the
fast (Machatzit Ha-Shekel 550:1), contending that after centuries of observance, the community
accepted upon themselves this fast as binding until the rebuilding of the Temple (as affirmed
already in medieval times – see Tshuvot Geonim Sha’arei Teshuva 77). Greater dispensations,
however, are issued for pregnant and nursing women and the minorly ill.

As Dr. Yael Levine has documented (Techumin 21), some questioned whether the new political
reality mandated a change to the recitation of “Nahem” (“Comfort Us), the special Tisha Be’av
insertion into the Amidah mourning the destruction of Jerusalem. Originating in the Jerusalem
Talmud (Brachot 4:3), the text and time of its recitation has evolved over the centuries, including
the substitution of its opening word, “Rachem” (requesting compassion). Today, Ashkenazim
recite it exclusively in the afternoon Amidah, while many Sephardim recite it in each prayer, with
minor textual discrepancies between their versions.

The prayer describes Jerusalem as a “city that is in sorrow, laid waste, scorned and desolate,”
destroyed and conquered by because foreign armies and idolaters. In August 1967, then-IDF Chief
Rabbi Shlomo Goren altered the text in the IDF prayerbook to reflect the new reality. Basing
himself on historical textual variants, he removed the depictions of a Jerusalem “scorned and
desolate” while “sitting in mourning like a barren childless woman.”

28
The non-Orthodox movements adopted the more comprehensive changes of Prof. Epharim
Urbach, who altered the text to a plea for compassion (rachem) for Jerusalem “which is being
rebuilt upon its ruins, restored upon its ravage, and resettled upon its desolation.” It also included
a reference to those who died in the Holocaust and in Israel’s wars, as did the alternate version
penned by Rabbi Abraham Rosenfeld, who further included a plea for vengeance and the
ingathering of Jews back to Zion. Netanya’s Chief Rabbi David Shloush changed the bulk of the
text to refer exclusively to the lack of religious worship on the Temple Mount (Chemdah
Genuzah 21).

Most Orthodox scholars did not accept these changes, for various reasons. While refusing to
condemn those who recited alternative texts, Rabbis Tzvi Y. Kook and Shaul Yisraeli believed
that such changes were not appropriate as long as the Temple remained destroyed. Similar
sentiments were added by Chief Rabbis Isser Unterman and Ovadiah Yosef (Yechaveh
Da’at 1:43), who further noted the continued presence of non-Jewish worship on the Temple
Mount and Israel’s general spiritual depravity. Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik added his general
opposition to ritual emendations, particularly with regard to prayers (Masorah 7). Indicative of
this trend was Soncino Press’ decision to remove Rabbi Rosenfeld’s alternative version after it
purchased the rights to his Tisha Be’av prayerbook used in many Diaspora synagogues.

Proponents of the emendation retorted that this prayer’s text has always had fluidity, allowing for
certain alterations, especially if the crucial concluding blessing formula remains intact. They also
contended that a failure to change the text made our prayers dishonest, while further insinuating
that the opposition stems from polemical concerns for appearing like Reform movement
innovations.

The most modest proposal was offered by Tel Aviv Chief Rabbi Hayyim D. Halevi (Aseh Lecha
Rav 2:36), who suggested merely amending the depiction of Jerusalem to past tense (“was in
sorrow”). While seconded by Rabbi Shear Y. Hacohen, this change has not received popular
acceptance, leaving the prayer’s ultimate fate for a future era.

29