MISHNAH: Thirteen horns¹The “horns” were chests for the money given to the Temple for various reasons, as detailed in Mishnah 7. A person putting money into one of the chests could not put his hand into it, he had to let the coins drop in from the top. were in the Temple, and it was written on them: New sheqalim, and old sheqalim, nests¹³⁴Obligatory purification or reparation offerings, as prescribed in Lev. In all cases, two birds are required, one as purification and one as elevation offering, following different rules., young birds for elevation sacrifices¹³⁵Voluntary offerings which may be for a single bird., wood¹³⁶A person vowing firewood for the Temple does not bring wood but the money for it., and incense, gold for the cover¹³⁷To cover the Holiest of Holies in the absence of the Ark; Mishnah 4:4., and six for voluntary gifts¹³⁸As explained in the Halakhah and in Tosephta 3:7.. New sheqalim for the current year, and old ones, one who did not bring the past year, gives it for the next one¹³⁹New sheqalim are given for current use; sheqalim for past years are treated directly as remainders from that year (Mishnah 4:3)..
“Nests” are turtle doves and “young birds as elevation offerings” are pigeons, all for elevation offerings, the words of Rebbi Jehudah¹⁴⁷It was explained in the preceding Halakhah that R. Jehudah cannot accept the explanation of Mishnah 7 given in Note 134, but must require that a person offering two birds to be able to partake in sancta, the woman after childbirth (Lev. 12:8), the poor person healed from skin disease (Lev. 14:22), the male healed from gonorrhea (Lev. 15:14) and the female from flux (Lev. 15:29), personally deliver the birds to the Cohen who thereby is assured that the person is alive. As a consequence, for him the money deposited for “nests” is for elevation sacrifices; the distinction from “young birds for elevation offerings” only is in the amount of money required and the kind of birds bought. Mishnah 7 was explained following the Sages in Mishnah 8.. But the Sages say, of “nests” one is a purification offering and one an elevation offering; “young birds as elevation offerings” are all elevation offerings. If one says, “I am obligated for wood logs”, he may not give less than for two logs; “incense”, he may not give less than for a fistful; “gold”, he may not give less than for a gold denar¹⁴⁸25 silver denars, or their equivalent in small change.. “Six for voluntary gifts.” What did they do with this? One buys with it elevation offerings¹⁴⁹As with any money delivered to the gift account.; the flesh is for the Eternal and the skins are for the Cohanim. This explanation did Jehoyada the High Priest explain: It is a reparation offering, repairing, a reparation offering for the Eternal¹⁵⁰Lev. 5:19.; this is the principle: Elevation offerings should be bought from anything coming¹⁵¹It is obvious that money given to the Temple for purification or reparation offerings must be used for the kind of offering specified. Money “coming from” these kinds of offerings are excess monies, not used for the obligatory offerings. Since obligatory offerings cannot be brought voluntarily, nor can monies dedicated to the Temple be returned, the excess has to be deposited in the gift account and used for elevation offerings. because of sin or reparation; the flesh is for the Eternal and the skins are for the Cohanim. It turns out that both parts of the verse are fulfilled, a reparation offering for the Eternal and reparation for the Cohanim. And it says, money for reparation offerings and money for purification offerings are not to be brought to the Eternal’s House, it shall be for the Cohanim¹⁵²2K. 12:17. The money is not for the Cohanim but the Cohanim receive the skins of the animals bought with the excess monies..

HALAKHAH: It was stated¹⁴⁰Babli Yoma55a. This paragraph is two texts in one. The Yerushalmi text is that of the scribe of the Leiden manuscript; the Babli text (Yoma55b) is reproduced in Babylonian Aramaic in B and the corrector’s text given in brackets here.: “Rebbi Jehudah said, there was no horn for nests in Jerusalem because of mix-up.¹⁴¹Tosephta 3:3.” Maybe one of them would die and it turn out that moneys of dying purification sacrifices were mixed up in them¹⁴²This is the Yerushalmi’s explanation for R. Jehudah’s statement, as noted in Yoma55b. An animal dedicated as a purification sacrifice whose owner died between dedication and sacrifice cannot be used for anything, but it has to be let to die (Mishnah Temurah4:1). Moneys dedicated for a purification sacrifice under the same circumstances have to be destroyed; in Israel this means to be thrown into the Dead Sea. R. Jehudah holds that such money mixed up with other moneys makes everything unusable and worthless.. [But did we not state] (It was stated): A woman who said, I have to bring a nest, brings the money for the nest and puts it in the horn, and eats from sancta without worry. And the Cohen does not worry that maybe moneys of dying purification sacrifices are mixed up in them¹⁴³The woman is recovering from childbirth or from flux; she may not eat sancta unless a sundown was preceded by her sacrifice. (Therefore ג reads “gets up in the morning and eats.”) The statement implies that the horn for nests was emptied several times every hour and any money deposited there immediately used for the required sacrifice. This makes R. Jehudah’s objection moot; practice follows the Mishnah.
In Babylonia, the Galilean explanation was rejected (Yoma55b); therefore, the baraita is read as a question, and an objection to R. Jehudah.
Babli Eruvin32a, Menaḥot27a.. [For what we are saying is about purification sacrifices whose owner certainly died¹⁴⁴Everybody agrees that the requirement to destroy the money is rabbinical, restricted to cases of certainty. R. Jehudah’s statement is rejected as a matter of principle.. We could say, let us choose two zuz and throw them into the River¹⁴⁵The River is the Euphrates, which here appears as Babylonian equivalent of the Dead Sea. The argument is that even in case it is known that a woman died after paying her fee into the horn and the next sacrifices of nests, could not the amount of the Temple’s charge for the nest be taken from the horn, designated as this woman’s contribution, and eliminated?, then the remainder should be permitted, but do we not say in general that Rebbi Jehudah does not accept retroactive choices¹⁴⁶It is generally agreed that a later choice can retroactively eliminate rabbinic prohibitions but not biblical ones. R. Jehudah represents a minority opinion which rejects retroactivity in all cases. Therefore the remedy proposed according to R. Jehudah cannot be applied; for the majority, whom practice follows, there is a horn for nests, but for R. Jehudah this is an impossibility.?]

¹⁵³A copy of this text, except for the last sentence, is in Shevi`it9:7, Notes 95–97. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked: If he said, I am obligated [to offer] a log, does he bring one log? Rebbi Eleazar said, a Mishnah says that each one is a separate sacrifice, as we have stated¹⁵⁴Mishnah Yoma 2:5., “two, holding in their hands two wooden logs.” This adds single logs.

¹⁵⁵The version of B and the corrector’s, derived from B, have to be understood from the parallel in the Babli Zevaḥim62a/b, which, however, can better be read as supporting the readings of the scribe of the Leiden ms. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, their width was (like an engraver’s cubit¹⁵⁶A short cubit, of five hand-breadths, based on small hands.) [in an expansive cubit¹⁵⁷A long cubit, of seven hand-breadths, based on large hands. Only two dimensions are given. In the Babli more correctly the logs were hewn as rectangular solids with a base of one cubit square and small height. A similar statement is required here by the baraita quoted at the end.], and its width (a dwarf) [an excessive] cubit. Rebbi Onias in the name of Rebbi Immi: Like scales¹⁵⁸Latin trutina, Greek τρυτάνη. Since it is specified later that the fire place on Moses’s altar was only one cubit square, the two logs put on the altar at the beginning of each day’s service had to be half a regular cubit’s height and lying strictly parallel, as are the scales on a balance.. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, because the place of the fire was only one cubit square, therefore they only could be a (dwarf) [excessive] cubit. It was stated thus¹⁵⁹Cf. Zevaḥim62a. The altar was five-by-five cubits (Ex. 27:1). This included the basis where most of the blood had to be spilled onto, a walkway at half height for the Cohen to sprinkle blood on the horns, the copper enclosure delineating the upper part. In the description given here, the place of the fire is given a full cubit; all the other items are half a cubit since there is one of them on each side. This is too much for the copper enclosure and too little for the walkway, but is possible if both together are taken to be 2 cubits. In these enumerations, very frequently “hand-breadth” means “not more than a hand-breadth” and “cubit” “more than a hand-breadth but not more than a cubit”.: One cubit the basis, one cubit the walkway, one cubit the enclosure, and one cubit the horns, and one cubit the fire place.

“Incense”, he may not give less than for a fistful. It is said here “remembrance” and it is said there, “remembrance”¹⁶⁰“Here” means the rules of voluntary flour offerings, described in Lev. Chapter 2. “There” means either the rules of the shew bread, Lev. 24:7 or that of the obligatory flour offering of the poor sinner, Lev. 5:12. In the first case, there are two rows of bread, each one with a portion of incense which at the end has to be entirely burned on the altar. In the second case, it is stressed that the entire fistful has to be burned. In both cases it can be inferred that for voluntary flour offerings, where “entire” is not mentioned, only an entire fistful is qualified.. Since “remembrance” there means a full fistful, so “remembrance” here must mean a full fistful. Since “remembrance” there means two fistfuls¹⁶¹This can apply only to the shew bread., does “remembrance” here mean two fistfuls? Rebbi La said, they inferred fistfuls only from the shew bread¹⁶²In B: From the poor sinner’s flour offering.. Since there a deficient fistful is disqualified, also here a deficient fistful is disqualified. Rebbi Yose said, the word of Rebbi Ila implies that one who volunteers a flour offering brings it according to the High Priest’s¹⁶³It seems that one refers not to a High Priest, but to a large priest, whose fistful can be enormous. Since the donor does not know which Cohen will present his offering to the altar, he must prepare for the largest possible fistful. fistful. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: even according to the owner’s fistful.

“Gold”, he may not give less than for a gold denar. Rebbi Eleazar said, only if he mentioned minting¹⁶⁴Babli Menaḥot107a.. But if he did not mention a coin he even may bring a hook.

“Six for voluntary gifts.” Ḥizqiah said, corresponding to the six clans¹⁶⁵During the week of service of a “watch” of Cohanim, each of the six workdays another clan would serve, whose members then had claim to all hides of elevation offerings of that day.
In B, the statement is ascribed to Rav, Ḥizqiah’s cousin, and fellow student of the Elder R. Hiyya, Rav’s uncle and Ḥizqiah’s father.. Bar Pedaiah said, corresponding to seven animals: bull, and calf, and he-goat, ram, and lamb, and kid goat. Samuel said, corresponding to six sacrifices: the nests of the sufferer from gonorrhea, the nests of the sufferer from flux, the nests of the new mother, purification sacrifices, and reparation sacrifices, flour offerings, and the Tenth of an Ephah¹⁶⁶This list has 7 items. The corresponding list in B has only six, but the selection in unconvincing. Probably the correct list is Tosephta 3:7: The excesses of money for 1) purification sacrifices, 2) reparation sacrifices, 3) nests of sufferers from gonorrhea or flux, 4) nests of a woman after childbirth, 5) offerings of a nazir, 6) of a healed sufferer from skin disease.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, because the gifts were many, they added many horns for it. [As it is said]¹⁶⁷This addition by the corrector, taken from B, has to be deleted, since it hides the fact that the following quote is the start of a question. The remaining additions by the corrector, while unnecessary, are not in conflict with the line of thought., when they were finished they brought before the king and Jehoyada¹⁶⁸2 Chr.24:14. The problem is that the remaining part of the verse, quoted in full in ג nd B, notes that the excess money donated for the renovation of the Temple under King Joash was used to make silver and gold vessels for the Temple, while the corresponding verse in 2K. 12:14 declares the opposite. etc. Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan [said], two voluntary gifts¹⁶⁹The two verses refer to two separate collections.. Rebbi Ismael stated, one gift. But is it not written¹⁷⁰2 Chr.24:8, while in 2K. 12:10 it is reported that the chest was deposited in the priests’ courtyard, to the right (East) of the altar., the king commanded and they made a chest and put it at the outside of the gate of the Eternal’s House. Rav Ḥuna said, because of those impure. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rav Joseph: Because of but silver cups would not be made in the Eternal’s House¹⁷¹2K. 12:14.. Things similar to silver cups would not be made in the Eternal’s House¹⁷²Either there were two different calls for gifts to the Temple, or for the same collection period there were two chests, one inside and one outside, and vessels were made only from the money which never entered the sacred domain..