from communal funds and not from any one individual. If one were to volunteer his services, he would acquire the grain for himself by guarding it and transporting it to the Temple. In that case, these offerings would have come from an individual. So that the offerings come solely from communal funds, the guards must receive payment from the half-shekels removed from the chamber.

GEMARA: The mishna mentions a dispute about whether an individual may volunteer his services and guard the grain to be used for the omer and the two loaves. This dispute depends on whether something owned or donated by an individual may be brought as a communal offering. With regard to this issue, the Gemara cites a baraita related to a mishna (Ta'anit 26a). The mishna lists days on which special offerings were brought, including wood donated on a regular basis by particular families for use on the altar. This time period was referred to as the time of the wood of the priests and of the nation. It was taught in a baraita: Why was the time of the wood of the priests and of the nation fit to be counted in the mishna when any individual may donate wood at any time? What makes these families and these times unique? The baraita explains: Rather, at the time that the Jewish people ascended from the Babylonian exile and returned to Eretz Yisrael with Ezra, they did not find wood in the Temple chamber of wood for the altar, due to a lack of funds in the Temple treasury. And these families took the initiative and donated wood from their own property and gave it to the community; and they offered communal offerings with it. And the prophets among them stipulated with them that, in the future, even if the chamber were full of wood, if these families took the initiative and donated wood from their own property, the offerings would be brought using only theirs first. Consequently, the baraita indicates that communal offerings may come from individual funds. Rabbi Aḥa said: This baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as Rabbi Yosei says: One who so desires may even volunteer his services and guard the grain as an unpaid bailee. However, according to the opinion of the Rabbis, which maintains that one may not donate his services, an individual may not donate the wood for the pyre on the altar. Rabbi Yosei, an amora, said in the name of Rabbi Ila: That baraita is a statement accepted by all. If so, with regard to what do the Rabbis and Rabbi Yosei, the tanna, disagree? With regard to the offering itself. However, with regard to items that merely facilitate an offering, everyone agrees that an individual offering may be changed to a communal offering, i.e., that an individual may donate items that facilitate the sacrifice of a communal offering. The Gemara raises a similar issue. It was taught in a baraita: In the case of a woman who made a tunic, one of the priestly vestments, for her son to wear while he serves in the Temple, the tunic is valid. However, since the priestly vestments must come from communal funds, the priest may use his mother's tunic in the Temple only provided that she completely transfers ownership of the tunic to the community. Rabbi Aḥa said: This baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as Rabbi Yosei says: One who so desires may donate even his services and guard the grain as an unpaid watchman. Rabbi Yosei, an amora, said in the name of Rabbi Ila: That baraita is a statement accepted by all. If so, with regard to what do the Rabbis and Rabbi Yosei disagree? With regard to the offering itself. However, with regard to items that merely facilitate an offering, everyone agrees that an individual offering may be changed to a communal offering. A baraita disagrees with Rabbi Aḥa's explanation of the dispute between Rabbi Yosei and the Rabbis: Those days of family celebrations, on the occasion of donating wood for the altar, are observed both during the time when one can bring an offering, i.e., when the Temple stands, and during the time when no offering can be brought, i.e., when there is no Temple; nevertheless the family still holds a celebration on those dates. Rabbi Yosei says: They are observed only during the time of offering. This baraita demonstrates that even the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yosei, admit that individuals can donate wood for the pyre, which is why they celebrated this event during the time of the Temple. The Gemara cites an additional source with regard to this topic, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok, said: We were among the descendants of Senaah, son of the tribe of Benjamin, a family that donated wood to the Temple on the tenth of Av. And one year, the Ninth of Av occurred on Shabbat, and we postponed the fast until the conclusion of Shabbat, in accordance with the halakha. And we fasted but did not complete the fast, due to our family celebration. Apparently, the family continued to commemorate the offering of wood even after the destruction of the Temple, as there was no fast of the Ninth of Av while the Temple stood. Had the original donation of wood been only for individual offerings, the celebration of that donation would not have continued after the destruction of the Temple. Therefore, this baraita indicates that Rabbi Ila's understanding is correct, and even the Rabbis agree that with regard to items that facilitate an offering, an individual offering may be changed into a communal offering.

§ The mishna teaches that the collection of the Temple treasury was used to purchase the necessary items for the omer, and the two loaves, and the shewbread, and all communal offerings, as well as for the salary of those guarding the sefiḥin. We learned in a mishna there (Menaḥot 83b): All the grain for individual and communal offerings may come both from Eretz Yisrael and from outside of Eretz Yisrael. It may come both from new grain that grew after the offering of the omer the previous year and from old grain, except for the omer itself and the two loaves, which may come only from new grain and from Eretz Yisrael. Rav Ḥuna said in the name of Rabbi Yirmeya: The mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, as Rabbi Yishmael says: The omer may not come from Syria or any other location outside of Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara cites a similar discussion. We learned in a mishna there (Kelim 1:6): There are ten levels of sanctity. Eretz Yisrael is more sanctified than all other lands. And through what halakha is its sanctity expressed? It is evident in the halakha that they must bring from it the omer, the first fruits, and the two loaves, which may not be brought from the produce of any other lands. Rabbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rabbi Yirmeya: This mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, as Rabbi Yishmael said: The omer may not come from Syria or any other location outside of Eretz Yisrael. Similarly, we learned elsewhere in a mishna (Shevi'it 1:4) that Rabbi Yishmael says that the verse "In plowing time and in harvest you shall rest" (Exodus 34:21) is not referring to the prohibition against farming the land during the Sabbatical Year, as the Rabbis explain. Rather, it is referring to the prohibition against performing labor on Shabbat. The reason that the verse mentions these two particular forms of labor is to teach that just as the plowing that is prohibited on Shabbat is an otherwise voluntary act, as plowing is never required by the Torah, so too, the harvesting that is prohibited on Shabbat is voluntary. The harvesting of the omer is excluded from the prohibition, as it is a mitzva. The barley for the omer must be harvested on the sixteenth of Nisan, even if it occurs on Shabbat. Rabbi Yishmael is consistent with his own opinion in this matter, as it is Rabbi Yishmael who said: The omer may not come from Syria or any other location outside of Eretz Yisrael. This is consistent with his opinion stated elsewhere, as he said: The harvesting of the omer is excluded from the prohibition on Shabbat, as it is a mitzva. Since Rabbi Yishmael requires that the omer come from Eretz Yisrael, it must be permitted to harvest it during the Sabbatical Year, despite the fact that harvesting is generally prohibited during the Sabbatical Year. This is consistent with Rabbi Yishmael's opinion that the omer is excluded from the category of prohibited labor on Shabbat because harvesting it is a mitzva; the same holds true for the Sabbatical Year as well. The Gemara asks with regard to the mishna: Who is the tanna who taught: The guards of sefiḥin during the Sabbatical Year collect their wages from the collection of the Temple treasury chamber? It is Rabbi Yishmael. It is apparent from the mishna that the omer must come from Eretz Yisrael; otherwise, there would be no need to hire guards to ensure that there be barley available to use, as it could be imported from outside Eretz Yisrael. Rabbi Yosei said: The mishna is a statement accepted by all, even by those who hold that the omer may be brought from outside of Eretz Yisrael. According to this opinion, if they could not find barley in Syria or anywhere else outside of Eretz Yisrael, they would bring the omer from sefiḥin that were in Eretz Yisrael. Therefore, the guards were still necessary. Since it is permitted to harvest the omer even during the Sabbatical Year, the Gemara asks: With regard to that omer, if it becomes clear that there are no sefiḥin in a particular Sabbatical Year, what is the halakha concerning planting it ab initio? When Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Adda heard this question, he asked, in the presence of Rabbi Mana: In general, a handful of a meal-offering is burned on the altar, and the remainder of the meal-offering may be eaten by the priests. If the remainder may not be eaten by the priests, the entire offering is invalid. In the case under discussion, if one were to plant barley during the Sabbatical Year, would it not be comparable to the case of a handful of a meal-offering whose remainder may not be eaten, as it is prohibited to eat produce that is planted during the Sabbatical Year? Rabbi Mana said to him: The omer is nonetheless valid, as it becomes like the five offerings that may be brought in a state of ritual impurity but may not be eaten in a state of impurity. There is a mishna in tractate Pesaḥim (76b) that lists five communal offerings that are offered in a state of impurity under certain circumstances; however, they may not be eaten in a state of impurity. Similarly, the omer that is brought from barley that was planted during the Sabbatical Year is valid, despite the fact that after the handful is burned on the altar, the remainder of the meal mixture may not be eaten.

§ The Gemara asks: How does the treasurer do this, i.e., pay the salaries to the guards and harvesters from the chamber collection? The money in the Temple treasury is consecrated property, and consecrated property may be desacralized only through redemption (Arakhin 33a). The Gemara answers: He takes money from the money changer and gives that money as payment to the harvesters and to the guards before the omer is offered. Once the time for offering the omer arrives, he brings money from the collection of the Temple treasury chamber and desacralizes it by transferring its sanctity onto the barley that is to be used for the omer. This money now becomes unconsecrated and is used to repay the money changer. The Gemara asks: Is this acceptable? The monetary value of the omer, which is used to desacralize the funds, is far less than the amount paid to the harvesters and guards. The Gemara answers. Rabbi Aḥa said in the name of Rabbi Ba: Whatever the treasurer gives them as payment is considered to be its monetary value from the beginning of the process, even if the barley is worth considerably less on the open market. On a similar note, it was taught in a baraita: It is even so with regard to stoneworkers, who hew stones from mountains and cut them for use in the Temple. They too receive their salary from the Temple treasury. How does the treasurer do this? He takes money as a loan from a money changer and gives it as payment to the ledgemen and to the stonecutters before the stone is placed on the row [dimos] that is being built. Once it is placed on the row, he brings money from the collection of the chamber and desacralizes it onto the stones. In this way, the stones become consecrated and the money becomes unconsecrated. That money is then used to repay the money changer. The Gemara asks: Is this acceptable? The workers are paid for all their labor, yet some of the stones become broken and unfit for use. Therefore, the amount of money spent by the treasury is more than the actual value of the stones placed on the structure of the Temple. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Bun, said in the name of Shmuel: Whatever the treasurer gives them as payment is considered to be the monetary value of the stones from the beginning. The value of the stones that are used includes the value of the stones that broke during the process.