He then brings the incense and desacralizes it by transferring its sanctity onto the money. The Temple treasurers then give the incense to the artisans as their wages. Finally, they buy back the incense with the funds from the new collection, as taught in the mishna. That money that was used to desacralize the incense, which is now consecrated, what should be done with it? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: I say that it should be given to the house of Garmu and to the house of Avtinas, who were experts in the preparation of the incense and in the production of the shewbread. The producers of the incense and the shewbread receive their payment from the collection of the Temple treasury chamber. Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said: And this is true only when the treasury owes them money from work done previously, but it should not be given to them as advance payment for work they will do in the future, as the wages for work they do from the month of Nisan and on should come from the collection of the new year. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ba asked: If the Temple treasury did not owe these artisans money from work done previously, what would be done with the money? Rabbi Ba came and said in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya, who said in the name of Rabbi Yosei: The treasury uses the money to buy offerings with which they replete the altar. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ba accepted this answer. Rabbi Ba bar Kohen asked in the presence of Rabbi Yosei: Is the opinion of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ba reversed? There, at first, he needed clarification with regard to this question, and here it is obvious to him that one may use the money to pay for the repletion of the altar. The answer to the question was given by Rabbi Ba in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya, and that same Rabbi Ḥiyya asked the question. The Gemara explains: That about which he needed clarification is whether the money used to desacralize the incense may be used to purchase sacred vessels. That which was obvious to him is that the money may be used to buy offerings for the repletion of the altar.

Rabbi Ḥiyya's initial dilemma with regard to purchasing sacred vessels with the money used to desacralize incense reflects his indecision concerning the dispute about which two amora'im disagreed: If one prepared incense in a non-sacred vessel, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: It is disqualified for use in the Temple, as incense must be consecrated by being placed in a sacred vessel. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: It is valid for use, as there is no requirement that incense be placed in a sacred vessel during its preparation. According to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, all incense is sacred on the level of a sacred vessel. Consequently, the money exchanged for it will have the same level of sanctity, and it can be used to purchase sacred vessels. However, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, it is possible to have prepared incense that has not yet been placed in a sacred vessel. The money exchanged for such incense may not be used to purchase sanctified vessels, as it does not have the appropriate level of sanctity. What is the source for the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina? The verse states about incense: "It is holy" (see Exodus 30:37). This teaches that its creation, i.e., its preparation, must take place in a sacred vessel, so that it has elevated sanctified status from its inception. What is the source for the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi? "It is holy," meaning that it must come from the collection of the Temple treasury chamber, i.e., from the public and not from an individual. However, once it is purchased from communal funds, it may be prepared even in a non-sacred vessel. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Bun, said: The opinion of Rabbi Yosei ben Ḥanina goes in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. And the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan. As we learned in a mishna (Shekalim 12a): There is a tannaitic disagreement concerning one who consecrates all of his possessions, and among them there are items that are suitable for use as communal offerings. Rabbi Yoḥanan identified the possession the mishna is referring to and said: Incense. Apparently, he maintained that it is possible for one to be in possession of incense that has not yet been consecrated. Therefore, he must also maintain that incense that was prepared in a non-sacred vessel is valid for use, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. Rabbi Hoshaya said: The mishna should be explained as referring specifically to an artisan of the house of Avtinas, who would receive incense as his wages. The incense was prepared in a sacred vessel, but it could come into his possession after being desacralized. And the opinion of Rabbi Yosei ben Ḥanina is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, as Rav Huna said in the name of Shmuel: With regard to the mortar, within which they crushed the ingredients of the incense, the Sages considered it like a sacred vessel with regard to its ability to bestow an elevated, consecrated status upon its contents. Apparently, Shmuel holds that the incense must be prepared in a sacred vessel. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Bun, said: Rabbi Ḥuna said this halakha of Shmuel in the presence of Rabbi Yosei and asked: May an item that was sanctified in a sacred vessel be redeemed? Since placing an item in a sacred vessel elevates its sanctity, ordinarily it would not be possible to transfer its sanctity onto money. Yet Shmuel insists that the incense be prepared in a sacred vessel, and the leftover incense was desacralized by transferring its sanctity onto money. Rabbi Yosei said to him: Isn't that precisely the opinion of Shmuel? As Shmuel said: This is a leniency with regard to leftover communal offerings, including incense. They can, in fact, be desacralized, despite their elevated level of sanctity. The Gemara cites the source of Shmuel's opinion: The amora'im disagreed with regard to unblemished lambs that had been set aside for the daily offerings and remained unused at the end of the year. They may not be sacrificed in the coming year, as they were not purchased with funds collected for that year. Shmuel said: Although in general one may redeem such animals only after they develop a blemish, in this case they may be redeemed even as unblemished animals. The Temple treasury could then purchase them anew from the newly collected funds, rendering them suitable as offerings for the new year. The same holds true for remaining incense; it too may be desacralized in a more lenient manner. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Although they are animals remaining from the previous year, they still must be redeemed in the regular manner, like any other consecrated animals that have been disqualified. One must wait until they develop a blemish; only at that point may they be redeemed. The Gemara raises a similar issue: If goats that were set aside for communal sin-offerings were left over at the end of the year, according to Shmuel they may be redeemed in their unblemished state. If a burnt-offering may be redeemed unblemished, all the more so it should be permitted to redeem an animal set aside as a sin-offering. With regard to an animal set aside for a burnt-offering, if it was not redeemed in its unblemished state, but became blemished and was subsequently redeemed, the funds used for its redemption would go to purchase another burnt-offering for the repletion of the altar. The value set aside as burnt-offering thus would remain dedicated to that purpose. In the parallel case of a sin-offering, the funds used to redeem a blemished leftover communal sin-offering did not go to the purchase of a new sin-offering but to the purchase of a burnt-offering for the repletion of the altar as well. Since the animal's sanctification as a sin-offering is effectively nullified in any case, it is easier in such a case to be lenient and permit the redemption of the animal even before it has become blemished. Rabbi Ze'eira said in accordance with Rabbi Yoḥanan's opinion: Even in the case of leftover communal sin-offerings, the animals must graze until they develop a blemish; only then may they be redeemed. The funds used to redeem the animals became sanctified and were allocated for the purchase of burnt-offerings for the repletion of the altar. Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said: They, i.e., the leftover sin-offerings, are themselves used as burnt offerings to replete the altar without being redeemed. The Gemara asks: But this is difficult: Is there a sin-offering that may be brought as a burnt-offering? Rabbi Yosei said: This case is different, as it is dealing with a communal offering; communal offerings are designated as a particular type of offering only with their slaughter, and not when they are consecrated in the first place. Rabbi Ḥiyya offers a different explanation and says: It is a condition of the court, which stipulates with regard to remaining animals that even if they have been set aside as communal sin-offerings they may be sacrificed as burnt offerings.