Previous Folio / Kethuboth Directory / Tractate List / Navigate Site
Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Kethuboth
The one1 is a positive precept and the other2 is also a positive precept. but the positive precept of shewing respect for the Torah2 must take precedence. He, therefore, postponed3 the orphans' case and brought up that man's suit. When the other party4 noticed the honour he was shewing him5 he remained speechless.6 [Until that happened] Elijah7 was a frequent visitor of R. Anan whom he was teaching the Order of Elijah.8 but as soon as he9 acted in the manner described10 [Elijah] stayed away. He9 Spent his time11 in fasting, and in prayers for [God's] mercy, [until Elijah] came to him again; but when he appeared he greatly frightened him. Thereupon he12 made a box [for himself] and in it he sat before him until he concluded his Order with him. And this is [the reason] why people speak of the Seder Eliyyahu Rabbah and the Seder Eliyyahu Zuta.13
In the days14 of R. Joseph there was a famine.15 Said the Rabbis to R. Joseph, 'Will the Master offer prayers for [heavenly] mercy'? He replied, 'If Elisha, with whom, when the [main body of] Rabbis had departed, there still remained two thousand and two hundred Rabbis,16 did not offer up any prayers for mercy in a time of famine,15 should I [at such a time venture to] offer prayers for mercy? But whence is it inferred that so many remained? — [From Scripture] where it is written, And his servant said: How should I set this before a hundred men.?17 Now what is meant by [the expression.] 'Before a hundred men'? If it be suggested that all18 [was to be set] before the hundred men [one might well object that] in years of famine [all this] is rather a large quantity. Consequently it must be concluded19 that each [loaf was set] before a hundred men.20
When the [main body of] Rabbis departed from the school of Rab there still remained behind one thousand and two hundred Rabbis; [when they departed] from the school of R. Huna there remained behind eight hundred Rabbis. R. Huna when delivering his discourses [was assisted] by thirteen interpreters.21 When the Rabbis stood up after R. Huna's discourses22 and shook out their garments the dust rose [so high] that it obscured the [light of] day, and people in Palestine23 said, 'They have risen after the discourses of R. Huna the Babylonian' — When [the main body of] Rabbis departed from the schools of Rabbah and R. Joseph there remained four hundred Rabbis and they described themselves as orphans. When [the main body of] Rabbis departed from the school of Abaye (others say, From the school of R. Papa, while still others say, From the school of R. Ashi) there remained two hundred Rabbis, and these described themselves as orphans of the orphans.
R. Isaac b. Radifa said in the name of R. Ammi: The inspectors of [animal] blemishes24 in Jerusalem received their wages from the Temple funds.25 Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: The learned men who taught the priests the laws of ritual slaughter received their fees from the Temple funds.25 R. Giddal said in the name of Rab: The learned men who taught the priests the rules of kemizah26 received their fees from the Temple funds.25 Rabbah b. Bar Hana said in the name of R. Johanan: Book readers27 in Jerusalem received their fees from the Temple funds.28
R. Nahman said: Rab stated that the women who wove the [Temple] curtains received their wages from the Temple funds25 but I maintain [that they received them] from the sums consecrated for Temple repairs, since the curtains were a substitute for builder's work.
An objection was raised: The women who wove the [Temple] curtains, and the house of Garmo29 [who were in charge] of the preparation of the shewbread,30 and the house of Abtinas29 [who were in charge] of the preparation of the incense,31 received their wages from the Temple funds!32 — There33 [it may be replied] the reference is [to the curtains] of the gates;34 for R. Zera related in the name of Rab: There were thirteen curtains in the second Temple, seven corresponding to the seven gates,35 one for the entrance to the Hekal,36 one for the entrance to the 'Ulam,36 two37 [at the entrance] to the Debir36 and two [above them and] corresponding to them in the upper storey.38
Our Rabbis taught: The women who brought up their children for the [services of the red] heifer,39 received their wages from the Temple funds. Abba Saul said: The notable40 women of Jerusalem fed them and maintained them.
R. Huna enquired of Rab:
May vessels of ministry1 be procured2 with the offerings consecrated to Temple repair? Are these [a part of] the equipment3 of the altar and were, therefore,4 purchased5 with the offerings consecrated to Temple repair, or are they rather among the requirements of the sacrifices and were, therefore, procured6 with the Temple funds? — 'They'. the other7 replied, 'may be procured2 with the Temple funds only'.
He raised an objection against him; And when they had made an end, they brought the rest of the money8 before the King and Jehoiada,9 whereof were made vessels for the house of the Lord, even vessels wherewith to minister10 etc. — The other11 replied: He that taught you the Hagiographa did not teach you the Prophets: But there were not made for the hose of the Lord cups12 etc. for they gave that to them that did the work.13 But if so, is there not a contradiction between the two Scriptural texts? — There is really no contradiction. The former is a case14 where after the collections were made [for Temple repair] there remained a balance,15 while the latter14 is a case where no balance remained.16 But even if there was a balance after the Collection had been made, what of it?17 R. Abbahu replied: Beth din make a mental18 Stipulation that if they19 be required they should be utilized for their original purpose20 and that if [they would] not [be required] they should be [spent] on vessels of ministry.
A Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael taught: Vessels of ministry were provided21 from the Temple funds; for it is said in Scriptures The rest of the money,22 now what funds shewed a balance?23 Obviously24 the Temple funds.25 But might it not be suggested that only the balance itself [could be spent on the vessels of ministry]?26 — As Raba said,27 The burnt-offering28 implies the first burnt-offering,29 so must the money30 imply the first money.31
An objection was raised: The incense and all congregational sacrifices were provided32 from the Temple funds; the golden altar,33 the frankincense34 and the vessels of ministry were provided from the residue of the drink-offerings;35 the altar for the burnt-offerings,36 the chambers and the courts were provided from the funds that were dedicated for Temple repair, [and whatever was situated] outside the court walls37 was provided out of the surplus of the Temple funds;38 and it is this that [explains what] we learned: The city wall and its towers and all other requirements of the city were provided from the surplus of the Temple funds?39 — This [point40 is in fact a question at issue between] Tannaim. For we learned: What were they doing41 with the surplus of the offerings [for the Temple funds]?42 Beaten gold [plates that served as] a covering for [the walls and floor]43 of the Holy of Holies. R. Ishmael said: The surplus of the fruit44 [was spent on the purchase of sacrifices] for the dry season45 of the altar, while the surplus of the offerings [for the Temple funds] was spent upon vessels of ministry. R. Akiba said: The surplus of the offerings [for the Temple funds was spent on sacrifices] for the dry season of the altar while the surplus of the drink-offerings35 was used for [the purchase of] the vessels of ministry. R. Hanina, the deputy High Priest, said: The surplus of the drink-offerings [was spent on sacrifices] for the dry season of the altar, while the surplus of the offerings [for the Temple funds was spent] on vessels of ministry. And neither the one nor the other46 admitted that [there ever was a surplus] in the [proceeds of the] fruit.47
What is [meant by] 'fruit'?48 — It was taught: What were they doing with the surplus of the offering [to the Temple funds]?49 They bought fruit at a low price and sold it at a higher price, and with the profits sacrifices were purchased for the dry season of the altar; and it is this that [explains what] we learned: The surplus of the fruits was spent on sacrifices for the dry season of the altar.
What is meant by 'neither the one nor the other admitted that [there ever was a surplus] in [proceeds of the] fruit'?50 — [The following of] which we learned: What were they doing with the surplus51 of the Temple funds? They purchased therewith wines, oils and various kinds of fine flour, and the profit [resulting was credited] to the sacred funds; so R. Ishmael. R. Akiba said: No sale for profit is made with the sacred funds nor out of those of the poor.52 Why [may no sales for profit be made] with sacred funds? — There must be no poverty where there is wealth. Why [is] no [sale for profit made] with the poor funds? — Because a poor man might come unexpectedly and there would be nothing to give him.
IF A MAN WENT TO A COUNTRY BEYOND THE SEA. It was stated: Rab ruled,
- To Next Folio -