QUESTION: In the Mishnah (9b), Rebbi Yosi and the Rabanan argue whether an individual is permitted to donate an item for use as a public offering, such as for the public Minchah offering of the Korban ha'Omer. Rebbi Yosi maintains that an individual may donate a public offering. The Rabanan maintain that the public offering must come from the property of the public and not from an individual.

The Gemara cites the Mishnah in Ta'anis (4:4) that says that people used to give private donations of wood for use with the Korbanos. The Gemara asks whether this Mishnah is consistent only with Rebbi Yosi's opinion or even with that of the Rabanan. Rebbi Acha answers that the Mishnah follows only Rebbi Yosi's opinion, because the Rabanan do not permit such donations from individuals; they maintain that the wood must come from public donations. Rebbi Yosi in the name of Rebbi Ila argues and says that since the wood is only a "Machshir" for the Korban (an ancillary use) and is not the Korban itself, even the Rabanan agree that an individual may contribute it for use with the public Korbanos.

The Gemara then says that "a Beraisa argues with Rebbi Yosi." In the Beraisa, the Tana Kama maintains that the annual celebrations of the families that donated wood to the Beis ha'Mikdash were observed even after the Beis ha'Mikdash was destroyed. Rebbi Yosi maintains that the celebrations were observed only during the times of the Beis ha'Mikdash.

When the Gemara says that the Beraisa "argues with Rebbi Yosi," to which Rebbi Yosi does it refer, the Tana of the Mishnah here, or the Amora Rebbi Yosi who quotes Rebbi Ila? How do the opinions expressed in the Beraisa disagree with either Rebbi Yosi the Tana or Rebbi Yosi the Amora?

(a) RABEINU MESHULAM and RABEINU SHLOMO SIRILIYO explain that the Gemara means that the Beraisa contradicts the opinion of the Amora, Rebbi Yosi in the name of Rebbi Ila, and not the Tana, Rebbi Yosi. Rebbi Yosi in the name of Rebbi Ila asserts that the Rabanan agree that individuals may contribute Machshirin for public offerings (but not the offerings themselves). In the Beraisa, the Rabanan imply that the wood was not donated by the individual families each year. Rather, they donated the wood only during the first year after the people returned from Bavel, and, thereafter, in every subsequent year they celebrated the anniversary of the day on which they had brought the wood the first year. This must be the intention of the Rabanan in the Beraisa, because if the yearly festival celebrated the privilege of donating the wood that year, then why do the Rabanan say that they celebrated even after the Churban? Why did they celebrate if the Beis ha'Mikdash was no longer standing and they no longer were able to donate wood to the Beis ha'Mikdash? It must be that they celebrated the day that they brought the wood the first year. Since their celebration did not depend on the presence of the Beis ha'Mikdash, they celebrated it every year, even after the Churban. They did not actually donate wood every year, because public offerings and their Machshirin may not be brought from private sources.

(b) The VILNA GA'ON explains that the Beraisa does not refute Rebbi Ila, but rather Rebbi Acha. Rebbi Acha asserted that the Rabanan maintain that no contributions are accepted from individuals for public offerings. The Beraisa shows that even the Rabanan maintain that individuals may donate items for public use, such as the wood for the Korbanos. This is evident from the concluding remarks of the Beraisa, the statement of Rebbi Elazar bar'Rebbi Tzadok.

The statement of Rebbi Elazar bar'Rebbi Tzadok in the Beraisa here (as recorded in Ta'anis 12a and Eruvin 41a) concludes with the words, "Yom Tov Shelanu Havah" -- "It was our private Yom Tov." These words shows that his family gave a private donation, and thus they observed a private Yom Tov. Since the Beraisa discusses the opinions of both the Rabanan and Rebbi Yosi, it is evident that the Rabanan maintain that private individuals donated the wood for Korbanos.

If, as Rebbi Acha asserted, the Rabanan do not agree with the Mishnah in Ta'anis quoted by the Gemara here, this does not mean that they argue and maintain that the individual families donated nothing. Rather, the Rabanan maintain that the individual families brought wood that was bought with public funds and not with private funds. The Beraisa, however, teaches that even the Rabanan maintain that private donations of wood were accepted.

(c) The PNEI MOSHE writes that an essential part of Rebbi Ila's explanation is his opinion that the wood is considered Machshirei Korban (which may be donated by an individual) and not an actual Korban itself (which may not be donated by an individual).

The Beraisa teaches that the day on which they brought the wood for the Korbanos was celebrated as a Yom Tov. The Gemara in Pesachim (50a) teaches that when a person offers a Korban, he celebrates that day as a personal Yom Tov and refrains from Melachah. The Gemara does not say that the day on which a person brings Machshirei Korban is considered a personal Yom Tov. The fact that each family that donated wood observed that day as a personal Yom Tov proves that the donation of wood was like an offering of a Korban itself, and not merely Machshirei Korban. Accordingly, the Rabanan must maintain that the wood may not be brought by an individual, just as any public Korban may not be brought from the donation of an individual.

QUESTION: The Gemara cites a Beraisa which states that the Mizbe'ach ha'Olah (the outer Mizbe'ach in the Azarah) and all of the parts inside the Azarah, such as the inner sanctums and the Heichal, are built with money from the Sheyarei ha'Lishkah. Areas outside of the Azarah (such as the Ezras Nashim) are built with money of Bedek ha'Bayis.

The money of the Sheyarei ha'Lishkah has a lesser degree of sanctity than the money of Bedek ha'Bayis. This is evident from the Mishnah here that states that the money of the Sheyarei ha'Lishkah is used to build the walls of the city and its towers and for all of the other public needs of the city (which are not holy). The money of Bedek ha'Bayis may not be used for such purposes, because it is holy. In addition, everyone agrees that one who uses the money of Bedek ha'Bayis for his personal benefit is liable for Me'ilah, while there is a dispute whether one who uses the money of the Sheyarei ha'Lishkah is liable for Me'ilah.

If the money of the Sheyarei ha'Lishkah is not as holy as the money of Bedek ha'Bayis, why does the Beraisa say that the money of the Sheyarei ha'Lishkah is used to build the more sanctified parts of the Beis ha'Mikdash, and the money of Bedek ha'Bayis is used for the less sanctified parts?

(a) The Gemara in Kesuvos (106b) says the opposite of the Yerushalmi. The Gemara there says that the more sanctified parts of the Beis ha'Mikdash are bought with money of Bedek ha'Bayis, and the less sanctified parts with money of the Sheyarei ha'Lishkah. The TALMID SHEL RABEINU SHMUEL BAR SHNEUR and the TIKLIN CHADTIN correct the text of the Gemara here to conform with the Bavli.

(b) TOSFOS in Kidushin (54b) explains that both statements of the Beraisa mean that those respective parts of the Beis ha'Mikdash may be bought even with that type of money. That is, when the Beraisa says that the parts of the Beis ha'Mikdash with greater sanctity are bought with money of the Sheyarei ha'Lishkah, it means even with that money, and certainly with money of Bedek ha'Bayis. When the Beraisa says that the parts of the Beis ha'Mikdash with lesser sanctity are bought with money of Bedek ha'Bayis, it means even with money of Bedek ha'Bayis, and certainly with money of the Sheyarei ha'Lishkah, which is less sanctified.

Accordingly, the Yerushalmi here argues with the Bavli (cited above) in two respects. First, the Yerushalmi maintains that one is liable for Me'ilah if he uses money from the Sheyarei ha'Lishkah for his own benefit. This is because that money has the same Kedushah as the money of Bedek ha'Bayis. Second, the Yerushalmi maintains that the city of Yerushalayim has the same Kedushah as the Azarah, and that is why the city may be built with money of Bedek ha'Bayis. The Bavli, in contrast, maintains that the money of the Sheyarei ha'Lishkah is not sanctified, and thus there is no liability for Me'ilah with the money. In addition, the Bavli maintains that the city of Yerushalayim does not have the same Kedushah as the Azarah. Therefore, the rest of the city may be built only with money of the Sheyarei ha'Lishkah, and not with money of Bedek ha'Bayis.

(c) RABEINU MESHULAM says that when Rebbi Meir asserts that one who derives personal benefit from money of the Sheyarei ha'Lishkah is liable for Me'ilah, he does not mean that one is liable for Me'ilah for merely using the Sheyarei ha'Lishkah for his own personal benefit. Everyone agrees that one may not derive personal benefit from money that was given to the Beis ha'Mikdash, since it has Kedushah. Rather, Rebbi Meir means that the money of the Sheyarei ha'Lishkah differs from other types of Hekdesh in that an ordinary item of Hekdesh may be used for another purpose of Hekdesh. The Sheyarei ha'Lishkah, however, may not be used for another type of Hekdesh; it must be used for the purpose for which it was collected. Therefore, since it was collected in order to buy Korbanos, it may not be used for any other purpose, according to Rebbi Meir. In this sense, the money of the Sheyarei ha'Lishkah has more Kedushah than the Terumas ha'Lishkah, and thus the money must be used for the Mizbe'ach and for the inner sanctums. Using the money for those purposes is considered using the money for Korbanos, since the Mizbe'ach and inner sanctums are immediate needs of the Korbanos, in contrast to the areas outside of the Azarah.