Halacha
הלכה א
תְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה מַה יֵּעָשֶׂה בָּהּ. לוֹקְחִין מִמֶּנָּה תְּמִידִין שֶׁל כָּל יוֹם וְהַמּוּסָפִין וְכָל קָרְבְּנוֹת הַצִּבּוּר וְנִסְכֵּיהֶם וְהַמֶּלַח שֶׁמּוֹלְחִין בּוֹ כָּל הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת. וְכֵן הָעֵצִים אִם לֹא הֵבִיאוּ עֵצִים וְלֹא נִמְצְאוּ אֶלָּא בְּדָמִים. וְהַקְּטֹרֶת וּשְׂכַר עֲשִׂיָּתָהּ. וְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים וּשְׂכַר עוֹשֵׂי לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים. וְהָעֹמֶר וּשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם וּפָרָה אֲדֻמָּה וְשָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ וְלָשׁוֹן שֶׁל זְהוֹרִית שֶׁקּוֹשְׁרִין בֵּין קַרְנָיו. כָּל אֵלּוּ בָּאִין מִתְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה:
כסף משנה
1.
What [are the funds in] terumat halishcah1As mentioned in Chapter 2, Halachah 4, this term refers to the funds collected from the half-shekalim and placed in the three large baskets. In addition, other funds remained from the half-shekalim in this chamber, and the Temple treasury had other funds from other sources. used for? From [these funds] they would purchase the daily offerings sacrificed every day, the additional offerings [sacrificed on Sabbaths, Rashei Chodashim and festivals], all other communal sacrifices, and the wine libations [that accompany them].Similarly, [these funds were used to purchase] the salt that was placed on all the sacrifices,2This applies even to the private offerings that people would bring. A person was not required to bring the salt (or wood) to be used for his sacrifice (Hilchot Issurei Mizbe'ach 5:13). and similarly, the wood for the altar, if no wood was provided3As mentioned in Hilchot Klei HaMikdash 6:9, certain families were given the privilege of providing the wood for the altar in the Temple. If, however, the wood they brought did not suffice, additional wood would be purchased from the funds in the Temple treasury. and it was necessary that it be purchased.
[They were used to pay for spices contained in] the incense offering and the wages of those who prepared it,4See also Halachah 12. the showbread and the wages of those who prepared it, the omer [of barley], the two loaves, a red heifer, the goat sent to Azazel and the scarlet thread tied between its horns.5Note the Mishneh LaMelech, which states that the text contains a printing error, and that the scarlet thread is a reference to the scarlet thread used in the ceremony of the burning of the red heifer. There are, however, later commentaries that justify the standard text.
הלכה ב
אֲבָל פַּר הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר שֶׁל צִבּוּר וּשְׂעִירֵי עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים בַּתְּחִלָּה גּוֹבִין לָהֶן וְאֵינָן בָּאִין מִתְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה. פָּרוֹכוֹת שֶׁל הֵיכָל תַּחַת בִּנְיָן עֲשׂוּיוֹת וְאֵינָן בָּאִין מִתְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה אֶלָּא מִקָּדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת. אֲבָל פָּרוֹכוֹת שֶׁל שְׁעָרִים בָּאִין מִתְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה. הַמְּנוֹרָה וּכְלֵי שָׁרֵת מִצְוָתָן שֶׁיָּבוֹאוּ מִמּוֹתַר הַנְּסָכִים. וּבְהִלְכוֹת כְּלֵי הַמִּקְדָּשׁ וְהָעוֹבְדִים בּוֹ יִתְבָּאֵר מַה הוּא מוֹתַר הַנְּסָכִים. וְאִם לֹא הָיָה לָהֶן מוֹתַר נְסָכִים יָבִיאוּ מִתְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה. בִּגְדֵי כְּהֻנָּה בֵּין בִּגְדֵי כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בֵּין שְׁאָר בִּגְדֵי הַכֹּהֲנִים שֶׁעוֹבְדִין בָּהֶן בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ הַכּל מִתְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה:
כסף משנה
2.
In contrast, [the funds to purchase] a bull brought as a sin offering [for a transgression performed by the community due to] lack of awareness, and the goats [offered by the community for transgressing the prohibition against] the worship of false divinities should be collected [from communal donations], and should not be purchased [with the funds of] terumat halishcah.The curtains before the Sanctuary replaced a [permanent] structure.6Based on Rashi, Ketubot 106a, it appears that this refers to the two curtains that separated the Sanctuary from the Holy of Holies. In the First Temple, a wall served this function. The Second Temple was much taller than the First Temple (100 cubits, as opposed to 30), and a wall only a cubit thick and 100 cubits high would not be structurally sound. Therefore, the Sages replaced the wall with two curtains. See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 4:2. Since these curtains replaced a structure of stone, they were governed by different rules from those governing the other curtains in the Temple. Among the differences was that they were not paid for from these funds.Therefore, they should not be purchased [with the funds of] terumat halishcah, but rather [with funds that were] consecrated for bedek habayit ["the upkeep of the Temple"]. The curtains covering the gates, by contrast, should be purchased [with the funds of] terumat halishcah.
It is ordained that [the funds necessary to fashion] the menorah and the other sacred articles should come from [the funds stemming from] the remainder of the libations. In Hilchot Klei HaMikdash V'Ha'ovdim Bo (the "Laws Governing the Temple Vessels and Those Who Serve Within"),7One of the 83 sections of the Mishneh Torah; the second section of Sefer HaAvodah, "the Book of Divine Service." the term "the [funds stemming from] the remainder of the libations" will be explained.8In Chapter 7, Halachah 13 of those laws, the Rambam writes that the prices for the wine for the libations and the flour for the meal offerings are fixed with the suppliers every thirty days. If the price for these commodities increases on the general market, the suppliers are still obligated to provide the Temple with the commodities at the price agreed upon previously. If, however, the price for them decreases on the general market, the suppliers must sell them to the Temple at their present market value. The profit realized by the Temple treasury in this manner is referred to as "the [funds stemming from] the remainder of the libations."
Significantly, however, in those laws the Rambam mentions that these funds are used to purchase burnt offerings, and does not mention that they were used to fashion the sacred articles. The commentaries resolve this discrepancy by stating that only rarely was it necessary to purchase sacred articles. Hence, these funds were primarily used for the purchase of burnt offerings. If, however, no such funds are available, [the funds necessary for] these [sacred articles] should come from terumat halishcah.
[The funds necessary to fashion] the priestly garments, those of the High Priest and those of all the other priests who serve in the Temple should come from terumat halishcah.
הלכה ג
כָּל הַבְּהֵמוֹת הַנִּמְצָאוֹת בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם אוֹ בְּחוּצָה לָהּ בְּקָרוֹב מִמֶּנָּה בָּאוֹת עוֹלוֹת כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בִּפְסוּלֵי הַמֻּקְדָּשִׁין. נִסְכֵּיהֶן בָּאִין מִתְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה. וְכֵן עוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים שֶׁשָּׁלַח עוֹלָתוֹ מִמְּדִינָה אַחֶרֶת וְלֹא שָׁלַח עִמָּהּ דְּמֵי נְסָכִים יָבִיאוּ נִסְכֵּיהֶם מִתְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה:
כסף משנה
3.
All the animals that are found in Jerusalem or its outskirts should be sacrificed as burnt offerings, as stated in [Hilchot] Pesulei HaMukdashim [the "Laws Governing Consecrated Animals That are Unfit"].9Chapter 6, Halachah 18. The wine libations for these offerings should come from terumat halishcah.10Shekalim 7:5 relates that the Temple officers would originally require the person who discovered the animal to bring the wine libation that accompanied it. When this led to a negative outcome, they decided to have the wine libations brought from communal funds.Similarly, if a gentile sent a burnt offering11For the burnt offering sent by a gentile may be sacrificed in the Temple (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 3:2). Were the gentile to send wine for the libations, it would not be acceptable (ibid.:5). from another land, and did not send with it the funds for a wine libation, the wine libation should come from terumat halishcah.
הלכה ד
גֵּר שֶׁמֵּת וְהִנִּיחַ זְבָחִים אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ נְסָכִים קְרֵבִין מִשֶּׁלּוֹ וְאִם לָאו בָּאִין מִתְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה. כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁמֵּת וְלֹא מִנּוּ אַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו מַקְרִיבִין אֶת הַחֲבִיתִין מִתְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה. מְבַקְּרֵי מוּמִים שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם וְתַלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים הַמְלַמְּדִים הִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה לַכֹּהֲנִים וְהִלְכוֹת קְמִיצָה וְנָשִׁים הַמְגַדְּלוֹת בְּנֵיהֶן לְפָרָה אֲדֻמָּה כֻּלָּן נוֹטְלִין שְׂכָרָן מִתְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה. וְכַמָּה הוּא שְׂכָרָן. כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּפְסְקוּ לָהֶן בֵּית דִּין:
כסף משנה
4.
[The following laws apply when] a convert12I.e., a convert without Jewish heirs. If he has heirs, and similarly for a native-born Jew who dies after having designated animals as offerings, the heirs are required to supply the wine libations. dies and leaves [animals designated as] offerings. If he also designated wine [or funds for] their wine libations, they should come from [what he designated]. If not, they should come from terumat halishcah.When a High Priest dies, and a successor is not appointed [immediately], we should [pay] for the chavitin offering13A meal offering resembling a pancake, brought daily by the High Priest. from terumat halishcah.14The Kessef Mishneh notes a contradiction between the Rambam's statements here and those in Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 3:22, where he states that the High Priest's meal offering should be brought by his heirs after he dies. (It must be noted that a similar contradiction can be found in the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah. In his commentary on Shekalim 7:5, he renders a decision similar to the ruling in this halachah, while in his commentary on Menachot 4:5, his decision is analogous to that rendered in Hilchot Temidim UMusafim.)
Rav Kapach offers the following resolution: If a High Priest dies without bringing a meal offering on a particular day, his heirs are required to bring it. On subsequent days, however, the offering should be brought from communal funds.
The [Rabbis who] inspect blemishes [on first-born animals]15A first-born animal that has a permanent blemish must be given to a priest as a gift. It is not, however, sacrificed on the altar. One of the points of Rabbinic expertise mentioned by the Talmud is the ability to distinguish between a temporary blemish and a permanent one.
Although Tosafot, Ketubot 106a, offers this explanation, they also note that Bechorot 29b forbids accepting a wage for inspecting the blemishes of a first-born. Tosafot, however, differentiate between a wage paid by a private individual and one paid by the community. Alternatively, Tosafot explain that this refers to scholars who inspected animals before they were sacrificed. This was necessary because an animal with a blemish was unfit.in Jerusalem, the Sages who teach16This statement is very significant within a totally different context. In Hilchot Talmud Torah 1:7, the Rambam writes that it is forbidden to accept a wage for teaching the Oral Law. See also Chapter 3, Halachah 10 of those laws, where the Rambam writes:
Anyone who comes to the conclusion that he should involve himself in Torah study without performing work, and derive his livelihood from charity, desecrates [God's] name, dishonors the Torah, and extinguishes the light of faith.... [See also the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Nedarim 4:3; Avot 4:7).]
The above ruling appears to contradict these statements. Among the resolutions offered is that here, the Rambam is allowing the teachers to receive recompense because instructing the students is their occupation. Were they not charged with this responsibility, they would occupy themselves in another profession. Alternatively, they were allowed to receive payment for teaching the practical side of these activities, and not their theoretical dimensions. the laws of ritual slaughter and the laws of taking a handful from the meal offering, and the women who raise their sons to take part in the offering of the red heifer17See Hilchot Parah Adumah 2:7, which explains that it was customary that a person who never contracted ritual impurity at all be the one who takes part in the purification rite of the High Priest before he offers the red heifer. For this purpose, women would raise their children in a specific area of Jerusalem, making certain that they never came in contact with a source of impurity. all receive their wages from terumat halishcah.
What would their wages be? An amount decided by the court.
הלכה ה
בִּשְׁנַת הַשְּׁמִטָּה שֶׁהִיא הֶפְקֵר שׂוֹכְרִין בֵּית דִּין שׁוֹמְרִין שֶׁיִּשְׁמְרוּ מִקְצָת סְפִיחִים שֶׁצָּמְחוּ כְּדֵי שֶׁיָּבִיאוּ מֵהֶן הָעֹמֶר וּשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם שֶׁאֵין בָּאִים אֶלָּא מִן הֶחָדָשׁ. וְאֵלּוּ הַשּׁוֹמְרִין נוֹטְלִין שְׂכָרָן מִתְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה:
כסף משנה
5.
In a Sabbatical year, when [the produce of the fields] is ownerless, the court hires watchmen to protect some of the produce that grows on its own,18Although we are forbidden to plant any crops in the Sabbatical year, the Torah allows us to benefit from the small amount of produce that grows on its own accord from left-over seeds and the like. Our Sages forbade deriving personal benefit from such produce (Hilchot Shemitah 4:1-2); it may, however, be used for a mitzvah. Nevertheless, because the prohibition was only Rabbinic in origin, it was not observed carefully by the entire population. Hence, to ensure that there was a sufficient quantity of grain available for these offerings, it was necessary to hire watchmen. so that it will be possible to offer the omer [of barley]19Offered on the sixteenth of Nisan (Leviticus 23:11 . and the two loaves of bread,20Offered on the holiday of Shavuot (Ibid.:17).for these offerings may come only from the new harvest. These watchmen receive their wages from terumat halishcah.הלכה ו
מִי שֶׁהִתְנַדֵּב לִשְׁמֹר בְּחִנָּם אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ מִשּׁוּם בַּעֲלֵי זְרוֹעַ שֶׁמָּא יָבוֹאוּ וְיִטְּלוּם מֵהֶן. לְפִיכָךְ תִּקְּנוּ לָהֶם חֲכָמִים שֶׁיִּטְּלוּ שָׂכָר מִן הַלִּשְׁכָּה כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּפְרְשׁוּ הַכּל מֵאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם שֶׁאֵלּוּ שׁוֹמְרִים שָׁם:
כסף משנה
6.
Should a person volunteer to watch the produce without charge, his offer is not accepted, lest men of force come and take it. [To prevent this,] the Sages ordained that the watchmen be paid from the funds of the Temple treasury. [This] will prompt everyone to avoid that place where the guards are posted.21Rashi, Bava Metzia 118a, states that hiring people to watch it makes it public knowledge that it was designated for use as an offering. Hence, even men of force will refrain from harvesting these crops.הלכה ז
מַגִּיהֵי סְפָרִים שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם וְדַיָּנִין שֶׁדָּנִין אֶת הַגַּזְלָנִין בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם נוֹטְלִין שְׂכָרָן מִתְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה. וְכַמָּה הָיוּ נוֹטְלִים תִּשְׁעִים מָנֶה בְּכָל שָׁנָה. וְאִם לֹא הִסְפִּיקוּ לָהֶן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא רָצוּ מוֹסִיפִין לָהֶן כְּדֵי צָרְכָּן הֵם וּנְשֵׁיהֶם וּבְנֵיהֶם וּבְנֵי בֵּיתָן:
כסף משנה
7.
Scribes who check Torah scrolls in Jerusalem and judges in Jerusalem who preside over cases of robbery receive their wages22Hilchot Sanhedrin 23:5 states that a judge is forbidden to receive a wage for presiding over a case. Nevertheless, these judges were paid a wage, for their involvement in these cases prevented them from pursuing any other means of deriving a livelihood. from terumat halishcah.How much are they paid? Ninety23Ketubot 105a states ninety-nine maneh. maneh24A maneh was 100 dinarim. As can be derived from Chapter 1, Halachah 3, a dinar was equivalent to the weight of 96 barleycorns of silver. a year. If this is not sufficient for their [needs], they are given - even against their will25I.e., even if the judges do not feel it correct to impose on the community, the needs of their households are to be met. - an additional amount sufficient to meet their needs, those of their wives, their children, and the other members of their household.26Note the Chatam Sofer (Choshen Mishpat, Responsum 5), who states that the judges' needs should be generously provided for.
הלכה ח
כֶּבֶשׁ הָיוּ בּוֹנִין מֵהַר הַבַּיִת לְהַר הַמִּשְׁחָה שֶׁעָלָיו מוֹצִיאִין פָּרָה אֲדֻמָּה. וְכֶבֶשׁ שֶׁמּוֹצִיאִין עָלָיו שָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ. וּשְׁנֵיהֶם נַעֲשִׂין מִשְּׁיָרֵי הַלִּשְׁכָּה. וְכֵן מִזְבַּח הָעוֹלָה וְהַהֵיכָל וְהָעֲזָרוֹת נַעֲשִׂין מִשְּׁיָרֵי הַלִּשְׁכָּה. אַמַּת הַמַּיִם שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם וְחוֹמַת יְרוּשָׁלַיִם וְכָל מִגְדְּלוֹתֶיהָ וְכָל צָרְכֵי הָעִיר בָּאִין מִשְּׁיָרֵי הַלִּשְׁכָּה. וְעוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים שֶׁהִתְנַדֵּב מָעוֹת לַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלּוּ אוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת עִמָּהֶם בְּחִנָּם אֵין מְקַבְּלִין מִמֶּנּוּ וַאֲפִלּוּ גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (עזרא ד ג) "לֹא לָכֶם וָלָנוּ לִבְנוֹת" וְגוֹ' וְנֶאֱמַר (נחמיה ב כ) "וְלָכֶם אֵין חֵלֶק" וְגוֹ':
כסף משנה
8.
Both the ramp that was built from the Temple Mount to the Mount of Olives, on which the red heifer was led [to the Mount of Olives],27See Hilchot Parah Adumah 3:1-2. and the ramp on which the goat sent to Azazel was led [outside the city28Yoma 66a states that this ramp was built because the Jews from Egypt would pull the hair of the priest leading the goat to hurry him on his way. were paid for] from sheyarei halishcah.29As stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 4, the sheyarei halishcah, "the remainder within the chamber," refers to the funds that remain from the collection of shekalim after the coins were placed in the three large baskets.Similarly, [any improvements necessary for] the altar for the burnt offerings, the Temple building, or the Temple courtyards [were paid for] from the sheyarei halishcah.30The Kessef Mishneh notes that Ketubot 106a states that the funds for these improvements should come from Bedek HaBayit, the resources consecrated for the purpose of maintaining the Temple structure, and not from sheyarei halishcah. Rav Kapach, however, notes that the Shitah Mekubetzet quotes a different version of that Talmudic passage, which appears to be the source for the Rambam's ruling. The water conduit, the walls of Jerusalem, its towers, and all the needs of the city [were paid for] from the sheyarei halishcah.
Should a gentile, even a resident alien,31I.e., a gentile who commits himself to observing the seven universal laws commanded to Noach and his descendants. (See Hilchot Melachim 8:10, 9:1-2.) This concept is derived from the fact that the Samaritans who volunteered to assist Zerubavel in the construction of the Second Temple were not idol worshipers (Kessef Mishneh). offer to donate money for these purposes, or to labor in these projects without charge, [his offer] should be rejected, for [Ezra 4:3] states: "It is not for you, together with us, to build [the House of our Lord," and [Nechemiah 2:20] states "And you have no portion, right, or memorial in Jerusalem."
הלכה ט
מוֹתַר תְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה וּשְׁיָרֵי הַלִּשְׁכָּה לוֹקְחִין בּוֹ זְכָרִים וִיקָרְבוּ כֻּלָּן עוֹלוֹת שֶׁתְּנַאי בֵּית דִּין הוּא עַל כָּל הַמּוֹתָרוֹת שֶׁיִּקָּרְבוּ עוֹלַת בְּהֵמָה. אֲבָל לֹא עוֹלַת הָעוֹף שֶׁאֵין בְּקָרְבְּנוֹת הַצִּבּוּר עוֹף. וְאֵלּוּ הָעוֹלוֹת הַבָּאִין מִמּוֹתַר הַשְּׁקָלִים הֵם הַנִּקְרָאִים קַיִץ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ:
כסף משנה
9.
[The funds remaining from] terumat halishcah and sheyarei halishcah should be used to purchase male animals to be sacrificed as burnt offerings. For it is a condition made by the court that all the remaining funds be used for burnt offerings.32Since the funds were given with a specific intent, they could not be used for this purpose unless such a condition was made.They are not, however, used to purchase doves for burnt offerings, for doves are never used for communal sacrifices. These burnt offerings that come from the funds remaining from the collection of the shekalim are referred to as "the dessert of the altar."33Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shekalim 4:4), which explains that the word kayitz refers to the conclusion of the summer, the days of the fig and grape harvest. In addition to the mainstay of their meals, people often eat these fruits. Similarly, these offerings are brought on the altar in addition to the sacrifices that are usually offered.
הלכה י
שְׁקָלִים שֶׁלֹּא הִסְפִּיקוּ לָהֶן לְכָל קָרְבְּנוֹת הַצִּבּוּר מוֹצִיאִין אֶת הָרָאוּי לָהֶם מִקָּדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת. אֲבָל אֵין בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת מוֹצִיא אֶת הָרָאוּי לוֹ מִקָּדְשֵׁי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ:
כסף משנה
10.
Should the [collection from the half-]shekalim not be sufficient [to purchase everything necessary] for all the communal sacrifices, the [funds for] whatever is necessary should be taken from [the articles] consecrated for Bedek HaBayit, the resources consecrated for the purpose of maintaining the Temple structure.34The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam on this point, noting that although the Jerusalem Talmud (Shekalim 5:4) makes a statement resembling the Rambam's ruling, it proceeds to explain that statement as referring only to a specific type of donation: a collection of used utensils. According to the Ra'avad, other resources donated to Bedek HaBayit may be used only for improvements to the Temple. The Kessef Mishneh and others justify the Rambam's ruling.[The converse, however, does not apply. When improvements are necessary, but the resources of] Bedek HaBayit are lacking, [the improvements] should not [be paid for] from funds consecrated for [sacrifices for] the altar.
הלכה יא
מִשֶּׁיַגִּיעַ רֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ נִיסָן אֵין מַקְרִיבִין קָרְבְּנוֹת צִבּוּר אֶלָּא מִתְּרוּמָה חֲדָשָׁה. וְאִם לֹא בָּאָה הַחֲדָשָׁה לוֹקְחִין מִן הַיְשָׁנָה. לְפִיכָךְ אִם הִגִּיעַ רֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ נִיסָן וְיֵשׁ עִמָּהֶן בְּהֵמוֹת לִתְמִידִים מִתְּרוּמָה יְשָׁנָה פּוֹדִין אוֹתָן וְיוֹצְאִין לְחֻלִּין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן תְּמִימִין וְיִפְּלוּ דְּמֵיהֶן לִתְרוּמָה יְשָׁנָה שֶׁמְּקִיצִין בָּהּ אֶת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. שֶׁתְּנַאי בֵּית דִּין הוּא עַל כָּל הַבְּהֵמוֹת שֶׁלּוֹקְחִין לִתְמִידִין שֶׁאִם לֹא יִהְיוּ צְרִיכִין לָהֶן יֵצְאוּ לְחֻלִּין:
כסף משנה
11.
From Rosh Chodesh Nisan onward, the communal offerings should be brought from the new collection [of shekalim].35The Jerusalem Talmud (Shekalim 1:1) cites a historical precedent: Just as the first communal sacrifices were brought on the altar in the desert on Rosh Chodesh Nisan, similarly, in subsequent years we renew the practice of bringing communal offerings by using funds from the new collection. In this vein, Rosh HaShanah 7a refers to Rosh Chodesh Nisan as "the Rosh HaShanah for the setting aside of the shekalim." If, however, [the funds from] the new collection have not reached [the Temple treasury], [funds from] the collection of the previous year may be used.36It is, however, as if one "forfeited a mitzvah" (Rosh HaShanah, loc. cit.).Therefore, [the following rule should be applied] if there are animals designated for the daily offerings37It was customary that there be a minimum of six lambs prepared to be offered kept in the Chamber of the Lambs (Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 1:9). This custom was also observed on the twenty-ninth of Adar. Thus, there were always four lambs left over on Rosh Chodesh Nisan (Rashi, Sh'vuot 10b). that were purchased from the collection of the previous year when Rosh Chodesh Nisan arrives: They should be redeemed38For the consecrated status of an animal or an article can never be changed without its being redeemed. and used for mundane purposes,39Avodat HaMelech asks why, concerning these animals, we do not follow the same procedure mentioned in the following halachah concerning the remainder of the incense offering - i.e., that they be redeemed and then purchased again with the funds of the new collection of shekalim.
As a possible resolution, he explains that it is forbidden to use for mundane purposes a collection of spices identical to those of the incense offering (Exodus 30:38; Hilchot Klei HaMikdash 2:9). Thus, there would be no use at all for the remainder of the incense offering. For this reason, the Sages ordained that it be repurchased. Concerning the lambs, by contrast, once they are redeemed there is no difficulty in using them for mundane purposes. despite the fact that they are unblemished. The proceeds should be placed in the collection of funds from the previous year that are used to provide "dessert"40See Halachah 9 and notes. for the altar. [This is possible because the] court made a stipulation that should there be no need for any of the animals purchased for the daily offerings, it would be possible to [redeem the animals and] use them for mundane purposes.
הלכה יב
וְכָךְ הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין בְּמוֹתַר הַקְּטֹרֶת. מִשֶּׁיַגִּיעַ רֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ נִיסָן מְחַלְּלִין אוֹתוֹ עַל שְׂכַר הָאֻמָּנִין וְחוֹזְרִין מָעוֹת הַשָּׂכָר לְקֵיץ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְנוֹטְלִין הָאֻמָּנִין מוֹתַר הַקְּטֹרֶת בִּשְׂכָרָן וְחוֹזְרִין וְלוֹקְחִין אֶת הַקְּטֹרֶת מֵהֶן מִתְּרוּמָה חֲדָשָׁה כְּדֵי לְהַקְרִיבָהּ מִמְּעוֹת תְּרוּמָה חֲדָשָׁה. וְאִם אֵין לָהֶן תְּרוּמָה חֲדָשָׁה מַקְטִירִין אוֹתָהּ מִתְּרוּמָה יְשָׁנָה: סָלִיק לְהוּ הִלְכוֹת שְׁקָלִים
כסף משנה