Sanhedrin 019

27:
The cost of running the Bet Mikdash was phenomenal, and the constant concern of the priests who were in charge of the Temple budget. However, because of the enormous love that the Jewish people all over the world had for the Bet Mikdash income was always far in excess of expenditure. (When, in the summer of the year 70 CE, Titus put the whole of the gold reserves he had removed from the vaults of the still-smouldering Temple, the bottom fell out of the Syrian money market and gold became next to worthless for three years!) The cost of providing the animals for regular sacrifice was defrayed by the voluntary tax of one half-shekel that was paid by Jews throughout the world, which had to cover the value of the two sheep that were slaughtered daily, and all the additional animal sacrifices for high days and holy days (seventy bulls during the seven days of Sukkot alone!) Every year, towards the beginning of the month of Adar, representatives from the Temple Treasury would visit all the major centres of Jewish population in the world in order to effect the collection of the tax (and that is why, to this day, on the first Shabbat in the month of Adar we still read from the Torah the passage instituting this payment [Exodus 30:11-16].

28:
However, there were, of course, many other kinds of voluntary donations – of the kind that we can still recognize! When a very large sum of money was donated for a specific purpose connected with the fabric of the Temple complex that item usually was named after the donor: thus, for instance, we know of the Nicanor Gate, named for a Diaspora Jew who donated the money for the massive bronze doors. Others, of course, donated lesser sums towards the general upkeep of the fabric of the Bet Mikdash [Bedek ha-Bayit]. When a person made a verbal promise, even to himself (or herself – yes donations were gladly received from the females of the faithful!) the promise, of course, had to be fulfilled. It was most usual to undertake to "buy" an item rather than to donate cash, but in the end even the items were translated into cash for the sake of convenience. Our mishnah states that "Redemption of Donations to the Bet Mikdash [must be done before] three [fully accredited judges]". This means that if I promised to donate a garment – let's say, for some priest to wear during the expedition of his sacerdotal functions – only a court such as stipulated in our mishnah was competent to decide how much cash I had promised to donate. Alternatively, if I promised to give a certain item physically to the bet Mikdash and then decided that I would rather donate its cash value, only such a court could make the estimation; furthermore, until that estimation was made and the money paid over to the Temple Treasury, I was forbidden to derive any benefit whatsoever from that item, which technically belonged to the Bet Mikdash, and any profane use of it amounted to "me'ilah" [misappropriation of God's property].

29:
Another form of donation to the Bet Mikdash, one which sounds very strange to our modern ears, was the donation of a person's value! Someone might promise to donate his own value or someone else's value. In such cases our mishnah states that the evaluation must be performed by the court. In days when slavery was a flourishing institution it was quite a simple matter to determine what would be any given person's value in the slave market! The "maĥloket" [difference of opinion] between Rabbi Yehudah bar-Ilai and Tanna Kamma derives from the specific wording of the Torah on this issue: "As the priest shall evaluate" [Leviticus 27:12] implies, according to the former, that at least one of the members of the Bet Din must be a Kohen [priest]. Our mishnah states that such a Bet Din must consist of ten members.

On March 19th we mentioned in passing the changes that have come about during the ages in Hebrew orthography. We also mentioned that the Gemara [Sanhedrin 21b] states that the Torah was given originally in the ancient Hebrew script.

Art Kamlet writes:

When Pirké Avot says that one of the things created at the first Erev Shabbat of creation was the letters of the alphabet, does it mean the actual shape of the letters – the particular script? If so, which script?

I respond:

Obviously, according to the Gemara, the script referred to must be the ancient Hebrew alphabet. (Didn't you ever see the movie "The Ten Commandments? What greater authority could you want than that?!

Our discussion on revelation has generated a considerable correspondence. I shall try to restrain myself in this regard for two reasons: firstly, we are getting a little off our topic (which is not so unusual!) and secondly because this whole issue will be discussed in depth in Chapter Ten (which is more to the point). However, a couple of last comments deserve our attention at this time, and I request that everybody else hold their questions and comments until we reach the first mishnah of Chapter Ten (!).

Bernard Lowe writes:

Your discussion of Mark Lautman's points was very interesting, but still leaves me with what I see as one of the basic problems of modern Judaism. As a traditional Jew sure I accept that the Rabbis interpret(ed) the Torah and that is what Judaism is. But who decides, who is a Rabbi? (My questions now are not meant to offend – they are for discussion purposes only). Are you a Rabbi? Is the Reform fellow down the road running that huge temple a Rabbi? Is my cousin sitting in an ultra orthodox yeshiva in Jerusalem a Rabbi?

I respond:

If you really accept the concept of pluralism you will have to accept that some people may defer to the authority of a certain rabbi while you personally cannot do so. Ultimately, the question of "Who is a Rabbi" is answered not by the rabbis, but by those who choose to defer to their authority.

Bernard continues:

If the answer to all these questions is "yes", then presumably I can accept any of their three differing interpretations of the Torah as valid.

I respond:

I disagree completely. If you are honest with yourself you will only accept the validity of the teachings of those rabbis whose authority you accept. If I may use a metaphor. If you align yourself with Conservative Judaism, within the Conservative Supermarket you may shop around; but you cannot remain intellectually honest and decide that sometimes you will buy in this Supermarket and sometimes in another.

Bernard continues:

It's just a matter of my personal preference. It's Judaism on demand. If I want to eat rice on Pesaĥ – for 8 days can I choose to become Sefardic! Can it be as easy as that? The orthodox in Israel clearly say NO. They don't accept you as a Rabbi nor the Reform fellow down the road. I do!

I respond:

I believe that I have already answered Bernard's point in my second response, but I felt it necessary to bring his words in full. I fully agree with Bernard that the kind of Judaism described by him is intellectually dishonest and halakhically meaningless.

Finally, Bernard writes:

I always have this sneaking suspicion that the history of Rabbinic Judaism is a history of "Who is in control?" or "who makes the rules?" It has always been a political question, not one of religion.

I respond:

Amen. The established rabbinate in the State of Israel has exacerbated this problem by its vicious and unprincipled use of political clout to impose its values on citizens who are recalcitrant. A typical example: only yesterday we read that one political party has threatened a coalition crisis if a certain rabbi is appointed Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Tel-Aviv. (The political party in question exists for the furtherance of Sefardi Judaism and draws its support from that population!)

---

On 19th March I also wrote that there is hardly one mitzvah that is written in the Torah whose performance is not the result of rabbinic interpretation! For instance, there is nothing in the text of the Torah that "you shall bind [these my words] as a sign upon your hand and they shall be like frontlets between your eyes" to suggest that this text is to be written down on a piece of parchment which is then to be inserted into little boxes of blackened leather and attached to the upper arm and to the front of the head by black leather straps! All this is the result of interpretation!

Mark Lautman takes up the issue again:

True, but there is a big difference between interpreting something that appears in the Torah, and instituting a commandment that does not appear in the Torah. The word "totaphot" is enigmatic, and I have full confidence in the Talmudic interpretation that it means "tephillin" as we know them today. Similarly with the more controversial issue of starting to count the omer "after the Shabbat". Believe me, I find no greater authority for ethical behavior and deducing God's will than you! However, megillat esther explicitly says that Mordechai & Esther commanded that we observe the customs of Purim – why do we claim it's a commandment from Heaven? Similarly Ĥanukah, the institution of which is intertwined with the controversial Hasmonean dynasty; it is worthy that we remember the miracle of the few being victorious over the many, but how is this a divine commandment?

I respond:

The examples quoted by Mark (and the others referred to in our previous discussion) are not biblical mitzvot, and anyone who claims that they are, according to Rambam [Maimonides] is contravening the mitzvah which is in the Torah precluding any additions to the Torah [Deuteronomy 4:2]. What we are saying is that the duty to conform to the rabbinic institutions is from the Torah [Deuteronomy 17:10-11]. In other words, it is obvious that Purim is not instituted by the Torah and it is sinful to suggest otherwise; but when the rabbis instituted Purim it becomes sinful to disobey them (in these seven mitzvot).

This correspondence is now in total abeyance until Chapter Ten!