Yoma — Daf 55b

לית ליה כתיבה דתנן רבי יהודה אומר לא היה שם אלא כן אחד בלבד תרי מאי טעמא לא משום דמחלפי ונעביד תרי וליכתוב עלייהו הי דפר והי דשעיר אלא לרבי יהודה לית ליה כתיבה

מיתיבי שלש עשרה שופרות היו במקדש והיה כתוב עליהן תקלין חדתין ותקלין עתיקין וקינין וגוזלי עולה ועצים ולבונה וזהב לכפורת וששה לנדבה

תקלין חדתין אלו שקלים של כל שנה ושנה תקלין עתיקין מי שלא שקל אשתקד ישקול לשנה הבאה קינין הן תורין גוזלי עולה הן בני יונה וכולן עולות דברי ר' יהודה

כי אתא רב דימי אמר אמרי במערבא גזירה משום חטאת שמתו בעליה ומי חיישינן והתנן השולח חטאתו ממדינת הים מקריבין אותה בחזקת שהוא קיים

אלא משום חטאת שמתו בעליה ודאי ונברור ארבעה זוזי ונשדי במיא והנך נישתרו רבי יהודה לית ליה ברירה

מנא לן אילימא מהא דתנן הלוקח יין מבין הכותיים ערב שבת עם חשכה עומד ואומר שני לוגין שאני עתיד להפריש הרי הן תרומה

does not consider such inscriptions [of any value]. For we have learnt: R. JUDAH SAID: THERE WAS NO MORE THAN ONE STAND. Now why not two? Evidently because they might be mixed up! But then let him provide two and write upon them: This is for the bullock and this for the he-goat? Hence you must1 assume that R. Judah does not consider such inscriptions [of any value]. An objection was raised in the Academy: There were thirteen money chests in the Temple, on which were inscribed: ‘new shekels’, ‘old shekels’, ‘bird-offerings’, ‘young birds for the whole offering’, ‘wood’, ‘frankincense’, ‘gold for the mercy-seat’, and on six of them: ‘freewill-offerings’. ‘New shekels’: [i.e..] those shekels due each year; ‘old shekels’: [i.e..] one who had not paid his shekel last year must pay it the next year. ‘Bird-offerings’, these are turtle-doves. ‘Young birds for the whole offerings’, these are young pigeons; and both of these are for whole offerings. This is the view of R. Judah.2 — When R. Dimi came [from Palestine] he said: In the West3 they said: It is a preventive measure against the case of a sin-offering whose owner has died.4 But do we indeed take that into consideration? Have we not learnt: If someone sends his sin-offering from a far-away province,5 it is offered up in the assumption that he is alive?6 — Rather [the preventive measure is] against the case of a sin-offering whose owner has assuredly died.7 But in that case let us separate four zuz8 and cast them into the sea,9 so that the rest will be available for use! R. Judah rejects the principle of Bererah.10 Whence do we know this? Would you say from what we have learnt:11 If a man buys wine from the Cutheans12 on the eve of Sabbath, as it is getting dark,13 he may say: Let the two logs14 which I am about to set apart15 be heave-offering owner died, then the money for the value of the sin-offering which he may have put in one of the chests must be thrown into the sea. That money, being unusable and confused with other monies in the chest, would render them all useless. This is the confusion referred to above, hence the non-provision of money chests for obligatory offerings of a bird. up. the money for the sin-offering of a bird and was that deposited by the deceased. an actual selection or disposal of things previously undefined as to their purpose (Jast.). neglecting the laws of terumah and tithe the buyer must himself set these aside before he can be permitted to drink any of the wine. priestly and levitical dues from the wine) and he requires the wine for the Sabbath. It is prohibited to separate priestly or levitical dues on the Sabbath, v. Bez. 36b.