Daf Ditty Shekalim 20: Migdal Eder

The Tower of the Flock or Migdal Eder, Bethlehem –

an early twentieth-century photograph

An agricultural watchtower photographed in the last century (ca. 1900-1920).

Note the stair on the near side with a seated man near the top, the brush covered
turret, and the arched doors leading into enclosed rooms beneath.

1
Halakha 3 · MISHNA If an animal that is fit for the altar was found straying, from Jerusalem
and as far as Migdal Eder, and similarly if it was found within that distance from Jerusalem in
any other direction, it is presumed that the animal came from Jerusalem. Most of the animals in
Jerusalem were designated for offerings, and presumably this one was as well. Males are presumed
to be burnt-offerings, as only males are brought as burnt-offerings. Females are presumed to be
peace-offerings, as it is permitted to bring a female peace-offering. Rabbi Yehuda says: An
animal that is fit for the Paschal offering, i.e., a one-year-old male lamb or kid, is presumed to

2
be a Paschal offering, provided that it was found within thirty days before the Festival of
Passover.

P’nei Moshe

Steinzaltz

3
Originally, the court would seize collateral from one who found such an animal, as security
until he would bring with it the libations associated with this offering, as if the found animal
were his own and he had committed himself to bring the libations. This brought about a situation
in which those who found the animals began leaving them where they found them, and
absconding, so as not to become liable for the libations. The court therefore instituted that the
libations accompanying these offerings would come from public funds, that is, from the Temple
treasury.

Rabbi Shimon said: The court instituted seven ordinances with regard to the financial aspects
of offerings and consecrations. And this ordinance, namely, that the cost of the libations
accompanying the sacrifice of a found animal is borne by the public, is one of them. These are the
other ordinances: If a gentile sent his burnt-offering from abroad, outside Eretz Yisrael, and
he sent with it money for the purchase of the libations that must accompany it, the libations are
offered at his expense. And if the gentile did not cover the cost of the libations, it is a condition
of the court that the libations are sacrificed at the public’s expense, with funds taken from the
Temple treasury.

And likewise, in the case of a convert who died without heirs and left animals that he had
designated as offerings. If he has the libations, i.e., if he also had set aside libations or money for
that purpose, the libations are sacrificed from his estate. And if he did not do so, the libations
are sacrificed from public funds.

And another ordinance: It is a condition of the court with regard to a High Priest who died,
and a new High Priest had not yet been appointed in his place, that his meal-offering, i.e., the
griddle-cake offering that the High Priest would bring each day from one-tenth of an ephah of

4
flour, would be sacrificed from public funds. Rabbi Yehuda says: It was brought from the
property of the High Priest’s heirs, i.e., his estate, and not from public funds. In any event, the
offering was not brought as it would have been brought by the High Priest himself were he still
alive, half in the morning and half in the evening, but rather it was sacrificed all at once, from a
whole one-tenth of an ephah.

GEMARA: The mishna taught that if a male animal was found near Jerusalem, it is presumed to
have been consecrated as a burnt-offering. Given that a male animal could just as easily be a peace-
offering, and as such, most of its meat is meant to be eaten and it is prohibited to burn it on the
altar, how can the found animal be sacrificed as a burnt-offering? In answer to this question, Rabbi
Hoshaya Rabba said: They taught the halakha that it is presumed to be a burnt-offering only
with regard to one who comes with its money, i.e., the money with which the animal was
redeemed. One who finds such an animal near Jerusalem may not bring it as a burnt-offering, as it
might be a peace-offering. He must redeem the animal for its monetary value, and in addition he
must consecrate the same sum again, from his own money. He then stipulates the following: If the
animal is a burnt-offering, let it be redeemed on the first sum, and let the second sum be used for
a free-will peace-offering. If this animal is a peace-offering, let it be redeemed on the second sum,
and let the first sum be used for a free-will burnt-offering. He then purchases a burnt-offering with
the first sum and a peace-offering with the second sum.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Does one say to a person that he should go out and misuse
consecrated animals? If one redeems a consecrated animal that is still fit for the altar, the
redemption is valid; the animal is no longer consecrated and the money is now sacred in its place
and must be used to buy other offerings. This redemption, however, is valid only after the fact; it
is considered misuse to redeem an unblemished animal and prohibited to do so ab initio.

Rather, the mishna must be understood differently. In their regard, follow the majority. If the
majority of the animals found are males, they are determined to be burnt-offerings, for most
male animals brought as offerings are burnt-offerings. And if the majority of the animals found
are females, they are determined to be peace-offerings, for most female animals brought as
offerings are peace-offerings.

5
Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan’s words must be understood as follows: If one finds animals near
Jerusalem, even though they are presumed to be offerings, he cannot sacrifice the animals
themselves on the altar. What then does he do? He must wait until the animals develop blemishes
and only then redeem them, and thereby remove their consecrated status and restore them to their
non-sacred state. He then goes back and ensures that he makes them [20b] burnt-offerings. He
does this by taking two unblemished animals and stipulating as follows: If the animal that was
found was a burnt-offering, let the first animal be a burnt-offering in its place, and let the second
be a peace-offering. And if the animal that was found was a peace-offering, let the second animal
be peace-offering, and let the first be a free-will burnt-offering.

Summary

Rav Avrohom Adler writes:1

The Mishna continues talking about that status of consecrated animals that have been lost: If an
animal was found between Yerushalayim and Migdal Eder, or within this same distance in any
direction from Yerushalayim, if it is a male animal, it is presumed to be an olah and if it is a female,
it is presumed to be a shelamim. Rabbi Yehuda says that thirty days prior to Pesach, any animal
which can qualify for a Korban Pesach is considered to be one, since they are so common at that
time of the year. Beis Din used to take collateral from the finder (impose the burden of paying) for
the nesochim (wine libations) on the person who found the lost animal , but once they saw that
people just abandoned the animals instead of returning them, this practice was abolished, and the
nesochim would be paid from public funds. Rabbi Shimon lists seven enactments of the Sages.

1. One of them is that which was just mentioned.

2. A second is that if a non-Jew sent his olah offering from abroad, if he sent along the libations,
those are used, but if he did not, the community provides them.
3. The same applies to a convert who died before his sacrifices were brought. If his estate has the
ingredients that were already designated for the nesochim, it was brought from them; otherwise, it
comes from the public.
4. [Our Mishna is discussing a case involving a Kohen Gadol whodiedy, before a replacement has
been named. Even without an acting Kohen Gadol, the daily tenth of an eifah offering must be
offered, albeit with certain modifications. The issue is who funds the offering in such a situation.]
A Kohen Gadol that died, the public must pay for his assiris ha’eifah minchah. However, Rabbi
Yehuda differs and says that his heirs should pay for it.
5. They instituted that the Kohanim can benefit from the salt and wood that are used for the
offerings.
6. A sixth enactment was that the ashes of a parah adumah (red heifer) aren't subject to me’ilah
(one who has unintentionally benefited from hekdesh or removed it from the ownership of the Beis

1
http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Shekalim_20.pdf

6
Hamikdosh has committed the transgression of me’ilah, and as a penalty, he would be required to
pay the value of the object plus an additional fifth of the value; he also brings a korban asham).
7. A person who is obligated in bird-pairs gives the Temple treasurers the money, and they process
the korban for him. However, if after he gave the money, the birds became disqualified, the public
funds are used to replace that bird.

[The Gemora wonders: Why are the males only presumed to be olos and not shelamim? How can
they be brought as olos when they may in fact be a shelamim?] Rabbi Oshaya explains: We are
discussing someone who voluntarily wants to obligate himself for the value of the korbanos (by
redeeming them). The Mishna means that such a person must also suspect that the male is an olah
(besides the fact that he must suspect it is a shelamim). This is like the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who
says that one can knowingly deconsecrate hekdesh (for otherwise, how could an unblemished
animal be redeemed).

The Gemora asks: Can one indeed transfer the integral holiness of a korban onto something else?

The Gemora answers: Rather, we follow the majority: In cases of uncertainty, we can rely on the
fact that the majority of male animals are olah offerings, and that the majority of female offerings
are shelamim.

The Gemora asks: But it is not a fact that shelamim offerings come from both male and female
animals?

The Gemora answers: Rather, one should wait until this lost animal receives a blemish (making it
permissible to redeem the animal), and he should then bring both an olah and shelamim and
stipulate. [He stipulates that if it was an olah, its holiness should be on the animal that will be
brought for an olah, and if it was a shelamim its holiness should be on the animal that will be
brought for a shelamim. The other animal will be offered as a donation.] Rabbi Zeira explains: Just
as it was said before that the Court stipulated regarding the leftover of money designated for a
chatas that it should be used to purchase olah offerings, so too they stipulated regarding lost male
animals that they should be offered as olah offerings.

The Gemora concludes: since it is a stipulation of the Court, it is not regarded as deliberately
changing from one consecration to another.

The Gemora discusses the following question: What do we do with the shekalim of a person who
died (he designated the shekalim, but didn't donate them yet)? Shmuel rules that the funds should
go for general olah donations. In a similar case, what do we do with the surplus of the asiris ha'eifah
(after the Kohen Gadol died)?

Rabbi Yochanan says that they are unusable, and therefore should be cast into the Dead Sea (where
the salt water will disintegrate the coins.) Rabbi Eliezer says here too that the funds should go for
general donations.

7
Rabbi Yochanan said: The tenth of an eifah of the Kohen Gadol is divided first and then sanctified
(and the first half is brought in the morning and the second half is brought in the afternoon). Rabbi
Shimon ben Lakish disagreed and said: It is consecrated and then divided.

WHAT TO DO WITH AN ANIMAL ONE FINDS NEAR

YERUSHALAYIM

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:2

The Mishnah teaches that one who finds an animal within a certain distance from Yerushalayim
must assume that it was designated as a Korban. If it is a male animal, it is offered as an Olah, and
if it is a female animal, it is offered as a Shelamim. The Gemara questions why we assume that a
lost male animal is an Olah.

The text of the Gemara, however, is unclear, and the VILNA GA'ON makes extensive changes in
the Girsa. To understand the Sugya here, one must learn the complementary Sugya in Kidushin
(55a) which discusses this Mishnah and deals with many of the issues discussed by the Gemara
here.

The Vilna Ga'on's changes are based on the Gemara in Kidushin. After one analyzes his approach,
one will notice that the Sugya here can be understood the same way that the Vilna Ga'on
understands it, but without the changes in the Girsa that he makes.3

The flow of the Gemara may be divided into five stages:

1. The Mishnah asserts that a male animal is assumed to be an Olah. The Gemara questions
this assertion. A male animal can also be a Shelamim, and thus perhaps this animal was
designated to be offered as a Shelamim and not as an Olah. Why, then, does the Mishnah
say that the animal is assumed to be an Olah? The Gemara, therefore, assumes that the
Mishnah does not mean that the animal is offered as an Olah; rather, the Mishnah means
that the animal is offered as both an Olah and a Shelamim.

How, though, can one animal be offered as two Korbanos? It must be that the person transfers the
Kedushah of the animal onto two new animals, one of which will be offered as an Olah and the
other as a Shelamim. He stipulates, "If the original animal is an Olah, then I hereby transfer its

2
https://www.dafyomi.co.il/shekalim/insites/sk-dt-020.htm
3
Disciples of the Vilna Ga'on write in numerous places that their teacher taught them Sugyos in the Yerushalmi with the original
Girsa, but explained those Sugyos in such a way that the explanation matched his suggested Girsa changes (see, for example, BNEI
MOSHE). This may be an important rule to keep in mind when one considers how the Vilna Ga'on made such numerous and
extensive emendations in the conventional text of the Mishnah and Yerushalmi. -M. Kornfeld.

8
Kedushah onto the first new animal. If it is a Shelamim, then I hereby transfer its Kedushah onto
the second new animal. The remaining animal that is not sanctified will be offered as a Nedavah."
This is the intention of Rebbi Hoshiyah when he says, "la'Vo b'Demeihen Shanu." He means that
one does not offer the actual animal that was found, but rather he offers two other animals, one as
an Olah and one as a Shelamim, that are each equal in value to the original animal.
(Of course, the finder is not obligated to do this, for it involves donating a second animal from his
own funds. If he wants, he may leave the animal to graze until it becomes blemished and then
redeem it. However, if he wants to avoid any doubt and bring the correct Korban with this animal,
this is the preferable procedure.)

2. The Gemara questions this procedure. Nowhere else does the law permit one to redeem a
perfect, unblemished animal onto another animal. Why, in this case, does the Mishnah
suggest that one may redeem an unblemished animal and bring two animals, each of equal
value to the first, in its place?

The Gemara in Kidushin explains that, indeed, no act of Chilul (transfer of Kedushah) is performed
in this case. Rather, the original animal loses its Kedushah through Me'ilah (misuse of Kodshim,
such as using it to purchase another animal). Me'ilah, like Chilul, removes the Kedushah from a
sanctified object, even from an unblemished animal. (Although there is a principle that the
Kedushah of Kodshei Mizbe'ach, such as Korbanos, cannot be removed, that applies only when
one does not intend to remove the Kedushah. When one intends to remove the Kedushah, the
Kedushah can effectively be removed.) If one has intention to remove the Kedushah from the
animal, it is considered as though he does an act of Me'ilah which removes its Kedushah. However,
he is able to remove the Kedushah in this manner only according to the opinion of Rebbi Meir in
Kidushin (54b), who says that Me'ilah committed intentionally (b'Mezid) is able to remove the
Kedushah of an object. Rebbi Yehudah argues and says that the Kedushah leaves the object only
when Me'ilah is committed unintentionally (b'Shogeg).

However, this raises a new problem. Why is the person told to commit Me'ilah ("Tzei u'Me'ol
b'Kodshim") in order to remove the animal's Kedushah? The act of Me'ilah is forbidden! The
answer is that the case of the Mishnah refers to one who already committed Me'ilah (b'Di'eved);
he is not instructed to do it (Tosfos, Kidushin 55a). Alternatively, the Mishnah means that since
his purpose is to enable the animal (or its value) to be offered as a Korban, this form of Me'ilah is
permitted.

However, Rebbi Yochanan rejects these two answers and says that this case is no different from a
normal case of Me'ilah, which is forbidden. Since the Mishnah implies that one
is permitted (l'Chatchilah) to make the animal into an Olah, Rebbi Hoshiyah's explanation must be
incorrect.

3. The Gemara therefore returns to the beginning of the discussion and says that the reason
one offers the male animal as an Olah (even though a male animal may also be offered as a
Shelamim) is because most male animals are offered as Olos, since an Olah may be
offered only from a male animal.
The Gemara was unaware of the implied question which Rebbi Hoshiyah earlier was answering,
and therefore, only at this stage is it bothered by that question: how can this animal be offered as

9
an Olah, if male animals may also be offered as Shelamim, and it is not logical to say that "most
male animals are offered as Olos."
Rather, it must be that the Kedushah of the animal is transferred onto two other animals, one of
which is offered as an Olah and the other as a Shelamim, exactly as Rebbi Hoshiyah had
suggested.4

Now, however, the Gemara is bothered by the same question that it asked on Rebbi Hoshiyah: why
is one permitted to remove the Kedushah from an unblemished animal and transfer it onto another
animal? The Gemara asks, "Keitzad Hu Oseh, Motzi'in l'Chulin v'Chozer v'Oseh Osan Olos?"
"What should he do -- redeem the animal and bring with its value Olos [and Shelamim]?" One is
not permitted to redeem an unblemished animal!

4. The Gemara answers ("Amar Rebbi Ze'ira") that it is not true that one may never redeem
an unblemished animal. We find that a Tenai Beis Din (a stipulation of the Rabanan) is able to
make a Chatas into an Olah (11b), and, similarly, it can make a Shelamim (that is in doubt) into
an Olah.

5. Rebbi Yosi asks one final question. "This is Mezid" -- why is one permitted to
intentionally remove the Kedushah from an animal?

What is Rebbi Yosi's question? The Gemara just established that it is a Tenai Beis Din, and thus
no transgression is committed when one removes the Kedushah of the animal!

It must be that Rebbi Yosi's question refers back to Rebbi Hoshiyah's statement. Rebbi Hoshiyah
said that one may commit Me'ilah and remove the Kedushah from an animal. Earlier, Rebbi
Yochanan asked that one should not be permitted to do such a thing l'Chatchilah. Rebbi Yosi now
asks another question on Rebbi Hoshiyah. Me'ilah removes the Kedushah from an object only
when it is done unintentionally, b'Shogeg (according to Rebbi Yehudah). Although it is true that
Rebbi Meir maintains that Me'ilah removes the Kedushah even when it is done b'Mezid, but the
Halachah follows the view of Rebbi Yehudah. Why, then, does Rebbi Hoshiyah explain the
Mishnah according to the non-Halachic opinion of Rebbi Meir? That is Rebbi Yosi's question.

The Gemara answers, as it concluded earlier, that a Tenai Beis Din allows the animal to be offered
as an Olah even when it was originally set aside to be offered as a Shelamim.

4
(The Gemara earlier did not know why Rebbi Hoshiyah said that one transfers the Kedushah from the original
animal onto two new animals, one as an Olah and one as a Shelamim. It was not aware of the question that Rebbi
Hoshiyah was addressing, until this point when it asks the question on its own.

10
 Handling Consecrated Animals
Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:5

The last Mishna in our perek opens with a discussion of what to do if an animal is found in the
environs of Jerusalem. We assume that it must be a korban; depending on its gender, it will either
be brought as an ola or as a shelamim. The Mishna also describes how at first the person who
found the animal was responsible to pay for the minhat nesakhim that went with it (flour and oil,
as well as a wine libation). When people realized that bringing the lost animal to the Temple would
be an expensive proposition for them, they would ignore such animals, so a court decision was
made putting the responsibility for the minhat nesakhim on the community. Rabbi Shimon lists
this as one of the seven takanot (remedy, ordinance) that the beit din made in connection with the
Temple service.

…And the sixth ordinance concerned the red heifer: that deriving benefit from its ashes is not
considered misusing consecrated property.

The para aduma was used during Temple times to purify people who had become ritually defiled
through contact with a dead body. According to the Torah (Bamidbar 19:1-22), the para aduma is
slaughtered and burned; its ashes are mixed with well-water (mayim hayyim) and that mixture is
sprinkled on the person who is tameh. After a week has passed, the person goes to the mikveh and
becomes tahor (ritually pure) once again.

For all that preparation of the para aduma is incumbent on the kohanim and is part of the Temple
service, the para aduma is not considered a korban, as it is not slaughtered in the precincts of
the Mikdash, but on Har ha-Zeitim, the Mount of Olives. As such, the holiness that it has is kodshei
bedek ha-bayit, as something that belongs to the Temple treasury, rather than having inherent
holiness.

According to the Gemara, me’ila (misusing consecrated property) can only take place if someone
makes use of the para aduma itself. Me’ila cannot be done on the ashes of the para aduma. When
the courts saw that the kohanim were using the ashes for medicinal purposes, they ruled
that me’ila should apply to the ashes, as well. When it became clear that this new rule
discouraged kohanim from participating in the ceremony where the para aduma water was used
for its intended purpose, because they were afraid that they might accidentally derive benefit from
it, the beit din returned the law to its original status, ruling that no me’ila applies to the ashes.

Sue Parker Gerson writes:6

Our daf continues yesterday’s discussion about money found on the floor of the Temple in
Jerusalem with an exploration about other lost items and asks: just how hard should we work to
return a lost object?

5
https://steinsaltz.org/daf/shekalim20/
6
Myjewishlearning.com

11
Centuries before the Talmud addressed this matter, the Torah had already ruled on this topic:

If you see your fellow’s ox or sheep gone astray, do not ignore it; you must take it back to your
fellow. If your fellow does not live near you or you do not know who he is, you shall bring it home
and it shall remain with you until your fellow claims it; then you shall give it back to him … and
so too shall you do with anything that your fellow loses and you find: you must not remain
indifferent. (Deuteronomy 22:1-3)

Today's page, however, is concerned not with returning a lost object or animal to an identifiable
owner, but with found objects that are seemingly ownerless (or at least, the owner can’t be readily
identified). Examples on today’s daf include a container of wine found in a synagogue, a roasted
goat found on the street, a round cheese found in someone’s lodgings and more. (Don’t ask me
how someone loses an entire roasted goat.)

In most of these cases, the Gemara’s ruling is “finders keepers.” That is, there is no need to return
the now ownerless object that has been presumably left behind by mistake. But just because you
don’t have to try to return it, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t, as one rabbi asserts on today’s daf:

Rabbi Mana said in the presence of Rabbi Yosei: But I saw the rabbis announcing that they
had found lost property, even when the item was found in a public area (and was therefore
presumed ownerless).

Rabbi Yosei said to him: If you were to find an article in a public area, you would not take
it either. Rabbi Yona, your father, did not say this, but said: “If only that when we find some
item, we should find it from the gate outward (i.e. in a public area that would not require us
to look for the owner).” Even so, when Rabbi Yona found a lost article in a crowded public
place, he did not take it for himself.

Rabbi Mana notices that, in fact, the rabbis announce publicly when such objects are found, in the
hope that the owners will claim them — and this flummoxes him. What about “finders keepers”?
Rabbi Yosei reproves him. His response to Rabbi Mana (in the name of Rabbi Mana’s father, for
emphasis) points to an important dictum: just because you can do something, does not mean that
you should do it. In this case, it might be permissible to use, eat or otherwise benefit from an
ownerless object — but it wouldn’t be right. He appeals to Rabbi Mana’s ethical intuition on
this: you would not take it either.

Today, in the wake of the Industrial Revolution, many of us live in a sea of objects and possessions.
But not all of us are in that situation — and this was not so for the rabbis who lived in a period of
less wealth and far fewer personal possessions. Imagine the person living in the time of the Talmud
who put down her full shopping basket, and then forgot where she left it. It’s very possible that if
the rabbi didn’t announce its finding in the town square in the hopes that someone would let her
know, she and her family would go hungry that night.

Today, the rabbis wrestle with a distance between what the law requires, as they understand it, and
what is intuitively “right” from an ethical standpoint. Clearly, they hope we will all choose the
latter.

12
Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:7

Our Daf records a curious exchange between Rabbi Mana and Rabbi Yosi about the mitzvah of
Hashavat Aveida – returning a lost object.
In general, when an object has been lost with little to no identifying signs in a public location, it is
presumed that the original owner would quickly give up hope of finding their object, and therefore
in such a case, someone who finds such an object may keep it.
At the same time, if an object has been lost which does have identifying signs and we can therefore
presume that the owner has not given up hope of finding it, then the finder is obliged to publicize
the fact that they have found this object and therefore attempt to return it to them.

With this in mind, the Gemara relates how Rabbi Mana was inspired by a ruling of the Rabbis
where they ruled, beyond the letter of the law, that an object which technically could be kept should
still be publicized in order to find its owner.

To this, Rabbi Yosi responded in bewilderment, asking: ‘Do you mean that if you found an object
[with little to no identifying signs in a public location] that you wouldn’t keep it? Don’t you know
that your father [Rabbi Yonah] didn’t say such a thing. Instead, he said that, “If only when we find
an object that we do so [in a place which would not require that we announce it] such as beyond
the gate [in the public thoroughfare].”

Yet, while Rabbi Mani did not challenge the truth of this testimony of Rabbi Yosi about his father
Rabbi Yonah, the Gemara relates that he remembered a time when he was with his father when
they found a lost object in a public place and that his father did not keep it for himself but, instead,
he announced it in order to find its original owner.

In this exchange it seems clear that Rabbi Yosi, who was one of Rabbi Yonah’s disciples, did not
seek to do anything other than let Rabbi Mana know that Rabbi Yonah did not require people to
go beyond the letter of the law in terms of the laws of Hashavat Aveida.

However, as evident from Rabbi Mana’s response, there is a big difference between what someone
teaches to their students, and the pious practices that they personally adopt. True, Rabbi Yosi had
heard the teachings and rulings of his teacher Rabbi Yonah. However, Rabbi Mana had seen the
personal practices of his father.

Oftentimes the Rabbis speak of students as being ‘like’ the children of a teacher. However, students
should know that however much they are valued by their teacher, they are not their teachers’
children, and while students may think that they know the total picture of their teacher, only those
who live with someone know both their true strengths, as well as their true weaknesses.

7
www.johhnysolomon.com

13
Rambam rules that the service of a kohen who
works in the Beis HaMikdash is valid (‫ )כשירה‬even before he brings his initial offering of ‫עשירית‬
‫ האיפה‬.This is in accordance with our text, although the text according to the Gr”a reads “‫”פסולה‬.8

Mishnah LaMelech notes that the text in Toras Kohanim also states that the service of a kohen
prior to his initial flour offering would be unacceptable, but he points out that this reading is in
error. We can prove our point based upon a Gemara in Yoma (12a). The case is where the Kohen
Gadol is officiating on Yom Kippur, and he suddenly becomes disqualified from further service
after he finished bringing the tamid, early in the morning of Yom Kippur.

The Gemara asks: How can we initiate the next kohen as Kohen Gadol so that he can continue and
finish the rest of the Yom Kippur service? This question in and of itself demonstrates some
assumptions. We see that bringing his actual ‫ האיפה עשירית‬offering is not allowed on Yom Kippur.
But if his service is disqualified without it, his ‫ האיפה עשירית‬would be essential and therefore
permitted on Yom Kippur. If it was allowed, we would initiate the new kohen in the standard
manner.

We therefore conclude that his service is valid, even before he officially brings his personal flour
offering. Sfas Emes points out that the proof of the Mishnah LaMelech can be answered. Perhaps
a kohen who never brought a flour offering cannot serve, and if he does, he service would be
unacceptable.

However, the Gemara in Yoma is speaking about a kohen who officiated and served as a regular
kohen in the past. He had brought his ‫ האיפה עשירית‬. In this case, he was even alerted that he would
be the standin Kohen Gadol in case of emergency. When he is called to duty, the only thing he is
lacking is being initiated as Kohen Gadol. This is classically done with the bringing of the ‫חביתי‬
‫ גדול כהן‬,which is a personal offering, and this is not done on Yom Kippur.

8
https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/Shekalim%20020.pdf

14
Migdal Eder

Cattle found all the way from Jerusalem to Migdal Eder, and in the same vicinity
in all directions, are considered, if male, as whole-offerings, and if female as
peace-offerings.

15
Our first encounter with this place comes from Genesis:

,‫ ֶאְפָרָתה‬Š‫ ָרֵחל; ַוִתָּקֵּבר ְבֶּדֶר‬,‫ יט ַוָתָּמת‬19 And Rachel died, and was buried in the way to Ephrath-
.‫ִהוא ֵבּית ָלֶחם‬ -the same is Beth-lehem.

‫ִהוא‬--‫ְקֻבָרָתהּ‬-‫ ַﬠל‬,‫ כ ַוַיֵּצּב ַיֲﬠֹקב ַמֵצָּבה‬20 And Jacob set up a pillar upon her grave; the same is
.‫ַהיּוֹם‬-‫ ַﬠד‬,‫ָרֵחל‬-‫ַמֶצֶּבת ְקֻבַרת‬ the pillar of Rachel's grave unto this day.

‫ ֵמָהְלָאה‬,‫ ִיְשָׂרֵאל; ַוֵיּט ָאֳה™ה‬,‫ כא ַו ִיַּסּע‬21 And Israel journeyed, and spread his tent beyond
.‫ֵﬠֶדר‬-‫ְלִמְגַדּל‬ Migdal-eder.

Gen 35: 19-21

Targun hints at the location as being the site of the revelation of the Messiah:

Targum Ps Jonathan op cit

Citing a distant verse from Micah, the midrash links the two verses:

Micah 4:8

16
Chizkuni op cit

Rashbam op cit

17
Yonatan ben Uzziel stood up on his feet and said: I am the one who has revealed Your
secrets to mankind through my translation. However, it is revealed and known to You that I
did this not for my own honor, and not for the honor of the house of my father, but rather it
was for Your honor that I did this, so that discord not increase among the Jewish people. In
the absence of an accepted translation, people will disagree about the meaning of obscure verses,
but with a translation, the meaning will be clear.

And Yonatan ben Uzziel also sought to reveal a translation of the Writings, but a Divine Voice
emerged and said to him: It is enough for you that you translated the Prophets. The Gemara
explains: What is the reason that he was denied permission to translate the Writings? Because it
has in it a revelation of the end, when the Messiah will arrive. The end is foretold in a cryptic
manner in the book of Daniel, and were the book of Daniel translated, the end would become
manifestly revealed to all.

Megilla 3a

Steinzaltz

18
This link is also a literary midrashic trigger that allows for other traditions to support their
messianic claims. The Micah verse supports the messianic claims of the Targum and allows
for the NT claims for the baby in the manger localizing to this site.

Alfred Edersheim9, a 19th Century Jewish Christian, was a theologian and historian who
specialised on Judea around the time of Jesus. Through his knowledge of the Old Testament and

9
Edersheim was born in Vienna of Jewish parents of culture and wealth. English was spoken in their home, and he became fluent
at an early age. He was educated at a local gymnasium and also in the Talmud and Torah at a Hebrew school, and in 1841 he
entered the University of Vienna. His father suffered illness and financial reversals before Alfred could complete his university
education, and he had to support himself.
Edersheim emigrated to Hungary and became a teacher of languages. He converted to Christianity in Pest when he came under the
influence of John Duncan, a Free Church of Scotland chaplain to workmen engaged in constructing a bridge over the Danube.
Edersheim accompanied Duncan on his return to Scotland and studied theology at New College, Edinburgh, and at the University
of Berlin. In 1846 Alfred was married to Mary Broomfield. They had seven children. In the same year he was ordained to the
ministry in the Free Church of Scotland. He was a missionary to the Jews at Iaşi, Romania, for a year.

19
prominent Jewish writings proposed that the location of Jesus’ birth was at a place called Migdal
Eder. Literally translated as ‘Tower of the Flock’, Midgal Eder was probably an old military
structure located just outside the town of Bethlehem. Although Edersheim’s proposal can’t be
verified, it is worth considering.

• Migdal Eder is mentioned in Genesis 35 as the place where Rachel died giving birth
to a son Benjamin. The name Benjamin means ‘Son of my Right Hand’ but it
wasn’t his original name. He was first called Ben-Oni meaning ‘Son of
Sorrow’. Somehow there is a connection between Migdal Eder, Bethlehem and a
child who is both a ‘Son of Sorrow’ and ‘Son of my Right Hand’.
• Micah 4 establishes the expectation of a Godly King intrinsically linked
with Migdal Eder who would ultimately restore God’s people and lead them
victorious over evil. This Messianic figure would bring ultimate peace because he
would establish God’s rule among the nations.
• According to Jewish writings, the shepherds of Bethlehem would tend the sheep
for the Temple sacrifices. In addition, it was said that when a lamb which met the
requirements for the Passover sacrifice was born, the shepherd would wrap it in
cloth and lay it in a feeding groove on the floor of Migdal Eder to prevent it from
any harm.
•
Edersheim suggested that, given these 3 connections with Migdal Eder, when the angel announced
the birth of a Davidic king who was wrapped in cloth and in an animal feeding place, the
shepherd’s minds would have been drawn to Migdal Eder.

WHAT IS THE TOWER OF FLOCK?

We read above Genesis 35:19-21, “So Rachel died and was buried on the way to Ephrath (that

is, Bethlehem). And Jacob set a pillar on her grave, which is the pillar of Rachel’s grave to

this day. Then Israel journeyed and pitched his tent beyond the tower of Eder.”

The phrase “tower of Eder” literally means “tower of flock.” In those days when a flock of

animals, particularly sheep, were being cared for and watched, the shepherd would oftentimes be

On his return to Scotland, after preaching for a time in Aberdeen, Edersheim was appointed in 1849 to minister at the Free Church,
Old Aberdeen. In 1861 health problems forced him to resign and the Church of St. Andrew was built for him at Torquay. In 1867/8
he cared for the Rev Prof Robert Lee in his home, for the final months of Lee's life.[1]
In 1872 Edersheim's health again obliged him to retire, and for four years he lived quietly at Bournemouth. In 1875, he was ordained
in the Church of England, and was Curate of the Abbey Church, Christchurch, Hants, for a year, and from 1876 to
1882 Vicar of Loders, Bridport, Dorset. He was appointed to the post of Warburtonian Lecturer at Lincoln's Inn 1880-84. In 1882
he resigned and relocated to Oxford. He was Select Preacher to the University 1884-85 and Grinfield Lecturer on
the Septuagint 1886-88 and 1888-89.

20
in a tower overlooking his flock, keeping an eye out for bandits or wild animals. This particular

tower of the flock was near Bethlehem of Judea, and it was here that Jacob pitched his tent after

Rachel died.

The only other place in the Old Testament where the Hebrew phrase “tower of flock” is found is

Micah 4:8:

And you, O tower of the flock,

The stronghold of the daughter of Zion,

To you shall it come,

Even the former dominion shall come,

The kingdom of the daughter of Jerusalem.

Targum Jonathan (an ancient Aramaic translation) sees the word “tower” in this verse as

referring to the Messiah, and the word “flock” as referring to Israel. It therefore translates the

beginning of the verse as, “And you, O Messiah of Israel . . . .”

Based on these verses, therefore, later Jewish tradition taught that when the Messiah would

come, He would be revealed from Migdal Eder, the tower of the flock (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan

on Gen. 35:21).

Tower of Eder

Migdal Eder (Hebrew: ‫ מגדל־עדר‬Miḡdal ‘Êḏer [miɣ.dal ʕɛð.er], "Tower of Eder") is a tower
mentioned in the biblical book of Genesis 35:21, in the context of the death of Jacob's wife, Rachel.

One cannot walk through the Palestinian village of Bayt Sahour without contemplating the
phrase Migdal ‘Eder. The words themselves are simple enough to translate; pulling them down to
earth and hoisting them back into the air, however, is another matter.

21
Migdal ‘Eder is a transliteration of the Semitic phrase for “fort of the flock.” Such “forts” or
“towers” arise here and there in the biblical text. A migdol (possibly a metathesis of the
Akkadian madgaltu, “watchtower” or “border post” suggests W. F. Albright) may be found
perched on a wall, squatting down on a hill, or reaching up to the sky.

According to the literature, some seem to be small agricultural installations (Isa 5:2; cf.
the pyrgos of Matt 21:33) while others are dense citadels (Ps 64:3 [4]) or even Babelesque
skyscrapers (Gen 11:4)!

However, presented, the migdal offers its inhabitants a place of refuge, splendor, and vantage. It
is curious stuff.

Here the Hebrew caption suggests, “A Watchtower from the hills of Samaria. from S. Hirsch’s
1933 volume Sheep and Goats in Palestine (Palestine Economic Society, Tel Aviv).

Remains of these dry-stacked stone structures may still be seen in rural Palestine. Local Arab
speakers call them qusoor or “palaces.” They often appear as rock piles in terraced fields. I’ve
encountered many of these while wandering afoot, but nowhere as numerous as in the hills around
Bethlehem.

A well-illustrated report on the cultural landscape of this area has been recently prepared (2013)
by the Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities and the Department of Antiquities and Cultural
Heritage of Palestine. Colored maps detail local landuse as well as the presence of these towers.
I’ve lifted and linked two illustrations from the report here. The first shows the basic types of

22
structures encountered. The second maps the presence of these structures on the ground. Oddly
enough, it seems that a history of the migdal or qusoor has yet to written. Some scholars date these
installations all the way back to late-prehistory (9th-4th millennium BC)! Others are more recent,
perhaps Iron Age or Ottoman in origin. Whatever the case, these have been used as shelters right
up to present time.

The biblical record locates it near the present-day city of Bethlehem.

A well-illustrated report on the cultural landscape of this area has been recently prepared (2013)
by the Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities and the Department of Antiquities and Cultural
Heritage of Palestine. Colored maps detail local landuse as well as the presence of these towers.

I’ve lifted and linked two illustrations from the report here.

A map illustrating the distribution of agricultural towers near the Palestinian village of Battir.
Note the “sprinkles” of squares on the right hand side of the orange colored area. These are
documented towers. The red dot in the center of the map is Battir. The village of Bayt Jala is

23
located on the right edge. Bethlehem (Beyt-lahem) is just off the map to the east, Jerusalem is
just off the map to the north.

Sometimes site names incorporate a migdal element. Consider Migdal-el (“Tower of

God”) from Joshua 19:38 or Migdal-gad (“Tower of Gad”) from Joshua 15:37.
If migdal represents the “Fort” of our “Flock Fort” title, the Hebrew term ’eder gives
us the “flock” part. This term represents a “herd” of animals. Sheep and goat quickly
come to mind, but the biblical ‘eder may also include donkeys, cows, and camels. Jacob
drives a thundering menagerie through the middle of the text of Genesis. Eventually he
slows down and must sheepishly (!) face Esau (Gen 32:14-15).

Apart from Josh 15:21 (where Y. Aharoni suggested that ‘eder may simply be a
corrupted representation of ‘Arad), the use of ‘eder as a place-name is limited to two
instances: Gen 35:21 and Micah 4:8. Both texts muster the complete phrase: Migdal
Eder. It is tempting to suggest that there is some intertextual “energy” bouncing
between them.

24
The first shows the basic types of structures encountered. The second maps the presence
of these structures on the ground. Oddly enough, it seems that a history of
the migdal or qusoor has yet to written. Some scholars date these installations all the
way back to late-prehistory (9th-4th millennium BC)! Others are more recent, perhaps
Iron Age or Ottoman in origin. Whatever the case, these have been used as shelters right
up to present time.

Migdal Eder
In January 1927, the Zikhron David society, a group of 160 Orthodox Jews from the Mea
Shearim neighborhood of Jerusalem, established a small farming community, "Migdal Eder," on
land south of Jerusalem. The name was taken from a verse in the Bible, Genesis 35:21, which
referenced a tower by the same name. During the 1929 Palestine riots, Migdal Eder was attacked
and destroyed. Residents of the neighboring Palestinian village of Beit Ummar sheltered the
farmers, but they could not return to their land.
Old Kfar Etzion
In the early 1930s, the land was purchased by Haredi businessman Shmuel Zvi
Holtzman from Rehovot, who renamed the settlement "Kfar Etzion," a play on his own
name: Yiddish “holts” and German "Holz" means “wood”, which translates to “etz” in Hebrew).
The Jews were forced to leave again in the wake of the 1936–39 Arab revolt. Much of what
Holtzman and his comrades had built was demolished by the Arabs.
In 1943–47, the kibbutz movement sent out groups of settlers to establish four kibbutzim, creating
what became known as the Etzion bloc. Kfar Etzion, Ein Tzurim, Massu'ot
Yitzhak and Revadim were destroyed in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, and the entire area came
under Jordanian rule.
The kibbutzim held off the attacks for ten days until Kfar Etzion fell. In the Kfar Etzion
massacre on 14 May, 157 Jewish inhabitants of the village were murdered, as all but four of the
inhabitants were executed by Arab Legion and irregular forces. The other three kibbutzim
surrendered. The inhabitants there were taken as prisoners of war and released nine months later.

25