1MISHNAH: Even though they said that one does not take pledges from women, slaves, and minors, but if they gave the sheqel one accepts it from them. One does not accept from the Non-Jew and the Samaritan 122 This is a statement in dispute as explained in the Halakhah. The argument behind the statement is that since the Temple tax is used for public sacrifices, only people for whom the sacrifices are brought may contribute. , and from them one does not accept nests of male sufferers from gonorrhea, nests of female sufferers from flux, nests of women having given birth, and purification and reparation sacrifices 123 This is the list of sacrifices which a Jew may only bring if he is obligated for them. Since a Non-Jew never is obligated to follow any pentateuchal rules other than the Noahide commandments, he never is eligible for these offerings. If a sacrifice is voluntary for Jews, it also is so for Non-Jews. . This is the principle: Anything which can be given as a vow or a gift one does accept from them; anything which\can be given neither as a vow nor a gift one does not accept from them. So it is spelled out by Ezra, it is not upon you and us to build our God’s House 124 Ezra 4:3 . This refers only to the sheqel . . The following are liable for agio 145 Latin collybus, collubus , Greek κόλλυβος “exchange of coins, rate of exchange”, here used for the money changer’s fee. : Levites, Israelites, proselytes, and freedmen, but not priests, women, slaves, and minors 146 Since these are obligated for the sheqel , they have to give exactly one didrachma piece. If they have other coins, they have to pay the fee for exchange in correct coins. But contributions of priests, women, slaves, and minors, are voluntary and not bound by the exact amount or exact coins and, therefore, do not have to be exchanged. . He who pays the sheqel for a slave, a woman, a priest, or a minor, is not liable. He who paid the sheqel for himself and another person is liable for one agio; Rebbi Meïr says, two agios 147 For the rabbis, a person paying for two may pay a tetradrachma, R. Meïr requires two didrachmas. . He who gives a tetradrachma to receive back a sheqel is liable for two agios 148 If he pays with a tetradrachma he should get back 2 denar minus the agio, set in Mishnah 7 either as an obolos (1/6 denar) or a semi-obolos. If he pays the money-changer’s fee separately, he has to pay for changing the common 2 denar into the less common didrachma. . A person who pays the sheqel for a poor person. a neighbor, or a dweller in his town is not liable for the agio, unless it is as a loan, then he is liable 156 If he pays for himself and from his own money he also pays for others, all is one transaction and pays one transaction fee. But if he is reimbursed for his expense this is not an act of charity; therefore each payment is a separate transaction and incurs a separate fee. . Brothers who are partners 157 In the Halakhah the reading from a different Mishnah is: “brothers or partners”, but B quoting the Mishnah here reads “brothers as partners”. As long as the father’s estate is not distributed, the surviving brothers are still considered children of their father; if the estate pays for their sheqel it is one transaction and incurs one fee. Calves born to the estate are considered property of one person and the tenth calf automatically becomes a sacrifice. If they distributed the estate but then decided to continue jointly to pursue the agricultural affairs of their father, they form a new partnership and follow the rules of partnerships. They are independent persons, each of whom has to pay his own fee, but all calves born are property of joint owners, not a single person, therefore the tenth calf or lamb ( Lev. 27:32 ) is not sanctified. who are liable for the agio are not liable for animal tithe; if they are liable for animal tithe they are not liable for the agio. How much is the agio? A silver obolos 158 1/6 of a Roman denar. , the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages say, half an obolos.
2HALAKHAH: “Even though they said,” etc. Therefore one does not request? Here you are saying, one requests, but there 106 The Mishnah states that one does not take pledges from women, slaves, and minors. It should have stated that these are not obligated to pay, then it would be obvious that nothing can be collected. This argument is valid for women and slaves, but since the Mishnah indicates that fathers are invited to pay the sheqel for their minor sons, an informal request may be made earlier, a formal one only if the son reaches the age of adulthood for religious obligations, the onset of puberty indicated by the growth of at least two pubic hairs. you are saying, one does not request. There if he grew two pubic hairs, and here if he did not grow two pubic hairs.
3“One does not accept from the Non-Jew and the Samaritan.” Rebbi Abba said, explain it 125 On the face of it, the equation of Samaritans with Gentiles is unintelligible. The baraita shows that up to the time of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, Rebbi’s father, the Samaritans were simply Sadducee Jews, the only Sadducee sect to survive after the destruction of the Temple. The Mishnah here reproduces Rebbi’s opinion. The paragraph also is in Berakhot 7:1 (Note 59 , ב ). following him who said, a Samaritan is like a Gentile, as they disagreed: A Samaritan is like a Gentile, the words of Rebbi; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, a Samaritan is like a Jew in all respects.
4Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah is about Gentiles, therefore not about Samaritans. It was stated so 126 Sifra Wayyiqra I (Ḥovah) Pereq 2(3). : “ A human 127 Lev. 1:2 . This use of human follows R.. Simeon’s interpretation of Ez . 34:30 , where he reads אָדָ֣ם אַתֶּ֑ם as “you are noblemen” (Accadic awēlum ), a title reserved for members of the Covenant. Since the Samaritans are descendants of proselytes, they are included in all obligations and privileges of the covenant and cannot be excluded from any of these. , to include the proselytes. From among you 128 Reading prefix mem as privative; excluding people who removed themselves from the Covenant. It seems that ג reads “removed from discipline”. , to exclude the apostates.” The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar: “One does not accept nests of male sufferers from gonorrhea, nests of female sufferers from flux, nests of women having given birth.” Do there exist nests of sufferers from gonorrhea and flux among Gentiles 129 These kinds of impurity do not apply to Gentiles who anyhow do not need them since they only are required to permit the healed person to enter the sanctuary or eat sancta, from which Gentiles are excluded. ? But the beginning is about Gentiles, the end about Samaritans 130 The statement that one does not accept the sheqel from them (but also that one accepts their voluntary sacrifices.) The rest is Rebbi’s formulation to exclude Samaritans from Jewish worship. . So it is, the beginning is about Gentiles, the end about Samaritans.
5Rebbi Joḥanan said, at the start 131 At the start of building the Temple, the situation described in the verse from Ezra . While the verse refers to Samaritans, the discussion here is about Gentile offerings. one accepts from them neither definite objects nor non-definite objects 132 After the building was finished and funds are needed for its continual upkeep. , and at the end one accepts from them definite objects but not non-definite objects 133 Since the Torah clearly accepts Gentile sacrifices, Lev. 22:25 , one also has to accept vessels or other objects inscribed with the Gentile donor’s name. But unspecified moneys for the continual upkeep of the Temple are reserved for and are a duty upon Jews. . Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, both at the beginning and at the end one accepts from them neither definite objects nor non-definite objects. A baraita 134 Tosephta 1:7 , Sifra Emor Parashah 7(2 ), Babli Menaḥot 73b ; cf. Nazir 9:1 Note 8 . disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “One does not accept from them voluntary gifts for Temple property for the upkeep of the Temple.” He explains it, both at the start and at the end, if it is for non-definite objects. A Mishnah 135 Mishnah Arakhin 1:3 , where R. Meïr and R. Jehudah disagree about the status of a Gentile with respect to the rules detailed in Lev. 27:2–8 . disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Everybody agrees that they make vows and are objects of vows 136 Since a voluntary sacrifice must be vowed to the Temple before it can be offered, Lev. 22:25 clearly implies that a Gentile’s vows are valid in a Jewish setting. It is stated that a Jew may make a vow whose object is a Gentile or which is conditioned on the actions of a Gentile. . He explains it for elevation offerings 137 These are the only sacrifices which a Gentile unquestionably is able to bring. It is difficult to see how he could bring a well-being offering which as a family sacrifice has to be consumed by the pure family members. The Gentile, being biblically unable to be impure, cannot biblically be pure either. . One understands that he makes a vow to bring an elevation offering. Can he be the object of a vow for an elevation offering? No, if an Israel says, I undertake to bring an elevation offering, when a Gentile hears him and says, I am undertaking what he says 138 While the Gentile is not the passive object of a vow, his vow is subsidiary to the Jew’s. . Does he not bring libations with it 139 As required by Num . 15:1–15 . ? Is not the excess money given for libations used for vessels of Service? Then it turns out that he brought {money for} a definite object 140 Nobody brings his libations to the Temple; he pays for them in the Temple; they are brought from the Temple’s stores, and the net proceeds are used to buy gold and silver vessels for the Temple. These are objects that could be engraved with the donor’s name. ! Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun objected, did we not state that they may offer their value 141 While not mentioned in Lev. 27:2–8 , in fact this is what money donations to the Temple are used for. ? Are offerings of one’s value not for the upkeep of the Temple 142 The person making the vow of his value is intent to give the money to the worship; what actually is done with the money is not of interest to him. ? It is as you are saying there, his intent was for Heaven; automatically it will be used for the upkeep of the Temple 143 Similarly, the excess money given for libations goes into a big pot where the individual contributions are no longer recognizable; no donor’s plate can be affixed to any vessel bought with such money. ; so here you are saying, his intent was for Heaven; automatically it will be used for vessels of Service. How does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish treat this? He explains, it is not upon you and us to build our God’s House . Rebbi Ḥilkiah said, Rebbi Simon asked: Does this imply that one does not accept from them 143 Similarly, the excess money given for libations goes into a big pot where the individual contributions are no longer recognizable; no donor’s plate can be affixed to any vessel bought with such money. for an aqueduct, or the city walls, or its towers, because of you have no part, nor rightful claim, nor memorial, in Jerusalem 144 Neh . 2:20 . .