1“A person who pays the sheqel for a poor person,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar said, only if they counted lambs against rams and rams against lambs, but if they counted lambs against lambs and rams against rams, it was his part from the first hour. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if they counted lambs against lambs and rams against rams, they are like buyers 159 R. Eleazar accords them the state of partnership only it there was a genuine distribution of the estate before the new partnership was entered into; if the estate was left untouched and each son got a proportional share of everything, it remains an estate. R. Joḥanan holds that the formal establishment of a partnership is all that is needed. Here “property” means not only real estate but everything not livestock. Babli Bekhorot 56b . , as we have stated there 160 Mishnah Bekhorot 9:3 . : “The buyer or recipient of a gift is not liable for animal tithe. Rebbi Ḥizkiah 161 The reading of ג “Ḥilkiah” has to be rejected since the latter was not a student of R. Jeremiah. said that Rebbi Jeremiah asked: And why are we not saying that sometimes they are liable for both and sometimes they are not liable for either. How is this done? If they distributed the properties and afterwards distributed the animals they are liable for both 162 If the estate was distributed except for livestock and then a partnership formed, they are individually responsible for their sheqels with agio, while the undistributed livestock remains subject to animal tithe even under the new arrangement. . If they distributed the animals and afterwards distributed the properties they are not liable for either. 163 If the livestock was distributed but not the real estate and the cash of the estate, they may continue to pay their sheqels together with one agio while the livestock is under the rules of partnership. Babli Bekhorot 56b . Rebbi Mana said, this holds only if the animals were not a majority, but if the animals were a majority they form the main property 164 The rule of the Mishnah applies even if the cash was never distributed explicitly. . Rebbi Abun said that Rebbi Shammai asked: Because you made them like one person for animal tithe, you made them not liable for agios 165 If the heirs are adults the status of the estate should have no influence on the duty to pay the agio. ? He said to him, no. There is a difference because he is giving a complete tetradrachma 166 Since the estate (here supposed to be property of two brothers) pays for both of them, there is only one transaction and only one fee is due. . Then even if they distributed and then formed a partnership, they should be liable for animal tithe and not liable for the agio 167 If the partnership would pay for them. . But we have stated, “they are liable for the agio, not liable for animal tithe.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Abba bar Rav Huna 168 In the Babli he is mentioned as Rabbah bar Rav Huna. it is the same for two brothers inheriting from their father or two brothers-in-law inheriting from their father-in-law 169 Since in the absence of male offsprings the daughters inherit following the rules for males, all rules for brothers dividing the estate of their father apply to brothers-in-law acting as administrators of their wives’ estates. .
2170 Tosephta 1:8 , end. “Where were the agios credited to? Rebbi Meïr says, to the sheqalim . Rebbi Eleazar says, for voluntary offerings 171 “Gift,” the separate account kept at the Temple treasury from which sacrifices were bought to occupy the altar in case it otherwise would be idle. . Rebbi Simeon from Shezur says, gold sheeting, cover for the Holiest of Holies 172 This special account in the Temple treasury is not mentioned in any other source. . Ben Azzai says, the money changers were taking them as their fees; but some say, for travel expenses 173 Everybody except Ben Azzai holds that the money changers as tax collectors are salaried employees of the Temple. In the second version of Ben Azzai’s opinion he also agrees that the tax collectors receive a basic salary for the time they are working for the Temple; the income from the agio only covers their travel expenses. .”
3MISHNAH: One consolidates sheqalim to darics 1 Δαρεικός, a Persian gold coin; here the name stands for the Roman aureus , commonly worth 25 full weight silver denarii . because of the difficulty of transport. Just as there were horns 2 Boxes in the shape of horns wirh wide bottoms and narrow slits to deposit the coins. in the Temple, so were in the countryside. If the people of a city sent their sheqalim and these were stolen or lost, if the sums were disbursed 3 If the new sheqalim were taken from the treasury to be disbursed for the service of the new year, in the computation of the monies available in Nisan the collected but not received sums are taken into account for disbursing on the next two occasions ( Chapter 1, Note 26 ). Therefore the money was stolen from the Temple; the oath which is required either by biblical law or by rabbinic institution from the carrier to be sworn in presence of the owner or his representative, has to be sworn in presence of the Temple treasurers. If the theft or loss was detected earlier, the oath is due to the representatives of the taxpayers. The oaths are different for salaried or unpaid carriers. they will have to swear to the Temple custodians 4 The administrators of the Temple treasury. , otherwise they will have to swear to the city dwellers who have to replace them by new sheqalim . If they were found or the thieves returned them 5 If the sheqalim already were Temple property (as explained in the preceding sentence), they would have committed not only larceny but also sacrilege. , both are sheqalim and cannot be credited for the coming year.
4HALAKHAH: “One consolidates sheqalim to darics ,” etc. Should one exchange them for a pearl? Perhaps the pearl would lose in value and the Temple treasury would suffer damage. As we have stated there 6 Mishnah Bekhorot 8:7 . , “All 7 Any sancta which may be redeemed at all may be redeemed for money’s worth except sheqalim . can be redeemed by money or monies-worth except for sheqalim ” [and one does not redeem by implements;] 8 Addition by the corrector from the Babli, unnecessary as already noted by R. Eliahu of Wilna. and Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, perhaps the implements would lose in value and the Temple treasury would suffer damage. Also here, perhaps the pearl would lose in value and the Temple treasury would suffer damage.
5The Mishnah is about new sheqalim , but not about old sheqalim . And it was stated so: Old ones in the Temple, no old ones in the countryside 9 Only current taxes are collected outside of Jerusalem; taxes due from prior years have to be delivered by the taxpayer, who has to bear the full risk of accidents before delivery, to the Temple in Jerusalem. . The Mishnah is about an unpaid trustee, but not about a paid keeper 10 Mishnah Ševuot 8:1. The unpaid trustee has to swear that he did not take the valuables for himself and that he was not grossly negligent. The paid keeper has to pay for what is lost or stolen; there is no reason he should swear in these circumstances. . Rav Abba said, even if you say 11 Since the speaker is a Babylonian, the reading of ג , תימא, may be a true report of his saying and not a babylonized spelling of a Yerushalmi text. about a paid keeper, if they were stolen, by an armed robber 12 Greek ληστής. The paid keeper does not have to pay for accidents which clearly were beyond his control. Babli Bava Meṣi`a 58a. , if the were lost, as when his ship sank at sea. Rebbi Justus ben Rebbi Simon said, it follows him who said, one disburses on the account of what was collected and what was to be collected 13 Babli Ketubot 108a , Bava Meṣi`a 58a. , but not following him who said one does not disburse on basis of what was collected 14 But not delivered to the Temple treasury. nor what was secured by pledges.
6“If the people of a city sent their sheqalim and these were stolen or lost.” 15 Since ג and the Babli version M confirm the text of the original scribe, the corrector’s additions have to be considered as a conflation with the text of B. Rebbi Eleazar said, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, since Rebbi Simeon said, sancta for whose alienation he is responsible are like his own property 16 Mishnah Ševuot 6:7 (Note 97 ). The majority opinion is that there can be no (biblical) oath for sancta ; so it seems that for them the carriers of the sheqalim could not swear. . Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is everybody’s opinion, because of an instituted oath 17 In his opinion the Mishnah Ševuot is irrelevant here. The oath is not biblical, and it is not a question whether the sheqalim are sancta or not; the oath is the general rabbinic oath imposed on all persons who cannot be forced to pay damages and on whom no biblical oath can be imposed. . Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion is understandable; “they have to swear to the city dwellers who have to replace them by new sheqalim. ” Is that Rebbi Simeon’s? Even though the city dwellers agreed to pay, Temple property cannot be released without an oath 18 Even if the city dwellers believe the trustees and do not require an oath that they are innocent of the loss, it is a rabbinic requirement that the Temple trustees insist on such an oath. .