1“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. .
2Somebody put aside his sheqel 20 Before it was delivered to the Temple authorities. and it was lost. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is responsible for its alienation 21 He has to pay another sheqel . Babli Ḥulin 139a . until he delivers to the Temple trustee. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Temple property is Heaven’s at any place where it may be 22 Mishnah Qiddušin 1:6 : “A promise to Heaven is like delivery to an individual.” . A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “they have to swear to the city dwellers who have to replace them by new sheqalim. .” Still 23 Corrector’s addition, supported by all parallel sources. this is because of a regulation oath 24 The oath is only because they lost other people’s property, and the city dwellers pay as a matter of public policy; it does not imply anything about personal liability to replace the lost money. .
3It was stated 25 B (not supported by M) reads: “Rebbi stated”. : The first ones fall to the new sheqalim , the second ones to the old sheqalim 26 Discussion of the last sentence of the Mishnah. The old sheqalim are the leftover from the previous year, given to the gift fund for supplementary sacrifices ( Chapter 1, Note 171 .) . Which ones are first and which ones are second? Rebbi Phineas ben Rebbi Ḥananiah 27 Since R. Abba Mari belongs to the last generation of Galilean Amoraim, he also has to be dated in this period. His exact patronymic cannot be determined. and Rebbi Abba Mari. One said, those that the city dwellers sent first 28 The Babli texts B and M add: “therefore the last”; the sheqalim contributed first are the last to be delivered. This seems to be a gloss incorporated into the text. , but the other one said, those which came in to the hands of the Temple trustees first.
4MISHNAH: If one gives his sheqel to another person to deliver it for him but that one uses it for himself, if the sums were disbursed he committed me`ilah 29 Sacrilegious larceny. As explained in Note 3 , the money used for public sacrifices, disbursed three times a year ( Mishnah 3:1 ) is computed taking into account monies collected but not yet delivered. These therefore are Temple money wherever they be at the moment ( Note 22 ). Dishonest use of these monies therefore is not stealing from a private person but me`ilah from Heaven’s property. . If somebody pays his sheqel from Temple money, if the sums were disbursed and the animal sacrificed he committed me`ilah 30 Temple money in general is money intended for the upkeep of the Temple. Sheqalim are mainly used to buy sacrifices. Using one for the other is alienation from the original intent but not me`ilah , which is committed only if sancta are used for profane purposes. If the money which he took from Temple money is actually used to buy a sacrifice, he does not have to take from his profane money to pay the sheqel ; using the corresponding profane money makes the act larceny. . From Second Tithe or Sabbatical money, he shall eat correspondingly 31 Second Tithe is produce to be eaten in Jerusalem in purity. The produce may be redeemed and the money taken to Jerusalem ( Deut . 14:22–27 ). Similarly, Sabbatical produce has to be eaten, not used in industry. If such produce was sold, the proceeds are to be used to buy produce of the Land to be consumed in the Land. If such money was alienated from its original use, the situation can be repaired in replacing it with new money to be used for the original purpose. .
5HALAKHAH: “He who pays the sheqel ,” etc. We have stated, “if the sums were disbursed.” In the House of Rebbi it was stated, “if the animal was sacrificed. 32 Even in the first sentence of the Mishnah. ” Rebbi Eleazar said, who is the Tanna of “if the animal was sacrificed”? Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said, he receives his money immediately, the priests are quick 33 The statement of R. Simeon is Halakhah 4:11 . The Mishnah there states that flour and wine bought by the Temple are bought on condition that they be qualified to be used on the altar. The risk that the flour might have worms or the wine be vinegar has to be carried by the seller; therefore he cannot be paid before the produce is used and found qualified. R. Simeon disagrees since the Cohanim will do the checking immediately. Therefore if we interpret that “the sums were disbursed” not that they were taken from the treasury to the office of the buying agent but that they were actually contracted for sacrificial animals, for R. Simeon there is no practical difference between the two statements. (Tosephta Me`ilah 1:21). . It is difficult. If somebody stole another’s elevation offering and slaughtered it without special mention, is it not without special mention atoning for the original owner 34 The entire Mishnah seems to be baseless. Since the sheqalim become part of a large sum, it is impossible to know whose sheqel pays for what and when his particular sheqel is disbursed. ? Rebbi Yudan said, explain it if it was a definite object, like that of the House of Rabban Gamliel who was taking aim throwing it into the chest 35 Mishnah 3:3 . In the House of Rabban Gamliel I they took their sheqel and threw it into the box from which sacrifices were bought; they had control over the time when their sheqel was used. . But should one not worry that maybe it will become part of the remainder; is there me`ilah for the remainder 36 As explained in Halakhah 4:3 , the leftover monies could be used for many needs of the Temple other than sacrifices; therefore larceny of these monies was not me`ilah which required a special sacrifice; R. Meïr disagrees and seems to restrict the uses of the money to sacrificial objects enumerated in Mishnah 4:3 . Babli Qiddušin 54a . ? But it must follow Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr said, there is me`ilah for the remainder. Still if it was a definite object, like that of the House of Rabban Gamliel who was taking aim and disbursed it in his name 37 There can be me`ilah only if the misappropriated sheqel can be traced to the moment of its actual use for sacrifices. .
6How does he profit 38 In order to be guilty of me`ilah , one not only must use a sacred object illegally but also profit from the action (Mishnah Me`ilah 5:1). ? Rebbi Abbin said in the name of the rabbis there, since the court could take a pledge from but did not take any pledge he is like one who profited.
7It is written 39 Lev. 27:26 . , but a firstling which is born first to the Eternal by a domestic animal no person can declare holy . No holiness can fall on anything holy 40 The argument is based on the second part of the verse, not quoted in the text: whether ox or sheep, it [already] is the Eternal’s ; cf. Mishnah Arakhin 8:7 . The problem addressed is how to rectify the situation that tithe or sabbatical money was taken for the sheqel . Not only is there an obligation to make up for the value taken but the coin given as sheqel , being already holy (of a minor degree) cannot possibly acquire the holiness of monies dedicated to the Temple. Without rectification, the use of the coin by the Temple authorities would be sinful. . What does he do? He brings a profane tetradrachma and says, the monies of Second Tithe wherever they be 41 Meaning the coins given as sheqel . are redeemed by this tetradrachma; this is designated as Second Tithe and the others 41 Meaning the coins given as sheqel . are declared sheqalim .
8MISHNAH: If somebody collects coins and says, “these are for my sheqel ,” the House of Shammai say, the excess is gift 42 To be given into the gift account of the Temple treasury from which elevation offerings are bought to occupy the altar when otherwise it would be idle. , but the House of Hillel say, the excess is profane 43 As explained in the Halakhah and Mishnah 4 , a sheqel is a fixed sum and it is reasonable to assume that only the amount necessary was dedicated. The price of an animal for a sacrifice is variable; since the person is ready to spend the entire amount, the entire amount is dedicated. . “That I shall take from these for my sheqel ,” they agree that the excess is profane. “These are for a purification offering,” they agree that the excess is gift, “that I shall take from these for a purification offering,” they agree that the excess is profane. Rebbi Simeon said, what is the difference between sheqalim and a purification offering 57 As stated in Mishnah 3 . ? It is that sheqalim have a fixed value and a purification offering has no fixed value. Rebbi Jehudah said, sheqalim also have no fixed value. When Israel returned from the Babylonian exile they gave as Temple tax darics 58 A Persian gold coin. , they continued to give sela`im 59 In old Babylonian sources the silā is the standard (Sumerian) unit of volume. In the Talmudim, it is the standard expression for the silver tetradrachma (approximately 14g), roughly corresponding to the old Phoenician sheqel . In the context here, a similar Persian coin must be intended. The vocalization סֶלַע is customary (from the Hebrew word “rock”); probably סִלַע historically would be more correct. , they continued to give minted coins 60 In this context meaning the silver didrachma. , they wanted to give denars 61 But this reduction was never accepted, see the Halakhah. . Rebbi Simeon said, anyhow everybody gave the same 62 While the value of the sheqel was not constant in time, at any given time everybody knew exactly what was required. , but for a purification offering, one brings for a tetradrachma, another for two, and still another for three.