משנה: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָֽמְרוּ אֵין מְמַשְׁכְּנִין נָשִׁים וַעֲבָדִים וּקְטַנִּים אֲבָל אִם שָֽׁקְלוּ מְקַבְּלִין מִיָּדָם. הַנָּכְרִי וְהַכּוּתִי שֶׁשָּֽׁקְלוּ אֵין מְקַבְּלִין מִיָּדָן. וְאֵין מְקַבְּלִין מִיָּדָן קִינֵּי זָבִין וְקִינֵּי זָבוֹת וְקִינֵּי יוֹלְדוֹת וְחַטָּאוֹת וַאֲשָׁמוֹת. זֶה הַכְּלָל כָּל־שֶׁהוּא נִידָּר וְנִידָּב מְקַבְּלִין מִיָּדָן. כָּל־שֶׁאֵין לֹא נִידָּר וְלֹא נִידָּב אֵין מְקַבְּלִין מִיָּדָן. וְכֵן מְפוֹרָשׁ עַל יְדֵי עֶזְרָא לֹא לָכֶם וְלָנוּ לִבְנוֹת בַּיִת לֵאלֹהֵינוּ: וְאֵילּוּ חַייָבִין בַּקּוֹלָּבּוֹן לְוִייִם וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִים וְגֵרִים וַעֲבָדִים מְשׁוּחְרָרִין. אֲבָל לֹא כֹּהֲנִים וְלֹא נָשִׁים וְלֹא עֲבָדִים וְלֹא קְטַנִּים. הַשּׁוֹקֵל עַל יַד הָעֶבֶד עַל יַד הָאִשָּׁה עַל יַד הַכֹּהֵן עַל יַד הַקָטָן פָּטוּר. עַל יָדוֹ וְעַל יַד חֲבֵרוֹ חַייָב בְּקוֹלָּבּוֹן אֶחָד. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר שְׁנֵי קוֹלָּבּוֹנוֹת. נָתַן סֶלַע לִיטּוֹל שֶׁקֶל חַייָב שְׁנֵי קוֹלָּבּוֹנוֹת: הַשּׁוֹקֵל עַל יַד עָנִי ועַל יַד שְׁכֵינוֹ עַל יַד בֶּן עִירוֹ פָּטוּר אִם הִלְווָם חַייָב. הָאַחִין הַשּׁוּתָפִין שֶׁחַייָבִין בַּקּוֹלָּבּוֹן פְּטוּרִין מִמַּעֲשֵׂר בְּהֵמָה וְשֶׁחַייָבִין בְּמַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה פְּטוּרִין מִן הַקּוֹלָּבּוֹן. כַּמָּה הוּא קוֹלָּבּוֹן מָעָה כֶּסֶף דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים חֲצִי מָעָה. MISHNAH: 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 Samaritan122This 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 sacrifices123This 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 House124Ezra 4:3. This refers only to the sheqel..
The following are liable for agio145Latin 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 minors146Since 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 agios147For 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 agios148If 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 liable156If 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 partners157In 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 obolos1581/6 of a Roman denar., the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages say, half an obolos.
הלכה: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָֽמְרוּ כול׳. הָא לִתְבּוֹעַ אֵינָן תּוֹבְעִין. הָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר. תּוֹבְעִין. וְהָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר. אֵין תּוֹבְעִין כָּאן בְּשֶׁהֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת וְכָאן בְּשֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת. HALAKHAH: “Even though they said,” etc. Therefore one does not request? Here you are saying, one requests, but there106The 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.
הַנָּכְרִי וְהַכּוּתִי שֶׁשָּֽׁקְלוּ אֵין מְקַבְּלִין מִיָּדָן. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא. תִּיפְתָּר כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר. כּוּתִי כְגוֹי. דְּאִיתפַּלְּגוֹן. כּוּתִי כְגוֹי. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר. כּוּתִי כְיִשְׂרָאֵל לְכָל־דָּבָר. “One does not accept from the Non-Jew and the Samaritan.” Rebbi Abba said, explain it125On 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 Berakhot7:1 (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.
אָמַר רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. מַתְנִיתָא בַגּוֹיִם. הָא בַכּוּתִים לֹא. וְתַנֵּי כֵן. אָדָ֗ם. לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַגֵּרִים. מִכֶּ֛ם. לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַמְשׁוּמָּדִים. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. אֵין מְקַבְּלִין מִיָּדָם קִינֵּי זָבִין קִינֵּי זָבוֹת וְקִינֵּי יוֹלְדוֹת. וְכִי יֵשׁ קִינֵּי זָבִין וְזָבוֹת בַגּוֹיִם. אֶלָּא רֵישָׁא בַגּוֹיִם וְסֵיפָא בַכּוּתִים. וְהָא כֵינִי. רֵישָׁא בַגּוֹיִם וְסֵיפָא בַכּוּתִים. Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah is about Gentiles, therefore not about Samaritans. It was stated so126Sifra Wayyiqra I (Ḥovah) Pereq2(3).: “A human127Lev. 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 you128Reading 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 Gentiles129These 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 Samaritans130The 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.
אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. כַּתְּחִילָּה אֵין מְקַבְּלִין מֵהֶן לֹא דָבָר מְסוּייָם וְלֹא דָבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְסוּייָם. וּבַסּוֹף מְקַבְּלִין מֵהֶן דָּבָר מְסוּייָם וְאֵין מְקַבְּלִין מֵהֶן דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְסוּייָם. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. בֵּין בַתְּחִילָּה בֵין בַּסּוֹף אֵין מְקַבְּלִין מֵהֶן לֹא דָבָר מְסוּייָם וְלֹא דָבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְסוּייָם. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אֵין מְקַבְּלִין מֵהֶן הֶקְדֵּשׁ נְדָבָה לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת. פָּתַר לָהּ בֵּין בַתְּחִילָּה בֵין בַּסּוֹף וּבִלְבַד דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְסוּייָם. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. הַכֹּל שָׁוִין שֶׁהֵן נוֹדְרִין וְנִידָּרִין. פָּתַר לָהּ עוֹלָה. נִיחָא נוֹדְרִים עוֹלָה. נִידָּרִים עוֹלָה. לֹא. בְּשֶׁאָמַר יִשְׂרָאֵל הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלָה. וּשְׂמָעוֹ גוֹי וְאָמַר. מַה שֶׁאָמַר זֶה עָלַי. וְאֵינוֹ מֵבִיא עִמָּהּ נְסָכִים. וּמוֹתַר נְסָכִים לֹא לִכְלֵי שָׁרֵת אִינּוּן. נִמְצָא מֵבִיא דָבָר מְסוּייָם. הָתִיב רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. וְהָא תַנִּינָן נֶעֱרָכִין. וָעֲרָכִין לֹא לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת אִינּוּן. הֵיךְ מַה דְאַתְּ אָמַר תַּמָּן. לַשָׁמַיִם הוא מִתְכַּוֵּין וּמֵאֵילֵיהֶן הֵן בָּאִין לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת. כֵּן אַתְּ אָמַר אַף הָכָא. לַשָׁמַיִם הוא מִתְכַּוֵּין וּמֵאֵילֵיהֶן הֵן בָּאִין לִכְלֵי שָׁרֵת. מַה עֲבַד לָהּ רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. פָּתַר לָהּ לֹא לָכֶם וְלָנוּ לִבְנוֹת בַּיִת לֵאלֹהֵינוּ. רִבִּי חִלְקִיָּה אָמַר. רִבִּי סִימוֹן שָׁאַל. מֵעַתָּה אֵין מְקַבְּלִין מֵהֶן [לָ]אַמַּת הַמָּיִם וּ[לְ]חוֹמַת הָעִיר וּמִגְדְּלוֹתֶיהָ. עַל שֵׁם וְלְכֶ֗ם אֵֽין־חֵ֧לֶק וּצְדָקָ֛ה וְזִכָּר֖וֹן בִּירוּשָׁלָֽ͏ִם. Rebbi Joḥanan said, at the start131At 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 objects132After 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 objects133Since 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 baraita134Tosephta 1:7, Sifra Emor Parashah7(2), Babli Menaḥot73b; cf. Nazir9:1 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 Mishnah135Mishnah Arakhin1:3, 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 vows136Since 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 offerings137These 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 says138While the Gentile is not the passive object of a vow, his vow is subsidiary to the Jew’s.. Does he not bring libations with it139As 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 object140Nobody 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 value141While 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 Temple142The 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 Temple143Similarly, 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 them143Similarly, 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 Jerusalem144Neh. 2:20..
אֵילּוּ חַייָבִין בַּקּוֹלָּבּוֹן כול׳. מַתְנִיתָא דְרִבִּי מֵאִיר. דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר אָמַר. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין שִׁקְלוֹ תוֹרָה קוֹלָּבּוֹנוֹ תוֹרָה. סָבַר רִבִּי מֵאִיר בְּנוֹתֵן שִׁקְלוֹ שָׁלֵם שֶׁהוּא פָטוּר מִן הַקּוֹלָּבּוֹן. אָמַר רִבִּי מֵאִיר. כְּמִין מַטְבֵּעַ שֶׁלְאֵשׁ הוֹצִיא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מִתַּחַת כִּסֵּא כְבוֹדוֹ וְהַרְאֲהוּ לְמֹשֶׁה. אְמַר לוֹ. זֶ֣ה ׀ יִתְּנ֗וּ. כָּזֶה יִתְּנוּ. “The following are liable for agio,” etc. The Mishnah is Rebbi Meïr’s, since Rebbi Meïr said, even though his sheqel is not from the Torah, his agio is from the Torah149It seems that one has to accept the reading of B and ג: “just as his sheqel is from the Torah” (Ex. 30:11–16). The argument of the concluding aggadah is that the obligation is not to give the value of a half-sheqel of silver (5.7 g), but the exact coin which at this moment is called “sheqel” having approximately the historical weight. Then naturally anybody who pays with other coins automatically is required to pay the statutory fee for exchange into the correct coin.. Rebbi Meir is of the opinion that one who gives his sheqel as a piece is not liable for the agio150 151, Rebbi Meïr said, like a kind of coin made of fire did the Holy One, praise to Him, bring out from under the Throne of Glory and showed it to Moses. He said to him, this they shall give152Ex. 30:13., like this they shall give.
נָתַן סֶלַע לִיטּוֹל שֶׁקֶל חַייָב שְׁנֵי קוֹלָּבּוֹנוֹת: אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר. דְרִבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא. דְרִבִּי מֵאִיר אָמַר. אֶחָד שֶׁקֶל שֶׁהוּא נוֹתֵן וְאֶחָד סֶלַע שֶׁהוּא נוֹטֵל. רַב אָמַר. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא. אֶחָד שֶׁקֶל שֶׁהוּא [נוֹתֵן וְאֶחָד שֶׁקֶל שֶׁהוּא] נוֹטֵל וְאֶחָד לִדְבַר תּוֹרָה. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרַב שְׁלֹשָׁה קוֹלָּבּוֹנוֹת אִינּוּן. אֲתַא רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק בְּשֵׁם רַב. שְׁלֹשָׁה קוֹלָּבּוֹנוֹת אִינּוּן. אֶחָד שֶׁקֶל שֶׁהוּא נוֹתֵן וְאֶחָד שֶׁקֶל שֶׁהוּא נוֹטֵל וְאֶחָד לִדְבַר תּוֹרָה. “He who gives a tetradrachma to receive back a sheqel is liable for two agios.” Rebbi Eleazar said, it is Rebbi Meïr’s, as Rebbi Meïr said, one for the sheqel which he gives and one for the tetradrachma153With the other two sources, read: sheqel. which he takes. Rav said, it is everybody’s opinion, one for the sheqel which he [gives, one for the sheqel which he]154Addition by the corrector following B; this has to be deleted since it makes the question about Rav unnecessary. takes, and one for the words of the Torah155Rav insists that anybody who pays with any coin other than a didrachma first has to pay the regular fee for the money changer (into the money changer’s pocket) and then an additional agio (into the Temple’s treasury) for not presenting a didrachma; cf. Tosephta 1:8, end. According to him, the κολλυβιστής “agio collector” in the Temple (Matt. 21:12) collected the agio for the Temple treasury and with good reason is not called τραπεζίτης “money changer”.. In Rav’s opinion, are there three agios? There came Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac in the name of Rav: There are three agios, one for the sheqel which he gives, one for the sheqel which he takes, and one for the words of the Torah.
הָאַחִין וְהַשֻּׁתָּפִין שֶׁחַייָבִין בַּקּוֹלָּבּוֹן וּפְטוּרִין בְּמַּעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה. בְּשֶׁחִלְקוּ וְחָזְרוּ וְנִשְׁתַּתְּפוּ. שֶׁחַייָבִין בְּמַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה וּפְטוּרִין מִן הַקּוֹלָּבּוֹן. בְּשֶׁלֹּא חִלְּקוּ. Brothers or partners who are liable for the agio and not liable for animal tithe,” if they distributed and then formed a partnership; “if they are liable for animal tithe and not liable for the agio,” if they never distributed.
הַשּׁוֹקֵל עַל יְדֵי עָנִי כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. וְהֵן שֶׁחִלְקוּ גְדָיִים כְּנֶגֶד תְּייָשִׁים וּתְייָשִׁים כְּנֶגֶד גְּדָיִים. אֲבָל אִם חִלְקוּ גְדָיִים כְּנֶגֶד גְּדָיִים וּתְייָשִׁים כְּנֶגֶד תְּייָשִׁים הוּא חֶלְקוֹ מִשָּׁעָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וַאֲפִילוּ חִלְקוּ גְדָיִים כְּנֶגֶד גְדָיִים וּתְייָשׁים כְּנֶגֶד תְּיישִׁים כִּלְקוּחוֹת הֵן. כַּהִיא דְתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. הַלָּקוּחַ וּשֶׁנִּיתַּן לוֹ מַתָּנָה פָּטוּר מִמַּעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה. רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בָעֵי. וְלָמָּה לֵי נָן אָֽמְרִין. פְּעָמִים שֶׁחַייָבִין בָּזֶה וּבָזֶה וּפְעָמִים שֶׁהֵן פְטוּרִין מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָא. חִלְקוּ אֶת הַנְּכָסִים וְאַחָר כָּךְ חִלְקוּ אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה. חַייָבִין בָּזֶה וּבָזֶה. חִלְקוּ אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה וְאַחָר כָּךְ חִלְקוּ אֶת הַנְּכָסִים. פְטוּרִין מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. הָדָא דְאַתּ אָמַר. בְּשֶׁלֹּא הָֽיְתָה הַבְּהֵמָה רוֹב. אֲבָל אִם הָֽיְתָה הַבְּהֵמָה רוֹב הֵן הֵן עִיקַּר נְכָסָיו. רִבִּי אָבּוּן אָמַר. רִבִּי שַׁמַּי בָעֵי. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁעֲשִׂיתָן [כְּאָדָם אֶחָד] (כְּאֶחָד אָדָם) אֶצֶל מַעֲשֵׂר בְהֵמָה אַתְּ פוֹטְרוֹ מִן הַקּוֹלָּבוֹן. אָמַר לֵיהּ לֹא. שַׁנְייָה הִיא שֶׁהוּא נוֹתֵן סֶלַע אַחַת שְׁלֵימָה. מֵעַתָּה אֲפִילוּ חִלְּקוּ וְחָזְרוּ וְנִשְׁתַּתְּפוּ חַייָבִין בְּמַעֲשַׂר בְּהֵמָה וּפְטוּרִין מִן הַקּוֹלָבּוֹן. וְתַנִּינָן. חַייָבִין בַּקּוֹלָּבּוֹן וּפְטוּרִין מִמַּעֲשַׂר בְּהֵמָה. רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם אַבָּא בַּר רַב הוּנָא. הִיא שְׁנֵי אַחִין שֶׁיָּֽרְשׁוּ אֶת אֲבִיהֶן הִיא שְׁנֵי גִיסִין שֶׁיָּֽרְשׁוּ אֶת חֲמֵיהֶן. “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 buyers159R. 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 Bekhorot56b., as we have stated there160Mishnah Bekhorot9:3.: “The buyer or recipient of a gift is not liable for animal tithe. Rebbi Ḥizkiah161The 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 both162If 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.163If 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 Bekhorot56b. Rebbi Mana said, this holds only if the animals were not a majority, but if the animals were a majority they form the main property164The 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 agios165If 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 tetradrachma166Since 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 agio167If 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 Huna168In 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-law169Since 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..
לְאֵיכָן הָיוּ הַקּוֹלָּבּוֹנוֹת נוֹפְלִין. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר. לַשְּׁקָלִים. רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר אוֹמֵר. לִנְדָבָה. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הַשְּׁזוּרִי אוֹמֵר. רִיקּוּעֵי זָהָב וְצִיפּוּי לְבֵית קוֹדֶשׁ הַקָּדָשִׁים. בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹמֵר. שׁולְחָנִין הָיוּ נוֹטְלִין אוֹתָן בִּשְׂכָרָן. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים. לְהוֹצָאַת דְּרָכִים. 170Tosephta 1:8, end. “Where were the agios credited to? Rebbi Meïr says, to the sheqalim. Rebbi Eleazar says, for voluntary offerings171 “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 Holies172This 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 expenses173Everybody 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..”