the agents must take the oath of a bailee to the treasurers that they did not misappropriate the coins. If the collection of the chamber was not yet performed, the lost or stolen shekels remain the property of the residents of the city. Therefore, the agents take an oath to the residents of the city. The residents of the city then contribute other shekels in place of the original shekels. If the original shekels were then found or the thieves returned them, both these, the original shekels, and those, the replacement shekels, assume the status of consecrated shekels and belong to the Temple. But the two half-shekels that they contributed this year do not count to absolve them from their obligation to contribute the shekels for the following year. This mishna teaches that an unpaid bailee does take an oath concerning consecrated property, contrary to the mishna here.

Shmuel said: Here we are dealing with paid bailees, and the purpose of the oath is not to exempt them from their liability to pay for the theft. Rather, they take an oath that they performed their task properly, in order to collect their wages. The Gemara asks: If so, is this phrase accurate: They take an oath to the treasurers? The tanna should have taught: They take an oath to the residents of the city, from whom they are claiming their wages. Rabba said: They take an oath to the residents of the city in the presence of the treasurers, so that the treasurers will not suspect that the residents of the city did not contribute their shekels at all. Alternatively, the agents take an oath that they executed their mission properly, so that the Temple treasurers will not call them negligent.

The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in the mishna: And the coins were stolen or were lost en route, and paid bailees are liable to pay in cases of theft and loss? And here too, when safeguarding consecrated property, although paid bailees do not pay for the theft, as a paid bailee is exempt, let them at least forfeit their wages, as their responsibility to safeguard the money includes preventing theft and loss.

Rabba said: When the tanna says that they were stolen, the reference is to a case where the item was stolen by armed bandits. When he said that they were lost, the reference is to a case where the agent’s ship sank at sea. Since the shekels left his possession through circumstances beyond his control, this is considered an unavoidable accident, for which a paid bailee is exempt.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says: Consecrated items for which one bears responsibility to replace them are subject to the halakhot of exploitation, and therefore one takes an oath concerning them.

The Gemara asks: This works out well if the contribution of the chamber had not yet been collected into the baskets. At that stage, residents of the city bear responsibility to replace the shekels, and that is why Rabbi Shimon deems the agent liable to take an oath. But if the shekels were lost or stolen once the contribution of the chamber had been collected, the shekels are tantamount to sacrificial animals for which one does not bear responsibility, and the residents of the city should be exempt, as it is taught in a baraita: One collects shekels in the Temple chamber with the intention of fulfilling the obligation for those coins that are lost on the way, and for those that are collected but did not yet arrive, and for those that are destined to be collected in the future. Apparently, the residents of the city no longer bear responsibility for the shekels.

The Gemara concludes: Rather, Rabbi Elazar said: This oath of the agents is a rabbinic ordinance, instituted so that people will not treat consecrated property with contempt. If they knew that there is no oath, they would neglect to safeguard the shekels properly.

§ The mishna teaches: A paid bailee does not pay if these items were stolen or lost. Rav Yosef bar Ḥama raises a contradiction before Rabba. We learned in the mishna: A paid bailee does not pay. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: One who hires a day laborer to watch the red heifer to ensure that it is not disqualified, to watch the child to ensure that he remains ritually pure from birth in order to draw the water mixed with the ashes of the heifer, or to safeguard the seeds for the barley that will be used in the omer offering, does not give him wages for Shabbat. Therefore, if the items that the day laborer was entrusted to watch were lost on Shabbat, financial responsibility for their loss on Shabbat is not incumbent upon him, since he is not a paid bailee on that day.

The baraita continues: But if he was a laborer hired for a week, hired for a month, hired for a year, or hired for seven years, the one who hired him gives him wages for labor performed on Shabbat as well. Therefore, if the items were lost on Shabbat, financial responsibility for their loss on Shabbat is incumbent upon him. What, is it not that he is liable to pay for the loss he caused? As the list of the items being safeguarded includes consecrated items, this baraita apparently rules that a paid bailee bears responsibility for consecrated property.

The Gemara rejects this: No, the ruling of the baraita stating that the bailee is responsible is only with regard to forfeiting his wages because he was derelict in safeguarding the items with which he was entrusted. Rav Yosef bar Ḥama asks: If so, in the first clause of the baraita, which teaches that financial responsibility for their loss on Shabbat is not incumbent upon him, is this also with regard to forfeiting his wages? But does he have wages for the work he did on Shabbat? But isn’t it taught that one does not give him wages for Shabbat? Clearly, the reference is to responsibility to pay for the safeguarded items themselves. Rabba was silent, unable to answer.

Rabba said to Rav Yosef bar Ḥama: Have you heard anything with regard to this? Rav Yosef bar Ḥama said to him that this is what Rav Sheshet says: The ruling of the latter clause is stated with regard to a case where the laborers made a commitment to the one who hired them to take responsibility for the items, and they performed an act of acquisition with the one who hired them to reinforce that commitment. And likewise Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The ruling of the latter clause is stated with regard to a case where the laborers made a commitment to the one who hired them to take responsibility for the items, and they performed an act of acquisition with him.

§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Shimon says: Sacrificial animals for which one bears responsibility to replace them are subject to the halakhot of exploitation, and those for which one does not bear responsibility to replace them are not subject to the halakhot of exploitation. The Gemara relates that the tanna who recited mishnayot and baraitot in the study hall taught a baraita before Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Abba with regard to the source of the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. It is derived from the verse: “If anyone sins, and commits a trespass against the Lord, and deals falsely with his colleague in a matter of deposit, or of pledge, or of robbery, or has oppressed his neighbor” (Leviticus 5:21).

In that baraita, it is taught: For an oath concerning sacrificial animals for which one bears responsibility, one is liable to bring an offering for taking a false oath, as I apply the phrase “against the Lord, and deals falsely.” And for an oath concerning sacrificial animals for which one does not bear responsibility, one is exempt, as I read in their regard: With his neighbor, and deals falsely. That reading indicates that even one who deals falsely in matters related to the Lord, e.g., sacrificial animals, is liable to bring an offering for a false oath.

Rabbi Yitzḥak said to him: Isn’t it the opposite [kelapei layya]?