“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.

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.

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..

“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 agio^{150 151}, 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.

“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.

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.

“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..

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..”