MISHNAH: One consolidates sheqalim to darics¹Δαρεικός, 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 horns²Boxes 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 disbursed³If 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 custodians⁴The 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 them⁵If 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.

HALAKHAH: “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 there⁶Mishnah Bekhorot8:7., “All⁷Any 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;]⁸Addition 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.

The 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 countryside⁹Only 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 keeper¹⁰Mishnah 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 say¹¹Since 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 robber¹²Greek ληστής. The paid keeper does not have to pay for accidents which clearly were beyond his control. Babli Bava Meṣi`a58a., 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<sup>13</sup>Babli Ketubot108a, Bava Meṣi`a58a., but not following him who said one does not disburse on basis of what was collected¹⁴But not delivered to the Temple treasury. nor what was secured by pledges.

“If the people of a city sent their sheqalim and these were stolen or lost.” ¹⁵Since 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 property¹⁶Mishnah Ševuot6:7 (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 oath¹⁷In 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 oath¹⁸Even 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..

Somebody put aside his sheqel²⁰Before it was delivered to the Temple authorities. and it was lost. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is responsible for its alienation²¹He 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 be²²Mishnah Qiddušin1:6: “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..” Still²³Corrector’s addition, supported by all parallel sources. this is because of a regulation oath²⁴The 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..

It was stated²⁵B (not supported by M) reads: “Rebbi stated”.: The first ones fall to the new sheqalim, the second ones to the old sheqalim²⁶Discussion 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 Ḥananiah²⁷Since 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 first²⁸The 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.