MISHNAH: On the first of Adar one proclaims about sheqalim¹(Ex. 30:11–16). The expenses of the Temple service had to be paid from the tax collected for the year starting on Nisan 1. Since the tax could be enforced in the Land of Israel, it was sufficient to remind people of their duty and set up collection points one month in advance. In talmudic times, and already in the LXX, the profane sheqel was identified with the Greek and Roman didrachma, or 2 denar piece, approximately equal to the Achemaenean sheqel (siglos). However, it is clear from the talmudic sources as well as the coinage of the first war against the Romans that as sacrificial sheqel the old Canaanite and Israelite sheqel was used, approximately a Roman tetradrachma (cf. Qiddušin 1:1, Note 122.), and therefore the biblical half-sheqel was a full profane sheqel. and about kilaim² growth from their fields, so they should not run the risk that their harvest be forbidden for all use., and on the fifteenth of that month one reads the Esther scroll in fortified places³1:1., and one repairs the roads,⁴ and the streets⁵, and water pools⁶ or to water supply for the pilgrims. Both kinds of pools may contain dust deposited there by the rains of the winter months., and one looks after all public needs⁷, and marks the graves⁸, and also goes to inspect for kilaim⁹.

footnotes: ¹ The yearly Temple tax of half a sheqel ² Since it is the end of the rainy season, farmers are reminded to remove spontaneous kilaim ³ Greek χάραξ, “palisades”. The expression is used to describe walled cities reputed to have been walled at Joshua’s time, cf. Mishnah Megillah ⁴ Rural roads which might have been damaged during the rainy season, to prepare them for the pilgrims going to Jerusalem in the following month. ⁵ Municipal roads. ⁶ Since the term is not discussed in the Halakhah, it is difficult to know whether one refers to religious miqwaot ⁷ Described in the Halakhah. ⁸ Graves not in a cemetery, which must be clearly marked so ritually pure pilgrims will not be contaminated accidentally and then prevented from completing their pilgrimage. The whitewash characterizing these graves may have been damaged during the rainy season. ⁹ As described in Mishnah 2.

HALAKHAH: “On the first of Adar one proclaims,” etc. Why on the first of Adar? So that Israel should bring their sheqalim in time and it should be disbursed from the new contributions to the treasury¹⁰ on time on the First of Nisan. And Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, [the heave of the treasury]¹¹1:1 (56d line 4, ר). as at its start, as it is written¹² 40:17., it was in the First month of the Second year, on the first of the month, that the Sanctuary was erected. It was stated hereto, on the day the Sanctuary was erected, on the same day the contribution¹³ 30:11–16. was collected. Rebbi Tabi, Rebbi Yoshia in the name of Cahana. It is said here months, and it is said there, months¹⁴. 28:14: this is the monthly elevation offering on its day of the New Moon, for the months of the year. This is compared to Ex. 12:2, this month shall be for you the start of months; it is the first of the months of the year. The latter verse designates the month of the spring equinox as start of the year in all matters of sacrificial ritual.. Since months mentioned there are only counted from Nisan, so also months mentioned here are only counted from Nisan. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Tabi left out the start and only quoted the end; this is not done since it was stated¹⁵ was stated by R. Tabi, it is impossible to see what it refers to. One has to state the baraita in its entirety for it to make sense. Babli Roš Haššanah7a.: This is the elevation sacrifice for a month at its New Moon¹⁶. 28:14.. I could think that one should collect every month, the verse says at its New Moon for the months; at one New Moon one collects for all months of the year. I could think on any month of his choosing, it is said here months, and it is said there, months. Since months mentioned there are only counted from Nisan, so also months mentioned here are only counted from Nisan.

footnotes: ¹⁰ The technical term for the Temple tax. ¹¹ Corrector’s addition from the Babli. From here to the end of the paragraph there is a parallel in Roš Haššanah ¹² Ex. ¹³ The Temple tax required in Ex. ¹⁴ As shown later, the reference is to Num ¹⁵ In the way the baraita ¹⁶ Num

What means “one lets hear”? Rav Huna said, one proclaims¹⁷ of the Greek verb κηρύσσω., as you are saying¹⁸ 24:9., they made a proclamation in Jehudah and Jerusalem.

footnotes: ¹⁷ Since the Hebrew expression was no longer understood, it is substituted by the Semitic hif`il ¹⁸ 2Chr.

¹⁹ 1:7, 71a line 21, מ. There, we have stated²⁰1:7.: “The only difference between a First Adar and a Second Adar²¹ is the reading of the Esther scroll and gifts to the poor²²”. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, also proclamations regarding sheqalim and kilaim are between them²³1:1 in an intercalary year refers to the first day of Second Adar.. Rebbi Ḥelbo and Rav Ḥuna, Rav in the name of the Great Rabbi Ḥiyya: Everybody may fulfill his obligation on the Fourteenth, which is the time of its reading²⁴ for different places. It is stated that the dates other than the 14 of Adar are not absolute; the 14 is valid at all places.. Rebbi Yose said, this²⁵ is correct. Did they not say,. one proclaims about sheqalim, so that Israel should bring their sheqalim in time? If you would say on the First Adar, there still would be sixty days {left} in the year. Did they not say, also one goes to inspect for kilaim, not that the plants should be recognizable? If you would say in the First Adar, they still would be small.

footnotes: ¹⁹ An almost exact parallel is in Megillah ²⁰ Mishnah Megillah ²¹ In an intercalary year, where a thirteenth month is added preceding the next Nisan, this “Second Adar” is the month where dates scheduled for Adar should be observed. ²² Both in observance of the Purim festivities. ²³ Mishnah Sheqalim ²⁴ This has nothing to do with the topic under discussion. Mishnah Megillah 1:1 gives different dates for the reading of the megillah ²⁵ This refers to the statement of R. Simon.

Rebbi Ḥisqiah asked: But then the people in Babylonia proclaim about sheqalim on the start of the month²⁶. Was it not so that Israel should bring their sheqalim in time and it should be disbursed from the new contributions to the treasury on time on the First of Nisan? Rebbi Ulla asked before Rebbi Mana: Did we not state²⁷, “three times a year one disburses from the treasury, half a month before²⁸, “one half”, meaning half a month before the holiday indicated (Halakhah 3:1, Tosephta 2:1). Passover, before Pentecost, before Tabernacles.” He told him, we may say, before Passover, from those near; before Pentecost, from those farther away, before Tabernacles, from those still farther away. He answered him, it was collected all at one time. And why did they say, “three times a year”? To make a procession²⁹. of the occasion.

footnotes: ²⁶ In the version of the ms., Ḥizqiah points out that the Mishnah applied to countries outside the Holy Land leads to nonsensical results. In the version printed in the Babli, his is a declarative sentence, that in Babylonia one proclaims at the start of winter (about November), so the money may be delivered to Jerusalem in time. ²⁷ Mishnah 3:1. ²⁸ In contrast to the Babli and the text of B, one reads פרס as (Latin) pars ²⁹ Greek πομπή, Latin pompa

Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi: May one read this and not be ashamed³⁰? In a good sense, every one of goodwill³¹ 35:5.; in a bad sense, all the people took off the gold rings in their ears³² 32:3.. In a good sense, Moses led the people out³³ 19:1.; in a bad sense, all of you ganged up against me³⁴. 1:22.. In a good sense, then Moses and the Children of Israel sang³⁵ 15:1.; in a bad sense, the entire congregation started wailing³⁶. 14:1.. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, indeed they got up early to destroy³⁷. 3:7.. Any destructive action they made early in the morning. Rebbi Abba bar Aḥa said, one cannot understand the character of this people; they are asked for the {golden} calf and are giving, for the Sanctuary and are giving. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina stated this baraita:³⁸ You shall make a cover of pure gold³⁹ 25:17., may the gold of the cover come and atone for the gold of the calf.

footnotes: ³⁰ In B: afraid. In the biblical narrative, all good actions are ascribed to individuals, the bad to the entire people. ³¹ Ex. ³² Ex. ³³ Ex. ³⁴ Deut ³⁵ Ex. ³⁶ Num ³⁷ Zeph ³⁸ To answer R. Ḥiyya bar Abba’s question. ³⁹ Ex.

Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman. Three contributions are mentioned in the paragraph⁴⁰ 25:2–3, as explained in the text., the contribution for the bases⁴¹ 38:27–28, the silver contributed by half-sheqalim contributed by a head tax according to Ex. 30:11–16 was used to cast the bases, hooks, and covers, for the poles for the posts securing the sanctuary and its gobelins., the contribution for sheqalim⁴², and the contribution for the Sanctuary⁴³². Speak to the Children of Israel, they shall take for me a contribution, that is the contribution for the bases. From any man of goodwill take my contribution, this refers to the contribution for sheqalim. This is the contribution which you shall take from them, that is the contribution for the Sanctuary. The contribution for the Sanctuary is for the Sanctuary, they may use it in any way they want. The contribution for sheqalim is for sacrifices, they may use it in any way they want, so that everybody’s part of it be the same. The contribution for the bases [is for the bases]⁴⁴, the rich may not increase and the poor may not decrease⁴⁵ 30:15.. Rebbi Abun said, also in this paragraph⁴⁶ 30:11–16. The expression תְּרוּמָה לַיי or תְּרומַת יי appears in vv.. 13,14,15 Babli Megillah29b. are three contributions mentioned.

footnotes: ⁴⁰ Ex. ⁴¹ As noted in Ex. ⁴² Since the receipt of the first tax was used for construction purposes, there must have been a second tax (in the amount of the first but collected only in the following years, not the year of construction) to provide for the communal sacrifices. ⁴⁴ Addition by the corrector following B but probably incorrect; the fact that it is equal for everybody distinguishes it from the contributions to the Sanctuary. ⁴⁵ Ex. ⁴⁶ In Ex.

“On the fifteenth of this month one reads the Esther scroll in fortified places.” But did not Rebbi Ḥelbo, Rav Ḥuna, Rav in the name of the Elder Rabbi Ḥiyya, say²⁴⁶: Everybody may fulfill his obligation on the Fourteenth, which is the time of its reading? It only comes to teach you that (the obligations apply to the Second Adar) [all obligations which apply to the Second Adar apply to the First Adar.]⁴⁷ Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Aḥa were sitting together. Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Aḥa, it only is reasonable for the past, not for the future⁴⁸; as it was stated, at a place where one is used to read it both days49 one reads it both days. He said to him, I also am of this opinion. Rebbi Mana said, this is correct. If one read it on the Fourteenth and then wants to read it⁴⁹ on the Fifteenth, would one not listen to him? If you are saying otherwise, you would eliminate the time of the fortified places with your hands⁵⁰.

footnotes: ⁴⁷ The text in parentheses is the scribe’s, the one in brackets the corrector’s adapted to the text of B. The scribe’s text is clear; since only one 14th and one 15th are mentioned, the reading of the scroll happens only once and this is the Second Adar of an intercalary year. In this version, in such a year Purim is not noticed at all in the First Adar. The corrector’s text and B take the opposite opinion, difficult to understand at this moment. ⁴⁸ The rule of R. Ḥiyya may only be applied to unforeseen circumstances. If people read on the 14th when according to the rules they should have read on the 15th, one does not tell them to read a second time. But if people from such a place come to ask before the 14th whether they may read on the 14th, one tells them no, they have to read on the 15th. ⁴⁹ In a city where there is a doubt whether one should read on the 14th or the 15th. ⁵⁰ Which is practice to be followed, being stated in two Mishnaiot.

⁵¹1:7, 71a line 14 (מ). It was stated: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, Obligations which apply to the Second Adar do not apply to the First Adar except for eulogy and for fasting which are equal for both⁵²1:6, Babli Megillah 6b.. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav, Rebbi Simeon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi Ḥuna, the rabbi of Sepphoris said, Rebbi Ḥanina made it a custom in Sepphoris following Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. He only said custom, therefore not as practice⁵³.

footnotes: ⁵¹ A parallel (original) text for this and the following paragraph is in Megillah ⁵² Tosephta Megillah ⁵³ It is obligatory only in places which adopted the ruling.

But in matters of documents one writes the First Adar, the Second Adar. only that for the Second Adar one writes תִינייָן. Rebbi Jehudah says, the Second Adar one writes, and it is enough⁵⁴(and Tosephta Megillah1:6). In the anonymous opinion (ascribed in B to R. Meïr), for both months one writes Adar, but the second one is qualified by “second” (in Aramaic, the language of contracts in both Talmudim.) R. Jehudah agrees that “Adar” alone means the First Adar in an intercalary year, but the Second may be indicated by a single letter ת֗, first letter of the Aramaic word “second”..

footnotes: ⁵⁴ This paragraph is thoroughly garbled, and the text of B is worse. The intelligible text is the original in Megillah

“One repairs the roads,⁴ and the streets⁵, and water pools⁶ or to water supply for the pilgrims. Both kinds of pools may contain dust deposited there by the rains of the winter months., and one looks after all public needs⁷.” “⁵⁵2:11. From here to the end of the Halakhah the text is from Moed Qaṭan*1:1 (80b 66), with no or little relevance here. The *Moed Qaṭan text of the ms. is indicated by ק; in addition there exist an Ashkenazic text of the Yerushalmi (A) edited by J. Sussman in Kobez al Yad12 (1994), pp. 62–63. Most of the activities permitted in the baraita are for the benefit of individuals, not the public, most clearly delivering a new pair of shoes on the semi-holiday, mentioned last in the baraita. The only reason for its inclusion here is the identity of the expression “public needs”, applied both to public works in preparation for the holiday and permitted activities during the intermediate days of an extended holiday. The following are the public needs: One judges civil suits, and capital crimes, and cases of flogging, and one redeems valuations⁵⁶ 27:2–6., and bans⁵⁷. 18:14., and dedications⁵⁸, one lets the suspected adulteress drink⁵⁹. 5:11–31., and burns the Cow⁶⁰. 19., and one breaks the neck of the calf whose neck was to be broken⁶¹. 21:1–9., and one pierces the ear of a Hebrew slave62, and one purifies the sufferer from skin disease63, and removes the shoe from the block but one may not return it.”

footnotes: ⁴ Rural roads which might have been damaged during the rainy season, to prepare them for the pilgrims going to Jerusalem in the following month. ⁵ Municipal roads. ⁶ Since the term is not discussed in the Halakhah, it is difficult to know whether one refers to religious miqwaot ⁷ Described in the Halakhah. ⁵⁵ Tosephta Mo`ed Qaṭan ⁵⁶ Fixed amounts dedicated to the Temple, Lev. ⁵⁷ Dedications reserved for the Cohanim, Num ⁵⁸ Dedications for the upkeep of the Temple, other than currency. ⁵⁹ Num ⁶⁰ Num ⁶¹ For an unsolved murder case, Deut

“One marks the graves.” Were they not already marked in Adar? Explain it if there was a flood caused by rain which rinsed it off⁶⁴. The question is why one should hire people to mark graves (or in the next paragraph to check for kilaim) on the semi-holidays approximately on the spring and fall equinoxes (Mishnah Moed Qaṭan*1:2) when they already had been checked in late winter. The reason that one tries to have all public works done on semi-holidays is that at that time most journeymen are without work and ready to work for lower wages. One provides work for the poor and saves taxpayer’s money at the same time. Cf. Babli *Moed Qaṭan6a..

footnotes: ⁶⁴ This also is copied from Mo`ed Qaṭan

“And also one goes to inspect for kilaim⁸.” Did they not already go in Adar? Explain it if the year was late and the plants not recognizable.

footnotes: ⁸ Graves not in a cemetery, which must be clearly marked so ritually pure pilgrims will not be contaminated accidentally and then prevented from completing their pilgrimage. The whitewash characterizing these graves may have been damaged during the rainy season.

⁶⁵5:1, :Notes 17–25, ש) and Sotah9:1 (Notes 29–31, ס). Babli Mo`ed Qatan6a. The biblical roots for the duty of the authorities to mark the places of graves with taxpayers’ money. From where about marks? Rebbi Berekhiah, Rebbi Jacob the son of the daughter of Jacob, in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran. Rebbi Yose said it, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Uziel the son of Rebbi Onias from Hauran in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran: impure, impure, he shall call out⁶⁷ 13:46. An inappropriate reference since the verse refers to the impurity of the sufferers from skin disease, not of corpses.; the impurity itself has to call out and say to you: go away! Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: The emissaries shall crisscross the land; if one sees a bone of a human he builds a sign near it.⁶⁸. 39:15. {A bone}⁶⁹., from here that one makes signs for bones. A human, from here that one makes signs for spine and skull. He builds, from here that one makes signs on fixed stones. If you say on loose ones, it would move and make other places impure. Near it, on a place of purity. A sign, from here the marks.

footnotes: ⁶⁵ This text in addition is in Ma`aser Šeni ⁶⁷ Lev. ⁶⁸ Ez ⁶⁹ Quoted from the parallels; in parallel to the following statements the source in the verse should be stated, except for the version of B which quotes the verse only up to a bone

⁷⁰1:5. If one found a single marked stone, even though one should not keep it so, if somebody forms a tent over it he is impure; I say a marked corpse⁷¹. 19, Babli Yebamot61a); only the texts in Ma`aser Šeni and the Tosephta follow R. Simeon who restricts tent (and any kind of biblical) impurity to Jewish bodies. was under it. If there were two, he who forms a tent over any one of them is pure; between them he is impure. If between them was a ploughed strip they are single stones, between them the area is pure and around them62 impure.

footnotes: ⁷⁰ Tosephta Šeqalim ⁷¹ This expression has no explanation; B simply has “a corpse”, probably since the printer did not understand the word to be inserted. . Most parallels have קמצוץ “compressed”, a corpse buried with its head between the legs, so it fitted under the stone. This is not a Jewish burial custom. Since the majority of sources reads “impure”, they imply that Gentile corpses cause “tent impurity” (Num

It was stated⁷³1:5.: One does not mark flesh, for perhaps it will decompose⁷⁴. Rebbi Justus bar Shunem asked before Rebbi Mana: Will that not cause pure food to be retroactively made impure⁷⁵? He said to him, it is better that these should become unusable for a limited time than that {the earth} become unusable forever.

footnotes: ⁷³ Tosephta Šeqalim ⁷⁴ Then it is no longer impure. ⁷⁵ If the carrier of pure food learns that he has crossed a place where human flesh (without enough bone to cause tent impurity) was buried.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Jehudah says, originally they were uprooting and throwing down⁷⁶ tore out all kilaim growth and left it lying on the fields.. When the number of transgressors rose⁷⁷ themselves since the public employees not only weeded the fields for them but also provided them with animal fodder., they were uprooting and throwing on the roadways⁷⁸; they instituted that they were declaring the entire field as ownerless⁷⁹.

footnotes: ⁷⁶ The public employees checking the fields for kilaim ⁷⁷ The farmers did not check for kilaim ⁷⁸ Then the uprooted growth was no longer animal feed but at least they got the fields weeded on public expense. ⁷⁹ Not the real estate but the crop growing on it.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Jehudah said.” It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah said, originally they were uprooting and throwing down before them; they were twice happy, first that they weeded their fields and second that they could use (the robbery) [the kilaim ]⁸⁰. When the number of transgressors rose, they were throwing it on the roadways, and still they were happy that they weeded their fields. They instituted that they were declaring the entire field as ownerless.

footnotes: ⁸⁰ The corrector’s [text] clearly is the correct one, supported by B; the scribe’s (text) possibly was caused by a lapse of attention.

From where that a declaration of forfeiture by a court makes it ownerless? ⁸¹5:1 (פ). From the middle of the text there are two Genizah sources edited by Ginzberg without noting the readings differing from the editio princeps(Yerushalmi Fragments from the Genizah, New York 1909), one noted G (pp. 120,122,129,131), the other ג (pp. 121, 123–128,130,132–139). It is written⁸²10:8. Babli Yebamot89b.: Anybody who will not come within three days conforming to the decree of the rulers and the elders, all his property shall be devoted to destruction and he shall be separated from the community of the Diaspora⁸³. From where that it⁸⁴; they have no relevance here. is free from tithes? Rebbi Jonathan, the son of Rebbi Isaac bar Aḥa understood it from the following⁸⁵2:9, Sanhedrin Yerushalmi 1:2 (Note 207), Babli 12a; Nedarim6:13 Note 83.: “One intercalates⁸⁶(Jason Aronson, Northvale NJ, 1998). years neither in the Sabbatical year, nor in the year following the Sabbatical; but if they did intercalate it is intercalated.” The one month he adds, is it not free from tithes⁸⁷ and, hence, biblically free from heave and tithes even if taken by the owner of the land. If the Supreme Court declared the year intercalary against the rules, it is nevertheless a valid 13 months year and all produce is legally abandoned property.? That refers to the Sabbatical year. What about the year after the Sabbatical? Rebbi Abun said, not to prolong the prohibition of new grain⁸⁸ sacrifice on the 16th of Nisan, Lev. 23:14. The intercalation of a month, which always falls in Adar, unnecessarily postpones the harvest of new grain.. ⁸⁹6:4, also Nedarim6:13. It explains why our calendar today does not take the Sabbatical year into consideration when determining intercalary months in the 19 year cycle. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: That is only before Rebbi permitted the importation of vegetables from outside the Land. But after Rebbi permitted the importation of vegetables from outside the Land, the Sabbatical year is as any other year⁹⁰7:17). In former times Jews did not use vegetables from outside the Land since it might have particles of soil still clinging to it. But after the last remnants of the ashes of the Red Cow disappeared, these laws became inoperative and it was possible for everybody, even the most scrupulous, to eat imported vegetables. This has to be dated to the times of Rebbi. Cf. commentary to Mishnah Berakhot 1:1..

footnotes: ⁸¹ The following text is copied from Peah ⁸² Ezra ⁸³ If the decree of the Court did not make the property abandoned, its destruction would have to be considered theft. Since Ezra was a teacher of the Law, his rulings have to be accepted. ⁸⁴ Produce declared ownerless by a decree of court. The intricacies of these rules are explained in Peah ⁸⁵ Tosephta Sanhedrin ⁸⁶ Since the Jewish year is both lunar and solar, but 12 lunar months are only approximately 254 days, in 19 years there have to be seven intercalary years of 13 months each. For details see the author’s Seder Olam ⁸⁷ Since the spontaneous growth of the Seventh Year may be taken by everybody, it is not your harvest ⁸⁸ New grain may be eaten only after the Omer ⁸⁹ This paragraph is an aside, taken from Ševi`it ⁹⁰ The soil outside the Land of Israel is unclean (cf. Amos

It was stated: One does not intercalate in the Sabbatical Year [nor in the year following the Sabbatical;]⁹¹. but only in other years of a Sabbatical period, but if they did intercalate it is intercalated. Rebbi Mana said, that refers to earlier times when years were in order, but now that years are not in order⁹², the Sabbatical year is like any other year. It was stated: The house of Rabban Gamliel intercalated immediately after the end of the Sabbatical year. Rebbi Avin said, from this⁹³ you do not infer anything. watch the spring month⁹⁴. 16:1.. Watch it that it should come in its renewal.

footnotes: ⁹¹ Corrector’s addition, unjustified since the words also are missing in ג and in Peah ⁹² Probably this means that since the Roman (Byzantine) government collects taxes from farmers also in the Sabbatical, they are forced to grow produce also in the Sabbatical; there no longer is any reason to treat the Sabbatical differently. ⁹³ All the previous arguments which prove that the action of the court can free produce from the Biblical obligations of heave and tithes are not relevant since there is a biblical obligation to manipulate the calendar so that Passover should fall in the month of the Spring equinox. Hence, the obligation to intercalate is biblical rather than rabbinic. ⁹⁴ Deut

What text implies this⁹⁵? “For a grain stack under which gleanings were not collected, all ears that touch the ground are for the poor.”⁹⁶5:1. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: This is from the House of Shammai. Rebbi Yose⁹⁷ one has to read R. Yasa, contemporary of R. Immi, not R. Yose who has to be dated 2 generations later. said to him: We understand that according to everybody, this is a fine⁹⁸5:1, Note 4. There is no biblical reason why the ears touching the ground should be given to the poor; the farmer is fined since he put his sheaf on a place where the poor could not yet have taken the gleanings. The disagreement between the Houses of Shammai and Hillel is explained in ג: The House of Shammai hold that things abandoned exclusively for the use of the poor are legally abandoned whereas the House of Hillel hold that only things unconditionally abandoned are legally abandoned and therefore exempt from heave and tithes (Mishnah Peah6:1).. Following the House of Hillel, the poor give tithes and eat.

footnotes: ⁹⁵ Which Mishnah text implies that property decreed ownerless by the court is legally abandoned property? ⁹⁶ Mishnah Peah ⁹⁷ With the text in Peah ⁹⁸ As explained in Peah

MISHNAH: On the Fifteenth⁹⁹, money changers¹⁰⁰, half a Roman tetradrachma, which are collected for the Temple. were sitting in the country side; on the Twenty Fifth they were sitting in the Temple¹⁰¹. From the date they were sitting in the Temple one started to take pledges¹⁰². From whom does one take pledges? From Levites, Israel, proselytes, and freed slaves¹⁰³, but not from women, slaves¹⁰⁴ being a positive commandment due at a fixed time, slaves cannot be obligated., and minors. Any minor for whom his father started to give the sheqel does not stop any more. However one does not take pledges from Cohanim because of communal peace¹⁰⁵. Rebbi Jehudah said: “Ben Kukhri testified at Jabneh that any Cohen who pays the sheqel¹⁰⁸ does not sin. Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai told him, on the contrary, any Cohen who does not pay the sheqel does sin¹⁰⁹ 30:11–16 as not stating any exemption for Cohanim., only the Cohanim explain the following verse for their benefit: Any flour offering of a Cohen shall be totalled, it may not be eatenl¹¹⁰ 6:16.. If the `omer, the two breads, and the shew bread are ours, how may they be eaten?l¹¹¹, they would be part owners of these offerings, but the consumption of all these offerings is explicitly commanded.”

footnotes: ⁹⁹ Of Adar, in an intercalary year the Second Adar. ¹⁰⁰ To exchange coins into silver half-sheqels ¹⁰¹ Since nobody is permitted to sit in the sacred domain (except possibly kings of the Davidic dynasty), these money changers had to sit on the Temple Mount, outside the sacred domain. ¹⁰² To foreclose on people who did not pay their Temple tax. ¹⁰³ All these are adult male Jews subject to all commandments. ¹⁰⁴ Who are obligated only in cases women are obligated. Since women do not pay, the sheqel ¹⁰⁵ As explained in the Halakhah and Mishnah 4. ¹⁰⁸ Voluntarily, even if they cannot be forced to pay. ¹⁰⁹ Since he reads the commandment Ex. ¹¹⁰ Lev. ¹¹¹ If they would pay the sheqel

HALAKHAH: “On the Fifteenth,” etc. But one requests¹⁰⁶ 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.? This is if he grew two pubic hairs, but it does not apply if he did not grow two pubic hairs. In matters of pledges, one never takes pledges if he did not grow two pubic hairs.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁶ The 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

So is the Mishnah: One does not take pledges from Cohanim because one honors their status¹⁰⁷.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁷ Even though they should pay as explained in the next Mishnah. The original text implies a criticism of the Cohanim; one does not enforce the payment because they are quarrelsome.

“Rebbi Jehudah said:, testified” etc. Rebbi Berekhiah said, the reason of Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai is¹¹² 30:12., this they shall give, twelve tribes shall give. Rebbi Tabi in the name of Rav Hamnuna: So answer the Sages to Rebbi Jehudah¹¹³. A private purification sacrifice is let to die; a public purification sacrifice is not left to die¹¹⁴. A private flour offering¹¹⁵ is brought totally, but no public flour offering is brought totally. This is difficult, how can one argue with a person about something with which he does not agree¹¹⁶? “For no public purification sacrifice is left to die; Rebbi Jehudah says, it shall be left to die.¹¹⁷6:2; see there Halakhah 1, Note 33.” And he objects to them, are these not private flour offerings¹¹⁸ is not given as a tax but to acquire a minute part of the public sacrifices, which imply that there are no public offerings at all, only those of a private partnership.? They answer him, from the moment when it is delivered to the public, it is treated as a public offering¹¹⁹. It is written, everybody being counted¹²⁰ 30:13., Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Neḥemiah. One said, everyone who crossed the Sea shall give, the other one said, everyone being counted¹²¹ where it is made explicit that the tribe of Levi was not counted with the remainder of the tribes. Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai cannot explain this verse, unless he explains that Ex. 30:11–16 is not the basis of the duty to pay the sheqel, but Ben Kovri (Kokhri, Bukhri, Bikhri) cannot explain the inclusion in Mishnah 4. shall give. He who said, everyone who crossed the Sea shall give, supports Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai; he who said, everyone being counted shall give, supports Ben Kovri.

footnotes: ¹¹² Ex. ¹¹³ Who reports the opinion of Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai approvingly. ¹¹⁴ Once a sacrifice has been designated as a purification sacrifice it can neither be redeemed nor used for any other sacrifice. If such an animal was lost, another animal was used, and then the original was found again (or a few similar situations), nothing can be done with it, it must be left to die. ¹¹⁵ Of a Cohen, as noted in the Mishnah. ¹¹⁶ ג reads: “by an argument that can be objected to.” ¹¹⁷ Mishnah Yoma ¹¹⁸ The argument of Cohanim to which Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai objects implies that the half sheqel ¹¹⁹ The argument is impossible since biblical rules for private and public offerings differ in some respects. ¹²⁰ Ex. ¹²¹ In Numbers

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 Samaritan¹²², 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 sacrifices¹²³. 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 House¹²⁴ 4:3. This refers only to the sheqel.. The following are liable for agio¹⁴⁵, 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 minors¹⁴⁶, 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 agios¹⁴⁷. He who gives a tetradrachma to receive back a sheqel is liable for two agios¹⁴⁸ 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 liable¹⁵⁶. Brothers who are partners¹⁵⁷ 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 obolos¹⁵⁸, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages say, half an obolos.

footnotes: ¹²² This 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. ¹²³ This 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. ¹²⁴ Ezra ¹⁴⁵ Latin collybus, collubus ¹⁴⁶ Since these are obligated for the sheqel ¹⁴⁷ For the rabbis, a person paying for two may pay a tetradrachma, R. Meïr requires two didrachmas. ¹⁴⁸ If he pays with a tetradrachma he should get back 2 denar ¹⁵⁶ If 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. ¹⁵⁷ In 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 ¹⁵⁸ 1/6 of a Roman denar.

HALAKHAH: “Even though they said,” etc. Therefore one does not request? Here you are saying, one requests, but there¹⁰⁶ 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.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁶ The 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

“One does not accept from the Non-Jew and the Samaritan.” Rebbi Abba said, explain it¹²⁵ 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.

footnotes: ¹²⁵ On the face of it, the equation of Samaritans with Gentiles is unintelligible. The baraita

Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah is about Gentiles, therefore not about Samaritans. It was stated so¹²⁶2(3).: “A human¹²⁷ 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 you¹²⁸ 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 Gentiles¹²⁹? But the beginning is about Gentiles, the end about Samaritans¹³⁰ 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.

footnotes: ¹²⁶ Sifra Wayyiqra I (Ḥovah) Pereq ¹²⁷ Lev. ¹²⁸ Reading prefix mem ¹²⁹ These 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. ¹³⁰ The statement that one does not accept the sheqel

Rebbi Joḥanan said, at the start¹³¹. While the verse refers to Samaritans, the discussion here is about Gentile offerings. one accepts from them neither definite objects nor non-definite objects¹³², and at the end one accepts from them definite objects but not non-definite objects¹³³ 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 baraita¹³⁴7(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 Mishnah¹³⁵1:3, 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 vows¹³⁶ 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 offerings¹³⁷. 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 says¹³⁸. Does he not bring libations with it¹³⁹. 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 object¹⁴⁰! Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun objected, did we not state that they may offer their value¹⁴¹ 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 Temple¹⁴²? It is as you are saying there, his intent was for Heaven; automatically it will be used for the upkeep of the Temple¹⁴³; 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 them¹⁴³ for an aqueduct, or the city walls, or its towers, because of you have no part, nor rightful claim, nor memorial, in Jerusalem¹⁴⁴. 2:20..

footnotes: ¹³¹ At the start of building the Temple, the situation described in the verse from Ezra ¹³² After the building was finished and funds are needed for its continual upkeep. ¹³³ Since the Torah clearly accepts Gentile sacrifices, Lev. ¹³⁴ Tosephta 1:7, Sifra Emor Parashah ¹³⁵ Mishnah Arakhin ¹³⁶ Since a voluntary sacrifice must be vowed to the Temple before it can be offered, Lev. ¹³⁷ These 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. ¹³⁸ While the Gentile is not the passive object of a vow, his vow is subsidiary to the Jew’s. ¹³⁹ As required by Num ¹⁴⁰ Nobody 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. ¹⁴¹ While not mentioned in Lev. ¹⁴² The 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. ¹⁴³ Similarly, 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. ¹⁴³ Similarly, 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. ¹⁴⁴ Neh

“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 Torah¹⁴⁹ 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, 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 give¹⁵² 30:13., like this they shall give.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁹ It seems that one has to accept the reading of B and ג: “just as his sheqel ¹⁵² Ex.

“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 tetradrachma¹⁵³. which he takes. Rav said, it is everybody’s opinion, one for the sheqel which he [gives, one for the sheqel which he]¹⁵⁴ takes, and one for the words of the Torah¹⁵⁵. 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.

footnotes: ¹⁵³ With the other two sources, read: sheqel ¹⁵⁴ Addition by the corrector following B; this has to be deleted since it makes the question about Rav unnecessary. ¹⁵⁵ Rav 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

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 buyers¹⁵⁹56b., as we have stated there¹⁶⁰9:3.: “The buyer or recipient of a gift is not liable for animal tithe. Rebbi Ḥizkiah¹⁶¹ 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 both¹⁶² 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.¹⁶³ 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 property¹⁶⁴. Rebbi Abun said that Rebbi Shammai asked: Because you made them like one person for animal tithe, you made them not liable for agios¹⁶⁵? He said to him, no. There is a difference because he is giving a complete tetradrachma¹⁶⁶. Then even if they distributed and then formed a partnership, they should be liable for animal tithe and not liable for the agio¹⁶⁷. But we have stated, “they are liable for the agio, not liable for animal tithe.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Abba bar Rav Huna¹⁶⁸ it is the same for two brothers inheriting from their father or two brothers-in-law inheriting from their father-in-law¹⁶⁹.

footnotes: ¹⁵⁹ R. 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 Bekhorot ¹⁶⁰ Mishnah Bekhorot ¹⁶¹ The reading of ג “Ḥilkiah” has to be rejected since the latter was not a student of R. Jeremiah. ¹⁶² If the estate was distributed except for livestock and then a partnership formed, they are individually responsible for their sheqels ¹⁶³ If the livestock was distributed but not the real estate and the cash of the estate, they may continue to pay their sheqels ¹⁶⁴ The rule of the Mishnah applies even if the cash was never distributed explicitly. ¹⁶⁵ If the heirs are adults the status of the estate should have no influence on the duty to pay the agio. ¹⁶⁶ Since 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. ¹⁶⁷ If the partnership would pay for them. ¹⁶⁸ In the Babli he is mentioned as Rabbah bar Rav Huna. ¹⁶⁹ Since 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.

¹⁷⁰ “Where were the agios credited to? Rebbi Meïr says, to the sheqalim. Rebbi Eleazar says, for voluntary offerings¹⁷¹. Rebbi Simeon from Shezur says, gold sheeting, cover for the Holiest of Holies¹⁷². Ben Azzai says, the money changers were taking them as their fees; but some say, for travel expenses¹⁷³.”

footnotes: ¹⁷⁰ Tosephta 1:8, end. ¹⁷¹ “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. ¹⁷² This special account in the Temple treasury is not mentioned in any other source. ¹⁷³ Everybody 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.