MISHNAH: One consolidates sheqalim to darics¹, commonly worth 25 full weight silver denarii. because of the difficulty of transport. Just as there were horns² 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 disbursed³ 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 custodians⁴, 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 them⁵ 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.

footnotes: ¹ Δαρεικός, a Persian gold coin; here the name stands for the Roman aureus ² Boxes in the shape of horns wirh wide bottoms and narrow slits to deposit the coins. ³ If the new sheqalim ⁴ The administrators of the Temple treasury. ⁵ If the sheqalim

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 there⁶8:7., “All⁷ 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;]⁸ 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.

footnotes: ⁶ Mishnah Bekhorot ⁷ Any sancta ⁸ Addition by the corrector from the Babli, unnecessary as already noted by R. Eliahu of Wilna.

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 countryside⁹. The Mishnah is about an unpaid trustee, but not about a paid keeper¹⁰ 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 say¹¹ about a paid keeper, if they were stolen, by an armed robber¹²58a., 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 collected¹³108a, Bava Meṣi`a58a., but not following him who said one does not disburse on basis of what was collected¹⁴ nor what was secured by pledges.

footnotes: ⁹ Only 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. ¹⁰ Mishnah Ševuot ¹¹ Since 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. ¹² Greek ληστής. The paid keeper does not have to pay for accidents which clearly were beyond his control. Babli Bava Meṣi`a ¹³ Babli Ketubot ¹⁴ But not delivered to the Temple treasury.

“If the people of a city sent their sheqalim and these were stolen or lost.” ¹⁵ Rebbi Eleazar said, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, since Rebbi Simeon said, sancta for whose alienation he is responsible are like his own property¹⁶6:7 (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 oath¹⁷ 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 oath¹⁸.

footnotes: ¹⁵ Since 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. ¹⁶ Mishnah Ševuot ¹⁷ In his opinion the Mishnah Ševuot ¹⁸ Even 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 sheqel²⁰ and it was lost. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is responsible for its alienation²¹. 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 be²²1:6: “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..” Still²³ this is because of a regulation oath²⁴.

footnotes: ²⁰ Before it was delivered to the Temple authorities. ²¹ He has to pay another sheqel ²² Mishnah Qiddušin ²³ Corrector’s addition, supported by all parallel sources. ²⁴ The 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 stated²⁵: The first ones fall to the new sheqalim, the second ones to the old sheqalim²⁶ 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 Ḥananiah²⁷ and Rebbi Abba Mari. One said, those that the city dwellers sent first²⁸ 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.

footnotes: ²⁵ B (not supported by M) reads: “Rebbi stated”. ²⁶ Discussion of the last sentence of the Mishnah. The old sheqalim ²⁷ Since 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. ²⁸ The Babli texts B and M add: “therefore the last”; the sheqalim

MISHNAH: If one gives his sheqel to another person to deliver it for him but that one uses it for himself, if the sums were disbursed he committed meilah*²⁹ from Heaven’s property.. If somebody pays his *sheqel* from Temple money, if the sums were disbursed and the animal sacrificed he committed *meilah³⁰ are mainly used to buy sacrifices. Using one for the other is alienation from the original intent but not me`ilah, which is committed only if sancta are used for profane purposes. If the money which he took from Temple money is actually used to buy a sacrifice, he does not have to take from his profane money to pay the sheqel; using the corresponding profane money makes the act larceny.. From Second Tithe or Sabbatical money, he shall eat correspondingly³¹. 14:22–27). Similarly, Sabbatical produce has to be eaten, not used in industry. If such produce was sold, the proceeds are to be used to buy produce of the Land to be consumed in the Land. If such money was alienated from its original use, the situation can be repaired in replacing it with new money to be used for the original purpose..

footnotes: ²⁹ Sacrilegious larceny.As explained in Note 3, the money used for public sacrifices, disbursed three times a year (Mishnah 3:1) is computed taking into account monies collected but not yet delivered. These therefore are Temple money wherever they be at the moment (Note 22). Dishonest use of these monies therefore is not stealing from a private person but me`ilah ³⁰ Temple money in general is money intended for the upkeep of the Temple. Sheqalim ³¹ Second Tithe is produce to be eaten in Jerusalem in purity. The produce may be redeemed and the money taken to Jerusalem (Deut

HALAKHAH: “He who pays the sheqel,” etc. We have stated, “if the sums were disbursed.” In the House of Rebbi it was stated, “if the animal was sacrificed.³²” Rebbi Eleazar said, who is the Tanna of “if the animal was sacrificed”? Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said, he receives his money immediately, the priests are quick³³1:21).. It is difficult. If somebody stole another’s elevation offering and slaughtered it without special mention, is it not without special mention atoning for the original owner³⁴ become part of a large sum, it is impossible to know whose sheqel pays for what and when his particular sheqel is disbursed.? Rebbi Yudan said, explain it if it was a definite object, like that of the House of Rabban Gamliel who was taking aim throwing it into the chest³⁵ and threw it into the box from which sacrifices were bought; they had control over the time when their sheqel was used.. But should one not worry that maybe it will become part of the remainder; is there meilah* for the remainder³⁶ which required a special sacrifice; R. Meïr disagrees and seems to restrict the uses of the money to sacrificial objects enumerated in Mishnah 4:3. Babli *Qiddušin*54a.? But it must follow Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr said, there is *meilah for the remainder. Still if it was a definite object, like that of the House of Rabban Gamliel who was taking aim and disbursed it in his name³⁷ only if the misappropriated sheqel can be traced to the moment of its actual use for sacrifices..

footnotes: ³² Even in the first sentence of the Mishnah. ³³ The statement of R. Simeon is Halakhah 4:11. The Mishnah there states that flour and wine bought by the Temple are bought on condition that they be qualified to be used on the altar. The risk that the flour might have worms or the wine be vinegar has to be carried by the seller; therefore he cannot be paid before the produce is used and found qualified. R. Simeon disagrees since the Cohanim will do the checking immediately. Therefore if we interpret that “the sums were disbursed” not that they were taken from the treasury to the office of the buying agent but that they were actually contracted for sacrificial animals, for R. Simeon there is no practical difference between the two statements. (Tosephta Meilah ³⁴ The entire Mishnah seems to be baseless. Since the sheqalim ³⁵ Mishnah 3:3. In the House of Rabban Gamliel I they took their sheqel ³⁶ As explained in Halakhah 4:3, the leftover monies could be used for many needs of the Temple other than sacrifices; therefore larceny of these monies was not meilah ³⁷ There can be me`ilah

How does he profit³⁸, one not only must use a sacred object illegally but also profit from the action (Mishnah Me`ilah5:1).? Rebbi Abbin said in the name of the rabbis there, since the court could take a pledge from but did not take any pledge he is like one who profited.

footnotes: ³⁸ In order to be guilty of me`ilah

It is written³⁹ 27:26., but a firstling which is born first to the Eternal by a domestic animal no person can declare holy. No holiness can fall on anything holy⁴⁰; cf. Mishnah Arakhin8:7. The problem addressed is how to rectify the situation that tithe or sabbatical money was taken for the sheqel. Not only is there an obligation to make up for the value taken but the coin given as sheqel, being already holy (of a minor degree) cannot possibly acquire the holiness of monies dedicated to the Temple. Without rectification, the use of the coin by the Temple authorities would be sinful.. What does he do? He brings a profane tetradrachma and says, the monies of Second Tithe wherever they be⁴¹. are redeemed by this tetradrachma; this is designated as Second Tithe and the others⁴¹. are declared sheqalim.

footnotes: ³⁹ Lev. ⁴⁰ The argument is based on the second part of the verse, not quoted in the text: whether ox or sheep, it [already] is the Eternal’s ⁴¹ Meaning the coins given as sheqel ⁴¹ Meaning the coins given as sheqel

MISHNAH: If somebody collects coins and says, “these are for my sheqel,” the House of Shammai say, the excess is gift⁴², but the House of Hillel say, the excess is profane⁴³ is a fixed sum and it is reasonable to assume that only the amount necessary was dedicated. The price of an animal for a sacrifice is variable; since the person is ready to spend the entire amount, the entire amount is dedicated.. “That I shall take from these for my sheqel,” they agree that the excess is profane. “These are for a purification offering,” they agree that the excess is gift, “that I shall take from these for a purification offering,” they agree that the excess is profane. Rebbi Simeon said, what is the difference between sheqalim and a purification offering⁵⁷? It is that sheqalim have a fixed value and a purification offering has no fixed value. Rebbi Jehudah said, sheqalim also have no fixed value. When Israel returned from the Babylonian exile they gave as Temple tax darics⁵⁸, they continued to give sela`im⁵⁹ is the standard (Sumerian) unit of volume. In the Talmudim, it is the standard expression for the silver tetradrachma (approximately 14g), roughly corresponding to the old Phoenician sheqel. In the context here, a similar Persian coin must be intended. The vocalization סֶלַע is customary (from the Hebrew word “rock”); probably סִלַע historically would be more correct., they continued to give minted coins⁶⁰, they wanted to give denars⁶¹. Rebbi Simeon said, anyhow everybody gave the same⁶² was not constant in time, at any given time everybody knew exactly what was required., but for a purification offering, one brings for a tetradrachma, another for two, and still another for three.

footnotes: ⁴² To be given into the gift account of the Temple treasury from which elevation offerings are bought to occupy the altar when otherwise it would be idle. ⁴³ As explained in the Halakhah and Mishnah 4, a sheqel ⁵⁷ As stated in Mishnah 3. ⁵⁸ A Persian gold coin. ⁵⁹ In old Babylonian sources the silā ⁶⁰ In this context meaning the silver didrachma. ⁶¹ But this reduction was never accepted, see the Halakhah. ⁶² While the value of the sheqel

HALAKHAH: “If somebody collects coins,” etc. ⁴³ is a fixed sum and it is reasonable to assume that only the amount necessary was dedicated. The price of an animal for a sacrifice is variable; since the person is ready to spend the entire amount, the entire amount is dedicated. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, where do they disagree? If he collects small change⁴⁴, all of them are dedicated according to everybody.. But if he says, these [are for my sheqel ]⁴⁵, everybody agrees that the excess is gift. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Bevai in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, where do they disagree? If he collects small change. But if he says, these, everybody agrees that the excess is profane. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, a Mishnah supports Rebbi Bevai, [as we have stated]: “Rebbi Simeon says, what is the difference between sheqalim and purification offerings? It is that sheqalim are a fixed sum but purification offerings have no fixed price⁴⁶.” Where do we hold? If about one who says, “that I shall bring my sheqel from these,” everybody agrees that the excess is profane. If about one who says, “that I shall bring my purification offering from these,” everybody agrees that the excess is gift⁴⁷. But we must deal with the case of one who says “these sheqalim”, since from the Torah they are a fixed amount the excess is profane, “purification offerings”, since their value is not a fixed amount from the Torah the excess is gift. How does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish⁴⁸, “R. Yose” also is possible; in that case he states that the argument of R. Simeon applies only if the stated intent is to collect monies for the Temple tax, not if the declaration is made on monies already available. In the latter case, R. Simeon may agree that the excess is earmarked for the Temple gift account. treat this? He explains it, if he collects small change following the House of Hillel. But did we not state⁴⁹, “the excess of sheqalim is profane”? He explains it, if he collects small change following the House of Hillel. But did we not state, “the excess of the tenth of an ephah” [is profane]⁵⁰, probably not the daily offering of the rich High Priest (Lev. 6:12–16) but the purification offering of the very poor (Lev. 5:11–13), are dedicated for the gift account. The entire sentence is missing in B. In ג the reading is “the excess of a tenth of an ephah are sheqalim”. This is acceptable; the excess of coins collected for a sanctum may be used for another sacred purpose. While the sanctity of sheqalim is less than that of a flour offering, the switch will be permitted to the poor following the House of Hillel.? Still he explains it if he collects small change following the House of Hillel.

footnotes: ⁴³ As explained in the Halakhah and Mishnah 4, a sheqel ⁴⁴ One does not know what sum was accumulated without counting the copper coins. But since exactly 2 silver denars are needed, if silver coins are collected and the owner says, these are sheqalim ⁴⁵ Corrector’s addition. The addition is unnecessary as shown by all parallel sources and the following statement of R. Ḥizqiah. It obscures the main point that the collector of the coins says “these”, not “from these”. In the latter case everybody agrees that the excess is profane; in the first case R. Yose holds that “these” dedicated all coins in the box whereas R. Bevai holds that, in case the amount needed is known beforehand, only the amount needed is dedicated. ⁴⁶ Mishnah 4. ⁴⁷ Including the House of Shammai. ⁴⁸ This name is impossible here; one has to read with the Babli sources “R. Simeon”, denying that the argument of R. Ḥizqiah is applicable to the reasoning of the House of Shammai. The reading of the text in Nazir ⁴⁹ Mishnah 5. ⁵⁰ Addition of the corrector. Mishnah 5 clearly states that excess monies collected for a flour offering of a tenth of an ephah

If somebody put aside his sheqel in the belief that he owed it and it turned out that he did not owe, it was not dedicated⁵¹5:1 stated that dedication in error is void, against the opinion of the House of Shammai.. If he put aside two in the belief that he owed twice and it turned out that he owed only once, how do you treat the second? As one who believed that he owed it and it turned out that he did not owe, or as one who said “these”⁵².?

footnotes: ⁵¹ The entire argument follows the House of Hillel who in Mishnah Nazir ⁵² Following those who hold that dedicating “these coins” is a full dedication even if the value exceeds that of a sheqel

“When Israel returned from the Babylonian exile they gave as Temple tax darics,” denars⁶³, Roman gold denarii. The numismatic evidence shows that the Dareikos was worth about twice the aureus., “they continued to give selaim*,” as their meaning⁶⁴ used in both Talmudim to designate the Roman tetradrachma., “they continued to give minted coins,” half tetradrachmas, they wanted to give denars,” quarters⁶⁵., but these were not accepted by the following: *and we accepted for us as commandment to give a sheqel three times*⁶⁶. 10:33, following the changed wording in B which is understood also in S. The usual translation is “a third of a *sheqel.*” The verse declares the collection of *sheqalim* a post-exilic institution. Babli *Bava batra*9a. *in the year for the service in our God’s House*. Rebbi Ḥilkiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: From here that a person has to give his *sheqel* three times a year; from here that a person is responsible for the alienation of his *sheqel* three times a year;⁶⁷ from here that one does not importune people more than three times a year. Rebbi Abbin said, from here the three *seah, from here the three boxes, from here the three collection times⁶⁸3 times a year; each disbursement yielded three boxes of sheqalim, three se`ah each..

footnotes: ⁶³ Aurei ⁶⁴ The Accadic sila ⁶⁵ With J. Levy reading as Latin quarta ⁶⁶ Neh ⁶⁷ Added from the other two sources. The omission in the text probably is a scribal error. ⁶⁸ Mishnah 3:1–2: Money was disbursed from the sheqalim

It is written⁶⁹ 30:13, reading הַפְּקוּדִים “the census” as Mishnaic Hebrew הַפִּקּוּדִים “the Commandments”.: This they shall give, everybody who violated the Commandments. Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Neḥemiah. One said, because they sinned⁷⁰89a, summarized by Rashi, Ex. 32:1. in the middle of the day they shall give half a sheqel; but the other said, because they sinned in the sixth hour they shall give half a sheqel; which is worth six grams⁷¹, a third of a denar, approximately 1.2 metric grams, used here as name of a silver coin.. Rebbi Joshua the son of Rebbi Neḥemiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Zakkai: Because they transgressed the Ten Commandments, each of them shall give ten gerah⁶⁹ 30:13, reading הַפְּקוּדִים “the census” as Mishnaic Hebrew הַפִּקּוּדִים “the Commandments”.. Rebbi Berekhiah, Rebbi Levi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Because they sold Rachel’s firstborn for twenty pieces of silver; each of them shall redeem his firstborn with twenty pieces of silver⁷². 3:47. The firstborn is redeemed by 5 sheqalim. Since it is held that the sheqel in the Torah is equal to a Roman tetradrachma, Qiddušin1:3 Note 339, 5 sheqalim are 20 denarii. The generic expression “pieces of silver” is taken to mean the most common silver coin, the denar. The homily is mentioned as introduction to the following one.. Rebbi Phineas in the name of Rebbi Levi: Because they sold Rachel’s firstborn for twenty pieces of silver and each of them received a minted coin¹⁷³ had lost its meaning denoting either a standard weight or a standard coin but became the label of a religious obligation., each of them shall give a minted coin as his sheqel.

footnotes: ⁶⁹ Ex. ⁷⁰ Making the Golden Calf after 12 noon, Babli Šabbat ⁷¹ An Aramaic plural of Greek γράμμα, τό, “gram, scruple (as weight)”. One scruple is two oboloi ⁶⁹ Ex. ⁷² Num ¹ In this context meaning the silver didrachma. ⁷³ Since Joseph was sold by 10 of his brothers. The formulation of the homily shows that in later Amoraic times the word sheqel

MISHNAH: The excess of sheqalim is profane⁷⁴. The excess of a tenth of an ephah⁷⁵ 5:11., the excess of nests⁷⁶. of male sufferers from gonorrhea⁷⁷ 15:14., the nests of female sufferers from flux⁷⁸ 15:29., the nests of women after childbirth⁷⁹ 12:8., or purification offerings, or reparation offerings, their excesses are gift⁴¹.. This is the principle: of anything brought for a sin or as reparation the excess is gift. The excess⁹⁴ of elevation sacrifices is for elevation sacrifices, the excess of flour offerings is for flour offerings, the excess of well-being sacrifices is for well-being sacrifices, the excess of Pesaḥ is for well-being sacrifices. The excess of nezirim is for nezirim, the excess of a nazir⁹⁵ who might apply for a subsidy for the cost of his sacrifices, the money remain in its status even if not used in the time frame originally envisaged. But if money either was set aside by a nazir himself or it was given to him personally for his sacrifices and not completely used, the excess goes to the Temple’s gift account. is for gift.

footnotes: ⁷⁴ Mishnah 3. ⁷⁵ Either the daily offering of the High Priest, which is the only obligatory offering by a single person which is neither a purification nor a reparation offering, or the purification offering of the very poor, Lev. ⁷⁶ Couples of pigeons or turtle doves, needed to permit the person access to sancta ⁷⁷ Lev. ⁷⁸ Lev. ⁷⁹ Lev. ⁴¹ Meaning the coins given as sheqel ⁹⁴ In all these cases the money was saved for the purpose of a certain type of sacrifice. If not all the money was actually used, the excess may be used later for the same purpose. It cannot return to profane status since “a promise to Heaven is like delivery to an individual”. ⁹⁵ If money was collected in order to help any nazir

HALAKHAH: “The excess of sheqalim is profane,” etc. Rebbi Yasa⁸¹ said, when I still was there, I heard the voice of Rav Jehudah asking Samuel, if somebody had set his sheqel apart and died? He told him, they shall fall to gift⁸² and “a promise to Heaven is like delivery to an individual” (Mishnah Qiddušin1:6), they are Temple property. Since they are not sheqalim they must be given to the Temple account into which all Temple monies not otherwise specified are collected.. The excess of his tenth of an ephah, Rebbi Joḥanan said, one shall bring them to the Dead Sea⁸³. Rebbi Eleazar said, it shall fall to gift. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan⁸⁴: “The excess of sheqalim is profane The excess of a tenth of an ephah, the excess of nests of male sufferers from gonorrhea, the nests of female sufferers from flux, the nests of women after childbirth, or purification offerings, or reparation offerings, the excesses are gift.”. What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? He explains it as excess from the tenth of an ephah of the purification offering of any one in Israel⁸⁵ is Temple property but allows only excess of purification or reparation sacrifices to be so taken. The High Priest’s flour offering is neither of these; therefore the Mishnah cannot include it. The reading of B implies that R. Eleazar identifies that tenth of an ephah as the High Priest’s offering..

footnotes: ⁸¹ While all sources have “R. Yose”, the reading must be R. Yasa, a Babylonian early enough to have visited Samuel’s academy. The name is spelled correctly at the end of the Halakhah. ⁸² Since the monies were set aside for the sheqel ⁸³ If this refers to the daily offering of the High priest and the High priest had died, then the monies cannot be used in the Temple since possibly they were not dedicated; they cannot be used as profane since possibly they were dedicated. They have to be destroyed. ⁸⁴ The reading of B is “disagrees with both of them”. ⁸⁵ This seems to be required by the wording of the Mishnah, which decrees that the excess of monies for the tenth of an ephah

⁸⁶5:1, Notes 80–97, where also the readings of B are noted (ג is unreadable or lacunary for the present paragraph.) Only the most necessary notes are given here, the remainder should be consulted there. Rebbi Joḥanan said, about this Abba bar Abba enlightened me, for they are saying, from where that Pesaḥ is changed into the denomination of well-being sacrifices? The verse says⁸⁷ 3:6., and if his sacrifice be from small cattle as meal well-being offering; anything from small cattle comes as well-being offering. They objected, is there not an elevation offering from small cattle? Anything which only comes from small cattle; this eliminates the elevation offering which even may come from large cattle. They objected, is there not reparation offering? Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, “from small cattle”. this eliminates the reparation offering, which only comes from rams. Everywhere you are saying that מִן (is to include) [is to exclude], but here you are saying that (מִן is to exclude) [is to include]⁸⁸ or מִן as privative, excluding certain categories (cf. Šabbat7 Note 26, Ševuot1:2 Note 75, *Bava Meṣia`*4:8 Note 122, Nazir5:4 Note 105). Also in the next sentence, R. Mana gives the interpretation that here מִן is privative. On the other hand, the testimony of the scribe’s two texts, the Genizah fragment available for Pesaḥim, and the Munich ms. of Šeqalim do not permit emendation. It seems that here “every where” is derogatory, meaning Babylonian. The sequence of arguments leads to a contradiction. Abba bar Abba treats מִן as inclusive, R. Abun bar Cahana as exclusive. R. Mana explains that מִן always is partitive; automatic switch to well-being offerings is possible only for sacrifices that totally correspond to the declaration צאן, i. e., both sheep and goats, male and female.. Rebbi Mana said, (it excludes it,) [here also מִן is to exclude: It excludes in that it may not be brought two years old; it excludes that it cannot be brought female; and for a reparation offering also it excludes]⁸⁹ since it only comes from rams. They objected, is there not written,⁹⁰ 1:10. and if his sacrifice be from small cattle, from sheep or goats, as elevation offering; then excess Pesaḥ should become elevation offering? Rebbi Abun said, one changes something to be eaten into something to be eaten, but one does not change something to be eaten into something not to be eaten. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, one changes simple sancta into simple sancta, but one does not change simple sancta into most holy sacrifices. Rebbi Joḥanan said, about what Rebbi Ḥanina enlightened, that they are saying, Pesaḥ is changed into a well-being offering only if he slaughtered it for the purpose of well-being offering; but I am saying, even for the purpose of an elevation offering. Rebbi Illa said, the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan: And if his sacrifice be from small cattle as meal well-being offering⁸⁷ 3:6.; anything to be consumed as sanctum is a well-being offering. Does it change with respect to disqualifying thoughts⁹¹ is used against the rules for something other than a well-being offering, do the rules of the other kind apply or is it disqualified and no rules of intent apply?? How is this? If he slaughtered it for the purpose of an elevation offering in order to pour its blood the next day. In any case, it is disqualified. If you are saying that it changes with respect to disqualifying thoughts, it is piggul⁹², a deadly sin causing extirpation.. If you are saying that it does not change with respect to disqualifying thoughts, it is disqualified⁹³.

footnotes: ⁸⁶ This and the next paragraph also appear in Pesaḥim ⁸⁷ Lev. ⁸⁸ The text is difficult since it is standard rabbinic interpretation to consider prefix mem ⁸⁹ Corrector’s addition from B. ⁹⁰ Lev. ⁸⁷ Lev. ⁹¹ If the animal dedicated as Pesaḥ ⁹² If the animal still is a sacrifice, now under the rules of elevation sacrifices, the intention to perform any required action out of its prescribed time-frame is piggul ⁹³ If the animal is disqualified and not under the rule of any kind of sacrifice, the illegitimate intent is inconsequential.

⁹⁴ For its purpose and not for its purpose on the other days of the year? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Samuel bar Abba: Since it is left without a name it is as if from the start he slaughtered for its purpose and not for its purpose in silence and is qualified. They said to him. if it is so, even if he slaughtered for its purpose to pour the blood not for its purpose it should be treated as if from the start he slaughtered for its purpose and not for its purpose in silence and be qualified. Rebbi Abba Mari said, who says that in silence it is qualified? Or may we say, in silence it is disqualified?

footnotes: ⁹⁴ In all these cases the money was saved for the purpose of a certain type of sacrifice. If not all the money was actually used, the excess may be used later for the same purpose. It cannot return to profane status since “a promise to Heaven is like delivery to an individual”.

⁹⁶4:4 (Notes 61–72, נ) which probably was the source. Mishnah Nazir4:4 deals with the case of a married woman who made a vow of nazir and started putting aside money for her required sacrifices when her husband dissolved her vow. Then she no longer is nezirah and therefore cannot bring the sacrifices, but the monies remain dedicated. The Mishnah states: “If she had money not designated, it should be given to the gift account. If the monies were designated, the value of the purification offering shall be thrown into the Dead Sea; one may not use it but there can be no meilah*. For the value of the elevation offering, they shall bring an elevation offering; it is subject to the law of *meilah. For the value of the well-being offering, they shall bring a well-being offering, to be eaten on one day; it does not need bread.” Money not designated is money for which it never was decided for which kind of sacrifice it should be used. Rav Ḥisda said, only if his purification offering was presented last. But if his well-being offering was presented last, what is left over is for a well-being offering⁹⁷ with the expenses of their sacrifices but not all was used, the remainder has to be kept in trust to be used in the future for the same purpose. But if a person dedicated his own money for his sacrifices and had money left over, if the last sacrifice bought was of the most holy kind, the leftover money is of the same kind and has to go to the account for elevation offerings. But if the leftovers are of a well-being sacrifice, a “simple sanctum” which may be consumed by lay people, the monies have to be used for a simple sanctum.. Rebbi Zeira said, even if his well-being offering was presented last, it is a general rule for a *nazir* that his leftover be for the gift account⁹⁸3:2, overriding the general rule of Mishnah 2:6. In the Babli, *Nazir*25a, the statement is attributed to R. Joḥanan.. A *baraita* supports one and a *baraita* supports the other. A *baraita* supports Rebbi Zeira: “The following are not designated monies: any which contain money for purification offerings should be left to die. Even if he designated money for purification offerings that should be left to die, it remains not designated⁹⁸3:2, overriding the general rule of Mishnah 2:6. In the Babli, Nazir25a, the statement is attributed to R. Joḥanan..” A baraita supports Rav Ḥisda: “This is for my purification offering and the rest for my nezirut. Then he died. One commits larceny with all of them but not with part of them.” It does not say, when he died it should be given to the gift account100.

footnotes: ⁹⁶ This text also is in Nazir ⁹⁷ If monies were collected to help indigent nezirim ⁹⁸ Mishnah Meilah ⁹⁸ Mishnah Meilah

Rav Ḥisda said, a nazir’s leftover bread shall be left to decay. Rebbi Yose said, that is correct. You cannot sacrifice it by itself since bread cannot be brought alone. You cannot sacrifice it together with another nazir’s since no nazir sacrifices without bread¹⁰¹ 2, none is authorized for bread alone. Nowhere do we find a procedure to redeem sacrificial bread.. Therefore, it was necessary to say that a nazir’s leftover bread shall be left to decay. They wanted to say, the same rule applies to his leftover bread as to his leftover wine offering. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, his leftover wine offering is most holy¹⁰²; it should be given to the gift account. In the opinion of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Samuel, Rav Ḥisda, and Rebbi Eleazar, all three said the same. Rav Ḥisda, as quoted here. Samuel, as Rebbi Yasa said,¹⁰² when I still was there, I heard the voice of Rav Jehudah asking Samuel: If he designated his sheqel and died? He said, it should be given as gift. Rebbi Eleazar: ¹⁰³ the leftover of his tenth of an ephah: Rebbi Joḥanan said, one should bring it to the Dead Sea; Rebbi Eleazar said, it should be given to the gift account..

footnotes: ¹⁰¹ While several flour offerings are described in Lev. ¹⁰² Halakhah 5, Note 81. ¹⁰² Halakhah 5, Note 81. ¹⁰³ Halakhah 5, Note 83.

MISHNAH: The excess of monies collected for kidnap victims is for kidnap victims; the excess of monies collected for a particular kidnap victim is for this kidnap victim. The excess of monies collected for the poor is for the poor; the excess of monies collected for a particular poor person is for this poor person. The excess of monies collected for the dead¹⁰⁴ is for the dead; the excess of monies collected for a particular dead is for his heirs; Rebbi Meïr says, the excess of monies collected for a particular dead shall be left until Elijah comes¹⁰⁵; Rebbi Nathan says, from the excess of monies collected for a particular dead one builds a memorial on his grave.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁴ For funeral expenses. ¹⁰⁵ Since one does not know what to do with this money, it cannot be touched until Elijah, a member of the Heavenly Court who knows what the rules really should be, comes to announce the Messiah.

HALAKHAH: If they collected for him presuming that he had nothing and it turned out that he had some¹⁰⁶. Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say, the excess of monies collected for a particular dead is for his heirs. Rebbi Idi from Ḥutra said to him, think of it, did they intend only for [him¹⁰⁷? He said to him], I did [not] say this; what is your source¹⁰⁸?

footnotes: ¹⁰⁶ The reading of ג: ”had nothing”, has to be rejected as scribal error. ¹⁰⁷ Since the intent was to bury a destitute person, should the money not be given to the administrators of welfare for the benefit of future needs? ¹⁰⁸ R. Jeremiah realizes that it is a good question but he quoted a Mishnah; R. Idi has no tannaitic source to support him.

¹⁰⁹48a.“It was stated in the name of Rebbi Nathan: From the excess of monies collected for a particular dead he builds a memorial on his grave or perfume¹ his bier. It was stated, one does not redeem a kidnap victim for another kidnap victim¹¹⁰ and one does not collect a stole for a stole¹¹¹, but one does not restrict the power of the administrators of charity in this.” It was stated, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, one does not build mausoleums for the just; their words are their remembrance¹¹². rabba82(11)..

footnotes: ¹⁰⁹ Tosephta 1:12, Babli Sanhedrin ¹ This is the corrector’s text, following B. The scibe wrote זלח, a root not otherwise recorded in rabbinic Hebrew or Aramaic. ¹¹⁰ Monies collected for a particular prisoner should not be used to redeem another, but in cases of urgent need the hands of the administrators are not tied by this rule. ¹¹¹ If clothing is collected for a particular person, he should be given exactly what was collected for him. ¹¹² Gen

¹¹³2:1 (Notes 53–67) and *Moed Qaṭan*3:7 (83c l. 40–83d l. 8). Rebbi Joḥanan was leaning on Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba when Rebbi Eliezer¹¹⁴ saw him and hid himself before him. He said, these two things the Babylonian does to me: First, that he does not greet me, and second, that he hides himself. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi said to him, thus they behave among themselves; Rebbi Zeira did not greet Rabba since they observe¹¹⁵29:8. Boys see me and hide themselves; elders rise and stand. He asked him, may one pass by a cursed statue? He said to him, do you want to honor it? Pass it by and blind its eyes! He said to him, Rebbi Eliezer¹¹⁴ did well that he did not pass before you. The other thing the Babylonian does, that he does not mention my tradition in my name. Rebbi Immi and Rebbi Assi¹¹⁶ came to him. They said to him, Rabbi, so it happened that it was a synagogue of weavers, about a bolt topped by a lock¹¹⁷10:9. about which Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Yose disagreed until they tore a Torah scroll in their rage. Would you think that they tore a Torah scroll? But that a Torah scroll was torn. There was an old man there, Rebbi Yose ben Qisma, who said, I wonder whether this synagogue will not be a place of foreign worship. He came back and asked, where is the colleague? Rebbi Jacob bar Idi came and said to him, it is written¹¹⁸. 11:15., all that the Eternal commanded to His servant Moses so Joshua commanded. When Joshua explained, did he mention every time “so said Moses”? No, he explained and they knew that it was Moses’s teaching. So also Eleazar sits and explains and everybody knows that it is your teaching. He said to them¹¹⁹, why do you not know to pacify like our colleague Ben Idi?

footnotes: ¹¹³ As the concurrent testimony of ג and the scribe’s text show, the following text is not part of the original Halakhah. It was added by the corrector from B; both its Aramaic and the names appearing are Babylonian. A somewhat different Yerushalmi text is in Berakhot ¹¹⁴ This should read: Eleazar. ¹¹⁵ Job ¹¹⁴ This should read: Eleazar. ¹¹⁶ He is R. Yasa in Yerushalmi texts. ¹¹⁷ Mishnah Eruvin ¹¹⁸ Jos ¹¹⁹ R. Immi (Ammi) and R. Assi (Yasa).

Why did Rebbi Joḥanan insist to require that traditions should be reported in his name? For also David begged for divine mercy in this respect, as it says, may I dwell in Your tent forever, I shall seek shelter under the cover of Your wings, Selah¹²⁰ 61:5.. Could David think of living forever? Rather, David said before the Holy One, praise to Him: Master of the World, may I have the merit that my words will be mentioned in synagogues and houses of study. What good does that do to him? Simeon, the son of the Nazir said in the name of Rebbi Isaac If a Sage’s pronouncement in matters of practice is mentioned in this world, the latter’s lips whisper with him in the grave for it is said¹²¹ means “to speak”., dripping from the lips of the sleeping ones. Like that softened bunch of grapes, if a person puts his finger on it immediately it drips, so also the lips of the just drip, for if one mentions their pronouncements in matters of practice the latter’s lips whisper in the grave. What good does that do to them? The son of the Nazir says, like one who drinks spiced wine; Rebbi Isaac said, like one who drinks old wine, even though he cannot taste it.

footnotes: ¹²⁰ Ps. ¹²¹ Cant. 7:10. Note that in Accadic the root dbb

¹²²1, Notes 188–191. Giddul said, anybody who quotes somebody should consider it as if the author of the quote stood before him, for it is said¹²³ 39:7., only in image a man wanders. It is written¹²⁴. 20:6. many a man professes good will, this is the rest of mankind; but where will you find one you can trust, that is Rebbi Zeira. As Rebbi Zeira said, should we take the traditions of Rav Sheshet into account since he is blind? Rebbi Zeira said to Rebbi Assi, does the Rabbi know Bar Petaiah that you quote traditions in his name? He said to him, Rebbi Joḥanan quoted them in his name. Rebbi Zeira said to Rebbi Assi¹¹⁶, does the Rabbi know Rav that you quote traditions in his name? He said to him, Rebbi¹²⁵ Ada bar Ahavah quoted them in his name.

footnotes: ¹²² This paragraph is from Šabbat ¹²³ Ps. ¹²⁴ Prov ¹¹⁶ He is R. Yasa in Yerushalmi texts. ¹²⁵ Read: Rav.

¹²⁶ and Mo`ed Qaṭan. There is no generation without scoffers. What did the hooligans of David’s generation do? They went to David’s windows and said to him: David, when will the Temple be built, when will we go to the Eternal’s house? David said, even though they intend to enrage me, something should come over me were I not happy, I enjoy it when they say to me: let us go to the Lord’s house¹²⁷ 122:1.. When your days will be complete and you will lie with your forefathers¹²⁸ 7:12.. The Holy One, praise to Him, said to David:, I am counting full days for you, I am not counting missing days for you. Will not your son Solomon build the Temple for public sacrifice? Law and justice that you are upholding is more to my liking than sacrifices, as it is said¹²⁹. 21:3., upholding justice and law is preferred by the Eternal to sacrifice.]

footnotes: ¹²⁶ This again is the Babylonian version of the text in Berakhot ¹²⁷ Ps. ¹²⁸ 2Sam. ¹²⁹ Prov