משנה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָֽמְרוּ אֵין מְמַשְׁכְּנִין נָשִׁים וַעֲבָדִים וּקְטַנִּים אֲבָל אִם שָֽׁקְלוּ מְקַבְּלִין מִיָּדָם. הַנָּכְרִי וְהַכּוּתִי שֶׁשָּֽׁקְלוּ אֵין מְקַבְּלִין מִיָּדָן. וְאֵין מְקַבְּלִין מִיָּדָן קִינֵּי זָבִין וְקִינֵּי זָבוֹת וְקִינֵּי יוֹלְדוֹת וְחַטָּאוֹת וַאֲשָׁמוֹת. Halakha 4 · MISHNA Although the Sages said, as stated in the previous mishna, that the court does not seize collateral from women, slaves, and minors, as they are not obligated to contribute, however, if they contributed a shekel of their own accord, the Temple treasurers accept from them. Conversely, in the case of a gentile or a Samaritan [Kuti] who contributed a shekel to participate in the communal offerings, they do not accept it from them. And likewise, they do not accept from a gentile or a Samaritan pairs of birds sacrificed in the purification ritual of a zav, pairs of birds of a zava, or pairs of birds of a woman who gave birth, all of which are brought for ritual purification, or sin-offerings or guilt-offerings.
זֶה הַכְּלָל כָּל־שֶׁהוּא נִידָּר וְנִידָּב מְקַבְּלִין מִיָּדָן. כָּל־שֶׁאֵין לֹא נִידָּר וְלֹא נִידָּב אֵין מְקַבְּלִין מִיָּדָן. וְכֵן מְפוֹרָשׁ עַל יְדֵי עֶזְרָא לֹא לָכֶם וְלָנוּ לִבְנוֹת בַּיִת לֵאלֹהֵינוּ: This is the principle: With regard to anything that can be brought to the altar as a vow or as a free-will offering, the priests accept it from gentiles and Samaritans, and with regard to anything that cannot be brought as a vow or as a free-will offering, they may not accept it from them. And this principle was similarly articulated by Ezra, when he recorded the Jewish leadership’s rejection of the Samaritans’ request to assist the Jews in the construction of the Second Temple, as it is stated: “But Zerubbabel, and Joshua, and the rest of the heads of fathers’ houses of Israel, said unto them: You have nothing to do with us to build a house unto our God; but we ourselves together will build unto the Lord the God of Israel, as King Cyrus the king of Persia has commanded us” (Ezra 4:3).
[דף ד.] וְאֵילּוּ חַייָבִין בַּקּוֹלָּבּוֹן לְוִייִם וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִים וְגֵרִים וַעֲבָדִים מְשׁוּחְרָרִין. אֲבָל לֹא כֹּהֲנִים וְלֹא נָשִׁים וְלֹא עֲבָדִים וְלֹא קְטַנִּים. [4a] The mishna states another halakha: And these are the people who are obligated in the premium [kalbon], a small sum added to the half-shekel collected: Levites, Israelites, converts, and emancipated Canaanite slaves, but not priests, women, Canaanite slaves, or minors.
הַשּׁוֹקֵל עַל יַד הָעֶבֶד עַל יַד הָאִשָּׁה עַל יַד הַכֹּהֵן עַל יַד הַקָטָן פָּטוּר. עַל יָדוֹ וְעַל יַד חֲבֵרוֹ חַייָב בְּקוֹלָּבּוֹן אֶחָד. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר שְׁנֵי קוֹלָּבּוֹנוֹת. נָתַן סֶלַע לִיטּוֹל שֶׁקֶל חַייָב שְׁנֵי קוֹלָּבּוֹנוֹת: One who contributes a half-shekel on behalf of a priest, on behalf of a woman, on behalf of a slave, or on behalf of a child, is exempt from the premium, as they are exempt. But if he contributed on his own behalf and on behalf of another, i.e., he contributed one whole shekel to discharge both his own obligation and that of someone else, he is obligated in one premium. Rabbi Meir says: He must pay two premiums. The mishna further states: One who gives the collection agent a sela, i.e., a whole shekel, and takes a shekel, i.e., a half-shekel, as change is obligated in two premiums.
הַשּׁוֹקֵל עַל יַד עָנִי ועַל יַד שְׁכֵינוֹ עַל יַד בֶּן עִירוֹ פָּטוּר אִם הִלְווָם חַייָב. One who contributes a half-shekel on behalf of a poor person, on behalf of his neighbor, or on behalf of a resident of his city is exempt from the premium. The Sages did not obligate in the premium those who use their own money to fulfill the obligation of another. But if one loaned them a half-shekel, rather than paying it on their behalf, he is obligated to pay the premium. Since the recipients of the loan must repay the money, it is as though the half-shekel were paid from their property rather than the lender’s.
הָאַחִין הַשּׁוּתָפִין שֶׁחַייָבִין בַּקּוֹלָּבּוֹן פְּטוּרִין מִמַּעֲשֵׂר בְּהֵמָה וְשֶׁחַייָבִין בְּמַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה פְּטוּרִין מִן הַקּוֹלָּבּוֹן. Partnered brothers, who have fully divided among themselves their late father’s assets, and who, if they jointly pay a whole shekel from those assets to discharge both of their obligations, are obligated in the premium like any other two private individuals, are exempt from the animal tithe for the livestock they inherited. Since they have completely divided between them all inherited assets, they are considered purchasers of the livestock, and a purchaser is exempt from the animal tithe. But when they have not completely divided the assets, and they are therefore obligated in the animal tithe, as the livestock is considered in their father’s possession, they are exempt from the premium for their joint payment, as in the case of one who pays on behalf of another.
כַּמָּה הוּא קוֹלָּבּוֹן מָעָה כֶּסֶף דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים חֲצִי מָעָה And how much is a premium? A silver ma’a. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: It is only half a ma’a.
הלכה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָֽמְרוּ כול׳. הָא לִתְבּוֹעַ אֵינָן תּוֹבְעִין. הָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר. תּוֹבְעִין. וְהָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר. אֵין תּוֹבְעִין GEMARA: The mishna taught that although they said that the assets of minors are not seized as collateral for the half-shekel payment, nevertheless, their money is accepted if they contribute it. The Gemara asks: The ruling that their money is accepted indicates that with regard to claiming their contribution, it is not claimed ab initio. However, the mishna’s statement here, that their property is not seized as collateral, indicates that you say that it is claimed, and yet here, at the end of the mishna, you say that we don’t claim the money.
כָּאן בְּשֶׁהֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת וְכָאן בְּשֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת. The Gemara answers that there are two different types of minors: Here, the statement of the mishna from which it can be inferred that the half-shekel is claimed from a minor is referring to one who has two pubic hairs. As the obligation to contribute the shekel is only fully in force at the age of twenty, a thirteen-year-old boy who has two pubic hairs can be referred to as a minor, even though he is considered an adult for other matters. And here, where it is stated that the half-shekel is not claimed at all from a minor, it is referring to a boy who does not yet have two pubic hairs.
הַנָּכְרִי וְהַכּוּתִי שֶׁשָּֽׁקְלוּ אֵין מְקַבְּלִין מִיָּדָן. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא. תִּיפְתָּר כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר. כּוּתִי כְגוֹי. דְּאִיתפַּלְּגוֹן. כּוּתִי כְגוֹי. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר. כּוּתִי כְיִשְׂרָאֵל לְכָל־דָּבָר. § The mishna taught: The half-shekel is not accepted from a gentile or a Samaritan, nor are they allowed to bring other types of obligatory offerings. Rabbi Ba said: The mishna’s ruling that both half-shekels and obligatory offerings are not accepted is referring to Samaritans, and it can be explained according to the opinion of the one who said that a Samaritan is considered like a gentile. As the Sages disagreed with regard to this matter: A Samaritan is like a gentile; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: A Samaritan is like a Jew in all matters.
אָמַר רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. מַתְנִיתָה בַגּוֹיִם. הָא בַכּוּתִים לֹא. Rabbi Elazar said: No, the statement of the mishna concerning obligatory offerings applies only to gentiles, as in this instance the mishna is not referring to Samaritans. The halakha with regard to Samaritans on this matter is subject to the general disagreement as to whether they have the status of Jews or gentiles.
וְתַנֵּי כֵן. אָדָ֗ם. לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַגֵּרִים. מִכֶּ֛ם. לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַמְשׁוּמָּדִים. And indeed it was taught likewise in a baraita. It is written: “When a man of you brings an offering” (Leviticus 1:2). The phrase “a man” comes to include converts, as the verse does not specify the children of Israel. “Of you,” a restricting phrase, comes to exclude apostates, who have partially or entirely left Judaism. Hence, the Samaritans, who are classified as converts, bring obligatory offerings.
מַתְנִיתָה פְלִיגָה עַל רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. אֵין מְקַבְּלִין מִיָּדָם קִינֵּי זָבִין וְקִינֵּי זָבוֹת וְקִינֵּי יוֹלְדוֹת. וְכִי יֵשׁ קִינֵּי זָבִין וְזָבוֹת בַגּוֹיִם. The Gemara wonders: It appears that the mishna disagrees with Rabbi Elazar, as we learned: Pairs of birds offered in the purification ritual of a zav, pairs of birds of a zava, or pairs of birds of a woman who gave birth are not accepted from a gentile or a Samaritan. But this statement of the mishna is problematic: Are there pairs of birds offered in the purification ritual of a zav or of a zava among the gentiles? The halakhot of purification from ritual impurity do not apply to gentiles.
אֶלָּא רֵישָׁא בַגּוֹיִם וְסֵיפָא בַכּוּתִים. וְהָא כֵינִי. רֵישָׁא בַגּוֹיִם וְסֵיפָא בַכּוּתִים. The Gemara explains how Rabbi Elazar understands the mishna: Rather, it must be that the first clause of the mishna, concerning the half-shekels, applies to gentiles, and the latter clause, which deals with obligatory offerings, is referring to Samaritans. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is so; the first clause of the mishna is referring to gentiles, and the latter clause is referring to Samaritans.
אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. כַּתְּחִילָּה אֵין מְקַבְּלִין מֵהֶן לֹא דָבָר מְסוּייָם וְלֹא דָבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְסוּייָם. וּבַסּוֹף מְקַבְּלִין מֵהֶן דָּבָר מְסוּייָם וְאֵין מְקַבְּלִין מֵהֶן דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְסוּייָם. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. בֵּין בַתְּחִילָּה בֵין בַּסּוֹף אֵין מְקַבְּלִין מֵהֶן לֹא דָבָר מְסוּייָם וְלֹא דָבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְסוּייָם. Rabbi Yoḥanan said with regard to the Samaritans: Initially, during the construction of the Temple, neither a specific article, i.e., any item meant to be left intact, nor a nonspecific article, e.g., silver or a material that is incorporated into the structure and is not distinct, is accepted from gentiles or Samaritans. Subsequently, once the construction has been completed, a nonspecific article is accepted from them, but a specific article is not accepted from them. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Whether it is initially, during the construction of the Temple, or subsequently, neither a specific article nor a nonspecific article is accepted from them.
מַתְנִיתָה פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אֵין מְקַבְּלִין מֵהֶן הֶקְדֵּשׁ נְדָבָה לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת. פָּתַר לָהּ בֵּין בַתְּחִילָּה בֵין בַּסּוֹף וּבִלְבַד דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְסוּייָם. The Gemara wonders: A baraita apparently disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Consecrated property and donations for the maintenance of the Temple are not accepted from them. This statement does not distinguish between the initial period of construction of the Temple and afterward, or between specific and nonspecific articles. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yoḥanan would resolve it, and explain that the baraita indeed addresses the halakha of donations both at the start and at the end of the construction of the Temple, but only with regard to specific articles. Therefore, the baraita does not contradict the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan.
מַתְנִיתָה פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. הַכֹּל שָׁוִין שֶׁהֵן נוֹדְרִין וְנִידָּרִין. פָּתַר לָהּ עוֹלָה. It was stated above that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Whether it is initially, during the construction of the Temple, or subsequently, neither a specific article nor a nonspecific article is accepted from them. The Gemara wonders: A baraita apparently disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, as it was taught (see Arakhin 5b): All agree that gentiles may vow and be the subject of a vow. A gentile who vows to donate his own value to the Temple and a Jew who vows to donate the value of a gentile must donate that sum to the Temple maintenance fund. This shows that pledges are accepted from gentiles, which contradicts the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish would resolve it by explaining that this baraita is referring to not the Temple maintenance but a vow to bring a burnt-offering, which all agree a gentile may do.
נִיחָא נוֹדְרִים עוֹלָה. נִידָּרִין עוֹלָה. The Gemara asks: It works out well that gentiles may vow, as this can be interpreted as speaking of a burnt-offering. However, the statement that gentiles can be the subject of a vow, if it is not referring to his value, cannot be dealing with the imposition of an obligation on a gentile to bring a burnt-offering, which would be the reverse case of a regular vow to bring an offering oneself. The reason is that a Jew has no means of forcing a gentile to bring an offering.
לֹא. כְּשֶׁאָמַר יִשְׂרָאֵל הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלָה. וּשְׂמָעוֹ גוֹי וְאָמַר. מַה שֶׁאָמַר זֶה עָלַי. The Gemara answers: No; this is not the correct interpretation of the mishna. Rather, the mishna is referring to a case when a Jew said: It is incumbent upon me to donate a burnt-offering, and a gentile heard and said: What this person said is likewise incumbent upon me. Since the gentile did not vow independently but tied his statement to that of someone else, it is considered as though a vow were uttered in reference to him.
וְאֵינוֹ מֵבִיא עִמָּהּ נְסָכִים. וּמוֹתַר נְסָכִים לֹא לִכְלֵי שָׁרֵת אִינּוּן. נִמְצָא מֵבִיא דָבָר מְסוּייָם. The Gemara asks: But if the mishna is referring to a burnt-offering, doesn’t the gentile bring libations with it? Burnt-offerings must be accompanied by libations. And the surplus money dedicated to libations goes toward the payment for the sacred vessels. It would therefore turn out that the gentile brings a specific article.
הָתִיב רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. וְהָא תַנִּינָן נֶעֱרָכִין. וָעֲרָכִין לֹא לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת אִינּוּן. Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Bun responded: But didn’t we learn (see Arakhin 1:2), that according to Rabbi Meir, gentiles can be valuated and may valuate to the Temple the fixed sum of others, as prescribed by the Torah (Leviticus 27:1–8). The same question can be posed here: Doesn’t the sum valuated go toward the Temple maintenance? The gentile might end up donating a specific article.
הֵיךְ מַה דְאַתְּ אָמַר תַּמָּן. לַשָׁמַיִם הוא מִתְכַּוֵּין וּמֵאֵילֵיהֶן הֵן בְּאִין לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת. כֵּן אַתְּ אָמַר אַף הָכָא. לַשָׁמַיִם הוא מִתְכַּוֵּין [דף ד:] וּמֵאֵילֵיהֶן הֵן בָּאִין לִכְלֵי שָׁרֵת. Rather, the explanation is as they say there: When a gentile pledges money to the Temple, he intends it for Heaven, for God in general, rather than for any specific use in the Temple, and the pledge comes into the maintenance of the Temple fund on its own. In other words, these items cannot be considered a direct gift of a specific article. You can likewise say even here, with regard to the surplus money from the libation of a gentile’s burnt-offering, that when he brings money for the libations, he intends it for Heaven, [4b] and the funds come into the Temple maintenance fund on their own. Consequently, it is permitted to accept the libations of a burnt-offering from a gentile, as the remaining money was never specifically designated for this purpose.
מַה עֲבַד לָהּ רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. פָּתַר לָהּ לֹא לָכֶם וְלָנוּ לִבְנוֹת בַּיִת לֵאלֹהֵינוּ. What does Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish do with this? How can he reconcile his opinion that even nonspecific articles are not accepted from gentiles with the ruling of this mishna? He explains that the Temple construction was restricted exclusively to Jews, as the book of Ezra states concerning the Samaritans: “You have nothing to do with us to build a house for our God; but we ourselves together will build for the Lord” (Ezra 4:3).
רִבִּי חִלְקִיָּה אָמַר. רִבִּי סִימוֹן שָׁאַל. מֵעַתָּה אֵין מְקַבְּלִין מֵהֶן [לָ]אַמַּת הַמָּיִם וּ[לְ]חוֹמַת הָעִיר וּמִגְדְּלוֹתֶיהָ. עַל שֵׁם וְלְכֶ֗ם אֵֽין־חֵ֧לֶק וּצְדָקָ֛ה וְזִכָּר֖וֹן בִּירוּשָׁלָֽם. Rabbi Ḥizkiya said that Rabbi Simon asked, i.e., suggested: Now, since it has been concluded from the verse in Ezra that contributions are not accepted from gentiles for the maintenance of the Temple, it can be inferred from another verse that even contributions toward the aqueduct, which brought water to Jerusalem or toward the walls of the city and its towers, are not accepted from them. As it is written that Nehemiah said to Sanballat and the other gentile representatives: “The God of heaven, He will prosper us; therefore we His servants will arise and build; but you have no portion, nor right, nor memorial in Jerusalem” (Nehemiah 2:20).
אֵילּוּ חַייָבִין בַּקּוֹלָּבּוֹן כול׳. מַתְנִיתָא דְרִבִּי מֵאִיר. דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר אָמַר. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין שִׁקְלוֹ תוֹרָה קוֹלָּבּוֹנוֹ תוֹרָה. סָבַר רִבִּי מֵאִיר בְּנוֹתֵן שִׁקְלוֹ שָׁלֵם שֶׁהוּא פָטוּר מִן הַקּוֹלָּבּוֹן. § There is a dispute in the mishna with regard to one who contributes a whole shekel on behalf of himself and another. The first tanna maintains that he is obligated in one premium, while Rabbi Meir rules that he must pay two premiums. The Gemara quotes a baraita that clarifies the reason for Rabbi Meir’s opinion: As Rabbi Meir said: Just as one’s shekel is mandated by the Torah, so too, his premium is mandated by the Torah. Rabbi Meir therefore holds, with regard to one who gives exactly a whole shekel, half for himself and half for another, that he is obligated in one premium for each half.
אָמַר רִבִּי מֵאִיר. כְּמִין מַטְבֵּעַ שֶׁלְאֵשׁ הוֹצִיא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מִתַּחַת כִּסֵּא כְבוֹדוֹ וְהַרְאֲהוּ לְמֹשֶׁה. אְמַר לוֹ. זֶ֣ה ׀ יִתְּנ֗וּ. כָּזֶה יִתְּנוּ. As Rabbi Meir said: When Moses was instructed in the halakhot of the shekel contribution, the Holy One, Blessed be He, took out a kind of coin of fire from under His Throne of Glory and showed it to Moses and said to him: “This they shall give” (Exodus 30:13), i.e., like this in volume and weight they shall give of metal. Since not all weights of coins are equal, and some coins might be slightly smaller than the one shown to Moses, it is therefore necessary by Torah law to add a premium.
נָתַן סֶלַע לִיטּוֹל שֶׁקֶל חַייָב שְׁנֵי קוֹלָּבּוֹנוֹת: אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר. דְרִבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא. דְרִבִּי מֵאִיר אָמַר. אֶחָד שֶׁקֶל שֶׁהוּא נוֹתֵן וְאֶחָד סֶלַע שֶׁהוּא נוֹטֵל. The mishna stated that one who gives a sela, i.e., a whole shekel, and takes a half-shekel as change is obligated to pay two premiums. Rabbi Elazar said: This is the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as it was taught in a baraita: These are obligated in a premium, etc. One who gives a sela and takes a shekel is obligated, according to the opinion of the Rabbis, to pay one premium. But Rabbi Meir says: He must give two premiums.
רַב אָמַר. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא. אֶחָד שֶׁקֶל שֶׁהוּא [נוֹתֵן וְאֶחָד שֶׁקֶל שֶׁהוּא] נוֹטֵל וְאֶחד לִדְבַר תּוֹרָה. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרַב שְׁלֹשָׁה קוֹלָּבּוֹנוֹת אִינּוּן. And Rav said: No, this ruling of the mishna is a statement accepted by all, as everyone agrees with that which Rabbi Meir said: One who hands over a whole shekel and receives half back must give one premium for the shekel that he gives to the money changer, and one premium for the shekel that he receives as change, and a third premium as the one mandated by the Torah to make up the requisite weight. The Gemara adds: This means that according to the opinion of Rav there are three premiums.
אֲתַא רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק בְּשֵׁם רַב. שְׁלֹשָׁה קוֹלָּבּוֹנוֹת אִינּוּן. אֶחָד שֶׁקֶל שֶׁהוּא נוֹתֵן וְאֶחָד שֶׁקֶל שֶׁהוּא נוֹטֵל וְאֶחד לִדְבַר תּוֹרָה. In support of this claim, the Gemara relates: When Rabbi Yirmeya came, he said explicitly that Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said in the name of Rav: There are three premiums: One for the shekel that he gives, and one for the shekel that he receives, and one that applies by Torah law.
הָאַחִין וְהַשֻּׁתָּפִין שֶׁחַייָבִין בַּקּוֹלָּבּוֹן וּפְטוּרִין בְּמַּעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה. בְּשֶׁחִלְקוּ וְחָזְרוּ וְנִשְׁתַּתְּפוּ. § The mishna stated that a certain type of partnership between brothers renders them obligated in the premium and exempt from the animal tithe, while another form of partnership renders them obligated in the animal tithe and exempt from the premium. The Gemara elaborates: The case of partnered brothers who are obligated in the premium and exempt from the animal tithe is referring to when they divided up the estate of their deceased father and afterward again established a partnership. They are therefore partners in the normal sense, rather than co-owners of the original inherited estate, and regular partners are obligated in the premium and exempt from the animal tithe. The Torah specifically exempts partners from the animal tithe (see Bekhorot 56b).
שֶׁחַייָבִין בְּמַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה וֹפְטוּרִין מִן הַקָּלְבּוֹן. בְּשֶׁלֹּא חִלְּקוּ. Conversely, the halakha that they are obligated in the animal tithe and are exempt from the premium is referring to brothers who have not divided their father’s estate between them at all. It is therefore considered as though their father were still the sole owner of the estate and is contributing the shekel for the pair of them. As stated earlier in the mishna, one who contributes his own money on behalf of another is exempt from a premium. Meanwhile, as the estate is under a single ownership, the animal tithe must be separated from the livestock.
הַשּׁוֹקֵל עַל יְדֵי עָנִי כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. וְהֵן שֶׁחִלְקוּ גְדָיִים כְּנֶגֶד תְּייָשִׁים וּתְייָשִׁים כְּנֶגֶד גְּדָיִים. Rabbi Elazar said: And this is the halakha only when they divided kids for goats and goats for kids, i.e., when the two brothers inherited both kids and goats, and yet one took all the goats and the other all the kids. Since each originally inherited both species, this division is tantamount to one brother trading his goats for the other’s kids. When they again become partners, they are like strangers who join together. Consequently, they are exempt from the animal tithe.
אֲבָל אִם חִלְקוּ גְדָיִים כְּנֶגֶד גְּדָיִים וּתְייָשִׁים כְּנֶגֶד תְּייָשִׁים הוּא חֶלְקוֹ מִשָּׁעָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה. However, if they divided kids for kids and goats for goats, so that each takes some of both types in the normal manner, the halakha is that the group of animals each brother takes is considered his share from the outset, and no transaction between them has occurred. Consequently, when they reestablished the partnership, the estate reverted to its original status as a single entity, and therefore the animal tithe must be separated.
אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וַאֲפִילוּ חִלְקוּ גְדָיִים כְּנֶגֶד גְדָיִים וּתְייָשׁים כְּנֶגֶד תְּיישִׁים כִּלְקוּחוֹת הֵן. כַּהִיא דְתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. הַלָּקוּחַ וּשֶׁנִּיתַּן לוֹ מַתָּנָה פָּטוּר מִמַּעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: No, even if they divided the estate in the manner of kids for kids and goats for goats, they are considered like purchasers. It is as though each brother has sold his share to the other, and they are therefore exempt from the animal tithe, as we learned in a mishna there, in Bekhorot (9:3): That which is bought or given to the owner as a gift is exempt from the animal tithe.
רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בָעֵי. וְלָמָּה לֵי נָן אָֽמְרִין. פְּעָמִים שֶׁחַייָבִין בָּזֶה וּבָזֶה [דף ה.] וּפְעָמִים שֶׁהֵן פְטוּרִין מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָא. חִלְקוּ אֶת הַנְּכָסִים וְאַחָר כָּךְ חִלְקוּ אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה. חַייָבִין בָּזֶה וּבָזֶה. חִלְקוּ אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה וְאַחָר כָּךְ חִלְקוּ אֶת הַנְּכָסִים. פְטוּרִין מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה. The mishna spoke of two cases, one in which brothers are obligated in the animal tithe and exempt from the premium, and the other in which they are obligated in the premium and exempt from the animal tithe. In this regard, Rabbi Ḥiyya said that Rabbi Yirmeya raised a dilemma: And why do we not say that there are also times when they are obligated in both of them, [5a] and there are times when they are exempt from both of them? How is that? If they divided the property but did not divide the animals, they are obligated in both. The brothers are considered regular partners with regard to the property, and they are therefore obligated in the premium. However, the livestock is still regarded as under the single ownership of their father’s estate, and they are therefore obligated in the animal tithe. Conversely, if they divided the animals between them but did not divide the property, they are exempt from both. With regard to the animals, the brothers are considered regular partners and are therefore exempt from the animal tithe. The rest of the property remains under unified ownership, and they are therefore exempt from the premium as well.
אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. הָדָא דְאַתּ אָמַר. בְּשֶׁלֹּא הָֽיְתָה הַבְּהֵמָה רוֹב. אֲבָל אִם הָֽיְתָה הַבְּהֵמָה רוֹב הֵן הֵן עִיקַּר נְכָסָיו. In this regard, Rabbi Mana said: This statement you, Rabbi Yirmeya, are saying, that brothers who divided the property but not the animals are obligated in a premium, applies only in a case where the animals were not the majority of the property. However, if the animals were the majority of the property, they are considered the principal property. In this case, if the brothers have not divided the animals, even if they have divided the rest of the assets, it is as though they have not divided the estate at all, and they are therefore exempt from the premium.
רִבִּי אָבּוּן אָמַר. רִבִּי שַׁמַּי בָעֵי. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁעֲשִׂיתָן [כְּאָדָם אֶחָד] (כְּאֶחָד אָדָם) אֶצֶל מַעֲשֵׂר בְהֵמָה אַתְּ פוֹטְרוֹ מִן הַקּוֹלָּבוֹן. The mishna stated that if the brothers have not divided their inheritance between them, they are obligated in the animal tithe and exempt from the premium. Rabbi Avin said that Rabbi Shimi raised a dilemma: Because you have been stringent and made them as one man with regard to the animal tithe, by treating the estate as though it were under single ownership, will you also be lenient with them and exempt them from the premium? In this case too the stringent ruling should be accepted, and they should be treated as the owners of separate entities, who are obligated in the premium.
אָמַר לֵיהּ לֹא. שַׁנְייָה הִיא שֶׁהוּא נוֹתֵן סֶלַע אַחַת שְׁלֵימָה. Rabbi Avin said to Rabbi Shimi in response: Is it not different? There is a distinction here: As he, one of the brothers, gives one whole sela from the estate on behalf of both of them, and as the inheritance has not yet been divided, the coin is still considered the legal property of the father. Consequently, they are exempt from the premium, despite the fact that this results in a leniency.
מֵעַתָּה אֲפִילוּ חִלְּקוּ וְחָזְרוּ וְנִשְׁתַּתְּפוּ חַייָבִין בְּמַעֲשַׂר בְּהֵמָה וּפְטוּרִין מִן הַקָּלָבּוֹן. וְתַנִּינָן. חַייָבִין בַּקּוֹלָּבּוֹן וּפְטוּרִין מִמַּעֲשַׂר בְּהֵמָה. The Gemara asks: According to the ruling that the undivided estate is considered under single ownership, now one could claim that even if the brothers divided the inheritance and subsequently reestablished it again, the inheritance should revert to its original state as their father’s property, and they should be obligated in the animal tithe and exempt from the premium. And yet we learned in the mishna that in this case they are obligated in the premium and exempt from the animal tithe.
רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם אַבָּא בַּר רַב הוּנָא. הִיא שְׁנֵי אַחִין שֶׁיָּֽרְשׁוּ אֶת אֲבִיהֶן הִיא שְׁנֵי גִיסִין שֶׁיָּֽרְשׁוּ אֶת חֲמֵיהֶן. Rabbi Ba answered in the name of Abba bar Rav Huna: It is the same with two brothers who inherited their father, as is the halakha with regard to two brothers-in-law who inherited their father-in-law. If a father had only two daughters and their husbands inherited him, proceeded to divide up the inheritance, and later formed a partnership, they are considered like regular partners, who are obligated in a premium but exempt from the animal tithe. The same halakha applies to two sons.
לְאֵיכָן הָיוּ הַקּוֹלָּבּוֹנוֹת נוֹפְלִין. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר. לַשְּׁקָלִים. רִבִּי לָזָֽר אוֹמֵר. לִנְדָבָה. The Gemara cites a baraita with regard to the additional premium: To where would the premiums fall, i.e., what was done with them? Rabbi Meir says: They would add them to the shekels themselves, for the daily and additional offerings. Rabbi Elazar says: They would be allocated to free-will offerings, i.e., the money would go toward the burnt-offerings that were sacrificed when the altar was idle.
רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הַשְּׁזוּרִי אוֹמֵר. רִיקּוּעֵי זָהָב וְצִיפּוּי לְבֵית קוֹדֶשׁ הַקָּדָשִׁים. בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹמֵר. שׁולְחָנִין הָיוּ נוֹטְלִין אוֹתָן בִּשְׂכָרָן. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים. לְהוֹצָאַת דְּרָכִים. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: They would use the premiums to buy gold plating, and this served as covering for the inner walls of the house of the Holy of Holies. Ben Azzai says: The money changers responsible for collecting the shekels would take them as their payment for their services, as they had to take time off from their regular work. And some say that the premiums were spent on transportation expenses, i.e., the cost of moving the shekels from their collection sites to Jerusalem.
הדרן עלך פרק באחד באדר