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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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. 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.

§ 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.

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. 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. 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. 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.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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,