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. 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). 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).

§ 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. 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.

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. 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. 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.

§ 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). 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.

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. 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. 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. 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,