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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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. 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.

Halakha 1 · MISHNA When people who live far from Jerusalem wish to send to Jerusalem the shekels that have been levied from their community, they may combine their shekels and exchange them for darics [darkonot], which are large gold coins, due to the burden of the way. Instead of carrying large amounts of shekels, the agents who deliver the funds will bring a much lighter burden of gold coins with them. The mishna adds: Just as there were collection horns in the Temple to receive the half-shekel contributions, so too there were collection horns in the rest of the country, i.e., areas outside of Jerusalem. The local inhabitants placed their half-shekels in these horns, which were later brought to Jerusalem. § With regard to the residents of a town who sent their shekels to the Temple and they were stolen from the agent on the way or were lost, if the collection of the chamber had already been collected before these shekels arrived, the agents must take the oath of a bailee to the treasurers [gizbarin]. After the collection of the chamber, all the shekels that have been contributed become the property of the Temple, so the Temple treasurers who are in charge of this property become the opposing litigants of the agents. If the ceremony has not yet been performed and the contributions have not yet been collected into the baskets, the shekels are considered the property of the residents of the town, and therefore the agents must take an oath to absolve themselves to the residents of the town. Since those shekels are still considered the property of the residents of the town because the shekels never reached the Temple, they have not fulfilled their obligation. Therefore, the residents of the town must contribute other shekels in their place. If, after the residents of the town contributed other shekels, the original shekels were found or the thieves returned them, both these original shekels and those newly contributed ones have the status of consecrated shekels and belong to the Temple. However, they do not count for the following year. The people cannot claim that since they contributed twice in one year they are exempt from contributing the next year.

GEMARA: It is taught in the mishna that residents of a town can exchange their half-shekels with gold darics in order to ease their burden on the way to Jerusalem. The Gemara asks: If the goal is to ease the agents' burden by combining the coins into a more valuable commodity, let them make them, i.e., exchange them with, gems [margaliot], which are more valuable than darics and much lighter to carry. The Gemara answers: They do not do this due to concern lest the price of the gems decrease, since, like all commodities, their price can decrease and the Temple treasury of consecrated property will lose. Like that which we learned in a mishna there, in tractate Bekhorot: All of them, all items that can be redeemed, such as different types of consecrated items and the firstborn male who is redeemed from the priest, may be redeemed with money or with an equivalent value of money in commodities, except for shekels, which may be redeemed only with money. The question remains: Why is it that one may not redeem the shekels with vessels or any other type of equivalent value of money in commodities? Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said that it is due to concern lest the price of vessels decreases and the Temple treasury of consecrated property will lose. This is not the case with money, whose price remains fixed. So too here, they do not exchange shekels with gems out of concern lest the price of the gems decreases and the Temple treasury of consecrated property will lose.

§ It is taught in the mishna that just as there were collection horns in the Temple to receive the shekels, there were also collection horns in the areas outside Jerusalem. The Gemara comments: The mishna refers to new shekels, which are contributed for the new year commencing in Nisan. However, with regard to old shekels, which are brought by people who did not contribute in the previous year and are only now bringing their contribution for that year, the mishna is not addressing this. The collection horns for old shekels were located only in the Temple and not in other places. And it was taught similarly in a baraita: Collection horns for old shekels exist in the Temple, but there are no collection horns for old shekels in the rest of the country. It is taught in the mishna that if the shekels were lost or stolen from the agent on his way to Jerusalem, he must take the oath of a bailee and is exempted. The Gemara comments: The mishna is referring to a case where the agent was an unpaid bailee. However, with regard to a paid bailee, it is not addressing this sort of case, since only an unpaid bailee is exempt through his oath from payment for loss or theft. Rabbi Abba said: Even if you say that our mishna is referring to a paid bailee, he is still exempt through oath, since the term stolen used in the mishna is referring to armed robbers [listim], and such a case is deemed an unavoidable accident for which even a paid bailee is exempt. The term lost means like one whose ship sank in the sea; he was saved, but the money he brought with him belonging to the residents of the town was lost with the ship. This too is deemed an unavoidable accident, for which even a paid bailee is exempt. It is taught in the mishna that if the shekels were stolen or lost by the agent after the collection of the chamber, the agent takes an oath to the Temple treasurer to prove that he was not negligent. Rabbi Yustai, son of Rabbi Simon, said that the mishna is in accordance with the one who says that they perform the collection of the chamber with the intention that the ceremony apply to money that has already been gathered but has not yet been brought to the Temple, as well as to money that will be gathered in the future. Therefore, any money that was in the agent's hands at the time of the collection is considered the property of the Temple treasury. However, according to the one who said that they do not perform the collection of the chamber with the intention to include money that has already been gathered but has not yet reached the Temple, nor money that will be gathered in the future, but rather only money that is already in the Temple, not with regard to this did the mishna say that the agents take an oath to the Temple treasurers and are exempt. Since these shekels did not yet reach the Temple, it is as though they were not contributed at all, and all those whose shekels were lost or stolen must contribute another half-shekel in their place.

§ It is taught in the mishna that if the residents of the town sent their shekels and they were stolen or lost, if the collection of the chamber had not yet been collected, the agents take an oath to the residents of the town; and if they have already been collected, they take an oath to the Temple treasurers. Rabbi Elazar said: The mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as Rabbi Shimon says that consecrated items for which one is responsible are considered like his own property. If a person consecrates an item as a vow, he takes on himself the responsibility to replace it if it is lost or stolen. Rabbi Shimon considers this responsibility to be a type of ownership, and therefore the agent who lost it must take an oath to the person who consecrated the lost item, who remains in some sense the owner. Similarly, the agent who lost shekels must swear to the residents of the town. The Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Shimon maintain that consecrated items belong to the Temple, and therefore no oath is relevant, in accordance with the principle that one does not take an oath on consecrated items. Rabbi Yoḥanan disagreed with R. Elazar and said: The mishna is in accordance with all opinions. It is not limited to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, due to the fact that it is a rabbinically instituted oath not required by Torah law. Since people may claim that they have no responsibility for these items, the Sages instituted taking an oath on consecrated items as well. The Gemara asks: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who holds that the oath mentioned in the mishna is a rabbinic ordinance, it works out well that if the shekels were stolen or lost by the agent after the collection of the Temple chamber was completed, the agent takes an oath to the Temple treasurers. And if not, if they were stolen or lost before the collections were collected, he takes an oath to the residents of the town. And the residents of the town give other shekels