in their place. Although by Torah law one does not take an oath on consecrated items belonging to the Temple treasury, and therefore there is no need to take an oath to the Temple treasurers, this oath is required due to the fact that it is a rabbinically instituted oath, as the Sages required the agent to take an oath as the bailee of the consecrated property that was deposited with him. However, according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, there is a difficulty. It is reasonable that when the shekels are lost before the collection of the chamber ceremony, the agents must take an oath to the residents of the town, as this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. As long as the collection of the chamber has not taken place, the residents of the town are held responsible for their shekels, since they are considered to be their property. But why does the agent take an oath to the Temple treasurers if the shekels are lost after the ceremony? With regard to the treasurers, what is their purpose in this discussion? One does not take an oath on consecrated items. The Gemara answers: The mishna means that the agents take an oath to the residents of the town in the presence of the Temple treasurers so that the treasurers will not suspect the residents of the town of not having given their shekels. Alternatively, even if the town residents are considered to be honest people who would not be suspected of withholding their shekels, the agents must take an oath in the presence of the Temple treasurers so that the treasurers will not regard the residents to be negligent people who failed to properly watch over the shekels. Rabbi Yoḥanan said that the oath mentioned in the mishna is a rabbinic ordinance. The Gemara comments: According to this opinion, the mishna's statement that if the shekels were lost before the collection of the chamber ceremony, the agents must take an oath to the residents of the town applies even if the residents of the town took upon themselves to pay other shekels in place of the first ones that were lost or stolen. In such a case, the residents relinquished their right to an oath from the agent, but since it is in reality consecrated property, there is still a rabbinic ordinance that the agent cannot discharge his obligations toward consecrated property without an oath.

Until this point the Gemara has dealt with a situation where the shekels were lost or stolen from the agent. With regard to a case where one set aside his shekel and subsequently lost it before the collection of the chamber ceremony took place, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Since the collection of the chamber had not yet taken place, the shekel is considered to be the property of the donor, and he is held responsible for it until he hands it to the Temple treasurer. Therefore, he must replace the lost shekel. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: Consecrated items are considered to be in the possession of the Temple treasury wherever they are, whether or not they have actually reached the hands of the Temple treasurer. Therefore, the donor is not responsible for replacing the lost shekel. The Gemara asks: The mishna disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, as it teaches that the agents who lost the shekels take an oath to the residents of the town, and the residents of the town contribute shekels in place of those lost. Apparently, as long as the funds have not yet been collected, the shekels are considered to be in the possession of their owners. The Gemara answers: Isn't this also because it is a rabbinically instituted oath? This oath is not by Torah law, but rather instituted by the Sages to encourage people to look after the shekels until they are brought to the Temple. According to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, no oath is required by Torah law because the shekels belong to the Temple.

It is taught in the mishna that if the shekels were stolen or lost by the agents and the residents of the town set aside other shekels as required, and then the first shekels were found or returned by the thief, both sets are considered to be consecrated shekels. It was taught in a baraita: The first ones are allocated to the collection of the new shekels, from which the sacrifices of the coming year will be brought, and the second ones are allocated to the collection of old shekels, which are used to repair and maintain the Temple. The Gemara asks: Which are the first ones and which are the second ones? Are the first ones those that were lost, since they were contributed first, or are the first ones those that were contributed in place of the lost ones, and they are deemed so because they reached the Temple first? Rabbi Pineḥas, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, and Rabbi Abba Mari disagreed. One of them said that the first shekels are those that the residents of the town first sent to the Temple, and the other one said that those that reached the hands of the Temple treasurers first are considered the first shekels.

Halakha 2 · MISHNA With regard to one who gives his shekel to his fellow to contribute on his behalf by placing it in the collection horn for him, and the fellow instead contributed it for himself, if at the time that he placed the shekel in the collection horn the collection of the chamber had been collected, the fellow is guilty of misuse of consecrated property. When they perform the collection of the chamber, the treasurers also have in mind the shekels that have been contributed but are not yet in the possession of the Temple treasury, so that all those who have contributed shekels will have a part in the communal sacrifices. Therefore, when the agent gives this shekel for himself, he is considered to be deriving benefit from a consecrated item and is guilty of unintentional misuse of consecrated property. With regard to one who mistakenly contributes his shekel from consecrated money, and then the collection of the chamber was collected and an animal purchased with those funds was sacrificed as a communal offering, he is guilty of misuse of consecrated property once the animal has been offered. This is because at that point the money used to purchase the animal is transferred to non-sacred status. However, before that point, merely contributing consecrated money is not considered misuse. If one mistakenly contributed his shekel from money used to redeem the fruits of the second tithe or from money from the permitted sale of produce grown during the Sabbatical Year, he must eat non-sacred fruits besides the ones he already possesses, corresponding to the value of the shekel, and he must treat them with the sanctity of second tithes or Sabbatical Year fruits.

GEMARA: It is taught in the mishna that one who contributes his shekel from consecrated money, when the collection of the chamber ceremony takes place and the animal has been offered, he is guilty of misuse of consecrated property. The Gemara records two different versions of this halakha. We learned in the mishna: If the animal was offered, indicating that if the animal had not been offered, even if the collection of the chamber ceremony has taken place, he has not misused consecrated property. The school of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught: If the collection of the chamber had been collected, indicating that he is guilty of misuse of consecrated property even before the animal was offered. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna from Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi's school who taught: If the collection had been collected? It is Rabbi Shimon, as Rabbi Shimon said: When one sold items to the Temple treasurers for use in communal sacrifices, such as fine flour for meal-offerings or wine for libations, he would immediately receive his money from the treasurers, and the priests, who are vigilant with regard to mitzvot, would ensure that the relevant items would not become disqualified. Since the items sold became consecrated right away, the money became non-sacred at the time of the purchase; there was no need to wait until the items were actually offered. Similarly with regard to the shekels, the moment the Temple treasury purchases an animal for communal sacrifices, the shekels used become non-sacred and the person who contributed his shekel from consecrated money is guilty of misuse of consecrated items. The mishna taught that if one gave his shekel to an agent to place into the collection horns and the agent placed it in for himself, if the collection of the chamber ceremony has taken place, the agent has misused consecrated property. The Gemara comments: This is difficult. If one steals his fellow's burnt-offering, and slaughtered it without specifying for whom he was offering it, isn't the unspecified offering considered to be in the name of the original owners, and doesn't it atone for them? The same principle should apply here. Since the treasurer performs the ceremony of the collection of the chamber without having anyone particular in mind, this shekel should be attributed to the one to whom the shekel belonged and not to the one who stole the shekel for himself. If the agent receives no benefit from it, why is he considered to have misused consecrated property? Rabbi Yudan said: It should be explained as referring to a case where this shekel was a particular coin that stood out among the other coins in the collection basket, and the Temple treasurer noticed it and removed this coin in the name of the agent, just as the members of the house of Rabban Gamliel were accustomed to do. When one brought a half-shekel from the house of Rabban Gamliel to the Temple, he would intentionally push it into the basket in such a way that the treasurer would notice it and place it among the collected half-shekels. The Gemara comments why it must be the case that the person who illicitly contributed the shekel in his own name is liable for misuse of consecrated funds only if that particular coin is identifiably among those collected. Otherwise, wouldn't one be concerned and say that perhaps the half-shekel given was not used to purchase offerings and instead fell among the remaining contributions in the chamber? And if this is the case, is there misuse of consecrated property with regard to the remaining contributions? According to the majority of the Sages, one is not liable for misuse of consecrated property for the remaining funds of the Temple treasury chamber. Should one rather explain the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir? As Rabbi Meir says: One is liable for misuse of consecrated property with regard to the remaining contributions of the chamber. The halakha is clearly not in accordance with R. Meir, as the majority rule otherwise, and the mishna does not indicate that it is reflecting a minority opinion. Therefore, this too is reasonable only if the mishna is addressing a noticeable coin like the particular coin of the house of Rabban Gamliel, which the treasurer would intentionally collect in his name. It is certain that it was included in the contributions collected for offerings, and therefore the agent is liable for misuse of consecrated property.

The Gemara asks: How did the agent who placed the coin in the basket for himself benefit, that he should be liable for misuse? His goal was to perform a mitzva, and there is a principle that mitzvot were not given to derive benefit from them. We do not consider actions performed to fulfill a mitzva as personally beneficial to those who performed them. Rabbi Avin said in the name of the Rabbis from there, i.e., from Babylonia: Since the court is liable to seize collateral from him and does not seize collateral from him, it is as if he benefited personally from his action.

The mishna seems to indicate that one who brings his half-shekel from second-tithe money has fulfilled his obligation, although he must eat non-sacred fruits in place of the second-tithe money. The Gemara asks: Since the money was already consecrated for a different purpose, it is not possible for a new sanctity to extend to it, as it is written: "But the firstling which is born first to God among animals, no man shall sanctify it" (Leviticus 27:26), and the Sages learn from the wording of this verse: That which is already sanctified, no other sanctity can extend to it. If so, what does he do so that the second-tithe money he contributed should count as his half-shekel? The Gemara answers: He brings a sela, i.e., a coin of non-sacred money, and says: The second-tithe money, already contributed, wherever it may be, should be redeemed upon this sela. That sela assumes the status of second tithe, which is transferred from the half-shekel that had been placed in the collection horn. The rest, i.e., the original contribution, becomes consecrated with the sanctity of shekels.