Shekalim 4b — the Talmud in English

And they come by themselves:

and the remainder of the libations falls by itself

into a service vessel.

And since this is so, they accept from them, according to Rabbi Yohanan, for he does not consider something of this kind a specified matter, since he himself did not donate a specified matter; rather, it rolled into this situation by itself. And even according to Resh Lakish, who holds that they do not accept even something that is not specified, where he did not explicitly donate for the repair of the House—they accept from them.

What does Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish do with this?

That is, what is the reason of Resh Lakish, who holds that one does not accept a donation from a gentile even at the end?

And we explain:

He resolves it:

Resh Lakish: This is what is implied by the verse in the Book of Ezra that was brought in our Mishna:

“It is not for you and for us to build a House for our God.”

And it is implied that the verse prohibited every partnership with a gentile in the House of our God, both at the beginning of the building and at the end, after its construction.

Rabbi Hezekiah said: Simon asked [in every place where “asked” was mentioned in the Jerusalem Talmud, it is not an expression of a question or inquiry; rather, it was clear to him that this was so, and he asked the members of the bet midrash whether they too agreed with his position, which seemed correct to him—thus it was explained in Tikelin Hadetin, page 2]:

Везде, где в Иерусалимском Талмуде упоминается слово «спросил», это не выражение вопроса или сомнения. Просто ему самому это было ясно, и он спросил у учащихся в бейт-мидраше, согласны ли они также с его пониманием, которое он считал правильным, — так объяснил «Тиклин Хадашин», лист 2]:

From now

that we learn from this verse that one does not accept from a gentile any donation for the building of the House, then we should learn that

one does not accept from them

a donation

for

the repair and building of

the aqueduct, and the walls of the city and its towers

of Jerusalem.

On account of

what is stated in Nehemiah [chapter 2]: “And we, his servants, shall arise and build.

But you have no share

or righteousness or memorial in Jerusalem.” And since it is written that they have no share in Jerusalem, we should learn from here that one does not accept donations from them for the needs of Jerusalem, and not only for the needs of the Temple.

We learned in our Mishna: And if he weighed on his own behalf and on behalf of his fellow, he is liable for one kolbon, and Rabbi Meir says: two kolbonot.

And we raised an objection concerning it:

What is the reason of Rabbi Meir [the version of the Gaon of Vilna], who adds two kolbonot?

Если это связано с потерей при размене денег, то достаточно было бы добавить один калбон, как говорят Мудрецы.

If it is because of the loss involved in exchanging the money, it is enough that he add one kolbon, as the Rabbis said.

And we answer: Because

Rabbi Meir said: Just as his shekel

he is obligated to give it as a matter of

Torah—

so

the addition of

his kolbon

he is obligated to give as a matter of

Torah!

Rabbi Meir holds

that even

one who gives his complete shekel

, who gave one coin of a half-shekel without any exchange of a coin at the money changer,

is liable

also

for a kolbon.

For Rabbi Meir said: The likeness of a coin of fire

of a half-shekel

the Holy One, blessed be He, brought out from beneath His Throne of Glory and showed it to Moses.

And He said to him, “This they shall give”—

They shall give one like this.

And from the fact that God took care to show Moses a coin of a half-shekel and said to him, “They shall give one like this,” it is implied that He wished to say to him that it should never be less than the half-shekel that existed in the days of Moses.

And therefore, by Torah law, each person is obligated to add to every half-shekel a small coin called a kolbon, because perhaps the silver now is not sufficiently refined as it was in the days of Moses. And when two people weigh one complete shekel, they must add two kolbonot to it, a kolbon for each one, for they became obligated in it by Torah law.

We learned in our Mishna:

If he gave a sela

in order

to take

change of

a shekel—

he is liable for two kolbonot.

Rabbi Elazar said:

Our Mishna is—according to

Rabbi Meir it is,

according to whom he is liable here for two kolbonot:

One for the shekel that he gives,

for he had a sela in his hand and exchanged it at the treasury, and he must give one kolbon for the surcharge, so that the treasury does not suffer a loss when breaking the sela into two shekels.

And

a kolbon

one

he must give

as a matter of Torah.

For everyone who weighs a half-shekel must add a kolbon even without the exchange, as was explained.

But according to the first Tanna, one kolbon is enough, for the exchange.

And if so, our Mishna, which made one who gives a sela in order to take a shekel of change liable for two kolbonot, is according to Rabbi Meir.

And Rav said:

This case that we learned—one who gives a sela in order to take a shekel of change is liable for two kolbonot—

is according to everyone.

For according to everyone, one who gives a sela to take a shekel must add

one

for the

shekel that he gives

to the treasury as a half-shekel. Since he gives a sela to the treasurer of the treasury instead of a shekel, he must add one kolbon for the surcharge.”

And

a kolbon

one

more he must give for the

shekel that he takes.

Since he takes a shekel of change from the treasury, he must again add to the treasury for this shekel, so that he does not come to misuse, lest this shekel be slightly excessive.

According to Rav’s position [according to Rav’s view], who says that even according to the first Tanna, in the case of receiving change from the treasury, two kolbonot are required, then according to Rabbi Meir, in a case such as this,

который говорит, что даже по мнению первого танная в случае получения сдачи из казны требуются два калбона, получается, что по мнению рабби Меира в подобном случае требуется

there are three kolbonot.

Since according to his view he must also give a kolbon by Torah law, like anyone who gives a half-shekel without an exchange.

And likewise, when

Rabbi Yirmeya and Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzhak came,

they said this

in the name of Rav: There are three kolbonot

according to Rabbi Meir:

One

for the

shekel that he gives.

And one

for the

shekel that he takes.

And one as a matter of Torah.

We learned in our Mishna:

Brothers who are partners, who are liable for a kolbon and exempt from the animal tithe,

and when they are liable for the animal tithe, they are exempt from the kolbon.

And we explain: When are the brothers who inherit liable for a kolbon and exempt from the animal tithe?

When they divided

the property

and then entered into partnership again

with those same assets. For in such a case they are like two ordinary partners, who, if they weigh their shekels together, must add a kolbon. And they are exempt from the animal tithe, since a herd belonging to partners is exempt from the animal tithe, as we derive from a verse.

And that which it teaches,

when they are liable for the animal tithe and exempt from the kolbon,

that is

when they did not divide

the brothers the assets of the inheritance, for then they are liable for the animal tithe, since they are not like partners; the assets are considered as though they are still in the possession of their father.

And they are exempt from the kolbon if they weighed together, since the assets have not yet been divided and are as their father’s possession; it is like their father weighed on behalf of both of them, in which case there is no need to give a kolbon.

Rabbi Elazar said:

That which we say, that when the brothers divided, the law of “the property of the household” was nullified with regard to them, and they became ordinary partners,

they

are specifically when they

divided

by valuation

kids corresponding to adult goats

old ones,

and adult goats corresponding to kids,

and likewise in every similar case, where they divided one species against another species between themselves. Since, from the time they inherited, each one had a half in each and every species, and now one received the kids and the other the adult goats, it necessarily follows that they nullified the status of inheritance and became like purchasers.

But if they divided kids corresponding to kids, and adult goats corresponding to adult goats,

as this is the law of inheritance, that each one has a share in every species, we say: “There is retroactive clarification,” and it was clarified that

it was his share that reached him from the first time

when their father died and the inheritance fell to them.

And therefore they do not have the status of “purchasers” [who are exempt from the animal tithe, as will be explained below; rather, they are liable for the tithe as though they inherited directly from their father]. And even if they then entered into partnership again, “the property of the household” returns to its place.

Rabbi Yohanan said:

It is not so.

Rather,

even if they divided kids against kids, and adult goats against adult goats—

they are like purchasers.

This is because Rabbi Yohanan holds, “There is no retroactive clarification,” and we do not say that what they divided was each one’s share from the first time.

Therefore, whenever they divide their father’s property, the status of “purchasers” applies to them, and

they are exempt from the tithe

on account of “purchased.”

As that which we learned there [that we learned in tractate Bekhorot]:

как учили в трактате Бехорот]:

That which was purchased,

and that which

was given to him

to a person

as a gift—

is exempt from the animal tithe.

Rabbi Hiyya said: Rabbi Yirmeya inquired: And why is it not

so

that we say [and why do we not say] in our Mishna that there are

почему в нашей Мишне мы не говорим, что бывают

times when they are

the brother-partners

liable

both

in this [in the kolbon]

калбоном]

and

both

in this [in the animal tithe]?

десятиной со скота]?