Talmud su Esdra 4:78

MISHNAH: Even though they said that one does not take pledges from women, slaves, and minors, but if they gave the sheqel one accepts it from them. One does not accept from the Non-Jew and the Samaritan¹²²This is a statement in dispute as explained in the Halakhah. The argument behind the statement is that since the Temple tax is used for public sacrifices, only people for whom the sacrifices are brought may contribute., and from them one does not accept nests of male sufferers from gonorrhea, nests of female sufferers from flux, nests of women having given birth, and purification and reparation sacrifices¹²³This is the list of sacrifices which a Jew may only bring if he is obligated for them. Since a Non-Jew never is obligated to follow any pentateuchal rules other than the Noahide commandments, he never is eligible for these offerings. If a sacrifice is voluntary for Jews, it also is so for Non-Jews.. This is the principle: Anything which can be given as a vow or a gift one does accept from them; anything which\can be given neither as a vow nor a gift one does not accept from them. So it is spelled out by Ezra, it is not upon you and us to build our God’s House¹²⁴Ezra 4:3. This refers only to the sheqel..
The following are liable for agio¹⁴⁵Latin collybus, collubus, Greek κόλλυβος “exchange of coins, rate of exchange”, here used for the money changer’s fee.: Levites, Israelites, proselytes, and freedmen, but not priests, women, slaves, and minors¹⁴⁶Since these are obligated for the sheqel, they have to give exactly one didrachma piece. If they have other coins, they have to pay the fee for exchange in correct coins. But contributions of priests, women, slaves, and minors, are voluntary and not bound by the exact amount or exact coins and, therefore, do not have to be exchanged.. He who pays the sheqel for a slave, a woman, a priest, or a minor, is not liable. He who paid the sheqel for himself and another person is liable for one agio; Rebbi Meïr says, two agios¹⁴⁷For the rabbis, a person paying for two may pay a tetradrachma, R. Meïr requires two didrachmas.. He who gives a tetradrachma to receive back a sheqel is liable for two agios¹⁴⁸If he pays with a tetradrachma he should get back 2 denar minus the agio, set in Mishnah 7 either as an obolos (1/6 denar) or a semi-obolos. If he pays the money-changer’s fee separately, he has to pay for changing the common 2 denar into the less common didrachma..
A person who pays the sheqel for a poor person. a neighbor, or a dweller in his town is not liable for the agio, unless it is as a loan, then he is liable¹⁵⁶If he pays for himself and from his own money he also pays for others, all is one transaction and pays one transaction fee. But if he is reimbursed for his expense this is not an act of charity; therefore each payment is a separate transaction and incurs a separate fee.. Brothers who are partners¹⁵⁷In the Halakhah the reading from a different Mishnah is: “brothers or partners”, but B quoting the Mishnah here reads “brothers as partners”. As long as the father’s estate is not distributed, the surviving brothers are still considered children of their father; if the estate pays for their sheqel it is one transaction and incurs one fee. Calves born to the estate are considered property of one person and the tenth calf automatically becomes a sacrifice. If they distributed the estate but then decided to continue jointly to pursue the agricultural affairs of their father, they form a new partnership and follow the rules of partnerships. They are independent persons, each of whom has to pay his own fee, but all calves born are property of joint owners, not a single person, therefore the tenth calf or lamb (Lev. 27:32) is not sanctified. who are liable for the agio are not liable for animal tithe; if they are liable for animal tithe they are not liable for the agio. How much is the agio? A silver obolos¹⁵⁸1/6 of a Roman denar., the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages say, half an obolos.

MISHNAH: Even though they said that one does not take pledges from women, slaves, and minors, but if they gave the sheqel one accepts it from them. One does not accept from the Non-Jew and the Samaritan¹²²This is a statement in dispute as explained in the Halakhah. The argument behind the statement is that since the Temple tax is used for public sacrifices, only people for whom the sacrifices are brought may contribute., and from them one does not accept nests of male sufferers from gonorrhea, nests of female sufferers from flux, nests of women having given birth, and purification and reparation sacrifices¹²³This is the list of sacrifices which a Jew may only bring if he is obligated for them. Since a Non-Jew never is obligated to follow any pentateuchal rules other than the Noahide commandments, he never is eligible for these offerings. If a sacrifice is voluntary for Jews, it also is so for Non-Jews.. This is the principle: Anything which can be given as a vow or a gift one does accept from them; anything which\can be given neither as a vow nor a gift one does not accept from them. So it is spelled out by Ezra, it is not upon you and us to build our God’s House¹²⁴Ezra 4:3. This refers only to the sheqel..
The following are liable for agio¹⁴⁵Latin collybus, collubus, Greek κόλλυβος “exchange of coins, rate of exchange”, here used for the money changer’s fee.: Levites, Israelites, proselytes, and freedmen, but not priests, women, slaves, and minors¹⁴⁶Since these are obligated for the sheqel, they have to give exactly one didrachma piece. If they have other coins, they have to pay the fee for exchange in correct coins. But contributions of priests, women, slaves, and minors, are voluntary and not bound by the exact amount or exact coins and, therefore, do not have to be exchanged.. He who pays the sheqel for a slave, a woman, a priest, or a minor, is not liable. He who paid the sheqel for himself and another person is liable for one agio; Rebbi Meïr says, two agios¹⁴⁷For the rabbis, a person paying for two may pay a tetradrachma, R. Meïr requires two didrachmas.. He who gives a tetradrachma to receive back a sheqel is liable for two agios¹⁴⁸If he pays with a tetradrachma he should get back 2 denar minus the agio, set in Mishnah 7 either as an obolos (1/6 denar) or a semi-obolos. If he pays the money-changer’s fee separately, he has to pay for changing the common 2 denar into the less common didrachma..
A person who pays the sheqel for a poor person. a neighbor, or a dweller in his town is not liable for the agio, unless it is as a loan, then he is liable¹⁵⁶If he pays for himself and from his own money he also pays for others, all is one transaction and pays one transaction fee. But if he is reimbursed for his expense this is not an act of charity; therefore each payment is a separate transaction and incurs a separate fee.. Brothers who are partners¹⁵⁷In the Halakhah the reading from a different Mishnah is: “brothers or partners”, but B quoting the Mishnah here reads “brothers as partners”. As long as the father’s estate is not distributed, the surviving brothers are still considered children of their father; if the estate pays for their sheqel it is one transaction and incurs one fee. Calves born to the estate are considered property of one person and the tenth calf automatically becomes a sacrifice. If they distributed the estate but then decided to continue jointly to pursue the agricultural affairs of their father, they form a new partnership and follow the rules of partnerships. They are independent persons, each of whom has to pay his own fee, but all calves born are property of joint owners, not a single person, therefore the tenth calf or lamb (Lev. 27:32) is not sanctified. who are liable for the agio are not liable for animal tithe; if they are liable for animal tithe they are not liable for the agio. How much is the agio? A silver obolos¹⁵⁸1/6 of a Roman denar., the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages say, half an obolos.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, at the start¹³¹At the start of building the Temple, the situation described in the verse from Ezra. While the verse refers to Samaritans, the discussion here is about Gentile offerings. one accepts from them neither definite objects nor non-definite objects¹³²After the building was finished and funds are needed for its continual upkeep., and at the end one accepts from them definite objects but not non-definite objects¹³³Since the Torah clearly accepts Gentile sacrifices, Lev. 22:25, one also has to accept vessels or other objects inscribed with the Gentile donor’s name. But unspecified moneys for the continual upkeep of the Temple are reserved for and are a duty upon Jews.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, both at the beginning and at the end one accepts from them neither definite objects nor non-definite objects. A baraita¹³⁴Tosephta 1:7, Sifra Emor Parashah7(2), Babli Menaḥot73b; cf. Nazir9:1 Note 8. disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “One does not accept from them voluntary gifts for Temple property for the upkeep of the Temple.” He explains it, both at the start and at the end, if it is for non-definite objects. A Mishnah¹³⁵Mishnah Arakhin1:3, where R. Meïr and R. Jehudah disagree about the status of a Gentile with respect to the rules detailed in Lev. 27:2–8. disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Everybody agrees that they make vows and are objects of vows¹³⁶Since a voluntary sacrifice must be vowed to the Temple before it can be offered, Lev. 22:25 clearly implies that a Gentile’s vows are valid in a Jewish setting. It is stated that a Jew may make a vow whose object is a Gentile or which is conditioned on the actions of a Gentile.. He explains it for elevation offerings¹³⁷These are the only sacrifices which a Gentile unquestionably is able to bring. It is difficult to see how he could bring a well-being offering which as a family sacrifice has to be consumed by the pure family members. The Gentile, being biblically unable to be impure, cannot biblically be pure either.. One understands that he makes a vow to bring an elevation offering. Can he be the object of a vow for an elevation offering? No, if an Israel says, I undertake to bring an elevation offering, when a Gentile hears him and says, I am undertaking what he says¹³⁸While the Gentile is not the passive object of a vow, his vow is subsidiary to the Jew’s.. Does he not bring libations with it¹³⁹As required by Num. 15:1–15.? Is not the excess money given for libations used for vessels of Service? Then it turns out that he brought {money for} a definite object¹⁴⁰Nobody brings his libations to the Temple; he pays for them in the Temple; they are brought from the Temple’s stores, and the net proceeds are used to buy gold and silver vessels for the Temple. These are objects that could be engraved with the donor’s name.! Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun objected, did we not state that they may offer their value¹⁴¹While not mentioned in Lev. 27:2–8, in fact this is what money donations to the Temple are used for.? Are offerings of one’s value not for the upkeep of the Temple¹⁴²The person making the vow of his value is intent to give the money to the worship; what actually is done with the money is not of interest to him.? It is as you are saying there, his intent was for Heaven; automatically it will be used for the upkeep of the Temple¹⁴³Similarly, the excess money given for libations goes into a big pot where the individual contributions are no longer recognizable; no donor’s plate can be affixed to any vessel bought with such money.; so here you are saying, his intent was for Heaven; automatically it will be used for vessels of Service. How does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish treat this? He explains, it is not upon you and us to build our God’s House. Rebbi Ḥilkiah said, Rebbi Simon asked: Does this imply that one does not accept from them¹⁴³Similarly, the excess money given for libations goes into a big pot where the individual contributions are no longer recognizable; no donor’s plate can be affixed to any vessel bought with such money. for an aqueduct, or the city walls, or its towers, because of you have no part, nor rightful claim, nor memorial, in Jerusalem¹⁴⁴Neh. 2:20..

The following [occurrences of lamed-alef (not)] which have to be read as lamed-waw (to, by, has) are found in the Prophets and Hagiographa: multiply;³²The introductory word of 1 Sam. 2, 3 in which occurs the phrase and by Him are actions weighed according to the ḳerë, but the kethib reads ‘and actions are not weighed’. Hushai;³³i.e. 2 Sam. 16, 18, where the ḳerë is his will I be and the kethib ‘I will not be’. said;³⁴i.e. 2 Kings 8, 10. Here the ḳerë is say unto him, thou shalt surely recover, and the kethib ‘say, thou shalt not surely recover’. thou hast multiplied;³⁵i.e. Isa. 9, 2.The ḳerë is Thou hast increased their joy, and the kethib ‘Thou hast not increased joy’. their affliction;³⁶i.e. Isa. 63, 9. The ḳerë is In all their affliction He was afflicted (lit. there was affliction to Him) and the kethib ‘in all their affliction He was not an adversary’. He slay me;³⁷i.e. Job 13, 15. The ḳerë is yet will I trust Him, the kethib ‘I have nothing to hope for’. I keep silence;³⁸i.e. Job 41, 4. The ḳerë is would I keep silence (to him), the kethib ‘I would not keep silence’. as the (wandering) sparrow;³⁹i.e. Prov. 26, 2. The ḳerë is shall come home (to him), the kethib ‘shall not come home’. his friends;⁴⁰i.e. Prov. 19, 7. The ḳerë is they turn against him, the kethib ‘they do not turn’. Zerubbabel;⁴¹i.e. Ezra 4, 2, The ḳerë is we do sacrifice unto Him, the kethib ‘we do not sacrifice’. were fashioned;⁴²i.e. Ps. 139, 16. The ḳerë is ‘and for it there was one among them’, the kethib when as yet there was none of them. In this instance E.V. follows the kethib. know ye;⁴³i.e. Ps. 100, 3. The ḳerë is we are His, the kethib ‘and not we (have made) ourselves’. be gathered;⁴⁴i.e. Isa. 49, 5. The ḳerë is be gathered unto Him, the kethib ‘be not gathered’. name,⁴⁵i.e. 1 Chron. 11, 20. The ḳerë is and had a name among the three, the kethib ‘and not a name among the three’. [this last also] in the corresponding passage.⁴⁶viz. in 2 Sam. 23, 18. This reading is suggested by N.Y. to replace that of V ‘and his word’ which is meaningless. In this verse, however, lamed-waw is both written and read. [More probably ודבר in V is a misreading of daleth signifying ‘four’ which should be attached to the beginning of the next Rule.] [38a]

The following are spelt with a waw but read with a yod: prisoners;⁹⁹Gen. 39, 20, written ’asurë and read ’asirë. Abigail;¹⁰⁰1 Sam. 25, 18, written Abugail and read Abigail. I make thee … go up and down;¹⁰¹2 Sam. 15, 20, written anu‘aka and read ani‘aka. chief men;¹⁰²2 Kings 24, 15, written ’ulë and read ’elë. I will … make … straight;¹⁰³Isa. 45, 2, written ’aushir and read ’ayashsher. I will … make them run away;¹⁰⁴Jer. 50, 44, written ’aruẓem and read ’ariẓem. on mine eye;¹⁰⁵2 Sam. 16, 12, written ba‘awoni and read be‘eni. cistern;¹⁰⁶Jer. 6, 7, written bor and read bayir. in their march;¹⁰⁷Nahum 2, 6, written bahalokotham and read bahalikotham. set apart;¹⁰⁸2 Chron. 26, 21, written haḥofshuth and read haḥofshith. V inserts here another example, viz. ‘my way’, but N.Y. declares it to be incorrect and H omits it. wilt thou set;¹⁰⁹Prov. 23, 5, written hata‘uf and read hata‘if. ye might provoke Me;¹¹⁰Jer. 25, 7, written hik‘oseni and read hak‘iseni. make straight;¹¹¹Ps. 5, 9, written haushar and read hayeshar. who were set;¹¹²Ezra 8, 17, written hannethunim and read hannethinim. that taught;¹¹³2 Chron. 35, 3, written hammebonim and read hammebinim. Birzaith;¹¹⁴1 Chron. 7, 31, written Birzoth and read Birzaith. will greatly rejoice;¹¹⁵Prov. 23, 24, written gol yagul and read gil yagil. Dehites;¹¹⁶Ezra 4, 9, written Dehawë and read Dehayë. bring forth;¹¹⁷Gen. 8, 17, written hawẓë’ and read hayẓë’. Harsith;¹¹⁸Jer. 19, 2, written haḥarsoth and read haḥarsith. Luhith;¹¹⁹ibid. XLVIII, 5, written halluḥoth and read halluḥith. the entry;¹²⁰Ezek. 42, 9, written hammebo’ and read hammebi’. the strong;¹²¹Zech. 11, 2, written habbaẓur and read habbaẓir. made to murmur;¹²²Numb. 14, 36, written wayyillonu and read wayyalinu. and Shahazim;¹²³Josh. 19, 22, written weshaḥaẓumah and read weshaḥaẓimah. and a royal diadem;¹²⁴Isa. 62, 3, written uẓenuf and read uẓenif. and a thing of nought and the deceit;¹²⁵Jer. 14, 14, written we’elul wetarmuth and read we’elil wetarmith. and the swallow;¹²⁶ibid. VIII, 7, written wesus and read wesis. and the galleries thereof;¹²⁷Ezek. 41, 15, written we’attoḳeha and read we’attiḳeha. and Tilon;¹²⁸1 Chron. 4, 20, written wetolon and read wetilon. Jehiel;¹²⁹2 Chron. 29, 14, written Jeḥu’el and read Jeḥi’el. and prepare ye;¹³⁰ibid. XXXV, 4, written wehikkonu and read wehakkinu. thy bosom;¹³¹Ps. 74, 11, written ḥoḳeka and read ḥeḳeka. a side-structure;¹³²1 Kings 6, 5, written yaẓu‘a and read yaẓi‘a. Jair;¹³³1 Chron. 20, 5, written Ya‘or and read Ya‘ir. alienate;¹³⁴Ezek. 48, 14, written ya‘abor and read ya‘abir. Jeiel;¹³⁵1 Chron. 9, 35, written Je‘u’el and read Je‘i’el. they wander up and down;¹³⁶Ps. 59, 16, written yenu‘un and read yeni‘un. let … cover them;¹³⁷ibid. CXL, 10, written yekassumo and read yekassemo. they cause … to fall;¹³⁸Prov. 4, 16, written yiksholu and read yakshilu. to strive;¹³⁹Judg. 21, 22, written larub and read larib. singing;¹⁴⁰1 Sam. 18, 6, written lashur and read lashir. Laish;¹⁴¹2 Sam. 3, 15, written Lush and read Layish. for fishers;¹⁴²Jer. 16, 16, written ledogim and read ledayyagim. dross;¹⁴³Ezek. 22, 18, written lesog and read lesig. for a spoil;¹⁴⁴Isa. 42, 24, written limshoseh and read limshissah. their furrows;¹⁴⁵Ps. 129, 3, written lema‘anotham and read lema‘anitham. Mephaath;¹⁴⁶Jer. 48, 21, written mopha‘ath and read mepa‘ath. from Naioth;¹⁴⁷1 Sam. 20, 1, written minnawoth and read minnayoth. stretched-forth;¹⁴⁸Isa. 3, 17, written neṭuwothn and read neṭioth. fruit;¹⁴⁹ibid. LVII, 19, written nob and read nib. Nebai;¹⁵⁰Neh. 10, 20, written Nubai and read Nebai. Nephishesim;¹⁵¹ibid. VII, 52, written Nefushesim and read Nefishesim. leave;¹⁵²2 Sam. 14, 7, written sum and read sim. ready dressed;¹⁵³1 Sam. 25, 18, written ‘asuwoth and read ‘asiyoth. Ephai;¹⁵⁴Jer. 40, 8, written ‘ufai and read ‘ephai. Ephrain;¹⁵⁵2 Chron. 13, 19, written ‘Efron and read ‘Efrain. V incorrectly reads ‘Abarim. the second¹⁵⁶This excludes the first ready in Esth. 3, 14. ready;¹⁵⁷Esth. 8, 13, written ‘athudim and read ‘athidim. their lads;¹⁵⁸Jer. 14, 3, written ẓe‘orehem and read ẓe‘irehem. her little ones;¹⁵⁹ibid. XLVIII, 4, written ẓe‘oreha and read ẓe‘ireha. dung.¹⁶⁰Ezek. 4, 15, written ẓefu‘ë and read ẓefi‘ë. [38b]

Assyrian has a script but no language; Hebrew has a language but no script. They choose for themselves Assyrian script and Hebrew language²⁸⁵This refers to the tradition quoted in the Babli, Sanhedrin 21a: “Originally the Torah was given to Israel in Hebrew script and the Holy Language. It was given to them a second time in the days of Ezra in Assyrian script and Aramaic language. Israel chose for themselves Assyrian script and the Holy language.” For this entire passage the Babli reference is Sanhedrin 21b–22a.. Why is it called Assyrian? Because it is beautiful script; Rebbi Levi said, because they brought it with them from Assyria²⁸⁶In the first version the name of the script has nothing to do with Assyria. In the second it is asserted that it is the Aramaic script of what earlier was Assyria.. It was stated: Rebbi Yose said, Ezra was worthy that the Torah could have been given through him, only Moses’s generation preceded him. Even though the Torah was not given through him, but he gave writing and language²⁸⁵This refers to the tradition quoted in the Babli, Sanhedrin 21a: “Originally the Torah was given to Israel in Hebrew script and the Holy Language. It was given to them a second time in the days of Ezra in Assyrian script and Aramaic language. Israel chose for themselves Assyrian script and the Holy language.” For this entire passage the Babli reference is Sanhedrin 21b–22a.; and the script of the letter written in Aramaic and explained in Aramaic²⁸⁷Ezra 4:7.. And they could not read this script²⁸⁸Dan. 5:8.; this teaches that it was given on that day²⁸⁹The Babylonian sages could not read the script on the wall because it was new. This claims divine origin for the square script.. Rebbi Nathan says, the Torah was given in paleo-Hebrew; this follows Rebbi Yose²⁹⁰The Babylonian R. Nathan follows the Babylonian tradition that traces Targum Onkelos to Ezra and asserts that he transcribed the Torah into Aramaic script.. Rebbi said, the Torah was given in Assyrian, but when they sinned it was changed into paleo-Hebrew. When they merited it in the days of Ezra it was changed into Assyrian: Also today I shall return to you what was told to change²⁹¹Zach. 9:12. The translation here tries to express the homily implied by the quotes.; he shall write for himself this changing Torah in a scroll²⁹²Deut. 17:18., a script which in the future is apt to change. It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Protos who said it in the name of Rebbi Eleazar from Modiin, the Torah was given in Assyrian script. What is the reason? The hooks of the pillars²⁹³Ex. 27:10., that the letters vav of the Torah look like pillars²⁹⁴In paleo-Hebrew the letter vav, meaning “hook”, really looks like a hook on a stick. In square script the hook is lost, only the stick is left.. Rebbi Levi said, for him who said, the Torah was given in paleo-Hebrew, the letter ayin was a miracle²⁹⁵This does not refer to the Torah but to the stone tablets. From the description that the tablets were written on both sides it is inferred that the letters pierced the stone; the same letters were visible on both sides. This creates a problem for circular shaped letters, ayin in paleo-Hebrew and samekh in square script.. He who said, the Torah was given Assyrian, the letter samekh was a miracle. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba and Rebbi Simon both were saying, in earlier copies of the Torah neither he nor final mem were closed²⁹⁶The open final mem is exemplified in the Aramaic inscription of King Uziahu’s ossuary. In early Medieval mss. the he looks like a ח, only that the left leg is not at the left end but touching the vertical bar somewhat to the right. The open he is recommended in the Babli, Menaḥot 29b. For a thorough discussion, cf. S. Liebermann, Tarbiz 4 (1933) pp. 292–293.. Therefore samekh was closed²⁹⁷This justifies R. Levi’s remark that only samekh but not final mem represented a problem..