Parallel
יומא 55:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
does not consider such inscriptions [of any value]. For we have learnt: R. JUDAH SAID: THERE WAS NO MORE THAN ONE STAND. Now why not two? Evidently because they might be mixed up! But then let him provide two and write upon them: This is for the bullock and this for the he-goat? Hence you must assume that R. Judah does not consider such inscriptions [of any value]. An objection was raised in the Academy: There were thirteen money chests in the Temple, on which were inscribed: ‘new shekels’, ‘old shekels’, ‘bird-offerings’, ‘young birds for the whole offering’, ‘wood’, ‘frankincense’, ‘gold for the mercy-seat’, and on six of them: ‘freewill-offerings’. ‘New shekels’: [i.e..] those shekels due each year; ‘old shekels’: [i.e..] one who had not paid his shekel last year must pay it the next year. ‘Bird-offerings’, these are turtle-doves. ‘Young birds for the whole offerings’, these are young pigeons; and both of these are for whole offerings. This is the view of R. Judah. — When R. Dimi came [from Palestine] he said: In the West they said: It is a preventive measure against the case of a sin-offering whose owner has died. But do we indeed take that into consideration? Have we not learnt: If someone sends his sin-offering from a far-away province, it is offered up in the assumption that he is alive? — Rather [the preventive measure is] against the case of a sin-offering whose owner has assuredly died. But in that case let us separate four zuz and cast them into the sea, so that the rest will be available for use! R. Judah rejects the principle of Bererah. Whence do we know this? Would you say from what we have learnt: If a man buys wine from the Cutheans on the eve of Sabbath, as it is getting dark, he may say: Let the two logs which I am about to set apart be heave-offering
—