Daf Ditty Shekalim 3: Money Changers

This is an ossuary, or bone box, belonging to Joseph son of Caiaphas, who was
the high priest from AD 18 to AD 36.

The Caiaphas family burial cave was discovered in Jerusalem in 1990. Of the
12 ossuaries in the cave, this was the most elegant and decorated. The ossuary
contained the bones of sixty year old man, a woman, two children and two
infants.

1
Rabbi Judah said: at first they used to uproot [the kilayim], and throw them down before them.
[But] when transgressors increased in number, they used to uproot them and throw them on the
roads. [Finally], they decreed that they should make the whole field ownerless.

Bartenura

2
‫ – היו עוקרים ומשליכים לפניהם‬in front of the owners of the fields in order that they will be embarrassed
but these owners of the fields were happy since they weeded their fields for them, and furthermore,
they would place them before their animals, they (i.e., the Rabbis) established that they would
throw them on the roads, and still the owners of the fields were happy that they (i.e., the inspectors)
would weed for them.

Sefer HaChinukh 350:3

From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said
(Arakhin 18b) that we received from the tradition that these years that are stated for appraisals
are measured day to day - meaning from the day of birth - and also that all the shekel-coins stated
there are the holy shekels. And we have known from the received tradition that the weight of a
holy shekel is three hundred and twenty barley grains of pure silver. And the Sages have already
added upon it and made its weight like the weight of the coin called the sela at the time of the
Second [Temple], which is three hundred and eighty-four medium barley grains (so is it
in Mishneh Torah, Laws of Sheqel Dues 1:2-3). And they, may their memory be blessed,
said that this selais (four) dinar, and the dinar is six maah - and the maah is what was

3
called gerah in the days of Moshe, as Onkelos translates gerah as maah - and its weight is sixteen
barley grains.

4
On the fifteenth of [Adar] they would set up tables [of money changers] in the
provinces. On the twenty-fifth they set them up in the Temple. When [the tables] were
set up in the Temple, they began to exact pledges [from those who had not paid]. From
whom did they exact pledges? From Levites and Israelites, converts and freed slaves,
but not women or slaves or minors. Any minor on whose behalf his father has begun to
pay the shekel, may not discontinue it again. But they did not exact pledges from the
priests, because of the ways of peace.

Rav Avrohom Adler writes:1

Tending to Public Matters

Although the mishna started listing the things which are done on Rosh Chodesh Adar, the Gemora
lists several similar things which are done both then and on Chol Hamoed. The reason Rosh
Chodesh Adar was chosen, is since this date marks the end of the winter season, and certain roads,
mikvaos, and fields needed to be fixed. Some other public matters also needed to be done during
these times, regardless of the meteorological conditions. The Gemora identifies these matters as:
1) judging monetery arguments in Beis Din, as well as cases of dinei nefoshos and makkos,

2) redeeming erchin, charomin, and hekdesh (items which have been consecrated,)

3) determining whether or not a wayward-women is considered a sotah,

4) burning the pora aduma,

5) decapitating an egla arufa,

6) piercing the ear of an eved ivri,

7) purifying a metzora, and

8) (specifically for Chol Hamoed) removing a newly-formed shoe from its mold.

On Adar and On Chol Hamoed

1
http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Shekalim_3.pdf

5
The Gemora notes that on the Mishna's list - both here for Rosh Chodesh Adar, and in a different
Mishna for Chol Hamoed - is "marking graves" (so that the Kohanim don't step over them.). If the
graves were marked on Adar, why do they need to be marked again six weeks later during Chol
Hamoed Pesach? The Gemora answers that it's possible that the marks were washed away during
a rainstorm between Adar and Pesach. The Gemora asks the same question regarding the removal
of kilayim, which is listed both on Rosh Chodesh Adar and Chol Hamoed Pesach. Here the Gemora
answers that perhaps the crops grew late during that year, and on Adar it was difficult to determine
which ones are kilayim. Therefore, we go out again during Pesach to search for the kilayim.

Marking of Graves

Yechezkel Hanavi prophesied that in the aftermath of the Gog u'Magog war, the Jews will mark
the burial spots of the corpses (in order to avoid bringing tumah to vessels and food.) The Gemora
sees this as a hint that we should also mark all graves, for the same reason. The Gemora dissects
the numerous words in the posuk of Yechezkel, and derives the following halachos:

Even if one bone is known to be buried there, if it is the skull or the backbone, it requires to be
marked.

• Only a stationary rock (that is situated atop of a grave) can be marked. If we were to mark off
rocks that are detached from the ground, they may roll to another location, misleading people to
believe that tumah exists there too, thereby causing them to destroy food in vain.
• As mentioned, if one stone is marked off, then we assume that a corpse is buried beneath. But if
two stones are found marked off, this indicates that only the area between the stones is tomei, but
the area immediately beneath the stones is tahor.
• However, if the area between these two stones is plowed, we assume that no corpse is buried in
between, and the two stones are considered independent of each other, and tumah is assumed
beneath them.
• We do not mark off an area of dead flesh, since perhaps it has been reduced to less that a k'zayis,
and would not make items tomei. Although an argument can be made that if the size is indeed
greated than a k'zayis, any food or vessels carried over it will become tomei, it is nevertheless
better to forgo this temporary possibility, then to permanently mark the area as tomei, and any
future visits to the area would render tumah in vain.

Mishna –

What To Do With the Uprooted Kilayim

Originally, the Jews heeding Beis Din's call to uproot kilayim, dumped these unwanted plants on
the owner's fields, in order to embarass the owner, and prevent him from growing kilayim once
again. However, the "transgressing" owners weren't moved by these actions, and on the contrary,

6
enjoyed the benefit of the "free labor" that their fields were taken care of, and that their animals
could now eat these uprooted plants.

Even after the Chachomim instituted that the kilayim should be dumped on the roads instead of on
the fields, the first benefit was still available to the field owners. Therefore, the Chachomim now
said that these fields shall become hefker, thus causing a complete unavoidable loss to the owners.

Hefker Beis Din Hefker

How does Beis Din possess the power to make one's field hefker? During the times of Ezra
Hasofer, there were many Jews who were intermarried. Ezra mourned this tragedy, and called for
a public gathering, where he demanded that they release their non-Jewish wives and children. The
announcement said that anyone who doesn't attend this gathering, all his possessions will be
confescated. This is the source for the concept known as "Hefker Beis Din Hefker," where Beis
Din can declare one's field hefker.

Exemption from Maaser

During Shemittah Once a field is hefker (whether due to a Beis Din order, or due to Shemittah),
its produce is exempt from maaser. This halacha is derived from that fact that Beis Din cannot
declare a Jewish leap year (adding an extra Adar month) on the year of Shemittah and on the year
following Shemittah. An extra month cannot be added on Shemittah, as it would make it much
more difficult for Jews to find produce to eat, and not on the year following Shemittah, as the
chodosh prohibition would be extended an extra month. But, if erroneously an extra month was
added during these two years, it is valid. Since b'di'eved the extended year is valid, we see from
there that Beis Din can extend Shemittah, and make the fields hefker an extra month. (The Torah
made it hefker during the twelve regular months of Shemittah, but Beis Din added the extra month.)
The Gemora notes that the fact that we don't add a month during Shemittah was only true before
Rebbi permitted bring produce from out of Eretz Yisroel to Eretz Yisroel. Rebbi prohibited this
since the physical land of chutz l'aretz contains tumah, and an "imported" piece of earth would
render food and vessels in Eretz Yisroel tomei. He later retracted this prohibition, and from then
on Beis Din could declare a leap year during Shemittah and the following year, as food from chutz
l'aretz (not subject to Shemittah or chodosh) was now readily available. The Gemora refutes this
source of Hefker Beis Din Hefker. The Torah requires that the month of Nissan (based on the lunar
calendar) be during the spring season (based on the solar calendar.) Therefore, every few years, in
order that Nissan not fall behind and occur in the winter, we add the extra month. This is d'Orayssa
and not d'Rabbonon, so we can not prove from the leap year that Beis Din can render a field hefker.
The final proof that Hefker Beis Din Hefker comes from a Mishna in Pe'ah that says if a field
owner gathered barley sheaths and placed them in a location in the field where the poor people
haven't collected yet, the Chachomim said that the barley that touches the ground belongs to the
poor, and is considered hefker.

Mishna - Collecting the Machatzis Hashekel

7
On the fifteenth day of Adar, money changers would set up shop throughout the land, so that the
half Shekel coin would be readily available ahead of the Rosh Nissan date of donation. On the
25th day of Adar, these money changing stations moved to the Beis Hamikdosh, in order to hasten
the donations.

Once they moved to the Beis Hamikdosh, the Chachomim began taking items as collateral from
any regular Yisroel, Levi, ger, and freed slave who has not yet donated their half Shekel. The
reason why Leviim have to be stated is that normally Leviim are not counted in the Torah's census.
Since the Torah writes concerning Shekolim that "those who are counted" must give the half
Shekel, one may have thought that the Leviim are exempt here too. Collateral isn't taken from
young adults (those under the age of twenty, but who have show physical signs of maturity), but
nevertheless they are asked to donate the half Shekel. Similarly, any child whose father has donated
on his behalf, is asked to donate, and collateral is taken from him.

Collecting from Kohanim

The Kohanim felt that they are exempt from donating a half Shekel. Just like the Omer and the
Shtei Halechem were purchased from the shekolim of the Yisroelim, so too should they be exempt
from donating the coin. Someone named Ben Buchri testified that a Kohen who doesn't donate
isn't sinning. But Rabban Yochanan Ben Zakkai corrected him and said that the Kohanim
purposely understood the posuk in a way that fit their own lifestyles, and any Kohen who does not
donate, indeed is sinning. To support Rabban Yochanan Ben Zakkai's position, the Gemora brings
a gimatiya. The posuk of shekolim reads "zeh yitnu..." ("this they shall give") - the word zeh
(spelled: Zayin, Hey) in gimatriya equals twelve, corresponding to the twelve shevotim, including
the Kohanim, who must all donate the machtzis hashekel.

PROOF THAT "HEFKER BEIS DIN" EXEMPTS ITEMS FROM

THE OBLIGATION OF "MA'ASEROS"

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:2

The principle of "Hefker Beis Din Hefker" teaches that Beis Din has the prerogative to make a
person's possessions Hefker, ownerless. The Gemara asks whether the objects that Beis Din makes
Hefker become exempt from the obligation of Ma'aseros.

The Gemara cites the Mishnah in Pe'ah (5:1) to prove that Beis Din's Hefker is able to exempt an
object from Ma'aseros. The Mishnah states that if a landowner piles up grain on an area of his field
from which poor people have not yet collected Leket, the poor people are entitled to take the entire

2
https://dafyomi.co.il/shekalim/insites/sk-dt-003.htm

8
bottom layer of produce as Leket (which is far more than what they would have been permitted to
take had the landowner not covered up the bottom layer of produce).

Reish Lakish says that the Mishnah there follows the view of Beis Shamai, who maintains that
"Hefker l'Aniyim Hefker" -- when one makes an object Hefker, it does not need to be made accessible
to both poor and rich people alike. Even if it is Hefker only for poor people to take, it still has the
status of Hefker and is exempt from Ma'aseros. This differs from the view of Beis Hillel, who
maintains that in such a case the produce does not have the status of Hefker, and the poor people are
required to separate Ma'aseros from the produce. An object made Hefker only for poor people does
not have the full status of Hefker; it is not like Leket, which is exempt from Ma'aseros even though
it is accessible only to poor people (due to the Gezeiras ha'Kasuv).

Rebbi Yosi argues and says that even according to Beis Hillel the produce is exempt from Ma'aseros.
As a penalty ("Kenas") to the landowner, the Rabanan declared his crops to be Hefker through their
power of "Hefker Beis Din Hefker" and thereby exempted them from Ma'aseros, like Leket.

What is the logic behind Reish Lakish's assertion that the produce is not Hefker?

If he maintains that the Rabanan did not penalize the landowner, then why are the poor people entitled
to take the entire lower level of crops in the first place? If, on the other hand, he maintains that the
Rabanan did penalize the landowner, then he should say that the Mishnah follows the view of Beis
Hillel as well, because Beis Hillel agrees that when the Rabanan penalized the landowner, "Hefker
Beis Din Hefker" works to exempt the produce from Ma'aseros.

(a) RABEINU SHLOMO SIRILIYO writes that according to Reish Lakish, since the Rabanan made
the crops Hefker only for poor people, this form of "Hefker Beis Din" is not Hefker. The
principle of "Hefker Beis Din Hefker" applies only when Beis Din makes it Hefker to everyone,
poor and rich alike. Rebbi Yosi argues and says that the Rabanan did make it Hefker to everyone,
but they ordered the landowner to ensure that it goes to poor people (because he attempted to
prevent them from taking their rightful due).

(b) The KORBAN HA'EDAH explains that Reish Lakish maintains that all of the produce beneath
the pile belongs to the poor people, because there is a doubt which part is Leket and which part
is not. It is because of this doubt that the Rabanan instituted that the landowner himself must
give all of the lower level of produce to the poor people as a penalty. The Rabanan did not make
the produce Hefker.

Rebbi Yosi says that there is no doubt about what belongs to the poor people. Rather, the Rabanan
penalized the landowner for attempting to cheat the poor people. The penalty works due to the power
of Beis Din to make something Hefker. Since the produce is removed from the landowner's
possession because of Hefker Beis Din, it is exempt from Ma'aseros. (According to this approach,
when Beis Din makes something Hefker, it is considered Hefker even when they made it Hefker only
for poor people. This is in contrast to when the owner makes it Hefker; his Hefker is considered valid
only when he makes it Hefker for both poor and rich people.)

9
TALMID SHEL RABEINU SHMUEL BAR SHNEUR explains that Reish Lakish understands that
the Mishnah means that the crops are exempt from Ma'aseros because the Rabanan made it Hefker
for poor people, and Hefker of Beis Din is exempt from Ma'aseros. However, Reish Lakish says that
this is true only according to the view of Beis Shamai, because Beis Shamai maintains that Hefker is
exempt from Ma'aseros even when the Rabanan make it Hefker only for poor people.

Rebbi Yosi argues and says that there is no indication in the Mishnah that the produce is exempt from
Ma'aseros. When the Mishnah in Pe'ah says that it must be given to poor people, it does not mean
that it is exempt from Ma'aseros. Rather, it is given to poor people, and the poor people must separate
Ma'aseros from it. Accordingly, the Mishnah there follows the opinion of Beis Hillel, who maintains
that even when Beis Din makes something Hefker only for poor people, it is not exempt from
Ma'aseros.

According to this approach, Rebbi Yosi refutes the proof from the Mishnah in Pe'ah by saying that
there is no evidence from there that when Beis Din makes something Hefker, it becomes exempt
from Ma'aseros, because in the case of the Mishnah there the poor people are obligated to separate
Ma'aseros. (The text of the Gemara of the Talmid Shel Rabeinu Shmuel bar Shneur places the words
"d'Iy k'Beis Hillel Aniyim Ochlin u'Me'aserin" at the end of Rebbi Yosi's statement.)

RABEINU MESHULAM also explains that according to Rebbi Yosi, the poor people must separate
Ma'aseros from the crops.

Marking Graves in Preparation for Pesah

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:3

In the first Mishna in Massekhet Shekalim (2a) we are taught that on the first day of the month of
Adar we announce that people should begin to bring their shekalim. The Mishna teaches a number
of other activities that take place during Adar, among them the celebration of Purim, and public
works that need to be done as the rainy season in Israel draws to a close. These public works
projects include a number of activities in preparation for the groups of people who will be traveling
to Jerusalem for Pesah – for example, clearing the roads and mikva’ot and marking graves so that
the people who are coming to bring sacrifices will not, inadvertently, become ritually defiled by
contact with a grave and be unable to enter the Temple.

The Gemara asks: From where is the obligation of marking graves derived?…Rabbi Ila in the
name of Rabbi Shmuel bar Nahman cited a different verse in this regard: “And when they that
pass through shall pass through the land, and anyone sees a man’s bone, then shall he set up a
sign by it, till the buriers have buried it in the valley of Hamon-gog” (Yehezkel 39:15). This verse
explicitly states that there is a need to mark graves.

This passage from Yehezkel describes the calamity of the war of Gog and Magog, and how it will
take seven months for all of the dead to be properly buried so that the land of Israel will once again

3
https://steinsaltz.org/daf/shekalim3/

10
be tahor (ritually pure). The prophet describes the method that is to be used to carefully mark the
graves, bone by bone.

This source for the halakha that graves must be marked (see Rambam, Hilkhot Tum’at Met 8:9)
appears in Massekhet Mo’ed Katan, while it is introduced as a remez – a hint – to the law, rather
than as the actual source. Given the clarity of the story in Yehezkel, many of the commentaries
ask why the passage is only considered a remez.

From Rashi it appears that since it is not presented as an obligation, but rather as a story, it cannot
be considered a true source.

Tosafot suggest that the story can only be considered a hint to the halakha because it is a
description of an event that will take place “at the end of days.” Such a story cannot be the source
for a present day halakhic obligation.

It should be noted that our Gemara, which as we explained above is Yerushalmi, presents this as a
true source text, not simply as a remez. In fact, it is not uncommon to find the Bavli discounting a
source unless it appears in the hamisha humshei Torah (the Five Books of Moses), while the
Yerushalmi accepts other sources from Tanakh as well.

Mark Kerzner writes:4

Another announcement that happened on the first of Adar was about kilayim - growing different
species, such as grapes and wheat, together. There is a parallel kilayim prohibition of wearing wool
and linen together, representing Abel the shepherd and Cain the earth tiller, and the separation
between the two helps rectify Cain’s murder, which somewhat explains the mitzvah.

Around the first of Adar is when the mixture of grains becomes visible above the ground. One can
easily transgress this even unintentionally, by having too much of extraneous grains in the mix he
sows.

Some people did not listen to the court and kept their kilayim, so on the fifteenth of Adar
messengers of the court would go out and uproot the grasses, to shame the transgressors. That did
not help though, since the farmers were glad that the messengers would weed the fields for them,
and moreover the farmers could use it as fodder. Then the court ordered to throw the grass on the
road, but the farmers were still happy because of the weeding. Finally, the court decided that any
field with kilayim will become ownerless, and anyone who uproots kilayim will obtain the
ownership of this field. This settled the matter.

The Talmud goes into the investigation of why the courts have the authority over people’s
possession and can make it ownerless.

4
http://talmudilluminated.com/shekalim/shekalim3.html

11
 Road runners.
R. HEATHER MILLER WRITES:5

If you lived in Boston at any time between the years 1982 and 2007, chances are you remember
the “Big Dig.” Two major interstate highways, I-93 and I-90, were under construction literally for
decades. If you lived in Los Angeles during the summer of 2011, you will remember that a major
section of the 405 freeway closed for a weekend and was anticipated to be like the end of the
world, and consequently dubbed “Carmageddon.”

In every city and every town where main roads are closed due to construction, inclement weather,
flooding, or just plain old traffic, movement grinds to a halt— impeding the flow of people and
resources. Roads make possible the free flow of the lifeblood of societies. No wonder we call them
“arteries.” In fact, the location in Jerusalem’s Old City where the main 7th century roads cross is
called the “Cardo,” intentionally referencing the heart.

An ancient road dating back 2,000 years was recently excavated in Jerusalem. It starts at the Pool
of Siloam, which may have been a large mikveh, and leads up to the Temple Mount. It allowed
religious pilgrims to ascend to the Temple Mount at any time but especially on the three pilgrimage
festivals of Passover, Shavuot and Sukkot.

In yesterday’s mishnah, we learned that the half shekel tax collected in the late winter month of
Adar was used to finance public projects, including these kinds of roads. The reason is that they
were often damaged over the winter, so early spring was a perfect time for repair. It was also when
cisterns, (large pits used to store water), were repaired and, as we learn in today’s Gemara,
reopened:

(Early spring) is a time when they remove the locks that were placed over the water cisterns
during the winter, as this water was for public use in the summer, and they do not replace
them until the winter.

Assuring the flow of water through cisterns, and goods across working roads, was an essential
service of the public administration. These funds were also used to ensure the proceedings
of courts, consecrate goods, perform rituals dealing with the rite of the sotah (the trial of the
suspected adulteress), and facilitate other business that needed to be concluded prior to the end of
the calendar year.

All of this sheds light on ancient Israelite society. For one, we notice that the new year cited here
is the first of Nisan, which is not the first of Tishrei (the new year we mark today). That means
that Adar was the last month of the year, not Elul. In a few months in Tractate Rosh Hashanah, we
will learn that there are actually four new years — meaning four dates at which various yearly
cycles begin anew. According to the Torah, the first of Nisan was the month that was incredibly

5
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/shekalim-3/

12
significant as it was the month that inaugurates spring and the festival of Passover — and it also
marked the ancient tax deadline.

Second, we realize that the authorities in Jerusalem were not only religious authorities, but they
were civil authorities, too, with all of the power that comes with that role. If they deemed it right,
they could padlock access to public water, haul suspected adulteresses in for questioning, or even
order taxes to be collected by force, if necessary. Concerning this, we read:

On the 15th of Adar money changers would sit at tables set up throughout the country (to
collect the shekels). On the 25th of Adar, they sat in the Temple. From the time when the
money changers sat in the Temple, the court began to seize collateral (from those who had
not paid their share).

Reading this, it is easy to see why the money changers and administrators were not the most
popular members of society in antiquity. But, at the end of the day, the responsibility of the
workings of critical infrastructure rested on their shoulders. They were responsible for the smooth
functioning of society, including the roads.

Money Changers6
Rav Daniel Sperber writes: 7

Money changing was very common in the Roman Near East, where there was a proliferation of
currency systems and standards. In Palestine, as in Egypt, each district had its basilikai
trapezai ("royal bank") retained from Hellenistic times (Jos., Life 38), and probably each village
had its own money changer (cf. Sif. Deut., 306).

In the period of the Second Temple vast numbers of Jews streamed to Palestine and Jerusalem "out
or every nation under heaven" (Acts 2:5), taking with them considerable sums of money in foreign
currencies. This is referred to in the famous instance of Jesus' driving the money changers out of
the Temple (Matt. 21:12). Not only did these foreign coins have to be changed but also ordinary
deposits were often handed over to the Temple authorities for safe deposit in the Temple treasury
(Jos., Wars 6:281–2). Thus Jerusalem became a sort of central bourse and exchange mart, and the
Temple vaults served as "safe deposits" in which every type of coin was represented (TJ, Ma'as.
Sh. 1:2, 52d, and parallels). The business of money exchange was carried out by
the shulḥani ("exchange banker"), who would change foreign coins into local currency and vice
versa (Tosef., Shek. 2:13; Matt. 21:12). People coming from distant countries would bring their

6
F. Heichelheim, in: T. Frank, An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, 4 (1938), 224–7, 247–8, 256–7 (bibl.); F. Madden,
in:Numismatic Chronicle (1876), 290–7; A. Gulak, in: Tarbiz, 2 (1931), 154–71. ADD. BIBLIOGRAPHY: D. Sperber, Roman
Palestine, 200–400. Money and Prices (1974).
7
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/money-changers

13
money in large denominations rather than in cumbersome small coins. The provision of small
change was a further function of the shulḥani (cf. Sif. Deut., 306; Ma'as Sh., 2:9). For both of these
kinds of transactions the shulḥani charged a small fee (agio), called in rabbinic literature
a kolbon (a word of doubtful etymology but perhaps from the Greek κόλλυβος "small
coin"; TJ, Shek. 1:6, 46b). This premium seems to have varied from 4 percent to 8 percent (Shek.
1:6, et al.). The shulḥani served also as a banker, and would receive money on deposit for
investment and pay out an interest at a fixed rate (Matt. 25:27), although this was contrary to
Jewish law (see below; Moneylending).

Thus the shulḥani fulfilled three major functions: (a) foreign exchange, (b) the changing of large
denominations into small ones, and vice versa, and (c) banking. Three terms for "money-changer"
are found in the New Testament: (a)kermatistēs (John 2:14), (b) kollybistēs (Matt. 21:12), and
(c) trapezitēs (literally, shulḥani; Matt. 25:27, et al.) It seems probable that these three terms
correspond to the three functions of the shulḥani outlined above. Thus kermatistēs,
from kermatizō. "to cut small," is one who gives small change; kollybistēs, from kollybos, changed
foreign currency; while the trapezitēs was a banker (from trapeza, "table").

The shulḥanim in Jerusalem used to set up their "tables" in the outer court of the Temple for the
convenience of the numerous worshipers, especially those from foreign countries (Matt. 21:12–
13). Excavations around the Temple walls have uncovered stores or kiosks, some of which, it has
been surmised, were occupied by money changers. The Mishnah states that on the 15th of Adar,
every year, "tables" were set up in the provinces (or in Jerusalem) for the collection of the statutory
annual half-shekel, and on the 25th of Adar they were set up in the Temple itself (Shek. 1:3). The
activity of the Jewish banker, shulḥani, was of a closely defined nature, as his transactions had to
be in accordance with the biblical prohibition against taking interest (ribit). The Talmud records
much information relating to his activities. An additional and interesting feature of his business
was the payment on request of sums deposited with him for that purpose (BM 9:12).

Annas and Caiaphas the High Priests

Julian Spriggs writes:8

The High Priests

Aaron, the brother of Moses was the first to be anointed as high priest (Lev 8-9). From then, the
office of high priest was passed down the family of Aaron, from father to son. This family line
continued without interruption for more than 1100 years, until Onias III, who was deposed in 175
BC, and murdered in 170 BC. Under Roman rule, the high priesthood became a political

8
http://www.julianspriggs.co.uk/Pages/AnnasCaiaphas

14
appointment, when high priests were appointed and deposed by the Roman governor. Many of the
high priests only ruled for one year or less. Their appointment often depended on how much they
were willing to pay or bribe the governor. If someone was willing to pay more, then the current
high priest would be removed, to make way for him.

Annas

Annas, or Ananias, or Ananus, son of Seth, was appointed high priest by Quirinius, the governor
of Syria in AD 6. This Quirinius is also mentioned in Lk 2:2, as the governor of Syria as the time
of the birth of Jesus. Annas was finally deposed by the Roman governor Valerius Gratus in AD
15. The next two high priests, including one of his sons, were both deposed after about a year,
before Joseph Caiaphas, the son-in-law of Annas, was appointed (Jos Ant 18:2:2).

After being deposed, he remained a powerful figure in Jerusalem, and even though he had no
official position was still referred to as “high priest”. Through skilful diplomacy and probably
much bribery, he was able to ensure that family remained dominant in Judea for many years. To
give a date for the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry, Luke refers to the high priesthood of Annas
and Caiaphas (Lk 3:2). At first sight, this would seem to imply that there were two high priests in
office at the same time, but instead indicates that power and influence that Annas continued to
exercise, even after he was deposed. By this time, Annas had been deposed for more than ten years,
and Caiaphas was the current high priest.

The Bazaars of Annas

Annas was a member of the Sadducees, the aristocracy of first century Judea. He shared their
characteristics of being arrogant, ambitious, and having enormous wealth, which they used to
maintain their political control. His family were notorious for their greed. The Talmud records a
popular rhyme which described the family of Annas:

“Woe to the house of Annas!

Woe to their serpent’s hiss!
They are high priests;
their sons are keepers of the treasury,
their sons-in-law are guardians of the temple,
and their servants beat people with staves.” (Pesahim 57a)

The family of Annas had gained much of their wealth from the four “booths of the sons of Annas”,
which were market stalls located on the Mount of Olives. They also had other market stalls inside
the temple complex, in the Court of the Gentiles. Through these, they had a monopoly on the sale
of sacrificial animals, as well as on the exchanging of money into temple coins for the offerings.
This enabled them to charge exorbitant prices, effectively gaining their wealth through the
exploitation and oppression of the poor.

When Jesus entered the temple, he saw all this, became angry and drove them all out of the temple,
denouncing them by saying, “My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations, but you
have made it a den of robbers” (Mk 11:17). When the chief priests heard about this, they looked

15
for a way of killing Jesus. His action had hurt the family of Annas financially, so they wanted to
kill him.

The Family of Annas

Over the next fifty years, seven different members of the family of Annas ruled as high priests.
From AD 6 to AD 43, they ruled almost without interruption, then there was a gap of just under
twenty years, then another eight years of their rule.

1. Eleazar (son): AD 16-17

2. Caiaphas (son-in-law): AD 18-36
3. Jonathan (son): AD 36-37
4. Theophilus (son): AD 37-41
5. Matthias (son): AD 42-43
6. Annas II (son): AD 61-62
7. Matthias (grandson): AD 65-68 (son of Theophilus)

Luke refers to the high-priestly family when Peter and John were brought before the Sanhedrin
after healing the lame man at the Beautiful Gate. He lists Annas the high priest (even though it
was fifteen years since he was deposed from being high priest), as well as Caiaphas (the current
high priest), John (or Jonathan), who became the next high priest in AD 36, and Alexander. "...
with Annas the high priest, Caiaphas, John, and Alexander, and all who were of the high-priestly
family." (Acts 4:5). From this it appears that the family of Annas dominated the Sanhedrin, and
were particularly opposed to the apostles and the preaching of the name of Jesus (4:18).

Josephus said this about the family of Annas: “Now the report goes, that this elder Ananus proved
a most fortunate man; for he had five sons, who had all performed the office of high priest to God,
and he had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any
other of our high priests” (Ant 20:198)

Joseph Caiaphas

Caiaphas was the son-in-law of Annas, by marriage to his daughter. He was appointed by the
Roman governor Valerius Gratus in AD 18 (Jos Ant 18:2:2), and ruled as high priest for eighteen
years. This was the longest reign of any high priest in New Testament times. He remained high
priest under Pontius Pilate, and was finally deposed in AD 36 by Vitellius, the governor of Syria.
He was replaced by Jonathan, another son of Annas (Jos Ant 18:4:3). Pontius Pilate was removed
from office a few months before Caiaphas, after killing large numbers of Samaritans (Jos Ant
18:4:2). Caiaphas was replaced by Jonathan, another son of Annas. His elaborately carved
ossuary (bone box) was discovered in 1990, which contained the bones of a man of about 60 years
old, a woman, two children and two infants. It is displayed in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem.

When the Sanhedrin met to discuss what to do about Jesus following the raising of Lazarus, it was
Caiaphas that said, “You do not understand that it is better for you to have one man die for the
people than to have the whole nation destroyed” (Jn 11:50). The members of the Sanhedrin were
concerned that if they allowed Jesus to continue performing signs, then everyone will believe him,

16
and the Romans will come and destroy the holy place (temple) and the nation (11:48). John makes
the comment that he did not say this on his own, but prophesied that Jesus was about to die for the
nation (11:51). His cynical comment that it is better for one innocent man to die to preserve the
nation had a far deeper meaning. Without him realizing, God spoke through him, that the death of
Jesus will bring true salvation to the nation, as well as to the Gentiles. After this meeting, the
Sanhedrin decided to put plans into motion to kill Jesus (11:53).

Annas II

Annas II, the son of Annas, was high priest when James, the brother of Jesus, was killed in AD 62.
Josephus describes him as “a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of
the Sadducees, who were rigid in judging offenders” (Jos Ant 20:199).

Annas took advantage of the absence of a Roman governor following the death of Festus to bring
an accusation against James and have him stoned to death, before the arrival of Albinus, the next
Roman governor. Following objections from the citizens for this action, Annas was removed from
being high priest by king Agrippa, and was replaced by Jesus son of Damneus, who was not a
member of the family of Annas (Ant 20:200-203). This is the description Josephus gives of the
martyrdom of James: “Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled
the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ,
whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as
breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned” (Ant 20:200).

This is what Josephus wrote about Annas II after he was deposed:

“As for the high priest Ananias, he increased in glory everyday, and this to a great degree, and
had obtained the favour and esteem of the citizens in a signal manner, for he was a great hoarder
of money; he cultivated the friendship of Albinus (the Roman governor), and of the high priest
(Jesus) by making them presents. He also had servants who were very wicked, who joined
themselves to the boldest sort of people, and went to the thrashing floors, and took away the tithes
that belonged to the priests by violence, and did not refrain from beating such as would not give
these tithes to them. So the other high priests acted in the like manner, as did those his servants
without anyone being able to prohibit them, so that (some of the) priests, that of old were wont to
be supported with those tithes, died for want of food” (Ant 20:9:205-207).

17
9

ANNAS (" Aννας; Anan; probably a contracted form of the name Ananiah in
its Greek form, " Aνανōς, which is employed by Josephus)

H. G. Enelow writes:
Son of Sethi, or Seth (Josephus, "Ant." xviii. 2, § 1), a Jewish high priest. He was appointed to the office by Quirinus,
governor of Syria, to succeed Joazar. When in his thirty-seventh year, and after having held his position from the years
6-15, he was deposed by Valerius Gratus, procurator of Judea. Annas was the head of a family which produced five
high priests during the Herodian period (Josephus, "Ant." xx. 9, § 1). These were Eleazar, Jonathan, Theophilus, Anan,
and Matthias. His daughter was married to the high priest Joseph, who, under the surname of Caiaphas, held that office
about ten years (27-37).

Annas is the high priest who appears in the New Testament as holding this office along with Caiaphas, his son-in-law
(Luke, iii. 2). In fact, one passage calls him plainly the high priest (Acts, iv. 6), while Caiaphas is merely a member
of the hierarchic family. It is into Annas' hands that Jesus is delivered for his first hearing, ere being sent to Caiaphas
(John, xviii. 13), though in another passage (John, xi. 49, 51) Caiaphas is styled the high priest of that year. From

9
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annas

18
these citations it is obvious that though Caiaphas was the properly appointed high priest, Annas, being his father-in-
law and a former incumbent of the office, undoubtedly exercised a great deal of the power attached to the position.

The use of the singular in the passage in Luke, in fact, is interpreted by Dr. Plummer as significant of this circumstance:
ὲπὶ ἀρχιερέως 'Αννα και καιάψα—"under the high priest Annas-Caiaphas," which would mean "that between them
they discharged the duties, or that each of them in different senses was regarded high priest, Annas de jure [Acts, iv.
6] and Caiaphas de facto" (John, xi. 49).

Plummer's further suggestion that Annas may have been encouraged, "so far as it was safe to do so, to ignore the
Roman appointments and to continue in office during the high-priesthoods of his successors," must be noted,
particularly in view of the fact that government appointments to religious offices were always discountenanced by the
Jews.

After the removal of Caiaphas four more sons of Annas held the high-priesthood, and the last of them, another Annas,
is said to have put to death James, known as "the brother of Jesus," and the first bishop of Jerusalem. The Anan family
( ) is referred to in the Talmud (Pes. 57a) as having influence, but using it against the interests of the people.
(see Daf Ditty op cit).

The Jewish version of the money changers in the Temple.

Navy Vet Terp writes:10

In case you are wondering, there is a Gemara for the Mishnah Shekalim in the Jerusalem Talmud
but not in the Babylonian Talmud. Apparently the rabbis in the Babylonian academies just
weren't interested in the taxing and spending policies in Roman Palestine while the Temple stood
- Israel was a far away land and the Temple had stood so long ago. But for the rabbis at the
academies in Israel, the Temple hadn't been destroyed that long ago and there was the chance
the Temple would be rebuilt.

Before we start with Shekalim, lets take a quick look at the second Torah reading:

.‫ֹמֶשׁה ֵלּאֹמר‬-‫ ֶאל‬,‫יא ַוְיַדֵבּר ְיהָוה‬ 11 And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying:

,‫ִיְשָׂרֵאל‬-‫ר ֹאשׁ ְבֵּני‬-‫יב ִכּי ִתָשּׂא ֶאת‬ 12 'When thou takest the sum of the children of Israel,
,‫ ְוָנְתנוּ ִאישׁ ֹכֶּפר ַנְפשׁוֹ ַליהָוה‬,‫ִלְפֻקֵדיֶהם‬ according to their number, then shall they give every
‫ ִבְּפֹקד‬,‫ִיְהֶיה ָבֶהם ֶנֶגף‬-‫ִבְּפֹקד ֹאָתם; ְול ֹא‬ man a ransom for his soul unto the LORD, when thou
.‫ֹאָתם‬ numberest them; that there be no plague among them,
when thou numberest them.

--‫ַהְפֻּקִדים‬-‫ָהֹעֵבר ַﬠל‬-‫ ָכּל‬,‫יג ֶזה ִיְתּנוּ‬ 13 This they shall give, every one that passeth among
‫ ֶﬠְשׂ ִרים‬:‫ ְבֶּשֶׁקל ַהֹקֶּדשׁ‬,‫ַמֲחִצית ַהֶשֶּׁקל‬ them that are numbered, half a shekel after the shekel of

10
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2015/2/12/1361655/-D-var-Torah-The-Money-Changers-in-the-Temple

19
 ‫ ְתּרוָּמה‬,‫ַמֲחִצית ַהֶשֶּׁקל‬--‫ ַהֶשֶּׁקל‬,‫ֵגָּרה‬ the sanctuary--the shekel is twenty gerahs--half a shekel
.‫ַליהָוה‬ for an offering to the LORD.

‫ ִמֶבּן ֶﬠְשׂ ִרים‬,‫ַהְפֻּקִדים‬-‫ ָהֹעֵבר ַﬠל‬,‫יד ֹכּל‬ 14 Every one that passeth among them that are
.‫ ְתּרוַּמת ְיהָוה‬,‫ִיֵתּן‬--‫ ָוָמְﬠָלה‬,‫ָשָׁנה‬ numbered, from twenty years old and upward, shall give
the offering of the LORD.

,‫ ְוַהַדּל ל ֹא ַיְמִﬠיט‬,‫ַי ְרֶבּה‬-‫טו ֶהָﬠִשׁיר ל ֹא‬ 15 The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not
,‫ְתּרוַּמת ְיהָוה‬-‫ָלֵתת ֶאת‬--‫ ַהָשֶּׁקל‬,‫ִמַמֲּחִצית‬ give less, than the half shekel, when they give the
.‫שֵׁתיֶכם‬
ֹ ‫ַנְפ‬-‫ְלַכֵפּר ַﬠל‬ offering of the LORD, to make atonement for your souls.

‫ ֵמֵאת ְבֵּני‬,‫ֶכֶּסף ַהִכֻּפּ ִרים‬-‫טז ְוָלַקְחָתּ ֶאת‬ 16 And thou shalt take the atonement money from the
;‫ֲﬠֹבַדת ֹאֶהל מוֵֹﬠד‬-‫ ַﬠל‬,‫ ְוָנַתָתּ ֹאתוֹ‬,‫ִיְשָׂרֵאל‬ children of Israel, and shalt appoint it for the service of
,‫ְוָהָיה ִלְבֵני ִיְשָׂרֵאל ְלִזָכּרוֹן ִלְפֵני ְיהָוה‬ the tent of meeting, that it may be a memorial for the
{‫ }פ‬.‫שֵׁתיֶכם‬
ֹ ‫ַנְפ‬-‫ְלַכֵפּר ַﬠל‬ children of Israel before the LORD, to make atonement
for your souls.' {P}

Ex 30:11-16

This seems to have been a one-time tax of a half shekel of all Jewish males 20 years of age and
older. The tax apparently facilitated a census: if Moses collected 100,000 shekels, he knew he
had 200,000 men 20 years of age and up available for military service. The sages, however,
understood this tax as a permanent command in effect as long as the Temple stood.

The Mishnah opens with the statement that on the first day of the month of Adar - they: the
Temple priests and other Jewish authorities - proclaimed that the payment of the half shekel will
soon be due in just one month - the first day of the month of Nisan. On that first day of Adar,
the Jerusalem Talmud states that heralds went forth from Jerusalem proclaiming that the tax
would be due in a month. The Talmud goes on to state that on the 15th of Adar - they set up
money changers in the provinces, and on the 25th of Adar, that would correspond this year to
March 16, 2015, they set up those money changers in the Temple that upset Jesus so much. As
I said, the taxes were due on the first of Nisan, which this year will be on Saturday/Shabbat
March 21st.

Now, why were there money changers in the provinces, and why were there money changers in
the Temple? Because the tax was 1/2 shekel, and when people were ready to bring their shekels
from their homes to Jerusalem, they needed to make change - you gave the money changer a

20
shekel and he gave you two 1/2 shekels and you could then take your 1/2 shekel to Jerusalem to
pay your tax. And there were other coins in circulation as well. From Mishnah Shekalim 2:4:

Rabbi Yehudah says. . . . When Israel returned from the Babylonian exile, darkons were their
shekels, later selaim were their shekels, still later tevain were their shekels, and they wished to
contribute dinars as their half shekels.

And by the time of Jesus, no doubt they were paying the tax with Roman coins. You brought
your Roman coins to the money changer and he gave you change so you could pay your 1/2
shekel tax. And Shekalim 2:1 states that people in the provinces were encouraged to put light
weight coins in their pockets "to lighten the burden on the way;" then the money changers in the
Temple would change the light weight coins for the half shekel.

On the 25th of Adar, the taxpayers would start arriving in Jerusalem right before the 1st of Nisan
tax payment deadline, and many of them still needed change for their shekels, hence the money
changers in the Temple. And according to the Jerusalem Talmud, the money changers in the
Temple were there not only to give change but also to collect the 1/2 shekel tax, note the
taxpayer's payment, and hand out receipts.
And these guys sat at simple tables in the Temple (the Mishnah describes their simplicity) where
the shekels and half shekels and coins of other currencies would pile up. There were also 13
collection chests set up in the temple - two were for the 1/2 shekel tax and the other 11 were for
voluntary contributions, so if you had exact change and you didn't want to deal with the money
changers, or if there was a long line at their tables, you could drop your 1/2 shekel into either of
these 2 collection chests marked for the collection of the mandatory 1/2 shekel tax. And
according to Gemara discussion in the Jerusalem Talmud, if the 1st of Nisan came and went and
you haven't paid your tax, the Temple authorities would seize something of yours that had some
value, sell it, and refund to you the sales price minus the half shekel tax.

So where did the tax money go?

According to Shekalim 2:5, appropriations were made for the public sacrifices that would be
made daily over the coming year. With all those bulls and lambs and pigeons being killed
everyday, it must have been a heavy expense. We can thank the founders of Christianity and the
rabbis for replacing animal sacrifice with public prayer - it really cuts down on the
expense. Funds were also set aside to sustain the poor, redeem captives (yep - that meant paying
ransoms), and paying for the funerals for families who could not afford to bury their dead. Funds
were also used to repair the roads (Shekalim 1:1), to maintain the water canal that provided water
to the city of Jerusalem, and, indeed for "all the needs of the city." (Shekalim 4:2).

How were funds allocated to the poor?

21
The Mishnah (Shekalim 5:6) explains:

There were two collection chambers in the Temple. One was called "the chamber of the discreet"
and the other was called "the utensil chamber." What purpose did the "chamber of the discreet"
serve? The God-fearing would deposit money into the chamber quietly, and the poor of good
families supported themselves from it discreetly.

Unlike right wing politicians of today, back then they not only believed in taxing people to
support the poor, but in treating the poor with dignity so that they would not be embarrassed to
receive public funds.

As I was typing this up I, of course, couldn't help thinking of Jesus and the money changers - the
incident is recounted in all four of the Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. John 2:13 states
the incident occurred shortly before Passover - according to Shekalim, the money changers
operated in the Temple from the 25th of Adar to the First of Nissan - just over two weeks before
Passover. Is Jesus accusing the Temple authorities of corruption - of stealing from the
poor? Perhaps. According to Shekalim 3:2, however, the Temple authorities took steps to
prevent corruption:

The one who withdraws the funds may not enter the Temple treasury wearing pockets, nor
wearing shoes or even sandals, nor wearing tefillin nor an amulet, lest he become poor and the
people might say, "Because he has been stealing from the treasury, he has become
impoverished!" Or lest he become rich and the people might say, "He has enriched himself from
the funds of the treasury!"

And to further deter any official from becoming corrupt (Shekalim 5:2):

There may not be less than three treasurers in the Temple nor may they have less than seven
supervisors. Nor may any financial authority be set up over the community with less than two
officers.

Shekalim confirms the account in all four Gospels that there were money changers in the Temple
but contradicts the New Testament, affirming that the money changers had a positive purpose
that was essential to the Jewish community of the time. Indeed, the Book of Shekalim affirms
that in the time of Jesus there was a system of public taxation - albeit a "flat tax" - and that public
funds, collected from all Jews, were used to maintain the poor, the roads, and the aqueducts,
indeed, "all the needs of the city."

22
But the contradictions between the Jewish and Christian sources remain. Unless someone
reading this can figure out a way to harmonize the two accounts, I can only say that Jews and
Christians can learn from each others' traditions. And Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus,
Buddhists, and Atheists should all understand each other, and love and respect each other. Daily
Kos has seen enough religious pie fights.

23
 The parable of the talents, depicted in a 1712 woodcut.
The lazy servant searches for his buried talent, while the two other servants
present their earnings to their master.

Money Changers and the Jerusalem Temple

Curtis Hutt writes:11

Who exactly were these money changers that Jesus reportedly criticized, and why would he or
anyone else for that matter praise them or others engaged in a similar profession?

First, the specific money changers in question not only worked at the temple in Jerusalem, but they
also worked for the temple. Indeed, as convincingly argued by E. P. Sanders and then Jacob
Neusner, they were “essential” for conducting sacrifices in the temple and an “integral part in the
system of atonement and expiation of sin” for the Jewish people.20

According to later tannaitic sources and confirmed at least to some degree by the Gospel of
Matthew (17:24–27) and Titus’s speech as recorded by Flavius Josephus (J.W. 6.335–36), all adult
Jewish males, following the instructions of Exod 30:13, no matter where they lived were required
to pay a temple tax every year of a half-shekel for the daily home offerings which atone for the
sins of every Israelite.21

As described in Mishnah tractate Šeqalim and expanded upon in the Tosefta (unfortunately there
exist no corresponding gemara in the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds), the collection of taxes
was announced the first day of the month of Adar. On the fifteenth day, the tables of the money
changers were set up outside of Jerusalem to collect taxes. On the twenty-fifth, the money changers
moved their operations to the temple itself so that the collection would be complete by the first
day of Nisan, the beginning of the new year of sacrifices.

These representatives of the temple, possessing as one might guess (e.g., Shmuel Safrai) lists of
taxpayers, provided at best a reliable and disinterested service to Jews by changing their local
coinage into the only currency accepted, the sacred shekel.22

A set fee was received for these services—though both troublemakers and those with legitimate
complaints undoubtedly questioned whether the money changers’ weights were rigged and
judgment skewed by self and/or a particular temple administration’s interest. In rabbinic literature

11
JBL 131, no. 3 (2012): 589–609

24
(t. Menah.i 13.21; b. Pesahi. 57.1), the weights of the Kitros family of money changers in particular
are picked out for being “dishonest.”23

More generally, Josephus (J.W 6.300–309) describes the protest of another Jesus, the son of
Ananias, against the corruption of temple administrators. A comparison of the silver shekel minted
by the Zealots after they captured Jerusalem in 66 c.e. with the Tyrian shekel and its image of
Melqarth/Heracles on the obverse is likewise an important indicator of disdain toward earlier
temple administrators and their flouting of the second commandment.24

Jesus and the covenanters at Qumran may have also mounted broad-scale challenges against the
temple, with the former reportedly expressing misgivings over the payment of tax to illegitimate
temple authorities (Matt 17:24– 27) and the latter deciding that the half-shekel needed to be paid
only once during a lifetime (4QOrdinancesa [4Q159] 2:6–8).

In any case, these Jerusalem money changers occupied a special position in the system of sacrifice,
converting the currency of other locales into that of another—an exceptional one. In this way they
are similar to art dealers, who in one sense can be said to add no real value to a work of art while
at the same time participating in and profiting from what Pierre Bourdieu labeled a “collective
misrecognition” that increases desirability and thus worth in an extraordinary way.25 Temple
money changers took a predetermined fair and minimal fee for providing a vital service. They
expedited entrance into, while at the same time contributing to the symbolic production of, the
house of the holy.

Apart from the fact that their official activities were authorized and approved by the temple
hierarchy, thus occupying a strategic position in the local marketplace of the temple and its
surrounds, the trade practiced by the money changers at the temple was probably not so different
from that practiced by other non- Jewish money changers throughout the ancient Mediterranean
and Near East.

Generally, all money changers charged a fee for their assistance. The Greek word most regularly
used in the canonical Gospels (Matt 21:12; Mark 11:15; John 2:15) for money changer,
κολλυβιστής, is derived from the price of service (κόλλυβος, a small coin). It was more common
throughout the Greek-speaking world for money changers to take their title (τραπεζίτης) from the
table (τράπεζα) at which they worked, something that does occur in the version of the parable of
the pounds in Matt 25:27.

In the parallel to this passage in Luke 19:23, the money changers table (for many translators) is
synonymous with “bank” as it is in Greece today.26 Their other tools, as we can gather from
writings of Jews and non-Jews in addition to archaeological finds, were the money changer’s nail
and balance. The former was used to test the quality of the coinage, while the second was for
establishing equivalent weights.

A main part of their expert knowledge consisted in being able to recognize various imprinted
stamps on coins and to tell the difference between what was authentic and what was counterfeit.
This is one reason why money changers often served as tax collectors, for the Romans and the
Jerusalem temple alike. Their skill was especially in demand whenever large numbers of coins

25
were transferred from one individual or group to another. Money changers were thus rare in the
countryside but common in larger towns and cities where their services were required.27 This was
the only way that one could know whether what was provided in exchange was worth its
represented value. Money changers might charge a fee, but their participation was vital insofar as
it provided a trustworthy guarantee for sellers that they were receiving genuine payment for goods
in return.

I think that the Babylonian Talmud and the Mishnah provide reliable witnesses to actual past
money-changer activity, which was probably not so different from that performed throughout the
ancient world, where usury was often outlawed or frowned upon—especially in cases where
interest was accrued without the creditor taking a risk. In b. Šebu. 45a, money changers took oaths;
in b. Šeqal. 1.3, they exacted pledges.

If their activity was similar to that of non-Jewish money changers in the Roman-ruled
Mediterranean, it can be compared to establishing a mutuum—an agreement to pay back a loan in
kind sometimes with “interest” or other compensation, which was decided upon before the deal
was made.29 It is also likely that Jewish money changers resembled forerunners in Mesopotamia
and Egypt who wrote such agreements down.30 It is clear that some Jewish money changers took
“deposits,” holding money or valuables for others. Evidence for this is found in rabbinic sources
such as b. B. Mesiiva 43a and b. Mevil. 21b.

The Gospel parable of the pounds, is also a witness to this practice. Here, as attested to in Matt
25:27 and Luke 19:23, money changers playing a role similar to that of bankers are described as
offering interest on deposits. It has been argued, for example, by Neill Q. Hamilton, that the
Jerusalem temple served as something similar to a bank, providing protection for valuables.31 This
is true of temples throughout the Mediterranean—in Rome, Greece, Asia Minor, and Egypt. Apart
from what can be read into Jesus’ parable of the pounds and extrapolated from our knowledge of
other temples, there is unfortunately no unambiguous evidence to suggest that the money changers
at the temple in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus offered interest to depositors.

This should not, however, be ruled out, and, if Hamilton is correct, it should even be deemed likely.
Jewish money changers, as described in tractate Šeqalim of the Mishnah, did deploy an elaborate
system for ordering the various types of contributions. If this were the case, it seems that they must
also have been capable of executing loans and offering interest, as did other temple/banks existing
at the same time throughout the ancient Mediterranean world and beyond.

Notes:
20 See Neusner, “Money-Changers in the Temple: The Mishnah’s Explanation,” NTS 35 (1989): 289, who agrees with Sanders,
Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 61–76.

21 Elsewhere (J.W. 7.218), Josephus writes that Caesar (probably Vespasian) diverted the tax that Jews paid to the temple to Rome
(= fiscus Iudaicus). Dio Cassius (66.7.2) refers to the same ruling; see also Josephus, Ant. 18.312; Philo, Spec. 1.77. Neusner
connects the activity of paying the temple tax (following t. Šeqal. 1:6) with the shekel offering of the Israelites in the wilderness
described in Exod 30:16 (“Money-Changers,” 288).

22 The work of the temple money changers described in b. Šeqal. 1.3 was not, as is intimated in the notes to this passage in the
Soncino English edition of the Babylonian Talmud, to change foreign currency into just any local currency. See Safrai, “The
Temple,” in The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religions Life

26
and Institutions, vol. 2 (ed. S. Safrai and M. Stern; CRINT 1.2; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 865–907. Safrai is one of the only
scholars who has shown any interest in this material, and he offers many leads for further investigation. Note that Šeqalim never
refers directly to the existence of Jerusalem temple taxpayer lists and that no such texts have survived in the historical record.
Josephus (J.W. 2.427) does refer to lists of debtors that, at the beginning of the first Jewish revolt against the Romans, were
destroyed when the Antonia was stormed and its archives burned. Josephus (J.W. 7.55) records the occurrence of a similar event
in Antioch.

23 Archaeologists have found weights and a stone mold for casting coin blanks in the house
of the priestly Bar Kitros family (the “Burnt House”) in Upper Jerusalem. See Nahman Avigad, Discovering Jerusalem
(Nashville/New York: Thomas Nelson, 1983), 106–7, 129–31. See, more recently, Joshua Schwartz, “Bar Qatros and the Priestly
Families of Jerusalem,” in Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem: Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982,
vol. 4 (ed. Hillel Geva; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2010), 308–19.

24 The Tyrian shekel with which Jews were required to pay the temple tax from 126 b.c.e. to 65 c.e. was highly valued on account
of the purity of its silver. As is clearly stated in the Mishnah (m. Bek. 8.7; also m. Šeqal. 2.4), the tribute needed to be paid with
pure silver, Tyrian coinage being given as a specific example of such. See Yakov Meshorer, “One Hundred Ninety Years of Tyrian
Shekels,” in Studies in Honor of Leo Mildenburg: Numismatics, Art History, Archaeology (Wetteren, Belgium: Cultura, 1984),
171–80. No human or divine image is imprinted upon silver shekels minted in Jerusalem from 66 to 70 c.e.

25 On the nature of “collective misrecognitions” in general, see Bourdieu, “The Production of Belief,” in idem, The Field of
Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature (European Perspectives; New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), 81. For
Bourdieu’s comments on the activity of religious specialists in ancient Judaism, though not on money changers specifically, see
his “Genesis and Structure of the Religious Field,” in Comparative Social Research 13 (ed. C. Calhoun; Greenwich, CT/London:
JAI, 1991), 13–21. See also Hutt, “Pierre Bourdieu on the verstehende Soziologie of Max Weber,” 7.

26 The English word for bank comes from the Latin banca, the money changer’s table or counter.

27 In b. B. Mesiiva 51b, 52b, the availability of money changers is described in the same way. I have included material about
money changers from this literature knowing full well that it dates to a period later than the earliest citations of the agraphon and
is produced outside of the Roman Empire. I assume that the basic practices and tools of money changers across the Mediterranean
world and to the East over the course of the six hundred years in question were quite similar. This is why the saying of the approved
money changer flourished as long as it did—even into the first several hundred years of the Christian empire.

28 Interest on loans was charged, for example, by Sumerian merchants working in Babylon and Nineveh, as evidenced by cuneiform
contract tablets, up to a rate of 20 percent. The charging of interest is also attested in Hammurabi’s Code 88–89, 92. On the practice
of charging interest on loans in ancient Greece, see Edward Cohen, Athenian Economy and Society: A Banking Perspective
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992). Interest in Roman-ruled territory was capped at 12 percent by the Lex Unicaria of
88 b.c.e. and the Senate-mandated centesima usura of 50 b.c.e.
29 See W. A. Hunter, A Systematic and Historical Exposition of Roman Law in the Order of a Code (2nd ed.; London: W. Maxwell
and Son, 1876), 472. Loans that explicitly include the paying of interest, are referred to in Greek as τόκος and Latin as foenus (or
in biblical translations usuram). The foenus nauticum, or loan for interest, provided to support large-scale risky ventures such as
the undertaking of a sea voyage, was legal according to Roman law.

30 Thousands of cuneiform contract tablets, some dating to almost five thousand years ago, have been found in Mesopotamia.
According to Manetho of Heliopolis, perhaps in his lost Aegyptiaca (passages from which are cited by Josephus, Sextus Julius
Africanus, Eusebius of Caesarea, George Syncellos, and most possibly Diodorus Siculus in his Bibliotheca Historica 1.65, 79), in
the eighth century b.c.e. the famous Egyptian lawgiver Bakenranef (Greek/Latin: Bocchoris) mandated the writing down of
contracts.

31 Hamilton, “Temple Cleansing and Temple Bank,” JBL 83 (1964): 365–72.

27