Talmud for Nazir 5:11

It was stated: “Heave of the tithe from demay that returned to its origin makes dema‘²⁷Dema‘ (a word of unclear etymology, Ex.22:28) describes profane produce mixed with heave, which is unfit for human consumption if heave and food are impure, and is food only for Cohanim and their families if both the heave and the food are pure. It can be put in order only if the amount of heave in the total is less than 1 in 101. Since heave from demay is genuinely holy only in a minority of cases, that heave does not necessarily create dema‘. (Maimonides Maäser 12:4 and R. Abraham ben David ad loc.), not to its origin does not make dema‘. Rebbi Simeon from Shezur said, both at its origin and not at its origin it does not make dema‘.” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeïra: For one who says, it makes dema‘, it makes dema‘; for one who says, it does not make dema‘, it does not make dema‘; this is reasonable²⁸That means, I can understand R. Simeon from Shezur, that we always follow the majority of cases and, therefore, heave from demay cannot create dema‘. I also could understand the position that, once the name of heave was attached to any produce, it must be treated like heave in all respects.. But if one says, in its origin it makes dema‘, not in its origin it does not make dema‘; what is the difference between in its origin and not in its origin? Rebbi Ḥaggai came up. They said, this one will say, “by Moses, I shall explain the reason²⁹R. Ḥaggai’s standard answer to questions of this type..” He said, by Moses, I shall explain the reason: He who says, it makes dema‘, because it permits the rest to be eaten³⁰Since without tithing, demay may not be eaten by rabbinic ordinance, it should in this respect be treated like heave taken according to Biblical precept.. He who says, it does not make dema‘, because it does not permit the rest to be eaten³¹For other produce, it simply is food of questionable status.. Rebbi La taught according to that of Rebbi Ḥaggai³²He declares practice to follow the anonymous Tanna in the baraita.. Rebbi Zeïra said: A case came before Rebbi Ḥanina and he taught according to Rebbi Simeon from Shezur. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Practice does not follow Rebbi Simeon from Shezur³³In Babli Ḥulin 75b, both R. Ḥanina and R. Jonathan endorse the ruling of R. Simeon from Shezur as valid practice..

¹²³From here on there is a parallel in Horaiot 3:3, Notes 146–188 and Megillah1:12.“One arranges for another Cohen as his replacement, maybe a disqualification of his will happen.” How? Does one leave them alone together? Rebbi Haggai said, by Moses⁸Since the Chapter starts with God’s commandment to inaugurate the Tabernacle, the mention here of God’s commandment is redundant and may be interpreted as a new commandment for future generations.! If one would leave them alone together, he would kill him! Him¹²⁴Lev. 6:12; the offering of the High Priest starting with the day he is anointed for his office. Sifra Ṣaw Parašah 3(3). The singular indicates that only one High Priest can be appointed at one time. This implies that the reserve appointee for the day of Atonement cannot have the status of High Priest unless he actually is needed.. One anoints one, one does not anoint two. Rebbi Joḥanan said, because of rivalry¹²⁵He disagrees and holds that while the two could not have been anointed on the same day, they could have been anointed on different days. The rule that the back-up Cohen has lower status is practical, not biblical, as is the entire institution of the back-up..

“All kinds of wheat are one.” It is needed [since it applies] even from white wheat on brown wheat and vice-versa⁹⁰For the determination of these kinds, cf. Peah Chapter 2, Notes 85–86..

HALAKHAH: “If somebody collects coins,” etc. ⁴³As explained in the Halakhah and Mishnah 4, a sheqel is a fixed sum and it is reasonable to assume that only the amount necessary was dedicated. The price of an animal for a sacrifice is variable; since the person is ready to spend the entire amount, the entire amount is dedicated. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, where do they disagree? If he collects small change⁴⁴One does not know what sum was accumulated without counting the copper coins. But since exactly 2 silver denars are needed, if silver coins are collected and the owner says, these are sheqalim, all of them are dedicated according to everybody.. But if he says, these [are for my sheqel ]⁴⁵Corrector’s addition. The addition is unnecessary as shown by all parallel sources and the following statement of R. Ḥizqiah. It obscures the main point that the collector of the coins says “these”, not “from these”. In the latter case everybody agrees that the excess is profane; in the first case R. Yose holds that “these” dedicated all coins in the box whereas R. Bevai holds that, in case the amount needed is known beforehand, only the amount needed is dedicated., everybody agrees that the excess is gift. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Bevai in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, where do they disagree? If he collects small change. But if he says, these, everybody agrees that the excess is profane. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, a Mishnah supports Rebbi Bevai, [as we have stated]: “Rebbi Simeon says, what is the difference between sheqalim and purification offerings? It is that sheqalim are a fixed sum but purification offerings have no fixed price⁴⁶Mishnah 4..” Where do we hold? If about one who says, “that I shall bring my sheqel from these,” everybody agrees that the excess is profane. If about one who says, “that I shall bring my purification offering from these,” everybody agrees that the excess is gift⁴⁷Including the House of Shammai.. But we must deal with the case of one who says “these sheqalim”, since from the Torah they are a fixed amount the excess is profane, “purification offerings”, since their value is not a fixed amount from the Torah the excess is gift. How does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish⁴⁸This name is impossible here; one has to read with the Babli sources “R. Simeon”, denying that the argument of R. Ḥizqiah is applicable to the reasoning of the House of Shammai. The reading of the text in Nazir, “R. Yose” also is possible; in that case he states that the argument of R. Simeon applies only if the stated intent is to collect monies for the Temple tax, not if the declaration is made on monies already available. In the latter case, R. Simeon may agree that the excess is earmarked for the Temple gift account. treat this? He explains it, if he collects small change following the House of Hillel. But did we not state⁴⁹Mishnah 5., “the excess of sheqalim is profane”? He explains it, if he collects small change following the House of Hillel. But did we not state, “the excess of the tenth of an ephah” [is profane]⁵⁰Addition of the corrector. Mishnah 5 clearly states that excess monies collected for a flour offering of a tenth of an ephah, probably not the daily offering of the rich High Priest (Lev. 6:12–16) but the purification offering of the very poor (Lev. 5:11–13), are dedicated for the gift account. The entire sentence is missing in B. In ג the reading is “the excess of a tenth of an ephah are sheqalim”. This is acceptable; the excess of coins collected for a sanctum may be used for another sacred purpose. While the sanctity of sheqalim is less than that of a flour offering, the switch will be permitted to the poor following the House of Hillel.? Still he explains it if he collects small change following the House of Hillel.

MISHNAH: The koy¹⁵⁴Since no cognate language has any animal name close to כוי, its identity cannot be determined. It might exist only for the sake of argument.
The Babli (Ḥulin 80b–81a) has a long discussion about the legal differences between the offspring of a he-goat which mated with a hind or a stag which mated with a she-goat. The Babli quotes a baraita which ascribes the opinion of R. Eleazar to anonymous authors, the opinion of the rabbis to R. Yose, and a third, anonymous, opinion that כוי is a wild goat. in some ways follows the rules for wild animals and in some those for domestic animals, in some the rules for both domestic and wild animals, and in some those for neither domestic nor wild animals.
How does it follow the rules of wild animals? Its blood must be covered like the blood of a wild animal¹⁴⁹Lev. 17:13. The blood of domestic kosher animals (cattle, sheep, and goats) may be used for industrial purposes but not that of wild animals or birds.; one does not slaughter it on a holiday¹⁵⁰While one may slaughter on a holiday for immediate consumption and may cover the blood of a wild animal or bird, one may not move earth on the holiday for a questionable case. but if it was slaughtered one does not cover its blood. Its fat can become impure in the impurity of a carcass like a wild animal¹⁵¹Since all fat of a wild animal can be eaten, it is not distinguished from its body and, unless the animal is correctly slaughtered, its entire body becomes impure as a carcass (Lev.11:39); cf. Mishnah Uqeẓin 3:9.; that impurity is one of doubt¹⁵²Since the koy might be a domestic animal. If a person who has become impure by touching fat from a koy carcass visits the Temple enclosure, he cannot be prosecuted but he will induce impurity by his touch. This rule and the one about covering the blood on a holiday are really rules distinct from those valid for domestic or wild animals.. One may not use it to redeem the first-born of a donkey¹⁵³Ex. 13:13 requires that the first-born of a female donkey be redeemed by a sheep or goat given to a Cohen..
How does it follow the rules of domestic animals? Its fat is forbidden like the fat of domestic animals¹⁵⁶Lev. 7:23, prohibition restricted to “cattle, sheep, and goats.”, but one is not punished for it by extirpation. It cannot be bought with tithe money to be eaten in Jerusalem¹⁵⁷Since tithe money should be used to buy well-being sacrifices (Ma‘aser Šeni 1:4) and a koy cannot be a sacrifice. and it is subject to the foreleg, the lower jaw, and the first stomach [to be given to a Cohen]¹⁵⁸Deut. 18:3, the part Cohen’s of profane slaughter of cattle or sheep or goats.. Rebbi Eleazar frees¹⁵⁹The person slaughtering does not have to give away the foreleg, jaw, and stomach. Since these gifts are profane, the Cohen can collect only if he can prove that the koy is subject to these rules. R. Eleazar quoted here is the Tanna R. Eleazar ben Shamua. since the claimant has to bring proof.
How does it differ from both a wild and a domestic animal? It is forbidden as kilaim with wild animals and domestic animals. If somebody writes his wild or domestic animals over to his son¹⁶⁴In a gift document., he did not include the koy¹⁶⁵Since it is neither a wild nor a domestic animal.. If somebody said, I am a nazir if that is neither a wild nor a domestic animal, he is a nazir¹⁶⁵Since it is neither a wild nor a domestic animal.. In all other ways it is like wild and domestic animals; it needs slaughtering by cutting its throat¹⁶⁶Lev. 11:39. like both, and as carcass it is impure like both.