Talmud sobre Nazir 5:1

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.