MISHNAH: For heave and First Fruits one incurs the penalty of death [Eating them in impurity is a deadly sin.] or a fine of a fifth [If misappropriated, the restitution must be 125% of what was taken; cf. Terumot 6, Note 1.] ; they are forbidden to lay persons, are Cohen’s property [They might be traded from one Cohen to another and a Cohen may use them as gifts to marry a wife since, even if she was a lay person before, she becomes a member of the Cohen’s family by marriage and may eat heave and First Fruits.] , may be lifted by one in 100, need washing of the hands [By rabbinic practice, hands are always impure in the second degree unless washed and watched after cleansing. Since heave and First Fruits can become impure in the third degree, touching heave or First Fruits with unwashed hands makes them unusable.] and sundown [An impure person who cleansed himself by immersion in a miqweh is no longer impure, but he becomes pure for hallowed food only at sundown, cf. Terumot 5, Note 68.] . This applies to heave and First Fruits but not to tithe [First tithe of which heave of the tithe was taken is totally profane.] .
HALAKHAH: “For heave and First Fruits,” etc. It is written (Num.18.8): “Behold, I gave to you the watch over My heaves.” Two heaves, heave and First Fruits [In the Babli (Šabbat25a, 26a; Yebamot 74a; and in slightly different form Bekhorot 34a), the two heaves are pure and impure (or pure and questionable), respectively. That tradition is in the name of the Davidic Rabba bar Abuha and may represent the autochthonous Babylonian tradition. In the Yerushalmi tradition, the verse determines the rules of First Fruits as those of heave.] . About heave it is written [The paragraph deals with the prohibition of impure hallowed food.] (Lev. 22:9): “They should not carry sin because of it and die if they desecrate it.” First fruits as it is written (Deut. 12:6): “There you shall bring your elevation offerings,” these are First Fruits, as it is written (Deut. 26:4): “The Cohen shall take the basket from your hand. [This statement is fragmentary and unintelligible in the form presented. The full text is in Sifry Deut.63: There you shall bring your elevation offerings, private and public, your well-being offerings, private and public, your tithes; R. Aqiba said, the verse deals with two different tithes, grain tithes and animal tithes, and your hand’s heaves, these are First Fruits, as it is written: The Cohen shall take the basket from your hand. Other heaves do not have to be brought to the Temple.] ” Maybe we should say that the verse [Lev. 22:9 which imposes death by the hand of Heaven for desecrators.] refers to sacrifices? Extirpation is already written in regard to sacrifices [Lev. 22:3 imposes the penalty of extirpation on any Cohen coming close to sacrifices while impure. Traditionally, extirpation is considered more of a punishment than death by the hand of Heaven.] .
Should sacrifices be subject to death and extirpation? Can somebody die and die again? As we have stated [A slightly extended form in Śemaḥot 3:8. The main change is in the first clause: “if somebody dies up to age 50.” In the Babli, Mo‘ed Qaṭan 28a, the text “at 60”, is corrected to read “from 50 to 60” and the note on life after 80 is missing. The following paragraphs discuss this statement.] : “If somebody dies at age 50, he dies of extirpation. At 52, the death of the prophet Samuel. At 60, it is the death written in the Torah. At 70, a death of love. At 80, death of old age. After that, a life of suffering.”
From where do you understand that if somebody dies at age 50, he dies of extirpation? It is written (Num. 4:18–19): “Do not extirpate the tribe of the families of (Levi), etc. Do the following for them that they should live and not die.” Organize them that they should not enjoy seeing the holiest of holies. And it is written (Num. 4:20): “They should not come to look, when the holies are wrapped, and die.” And it is written (Num. 8:25): “At age 50, he should retire from the work force.” Rebbi Abin, the son of Rebbi Tanḥum ben Rebbi Tryphon, understood it from here (Ps. 90:10): “The days of our lives here are 70 years.” Subtract from these 20 years during which the Heavenly Court does neither punish not extirpate [This tradition is also in the Babli, Šabbat 89b. While a male becomes a full member of the religious community at age 13, a female at age 12, they are treated as adults before the Heavenly court only at age 20 since in the story of the spies only the men older than 20 were punished. One has to assume that until then the parents are not absolved from responsibility for their children. Neither “proof” has any logical consistency.] , and you will find that one who dies at up to 50 years dies in extirpation.
“At 52, the death of the prophet Saul [Error for “Samuel”, found uncorrected in ms. and the editio princeps. The tradition is from Seder ‘Olam 13 (cf. the author’s edition, Northvale N.J. 1998, pp. 129–135) and is reported in the Babli Ta‘anit 5b, Mo‘ed Qaṭan 28a. The material is Tannaïtic in Seder ‘Olam and the Babli, a further argument that Seder ‘Olam is a compilation of the Babylonian academies. Samuel at his retirement describes himself (1S. 12:2) as “old and white-haired”.] .” Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Pappai in [An Amora of the fifth Galilean generation, usually reporting sayings of R. Levi.] the name of Rebbi Levi; Rebbi Joshua from Sikhnin in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi (Prov. 14:23): “From all toil there will be gain but from talk of lips only want.” Hannah, because she prayed too much, shortened Samuel’s life, since she said (1S. 1:22): “He shall dwell there forever. [However, this statement is not part of Hannah’s prayer but her argument to her husband. Samuel was a Levite from the family of Gersom (1Chr. 6:13).] ” But the “forever” of a Levite is only 50 years, as it is written (Num. 8:25): “At the age of 50 years he shall retire from the workforce. [In verse 8:26 it is stated that the retired Levite may continue as a watchman.] ” But this one lived 52 years? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, two years until she weaned him.
“At 60, it is the death written in the Torah [As punishment.] .” Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: It is written (Deut. 1:35): “If any male among these people, this evil generation, should see.” Think of it, if anybody left Egypt at age 20 and then was in the desert for 40 years when he died, you find that the death written in the Torah is at age 60. And it is written (Job. 5:26): “You shall come into your grave bklḥ [The word כלח appears twice in Job, its etymology is unknown. The corresponding Arabic كلح means “having a stern countenance” as applied to people but “being shiny, bright things. The Babli, Mo‘ed Qaṭan 28a, quotes only this verse as proof and notes that the (Alexandrian) numerical value of ב̇כ̇לח̇ is 60. This seems to be the interpretation here also, the Yerushalmi being the source of the Babli.] .”
At 70, a death of love. (Ps. 90:10): “The days of our lives are then 70 years.” At 80, death of old age, as it is said: “At most, 80 years.” Also thus Barzilai [In verse 33, he is described as “extremely old, 80 years of age.”] said to David (2S. 19:36): “I am today 80 years of age, do I still know good from bad?”
If he had passed [ Identifying אפר and עבר with all commentators. It is generally recognized that ע had disappeared from speech long before the Amoraic period; it appears in the Talmudim only as historical spelling. But that /פ/ = /ב/ is not usually recognized, though it appears, e. g., in ספסל = subsellium.] the age of 50 and did something punishable by extirpation, is he truly very happy [Most commentators change אבל into אבל without gaining anything. The meaning of אבל here is standard Mishnaic: “truly”. If the punishment for a crime punishable by extirpation is death before age 50, is punishment waved for persons over age 50?] ? If he had passed the age of 60 and did something punishable by death [Death by Heaven’s action.] , can he truly be happy? It was stated: Rebbi Ḥanina ben Antigonos said, if an old man ate fat, who will show us that he is subject to extirpation? As we have stated, or if he desecrated the Sabbath [In case there are no witnesses that the perpetrator had been duly warned (cf. Kilaim 8, Note 9), the punishment is in the hand of Heaven. The basis of this statement is Ex. 34:14 which decrees the judicial death penalty for the person who publicly desecrates the Sabbath and extirpation for doing work on the Sabbath.] he dies by extirpation. But it must be the following [Also stated in Semaḥot 3:9. In the Babli, Mo‘ed Qaṭan 28a, the person who dies after 5 days of illness dies a normal death.] : He who dies in one day dies by rage, in two by urgency, in three by plague. Rebbi Ḥalafta ben Shaul stated: He who dies in one, two, three [days], dies by extirpation. Four or five is a hurried death, six a usual death, seven a death of love, longer he dies in pain [His soul avoids punishment by the Heavenly Court since he was made to suffer on Earth.] .
What did you see to assert that he who dies in three days dies from the plague [In the Babli (loc. cit. 26), death from the plague is within one day, based on Ez. 24:18.] ? Hilfai the grandson of Rebbi Abbahu said, I heard the voice of my grandfather [Reading with Midraš Šemuel 23[9] סבי for רבי. The passage is quoted in Midraš Šoḥer Ṭob in the name of R. Hoshaia, in Yalquṭ Šim‘oni 2 #705 in the name of R. Ḥalaphta in the name of R. Abbahu. (Yalquṭ Šim‘oni, being a compilation of excerpts, without editorial comments, is almost a ms. witness.) In the Babli, Roš Haššanah 18a, only the explanation of R. Ḥaggai is given but by Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav; copied in Yalquṭ Šim‘oni 2 #134.] who preached (1S. 25:38): “It was like the ten days that the Eternal smote Nabal and he died.” The Holy One, praise to Him, suspended His judgment during the seven days of mourning for Samuel [Noted in 1S. 25:1.] , that mourning for him and for the just person should not overlap; then he lingered another three days and died. Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: It is not written “after ten days” but “like the ten days”; The Holy One, praise to Him, suspended His judgment for ten days, like the Ten Days between New Year’s Day and the Day of Atonement [The Days of Repentance.] , that he should repent, but he did not.
Cahana asked Rebbi Zeïra [Since Cahana preceded R. Zeïra by at least one generation, the text is impossible. Later (Note 42) the statement is referred to as Rav’s. Since Rav was teacher and colleague of Cahana, one has to read “Rav” instead of “R. Zeïra”.] : A layman who ate heave? He said to him, it is a deadly sin. After he had prayed, he said to him (Lev. 22:3): “I am the Eternal” closed the statement [Lev. 22 deals with the rules of heave. In verse 3, Cohanim are subjected to the penalty of extirpartion for neglecting the rules of impurity. This verse closes with the remark “I am the Eternal”, which usually appears at the conclusion of a commandment. R. Zeïra (Rav) concludes that no penalty has been spelled out for the rules given in verses 4 ff.] . Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A layman who ate heave committed a deadly sin [The prohibition is spelled out Lev. 22:10. For R. Zeïra it is a simple violation; for R. Joḥanan it falls under the punishment stated in verse 3.] . A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “Those who eat heave intentionally [In the Constantinople print: אוכלי תרומה בזרים “lay persons eating heave”.] , whether pure [person] eating pure [heave], or impure eating impure, or pure eating impure, or impure eating pure, have commited a deadly sin. Cohanim eating heave, pure [person] eating pure [heave] fulfills its commandment; pure eating impure [has violated] a positive commandment; impure eating pure or impure eating impure [has violated] a prohibition. What did you see to say that a pure [person] eating impure [heave has violated] a positive commandment? Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, (Lev. 22:7) “Afterwards he shall eat of the hallowed [food]”, of what is pure but not of what is impure. Any prohibition which is implied by a positive commandment has the status of a positive commandment [This is generally accepted also in the Babli (e. g., Yebamot 54b,73b; Pesaḥim 71b; Zebaḥim 34a, Ḥulin 81a). The proof is in the next paragraph. The transgression of a positive commandment is not prosecutable by a human court; the violation of a prohibition is. The distinction between pure and impure food is read into the verse since מן “of” is partitive; there must be a category which is not included.] .
Rebbi Avina [In the Babli, Ḥulin 67b, the argument, in different style, is declared to be tannaïtic; the same in Sifra Šemini Paraša 3(1) in a text closely parallel to the Yerushalmi.] said: Would one not understand that, since it is said (Lev. 11:9): “Any [creature in the water] having fins and scales you shall eat” we know that any creature having no fins and scales you shall not eat. To give both positive commandment and prohibition on the impure. Because it [The prohibition “any having no fins or scales you shall not eat” is spelled out in Lev. 11:10.] is written. If it were not written, it would be a positive commandment. Therefore, any prohibition which is implied by a positive commandment has the status of a positive commandment [It is impossible to say that a Jew who never eats fish transgresses the positive commandment of v. 9. Therefore, the positive formulation must have a negative implication. The eater of seafood is obligated for a purification offering as atonement for the violation of the prohibition and an elevation offering for the violation of the positive commandment.] .
Rebbi Assi understood it from the following (Deut. 12:22): “The impure and the pure shall eat it together.” Here, the impure and the pure shall eat it [Profane meat slaughtered away from the sanctuary.] from the same platter, but heave the impure and the pure may not eat from the same platter. About sacrifices [The verse points out the difference between profane and sacrifice meat.] ? Rebbi Joḥanan ben Marius said, if about sacrifices it is already written (Lev. 7:19): “Meat touching anything impure may not be eaten. [While verse 12:22 may also apply to sacrifices, its main emphasis cannot be directed towards sacrifices but towards sanctified food eaten away from the sanctuary. This can only mean heave since the prohibition of impure sacrificial meat is already in Lev. 7:19.] ”
The Mishnah disagrees with Rav [He denies that lay persons eating heave incur a deadly guilt, cf. Note 32.] : “For heave and First Fruits one is liable to penalty of death.” He explains it, for Cohanim [Since this is explicit in Lev. 22:3, one would not need a Mishnah.] . But did we not state: “fifth”? Is there a fifth for Cohanim [The duty of restitution of 125% is restricted to lay persons by Lev.22:14.] ? He explains that the Mishnah is case by case. The first clause for Cohanim, the last for Israel. Does the Mishnah support Rebbi Joḥanan: “They are forbidden to lay persons”? [If the Mishnah disagrees with Rav, it should support R. Joḥanan. But for him it is not necessary to state the prohibition to lay persons separately; it is included in the cases where mishandling heave and First Fruits is a deadly sin!] He explains it, less than a legal quantity [Mishandling a minute quantity of hallowed food is not prosecutable by a human court or atonable by a sacrifice; therefore it is assumed that the Heavenly Court will not treat this as a deadly sin.] .
“They are the Cohen’s property.” Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan (Num. 18: 8): “To you I gave it [In the verse נתתים “I gave them.”] as mošḥâ.” As mošḥâ, for importance [The root being משח “to anoint”, as symbol of elevation.] . As mošḥâ, for anointing. As mošḥâ, as fuel [In Aramaic, משח is “oil”.] . I would say, both for impure and pure. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, (Deut. 26:14) “I did not burn any of it [The declaration at the distribution of the tithe of the poor and the consumption of Second Tithe in Jerusalem, including a reference to First Fruits. There is a difference in rules between heave and First Fruits in this respect. The argument as reported in Babli Yebamot 73b is to take ממנו as partitive: This hallowed food cannot be burned but other (heave) can.] ,” but one liquidates heave in impurity. Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: From where for Second Tithe proper which became impure that one may not use it as fuel? The verse says, “I did not burn any of it in impurity”. One may redeem it and you are saying this [Since Second Tithe may always be redeemed for money, impure Second Tithe is redeemed and becomes totally profane. It may be burned as profane fuel.] ? One may only interpret it as referring to what was bought with Second Tithe money [In this case, R. Jehudah holds in Mishnah Ma‘aser Šeni 3:10 that produce bought with tithe money in Jerusalem which became impure cannot be redeemed but must be buried.] . Rebbi Jehudah said [The statement is an Amoraic interpretation of what R. Jehudah might have said, that Mishnah Bikkurim 1:8 implies that impure First Fruits must be destroyed even for those who permit redemption of fruits bought with tithe money.] , but for First Fruits which became impure it is the opinion of everybody.
[The origin of this paragraph is in Ḥagigah 2:5; a parallel discussion in Babli Ḥagigah 18b. The statement discussed is that tithe, in contrast to heave and First Fruits, may be eaten with unwashed hands. “Tithe” here always means Second Tithe since First Tithe whose heave of the tithe was separated is totally profane.] “This applies to heave and First Fruits but not to tithe.” There [Mishnah Ḥagigah 2:5.] , we have stated: “One washes his hands for profane, tithe, and heave; but for sacrifices one immerses [One has to immerse his hands in 40 seah of water. “Washing” means that at least a quarter log (1/96 seah) of water flows over the hands.] .” There [“There” is the Mishnah Bikkurim 2:1, “here” is Mishnah Ḥagigah 2:5.] , you say that tithe does not need washing and here you say, tithe needs washing! Those who say, tithe needs washing, the rabbis; he who says, tithe does not need washing, Rebbi Meїr. There [Mishnah Parah 11:5.] , we have stated: “Anything needing immersion in water by rabbinic decree [Any impurity not explicitly stated in the Pentateuch.] makes sacrifices impure and heave unusable [Unwashed hands are always impure in the second degree by rabbinic decree (cf. Berakhot 8, Note 46). Profane food can only become impure in two degrees; the second cannot induce impurity in other profane food. Heave can become impure in three degrees; the third is called “unusable” since it cannot induce impurity in other food (except sacrifices which have four degrees.)] but is permitted for profane food and tithe. But the Sages forbid for tithe [Second Tithe cannot be eaten with unwashed hands.] .” Is that not explained by what Rebbi Samuel says in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, what means the Sages forbid for tithe? His body is disqualified from eating tithe. What is that? May you say tithe needs washing, if he wants to eat; may you say tithe does not need washing, if he wants to touch? No, wanting to touch is the same as wanting to eat [Nobody can expect a food handler not to eat.] . So it must be washing as discipline [Washing one’s hands for profane food (in the Babli restricted to eating bread) is to teach people the discipline needed to handle heave (sources cf. Note 55).] . But we have stated: “heave”! Is there washing as discipline for heave [For heave, washing is a biblical requirement. If heave is mentioned in a Mishnah, it cannot be dealing with washing because of rabbinic discipline.] ? But it is about profane food prepared by the rules of sacrifices [This was practiced, e. g., by the Qumran sect who ate all their food under the strict rules of impurities applicable to sacrifices. Usually, strict Pharisees prepared their food under the rules of heave.] . Is profane food prepared by the rules of sacrifices not profane? Explain it either [This use of אי is a Babylonism not usually found in the Yerushalmi.] following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar or following Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ẓadog. Either following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar as it was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says in the name of Rebbi Meїr: Hands are [impure] in the first degree for profane food, in the second for heave [They will transfer impurity to any food but that food cannot induce other impurity.] . Or following Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ẓadog as it was stated there [Mishnah Ṭahorot 2:8.] : “Profane food prepared by the rules of sacrifices is profane. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ẓadog says it is like heave, it may be impure in two degrees and invalidates a third.”
MISHNAH: Some rules apply to tithe [Second tithe only.] and First Fruits but not to heave since tithe and First Fruits need to be brought to the Place [The Temple for First Fruits, Jerusalem for second tithe.] ; they need a declaration [For second tithe, Deut. 26:13–15. For First Fruits, Deut. 26:3–10.] and are forbidden to the current mourner [A person who has to arrange for the burial of a close relative, between the time of death and the burial.] , but Rebbi Simeon permits [Since the אונן is explicitly forbidden second tithe (Deut. 26:14) and the declaration is one of removal (Deut. 26:13), R. Simeon can disagree only regarding First Fruits. Removal means that first and poor people’s tithes were given away and second tithe brought to Jerusalem.] . They are subject to removal, but Rebbi Simeon frees from the obligation [Since the אונן is explicitly forbidden second tithe (Deut. 26:14) and the declaration is one of removal (Deut. 26:13), R. Simeon can disagree only regarding First Fruits. Removal means that first and poor people’s tithes were given away and second tithe brought to Jerusalem.] . They forbid in Jerusalem the most minute amount [While second tithe becomes insignificant in a majority of permitted food and First Fruits by 1 in 100, this applies only outside of Jerusalem.] to be eaten by the unauthorized and animals; Rebbi Simeon permits. [The Babylonian Mishnah has here another sentence, stating that plants grown in Jerusalem from second tithe or First Fruits also forbid in the most minute amounts; but R. Simeon permits. It is the general wisdom since the time of R. Eliahu Kramer of Wilna that the sentence is missing by an oversight of the scribe. But since the Halakhah corrects the Mishnah to insert the sentence, it is clear that it was missing in the accepted Mishnah text. In general it is safe to assume that textual corrections by R. Eliahu of Wilna are unwarranted.] These rules apply to tithe and First Fruits but not to heave.
HALAKHAH: “They need to be brought to the Place.” Because it is written (Deut. 12:6): “There, you shall bring your elevation offerings, your family sacrificies, your tithes [Animal and second tithes.] , and your hand’s heave.” “Your hand’s heave” are First Fruits since it is written (Deut. 26:4): “The Cohen shall take the basket from your hand.” [Sifry Deut. 63.]
So far tithe, from where First Fruits [What implies that First Fruits, while they have their own declaration, have to be delivered on time? The farmer cannot read the declaration of second tithe if he has undelivered First Fruits at home.] ? As Rebbi Jacob bar Ḥama [No R. Jacob bar Ḥama is otherwise known; the commentators following R. S. Cirillo read “R. Jacob bar Aḥa” since this name is quoted in the next paragraph.] said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar (Deut. 26:13): “The hallowed food.” That hallowed food is meant which was described in the preceding paragraph [Deut. 26:1–11. This contradicts the tannaїtic tradition (Mishnah Ma‘aser Šeni 5:10, Sifry Deut. 303) that the reference is to second tithe and fourth-year yield.] .
“They need a declaration.” Since it is written (Deut. 26:5): “You should formally declare [Or: “You shall answer and declare”, repeating the text of the declaration recited by the priest. This verse deals only with First Fruits. Cf. Halakhah 3:5; Sifry Deut. 301. The declaration for tithes is prescribed in v. 13.] before the Eternal, your God [This introduces the declaration of First Fruits. The next two sentences are copied from the preceding paragraph, most likely in error. They are appropriate again in the next paragraph.] .” So far tithe, from where First Fruits? As Rebbi Jacob bar Ḥama said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar (Deut. 26:13): “The hallowed food.” That hallowed food is meant which was described in the preceding paragraph.
“They are forbidden to the current mourner.” Since it is written (Deut. 26:14): “I did not eat from it in my deep mourning.” So far tithe, from where First Fruits? As Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar (Deut. 26:13): “The hallowed food.” That hallowed food is meant which was described in the preceding paragraph.
In all these cases we stated that Rebbi Simeon disagrees. For the declaration Rebbi Simeon does not disagree. The declaration is the reading; there, Rebbi Simeon does not disagree since it is written (Deut. 26:5): “You should formally declare.”
So is the Mishnah: “They forbid in Jerusalem in the most minute amount; Rebbi Simeon permits. Their growth [Plants growing from second tithe or First Fruits used as seeds. Even though it is stated in Mishnah Terumot9:4 that growth from First Fruits or second tithe is profane, this holds only outside of Jerusalem. Since both First Fruits and second tithe have to be consumed in Jerusalem, if they are mixed with profane food they still can be eaten in Jerusalem by the people entitled to eat the original hallowed food, Cohanim for First Fruits and pure Jews for second tithe. The Tosephta (1:7) has a different version: “R. Simeon says they did not forbid the growth of First Fruits to require them to be eaten in Jerusalem.” This speaks of growth of First Fruits outside of Jerusalem and contradicts Mishnah Terumot 9:4.] in Jerusalem is forbidden to be eaten and Rebbi Simeon permits. Also by the unauthorized or by animals does Rebbi Simeon permit.” Do not the rabbis agree with him since he asked them [In a baraita not otherwise transmitted.] : Do you not agree that if they are permitted for the unauthorized, they are permitted as animal feed? Does one need walls [Food that has to be consumed in the holy precinct outside the Temple domain must be consumed inside the city walls (possibly defined as the walls of the city in First Temple times.) Since growth from dedicated seeds is intrinsically profane and does not need city walls if used as animal feed, walls are not needed and the restriction to those authorized is without basis (cf. Tosafot Pesaḥim 34a, s. v. טהרו).] for unauthorized eating or for feeding animals? Just as one does not need walls for unauthorized eating, one does not need walls for feeding animals! The rabbis say, they made Jerusalem something which has no possibility to become permitted [The rabbis agree that R. Simeon might have a logical point but their position is that leniencies here are uncalled for since any food in question can be eaten in Jerusalem. The formulation used here, דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין לוֹ מַתִּירִין “something which has no possibility to become permitted”, appears in the Babli (Beẓah 3b,39a; Yebamot 82a; Baba Meẓia 53a) and the Tosephta (Terumot 5:15) as דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מַתִּירִין “something which has a possibility to become permitted”. The language of the Babli is straightforward: For something which may become permitted without invoking the rules of insignificance (1 in 60, 100, or 200), those rules were not instituted. The standard example is that of an egg freshly laid on the Sabbath which is not food prepared for the Sabbath but becomes automatically permitted at the end of the Sabbath. If such an egg disappears in a barrel containing 1’000 eggs, all are forbidden for use until the end of the Sabbath. The language of the Yerushalmi, “something which has no possibility to become permitted”, presupposes the knowledge of the rule: If the rules of insignificance were not instituted for a certain case, they are not applicable even in the case of the smallest possible admixture. Since First Fruits and second tithe can be eaten in Jerusalem, they are always permitted for authorized people and are therefore “something which has no possibility to become permitted”.] . Anything which has no possibility to become permitted prohibits in the most minute amounts; similarly, Jerusalem prohibits in the most minute amounts.
About what do Rebbi Simeon and the rabbis disagree? About growth. But in mixtures even Rebbi Simeon agrees. What is the difference between growth and mixtures? In mixtures all exists. In growth it already has disappeared. Where Rebbi Simeon agrees with the rabbis is in mixtures of tithe, but mixtures of First Fruits are treated like growth. And so did Rebbi Simeon say [Cf. Tosefta 1:7 (Note 85.)] : “First fruits do not forbid their mixtures or growths to be eaten in Jerusalem.” What is the difference between tithe and First Fruits? Tithe cannot be lifted [Second tithe is never mentioned among foods that may be lifted; cf. ‘Orlah 1, Note 174.] , First Fruits can be lifted [By one in 100, cf. Mishnah 2:1.] . Rebbi Simeon agrees that the seah lifted for another seah needs walls and needs use [It must be eaten in Jerusalem (as defined by its walls) and it may not be destroyed in small quantities as second tithe of demay may be; cf. Demay 1, Notes 105 ff.] . But the rabbis say, all [Both second tithe and First Fruits.] need walls and need use.
Rebbi Joḥanan went to a place and said, I am Ben Azai [The student of R. Joshua and colleague of R. Aqiba who could immediately answer all questions of Jewish law. The Talmudim (Peah 6:3, Note 79; Babli Erubin 29a, Qiddušin20a) report that any other outstanding scholar who tried to imitate Ben Azai was quickly put down.] here. There came an old man to ask him. He said, [Mishnah Terumah 9:4 (but there, second tithe is not mentioned.)] “the growth from heave is heave; the growth from their growth is profane. But the growths from ṭevel, second tithe and first tithe, aftergrowth of the Sabbatical, heave from outside the Land, dema‘, and First Fruits are profane.” There, you say their [Second tithe and First Fruits.] growth is permitted, why do you say here, their growth is forbidden? He said to him, where do we say their growth is permitted? For things whose seeds disappear. Where do we say their growth is forbidden? For things whose seeds do not disappear. He said to him, but did we not state [Mishnah Terumah 9:6.] : “What is one whose seeds do not disappear? For example arum, garlic, and onions.” Are arum, garlic, and onions obligated for First Fruits [They are not acceptable as First Fruits.] ? He [R. Joḥanan.] said, the Ben Azai from here went away as you say. He [R. Joḥanan.] asked Rebbi Yannai who told him, for tithe everything was classified as things whose seeds do not disappear.
Rebbi Joḥanan’s argument seems inverted. There [It is unknown what this statement refers to. Since the tentative explanation of R. Eliahu Fulda is the only one not based on emendation of the text, it is followed here. The statement of R. Joshua ben Levi is based on the explanation of Ex. 21:28 given in Mekhilta deR. Simeon ben Ioḥai which contains the teachings of Ḥizqia, the teacher of R. Joshua ben Levi and the young R. Johanan (ed. Epstein-Melamed, p. 178): “If an ox gores a man or a woman and they die, the ox should be stoned, its meat may not be eaten, and the owner of the ox is free.” If the ox is stoned, it becomes a carcass whose meat is forbidden anyhow; why the remark “its meat may not be eaten”? This means that if the ox has been condemned in court to be stoned but the owners slaughtered it before execution, the meat is still forbidden. What does mean: “The owner of the ox is free”? Ben Azai said, he is freed from his property; the entire animal is forbidden for all usufruct. On that, R. Joshua ben Levi adds that not only the meat but (hide and) horns are forbidden even if it died before slaughter. R. Joḥanan objects and notes that if the verse deals with two cases (stoned or slaughtered), the rules have to apply to both. In the case of R. Joshua ben Levi this means that the verse is needed to forbid hide and horns also for a correctly slaughtered ox; therefore, one does not understand why he did not object to R. Yannai that both second tithe and First Fruits should have the same rules.] , Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, it was quoted for the horns of a cadaver. He said to him, did the teacher not teach: “I saw” the size of two beans [This deals with the impurity of houses by mold disease (Lev. 14:33–57). Mold disease is considered impure if it is the size of a Cilician bean. It is said (v. 35) that the owner has to tell the Cohen, “like a plague it appears to me in the house.” But since it is written in v. 37 that the Cohen has to see “the plague in the walls of the house”, the house is impure only if two impurities appear, each of the size of a bean.] ? Should he have said here also, “their growths”? In addition, from the following (Deut.12:17): “You may not eat your grain’s tithe in your gates.” About which tithe has this been said? About pure second tithe which entered Jerusalem and left [The origin of this statement is unknown. In the Sifry the verse is interpreted to mean that grain may not be consumed unless heave and all tithes have been removed.] . Also from the following which Rebbi Simeon stated. It was stated [In Tosephta 1:6, an anonymous statement is close to the text here.] in the name of Rebbi Simeon: “Tithe is special in that tithe forbids its money, mixtures, and vessels; the doubt of an admixture forbids in the most minute amount and one may not use it for lighting.” He should say, the same holds for growth! Rebbi Hila said, he who says growth is permitted, Rebbi Simeon. Those who say growth is forbidden, the rabbis. They said to him, did we not state [Mishnah Terumot 9:4; Notes 61–62.] : “Growths from dedicated [seeds] and Second Tithe are profane; one redeems them corresponding to the time of sowing.” Why does he have to redeem? Not because of their inherent sanctity? Here also they should require walls because of their inherent sanctity! Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ammi, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: When one says the growth is forbidden, the prohibition of walls [It is forbidden to eat Jerusalem growth from either second tithe or First Fruits outside of Jerusalem.] . When one says the growth is permitted, the permission for unauthorized persons [In this respect, growth is profane as stated in Mishnah Terumot.] . “These rules apply to tithe and First Fruits but not to heave.”
There [Mishnah Ma‘aser Šeni 5:10.] , we have stated: “ ‘Also I gave it,’ includes heave and heave of the tithe.” There, you say that heave needs declaration but here [Mishnah Bikkurim 2:2.] you say, heave does not need declaration. Rebbi Hila said, there [In Babylonia.] they stated: Heave and First Fruits, both the one who gives and the one who takes need to declare [The farmer has to make the declaration Deut. 26:3–10 for first fruit and to include in his tithe declaration (Deut. 26:13–14) the assertion that he duly gave his heave to the Cohen. The Cohen has to mention in his tithe declaration that he treated heave and First Fruits according to the rules.] . Rebbi Zeïra said, the rabbis there think, and the rabbis here say, if a person has only tithe, he declares; if a person has only heave, he does not declare. Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah [Mishnah Ma‘aser Šeni 5:14. The Mishnah, referring to Levites, speaks of “cities and their (agricultural) surroundings.” The quote here, referring to Cohanim, speaks of cities of refuge (for the unintentional homicide) which were given to the Cohanim.] says so: “Rebbi Yose says, they have their cities of refuge.” Where do we hold? If about heave and tithe, they are his. But it must deal with heave [Of which he is the recipient.] . Rebbi Hila said, we [did] understand that if a person has only tithe, he declares; if a person has only First Fruits, he declares. We [now] understand that if a person has only heave, he declares.
MISHNAH: Some rules apply to heave and tithe but not to First Fruits since heave and tithe forbid on the threshing floor [Once grain has been threshed and cleaned, one may not eat from it unless heave and tithes were separated. For produce other than grain, the equivalents of the threshing floor are defined in Ma‘serot, Chap. 1.] , they have a fixed measure [Tithes by biblical decree, heave by rabbinic standard.] , apply to all produce [By rabbinic standard for all produce except grain, wine, and olive oil.] , are due whether the Temple exists or not, and apply to sharecroppers, tenant farmers, sicarii, and robbers. They apply to heave and tithe but not to First Fruits [Cf. Mishnah 1:2.] . Some rules apply to First Fruits but not to heave and tithe. For First Fruits acquire [hallowed status] when connected to the ground, a person may dedicate his entire field as First Fruits, he is responsible for them, and they need a sacrifice, song, weaving, and staying overnight. Heave of the tithe is similar to First Fruits in two ways and to heave in two ways. It may be taken from pure for impure and from produce not earmarked, like First Fruits [This is explained in Terumot 2:1, Notes 7–15.] . It forbids the threshing floor [First tithe, which cannot be consumed unless heave of the tithe is given. The sentence is from Ḥallah 1:4, Note 123.] and it has a measure like heave [The required amount for heave of the tithe is 1% by biblical decree and that of heave is between 2.5% and 1⅔% by rabbinic usage.] .
HALAKHAH: It is true that heave makes the threshing floor forbidden [Since heave must be given first, the obligation of heave is the one which triggers the prohibition. It is true that the obligation of heaves may stop the prohibition from being lifted, but can tithes anywhere trigger the obligation as implied in the formulation “makes forbidden”?] ? Explain it if he gave it [First tithe, which cannot be consumed unless heave of the tithe is given. The sentence is from Ḥallah 1:4, Note 123.] early, from ears, as Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: First Tithe given early, from ears, is free from [the obligation of] great heave.
“They acquire [hallowed status] connected to the ground”, as it is written (Num. 18:13): “The First Fruits of anything on their land.”
“A person may dedicate his entire field as First Fruits.” As it is written (Ez. 44:30): “The first of all First Fruits of everything.”
“One is responsible for them,” for it is written (Ex. 23:19): “The beginning of the First Fruits of your land. [Cf. Mishnah 1:9.] ”
“And they need a sacrifice.” Joy is mentioned here and elsewhere. Since joy there means a well-being sacrifice, so joy mentioned here means a well-being sacrifice [It is written about First Fruits (Deut. 26:11): “Enjoy all the good things the Eternal gave to you and your house,” and it is written about holidays of pilgrimage (Deut. 16:15): “You should certainly enjoy.” Since a pilgrimage requires both an elevation offering and a well-being offering, the enjoyment of the holiday means eating the meat of the well-being offering.] .
“And song.” Song is mentioned here and it is said there (Ez. 33:32): “Behold, you are for them like an erotic song. [As it stands, the text is unintelligible. R. Isaac Simponti and after him R. Simson of Sens and Yalqut Šim‘oni Torah §938 read: נאמר כאן טוב ונאמר להלן יפה קול ומטיב נגן “it says here (Deut. 26:11) good things, and it is said there (Ez. 33:32): “a beautiful voice and good in music.” Frequently only the first words of a verse are quoted while the reference is to another part of the verse. Yalqut Šim‘oni Torah §938 adds another derivation which ostensibly is taken from Babli Arakhin 11a but represents a text tradition quite different from the Venice Talmud text.] ”
“And weaving [The movements prescribed for presenting well-being offerings (Lev. 7:30) to the altar and for those public flour offerings (Lev. 23:11,17) which have to be presented.] ,” as it is written (Deut. 26:4) “The Cohen shall take the basket from your hand and deposit it [“And deposit it before the altar of the Eternal, your God.” This implies a presentation before the altar.] ,” to add that First Fruits require weaving, following Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob [Quoted with the reasoning behind R. Eliezer ben Jacob’s statement in Babli Sukkah 47b, Makkot 18b, Menaḥot 61a/b; Yalqut Šim‘oni Torah §938.] .
“And staying overnight.” As it is written (Deut. 16:7): “In the morning, you may leave and return to your tent.” That is, all your leaving should only be in the morning [A baraita Sifry Deut. #134 states that this refers to bird sacrifices, as well as flour, wine, incense, and wood offerings. Whether all animal sacrifices need staying overnight is in dispute, in Sifry between R. Jehudah and the anonymous majority, in the Babli (Pesaḥim 95b) between two different interpretations of what R. Jehudah meant. The argument of R. Jonah shows that he follows the anonymous majority in Sifry.] . Rebbi Jonah said, that is only said if there is no sacrifice accompanying them. But if there is an accompanying sacrifice, without [that Mishnah] he needs to stay overnight because of the sacrifice.
Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Maisha and one of the rabbis. One said, this means that impure fruits are subject to First Fruits [But impure fruits cannot be brought to the Temple. Therefore, first fruits for presentation must be taken from pure fruits.] and the other one said, first tithe given early, from ears, is free from [the obligation of] great heave [First tithe, which cannot be consumed unless heave of the tithe is given. The sentence is from Ḥallah 1:4, Note 123.] [This explains how the heave of the tithe can cause the original prohibition of the use of threshed produce.] .
MISHNAH: A citron [The fruit of the tree Citrus medica var. cedrata. In Mishnah Ma‘serot 1:4 (Note 86), citron is enumerated among vegetables, showing that the position of Rabban Gamliel is accepted as practice. The problem is that the fruit may stay on the tree for several years; therefore, the time of the budding of the fruit should not determine its status as required for fruits of a tree, whether it is subject to second tithe (in years 1,2,4,5 of the Sabbatical cycle) or to tithe of the poor (in years 3,6). R. Eliezer requires the owner of the orchard to collect fruits from different years in separate batches. The Mishnah is also discussed in Babli Qiddušin 2b, Sukkah 29b, Roš Haššanah 14b.] follows the rules of trees in three aspects and those of vegetables in one. It follows the rules of trees in ‘orlah, the fourth year, and the Sabbatical, and those for vegetables in that the moment it is harvested determines its tithe, the words of Rabban Gamliel. Rebbi Eliezer says, it follows the rules of trees in all respects.
HALAKHAH: If a tree why a vegetable, if a vegetable, why a tree? There [In Babylonia, they read the Mishnah as permitting two contradictory leniencies.] , they say that if it grows from the sixth [year] into the Sabbatical [year] it belongs to the owners as if from a tree and is free from tithes as if a vegetable. Rav Hamnuna told them, look at the following [year]! If it grows from the Sabbatical to the eighth year, it should be ownerless as if from a tree and subject to tithes as if a vegetable. Is anything ownerless subject to tithes [Cf. Peah 1:4. Since in this case one of the leniencies becomes an impossible stringency, the original statement cannot be true.] ?
Rebbi Joḥanan said, in the remaining years of the Sabbatical cycle you treat it as a vegetable but in the Sabbatical as a tree. How is that? From the fifth to the sixth, sixth. From the sixth to the Sabbatical, sixth. If it stayed from the fifth to the sixth to the Sabbatical, if he harvested it in the Sabbatical [it is tithed for the] sixth; if he harvested it in the sixth [it is tithed for the] fifth. If it stayed from the sixth to the Sabbatical to the eighth, if he harvested it in the eighth [it is tithed for the] eighth. “Our teachers took the problem up a second time and voted that for a citron the moment it is harvested determines its tithe and Sabbatical status. [According to the version of the Tosephta (Ševi‘it 4:21) quoted in the Babli (Roš Haššanah 10a, Sukkah 40a) this happened at Usha in Galilee where the Synhedrion was reconstituted after the end of the persecutions following the war of Bar Kokhba. The same sources note that this rule was propagated in Babylonia by Rav Hamnuna.] ”
Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ammi, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Everybody agrees that its New Year is the 15th of Šebaṭ [One cannot tithe the produce of one year for that of a different year. Even though the moment of its harvest determines its status for tithes, the year does not start on the first of Tishre as for vegetables but on the 15th of S̄ebaṭ as for trees (according to the House of Shammai, the 1st of Šebaṭ); cf. Mishnah Roš Haššanah 1:1.] . Rebbi Joḥanan asked Rebbi Jonathan: According to years or according to seasons [Since the lunar year may deviate from the solar seasons by close to thirty days, does “the 15th of S̄ebaṭ” mean just what it says or is it a stand-in for “32 days after the winter solstice” which was its average position relative to the Julianic year in talmudic times?] ? He said to him, according to years and even in an intercalary year [When the 15th of S̄ebaṭ is approximately 25 days after the winter solstice.] .
[Almost the same text is in Roš Haššanah 1:1, fol. 57a.] “It happened that Rebbi Aqiba picked a citron and observed for it the stringencies of the House of Shammai and those of the House of Hillel. [Tosephta Ševi‘it 4:21; quoted in Babli Roš Haššanah 14a, Erubin 7a, Yebamot 15a. In these sources, the citron was taken on the 1st of Šebaṭ.] ” Why about a citron [Word missing here, supplied from the text in Roš Haššanah.] and not about any tree? It was stated [In the Tosephta this is the tradition of R. Yose ben R. Jehudah. He will not read “on the first of Šebaṭ.”] “the stringencies of Rabban Gamliel and those of Rebbi Eliezer.” But are Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer not from the House of Hillel [After the destruction of the Temple, the authorities who developed rabbinic Judaism were all students of Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai of the House of Hillel, irrespective of their prior affiliations. The wholehearted support both of Rabban Gamliel and of R. Eliezer for the doctrines of the former House of Hillel is doubtful. The Roš Haššanah text: “Do not Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer refer to the House of Hillel?” makes better sense.] ? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it that it budded before the 15th of Šebaṭ of the second year and the third year came. In the opinion of Rabban Gamliel it is subject to tithe of the poor [The tithe of the third year of the Sabbatical cycle. The statement “it budded before the 15th of Šebaṭ” seems to be irrelevant here.] ; in the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer it is subject to second tithe. How did he handle this? He gave a name to the second tithe in it, redeemed it, and gave it to the poor.
MISHNAH: The blood of two-legged beings [Humans and possibly big apes. Vegetables cannot become impure unless “prepared” by a desired contact with fluids (cf. Terumot 1, No. 7; Demay 2, Notes 136–141). Since all human body fluids are preparing, the assertion here is rather that blood of kosher animals prepares like human blood. On the other hand, the prohibition of blood as food extends only to birds and kosher animals (Lev.7:26), not to humans.] is similar to the blood of animals in that it prepares plants, but one is not guilty because of the blood of crawling beings [“Crawling beings” are the eight species enumerated in Lev. 11:29–30. Since they are classified as “impure” without reference to body parts, there is no distinction made between their flesh and their blood. Eating their blood is classified as eating their flesh, a simple transgression, not punishable by extirpation like eating blood of kosher animals (Lev. 17:10).] .
HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abba, Rav Huna in the name of Rav: If he was warned, he is whipped [A person cannot be criminally prosecuted unless he was duly informed about the criminality of his intended action; cf. Kilaim 8, Note 9. In the Babli, Keritut 21b, the statement is by Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav.] . But did we not state: “But one is not guilty because of the blood of crawling beings”? Rebbi Abba said, one is not subject to extirpation for it [But he might be whipped for committing a misdemeanor. In the Babli, this argument is without attribution.] . But was it not stated: “The blood of two-legged beings which have no minor impurity, the blood of crawling things which have no major impurity”? [This cryptic argument is somewhat expanded in the Babli, Keritut20b; the full statement is in Sifra Ẓav Parašah 10(11): “(Lev. 7:26) ‘Any blood you should not eat’. I could also think the blood of two-legged beings, the blood of crawling things, the blood in eggs, the blood of locusts, and the blood of fish, are all included, but the verse says ‘of birds and animals’. Birds and animals are special in that they can be the source of minor impurity (which only affects foodstuffs) and of major impurity (which affects humans, their garments and vessels), some are forbidden (as carcasses) and some are permitted (if slaughtered correctly), and they are meat. This excludes the blood of two-legged beings who cannot be the source of minor impurity (according to biblical standards), the blood of crawling things who cannot be a source of major impurity, the blood of eggs which are not meat, the blood of locusts and fish who are always permitted.” The implication is that there is no biblical injunction against eating blood of crawling things.] Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, that is, if they warned him because of blood. But if they warned him because of abomination, he is whipped [Since blood is a part of the animal. In the Babli, this is reported in the name of R. Zeïra.] .
MISHNAH: The koy [Since 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 animal [Lev. 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 holiday [While 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 animal [Since 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 doubt [Since 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 donkey [Ex. 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 animals [Lev. 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 Jerusalem [Since 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] [Deut. 18:3, the part Cohen’s of profane slaughter of cattle or sheep or goats.] . Rebbi Eleazar frees [The 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 son [In a gift document.] , he did not include the koy [Since 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 nazir [Since 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 throat [Lev. 11:39.] like both, and as carcass it is impure like both.
HALAKHAH: What is a koy? Rebbi Eleazar said, [the offspring of] a he-goat which mated with a hind or of a stag which mated with a she-goat. But the rabbis say it is a separate kind and the Sages could not determine its nature [Since 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.] .
If it was redeemd by a koy, one has to redeem again by a sheep. Therefore, if one of them died, the claimant has to bring proof [If the koy died, the Cohen cannot ask for a replacement since he cannot prove that what he got was not a sheep or goat. If the koy lives, the Cohen has to return it to receive the sheep or goat.] .
The Mishnah does not follow Rebbi Eleazar, as it was stated: Rebbi Eleazar says one must bring a “hung” sacrifice for the fat of a koy [The “hung sacrifice” is the expiation sacrifice (Lev. 5:17–19) to be brought by a person who suspects that he is guilty of an offense punishable by extirpation. If he knew clearly that he is guilty, he must bring a reparation sacrifice (Lev. 4:27–35). If he brought a “hung” sacrifice and later ascertains that he indeed broke the law, he has in addition to bring a reparation sacrifice. In Yebamot, Rav holds that there is no expiation sacrifice if there cannot be a reparation sacrifice. R. Eleazar (who must be the Tanna) disagrees. Since an expiation sacrifice can be brought only for an offense subject to the penalty of extirpation, the anonymous Tanna of the Mishnah must disagree with R. Eleazar. It follows that R. Eleazar disagrees with the majority in two statements of the Mishnah, about fat and gifts, but the disagreement is noted only for one.] . Is the Mishnah not following Rav? Since Rav said, for anything that can never be ascertained, one shall not be obliged for a “hung” sacrifice for this doubt. Explain it, they disagree with the words of Rebbi Eleazar.
And even in the time they were buying animals for meat of desire it could not be bought with tithe money to be eaten in Jerusalem [This refers to the statement that a koy cannot be bought with tithe money. This is obvious once the rule is enforced that tithe money can only be used to buy well-being sacrifices (Ma‘aser Šeni 1:3, Mishnah 1:4). The statement here means that even when it was permitted to buy “meat of desire” (an expression for profane meat from Deut. 12:20), only animals that are either fit for the altar or are clearly wild animals could have been bought.] .
“It is subject to the foreleg, the lower jaw, and the first stomach [to be given to a Cohen]. Rebbi Eleazar frees.” Since Rebbi Eleazar says that now he is in doubt, he says “free”. But the Sages, who teach that it is an original species, say “obligated. [Since 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.] ”
The Mishnah does not follow Rebbi, as it was stated: If somebody dedicated his wild and domestic animals to the Temple, he did not dedicate the koy. Rebbi said, he dedicated the koy [Lev. 11:39.] .
“If somebody said, I shall be a nazir if that is a wild animal, he is a nazir. That this is a domestic animal, he is a nazir. That this is not a wild animal, he is a nazir. That this is not a domestic animal, he is a nazir. That this is a wild and a domestic animal, he is a nazir. That this is neither a wild nor a domestic animal, he is a nazir. [Mishnah Nazir 4:9. Since all these statement are partially true, the vow of the nazir is valid in all cases. This is the interpretation of Maimonides in Nazir. The interpretation of Rashi (Nazir 34a) cannot be squared with the Yerushalmi.] ”
Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: Why did we not state that the human having active or passive sex with a koy is guilty? He told him, it was stated: “In all other ways it is like wild and domestic animals. [According to R. Ḥaggai, the list of ways in which a koy is equal to both wild and domestic animals is intended to be exhaustive. R. Yose notes that the cases enumerated are only given as examples; almost no lists in the Mishnah are exhaustive.] ”