משנה: כּוֹי יֵשׁ בּוֹ דְרָכִים שָׁוֶה לַחַיָּה וְיֵשׁ בּוֹ דְרָכִים שָׁוֶה לַבְּהֵמָה וְיֵשׁ בּוֹ דְרָכִים שָׁוֶה לַבְּהֵמָה וְלַחַיָּה וְיֵשׁ בּוֹ דְרָכִים שֶׁאֵינוֹ שָׁוֶה לֹא לַבְּהֵמָה וְלֹא לַחַיָּה. כֵּיצַד שָׁוֶה לַחַיָּה. דָּמוֹ טָעוּן כִּיסּוּי כְדַם חַיָּה וְאֵין שׁוֹחֲטִים אוֹתוֹ בְּיוֹם טוֹב. וְאִם שְׁחָטוֹ אֵין מְכַסִּין אֶת דָּמוֹ. וְחֶלְבּוֹ מִטַּמֵּא בְּטוּמְאַת נְבֵילָה כַחַיָּה. וְטוּמְאָתוֹ בְּסָפֵק וְאֵין פּוֹדִין בּוֹ פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר. כֵּיצַד שָׁוֶה לַבְּהֵמָה. חֶלְבּוֹ אָסוּר כְּחֵלֶב בְּהֵמָה וְאֵין חַייָבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת. וְאֵינוֹ נִלְקָח בְּכֶסֶף מַעֲשֵׂר לֶאֱכוֹל בִּירוּשָׁלֵם וְחַייָב בִּזְרוֹעַ וּבִלְחָיַיִם וּבַקֵּיבָה. רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר פּוֹטֵר שֶׁהַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָֽרְאָיָה. כֵּיצַד אֵינוֹ שָׁוֶה לַחַיָּה וְלַבְּהֵמָה. אָסוּר מִשּׁוּם כִּלְאַיִם עִם הַחַיָּה וְעִם הַבְּהֵמָה. הַכּוֹתֵב חַייָתוֹ וּבְהֵמָתוֹ לִבְנוֹ לֹא כָתַב לוֹ אֶת הַכּוֹי. אִם אָמַר הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר שֶׁזֶּה חַיָּה אוֹ בְּהֵמָה הֲרֵי הוּא נָזִיר. וּשְׁאָר כָּל־הַדְּרָכָיו שָׁוִים לַחָיָּה וְלַבְּהֵמִה וְטָעוּן שְׁחִיטָה כָּזְה וְכָזֶה. וּמְטַמֵּא מִשּׁוּם נְבֵלָה וּמִשּׁוּם אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי כָּזְה וְכָזֶה. 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 Chullin.80b-81a">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 animal149Leviticus.17.13">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 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 (Leviticus.11.39">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 donkey153Exodus.13.13">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 animals156Leviticus.7.23">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 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]158Deuteronomy.18.3">Deut. 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 throat166Leviticus.11.39">Lev. 11:39. like both, and as carcass it is impure like both.
הלכה: אֵי זֶהוּ כּוֹי. אָמַר רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר עֵז שֶׁעָלָה עַל גַּבֵּי צְבִי וּצְבִי שֶׁעָלָה עַל גַּבֵּי עִיזָּה. וְרַבָּנִין אָֽמְרִין מִין הוּא עִיקָּרוֹ וְלֹא יָֽכְלוּ חֲכָמִים לַעֲמוֹד עָלָיו. 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 nature154Since 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 Chullin.80b-81a">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..
פָּדוּי בְּכוֹי חוֹזֵר וּפוֹדֶה בְשֶׂה. לְפִיכָךְ אִם מֵת אֶחָד מֵהֶן הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָֽרְאָיָה. 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 proof155If 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..
מַתְנִיתָא דְלֹא כְרִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. דְּתַנֵּי רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר אוֹמֵר כּוֹי (אֵין) חַייָבִין עַל חֶלְבּוֹ אָשָׁם תָּלוּי. מַתְנִיתָא דְּלֹא כְרַב. דְּרַב [אָמַר] כָּל־שֶׁאֵיפְשַׁר לַעֲמוֹד עַל װַדָּאוֹ לֹא יְהוּ חַייָבִין עַל סְפֵיקוֹ אָשָׁם תָּלוּי. פָּתַר לָהּ חֲלוּקִין עַל דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. 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 koy162The “hung sacrifice” is the expiation sacrifice (Leviticus.5.17-19">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 (Leviticus.4.27-35">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.
וַאֲפִילוּ בַּשָּׁעָה שֶּׁהָיוּ לוֹקְחִין בְּהֵמָה לִבְשַׂר תַּאֲוָה אֵינוֹ נִלְקָח מַעֲשֵׂר לֵיאָכֵל בִּירוּשָׁלֵם. 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 Jerusalem163This 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, Bikkurim 1:4:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Bikkurim.1.4.1">Mishnah 1:4). The statement here means that even when it was permitted to buy “meat of desire” (an expression for profane meat from Deuteronomy.12.20">Deut. 12:20), only animals that are either fit for the altar or are clearly wild animals could have been bought..
וְחַייָב בִּזְרוֹעַ וּבִלְחָיַיִם וּבַקֵּיבָה. רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר פּוֹטֵר. רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר דּוּ אָמַר עַכְשָׁיו הוּא נִסְתַּפֵּק לוֹ דּוּ אָמַר פָּטוּר. וְרַבָּנִין דִּינוּן מָרִין מִין הוּא עִיקָּרוֹ. אִינּוּן אָֽמְרִין חַייָב. “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.154Since 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 Chullin.80b-81a">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.”
מַתְנִיתָא דְּלָא כְרִבִּי. דְּתַנֵּי הִקְדִּישׁ חַייָתוֹ וּבְהֵמָתוֹ לֹא הִקְדִּישׁ אֶת הַכּוֹי. רִבִּי אוֹמֵר הִקְדִּישׁ אֶת הַכּוֹי. 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 koy166Leviticus.11.39">Lev. 11:39..
אָמַר הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר שֶׁזֶּה חַיָּה. נָזִיר. שֶׁזֵּה בְּהֵמָה. נָזִיר. שֶׁאֵין זֶה חַיָּה. נָזִיר. שֶׁאֵין זֶה בְּהֵמָה. נָזִיר. שֶׁזֶּה חַיָּה וּבְהֵמָה. נָזִיר. שֶׁאֵין זֶה לֹא חַיָּה וְלֹא בְּהֵמָה. נָזִיר. “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.167Mishnah 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 Nazir 34a" href="/Rashi_on_Nazir.34a">Rashi (Nazir 34a) cannot be squared with the Yerushalmi.”
רִבִּי חַגַּיי בָּעֵא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. לָמָּה לֹא תַנִּינָן הָרוֹבַע וְהַנִּרְבַּע מִמֶּינּוּ חַייָב. אָמַר לֵיהּ תַנֶיתַהּ בְּסוֹפָהּ וּשְׁאָר כָּל־דְּרָכָיו שָׁוִין לַחָיָּה וְלַבְּהֵמָה. 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.168According 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.”