Arakhin 14
- Rabbah said: It is necessary [to permit the] fetching of the knife by way of a public thoroughfare.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The bringing of any portable property from private territory into a public thoroughfare or vice versa constitutes transgression of the law of the Sabbath as Biblically stated.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
That in case of doubt one may desecrate the Sabbath! Surely we have learnt already: If debris falls down upon one and there is doubt whether he is there or not, or whether he is alive or dead, whether he is a Canaanite or an Israelite, one may remove the debris from above him!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Yoma 83a.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
You might have said: There [permission was given] because [the person in question] had at least presumption of having been alive, but here where it [the embryo] did not have such original presumption of life, one might say no [desecration of the Sabbath shall be permitted], therefore we are informed [that it is].
But if she had [similarly] said: Give my hand to my daughter, would we have given it to her? - Rab said: It refers to a wig.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That wig, tied to her hair, might have been considered part of her body and therefore forbidden for any use, hence also inadmissible as a gift to her daughter. But since she left instruction of such gift, she evidently did not consider the wig part of her body, and guided by her view we do not consider it such either, hence the gift is valid.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
But this matter was questioned by R'Jose B'Hanina, for R'Jose B'Hanina asked: What about the hair of righteous women, and Raba had remarked: His question refers to [their] wig?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to Deut. XIII, 13ff the inhabitants of a city condemned for idolatrous practices to which they had been led astray were to be destroyed with all their property. Righteous persons, however, lost only their property but not their life. The theoretical question touched the wig of righteous women of such a city: Was it to be considered part of their body and thus will it escape destruction, or is it to be regarded as detachable from the head and as general property does it fall under the ban? At any rate what is a matter of doubt there could not possibly be taken here as settled law!');"><sup>5</sup></span>
- The question of R'Jose B'Hanina referred to the case of [such wig] its hanging on a peg; but here the wig is attached to her [head], therefore the reason [it is permitted] is because she said: 'Give [it]', but if she had not said 'Give [it]', it would be as her body and forbidden.
This appeared difficult to R'Nahman B'Isaac for it is placed in juxtaposition to the [law concerning an] animal, hence just as there [the hair] is part of the body, here too it should be part of the body?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How then could he interpret our Mishnah as' referring to the woman's wig, which is not part of the body?');"><sup>6</sup></span>
- Rather, said R'Nahman: In the one case [the woman's] it is the actual death which renders the body prohibited for any use,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reference is indeed to' her natural hair, but since hair never lived it is not affected by death, which renders forbidden all such parts of the body which had their vitality cut off by death (Rashi) .');"><sup>7</sup></span>
Levi taught in accord with Rab and he also taught in accord with R'Nahman B'Isaac.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Levi had an ancient Baraitha the view of which accorded with Rab and another with R. Nahman b. Isaac.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
He taught in accord with Rab: If a woman went forth to be executed and she said: 'Give my hair to my daughter', one would give it to her; but if she died [before making such a demand] one would not give it, because the dead must not be used for any purpose.
BUT IF HE GAVE LESS THAN A SELA' AND BECAME RICH, HE MUST PAY FIFTY SELA'S.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One twenty years of age and of male sex whose normal valuation is fifty sela's, happens to be poor when paying the poor man's exceptional one sela' for any valuation. That sela', being the legal minimum for a poor man, therefore has paid his debt, and freed him from any obligation, even if afterwards he became rich. But if, whilst poor, he had paid less than a sela', he has not paid the minimum, his obligation to pay his valuation still rests upon him, and on becoming rich he must therefore pay the complete sum due, under the circumstances of payment which for a man not poor, amounts to fifty sela's.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
That means that all valuatio which you evaluate shall be of no less than one shekel.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Indicating only a minimum beyond which the sum may be increased to the maximum of fifty. There are no rigorous restrictions between these two sums, adjustments being made in accordance with the possessions of the respective dedicator.');"><sup>15</sup></span>
R'Adda B'Ahabah said: If a man had five sela's in his possession and said: My own valuation be upon me [to pay], and he repeats: My own valuation be upon me, and then he paid four sela's on account for the second valuation and one sela' for the first, then he has fulfilled his duty to both.
[Likewise] here when he paid for the second [valuation] he was in debt for the first,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the extent of the whole five sela's on the view of the Sages in our Mishnah, so that as far as the second valuation is concerned he had no five sela's to pay and hence discharged his obligation by paying the four sela's.');"><sup>19</sup></span>