Sanhedrin 175

לפריחה בבגדים שהיא טהורה

that a spreading outbreak [of leprosy] in garments [covering the whole] is clean? Baldness [of the back of the head — karahath] and baldness [of the front — gabahath] are mentioned in connection with human leprosy; and also in connection with leprosy of garments:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Leprosy in man: Lev. XIII, 42f; in garments: Ibid 55. In connection with garments, karahath denotes leprosy on the inside (right) of the cloth; gabahath on the front or outside (reverse) thereof. ');">¹</span>

נאמרה קרחת וגבחת באדם ונאמרה קרחת וגבחת בבגדים מה להלן פרח בכולו טהור אף כאן פרח בכולו טהור

just as in the former, if [the plague] spread over the whole [skin], he is clean, so here too, if it spread over the whole [garment] it is clean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Rabbis dispute this. Hence one who touches such a garment is clean according to R. Nathan R. Abtolemos, but unclean according to the Rabbis, v. note 3. ');">²</span>

דברי אלו הערכין והחרמים והקדישות הערכין בפלוגתא דר"מ ורבנן דתנן המעריך פחות מבן חדש ר"מ אומר נותן דמיו וחכמים אומרים לא אמר כלום

'"Matters", — this refers to valuations, haramim and sanctifications'. 'Valuations' is dependent on the dispute of R. Meir and the Rabbis. For we learnt: If one dedicates the value of [an infant] less than a month old, R. Meir rules, he must render its value;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Based on its selling price as a slave. This is not provided for in Lev. XXVII, a month being the lowest age dealt with there. R. Meir maintains that he knew that his dedication was invalid as such, and therefore meant it as an ordinary vow. ');">³</span>

החרמים בפלוגתא דרבי יהודה בן בתירה ורבנן דתנן ר' יהודה בן בתירה אומר סתם חרמים לבדק הבית שנאמר (ויקרא כז, כח) כל חרם קדש קדשים הוא לה'

The Sages maintain, his declaration is null.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ar. 5a. Since there is no law of dedication for such an age. Now, extinction may result in the following two ways: — (i) If the Temple overseer took a pledge for the infant's value, in R. Meir's opinion this becomes hekdesh (consecrated), in the Rabbis', it does not. Hence according to the latter, if this pledge was used as kiddushin, it is valid; according to R. Meir, it is valid only if so used with the full knowledge that it was hekdesh, but not otherwise, as stated in Kid. 22b — v. p. 579 n. 3 (ii) Since according to R. Meir it is hekdesh, if unwittingly used, a trespass offering must be brought, which if eaten by an unclean person, involves the offender in extinction. But in the view of the Rabbis it is not hekdesh, and the use thereof does not necessitate an offering, and if one erroneously, believing himself to have incurred a liability thereto, brings a trespass offering, the sacrifice is invalid, and consequently the eating thereof by an unclean person does not entail extinction. ');">⁴</span>

וחכמים אומרים סתם חרמים לכהן שנאמר (ויקרא כז, כא) כשדה החרם לכהן תהיה אחוזתו אם כן מה תלמוד לומר קדש קדשים הוא לה' שחל על קדשי קדשים ועל קדשים קלים

'Haramim' is involved in the dispute of R. Judah b. Bathyra and the Rabbis. For we learnt: R. Judah b. Bathyra said, Unspecified haramim are for the Temple use, as it is written, Every herem ['devoted thing'] is most holy unto the Lord.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVII, 28. ');">⁵</span>

הקדשות בפלוגתא דרבי אליעזר בן יעקב ורבנן דתניא ר' אליעזר בן יעקב אומר אפילו צינורא של הקדש צריכה עשרה בני אדם לפדותה

But the Sages say, Unspecified haramim belong to the priests, as it is written, [but the field, when it goeth out in Jubilee, shall be holy unto the Lord] as a field of herem, the possession thereof shall be the priests.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 21; Consequently the secular use thereof entails no offering; v. p. 581, n. 11 (ii) ');">⁶</span>

ריבות זה השקאת סוטה ועריפת העגלה וטהרת מצורע השקאת סוטה בפלוגתא דרבי אליעזר ור' יהושע דתנן המקנא לאשתו ר"א אומר מקנא על פי שנים ומשקה על פי עד אחד או על פי עצמו

If so, what is taught by, Every herem is most holy unto the Lord? That it [sc. the vow of herem] is legally binding in respect of objects of the highest or of ordinary sanctity.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if one declared an animal herem, which was already dedicated as a sacrifice, whether of the highest degree of sanctity, e.g., a burnt offering, or of the lighter degree of sanctity, e.g.. a peace offering, the declaration is valid, and the value thereof must be given for the Temple. ');">⁷</span>

ר' יהושע אומר מקנא על פי שנים ומשקה על פי שנים

'Sanctifications' — this depends on the dispute of R. Eliezer b. Jacob and the Rabbis. For it has been taught: R. Eliezer b. Jacob said: Even a hook<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Used for weaving gold (Rashi); v, supra 14b. ');">⁸</span>

עריפת עגלה בפלוגתא דרבי אליעזר ורבי עקיבא דתנן מאין היו מודדין רבי אליעזר אומר מטיבורו ר' עקיבא אומר מחוטמו ר' אליעזר בן יעקב אומר ממקום שנעשה חלל מצוארו

of hekdesh requires ten men for its redemption.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Nine Israelites and one priest must assess it for redemption. If less, the redemption is invalid and it remains hekdesh. The Rabbis hold that only three are necessary for the assessment, and after redemption it loses its sacred character; v. p. 551. n. 11 (ii). ');">⁹</span>

טהרת מצורע בפלוגתא דר' שמעון ורבנן דתנן אין לו בהן יד בהן רגל אוזן ימנית אין לו טהרה עולמית ר' אליעזר אומר נותן לו על מקומו ויוצא רבי שמעון אומר נותן על של שמאל ויוצא

'Contentions' refers to the water ordeal of a sotah, the beheading of the heifer, and the 'purification of a leper'. 'The water ordeal of a sotah, is involved in the dispute of R. Eliezer and R. Joshua. For we learnt: He who warns his wife [against infidelity] — R. Eliezer said: He must warn her in the presence of two witnesses,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sotah 2a. The form of the warning was 'Thou shalt not closet thyself with so and so'. If she disregarded the warning, she became forbidden to her husband, unless tried by the water ordeal. But if the warning was not given in the presence of two witnesses, and was disregarded, she remained permitted to him, and he could not compel her to be tried by the 'bitter waters'. ');">¹⁰</span>

בשעריך זה לקט שכחה פיאה לקט דתנן שני שבלין לקט שלשה אינן לקט שכחה שני עומרין שכחה שלשה אינן שכחה

and can subject her to the water ordeal on the testimony of one witness, or on his own.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if one witness or the husband himself testified that she had flouted the warning duly administered in the presence of two witnesses, she had to be tried by the water ordeal. ');">¹¹</span>

ועל כולן ב"ש אומרים שלש לעני וארבע לבעל הבית

R. Joshua said: He must warn her in the presence of two, and cause her to drink on the testimony of two.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Now, instead of submitting to the water ordeal, she could demand a divorce, but without the kethubah (marriage settlement). Hence, if there are no witnesses or only one witness and she demands her divorce, in the opinion of R. Eliezer, she is not entitled to the kethubah, whilst in that of R. Joshua she is. Consequently, if she sold the rights in her kethubah to another man, and the latter seizes the amount involved from the husband, it does not belong to the purchaser, according to R. Eliezer, but does according to R. Joshua; v. p. 579, n. 3. ');">¹²</span>

פיאה בפלוגתא דר' ישמעאל ורבנן דתנן מצות פיאה להפריש מן הקמה לא הפריש מן הקמה יפריש מן העומרין לא הפריש מן העומרין יפריש מן הכרי עד שלא מירחו מירחו מעשר ונותן לו

'The beheading of the heifer' — this is dependent on the dispute of R. Eliezer and R. Akiba. For we learnt: Whence was the measurement taken?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In fulfilment of Deut. XXI, 2. ');">¹³</span>

משום רבי ישמעאל אמרו אף מפריש מן העיסה:

R. Eliezer said: From his [sc. the victim's] navel. R. Akiba said: From his nose. R. Eliezer b. Jacob said: From the place where he becomes a murdered corpse. Viz., the neck.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sotah 45b. The easiest form of murder is by slitting the throat. Now, if one gives this heifer as kiddushin, it is invalid. Consequently, if of two towns one is nearest the victim's navel, and the other to his nose, and each assigned a heifer (one of which of course is invalid), one is fit for kiddushin, and the other is not; v. p. 579. n. 3. ');">¹⁴</span>

ג' בתי דינין וכו': אמר רב כהנא הוא אומר מפי השמועה והן אומרין מפי השמועה אינו נהרג

'And the purification of a leper' — this depends on the dispute of R. Simeon and the Rabbis. For we learnt: If he [the leper] lacks the thumb of the right hand, the big toe of his right foot, and the right ear, he can never become clean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the Torah directs that these shall be anointed Lev. XIV, 14. ');">¹⁵</span>

הוא אומר כך הוא בעיני והן אומרין כך הוא בעינינו אינו נהרג וכל שכן הוא אומר מפי השמועה והן אומרין כך הוא בעינינו אינו נהרג עד שיאמר כך הוא בעיני והן אומרים מפי השמועה תדע שהרי לא הרגו את עקביא בן מהללאל

R. Eliezer said: It [sc. the blood and oil] is put upon the place thereof,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., where these limbs would be. ');">¹⁶</span>

ור' אלעזר אומר אפילו הוא אומר מפי השמועה והן אומרין כך הוא בעינינו נהרג כדי שלא ירבו מחלוקות בישראל ואם תאמר מפני מה לא הרגו את עקביא בן מהללאל מפני שלא הורה הלכה למעשה

and he thus fulfils the requirements of purification. R. Simeon said: It is placed upon his [corresponding] left [limbs] and he is acquitted [of his obligations].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Neg. IV, 9 the reading is: If it is placed upon his left limbs etc. Hence what renders him clean according to one leaves him unclean according to another Tanna: v. p. 581, n. 3. ');">¹⁷</span>

תנן כך דרשתי וכך דרשו חבירי כך למדתי וכך למדו חבירי מאי לאו דהוא אמר מפי השמועה והם אומרין כך הוא בעינינו לא הוא אומר כך הוא בעיני והם אומרים מפי השמועה

"'Within thy gates" — this refers to the gleanings, forgotten [sheaves] and the corner of the field'. 'The gleanings,' even as we learnt: Two ears [that fell down] are gleanings [to be left for the poor], three are not. As to forgotten sheaves — two [forgotten] sheaves are [treated as] 'forgotten' [i.e., must be left for the poor]; three are not. And concerning all these Beth Shammai ruled: Three belong to the poor, four to the landowner.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence, if three fell down, and embroiled the rebellious elder and the Beth Din in a dispute, the question of ownership involves the validity of kiddushin, as explained on p. 579, n. 3. ');">¹⁸</span>

ת"ש דאמר רבי יאשיה שלשה דברים סח לי זעירא מאנשי ירושלים בעל שמחל על קינויו קינויו מחול

'The corner of the field' — this is dependent on the dispute of R. Ishmael and the Rabbis. For it has been taught: The precept of <i>pe'ah</i> ['the corner'] applies [in the first instance] to the standing corn.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 3 I.e., a corner of the field should be left unreaped. ');">¹⁹</span> If this was not done, a portion of the [harvested] sheaves should be given; if this was omitted, a part of the stack should be separated, providing it has not yet been evened. But once evened, it must [first] be tithed, and then [the poor man's portion] given to him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But if not given even then, and the wheat was milled, the poor lose their rights. ');">²⁰</span> On the authority of R. Ishmael it was said: It must be separated even from the dough.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Mak. 16b. Therefore the question of ownership is involved here too, which has a further bearing on kiddushin. ');">²¹</span> THREE COURTS OF LAW etc. R. Kahana said: If he says, '[I base my ruling] on tradition,' and they say likewise, he is not executed; if he says. 'Thus it appears to use,' and they say, 'Thus it appears to us,' he is not executed; how much more so, if he says, '[I base it] on tradition,' and they say, 'Thus it appears to us'! He is executed only when he says, 'Thus it appears to me,' whilst they say, 'We base [our ruling] on tradition', the proof being that Akabia b. Mahalalel was not executed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Akabia maintained his view, which he based on the traditions of his teachers, against the Rabbis in the chamber of Hewn Stones ('Ed. V. 6). ');">²²</span> R. Eleazar said: Even if he says. '[I base my ruling] on tradition', and they say, 'Thus it appears to us,' he is executed, that strife may not spread in Israel; and if thou arguest, Why was Akabia b. Mahalalel not executed? Because he did not give a rule for practical guidance. We learnt : HE STATED, THUS HAVE I EXPOUNDED, AND THUS HAVE MY COLLEAGUES EXPOUNDED, THUS HAVE I TAUGHT, AND THUS HAVE MY COLLEAGUES TAUGHT. Does it not [mean that] he said, '[I base it] on tradition', and they said, 'Thus it appears to us'? — No! He said, 'Thus it appears to me,' and they said, '[We base it] on tradition.' Come and hear! R. Josiah said: Three things did Ze'ira, an inhabitant of Jerusalem, tell me: [i] If the husband renounced his warnings, they are null;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 583. n. 1. If after giving his wife a formal warning he withdrew it, it is null, and hence if she did closet herself with her suspected lover, she is not forbidden to her husband. ');">²³</span>