Sanhedrin 29

האומר ערך כלי זה עלי נותן דמיו מ"ט אדם יודע שאין ערך לכלי וגמר ואמר לשום דמים משום הכי נותן דמיו האי ערכין המטלטלין ערכין של מטלטלין מיבעיא ליה תני ערכין של מטלטלין

If one declares, 'I dedicate the value of this vessel [to the Sanctuary]', its value must be handed over. Why so? Because it is well known<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'a man knows'. ');">¹</span> that there is no fixed assessment [in the Torah] for such objects:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the Bible, the word [H] ('erek) is used only in reference to men, and indicates a dedication of fixed sums varying according to the age and sex of the person who is the subject of such a dedication. Hence, strictly speaking, the word is meaningless when used in reference to utensils, and therefore a different meaning has to be given to it here. ');">²</span>

רב חסדא אמר אבימי במתפיס מטלטלין לערכין האי ערכין המטלטלין מטלטלין של ערכין מיבעי ליה תני מטלטלין של ערכין

he must therefore have spoken with reference to value;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For, according to the Talmudic dictum, 'No man makes a purposeless declaration.' Cf. 'Ar. 5a. ');">³</span> consequently, he must pay its value. But if so, [the words in the Mishnah] VALUATIONS OF MOVABLE OBJECTS should have read VALUATION CAUSED BY MOVABLE OBJECTS?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The difficulty is a grammatical one. [H] is the absolute form, and therefore [H] really means, 'valuations which are movable' the article [H] being here a relative pronoun. The Talmud answers that the genitive particle [H] is to be understood. ');">⁴</span>

רבי אבהו אמר באומר ערכי עלי בא כהן לגבות ממנו מטלטלין בשלשה קרקעות בעשרה אמר ליה רב אחא מדיפתי לרבינא בשלמא לאפוקי מהקדש בעינן שלשה אלא לעיולי להקדש שלשה למה לי

— Read: VALUATIONS CAUSED BY MOVABLE OBJECTS. R. Hisda, quoting Abimi [said]: It refers to one who pledges movable objects in payment of his own dedicated value.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which, until their value is redeemed, are subject to the laws of sacred property, the assessment of which requires three. This interpretation is to justify the grammatical form used in the Mishnah, the meaning of the phrase being VALUATIONS (of human beings) which have been tendered in the form of MOVABLE OBJECTS. ');">⁵</span>

א"ל סברא הוא מה לי עיולי מה לי אפוקי אפוקי מ"ט דילמא טעי עיולי נמי דילמא טעי:

But in that case the words VALUATIONS OF MOVABLE OBJECTS should have been written MOVABLE OBJECTS OF ASSESSMENT!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., movable objects offered as the redemption price of human dedications. ');">⁶</span> Read: MOVABLE OBJECTS OF ASSESSMENT.

רבי יהודה אומר כו': א"ל רב פפא לאביי בשלמא לר' יהודה היינו דכתיב כהן אלא לרבנן כהן למה להו קשיא:

R. Abbahu said: This refers to one who declares, 'I dedicate my value;' when the Priest comes to collect it, [on his failure to pay],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In case of non-payment his property is seized. V. 'Ar. 21a. ');">⁷</span> movable property is assessed by three; immovable property by ten.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Mishnah therefore is to be interpreted thus: As for [H] (human dedications), if movable property be rendered in redemption thereof, it is assessed by three; if real estate, by ten. ');">⁸</span>

הקרקעות תשעה וכהן: מנהני מילי אמר שמואל עשרה כהנים כתובין בפרשה חד לגופיה הנך הוי מיעוט אחר מיעוט ואין מיעוט אחר מיעוט אלא לרבות דאפילו ט' ישראל ואחד כהן

R. Aha of Difti said to Rabina: The requirement of three assessors is correct in the case of one having to redeem anything out of the possession of the Sanctuary;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in the cases quoted by R. Giddal and R. Hisda. ');">⁹</span> but why need three to bring them into its possession?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in the case advanced by R. Abbahu. ');">¹⁰</span>

מתקיף לה רב הונא בריה דרב נתן אימא חמשה כהנים וחמשה ישראלים קשיא:

— It is common sense, he answered. What is the difference between appropriating a thing to, and expropriating a thing from [the possession of the Sanctuary]? In the case of expropriation, the reason [for three assessors] is the eventuality of error; but the same eventuality exists in the case of appropriation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the need of assessors in either case. ');">¹¹</span> R. JUDAH SAYS etc. R. Papa said to Abaye: On R. Judah's opinion this is right: for that reason 'Priest' is written. But according to the Rabbis,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The representatives of the first opinion cited anonymously. ');">¹²</span>

ואדם כיוצא בהן: אדם מי קדוש אמר ר' אבהו באומר דמי עלי דתניא האומר דמי עלי שמין אותו כעבד הנמכר בשוק ועבד אתקש לקרקעות

[who hold that no priest is required] — what is the purpose of that reference? — The question remained unanswered. LAND VALUATION NEEDS NINE AND A PRIEST. Said Samuel: Whence is this inferred? — [From the] ten Biblical references to 'Priest' in the chapter [relating to valuation],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVII v. p. 69, n. 6. ');">¹³</span>

בעי רבי אבין שער העומד ליגזוז בכמה כגזוז דמי ובשלשה או כמחובר דמי ובעשרה

One is needed for the actual law;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to state that a priest must be the assessor. ');">¹⁴</span> the others are merely exclusions [of non-priests], one following the other. And [according to Talmudic rule,]<a rel="footnote" href="#56a_15">¹⁵</a>

ת"ש המקדיש את עבדו אין מועלין בו רשב"ג אומר מועלין בשערו וקיימא לן דבשערו העומד ליגזוז פליגי ש"מ

exclusion, following exclusion, implies, not limitation, but extension,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In this case the extension to non-priests of the authority to make assessments. ');">¹⁶</span> and so includes [as valid, a valuation made] even by nine non-priests,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'Israelites'. There were three classes in Israel, viz., 'Priests', 'Levites' and 'Israelites'. ');">¹⁷</span>

נימא הני תנאי כהני תנאי דתנן ר"מ אומר יש דברים שהן כקרקע ואינן כקרקע ואין חכמים מודים לו כיצד עשר גפנים טעונות מסרתי לך והלה אומר אינן אלא חמש ר' מאיר מחייב וחכ"א כל המחובר לקרקע הרי הוא כקרקע

and [only] one priest. R. Huna, the son of R. Nathan, demurred: Why not say that the ten assessors must consist of five priests and five non-priests?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the rule that 'exclusion following exclusion implies extension' is based on redundancy, where there are a whole series of such exclusions, they are not all redundant. Thus, the first 'priest' teaching the exclusion of an Israelite, the second is redundant, and therefore teaches his inclusion. Hence, when the word has been written twice, we know that one priest and one Israelite are necessary. But for that very reason, the third 'priest' is not redundant, but to intimate that a priest is again required; after which the fourth is redundant, and so on; thus the first, third, fifth, seventh and ninth are needed for the actual law of priests and the others are superfluous, which gives five priests and five Israelites. ');">¹⁸</span>

ואמר רבי יוסי בר חנינא בענבים העומדות ליבצר עסקינן מר סבר כבצורות דמיין ומר סבר לאו כבצורות דמיין לא אפילו תימא ר' מאיר עד כאן לא קאמר רבי מאיר התם כל כמה דשבקה להו מיכחש כחשי אבל שערו כל כמה דשבקה להו אשבוחי משבח:

The difficulty remained unsolved. THE VALUATION OF A MAN IS SIMILAR. But is a man an object that can be dedicated?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that he may be classed with sacred property. ');">¹⁹</span>

דיני נפשות כו': קא פסיק ותני ל"ש רובע זכר ול"ש רובע נקבה בשלמא רובע נקבה דכתיב (ויקרא כ, טז) והרגת את האשה ואת הבהמה אלא רובע זכר מנא לן

— The words refer, said R. Abbahu, to the case of one who says; 'I dedicate my value'; as it has been taught 'If one says, I dedicate my value [to the Sanctuary-]', he is assessed exactly as a slave sold in the market; — and a slave is equated to immovable property.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Meg. 23b. This is derived from the verse, And ye may make them an inheritance to your children after you, to hold for a possession. Lev. XXV, 46. Hence the need of ten assessors. ');">²⁰</span> R. Abin asked: How many assessors are needed for the valuation of hair that is ready to be shorn? Is it regarded as already shorn, and thus assessed by three,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Like movable property. ');">²¹</span>

דכתיב (שמות כב, יח) כל שוכב עם בהמה מות יומת אם אינו ענין לשוכב תניהו ענין לנשכב ואפקיה רחמנא בלשון שוכב לאקושי נשכב לשוכב מה שוכב הוא ובהמתו בעשרי' ושלשה אף נשכב הוא ובהמתו בעשרים ושלשה:

or as attached to the body, hence by ten?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Like immovable property. ');">²²</span> — Come and hear! If one dedicates his slave, no liability to a trespass-offering is incurred in respect of him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So, if one puts him to service, as is the case when one makes use of any other consecrated object; for the laws concerning the unlawful use of sacred property are not applicable to lands or things of similar status, as slaves. v. Me'i. 18b. ');">²³</span>

שור הנסקל בעשרים ושלשה: שנא' (שמות כא, כט) השור יסקל וגם בעליו יומת כמיתת הבעלים כך מיתת השור: א"ל אביי לרבא ממאי דהאי וגם בעליו יומת לכמיתת בעלים כך מיתת השור הוא דאתא

But R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says: Liability is incurred in respect of his hair. And we know that the point on which they differ is regarding the hair which is ready to be shorn. Infer, therefore, from this [that R. Abin's question is a point of difference among the Rabbis]. Shall we take it that these Tannaim<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Simeon b. Gamaliel and the first Tanna of the Baraitha. ');">²⁴</span> differ in the same respect as the Tannaim of the following Mishnah? For we learnt: R. Meir says: There are things that notwithstanding their attachment to the soil are considered as movable property.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'there are things which are as real estate (being attached to the soil) yet are not as real estate (in a legal sense).' ');">²⁵</span> But the Sages disagree with him. In what case? [If A says to B.] 'I handed over to thee ten vines laden with fruit,' and the latter replies, 'They were only five,' R. Meir imposes [an oath on the defendant],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in a case where there is partial admission of the claim (cf. B.K. 107a) and though an oath is not administered in cases of immovable property (v. Shebu, VI, 5). Here, however, since the vines no longer depend on the soil for ripening, they are considered as gathered. ');">²⁶</span> while the Sages say that an object which is still attached to the soil is subject to the laws of immovable property.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence no oath can be administered. ');">²⁷</span> And R. Jose b. Hanina said: The case in question is one of grapes ready to be gathered: according to the one master,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Meir. ');">²⁸</span> they are considered as gathered; according to the other.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Rabbis. ');">²⁹</span> they are not! — No, you might say it is so<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that hair, even though ready for cutting, is to be considered as immovable property, because the cases are not alike. ');">³⁰</span> even according to R. Meir. Only there, in the case of grapes, which after ripening deteriorate by remaining ungathered, does R. Meir hold that they are considered as gathered: whereas hair, the longer it is left, the better it is. CAPITAL CASES, CASES OF CARNAL CONNEXION WITH BEASTS etc. The law is stated categorically, without any distinction whether the connection is between a beast and a man or a beast and a woman. It is right as regards the [requirement of twenty-three] in the case of a woman, as this follows from the verse, Thou shalt slay the woman and the beast.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XX, 16, which indicates that the judgment on the ox is similar to that on the woman, and therefore the verdict must be pronounced by a similar body. ');">³¹</span> But whence is it to be deduced in the case of a man? — It is written, Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 18. ');">³²</span> If this has no bearing on a case where a man is the active participant,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the reference in Lev. XX, 15, And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death, suffices. ');">³³</span> we must refer it to one in which he is the passive offender. And it is expressed in the Divine Law as if the man were the active sinner, for the purpose of equating the passive sinner to him. Just as in the case where the man approaches the beast, both he and the beast are judged by [a court of] twenty-three; so also, where the man is approached by the beast, both he and the beast are judged by twenty-three. THE CASE OF AN OX TO BE STONED IS BY TWENTY-THREE, AS IT IS WRITTEN: THE OX SHALL BE STONED AND ITS OWNER ALSO SHALL BE PUT TO DEATH.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 29. ');">³⁴</span> AS THE DEATH OF THE OWNER [IS BY TWENTY-THREE], SO THE DEATH OF THE OX. Abaye said to Raba: Whence do we know that the verse, and its owner also shall be put to death, means to [teach that] the judgment of the ox is to be similar to that of the owner?