Sanhedrin 14b — the Talmud in English

From the fact that the tanna taught in our Mishna only that the judges of the Sanhedrin go out to measure, it is proved that

the Mishna

was taught

not in accordance with this tanna.

For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says:

It is written in the Torah, in the passage of the beheaded heifer,

“And your elders and your judges shall go out,”

and we expound:

“Your elders”—this is the Sanhedrin; “and your judges”—this is the king and the High Priest

who are called judges.

The king, as it is written: “A king establishes the land through justice”; the High Priest, as it is written: “And you shall come to the priests, the Levites, and to the judge.”

The Gemara is uncertain, according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, whether some of the members of the Sanhedrin go out or the entire Sanhedrin goes out.

They raised a dilemma before them:

The members of the academy were uncertain whether

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov disagrees in one matter,

disagreeing with the tanna of our Mishna concerning one law,

or he disagrees in two matters,

or whether he disagrees concerning two matters.

The sides of the uncertainty are:

Perhaps he disagrees concerning one matter,

with regard to the king and the High Priest,

as the tanna of our Mishna does not require that the king and the High Priest go out to measure, whereas Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov maintains that the king and the High Priest go out.

But with regard to the Sanhedrin

he does not disagree, and maintains:

either in accordance with Rabbi Judah,

according to whom five suffice,

or in accordance with Rabbi Shimon,

according to whom seven suffice.

Or perhaps,

or perhaps we should say that

he also disagrees with regard to the Sanhedrin, for he says

that he maintains:

we require the entire Sanhedrin.

For all the judges of the Great Sanhedrin must go out to measure.

Rav Yosef resolves the dilemma from a beraita taught concerning the rebellious elder.

“A rebellious elder” is a decisor who disagrees with his colleagues concerning a law. They go up to Jerusalem to the Great Sanhedrin sitting in the Chamber of Hewn Stone on the Temple Mount, and clarify the halakha. And if this sage is “rebellious”—he rebels against their ruling, returns to his city, and continues to issue rulings contrary to what the Sanhedrin ruled for him—he is killed by strangulation.

Rav Yosef brings proof from a beraita that discusses the question: If they asked the Sanhedrin about the halakha when they were not in their place, in the Chamber of Hewn Stone, does he nevertheless have the status of a “rebellious elder”?

Rav Yosef said: Come and hear,

come and hear a proof from what we learned in a beraita:

If he found them,

if the elder—that is, the decisor—found the Sanhedrin

at Beit Pagi,

within Jerusalem but outside the Chamber of Hewn Stone,

might his rebellion

his revolt

be considered a rebellion,

and would he be liable to strangulation?

The verse says

the Torah wrote in the passage of the rebellious elder

“And you shall rise and go up to the place,”

and we expound the definite article of “the place,” meaning the special place of the Sanhedrin.

It teaches

the verse

that the place is determinative

for making him liable for his rebellion. Therefore, if he found them at Beit Pagi, which is outside the Chamber of Hewn Stone, and rebelled against their ruling, he is not killed.

And Rav Yosef infers:

How many went out?

How many judges went out from the Chamber of Hewn Stone to Beit Pagi?

If you say,

if we say that only

some of them

went out, and he asked them and rebelled against them, why do I need the exposition of the verse that he is exempt from strangulation? It is obvious that he is exempt, for

perhaps

it is possible

that those who were inside

the other members of the Sanhedrin who remained in the Chamber of Hewn Stone

held in accordance with his opinion,

and he was not rebelling against the Sanhedrin at all.

Rather, it is obvious

it is necessary to say that the beraita is speaking of a case

where all of them went out,

where all the members of the Sanhedrin went out to Beit Pagi, and there they were asked.

From now it is necessary to discuss:

For what purpose

did all of them go out from the Chamber of Hewn Stone?

If you say

if we say that they went out

for a permitted matter,

that is, not for the purpose of a mitzva, there is a difficulty:

Were they permitted to go out?

Was it permitted for them to go out,

but it is written

for it is written:

“Your navel is a round basin; let not the mixture be lacking,”

and we expound: “Your navel”—these are the Sanhedrin sitting at the navel of the land, that is, in the center of the land. They are like the navel in the body [shorer means navel]. “A round basin”—through administering justice and charity they protect the Children of Israel; “round,” for they sit in a semicircle, like the moon [sahar means moon]. “Let not the mixture be lacking”—they may not reduce the measure of the mixture of wine, which is one-third wine and two-thirds water. For if a judge needs to go out for a permitted matter, or even several judges, they may go out only if one-third of the Sanhedrin, namely twenty-three judges, remain in the Chamber of Hewn Stone. If so, it is impossible that all of them went out for a permitted matter.

Rather, it is obvious

that all of them went out

for a mitzva,

and there the rebellious elder asked them.

What are the circumstances?

For what mitzva do the Sanhedrin go out?

Is it not

that the case is one in which they went out

to measure for the beheaded heifer, and

this beraita is in accordance with the opinion of

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov.

Thus Rav Yosef resolved that according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, the entire Sanhedrin goes out to measure for the beheaded heifer.

But Abaye maintains that there is no proof from this beraita that indeed they went out for a mitzva; however, they did not go out to measure for the beheaded heifer.

Abaye said to him

to Rav Yosef:

No.

There is no necessity to say that they went out to measure for the beheaded heifer. Rather, it is possible to say

for example, that they went out to add to the city

Jerusalem

and to the courtyards

of the Temple.

As

we

learned,

as we learned in our Mishna [see there]:

They may add to the city and to the courtyards only by a court of seventy-one.

According to Abaye, the dilemma was not resolved.

It was taught

we learned another beraita that was taught there

in accordance with Rav Yosef

in accordance with Rav Yosef’s words.

For it was taught:

If he found them at Beit Pagi and rebelled against them—for example, when they went out to measure for the beheaded heifer, and

for example, when they went out

to add to the city and to the courtyards,

and he rebelled against them,

might his rebellion be considered a rebellion? The verse says: “And you shall rise and go up to the place”; it teaches that the place is determinative.

And the dilemma was resolved: Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov maintains that the entire Sanhedrin goes out to measure the city nearest to the corpse.

We learned in our Mishna:

Fourth-year produce and second tithe whose value is not known—

with three.

One who redeems fourth-year produce or second tithe whose value is not known must have it appraised by three appraisers. The reason is that we are concerned that he might err concerning its value, deliberately or inadvertently. But if its value is known, an appraisal is not required.

The principle is: Everything that one buys from consecrated property or redeems from consecrated property, or sells to consecrated property, requires an appraisal. For in an ordinary case of selling to a common person or buying from a common person, where the value is established according to the seller and the buyer, there is no concern for error, since the price is established between the two of them. But with consecrated property, second tithe, and the like, there is a concern for error. Our passage deals with these laws.

The Sages taught: What is second tithe whose value is not known?—

for example,

fruit that became wormy, and wine that turned sour,

became acidic,

and coins

of second tithe

that became corroded,

and are not accepted in the marketplace. Therefore, three are needed to appraise them, since their price is not known.

The Sages taught: Second tithe whose value is not known—

it is redeemed with three purchasers,

merchants expert in appraisal,

but not with three who are not purchasers.

Even if

if

a gentile

is

one of them,

one of the three purchasers who appraise the redemption,

and even if

if

one of them

is

the owner.

The Gemara raises a dilemma concerning the law of three.

Rabbi Yirmeya inquired:

If they are

three

merchants, but

they contribute into one purse,

meaning that they are partners and their merchandise is jointly owned,

what is the law?

Are they considered three, since they are three people, or as one, since they are partners?

And the Gemara resolves it:

Come and hear

from what we learned in a beraita:

A man and his two wives,

they are three, and they

redeem second tithe whose value is not known,

and apparently they contribute into one purse; it follows that they are considered three.

And the Gemara rejects that there is proof from the beraita, for

perhaps

the beraita is speaking of

a case such as Rav Pappa and

his wife, who was

the daughter of Abba Sura,

who had money of her own, and the two of them did not contribute into one purse. But if they contribute into one purse, there is still no proof from the beraita, and it is possible that they are considered one. The dilemma was not resolved.

We learned in our Mishna:

Consecrated property is appraised with three.

One who consecrated an animal or utensils for the repair of the Temple, and the consecrator wishes to redeem it, must have its value appraised by three appraisers. And the Gemara explains the reason that three are required.

The Mishna

was taught

not in accordance with this tanna.

For it was taught: Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: Even a small fork,

a small fork with which gold is spun,

of consecrated property requires

an appraisal by

ten people

in order

to redeem it,

whereas the tanna of the Mishna maintains that three suffice.

Ten priests are written in the passage concerning the redemption of consecrated property.

Three passages are stated in the Torah [Leviticus 27], one after the other: the passage of valuations, the redemption of an animal, and the redemption of houses and land.

In the passage of valuations, “priest” is written three times [verse 8]: “And if he is poor in comparison with your valuation, then he shall be presented before the priest, and the priest shall value him; according to what the hand of the one who vowed can reach, the priest shall value him.”

In the passage of the redemption of an animal [including other movable property], it is written three more times [verse 11]: “And he shall present the animal before the priest.” [Verse 12]: “And the priest shall value it, whether good or bad; according to your valuation, so shall it be.”

And in the passage of the redemption of houses and land, it is written four times [verse 14]: “And when a man consecrates his house as holy to the Lord, the priest shall value it, whether good or bad; as the priest values it, so shall it stand.” [Verse 18]: “Then the priest shall calculate for him.” [Verse 23]: “Then the priest shall calculate for him.”

And the Sages expounded that the Torah repeated the valuation by priests in ten expressions, to teach us that the redemption of land requires ten appraisers.

They further expounded that it is not specifically priests who are required; rather, even Israelites suffice.

And now the Gemara explains the reason of the tanna of our Mishna, who maintains that for the redemption of an animal or utensils, three suffice.

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: It is understandable according to Rabbi

Eliezer ben Yaakov,

who maintains that the redemption of consecrated property requires ten, that his reason is

that he says as

we have

that which Shmuel said. For Shmuel said: Ten priests are written in the passage,

and therefore ten are required.

But according to the Rabbis,

there is a difficulty:

From where do they derive “three”?

From what exposition did they derive that the redemption of consecrated property requires “three”?

And if you would say

and if you would say that it is because

it is written concerning them

in the passage of the redemption of an animal—and the same applies to other movable property—

three,

for in this passage “priest” is written only three times, there is a difficulty:

land—

for it is written concerning it

in the passage of land

four

priests—

four should suffice,

so that the law would be that four appraisers suffice.

And if you would say

and if you would say:

so indeed,

that the tanna of our Mishna maintains that four suffice, there is a difficulty:

Why, then,

and why

did we learn

that the tanna teaches:

For land, nine and

the tenth is

a priest,

when only four are stated concerning it?

Rather, what

must you answer? That land requires ten because

ten are completed in it,

in this final passage concerning land, the Torah completed the writing of ten priests; up to this point ten are written, for we also expound the “priests” stated in the passages of valuations and of an animal. If so, the difficulty returns:

consecrated property—

six are completed in it,

for this passage is completed with six “priests,” since up to this point six are written;

it should require six,

and we would need six appraisers for it. What is the reason that the tanna distinguishes between consecrated property, for which three suffice, and land, which requires ten?

It is difficult.

Abaye did not answer.

We learned in our Mishna:

Valuations of movable property are appraised with three.

The Gemara explains: What is the meaning of “valuations of movable property”? Certainly, it cannot mean the law of valuations, when one says, “My valuation is upon me,” or, “The valuation of so-and-so is upon me,” for the law of valuations applies only to a person. Nor is an appraisal required, since the Torah fixed their value according to the years of the one who is valued.

What?

What is the meaning of

“valuations of movable property”?

And the Gemara explains:

Rav Giddel said that Rav said:

The Mishna is speaking

of

one who

says: “The value of this utensil

I accept

upon myself”

to donate it for the repair of the Temple. And although his words have no significance, since valuations apply only to a person, nevertheless the sanctity of the repair of the Temple takes hold upon the utensil, and he must pay the value of the utensil for the repair of the Temple. And when he comes to have it appraised, an appraisal by three is required.

For Rav Giddel said that Rav said: