Sanhedrin 14b (יד:) — the Talmud in English

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

the Mishna

was taught

not in accordance with this tanna.

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

It is written in the Torah, in the passage concerning the heifer whose neck is broken,

“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 considers, 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,

the members of the academy were uncertain: Does

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov disagree on one matter,

disagreeing with the tanna of our Mishna in only one law,

or does he disagree on two matters,

disagreeing with him in two respects?

The sides of the dilemma are as follows:

Does he disagree on one matter,

with regard to the king and the High Priest,

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

But with regard to the Sanhedrin

he does not disagree, and maintains

either in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda,

who says that five suffice,

or in accordance with Rabbi Shimon,

who says that seven suffice.

Or perhaps

perhaps we should say that

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

that he maintains:

We require the entire Sanhedrin,

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

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

A “rebellious elder” is a halakhic authority who disagrees with his colleagues concerning a law. They ascend to Jerusalem to the Great Sanhedrin, which sits in the Chamber of Hewn Stone on the Temple Mount, and clarify the halakha. If this sage is “rebellious,” rebelling against their ruling, and returns to his city and continues to issue rulings contrary to what the Sanhedrin decided for him, he is executed by strangulation.

Rab Yosef cites proof from a beraita that discusses whether, if they asked the Sanhedrin about the halakha when they were not in their place, in the Chamber of Hewn Stone, the elder nevertheless has the status of a “rebellious elder.”

Rab Yosef said: Come and hear,

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

If he found them,

if the elder, meaning the halakhic authority, found the Sanhedrin

at Beit Pagi,

within Jerusalem but outside the Chamber of Hewn Stone,

might his rebellion be

a rebellion

a valid rebellion,

and he would be liable to strangulation?

The verse states

that the Torah wrote, in the passage concerning the rebellious elder:

“Then you shall arise and ascend to the place,”

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

It teaches

the verse

that the place is determinative

of liability 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 executed.

Rab Yosef analyzes this:

How many went out?

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

If you say

that only

some of them

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

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

that one must 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 the elder questioned them there.

We must now consider:

For what purpose

did they all leave the Chamber of Hewn Stone?

If you say

that they went out

for an optional 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 leave,

but it is written

as follows:

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

and we expound: “Your navel”—these are the Sanhedrin, who sit at the navel of the land, meaning at the center of the land. They are like the navel in the body [the term means “your navel”]. “A round basin”—through carrying out judgment and righteousness, they protect the Jewish people; “round”—for they sit in a semicircle, like the moon [the term means “moon”]; “let not the mixture be lacking”—they may not reduce the measure of the wine mixture, which is one-third wine and two-thirds water. Thus, if a judge needs to leave for an optional matter, or even if several judges do so, they may leave 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 an optional matter.

Rather, it is obvious

that they all went out

for a mitzva,

and the rebellious elder questioned them there.

What are the circumstances?

For what mitzva would the Sanhedrin go out?

Is it not

the case that they went out

to measure for the heifer, and

the beraita is in accordance with the opinion of

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov?

Rab Yosef has therefore resolved the matter: According to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, the entire Sanhedrin goes out to measure for the heifer whose neck is broken.

But Abaye maintains that there is no proof from this beraita that they went out for a mitzva specifically to measure for the heifer whose neck is broken.

Abaye said to him,

to Rab Yosef:

No.

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

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

of Jerusalem

and to the Temple courtyards,

of the Temple.

As

for example,

as we learned,

as we learned in our Mishna [see there]:

The city and the courtyards may be enlarged only by a court of seventy-one.

According to Abaye, the dilemma remains unresolved.

It was taught

in another beraita that was taught there,

in accordance with the view of Rab Yosef,

in accordance with Rab Yosef’s statement.

As it was taught:

If he found them at Beit Pagi and rebelled against them—for example, when they went out to measure for the 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 a valid rebellion? The verse states: “Then you shall arise and ascend to the place.” It teaches that the place is determinative.

The dilemma is 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 unknown—

[it is assessed] by three.

One who redeems fourth-year produce or Second Tithe whose value is unknown must have it assessed 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, no assessment is required.

The general rule is: Anything that one purchases from hekdesh or redeems from hekdesh, or sells to hekdesh, requires an assessment. In an ordinary sale to a non-sacred person, or a purchase from a non-sacred person, there is no concern about error, since the value is determined by the seller and buyer and the price is established between them. But with hekdesh, Second Tithe, and the like, there is concern about error. Our sugya deals with these laws.

The Sages taught: What is Second Tithe whose value is unknown?—

for example,

produce that has rotted, wine that has turned,

sour,

and coins

of Second Tithe

that have corroded,

and therefore are not accepted in the marketplace. Consequently, three people are required to assess them, since their price is unknown.

The Sages taught: Second Tithe whose value is unknown—

is redeemed by three purchasers,

merchants who are expert in appraisal,

but not by three who are not purchasers.

Even if

one

of them is a gentile,

and is

one of them,

of the three purchasers who assess the redemption value,

and even if

one

of them

is

the owner.

The Gemara raises a dilemma concerning the requirement of three.

Rab Yirmeya raised a dilemma: If they are

If they are

three

merchants, but

they contribute to a single purse,

as they are partners and their merchandise is held in partnership,

what is the halakha?

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

The Gemara resolves the dilemma:

Come and hear

from what we learned in a beraita:

A man and his two wives

are three people, and they

redeem Second Tithe whose value is unknown.

Seemingly, they contribute to a single purse; this indicates that they are considered three.

The Gemara rejects this proof from the beraita, because

perhaps

the beraita is speaking of

a case like that of Rav Pappa and

his wife, who was

the daughter of Abba Sura’a,

and she possessed money of her own, so the two of them did not contribute to a single purse. But if they contribute to a single purse, there is still no proof from the beraita, and it is possible that they are considered one. The dilemma is not resolved.

We learned in our Mishna:

Hekdeshot [are assessed] by three.

One who consecrated an animal or utensils for Temple maintenance and wishes to redeem it must have its value assessed by three appraisers. The Gemara explains the reason that three are required.

The Mishna

was taught

not in accordance with this tanna.

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: Even a small spindle,

a small fork used for spinning gold,

belonging to hekdesh requires

an assessment by

ten people

in order

to redeem it,

whereas the tanna of the Mishna maintains that three suffice.

Ten mentions of a koen are written in the passage concerning the redemption of hekdesh.

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

In the passage concerning valuations, the word “koen” appears three times [verse 8]: “And if he is too poor for your valuation, then he shall be presented before the koen, and the koen shall assess him; according to what the hand of the one who vowed can afford, the koen shall assess him.”

In the passage concerning the redemption of an animal [including other movable property], the word appears another three times [verse 11]: “And he shall present the animal before the koen.” [Verse 12]: “And the koen shall assess it, whether good or bad; as you, the koen, assess it, so shall it be.”

In the passage concerning the redemption of houses and land, the word appears four times [verse 14]: “And when a man consecrates his house as holy to the Lord, the koen shall assess it, whether good or bad; as the koen assesses it, so shall it stand.” [Verse 18]: “And the koen shall calculate for him.” [Verse 23]: “And the koen shall calculate for him.”

The Sages expounded that the Torah repeated the expression concerning the assessment by kohanim ten times, to teach us that the redemption of land requires ten appraisers.

They further expounded that they need not specifically be kohanim; Israelites also suffice.

The Gemara now explains the reason of the tanna of our Mishna, who maintains that the redemption of an animal or utensils is sufficiently performed with three.

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: Granted, according to Rabbi

Eliezer ben Yaakov,

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

that he says in accordance with

the statement of

Shmuel. For Shmuel said: Ten kohanim 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 do they derive that the redemption of hekdesh requires “three”?

And if you would say

that they derive it because

it is written concerning them,

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

three,

as the word “koen” appears only three times in that passage, there is a difficulty:

With regard to land,

as it is written concerning it,

in the passage concerning land,

four

kohanim,

four should suffice,

meaning that the law should be that four appraisers suffice.

And if you would say

that they maintain:

That is also so,

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

Why then

did we learn

that the tanna teaches:

For land, nine and

the tenth is

a koen,

when only four are mentioned concerning it?

Rather, what

must you say? You must explain that land requires ten because

ten are completed in it,

as in this final passage concerning land the Torah completes the number by writing ten mentions of “koen,” counting also the “kohanim” stated in the passages concerning valuations and the animal. If so, the difficulty returns:

Hekdesh—

six are completed in it

since this passage is completed with six mentions of “koen”; six are written up to this point,

six should be required,

so that six appraisers should be necessary. What is the reason that the tanna distinguishes between hekdesh, for which three suffice, and land, for which ten are required?

The matter is difficult.

Abaye did not answer.

We learned in our Mishna:

Movable property of valuations [is assessed] by three.

The Gemara explains: What is meant by “movable property of valuations”? It certainly does not refer to the law of valuations, when one says, “My valuation is upon me,” or, “The valuation of so-and-so is upon me,” since the law of valuations applies only to a person. Nor is an assessment required in that case, since the Torah established the value according to the age of the person being valued.

What?

What is the meaning of

“movable property of valuations”?

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 Temple maintenance. Although his words have no meaning, since valuations apply only to a person, nevertheless, the sanctity of Temple maintenance takes effect upon the utensil, and he must pay the value of the utensil for Temple maintenance. When he comes to have it assessed, an assessment by three is required.

For Rav Giddel said that Rav said: