## Sanhedrin Daf 15a

###### Sanhedrin 15a:1
[Sanhedrin 15a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/15a:1)

הָאוֹמֵר: ״עֵרֶךְ כְּלִי זֶה עָלַי״ – נוֹתֵן דָּמָיו. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָדָם יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאֵין עֵרֶךְ לִכְלִי, וְגָמַר וְאָמַר לְשׁוּם דָּמִים. מִשּׁוּם הָכִי נוֹתֵן דָּמָיו. הַאי ״עֲרָכִין הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין״? ״עֲרָכִין שֶׁל מִטַּלְטְלִין״ מִבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ! תְּנִי: עֲרָכִין שֶׁל מִטַּלְטְלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to **one who says: The valuation of this utensil is** incumbent **upon me** to donate, he must **give** the monetary **value of** the utensil to the Temple treasury. **What is the reason** for this *halakha*? **A person knows that a utensil has no valuation,** i.e., that the term valuation is not relevant to a utensil, **and** therefore it must be that he **decided** to donate money **and says** this expression as a reference **to** its monetary **value,** using the term imprecisely. **Due to that** reason, **he gives its** monetary **value.** The Gemara challenges: According to this explanation, **this** term: **Valuations that are movable property,** is not precise; the *tanna* **should have** used the term: **Valuations of movable property.** The Gemara answers: Emend the statement and **teach: Valuations of movable property.**


###### Sanhedrin 15a:2
[Sanhedrin 15a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/15a:2)

רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר אֲבִימִי: בְּמַתְפִּיס מִטַּלְטְלִין לַעֲרָכִין. הַאי ״עֲרָכִין הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין״? ״מִטַּלְטְלִין שֶׁל עֲרָכִין״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! תְּנִי: מִטַּלְטְלִין שֶׁל עֲרָכִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ḥisda** says that **Avimi says** a different explanation: Rav’s statement is discussing **one who associates** the object of his vow with **movable property for the valuation.** In other words, he took a vow to pay a valuation, and did not have actual money to pay the vow, so he consecrates movable property for this purpose. This property is then appraised by three experts. The Gemara challenges: According to this explanation, **this** term: **Valuations that are movable property,** is not precise; the *tanna* **should have** used the term: **Movable property of valuations.** The Gemara answers: Emend the statement and **teach: Movable property of valuations.**


###### Sanhedrin 15a:3
[Sanhedrin 15a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/15a:3)

רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר: בְּאוֹמֵר ״עֶרְכִּי עָלַי״, בָּא כֹּהֵן לִגְבּוֹת מִמֶּנּוּ מִטַּלְטְלִין – בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה, קַרְקָעוֹת – בַּעֲשָׂרָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא מִדִּיפְתִּי לְרָבִינָא: בִּשְׁלָמָא לְאַפּוֹקֵי מֵהֶקְדֵּשׁ בָּעֵינַן שְׁלֹשָׁה, אֶלָּא לְעַיּוֹלֵי לְהֶקְדֵּשׁ שְׁלֹשָׁה לְמָה לִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Abbahu says:** Rav’s statement is discussing a case of **one who says: My** monetary **valuation is** incumbent **upon me** to donate. If the **priest came to collect movable property from him** to pay the vow, it must be evaluated **by three** experts, and if he came to collect **land** it must be evaluated **by ten. Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina: Granted, to take out** property **from consecration** by redeeming it **we require** a panel of **three** experts, because if an error is made in the calculation, this will lead to the sin of misuse of consecrated property. **But to elevate** property **to** the status of **consecration, why do I** need **three** judges?


###### Sanhedrin 15a:4
[Sanhedrin 15a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/15a:4)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: סְבָרָא הוּא, מָה לִי עַיּוֹלֵי, מָה לִי אַפּוֹקֵי? אַפּוֹקֵי מַאי טַעְמָא: דִילְמָא טָעֵי. עַיּוֹלֵי נָמֵי דִּילְמָא טָעֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Ravina **said to him:** This **is** based on **logical reasoning: What** difference is it **to me** if he is **elevating** the property to consecration, and **what** difference is it **to me** if he is **removing** it? If he is **removing** it, **what is the reason** a court is needed? It is because **perhaps he will err** and set a price that is too low. When he is **elevating** it to consecration there is **also** a concern that **perhaps he will err** and cause a loss for the Temple treasury.


###### Sanhedrin 15a:5
[Sanhedrin 15a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/15a:5)

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר כּוּ׳. אָמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי: בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב ״כֹּהֵן״. אֶלָּא לְרַבָּנַן, ״כֹּהֵן״ לְמָה לְהוּ? קַשְׁיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that **Rabbi Yehuda says** that when calculating the valuation of consecrated property, one of the people consulted must be a priest. **Rav Pappa said to Abaye: Granted, according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda,** this is understandable, **as it is written** in the Torah portion about redeeming consecrated property: **“Priest”** (see, e.g., Leviticus 27:14). **But according to** the opinion of **the Rabbis,** who say that any person is fit for this, **why do they** need the word **“priest”?** The Gemara concludes: Indeed, the matter is **difficult.**


###### Sanhedrin 15a:6
[Sanhedrin 15a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/15a:6)

הַקַּרְקָעוֹת תִּשְׁעָה וְכֹהֵן. מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: עֲשָׂרָה כֹּהֲנִים כְּתוּבִין בַּפָּרָשָׁה, חַד לְגוּפֵיהּ, הָנָךְ הָוֵי מִיעוּט אַחַר מִיעוּט, וְאֵין מִיעוּט אַחַר מִיעוּט אֶלָּא לְרַבּוֹת, דַּאֲפִילּוּ תִּשְׁעָה יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֶחָד כֹּהֵן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that valuations of consecrated **land** are to be made by **nine** judges **and** one **priest.** The Gemara asks: **From where is this matter** derived? **Shmuel says: Priests are written in** this Torah **portion ten** times (Leviticus, chapter 27). **One** instance of the word “priest” is **for** the matter **itself,** i.e., to teach that there is a need for a priest. **These** other instances of the word **are a restrictive expression following a restrictive expression,** as every additional instance of “priest” is a restrictive term. **And** there is a hermeneutical principle that **a restrictive expression following a restrictive expression** serves **only to amplify** and include other matters, in this case teaching **that even nine Israelites and one priest** may perform the valuation.


###### Sanhedrin 15a:7
[Sanhedrin 15a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/15a:7)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נָתָן: אֵימָא, חֲמִשָּׁה כֹּהֲנִים וַחֲמִשָּׁה יִשְׂרְאֵלִים? קַשְׁיָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, objects to this** explanation: According to the principle that a restrictive expression following a restrictive expression serves only to amplify, **say** that the procedure should require **five priests and five Israelites,** as the first incidence of the word “priest” indicates an actual priest, the second time the term serves to amplify and teach that even an Israelite is fitting, and then the third time it again indicates specifically a priest. According to this analysis, the final result would require five priests and five Israelites. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it poses **a difficulty.**


###### Sanhedrin 15a:8
[Sanhedrin 15a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/15a:8)

וְאָדָם כְּיוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. אָדָם מִי קָדוֹשׁ? אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: בְּאוֹמֵר ״דָּמַי עָלַי״. דְּתַנְיָא: הָאוֹמֵר ״דָּמַי עָלַי״ – שָׁמִין אוֹתוֹ כְּעֶבֶד הַנִּמְכָּר בַּשּׁוּק. וְעֶבֶד אִתַּקַּשׁ לְקַרְקָעוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that just as the valuation of consecrated land is performed by nine judges and one priest, the valuation of **a person** for the purpose of a vow is performed **in a similar manner.** The Gemara asks: **Can a person be consecrated?** It is not possible to consecrate a person, and therefore it is unclear what sort of valuation would be necessary. **Rabbi Abbahu says:** The mishna is referring to one **who says: My monetary value** is incumbent **upon me** to donate to the Temple treasury. **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to **one who says: My monetary value** is incumbent **upon me,** the court **appraises him as a slave who is sold in the market,** and the price that would be paid for him as a slave is the amount he must give to the Temple treasury. **And** as **a slave is compared to land** with regard to *halakhot* of transactions, the valuation is performed by a panel of nine experts and a priest, as is done when land is appraised.


###### Sanhedrin 15a:9
[Sanhedrin 15a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/15a:9)

בָּעֵי רַבִּי אָבִין: שֵׂעָר הָעוֹמֵד לְיִגָּזֵז, בְּכַמָּה? כְּגָזוּז דָּמֵי, וּבִשְׁלֹשָׁה? אוֹ כִּמְחוּבָּר דָּמֵי, וּבַעֲשָׂרָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Avin raises a dilemma:** With regard to a person’s **hair** that was consecrated and **which is ready to be shorn, by how many** judges is the appraisal made? Is such hair deemed **similar to** hair that has already been **shorn, and** accordingly it is appraised like other movable property, i.e., **by three** judges, **or** is it considered **as** hair still **attached** to the body **and** accordingly appraised **by ten** judges?


###### Sanhedrin 15a:10
[Sanhedrin 15a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/15a:10)

תָּא שְׁמַע: הַמַּקְדִּישׁ אֶת עַבְדּוֹ – אֵין מוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: מוֹעֲלִין בִּשְׂעָרוֹ. וְקַיְימָא לַן דְּבִשְׂעָרוֹ הָעוֹמֵד לִיגָּזֵז פְּלִיגִי. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a resolution of the dilemma from a *baraita*: Concerning **one who consecrates his slave,** a person who derives benefit from the slave is **not** liable for **misuse** of consecrated property, since the slave’s body does not become consecrated. **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:** One who derives benefit **from** the slave’s **hair** is liable for **misuse** of consecrated property. **And we maintain that** it is **with regard to hair that is ready to be shorn** that **they disagree.** The Gemara concludes: **Learn from** here that the question of whether such hair is viewed as already shorn is a dispute between *tanna’im*.


###### Sanhedrin 15a:11
[Sanhedrin 15a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/15a:11)

נֵימָא: הָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי כְּהָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי. דִּתְנַן, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: יֵשׁ דְּבָרִים שֶׁהֵן כַּקַּרְקַע וְאֵינָן כַּקַּרְקַע, וְאֵין חֲכָמִים מוֹדִים לוֹ. כֵּיצַד? עֶשֶׂר גְּפָנִים טְעוּנוֹת מָסַרְתִּי לָךְ, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר: אֵינָן אֶלָּא חָמֵשׁ – רַבִּי מֵאִיר מְחַיֵּיב, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: כׇּל הַמְחוּבָּר לַקַּרְקַע הֲרֵי הוּא כַּקַּרְקַע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Let us say** that the opinion of **these *tanna’im* is like** the opinion of **those *tanna’im*. As we learned** in a mishna (*Shevuot* 42b): **Rabbi Meir says: There are entities that are like land** in one aspect, **and are not like land** in other aspects; **and the Rabbis do not concede to him. How** so? If one said to another: **I gave you ten vines laden** with grapes and I want to receive their value, **and the other says: There were only five, Rabbi Meir deems** the defendant **liable** to take an oath, in accordance with the *halakha* concerning one who admits to part of a claim. **And the Rabbis say: Any** item **that is attached to the land is** viewed **as the land** itself, and the *halakha* is that there is no oath in cases of claims with regard to land.


###### Sanhedrin 15a:12
[Sanhedrin 15a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/15a:12)

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא: בַּעֲנָבִים הָעוֹמְדוֹת לִיבָּצֵר עָסְקִינַן. מָר סָבַר: כִּבְצוּרוֹת דָּמְיָין, וּמָר סָבַר: לָאו כִּבְצוּרוֹת דָּמְיָין. לָא, אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר. עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר הָתָם, (כֹּל) כַּמָּה דְּשָׁבְקַתְּ לְהוּ מִיכְחָשׁ כָּחֲשִׁי. אֲבָל שְׂעָרוֹ, (כֹּל) כַּמָּה דְּשָׁבְקַתְּ לְהוּ אַשְׁבּוֹחֵי מַשְׁבַּח.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina says:** In this mishna, **we are dealing with grapes that are ready to be picked.** One **Sage,** Rabbi Meir, **holds** they **are considered as** grapes that have been **picked,** i.e., movable property, **and** one **Sage,** the Rabbis, **holds** they **are not considered as** grapes that have been **picked.** This suggestion is rejected: **No,** this cannot be proven from here, as **you** may **even say** that the opinion of the Rabbis with regard to the hair is similar to the opinion of **Rabbi Meir** in the mishna. **Only there,** with regard to the vines, **Rabbi Meir says** that they are viewed as already picked, because **the more** he **leaves them** on the vine, the more they **become lean** and deteriorate. Consequently, the grapes are viewed as picked. **But** in the case of **his hair, the more he leaves it** on his head the more it **improves,** as longer hair has a greater value. Consequently, it cannot be said that hair that is ready to be shorn is viewed as already shorn.


###### Sanhedrin 15a:13
[Sanhedrin 15a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/15a:13)

דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת כּוּ׳. קָא פָּסֵיק וְתָנֵי, לָא שְׁנָא רוֹבֵעַ זָכָר וְלָא שְׁנָא רוֹבֵעַ נְקֵבָה. בִּשְׁלָמָא רוֹבֵעַ נְקֵבָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהָרַגְתָּ אֶת הָאִשָּׁה וְאֶת הַבְּהֵמָה״. אֶלָּא רוֹבֵעַ זָכָר, מְנָא לַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that cases of **capital law** are judged by twenty-three judges, and that an animal that copulated with a person is also judged by twenty-three judges. The Gemara comments: The mishna **categorically teaches** this *halakha*, indicating that **there is no difference** if this was an ox **that copulated with a male, and there is no difference** if it was an ox **that copulated with a female.** The Gemara asks: **Granted,** the source for this *halakha* is clear in the case where **it copulated with a female, as it is written** explicitly: “And if a woman approaches any animal and lies down with it, **you shall kill the woman and the animal”** (Leviticus 20:16). **But** with regard to an ox **that copulated with a male, from where do we** derive that the animal is to be killed?


###### Sanhedrin 15a:14
[Sanhedrin 15a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/15a:14)

דִּכְתִיב: ״כׇּל שֹׁכֵב עִם בְּהֵמָה מוֹת יוּמָת״. אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לְשׁוֹכֵב, תְּנֵיהוּ עִנְיָן לְנִשְׁכָּב. וְאַפְּקֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא בִּלְשׁוֹן שׁוֹכֵב, לְאַקּוֹשֵׁי נִשְׁכָּב לְשׁוֹכֵב: מָה שׁוֹכֵב – הוּא וּבְהֶמְתּוֹ בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה, אַף נִשְׁכָּב – הוּא וּבְהֶמְתּוֹ בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **As it is written: “Whoever lies with an animal shall be put to death”** (Exodus 22:18). **If** this verse **is not** needed for the **matter of the one who** actively **lies** with the animal, i.e., a male who sexually penetrates the animal, **apply it** to the **matter of the one who** causes the animal to **lie with** him, by being penetrated by the animal. There is another verse (Leviticus 20:15) that explicitly addresses a man penetrating the animal sexually; this verse from Exodus is therefore understood to be referring to the case where he causes the animal to penetrate him. **And the Merciful One brought** this **forth** using **the** active **term “lies,” to compare one who** causes the animal to **lie with** him **to one who** actively **lies** with the animal, in order to teach that **just as** in a case of **one who lies** with an animal, **he and his animal are** to be judged **by twenty-three** judges, **so too,** in the case of **one who** causes an animal to **lie with** him, **he and his animal** are to be judged **by twenty-three** judges.


###### Sanhedrin 15a:15
[Sanhedrin 15a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/15a:15)

שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הַשּׁוֹר יִסָּקֵל וְגַם בְּעָלָיו יוּמָת״. כְּמִיתַת הַבְּעָלִים כָּךְ מִיתַת הַשּׁוֹר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרָבָא: מִמַּאי דְּהַאי ״וְגַם בְּעָלָיו יוּמָת״ לִכְמִיתַת בְּעָלִים כָּךְ מִיתַת הַשּׁוֹר הוּא דַּאֲתָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that **an ox that is** to be **stoned** is judged **by twenty-three** judges, **as it is stated: “The ox shall be stoned and also its owner shall be put to death”** (Exodus 21:29). From this verse it is derived that just **as** the manner of **the death of the owner, so is** the manner of **the death of the ox.** Consequently, it follows that twenty-three judges are necessary to adjudicate the case of the ox that is to be stoned. **Abaye said to Rava: From where** do we know **that this** phrase: **“And also its owner shall be put to death,” comes to** teach **that** just **as** the manner of **the death of the owner, so is** the manner of **the death of the ox?**