תלמוד בבלי

1by not mentioning gentiles, the mishna teaches us another matter in passing, in accordance with the statement that Rav Yehuda says that Rav says. As Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: It is prohibited for a person to say: How beautiful is this gentile.

2The Gemara asks: But if this is the only reason that a gentile is not mentioned, let the mishna teach: In the case of one who took a vow of valuation to donate the fixed value of the most attractive among the Jewish people and the most unsightly among the gentiles, he gives the fixed payment of fifty sela to the Temple treasury. The Gemara answers: The tanna prefers to deal with one nation, i.e., Jews, and does not wish to deal with two nations, Jews and gentiles.

3The Gemara challenges this answer: And does the mishna not deal with two nations? But isn’t it taught in a mishna (14b): One who raped or seduced a young woman, whether she is the most prominent in the priesthood or the lowliest among the Israelites, gives the payment of fifty sela , the fine stated in the Torah. Priests and Israelites are two distinct groups of people, analogous to Jews and gentiles. The Gemara answers: In that mishna there it is one nation, as although there are two groups they are both part of the Jewish people. It is only that the priests have greater sanctity than Israelites.

4And if you wish, say instead that since the mishna wants to teach the case of an ancestral field in the latter clause, which you find in the case of Jews, but you do not find with regard to gentiles, as they are unfit to have ancestral land in Eretz Yisrael, it is due to this reason that the mishna teaches only cases that involve the Jewish people.

5MISHNA: There are halakhot with regard to an ancestral field that are lenient and others that are stringent. How so? Both one who consecrates an ancestral field in the low-quality sands of the areas surrounding the city and one who consecrates the high-quality orchards of Sebastia gives a redemption payment of fifty silver shekels for every area that he consecrated that is fit for sowing a kor of barley (Leviticus 27:16). And with regard to a purchased field that one consecrates, he gives its value as redemption, a sum that can be more or less than fifty shekels for every area required for sowing one kor of barley.

6Rabbi Eliezer says: With regard to both a purchased field and an ancestral field, one gives a redemption payment of fifty silver shekels for every area required for sowing a kor of barley that he consecrated. What, then, is the difference between an ancestral field and a purchased field? The difference is that in the case of an ancestral field one gives an additional payment of one-fifth, but in the case of a purchased field one does not give an additional payment of one-fifth.

7GEMARA: Rav Huna says: In a case where one consecrated a field full of trees, when he redeems the trees and field, he redeems the trees according to their value, and then redeems the land according to the fixed formula, by which an area required for the sowing of a kor of barley seed is redeemed for fifty silver shekels. The Gemara notes that evidently Rav Huna holds that when a person consecrates, he consecrates generously. In this case he consecrated the trees and the land separately, so that he would have to redeem them each separately, rather than the trees being redeemed as part of the land.

8Rav Naḥman raised an objection to Rav Huna from the mishna: Both one who consecrates an ancestral field in the low-quality sands of the areas surrounding the city and one who consecrates the high-quality orchards of Sebastia gives a redemption payment of fifty silver shekels for every area required for sowing a kor of barley that he consecrated. This indicates that when one consecrates orchards he does not redeem the land and the trees separately. Rav Huna said to Rav Naḥman: The mishna is speaking of land that is suitable for orchards but does not actually have trees planted on it.

9Rav Naḥman raised another objection to Rav Huna from a baraita : When discussing a consecrated ancestral field the Torah states: “An area fit for sowing” (Leviticus 27:16). I have derived only an area fit for sowing; from where do I derive that the same is true for a field of vines and a field of reeds and a field of trees?

10The verse states: “And if a man shall consecrate to the Lord part of the field of his possession, then your valuation shall be according to an area fit for sowing; the sowing of a ḥomer of barley shall be valued at fifty silver shekels” (Leviticus 27:16). The word “field” teaches that this halakha applies in any case, regardless of the type of field. It can be inferred from here that if one consecrates an orchard, the redemption of the trees is not valued separately from the land. Rav Huna said to Rav Naḥman: Here too, the baraita means that he first redeems the trees and afterward redeems the field, according to the formula of the Torah.

11Rav Naḥman again raised an objection to Rav Huna from a baraita : If one consecrated three trees in a field where ten trees are planted in an area required for sowing one se’a of seed [ beit se’a ], he has consecrated not only those trees, but also the land and the young trees between them. Therefore, if this is his ancestral field, when he redeems it, he redeems the land and everything contained within it according to the standard rate established by the Torah, where an area required for the sowing of a kor of barley seed is redeemed for fifty silver shekels.

12But if the ratio of land to trees was less than that, i.e., the trees were planted more densely, or if the ratio of land to trees was more than that, i.e., the trees were planted less densely, or if he consecrated each of the trees separately, one after the other, this person has consecrated neither the land nor the young trees between them. Therefore, when he redeems, he redeems the trees in accordance with their worth.

13And moreover, even if one consecrated its trees when they are planted more densely, or less densely, or one after the other, and then afterward he consecrated the land, so that at this point everything belongs to the Temple treasury, when he redeems them, he redeems the trees separately in accordance with their worth, and afterward he redeems the land according to the standard rate, where an area required for the sowing of a ḥomer , i.e., a kor , of barley seed is redeemed for fifty silver shekels.

14The Gemara explains the objection: And if you would say that here too, in the first part of the baraita , it means that he redeems the field and afterward redeems the trees, from the fact that the latter clause of the baraita states that he redeems and afterward redeems, by inference the first clause is not referring to a case where he redeems the field and afterward redeems the trees.

1The verse states with regard to a purchased field: “And if he sanctifies to the Lord a field that he has bought, which is not of his ancestral field” (Leviticus 27:22). The verse is referring specifically to a field that is not an ancestral field at the time of its consecration. This requirement excludes this field, as currently, after the death of the father, it is an ancestral field.

2The Gemara analyzes the baraita . That is the opinion of Rabbi Meir, whereas according to Rabbi Yehuda and according to Rabbi Shimon it is considered an ancestral field even if he consecrated the field and afterward his father dies. What is the reason for this opinion? If you suggest it is due to the verse, that cannot be, as the verse comes to teach the halakha that was stated in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, i.e., it is referring to a case where the father died before he consecrated the field, as Rabbi Meir explained.

3Rather, is it not due to the fact that he follows the status of the field at the time of the redemption? Since the father died before the son redeemed the field it is considered an ancestral field in the possession of the Temple treasury. Similarly, if one first consecrates the trees and afterward the field, he should redeem them both together, since at the time of the redemption they are both consecrated. Since this ruling is not in accordance with the baraita that states that the trees and field are redeemed separately, evidently the baraita cannot be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

4Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said that this source does not contradict Rav Huna’s claim that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. The reason is that Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon do not, in fact, maintain that one follows the status of the field at the time of the redemption. Rather, they found a verse and expounded it.

5Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak explains Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon’s reasoning: If so, that when one consecrated the field and his father died afterward, it is not considered an ancestral field, let the Merciful One write in the Torah: And if he sanctifies to the Lord a field that he has bought, which is not his ancestral, i.e., the verse could have omitted the repetition of the phrase “of his field.” What does the Torah mean by stressing “of his field”? This teaches that only a field that is not fit to be an ancestral field at the time he consecrated it is redeemed for its value. But if he consecrated a field that he would inherit in the future, it is redeemed in the manner of an ancestral field.

6§ Rav Pappa says: If one consecrated fields that are rocky [ terashin ] and unsuitable for planting, he redeems them by their value, not as ancestral fields. The Gemara asks: What is the reason? The Merciful One states that one redeems an area fit for sowing of a ḥomer of barley seed for fifty silver shekels (see Leviticus 27:16), and these fields are not fit for sowing.

7But if he did not redeem these fields before the Jubilee Year, they go to the priests in the Jubilee Year, like ancestral fields. What is the reason? The Merciful One states: “And if he will not redeem the field, or if he has sold the field to another man, it shall not be redeemed anymore. But the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee, shall be holy to the Lord, as a field devoted; it shall belong to the priest” (Leviticus 27:20–21). This indicates that any kind of ancestral field at all, regardless of quality, goes to the priests if it is not redeemed by the Jubilee Year.

8Furthermore, Rav Pappa says: If one sold fields that are rocky and unsuitable for planting, they may be redeemed from the purchaser in even less than two years, despite the fact that normally land must be left in the hands of the purchaser for at least two years (see 29b), as derived from the plural term “years of the crops” cited below. What is the reason? The Merciful One states: “According to the number of years after the Jubilee you shall buy from your neighbor, and according to the number of years of the crops he shall sell it to you” (Leviticus 25:15), and these rocky fields are not fit for crops. But if he did not redeem them from the purchaser, they return to the owner in the Jubilee Year, like ancestral fields. What is the reason? The Merciful One states: “Then let him count the years of its sale, and restore the extra to the man to whom he sold it; and it shall return to its ancestral heritage” (Leviticus 25:27), and this rocky field is also part of his ancestral heritage.

9Rav Pappa further says: If one consecrated trees in his ancestral field, he redeems them according to their value. What is the reason? The Merciful One states that one redeems an area fit for sowing of a ḥomer of barley seed for fifty silver shekels. This is referring specifically to land fit for sowing grain, and not trees. Furthermore, if he did not redeem the trees, they do not go to the priests in the Jubilee Year, unlike an ancestral field. The reason is that the Merciful One states: “But the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee, shall be holy to the Lord, as a field devoted; it shall belong to the priest” (Leviticus 27:21). This too is referring specifically to a field, and not trees.

10Rav Pappa also says: If one sold trees of his ancestral field, they may not be redeemed from the purchaser if less than two years passed. What is the reason? The Merciful One states: “According to the number of years after the Jubilee you shall buy it from your neighbor, and according to the number of years of the crops he shall sell it to you” (Leviticus 25:15), and these trees are fit for crops, as they produce fruit. But if he did not redeem them from the purchaser, the trees do not return to the owner in the Jubilee Year. What is the reason? The Merciful One states: “Then let him count the years of its sale, and restore the extra to the man to whom he sold it; and it shall return to its ancestral heritage” (Leviticus 25:27). This includes only land, which remains forever, and not trees, which have a limited lifespan.

11The Gemara asks: The Master, i.e., Rav Pappa, says that if one consecrated trees in his ancestral field he redeems them according to their value. The Gemara asks: Why is that so? But let them be consecrated on account of their land and let them be redeemed on account of their land, according to the valuation of fifty silver shekels for each area required for sowing a kor of barley seed.

12And if you would say that he consecrated the trees and did not consecrate land, but didn’t the Sages of Neharde’a say: If one sells a date palm to another, the purchaser acquires it from the bottom of the palm until the depths of the earth, i.e., including its land. The Gemara answers: Wasn’t it stated with regard to this ruling that it is referring only to a case where the purchaser comes due to a specific claim that he purchased the land under the date palm. But if he does not claim to have explicitly purchased the land, the seller or the one who consecrates does not intend to include land with the date palm.

13§ The mishna teaches: And with regard to a purchased field that one consecrates, he gives its value as redemption, a sum that can be more or less than fifty silver shekels for an area required for the sowing of a kor of barley seed. The Sages taught in a baraita : The verse states: “Then the priest shall reckon for him the worth of your valuation until the Jubilee Year; and he shall give your valuation in that day, as a holy thing to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:23). What does this word “worth” come to teach? Since it is stated with regard to an ancestral field: “An area fit for the sowing of a ḥomer of barley seed is redeemed for fifty silver shekels” (Leviticus 27:16), one might have thought that a purchased field is also redeemed using this formula. Therefore, the verse states “worth,” which means the market value of the field.

14Rabbi Eliezer says: It is stated here, with regard to purchased fields: “Then the priest shall reckon for him the worth of your valuation until the Jubilee Year; and he shall give your valuation in that day, as a holy thing to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:23). And it is stated there, with regard to an ancestral field: “But if he sanctifies his field after the Jubilee, then the priest shall reckon for him the money according to the years that remain until the Jubilee Year, and it shall be deducted from your valuation” (Leviticus 27:18). Just as there, in the case of an ancestral field, it is referring to a fixed amount, so too here, with regard to a purchased field, it means a fixed amount.

1Had two men engaged in forced intercourse with her, one in an atypical manner, i.e., anal intercourse, leaving her hymen untouched, and one in a typical manner, vaginal intercourse, in which case the second man pays the fine, people will say: Does it make sense that one who engaged in forced intercourse with a tainted woman, who has had anal intercourse, pays fifty sela , and one who engaged in forced intercourse with an untainted virgin also pays fifty sela ? Apparently, the fifty sela is the fixed sum of the fine, while the rest of the payment varies on a case-by-case basis.

2Abaye again said to Rav Zeira: If so, the same claim can be applied with regard to a slave who is killed by an ox. People will say: Does it make sense that a healthy slave is worth thirty sela and a slave afflicted with boils is also worth thirty sela ? Yet the mishna clearly indicates that there is no distinction, as the Torah states a fixed amount.

3Rather, Abaye said that the reason the payment of fifty sela does not cover all forms of damage is that the verse states: “Then the man that lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty silver shekels, and she shall be his wife, because he tormented her; he may not send her away all his days” (Deuteronomy 22:29). This means that the payment is only for the torment, i.e., the rape. It may be inferred that there are additional payments for humiliation and degradation, beyond payment of the fine.

4Rava says a different answer, that the verse states: “Then the man that lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty silver shekels” (Deuteronomy 22:29). Rava infers from here that payment for the pleasure of lying with the woman is fifty shekel. It may be inferred from here that there are other matters that must be paid by the rapist. And what are they? Compensation for humiliation and degradation.

5MISHNA: There are halakhot with regard to a defamer, who falsely claims that his bride was not a virgin, that are lenient and others that are stringent. How so? Both one who defamed a young woman who is the most prominent in the priesthood and one who defamed a young woman who is the lowliest among the Israelites gives payment of one hundred sela , the fine stated in the Torah (Deuteronomy 22:19).

6Based on the relative scope of the fines, with the defamer paying twice the sum of the rapist and the seducer, it is apparent that one who utters malicious speech with his mouth is a more severe transgressor than one who performs an action. And this is corroborated, as we found that the sentence imposed on our ancestors in the wilderness was sealed only due to the malicious speech disseminated by the spies, as it is stated at that time: “All those men that have seen My glory, and My signs, which I wrought in Egypt and in the wilderness, yet they have tried Me these ten times and have not listened to My voice” (Numbers 14:22).

7GEMARA: The mishna teaches that one who utters malicious speech with his mouth is a more severe sinner than one who performs an action. The Gemara asks: From where is this proven? Perhaps the punishment for the one who defames is more severe because the defamation has the potential to cause his wife’s death. As it is written: “But if this thing be true, that the signs of virginity were not found in the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die” (Deuteronomy 22:20–21).

8Rava said that the verse states: “And they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the young woman, because he has defamed a virgin of Israel; and she shall be his wife; he may not send her away all his days” (Deuteronomy 22:19). This indicates that he is punished severely for his words, for the defamation, not because she might be put to death.

9§ The mishna teaches: As we found that the sentence imposed on our ancestors in the wilderness was sealed only due to the malicious speech disseminated by the spies. The Gemara asks: From where is known that their punishment was due to the malicious speech of the spies? Perhaps until that time their se’a , the measure of their sins warranting punishment, was not yet filled, as Rav Hamnuna says: The Holy One, Blessed be He, does not punish a person until his se’a is filled, as it is stated: “In the fullness of his sufficiency he shall be in straits” (Job 20:22). In other words, one is punished only when he has committed a sufficient number of sins, and the malicious speech of the spies was simply the last of a series of transgressions.

10Reish Lakish said that the verse states: “All those men who have seen My glory, and My signs, which I wrought in Egypt and in the wilderness, yet they have tried Me now [ zeh ] ten times and have not listened to My voice” (Numbers 14:22). The extra word “now [ zeh ]” teaches that their sentence was sealed for this specific sin, i.e., the malicious speech of the spies.

11It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar ben Perata says: Come and see how great the power of malicious speech is. From where do we derive this? From the punishment received by the spies. And if one who defames the wood and rocks of Eretz Yisrael received such a severe punishment, then with regard to one who defames another person, all the more so will he be punished severely.

12The Gemara asks: From where is it known that the punishment of the spies was for malicious speech? Perhaps their punishment was due to the sin explained by Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa. As Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa says: The spies uttered a great statement of blasphemy at that time. As it is written: “But the men that went up with him said: We are not able to go up against the people; for they are stronger than us [ mimmennu ]” (Numbers 13:31). Do not read this as “for they are stronger than us [ mimmennu ]” but rather read it as: For they are stronger than Him [ mimmennu ]. i.e., stronger than God. They were saying, as it were, that the owner, i.e., God, cannot remove His utensils, the inhabitants of Eretz Yisrael, from there. If so, one can explain that the spies were punished for their blasphemy rather than for their malicious speech.

13Rather, Rabba says that Reish Lakish says that the verse states: “Those men that brought up an evil report of the land died by the plague before the Lord” (Numbers 14:37). This teaches that they were punished not for their blasphemy but for the evil report of the land that they brought.

14It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: Our ancestors tried the Holy One, Blessed be He with ten trials: Two at the sea, and two with water, two with the manna, two with the quail, one with the golden calf, and one in the wilderness of Paran.

1Do not go out, as indicated in the verse: “And Moses said: Eat that today; for today is a Sabbath for the Lord; today you will not find it in the field” (Exodus 16:25). But nevertheless there were people who went out to look for manna, as it is written: “And it came to pass on the seventh day that some of the people went out to gather, and they found none” (Exodus 16:27). The verse also states: “And Moses said to them: Let no man leave any of it until the morning” (Exodus 16:19), and there were people who left it until morning, as it states: “But they did not listen to Moses; and some of them left of it until the morning, and it bred worms, and rotted; and Moses was angry with them” (Exodus 16:20).

2The Gemara continues its elucidation of the baraita : There were two trials relating to the quail, one was on the first occasion when the quail appeared, and the other on the second occasion the quail appeared. The Gemara clarifies: The trial of the first quail is described in the verse: “And the children of Israel said to them: Would that we had died by the hand of the Lord in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the meat pots, when we ate bread to the full; for you have brought us into this wilderness, to kill this whole assembly with hunger” (Exodus 16:3). Immediately afterward the quail arrived, as the verse states: “And it came to pass in the evening, that the quail came up, and covered the camp; and in the morning there was a layer of dew round about the camp” (Exodus 16:13).

3The second trial of the quail is described in the verse: “And the mixed multitude that was among them desired; and the children of Israel also wept on their part, and said: Would that we were given meat to eat” (Numbers 11:4). Later the verse states: “And there went forth a wind from the Lord, and brought across quails from the sea and let them fall by the camp, about a day’s journey on this side and a day’s journey on the other side, round about the camp, and about two cubits above the face of the earth” (Numbers 11:31).

4The Gemara concludes its detailing of the Jewish people’s ten trials of God: The trial of the golden calf is as it is described in the Torah (Exodus, chapter 32), and the trial in the wilderness of Paran is as it is described in the Torah (Numbers, chapter 13).

5§ The Gemara returns to the topic of malicious speech. Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Yosei ben Zimra: What is the meaning of that which is written: “What shall be given to you, and what more shall be done for you, you deceitful tongue” (Psalms 120:3)? The Holy One, Blessed be He said to the tongue: All the other limbs of a person are upright, but you are lying horizontally. All the other limbs of a person are external, but you are internal. And moreover, I have surrounded you with two walls, one of bone, i.e., the teeth, and one of flesh, the lips. What shall be given to you and what more shall be done for you, to prevent you from speaking in a deceitful manner, tongue?

6Furthermore, Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Yosei ben Zimra: Anyone who speaks malicious speech is considered as though he denied the fundamental belief in God. As it is stated: “Who have said: We will make our tongue mighty; our lips are with us: Who is lord over us” (Psalms 12:5).

7And Rabbi Yosei ben Zimra says: Anyone who speaks malicious speech will be afflicted by leprous marks coming upon him, as it is stated: “Whoever defames his neighbor in secret, I will destroy him [ atzmit ]; whoever is haughty of eye and proud of heart, I will not suffer him” (Psalms 101:5). And it is written there: “And the land shall not be sold in perpetuity [ letzmitut ]; for the land is Mine; for you are strangers and settlers with Me” (Leviticus 25:23). And we translate this term letzmitut as laḥalutin , in perpetuity or confirmed.

8Rabbi Yosei ben Zimra continues: And we learned in a mishna ( Megilla 8b): The difference between a quarantined leper, i.e., one examined by a priest who found his symptoms inconclusive, and who must therefore remain in isolation for a period of up to two weeks to see if conclusive symptoms develop, and a confirmed [ muḥlat ] leper, one whose symptoms were conclusive and the priest declared him a definite leper, is only with regard to letting the hair on one’s head grow wild and rending one’s garments. A confirmed leper is obligated to let the hair on his head grow wild and rend his garments; a quarantined leper is not. The similarity in the terms teaches that one who speaks malicious speech will be afflicted with leprous marks.

9Reish Lakish says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “This shall be the law of the leper [ metzora ] in the day of his cleansing: He shall be brought to the priest” (Leviticus 14:2)? This means that this shall be the law of a defamer [ motzi shem ra ].

10And Reish Lakish says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “If the serpent bites before it is charmed, then what advantage is there to the master of the tongue” (Ecclesiastes 10:11). What is the connection between the serpent and the master of the tongue? In the future, all the animals will gather and come to the serpent and will say to it: A lion tramples with its paws to kill its prey and eats; a wolf tears with its teeth to kill its prey and eats. But you, what benefit do you have when you bite, as you cannot eat every animal that you kill? The serpent will say to them: And what is the benefit to the master of the tongue that speaks malicious speech?

11And Reish Lakish says: Anyone who speaks malicious speech increases his sins until the heavens, as it is stated: “They have set their mouth against the heavens, and their tongue walks through the earth” (Psalms 73:9). In other words, while his tongue walks on the earth, his sin reaches the heavens.

12Rav Ḥisda says that Mar Ukva says: Anyone who speaks malicious speech, it is appropriate to stone him with stones. It is written here: “Whoever defames his neighbor in secret, I will destroy him [ atzmit ]” (Psalms 101:5), and it is written there: “They have destroyed [ tzamtu ] my life in the dungeon, and have cast stones upon me” (Lamentations 3:53).

13And Rav Ḥisda says that Mar Ukva says: With regard to anyone who speaks malicious speech, the Holy One, Blessed be He says about him: He and I cannot dwell together in the world. As it is stated in the verse: “Whoever slanders his neighbor in secret, I will destroy him; whoever is haughty of eye and proud of heart, I will not suffer him” (Psalms 101:5). Do not read the phrase as: “I will not suffer him [ oto ],” but as: With him [ ito ] I cannot bear to dwell. God is saying that He cannot bear having this person in the world with Him. And there are those who teach this notion of God’s not being able to tolerate a certain type of person in reference to the arrogant, i.e., they apply it to the last part of the verse: Proud of heart.

14Rav Ḥisda further says that Mar Ukva says: With regard to anyone who speaks malicious speech, the Holy One Blessed be He says about him to Gehenna: I will be on him from above, and you will be on him from below, and together we will judge him and punish him. As it is stated: “Sharp arrows of the mighty, with coals of broom” (Psalms 120:4), and the word “arrow” means nothing other than the tongue, as it is stated: “Their tongue is a sharpened arrow; it speaks deceit. One speaks peaceably to his neighbor with his mouth, but in his heart he lies in wait for him” (Jeremiah 9:7).

1i.e., Rabba bar Rav Huna says: Any matter that was said in the presence of three people does not have the status of malicious speech if one subsequently repeats it. What is the reason? The reason is that your friend has a friend, and your friend’s friend has a friend. Once the information has been stated in the presence of three people, it can be assumed that it will spread and become public knowledge, as each person will tell someone else.

2The Gemara continues its discussion of good and bad speech. When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “He that blesses his friend with a loud voice, rising early in the morning, it shall be counted a curse to him” (Proverbs 27:14)? For example, when one is invited to a host, and they look after him very well. The following day the guest goes out and sits in the marketplace and says: May the Merciful One bless so-and-so, as this is how well he looked after me. And all the people in the marketplace hear and go to this host and afflict him by expecting him to look after all of them in the same way, and he is compelled to spend his money on them. It turns out that the praise and blessing the guest lavished upon his host brought a curse upon him.

3Similarly, Rav Dimi, the brother of Rav Safra, teaches: A person should never speak about the goodness of another in the presence of others, as through speaking about his goodness he will come to speak about him in a derogatory manner, as he will eventually note the exceptions to his goodness, or his listeners will temper his praise by mentioning that individual’s bad qualities.

4There are those who say that Rav Dimi did not actually make this statement himself. Rather, the following incident occurred: Rav Dimi, the brother of Rav Safra, was ill. Rav Safra went in to inquire about his condition. Rav Dimi said to those present: I have blessing and merit coming to me, as I have fulfilled all of the statements that the Sages say. Rav Safra said to him: But have you fulfilled the instruction of the Sages that a person should never speak about the goodness of another in the presence of others, as through speaking about his goodness he will come to speak about him in a derogatory manner? Rav Dimi said to them: I never heard this statement of the Sages, but had I heard it, I would have fulfilled it.

5§ Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Leprous marks come and afflict a person for seven sinful matters: For malicious speech, for bloodshed, for an oath taken in vain, for forbidden sexual relations, for arrogance, for theft, and for stinginess.

6The Gemara explains the source for the claim that each of these seven sins is punishable with leprosy. For malicious speech one is punished, as it is written: “Whoever defames his neighbor in secret, I will destroy him; whoever is haughty of eye and proud of heart, I will not suffer him” (Psalms 101:5). The Gemara explained above (15b) that this is referring to leprosy.

7For bloodshed, as it is written about Joab, as punishment for murdering Abner: “A nd let there not fail from the house of Joab a zav , or a leper, or that leans on a staff, or that falls by the sword, or that lacks bread” (II Samuel 3:29).

8And for an oath taken in vain, as it is written: “And Naaman said: Be content [ ho’el ], take two talents. And he urged him, and bound two talents of silver in two bags, with two changes of garment, and laid them upon two of his servants; and they bore them before him” (II Kings 5:23). The Sages maintain that the term ho’el indicates an oath, and that Naaman requested of Gehazi, to whom this was stated, to take an oath that Elisha had sent him to accept gifts, which Elisha had not done, and Gehazi took the oath. When Elisha found out what Gehazi had done he cursed him, and so it is written: “The leprosy of Naaman shall stick to you and to your children forever. And he went out from his presence a leper as white as snow” (II Kings 5:27).

9And for forbidden sexual relations, as it is written: “And the Lord afflicted Pharaoh and his house with great afflictions because of Sarai, Abram’s wife” (Genesis 12:17).

10And for arrogance, as it is written with regard to King Uzziah: “But when he was strong his heart became arrogant so that he did corruptly, and he trespassed against the Lord his God; for he went into the temple of the Lord to burn incense upon the altar of incense” (II Chronicles 26:16). And it states: “Then Uzziah was angry; and he had a censer in his hand to burn incense; and while he was angry with the priests, the leprosy broke forth in his forehead” (II Chronicles 26:19).

11And for theft, as it is written: “And the priest shall command that they empty the house, before the priest go in to see the mark, that all that is in the house not become impure; and afterward the priest shall go in to see the house” (Leviticus 14:36). In explanation of this verse, the Sages taught: He gathered property that is not his, therefore let the priest come and scatter his property.

12And for stinginess, as it is written: “Then he that owns the house shall come and tell the priest, saying: There seems to me to be as it were a mark in the house” (Leviticus 14:35). And the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The verse calls him the one who owns the house because it is referring to one who was stingy and treated his house as being exclusively his, and did not allow others to share his property.

13The Gemara asks: Is that so? Doesn’t Rabbi Anani bar Sason say: Why was the passage in the Torah that discusses the priestly vestments (Leviticus 8) juxtaposed to the passage that discusses offerings (Leviticus, chapters 1–7)? To tell you that just as offerings atone, so too the priestly vestments atone. For what does each garment atone? The tunic [ ketonet ] atones for bloodshed, as it is written with regard to Joseph’s brothers after they plotted to kill him: “And they killed a goat, and dipped the coat [ ketonet ] in the blood” (Genesis 37:31). The trousers atone for forbidden sexual relations, as it is written with regard to the priestly vestments: “And you shall make them linen trousers to cover the flesh of their nakedness” (Exodus 28:42).

14The mitre atones for the arrogant, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina, as Rabbi Ḥanina says: It is logical that an item placed at an elevation, i.e., on the head of a priest, shall come and atone for the matter of an elevated heart. The belt atones for thought of the heart. The Gemara elaborates: The belt atones for the sins occurring where it is situated, i.e., over the heart, as it is written: “And you shall put in the breastplate of judgment the Urim and the Tummim; and it shall be upon Aaron’s heart, when he goes in before the Lord; and Aaron shall bear the judgment of the children of Israel upon his heart before the Lord continually” (Exodus 28:30).

1whereas that robe atones for malicious speech spoken in public.

2Rabbi Shmuel bar Nadav asked Rabbi Ḥanina, and some say that it was Rabbi Shmuel bar Nadav, the son-in-law of Rabbi Ḥanina, who asked of Rabbi Ḥanina, and some say that he asked it of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: What is different and notable about a leper, that the Torah states: “He shall dwell alone; outside of the camp shall be his dwelling” (Leviticus 13:46)? He replied: By speaking malicious speech he separated between husband and wife and between one person and another; therefore he is punished with leprosy, and the Torah says: “He shall dwell alone; outside of the camp shall be his dwelling.”

3Rabbi Yehuda ben Levi says: What is different and notable about a leper that the Torah states that he is to bring two birds for his purification (Leviticus 14:4)? The Holy One, Blessed be He says: He acted by speaking malicious speech with an act of chatter; therefore the Torah says that he is to bring an offering of birds, who chirp and chatter all the time.

4§ The Sages taught in a baraita : “You shall not hate your brother in your heart; you shall rebuke [ hokhe’aḥ tokhiaḥ ] your neighbor, and do not bear sin because of him” (Leviticus 19:17). Why does the verse specify “in your heart”? One might have thought that the verse means: Do not hit him, do not slap him, and do not ruin him due to hatred. Therefore the verse states “in your heart.” This teaches that the verse speaks of hatred in the heart.

5From where is it derived with regard to one who sees an unseemly matter in another that he is obligated to rebuke him? As it is stated: “You shall rebuke [ hokhe’aḥ tokhiaḥ ] your neighbor.” If one rebuked him for his action but he did not accept the rebuke, from where is it derived that he must rebuke him again? The verse states: “You shall rebuke [ hokhe’aḥ tokhiaḥ ],” and the double language indicates he must rebuke in any case. One might have thought that one should continue rebuking him even if his face changes due to humiliation. Therefore, the verse states: “Do not bear sin because of him”; the one giving rebuke may not sin by embarrassing the other person.

6It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Tarfon says: I would be surprised if there is anyone in this generation who can receive rebuke. Why? Because if the one rebuking says to him: Remove the splinter from between your eyes, i.e., rid yourself of a minor infraction, the other says to him: Remove the beam from between your eyes, i.e., you have committed far more severe sins. Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria says: I would be surprised if there is anyone in this generation who knows how to rebuke correctly, without embarrassing the person he is rebuking.

7And Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri says: I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses before me that Akiva was lashed, i.e., punished, many times on my account, as I would complain about him before Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel the Great. And all the more so I thereby increased his love for me. This incident serves to affirm that which is stated: “Do not rebuke a scorner lest he hate you; rebuke a wise man and he will love you” (Proverbs 9:8). A wise man wants to improve himself and loves those who assist him in that task.

8Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon, asked his father: If one is faced with the choice of rebuke for its own sake, or humility not for its own sake, which of them is preferable? His father said to him: Do you not concede that humility for its own sake is preferable? As the Master says: Humility is the greatest of all the positive attributes. If so, humility not for its own sake is also preferable, as Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: A person should always engage in Torah and mitzvot even if not for their own sake, i.e., without the proper motivation but for ulterior motives, as through the performance of mitzvot not for their own sake, one will come in the end to do them for their own sake.

9The Gemara asks: What is considered rebuke for its own sake and humility not for its own sake? The Gemara answers: It is like this incident that occurred when Rav Huna and Ḥiyya bar Rav were sitting before Shmuel. Ḥiyya bar Rav said to Shmuel: See, Master, that Rav Huna is afflicting me. Rav Huna accepted upon himself that he would not afflict Ḥiyya bar Rav anymore. After Ḥiyya bar Rav left, Rav Huna said to Shmuel: Ḥiyya bar Rav did such-and-such to me, and therefore I was in the right to cause him distress. Shmuel said to him: Why did you not say this in his presence? Rav Huna said to him: Heaven forbid that the son of Rav should be humiliated because of me. This provides an example of rebuke for its own sake, as Rav Huna originally rebuked Ḥiyya bar Rav only when Shmuel was not present, and of humility not for its own sake, as Rav Huna did not forgive Ḥiyya bar Rav but simply did not wish to humiliate him.

10§ The Gemara asks: Until where does the obligation of rebuke extend? Rav says: Until his rebuke is met by hitting, i.e., until the person being rebuked hits the person rebuking him. And Shmuel says: Until his rebuke is met by cursing, i.e., he curses the one rebuking him. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Until his rebuke is met by reprimand. The Gemara points out that this dispute between these amora’im is like a dispute between tanna’im : Rabbi Eliezer says: Until his rebuke is met by hitting; Rabbi Yehoshua says: Until his rebuke is met by cursing; ben Azzai says: Until his rebuke is met by reprimand.

11Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: And all three of them expounded the same one verse, from which they derived their respective opinions. After Jonathan rebuked his father, Saul, for the way he treated David, the verse states: “Then Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him: You son of perverse rebellion, do not I know that you have chosen the son of Yishai to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness” (I Samuel 20:30). And it is written: “And Saul cast his spear at him to smite him, whereby Jonathan knew that it had been determined by his father to put David to death” (I Samuel 20:33).

12According to the one who says: Until his rebuke is met by hitting, it is derived from that which is written: “To smite him.” And according to the one who says: Until his rebuke is met by cursing, it is derived from that which is written: “To the shame of your mother’s nakedness.” And according to the one who says: Until his rebuke is met by reprimand, it is derived from that which is written: “Then Saul’s anger was kindled.”

13The Gemara asks: But according to the one who says: Until his rebuke is met by reprimand, aren’t both hitting and cursing written in that verse? The Gemara answers: It is different there, as due to the special fondness that Jonathan had for David, he subjected himself to more abuse than is required by halakha .

14Apropos the topic of losing patience and hitting another, the Gemara asks: Until where does the requirement that a person should not change his place of lodging extend, i.e., how much must one suffer before he may move elsewhere? Rav says: Until the point of the host’s hitting him. And Shmuel says: Until the host packs up the guest’s clothes and places them on his back to throw him out.

1A calamity awaits him.

2§ The Gemara returns to the topic of rebuke. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer the Great says: Were the Holy One, Blessed be He, to have entered into judgment with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, they would not have been able to stand before the rebuke. As it is stated: “Now therefore stand still, that I may plead with you before the Lord concerning all the righteous acts of the Lord, which He did to you and to your fathers” (I Samuel 12:7). This indicates that God acted towards the patriarchs with righteousness, i.e., mercy, not as they deserved according to the strict letter of the law.

3§ The verse states: “This is the generation of them that seek after Him, that seek Your face, Jacob. Selah” (Psalms 24:6). This verse teaches that the level of the generation and those who lead them, i.e., those who seek after Him, are the same. Rabbi Yehuda Nesia and the Rabbis disagree about this. One says: The level of the generation follows the level of the leader, and one says: The level of the leader follows the level of his generation.

4The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha , i.e., matter, is this stated? If we say for good, that one Sage holds that if the generation is good then their leader will be good, and one Sage holds that if the leader is good then his generation will be good, this cannot be correct, as there is the case of King Zedekiah, who was good, but his generation was not good. And conversely, there is the case of Jehoiakim who was not good, but his generation was good.

5The Gemara cites proof for these claims. As Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: What is the meaning of that which is written: “In the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim, son of Josiah, king of Judah, came this word from the Lord, saying” (Jeremiah 26:1), and similarly with regard to Zedekiah the verse states: “And it came to pass the same year, in the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah, in the fourth year, in the fifth month, that Hananiah, son of Azzur, the prophet, who was of Gibeon, spoke to me in the house of the Lord, in the presence of the priests and of all the people, saying” (Jeremiah 28:1). Why did the prophet use the term “in the beginning” exclusively with regard to these two kings, as opposed to: During the first year of his reign, or a similar formulation?

6This term teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, sought to revert the world to chaos and void, as it was in the beginning before Creation (Genesis 1:1–2), on account of Jehoiakim, who did evil in the eyes of God. Once He observed the people of his generation, His mind was settled. Likewise, the Holy One, Blessed be He, sought to revert the world to chaos and void, on account of the generation of Zedekiah, but once He observed Zedekiah, His mind was settled. This shows that the leader and his generation are not necessarily on the same level in terms of righteousness.

7The Gemara answers: Rather, we are speaking in terms of harshness and gentleness. One Sage holds that if the leader is harsh, then the generation will be harsh. If the leader is gentle and kind, the generation will be the same. The other Sage holds that if the people of a certain generation are harsh, they will have a harsh leader; if the generation is gentle and kind, the leader will be similar.

8MISHNA: Affordability, which is written in the Torah: “According to the means of him who vowed shall the priest valuate him” (Leviticus 27:8), is determined in accordance with the means of the one taking the vow, and the sum fixed by the Torah based on the years of age is in accordance with the age of the subject of the vow. And the distinction based on sex that is written in the halakhot of valuations is stated with regard to the one valuated, and the different valuation based on the age of the one valuated is determined at the time one takes the vow of valuation.

9The mishna elaborates: Affordability is in accordance with the means of the one taking the vow; how so? A destitute person who valuated a wealthy person gives the valuation in accordance with the means of a destitute person, as determined by the priest. And a wealthy person who valuated a destitute person gives the valuation in accordance with the means of a wealthy person, the sum of which is fixed in the Torah.

10But with regard to offerings that is not so, as one who took a vow and said: It is incumbent upon me to provide the offering of this leper, to a leper who requires it for his purification; if the one undergoing purification was a destitute leper, the one who took the vow brings the offering of a destitute leper, which is one male sheep, a tenth of an ephah of fine flour, and two doves or two pigeons (see Leviticus 14:21–22). If the one undergoing purification was a wealthy leper, the one who took the vow brings the offering of a wealthy leper, which is two male sheep, a ewe, and three-tenths of a ephah of fine flour (see Leviticus 14:10).

11Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: I say: Even with regard to valuations it is so. He explains: For what reason does a destitute person who valuated a wealthy person give the valuation in accordance with the means of a destitute person? It is due to the fact that the wealthy person is not obligated to pay anything, as the debt was generated by the destitute person who vowed to donate the valuation of a wealthy individual. But in a case similar to that of the offerings of a leper, in the case of a wealthy person who said: It is incumbent upon me to donate my valuation, and a destitute person heard him and said: It is incumbent upon me to donate that which he said, the destitute person gives the valuation of a wealthy person.

12GEMARA: The mishna teaches that affordability is determined in accordance with the means of the one taking the vow. The Gemara asks: The halakha of affordability is written in the Torah with regard to the case of one who valuates, i.e., one who says he will give the Temple treasury the set sum assigned to a particular individual’s age and sex. Why, then, is the mishna referring to affordability in the context of one pledging another’s worth by taking a vow, in which the obligation is calculated individually rather than by predetermined assigned values? The Gemara answers: The mishna employs the language of the verse, which uses the word “vow,” as it is written: “According to the means of him who vowed shall the priest valuate him” (Leviticus 27:8).

13Similarly, the Gemara asks: Is the mishna’s wording accurate when it states that the sum of the obligation based on the years of age is in accordance with the age of the subject of the vow? The mishna should state that the sum based on years is determined in accordance with the age of the subject of the valuation, not the vow. The Gemara answers: Although it is discussing valuations, since the mishna uses the term vow when it says: Affordability is determined in accordance with the means of the one taking the vow, the mishna also deploys the same term when it says: The sum of the obligation based on the years of age is in accordance with the age of the subject of the vow.

14The mishna further teaches: Affordability is in accordance with the one taking the vow; how so? A destitute person who valuated a wealthy person gives the valuation in accordance with the means of the destitute person. The Gemara asks: What is the reason? As the verse states: “According to the means of him who vowed,” which teaches that the Merciful One renders the matter dependent on the one who vows, not upon the subject of the vow.

1The Gemara explains: The mishna states two different principles with regard to one who vows to provide the offering of a leper on behalf of another. One principle applies to a destitute leper for whom another destitute person takes a vow to provide his offering. In that case, he provides the offering of the destitute. And the one other principle, i.e., the statement that the halakha is different in the case of offerings, serves to exclude the case of a wealthy leper for whom a destitute person takes a vow to provide his offering. In that situation, although the one who took the vow is destitute, he must provide the offering of a wealthy person.

2The Gemara explains why this last ruling is necessary. It might enter your mind to say: Since the destitute were included in the verse: “And his means do not suffice,” with regard to the leniency which allows them to bring the offering of the destitute when taking vows to provide for destitute lepers, they should likewise be included in this leniency when providing for all lepers, even wealthy ones. Consequently, the tanna teaches us that this leniency does not apply when the lepers are wealthy.

3Similarly, it is taught in a baraita : Since we find with regard to valuations that a destitute person who valuated a wealthy person gives the valuation in accordance with the means of a destitute person, one might have thought that in this case, where one takes a vow to provide the offering of a wealthy leper, the halakha is also so. Consequently, the verse states: “And if he is poor,” from which it is derived that the offering of the destitute leper is brought only when the leper himself is destitute.

4The Gemara objects: But according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, this is difficult. As he says in the mishna: I say even with regard to valuations it is so, i.e., that if a wealthy person said: It is incumbent upon me to donate my valuation, and a destitute person heard him and said: It is incumbent upon me to donate that which he said, then the destitute person gives the valuation of a wealthy person. Evidently, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: We follow the obligation of the original person valuated, even with regard to valuations. And if so, then the reasoning stated in the aforementioned baraita does not apply, and therefore a verse is not necessary to exclude a destitute person who takes a vow to provide a wealthy leper’s offering from having the leniency of bringing the offering of a destitute leper. Consequently, when the verse specifies: “And if he is poor,” this serves to exclude what?

5The Gemara explains: The verse serves to exclude the case of a destitute leper for whom a wealthy person takes a vow. In that case, it might enter your mind to say that since Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: We follow the obligation of the original person specified as the subject of the vow, therefore the wealthy person brings only the offering of the destitute leper. Consequently, the exclusion from the verse: “And if he is poor,” teaches us that in this case he brings the offering of a wealthy individual, not that of the destitute leper.

6MISHNA: If when one took a vow of valuation he was destitute and he became wealthy, or if he was wealthy and became destitute, he gives the valuation in accordance with the means of a wealthy person. Rabbi Yehuda says: This is the halakha not only in a case where one was wealthy either at the time he took the vow or at the time of payment; even if when one took a vow of valuation he was destitute and he became wealthy and again became destitute, he gives the valuation in accordance with the means of a wealthy person.

7But with regard to the offerings of a leper that is not so, as the offerings that one brings are determined by his status at the time he brings them. Even if it is common knowledge that his father died and left him an inheritance of ten thousand dinars, or that his ship is at sea and merchandise valued at ten thousand dinars is coming into his possession, the Temple treasury has no share in it. His payment is determined solely by his present situation.

8GEMARA: The mishna teaches: If he was destitute when he took the oath and he became wealthy, he gives the valuation appropriate for a wealthy individual. The Gemara explains that this is derived from the verse: “According to the means of him who vowed shall the priest valuate him” (Leviticus 27:8), and in this case he had the means of a wealthy individual when he was ready to give the donation. The mishna further teaches that one who was wealthy and became destitute also gives the valuation as though he was wealthy. The Gemara explains that this is derived from the beginning of the same verse: “According to [ al pi ] the means of him who vowed shall the priest valuate him.” The phrase al pi serves to emphasize the moment when the person uttered the vow with his mouth [ peh ], and at that moment he was wealthy.

9§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if one made a valuation when he was destitute and he became wealthy and again became destitute, he gives the valuation according to the means of a wealthy person. The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda? The verse states: “But if he is too poor for your valuation” (Leviticus 27:8). The word order serves to emphasize “he,” which indicates that he is considered poor only if he remains in his state of poverty from his beginning until his end of involvement with the vow.

10The Gemara objects: If that is so, then when the verse similarly states with regard to a destitute leper: “And if he is poor” (Leviticus 14:21), so too, Rabbi Yehuda should maintain that he is considered poor only if he is in his state of poverty from his beginning until his end of bringing the leper’s offering, but if he was wealthy in between he should be obligated to bring the offering of a wealthy individual, even if he is now poor.

11And if you would say that indeed, this is the halakha , but didn’t we learn in a mishna ( Nega’im 14:11): With regard to a leper who brought his offerings when he was destitute, and subsequently became wealthy, or he brought his offerings when he was wealthy and then became destitute, everything follows the sin offering that the leper brings. If he was wealthy when he brought the sin offering he brings the burnt offering of a wealthy individual; if he was destitute when he brought the sin offering he brings the burnt offering of a destitute individual. This is the statement of Rabbi Shimon.

12Rabbi Yehuda says: Everything, i.e., the sin offering and the burnt offering, follows his status at the time the leper’s guilt offering is brought. And it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: Everything follows the offering of the birds, which are brought by the leper seven days earlier as part of his purification process. Clearly, everyone agrees that one brings the offerings of the destitute even if he is not destitute from the beginning until the end of the process.

13The Gemara explains: It was stated with regard to this dispute that Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: And all three of these tanna’im derived their opinions from one verse, which deals with the destitute leper: “This is the law of him in whom is the mark of leprosy, whose means do not suffice for that which pertains to his purification” (Leviticus 14:32). Rabbi Shimon holds: The individual’s status depends on an item that atones, and what is it? The sin offering.

14And Rabbi Yehuda holds: His status depends on an item that renders him fit to enter the Temple and eat consecrated food, and what is it? The guilt offering. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov holds: His status depends on that which causes him ritual purity, and what is it? The sacrificial birds, as the rite of the birds partially purifies him and enables him to bring the rest of his offerings and to complete his purification process. If so, in the particular case of a leper bringing his own offerings, it is a Torah edict that one does not need to be destitute throughout the entire process, which is why, with regard to one who takes a vow to bring the offerings of a leper, Rabbi Yehuda does not derive from the verse: “And if he is poor,” that he is considered poor only if he is in a state of poverty from the beginning, i.e., when he takes the vow, until the end, i.e., when he fulfills it.

1and afterward his wife, who was the daughter of the father-in-law, died, which means that the witness is no longer related to the party involved; or when he was able to hear, and then became a deaf-mute, and again became able to hear; or when he could see, and subsequently became blind, and afterward could see again; or when he was halakhically competent, and then became an imbecile, and again became halakhically competent; in all these cases he is fit to testify. This is the principle: Any individual whose beginning and end is in a state of qualification to serve as a witness is qualified to testify, even if he was unfit in the interim. Evidently, it is not derived from the verse: “And he is a witness,” that the witness must be fit from the beginning to the end.

2The Gemara explains: The halakha is different there, with regard to testimony, as the verse states: “He is a witness, whether he has seen … if he does not utter” (Leviticus 5:1). This formulation indicates that the Merciful One renders the matter of testimony dependent on seeing and recounting the content of his testimony. And in this instance there is both valid seeing and valid recounting, despite the fact that the witness was disqualified in the interim. The Gemara asks: But if so, why do I need the exclusion of the verse: “And he is a witness”?

3The Gemara answers: The limiting clause is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita : If someone saw a crowd of people standing, and his witnesses were among them, and he said: I hereby administer an oath to you, if you know any testimony relating to me, that you will come and testify for me, one might have thought that this form of address suffices to single out the witnesses. This would mean that if the witnesses take a false oath that they do not know testimony with regard to the person who addressed them, they would be obligated to bring an offering of an oath of testimony. Therefore, the verse states: “And he is a witness,” to emphasize that the offering applies only to one who is singled out as a witness, and in this case the individual did not single out his witnesses, as he addressed a whole crowd of people. Consequently, the witnesses are exempt.

4The baraita continues: One might have thought that even if this individual said to the crowd: I adjure whoever knows testimony relating to me that he will come and testify for me, that even in the case of this more specific address the witnesses are likewise exempt from the offering of an oath of testimony. Therefore, the verse states: “And he is a witness,” and by clarifying his appeal the individual did single out his witnesses. Consequently, in this situation the witnesses would be obligated to bring the offering.

5§ The mishna teaches: But with regard to the offerings of a leper that is not so. If the leper is destitute, even if his father died and left him ten thousand dinars, the Temple treasury has no share in it. The Gemara raises a difficulty: If his father already died and left him ten thousand dinars, he is wealthy. How could he be considered destitute at all? Rabbi Abbahu said that one should say instead: His father is dying and leaving him ten thousand dinars, but he has not yet died.

6The Gemara raises a further difficulty: If so, it is obvious that with regard to the Temple treasury he remains destitute, as at the time he is in fact destitute. The Gemara answers: The halakha was stated with regard to a case where his father is moribund. Lest you say that as the majority of moribund people proceed to die the son should be considered wealthy even before the father dies, the mishna therefore teaches us that the son retains his status as destitute until the father actually dies.

7The mishna likewise teaches: If his ship is at sea and merchandise valued at ten thousand dinars is coming into his possession, this money is not taken into consideration by the Temple treasury. The Gemara asks: But isn’t he wealthy? Rav Ḥisda said: The mishna is referring to a case where his ship was leased or rented to others, and therefore the merchandise it contains belongs to someone else. The Gemara asks: But isn’t there the rent money that will be paid to the leper? The Gemara answers: Rent is paid only at the end of the rental period, which means that the owner is destitute in the meantime.

8The Gemara raises another difficulty: But let the mishna derive and determine that the leper is wealthy due to the fact that he owns a ship. The Gemara answers: In accordance with whose opinion is this statement in the mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who maintains that with regard to determining one’s obligation to bring an offering as a wealthy or destitute individual, the property that he uses for business is not taken into account. As we learned in a mishna (23b): When someone’s property is repossessed in order to pay his debt to the Temple treasury, Rabbi Eliezer says: If he was a farmer, the treasurer gives him permission to keep his pair of oxen with which he plows the field. If he was a donkey driver, the treasurer gives him permission to keep his donkey.

9MISHNA: The sum fixed by the Torah based on the years of age is in accordance with the age of the subject of the vow; how so? A youth who valuated an elder gives the valuation of an elder, and an elder who valuated a youth gives the valuation of a youth. And the distinction based on sex that is written in the halakhot of valuations is stated with regard to the one valuated; how so? A man who valuated a woman gives the valuation of a woman, and a woman who valuated a man gives the valuation of a man.

10And the different valuation based on the age of the one valuated is determined at the time one takes the vow of valuation; how so? If one valuated another when he was less than five years old, when his valuation is five shekels, and before payment to the Temple treasury the subject of the vow became more than five years old, when his valuation is ten shekels; or if one valuated another when he was less than twenty years old, when his valuation is ten shekels, and before payment to the Temple treasury the subject of the vow became more than twenty years old, when his valuation is fifty shekels, in all these cases he gives payment according to the age of the subject of the valuation at the time of the valuation.

11GEMARA: With regard to the statement of the mishna: And the valuation is determined at the time one takes the vow of valuation, the Sages taught in a baraita : You have compared pledges of assessments for the Temple treasury, i.e., one who takes a vow to donate a certain person’s assessment, to vows of valuations. This comparison applies with regard to a pearl belonging to light people, i.e., the poor. In other words, just as the assessment of a pearl is determined by the pearl’s location in a village of the poor rather than by the potential price of the pearl in the city market, so too, the valuation of a person is determined at the time of the valuation. And similarly, the comparison teaches that the court is required to assess the value of the limb by its significance, i.e., in the case of a limb that is vital to one’s survival, the valuation of the limb is equivalent to the valuation of the whole person.

12One might have thought that we should compare valuations to assessments in that the one pledging must give a person’s valuation not corresponding to his value at the time of the pledge but in accordance with his value at the time of giving, as is the case with regard to vows of assessments. To counter this suggestion the verse states: “According to your valuation it shall stand” (Leviticus 27:17), which teaches that the one making the valuation gives his donation only according to the valuation of the person at the time of the valuation, as stated in the mishna.

13MISHNA: The Torah provides three age categories that determine the amount of the valuation: From the age of one month until age five, from age five until age twenty, and from age twenty until age sixty. For anyone less than one month old there is no valuation. The halakhic status of the thirtieth day is like that of the period preceding thirty days, and therefore the one who took the vow is exempt. Likewise, the halakhic status of the fifth year and the twentieth year is like that of the period preceding them. As it is stated: “And if it is from sixty years old and upward” (Leviticus 27:7), and we derive all the other age categories from the sixtieth year: Just as the halakhic status of the sixtieth year, where upward is written, is like that of the period preceding it, so too, the halakhic status of the fifth year and the twentieth year is like that of the period preceding them.

14The mishna asks: Is that so? Can one derive a halakha in this manner? If the Torah rendered the halakhic status of the sixtieth year like that of the period preceding it in order to be stringent and require one who valuated a sixty-year-old person to pay his valuation to the Temple treasury, shall we render the halakhic status of the fifth year and the twentieth year like that of the period preceding them in order to be lenient and pay a lower sum?

1This is similar to the matter that is stated with regard to a leper: “And the leprosy covers all the skin of him who has the mark from his head to his feet, as far as the priest can see…it is all turned white: He is pure” (Leviticus 13:12–13). This verse is understood as follows: The mark reaches from his head, but his head is not included; it reaches to his feet, but his feet are not included. Therefore, one might have thought the prohibition against consuming leaven on the festival of Passover likewise does not apply to the endpoints mentioned in the verse.

2Therefore, the verse states: “You shall eat unleavened bread, until the twenty-first day of the month in the evening” (Exodus 12:18). This proves that the seventh day of the Festival is included. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: It is not necessary to cite this verse, as the prohibition against consuming leaven is from the first day of Passover, and the first day is included; and the ban continues until the seventh day, and the seventh day is included. Accordingly, with regard to valuations, even without a verbal analogy Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi should maintain that the twentieth year is included in the preceding period.

3The Gemara answers: You may even say that the opinion in the mishna is in accordance with that of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as the verses offset each other, and therefore their meaning is unclear without the verbal analogy. The Gemara elaborates: Since it is written: “From one month old until five years old” (Leviticus 27:6), this ostensibly includes the fifth year within the stated category. If so, why do I need this mention of five years as well: “And if it is from five years old until twenty years old, then your valuation shall be for the male twenty shekels” (Leviticus 27:5)? Therefore, with regard to the fifth year, as both verses mention that year, the verses offset each other. Consequently, even according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi the verbal analogy is necessary.

4The Master said above, with regard to a leper: The mark reaches from his head, but his head is not included; it reaches to his feet, but his feet are not included. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this interpretation? If you wish, say that it is deduced logically: The signs of leprosy of his body are different from the signs of leprosy of his head with regard to the different colors of hair that indicate leprosy. Alternatively, if you wish, say instead that it is derived from the phrase in that verse: “As far as the priest can see.” This excludes a leprous mark on the head, which is obscured from the priest’s view by the hair, as well as leprous marks between the toes.

5§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Eliezer says: Their halakhic status remains like that of the period preceding it, until they will be aged one month and one day beyond the respective years. With regard to this opinion, it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: It is stated here, with regard to valuations, “upward” (Leviticus 27:7), and it is stated there, with regard to the census of the Levites in the wilderness: “From one month old and upward you shall number them” (Numbers 3:15). Just as there, in the case of the census, the verse means: From one month and one day old, so too here, with regard to valuations, the verse means that each respective category is counted from one month and one day old beyond the stated ages of five years, twenty years, or sixty years.

6The Gemara asks: And why doesn’t Rabbi Eliezer say that the verse dealing with valuation should be understood like the verse written there, with regard to the census, in the following manner: Just as there it is one day more than the enumerated age of thirty days, so too here, it should be one day more than the enumerated ages of five years, twenty years, and sixty years. Why does Rabbi Eliezer add a month? The Gemara answers: If so, that only one day should be added, what purpose does this verbal analogy from the census serve? Even without any connection to the verse dealing with the census, it would be understood in the case of valuations that the new period begins from the day after the respective year is fully completed.

7§ The Sages taught in a baraita : With regard to the period of one year stated with regard to sacrificial animals, e.g., “sheep in their first year” (Numbers 28:3); and the one year stated with regard to houses of walled cities, during which time it is permitted to redeem a sold house in a walled city (Leviticus 25:29); and the two years stated with regard to an ancestral field, during which one may not yet redeem an ancestral field he has sold (Leviticus 25:15); and the six years stated with regard to a Hebrew slave (Exodus 21:2); and similarly, the years stated with regard to a son and with regard to a daughter, as explained below; all of these are calculated from the time of day at the start of the period to the time of day at the end of the period, i.e., these periods are units of whole years; they do not expire on predetermined dates, such as at the end of the calendar year.

8The Gemara asks: With regard to the one year stated with regard to sacrificial animals, from where do we derive that it is calculated by whole years rather than calendar years? Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov says that the verse states: “A sheep in its first year” (Leviticus 12:6). Since the verse does not state: A sheep in the first year, it means a year based on the calculation of its own life, and not a year based on the counting of the world, i.e., the calendar year.

9The Gemara continues clarifying the baraita : The halakha that the one year stated with regard to houses of walled cities is calculated by a whole year and not a calendar year is derived from the fact that it is written: “Then he may redeem it within a whole year after it is sold, for a full year he shall have the right of redemption” (Leviticus 25:29). The verse is referring to a year counted from the day of its own sale, and not the year of the counting of the world.

10The Gemara states: Concerning the two years stated with regard to an ancestral field, this is derived from the fact that it is written: “According to the number of years of the crops he shall sell to you” (Leviticus 25:15). The plural form of both “years” and “crops” indicates that the number of years does not necessarily correspond to the quantity of crops. Consequently, there are times when a person might eat three yields of crops in two years. If one purchased a field at the end of the calendar year when its yield had not yet been harvested, and he harvested that yield and subsequently grew and harvested two more crops before the completion of two whole years from the sale, he would have eaten three yields in less than two years. This is not possible if one follows the calendar years, as a new year would start soon after the purchase.

11The Gemara states: The halakha that the six years stated with regard to a Hebrew slave is calculated by whole years, not calendar years, is derived from the fact that it is written: “Six years he shall work; and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing” (Exodus 21:2). The word “and” in the phrase: “And in the seventh,” teaches that sometimes it turns out that he shall also work in the seventh calendar year, if six full years have not passed from when he was sold. For example, if he was sold in the month of Nisan, although five years and six months have passed when Tishrei, the first month of the seventh year, arrives, since he has not yet completed six years of service he must work in this seventh calendar year as well, until the day of the month in which he was sold.

12The baraita also teaches: The years stated with regard to a son and with regard to a daughter are among these terms calculated from the time at the start of the period to the time at the end of the period. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha is this stated? Rav Giddel said that Rav said: With regard to valuations, i.e., that the age of a valuated male or female is calculated in whole years from the date of their birth, not by calendar years. Rav Yosef said: The halakha is stated with regard to the matters taught in the fifth chapter of tractate Nidda , which is called after its opening words: Yotze Dofen , i.e., an animal born by caesarean section. In other words, when a mishna in that chapter, which deals with various matters related to the ages of sons and daughters, mentions years, it means full years, even when it does not state this explicitly.

13Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Do you and Rav dispute this matter, i.e., when you apply the mention of a son and a daughter to different cases, do each of you reject the opinion of the other? Rav Yosef said to Abaye: No, we do not disagree; I said one matter and he said one different matter. The Gemara adds: This too stands to reason, as if it enters your mind that they disagree on this matter, then with regard to the one who says full years are required for determining valuations, does he not also say that full years are used for the halakhot of Yotze Dofen ? But doesn’t Rav say, like Rav Yosef, that the halakha in that entire chapter is that the ages of the sons and daughters are determined from the time at the start of the period to the time at the end of the period, not by calendar years?

14The Gemara asks: But if that is the case, then according to the one who says that the reference to full years mentioned in the baraita is for determining valuations, i.e., Rav, what is the reason he did not say that the baraita is referring to the halakhot of Yotze Dofen ? The Gemara answers: Rav would claim that the years of a son and a daughter in the baraita are similar to these other cases mentioned in the baraita : Just as those numbers of years are explicitly written in the Torah, so too these years of the sons and daughters are referring to matters where the years are written in the Torah, i.e., the years of valuations, unlike the topics discussed in Yotze Dofen , where the years are not mentioned expressly in the Torah.

1Rather, the baraita should have stated: With regard to the male and with regard to the female, which are the terms the Torah uses with regard to valuations. The terms son and daughter are used in Yotze Dofen .

2With regard to valuations, the Gemara asks: And what is different with regard to a female, that when she ages past sixty years she stands at a valuation of ten shekels, one-third of her previous valuation of thirty shekels, and what is different with regard to a male, that when he ages past sixty, at which point he has a valuation of fifteen shekels, he does not stand at even one-third of his previous valuation of fifty shekels? Ḥizkiya said that people say a popular saying: If there is an elderly man in the home, there is a burden [ paḥa ] in the home, as he does not help with anything; if there is an elderly woman in the home, there is a treasure in the home, as she assists with various domestic labors.

3MISHNA: One who says: It is incumbent upon me to donate my weight, gives his weight to the Temple treasury; if he specified silver he donates silver, and if he specified gold he donates gold. There was an incident involving the mother of Yirmatya, who said: It is incumbent upon me to donate the weight of my daughter, and she ascended to Jerusalem and paid her daughter’s weight in gold to the Temple treasury.

4In the case of one who says: It is incumbent upon me to donate the weight of my forearm, how does he ascertain the weight of his forearm? Rabbi Yehuda says: He fills a barrel with water and inserts his arm up to his elbow into the water. And in order to measure the displacement, he weighs donkey flesh, and bones, and sinews and places it into the barrel until it fills, and the water level reaches the top of the barrel. He then donates the weight of the meat and the bones to the Temple treasury. Rabbi Yosei said: Displacement is according to volume not according to weight, and how then is it possible to match the amount of the donkey flesh with the flesh of a person and the volume of the donkey’s bones with his bones? Rather, the court appraises how much the forearm is likely to weigh.

5GEMARA: What is the meaning of the mishna’s statement: If silver, silver, and if gold, gold? Rav Yehuda said: If one specified that he vows to donate his weight in silver he donates silver, and if he specified gold he donates gold. The Gemara asks: Isn’t that obvious? The Gemara answers: This is what the mishna is teaching us: The reason he donates silver or gold is that he specified silver or gold, from which it may be inferred that if he did not specify the means of payment, he may exempt himself with any material.

6The Gemara adds: And this is in accordance with a statement of Raḥava, as Raḥava says: In a place where merchants weigh pitch when selling it, one who vows his weight may exempt himself by donating his weight even in pitch. The Gemara asks: Isn’t that obvious? The Gemara answers: No, the statement of Raḥava is necessary in a place where there are merchants who weigh pitch and there are others who measure its volume. Lest you say: Since not all merchants weigh pitch one may not fulfill his vow by donating his weight in pitch, Raḥava teaches us that as there are merchants there who sell pitch by weight, one can fulfill his vow in that manner.

7Rav Pappa says: In a place where merchants weigh onions when selling them, one who vowed his weight may exempt himself by donating his weight even in onions. The Gemara again asks: Isn’t that obvious? The Gemara answers: No, the statement of Rav Pappa is necessary in a place where after they weigh the onions the merchants throw in two or three extra onions to the buyer. Lest you say that its status as a place where onions are sold by weight is void due to the additional onions, Rav Pappa teaches us that it is still considered a place where onions are sold by weight.

8§ The mishna teaches: There was an incident involving the mother of Yirmatya, who said: It is incumbent upon me to donate the weight of my daughter, without specifying silver or gold, and she ascended to Jerusalem and paid her daughter’s weight in gold to the Temple treasury. The Gemara asks: Was an incident cited to contradict the previous ruling of the mishna? The mishna had stated: If silver, silver, and if gold, gold, which indicates that if one did not specify the means of payment he may exempt himself with any material that merchants sell by weight, whereas it can be inferred from the incident that one must pay the weight in gold.

9The Gemara answers: The mishna is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: And if the one who vowed is a distinguished person, even though he did not specify silver or gold we say he must fulfill his vow in keeping with his socioeconomic status. And likewise, there was an incident involving the mother of Yirmatya, a very wealthy woman, who said: It is incumbent upon me to donate the weight of my daughter, and she ascended to Jerusalem and gave her daughter’s weight in gold to the Temple treasury.

10§ Rav Yehuda says that one who says: It is incumbent upon me to donate my height, gives a thick rod that cannot be bent equivalent to his height. One who says: It is incumbent upon me to donate my full height, may give even a thin rod that can be bent, provided it is equivalent to his height. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita ( Tosefta 3:1): With regard to one who says: It is incumbent upon me to donate my height, or: It is incumbent upon me to donate my full height, he gives a thick rod that cannot be bent and that is equivalent to his height.

11The Gemara answers: Rav Yehuda says his statement in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who holds that one can draw an inference from superfluous language. As we learned in a mishna ( Bava Batra 64a): If one sold his house without specification, he has sold neither the pit nor the cistern [ dut ] with it, even if he wrote in the document of sale: With its depth and its height. This is because anything that is ancillary to the house, e.g., pits and cisterns, must be mentioned explicitly in the contract. And the seller must purchase for himself a path through to the pit or cistern that he kept back, as he sold his rights to the area surrounding the house along with the house, and therefore he may no longer walk through that area. This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva.

12And the Rabbis say: He need not purchase a path, as the seller clearly did not intend to keep the pit or cistern without maintaining access to it. And Rabbi Akiva concedes that when the seller states to the buyer in the document of sale: Excluding these, the pit and the cistern, that he need not purchase for himself a path through to the pit or cistern. Evidently, Rabbi Akiva’s reasoning is that since the seller need not specify that the pit and cistern are excluded from the sale, and yet he says that they were excluded, he is coming with this statement to add an element to the agreement, i.e., the right of access. Here too, when one says: It is incumbent upon me to donate my full height, since it is a case where he need not add the word full, and yet he says it, he is coming to add an element to his vow, i.e., the ability to exempt himself with a thin rod.

13A dilemma was raised before the Sages. If one says: It is incumbent upon me to donate my stature, what is the halakha ?

1If one vowed that it is incumbent upon him to donate his width, what is the halakha ? Likewise, if one vowed to donate his sitting, what is the halakha ? If he referred to his thickness, what is the halakha ? Finally, if he spoke of his girth, what is the halakha ? The Gemara states that these dilemmas shall stand unresolved.

2§ The mishna teaches that there is a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei concerning one who says: It is incumbent upon me to donate the weight of my forearm, as to how he ascertains the weight of his forearm. The Sages taught this dispute in greater detail in a baraita ( Tosefta 3:2): With regard to one who says: It is incumbent upon me to donate the weight of my forearm, and with regard to one who says: It is incumbent upon me to donate the weight of my leg, Rabbi Yehuda says: He brings a barrel and fills it with water, and he inserts his forearm up to the elbow or his leg up to the knee, into the water.

3And in order to measure the displacement, he weighs donkey flesh, sinews, and bones, and places it into the barrel until it fills, and the water reaches the same level as it was when his arm or leg was inserted. And even though there is no proof for the matter, that donkey flesh weighs the same as human flesh, nevertheless there is an allusion to the matter, as it is stated: “Whose flesh is as the flesh of donkeys” (Ezekiel 23:20).

4Rabbi Yosei said to Rabbi Yehuda: Displacement is according to volume, not according to weight, and how then is it possible to match the amount of the donkey flesh with the flesh in one’s forearm, the sinews with the sinews, and the bones with the bones? Rabbi Yehuda said to him: One estimates. Rabbi Yosei said to him: If one estimates, let one estimate the weight of the forearm directly. And how does Rabbi Yehuda respond to Rabbi Yosei? Rabbi Yehuda holds that we do whatever is possible in order to be more precise.

5The Tosefta teaches with regard to one who says: It is incumbent upon me to donate the weight of my forearm [ yad ], that Rabbi Yehuda says: He brings a barrel and fills it with water and inserts his forearm up to the elbow. This indicates that the term yad denotes the forearm until the elbow. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from another baraita ( Tosefta , Yadayim 2:1): Since it is written: “And Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands [ yedeihem ] and their feet” (Exodus 30:19), the priests are obligated to sanctify their hands and feet in the Temple up to the wrist.

6The Gemara answers: The term yad written in the Torah indicates up to the wrist, but with regard to vows one follows the ordinary language of people, in which the word yad is referring to the forearm until the elbow. Consequently, the vow is interpreted in this manner. The Gemara asks: And does the word yad that is written in the Torah mean up to the wrist? But with regard to phylacteries it is written: “And it shall be for a sign to you upon your hand [ yadkha ]” (Exodus 13:9), and the school of Menashe taught: Yadkha ; this is referring to the bulge of the biceps [ kibborit ] on the upper arm.

7The Gemara answers: Generally, the term yad that is written in the Torah includes the entire biceps area of the upper arm. But with regard to vows one follows the ordinary language of people, in which the word yad means the forearm until the elbow; and with regard to sanctifying the hands and feet in the Temple the halakha is learned as a tradition that the word yad is referring only to the hand up to the wrist.

8It is further taught in the Tosefta cited above: His leg [ regel ] until the knee, which indicates that the term regel is defined as the foot until the knee. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita : It is written in the Torah with regard to the obligation to ascend to Jerusalem for the pilgrimage Festivals: “Three times [ regalim ] you shall keep a feast for Me in the year” (Exodus 23:14). The term regalim , legs, serves to exclude people with artificial legs [ ba’alei kabbayin ] from this obligation. According to the baraita , one who has a stump in place of his foot is exempt from the pilgrimage. This indicates the term regel is referring to the foot, up to the ankle, not to the entire area below the knee.

9The Gemara explains: The term regel that is written in the Torah is referring to the foot below the ankle, but with regard to vows, one follows the ordinary language of people, in which the word regel means the leg until the knee. The Gemara asks: And does regel written in the Torah mean the foot up to the ankle, and therefore it serves to exclude people with artificial legs?

10But with regard to the ritual by which the yavam frees the yevama of her levirate bonds [ ḥalitza ], it is written: “Then his brother’s wife shall approach…and loose his shoe from upon his foot [ raglo ]” (Deuteronomy 25:9), and the Sages taught in a mishna ( Yevamot 101a): In the case of a yavam who was missing part of his leg, if the yevama performed the ḥalitza on any part of the leg from the knee and below her ḥalitza is valid. This indicates that the term regel in the Torah means the leg from the foot up to the knee.

11The Gemara answers: The term regel in the Torah actually is referring to the foot, below the ankle, and it is different there, with regard to ḥalitza , as the verse states: From upon his foot [ raglo ], instead of simply stating: From his foot. This indicates that the area that is upon, i.e., above, the foot is also valid for the performance of ḥalitza . The Gemara asks: If that is so, then if the yevama performed ḥalitza above the knee it should also be valid. The Gemara answers that it is written: From upon, to include only the section directly above the foot, i.e., until the knee, and the area above the knee is considered from upon that area that is from upon the foot.

12Rav Pappa said: Conclude from this discussion that the ankle bone [ istaveira ] descends to the ground and is not separated from the foot. The reason is that if it enters your mind to say it is separated, then the ankle bone is the section of the leg referred to by the phrase: From upon his foot, and the lower leg, i.e., the section of the leg from the ankle up to the knee, is the section of the leg that is called: From upon that which is from upon the foot, and would therefore be invalid for the performance of ḥalitza . Rav Ashi says: Even if you say the ankle is separated from the foot it would still not be referred to as the section that is upon the foot, as anything that is adjacent to the foot is considered like the foot, i.e., it is part of the same section of the leg as the foot.

13MISHNA: If one vows: It is incumbent upon me to donate the assessment of my forearm, the court appraises him to determine how much he is worth with a forearm and how much he is worth without a forearm, and he pays the difference. This is a halakha that is more stringent with regard to vows of assessment than with regard to valuations, as one who says: It is incumbent upon me to donate the valuation of my forearm, is exempt from paying.

14GEMARA: How do we assess him? Rava said: The court assesses him by means of the same process of assessment used with regard to the halakhot of damages. If one’s hand was severed, the court considers the injured party as though he is a slave being sold in the slave market and appraises how much he was worth before the injury and how much he is worth after the injury. The difference between these two sums is the amount that the guilty party must pay for damages.