Arakhin — Daf 7b

מחתך בבשר הוא אמר רבה לא נצרכה להביא סכין דרך רשות הרבים

ומאי קמשמע לן דמספיקא מחללינן שבתא תנינא מי שנפלה עליו מפולת ספק הוא שם ספק אינו שם ספק חי ספק מת ספק כנעני ספק ישראל מפקחין עליו את הגל

מהו דתימא התם הוא דהוה ליה חזקה דחיותא אבל הכא דלא הוה ליה חזקה דחיותא מעיקרא אימא לא קמ"ל:

האשה שנהרגה וכו': ואמאי איסורי הנאה נינהו אמר רב באומרת תנו שערי לבתי אילו אמרה תנו ידי לבתי מי יהבינן לה

אמר רב בפאה נכרית טעמא דאמרה תנו הא לא אמרה תנו גופה הוא ומיתסר

והא מיבעיא ליה לר' יוסי בר' חנינא דבעי ר' יוסי בר' חנינא שער נשים צדקניות מהו

ואמר רבא בפאה נכרית (לא) קמיבעיא ליה כי קמיבעיא ליה לר' יוסי בר' חנינא דתלי בסיכתא

הכא דמחבר בה טעמא דאמרה תנו הא לא אמרה תנו גופה הוא ומיתסר:

קשיא ליה לרב נחמן בר יצחק והא דומיא דבהמה קתני מה התם גופיה אף ה"נ גופיה

אלא א"ר נחמן זו מיתתה אוסרתה וזו גמר דינה אוסרתה

תני לוי כוותיה דרב תני לוי כוותיה דר"נ בר יצחק תני לוי כוותיה דרב האשה שיוצאה ליהרג ואמרה תנו שערי לבתי נותנין מתה אין נותנין מפני שהמת אסור בהנאה

פשיטא אלא שנויי המת אסור בהנאה

תניא כוותיה דרב נחמן בר יצחק האשה שמתה נהנין בשערה בהמה שנהרגה אסורה בהנאה ומה הפרש בין זה לזה זו מיתתה אוסרתה וזו גמר דינה אוסרתה:

הדרן עלך הכל מעריכין:

מתני׳ אין נערכין פחות מסלע ולא יתר על חמשים סלע כיצד נתן סלע והעשיר אינו נותן כלום פחות מסלע והעשיר נותן חמשים סלע

היו בידיו חמש סלעים ר"מ אומר אינו נותן אלא אחת וחכמים אומרים נותן את כולן אין נערכין פחות מסלע ולא יתר על חמשים סלע:

גמ׳ אין נערכין פחות מסלע מנלן דכתיב (ויקרא כז, כה) וכל ערכך יהיה בשקל הקדש כל ערכין שאתה מעריך לא יהו פחותין משקל

ולא יתר על חמשים סלעים דכתיב חמשים:

היו בידיו חמשה כו': מ"ט דר"מ כתיב חמשים וכתיב שקל או חמשים או שקל

ורבנן ההוא לכל ערכין שאתה מעריך לא יהו פחותים משקל הוא דאתא היכא דאית ליה אמר קרא (ויקרא כז, ח) אשר תשיג יד הנודר והרי ידו משגת

ור"מ ההוא יד הנודר ולא יד הנידר הוא דאתא ורבנן לאו ממילא שמעת מינה דהיכא דידו משגת שקול מיניה

א"ר אדא בר אהבה היו בידיו חמש סלעים ואמר ערכי עלי וחזר ואמר ערכי עלי ונתן ארבע לשניה ואחד לראשונה יצא ידי שתיהן

מ"ט ב"ח מאוחר שקדם וגבה מה שגבה גבה

בעידנא דיהיב לשניה משעבד לראשונה בעידנא דיהיב לראשונה תו לית ליה

Only cutting flesh?1 — Rabbah said: It is necessary [to permit the] fetching of the knife by way of a public thoroughfare.2 But what is he informing us? That in case of doubt one may desecrate the Sabbath! Surely we have learnt already: If debris falls down upon one and there is doubt whether he is there or not, or whether he is alive or dead, whether he is a Canaanite or an Israelite, one may remove the debris from above him!3 You might have said: There [permission was given] because [the person in question] had at least presumption of having been alive, but here where it [the embryo] did not have such original presumption of life, one might say no [desecration of the Sabbath shall be permitted], therefore we are informed [that it is]. IF A WOMAN HAS BEEN PUT TO DEATH etc. But why? These things are forbidden for any use? — Rab said: [This refers to the case] where she had said: Give my hair to my daughter. But if she had [similarly] said: Give my hand to my daughter, would we have given it to her? — Rab said: It refers to a wig.4 Now the reason [for the permission] is that she had said: ‘Give [it]’, but if she had not said: ‘Give [it]’, it would have been as part of her body and forbidden [for any use]. But this matter was questioned by R. Jose b. Hanina, for R. Jose b. Hanina asked: What about the hair of righteous women, and Raba had remarked: His question refers to [their] wig?5 — The question of R. Jose b. Hanina referred to the case of [such wig] its hanging on a peg; but here the wig is attached to her [head], therefore the reason [it is permitted] is because she said: ‘Give [it]’, but if she had not said ‘Give [it]’, it would be as her body and forbidden. This appeared difficult to R. Nahman b. Isaac for it is placed in juxtaposition to the [law concerning an] animal, hence just as there [the hair] is part of the body, here too it should be part of the body?6 — Rather, said R.Nahman: In the one case [the woman's] it is the actual death which renders the body prohibited for any use,7 whereas in the other case [the animal's], the close of the legal proceedings [the pronouncement of the death sentence] renders it prohibited for any use. Levi taught in accord with Rab and he also taught in accord with R. Nahman b. Isaac.8 He taught in accord with Rab: If a woman went forth to be executed and she said: ‘Give my hair to my daughter’, one would give it to her; but if she died [before making such a demand] one would not give it, because the dead must not be used for any purpose. But that is self-evident? — [Say] rather the ornaments of the dead are prohibited for any use.9 It was taught in accord with R. Nahman b. Isaac: If a woman died, her hair is permitted for use. If an animal was put to death, it is forbidden for any use. And what is the difference between the one and the other? In the one case it is only the actual death which renders the body prohibited for any use, and in the other case the pronouncement of the death sentence in itself renders it prohibited for any use. CHAPTERII MISHNAH. THERE IS NO VALUATION LESS THAN ONE SELA’ NOR MORE THAN FIFTY. HOW IS THAT? IF ONE PAID A SELA’10 AND BECAME RICH, HE NEED NOT GIVE ANY [MORE]. BUT IF HE GAVE LESS THAN A SELA’ AND BECAME RICH, HE MUST PAY FIFTY SELA'S.11 IF HE HAD FIVE SELA'S IN HIS POSSESSION,12 R. MEIR SAYS, THEN HE NEED NOT GIVE MORE THAN ONE, WHEREAS THE SAGES SAY HE MUST GIVE THEM ALL. FOR THERE IS NO VALUATION OF LESS THAN ONE SELA NOR MORE THAN FIFTY SELA'S. GEMARA. THERE IS NO VALUATION LESS THAN ONE SELA. Whence do we know that? — For Scripture said: And all thy valuations shall be according to the shekel of the sanctuary,13 i.e., all valuations which you evaluate shall be of no less than a shekel. Nor more than fifty sela's, as it is written: Fifty.14 IF HE HAD FIVE SELA'S IN HIS POSSESSION, etc. What is the reason of R. Meir? — Scripture says: ‘Fifty’, and it is also written: ‘Shekel’, i.e., either fifty or one shekel. And the Rabbis? That means that all valuations which you evaluate shall be of no less than one shekel.15 But where he has [more], there applies the Scriptural verse: According to the means of him that vowed,16 and here he has means. And R. Meir?17 — That indicates that the possessions of him who evaluates rather than of him who is evaluated are to be considered. And the Rabbis? — Does this not incidentally prove that where he has possessions, take from him as much as he can pay? R. Adda b. Ahabah said: If a man had five sela's in his possession and said: My own valuation be upon me [to pay], and he repeats: My own valuation be upon me, and then he paid four sela's on account for the second valuation and one sela’ for the first, then he has fulfilled his duty to both. What is the reason? — Because:18 A creditor, later in order of time, who has collected before [an earlier one] retains what he has collected. [Likewise] here when he paid for the second [valuation] he was in debt for the first,19 and when he paid for the first he had no more. eating. transgression of the law of the Sabbath as Biblically stated. also inadmissible as a gift to her daughter. But since she left instruction of such gift, she evidently did not consider the wig part of her body, and guided by her view we do not consider it such either, hence the gift is valid. astray were to be destroyed with all their property. Righteous persons, however, lost only their property but not their life. The theoretical question touched the wig of righteous women of such a city: Was it to be considered part of their body and thus will it escape destruction, or is it to be regarded as detachable from the head and as general property does it fall under the ban? At any rate what is a matter of doubt there could not possibly be taken here as settled law! forbidden all such parts of the body which had their vitality cut off by death (Rashi). reduced estimate may not fall below a sela’. poor man's exceptional one sela’ for any valuation. That sela’, being the legal minimum for a poor man, therefore has paid his debt, and freed him from any obligation, even if afterwards he became rich. But if, whilst poor, he had paid less than a sela’, he has not paid the minimum, his obligation to pay his valuation still rests upon him, and on becoming rich he must therefore pay the complete sum due, under the circumstances of payment which for a man not poor, amounts to fifty sela's. restrictions between these two sums, adjustments being made in accordance with the possessions of the respective dedicator. is concerned he had no five sela's to pay and hence discharged his obligation by paying the four sela's.