4 See Pes. 8s; Nidd. 6. If she had not fixed periods and was in doubt whether the flow she suffered was during the seven days or the eleven, she cannot achieve certainty in less than seven days, and she cannot help achieving certainty within seventeen days. Cf. Ab. 3**.
than eight months require to be taken into account.1 The Two Loaves [of Pentecost]- were consumed never earlier than the second day and never later than the third day.3 The Shewbread4 was consumed never earlier than the ninth day and never later than the eleventh day. A child may never be circumcised5 before the eighth day and never later than the twelfth day.
3. They blew never less than twenty-one blasts in the Temple6 and never more than forty-eight [in a day]. They played on never less than two harps or more than six, and on never less than two flutes or more than twelve. On twelve days in the year was the flute played before the Altar: at the slaughtering of the First Passover-offering, at the slaughtering of the Second Passover5-offering, on the first Festival-day of Passover, and on the Festival-day of Pentecost and on the eight days of the Feast [of Taber¬ nacles].8 And they did not play on a pipe'3 of bronze but on a reed-pipe, since its sound was the sweeter, and they closed the playing with one pipe only since this made the better close.
4. [They that played the instruments of music] were the slaves of the priests. So R. Meir. R. Jose says: They were from the families of Beth ha-Pegarim and Beth Zipporya and from Emmaus, and they were eligible to give [their daughters] in marriage to the priestly stock.10 R. Hanina b. Antigonus says: They were levites.
5. There were never less than six inspected lambs in the Chamber of Lambs,11 sufficient for a Sabbath and the two Festival-days of the New Year;12 and their number could be increased without end. There were never less than two trumpets, and their number could be increased without end; there were never less than nine lyres, and their number could be in¬ creased without end; but of cymbals there was but one.
6. There were never less than twelve levites standing on the Platform,” and their number could be increased without end. None that was not of age could enter the Temple Court to take part in the [Temple-]service save only when the levites stood up to sing; and they” did not join in the singing with harp and lyre, but with the mouth alone to add spice to the music. R. Eliezer b. Jacob says: They did not help to make up the required num¬ ber, nor did they stand on the Platform; but they used to stand on the ground so that their heads were between the feet of the levites; and they used to be called the levites’ tormentors.”
3. 1. The law of the vow of Valuation may sometimes bear leniently and sometimes stringently; the law of the Field of Possession16 may sometimes bear leniently and sometimes stringently; the law of the ox that is an attested danger17 and that has killed a bondservant may sometimes bear leniently and sometimes stringently; the law of the violator18 and the seducer10 and him that hath brought up an evil name 20 may sometimes bear * i.e. the year (according to the Jewish reckoning by iunar months) has never less than four months of 30 days (called 'full' or ‘pregnant’ or 'intercalated' month*) and never more than a total of eight had ever been taken into account by the Sages as needing to be made jo days long. The lunar month is approximately 29 days, 12 J hours. Thus, while the month* may be given alternately 30 and 29 days, the resultant error involved variations in the time of the Mishnah, when the time of each new moon was determined by ocular proof only.
10 They were Israelites of irreproachable lineage. Cf. Kidd. 4lS.
11 Cf. Tam. 3*. 12 When the three fell on consecutive days. 17 Midd. 2*.
*♦ The children. ls So Rashi, Bert. Variant: the little one* of the levites.
546 FIFTH DIVISION: KODASHIM leniently and sometimes stringently. ‘The law of the vow of Valuation may sometimes bear leniently and sometimes stringently’ — thus it is all one whether a man vowed the Valuation of the fairest in Israel or of the most unseemly in Israel: he must pay fifty selas;1 but if he said, ‘I vow his worth’, then he must pay what he is worth.
2. ‘The law of the Field of Possession1 may sometimes bear leniently and sometimes stringently’ — thus it is all one whether a man dedicated [a field] in the desert of Machuz3 or in the gardens of Sebaste:4 5 [if he would redeem it] he pays the fifty shekels of silver [for every part of a field that suffices for] the sowing of a homer of barley* but if it was afield which he hath bought,6 he pays what it is worth. R. Eliezer says: It is all one whether it is a Field of Possession or a field which he hath bought:7 they differ only in that for a Field of Possession he must give the [Added] Fifth8 and fora field which he hath bought he need not give the [Added] Fifth.
3. ‘The law of the ox that is an attested danger and that has killed a bond- servant may sometimes bear leniently and sometimes stringently’ — thus it is all one whether it killed the finest bondservant or the most unseemly bondservant: he9 pays thirty selas?0 but if it killed a freeman he pays what he is worth. If it wounded him, whether it was a bondservant or a freeman, in either case he must make restitution for the damage in full.
4. ‘The law of the violator and the seducer...may sometimes bear leniently and sometimes stringently’ — thus it is all one whether a man violated or seduced a woman from among the greatest of the priestly stock or the least in Israel: he must pay fifty selas?1 but compensation for in¬ dignity and for blemish12 is in accordance with [the condition of life of] him that inflicts the indignity and her that suffers the indignity.
5. ‘The law of him that hath brought up an evil name may sometimes bear leniently and sometimes stringently’ — thus it is all one whether a man hath brought up an evil name against a woman from among the greatest of the priestly stock or against the least in Israel: he must pay a hundred selas?* Thus he that speaks with his mouth suffers more than he that commits an act. Thus also we find that the judgement was sealed against our fathers in the wilderness only by reason of their evil speaking, for it is written, Yet have they tempted me these ten times, and have not hearkened to my voice?* 4. 1. [When the priest shall value a man according to] his ability,15 this shall be according to the ability of him that vows; [and when according to] the years of his age, this shall be according to the age of him [whose Valua¬ tion is] vowed; [and when according to] the Valuations [prescribed in the Law], this shall be according to him whose Valuation is vowed; and the Valuation [shall be paid at the rate prescribed] at the time of [the vow of] Valuation. ‘[When the priest shall value a man according to] his ability, this shall be according to the ability of him that vows’ — thus if a poor man vowed the Valuation of a rich man, he need pay only the Valuation of a 1 If it was a man between twenty and sixty years old.
2 Which he had inherited.
3 A place unidentified. Cf. Maksh. 3*. Other interpretations of this phrase are: a field ‘in the surroundings of a town’, or ‘on the sands of the sea-shore’.
4 The town built by Herod on the site of ancient Samaria.
5 Lev. 27lt. The homer is equal to the kor (App. II, D).
6 Lev. 27”. 2 Both are valued at fifty shekels. * Lev. 271*. See B.M. 4*.
poor man; but if a rich man vowed the Valuation of a poor man, he must pay the Valuation of a rich man.
2. But it is not so with offerings. If a man said, ‘I take upon myself the offering of this leper’, and the leper was poor,1 he must bring the offering of a poor man; and if the leper was rich2 he must bring the offering of a rich man. Rabbi says: I say that it is the same also with a vow of Valuation. Why should the poor man that vows the Valuation of a rich man pay only the Valuation of a poor man? Because the rich man had incurred no liability whatsoever. But if the rich man said, ‘I vow my own Valuation’, and the poor man heard and said, ‘What this man has said, I take upon myself’, then he must pay the Valuation of a rich man. If he was poor and then became rich, or rich and then became poor, he must nevertheless pay the Valuation of a rich man. R. Judah says: Even if he was poor and became rich and then again became poor he must pay the Valuation of a rich man.
3. But it is not so with offerings. Even if [when a man vowed] his father lay dying and left to him ten thousand, or if he had a ship on the sea and it brought to him ten thousand, the Temple has no claim at all on them.
4. ‘[And when according to] the years of his age, this shall be according to the age of him [whose Valuation is] vowed’ — thus if a child vowed the Valuation of an old man, he pays the Valuation of an old man; and if an old man vowed the Valuation of a child, he pays the Valuation of a child. ‘ [And when according to] the Valuations [prescribed in the Law], this shall be according to him whose Valuation is vowed’ — thus if a man vowed the Valuation of a woman, he pays the Valuation of a woman, and if a woman vowed the Valuation of a man she pays the Valuation of a man. ‘And the Valuation [shall be paid at a rate prescribed] at the time of [the vow of] Valuation’ — thus if a man had vowed the Valuation of a child that was less than five years old and it then became more than five years old; or if of one that was less than twenty years old and he became more than twenty years old, he pays according to the time when he vowed the Valuation. Thirty days is accounted under this age; five years, or twenty years, is accounted under this age; for it is written, And if it be from sixty years old and upward, if it be a male;3 thus we learn about the others from them that are sixty years old: as sixty years is accounted under this age, so, too, twenty years or five years must be accounted under this age. What! if [Scripture] has reckoned sixty years to be under this age, thereby acting the more stringently,4 shall the fifth year or the twentieth year be reckoned under this age, thereby acting the more leniently?3 But Scripture says, Years, in each case, to set forth the analogy: as the expression years used in sixty years means [that it is reckoned to him as if he was] under this age, so, too, the expression years used in five years and twenty years means [that it is reckoned to him as if he was] under this age, no matter whether it bears leniently or stringently. R. Eleazar says: [So is it even] until they are a month and a day more than the years prescribed.
5. 1. If a man said, ‘I vow my weight’, he must give his weight in silver if [he had said] ‘in silver’, or in gold if [he had said] ‘in gold’. Once the mother of Yirmatia6 said, ‘I vow my daughter’s weight’, and she went up to 4 Since under sixty the price is fifty shekels, and over sixty it is only fifteen.
5 Since under twenty the price is only twenty shekels, and under five, five shekels.
6 Cambridge text: ‘Domitia.'
548 FIFTH DIVISION: KODASHIM Jerusalem and weighed her and paid her weight in gold, [If a man said,] ‘I vow my hand’s weight’, R. Judah says: He should fill a jar with water and put in his hand to the elbow; then he should weight out the flesh of an ass with its sinews and bones and put it in [the jar] until it is filled up again. R. Jose said: How is it possible to account one kind of flesh as like to another kind of flesh, and one kind of bones as like to another kind of bones! — but, rather, they estimate what the hand is likely to weigh.
2. [If he said,] ‘I vow the worth of my hand’, they estimate what his value is with a hand and what it is without a hand. Herein vows of worth bear more stringently than vows of Valuation; but vows of Valuation may bear more stringently than vows of worth; thus if a man said, ‘I vow my Valua¬ tion’, and he died, his heirs must pay it; but if [he said], ‘I vow mv worth’, and he died, his heirs pay nothing, since the dead have no worth. [If a man said,] ‘I vow the Valuation of my hand’ or ‘the Valuation of my foot’, he has said nothing; but if [he said, ‘I vow] the Valuation of my head’ or ‘the Valuation of my liver’, he must pay the whole of his Valuation. This is the general rule: [If a man vows the Valuation of] aught whereon his life de¬ pends, he must pay the whole of his Valuation.
3. [If he said,] ‘I vow the half of my Valuation’, he need pay but the half of his Valuation; but if he said, ‘I vow the Valuation of the half of me’, he must pay the whole of his Valuation. This is the general rule: [If he vows the Valuation of] aught whereon his life depends, he must pay the whole of his Valuation.
4. If a man said, ‘I vow the Valuation of such-a-one’, and both he and he whose Valuation was vowed died, his heirs must pay it. And if [he said,] ‘I vow the worth of such-a-one’, and he that vowed died, his heirs must pay it; but if he died whose worth was vowed the heirs pay nothing, since the dead have no worth.
5. [If a man said,] ‘Let this ox be a Whole-offering’, or ‘Let this house be an offering’, and the ox died or the house fell down, he is not still bound to pay the like; [but if he had said,] ‘I vow the worth of this ox as a Whole¬ offering’, or ‘the value of this house as an offering’, and the ox died or the house fell down, he must pay the like.
6. Pledges must be taken from them that are bound by a vow of Valua¬ tion, but from them that are liable to Sin-offerings or Guilt-offerings pledges are not taken. A pledge must be taken from them that have bound themselves to bring Whole-offerings or Peace-offerings; although he cannot make atonement unless he acts of his own good will, since it is written, At his good will,1 nevertheless they may compel him until he says, ‘It is my will’. So, too, sayest thou, as touching women’s bills of divorce:2 they may compel him until he says, ‘It is my will’.
6. 1. [The goods of] orphans that have been valued [by the court to meet the father’s debt must be proclaimed for sale] during thirty days; and those of the Temple3 during sixty days; and they must be proclaimed for sale in the morning and in the evening. If a man had dedicated his goods to the Temple and he was still liable for the payment of his wife’s Ketubah,4 R.
1 Lev. i5. R.V.: ‘that he may be accepted'.
1 When an illegal marriage must be set aside. A divorce is not valid except with the husband's consent.
3 When a man would redeem a field (which he had bought and not inherited) which he had dedicated to the Temple. « App. I. 16.
Eliezer says: When he divorces her he must vow to derive no further benefit from her.1 R. Joshua says: He need not. Similarly2 Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said: If a man was guarantor for a woman’s Ketubah and her husband divorced her, the husband must vow to derive no further benefit from her, lest he make a conspiracy against the property of the guarantor and take back his wife again.
2. If a man dedicated his goods to the Temple while he was still liable for the payment of his [divorced] wife’s Ketubah or indebted to a creditor, the wife cannot recover her Ketubah from what was dedicated nor the creditor his debt; but he that redeems them redeems them on the understanding that he must pay the wife her Ketubah or the creditor his debt. If he had dedicated goods worth ninety minas 3 and he owed a hundred minus, the creditor should lend him another denar * and with this he may redeem the goods on the understanding that he must pay the wife her Ketubah or the creditor his debt.
3. Although they have said, ‘Pledges must be taken from them that are bound bv a vow of Valuation’, they must leave him sustenance for thirty days and raiment for twelve months and bed and bedding and shoes and phylacteries5 — for himself, but not for his wife or children. If he was a craftsman they must leave him two of every kind of the tools of his craft. If he was a carpenter they must leave him two axes and two saws. R. Eliezer says: If he was a husbandman they must leave him his yoke [of oxen], and if an ass-driver they must leave him his ass.
4. If he had many tools of one kind and few of another kind, they may not bid him sell of the many and buy some of the few, but they leave him two from every kind of which he has many and all that he has from them of which he has few. If a man dedicated all his property to the Temple, they take away6 even his phylacteries.
5. It is all one whether a man dedicates his goods or vows his own Valua¬ tion: he7 has no claim to his wife’s raiment or his children’s raiment, or to dyed clothes which he had dyed for their need, or to new sandals which he had bought for their need. Although it has been said, ‘Slaves should be sold with their raiment to improve their value’, since if raiment costing thirty denars was bought for a slave it improves him by a mina’s worth8 (so, too, if a cow is suffered to wait until market-day its value increases; so, too, if a pearl is brought to a great city its value increases), yet the Temple can claim the value of anything only in its own place and at that time.
7. 1. None may dedicate [the Field of his Possession]9 less than two years before the year of Jubilee or redeem it less than one year after the [beginning of the] year of Jubilee.10 [In redeeming the field] they may not make reckoning of months to [the disadvantage of] the Temple,1 1 but the Temple may make reckoning of months [to its own advantage]. 1 2 If a man dedicated * Lest his divorce was only a device to put a lien on certain property so that it could not be included in what was dedicated to the Temple.
* Since he had already dedicated all his property. s See p. 104, n. 16.
0 Rashi: ‘put up to auction', so that he may redeem them.
7 In paying his vow or redeeming what he has dedicated.
10 If he does, he must, when he redeems it, pay the full fifty shekels instead of, as in other years, a shekel and a pondion for each year before the year of Jubilee.
11 e.g. two years and three months may not be reckoned as two years.
■* e.g. one year and eleven months before the Jubilee cannot count as two full years to FIFTH DIVISION: KODASHIM his field at a time when the law of the year of Jubilee was binding,1 he must pay2 the fifty shekels of silver [for every part of a field that suffices for] the sowing of a homer of barley. If the field contained rifts ten handbreadths deep or rocks ten handbreadths high these are not included in the measure;3 butof less than this- they are included. If a man dedicated [his field] two years or three years before the year of Jubilee he must pay one sela and one pondion 4 for each year. If he said, ‘I will pay for each year as it comes’, they do not hearken to him, but he must pay for all the years together.
2. It is all one whether the owner or any other [redeems the field]. Wherein does the owner differ from any other? Only in that the owner must pay the [Added] Fifth5 and any other does not pay the [Added] Fifth.
3. If a man dedicated a field and then redeemed it, it does not go out of his possession in the year of Jubilee. If his son redeemed it it reverts to his father in the year of Jubilee. If another, or a kinsman, redeemed it, and he6 again redeemed it from his hand, it does not go out of his possession in the year of Jubilee. If one of the priests redeemed it,7 and it was still in his possession [when the year of Jubilee began], he may not say, ‘Since it goes out to the priests8 in the year of Jubilee, and since it is now in my possession, therefore it belongs to me’, but it goes out to all his brethren the priests.
4. If the year of Jubilee arrived and it was not yet redeemed, then the priests enter into possession of it and they pay its value.9 So R. Judah. R. Simeon says: They enter into possession but they do not pay [its value]. R. Eleazar says: They neither enter into possession nor pay [its value], but it is called ‘an abandoned field’ until the second year of Jubilee; if the second year of Jubilee arrived and it was not redeemed, it is called ‘a twice aban¬ doned held’ until the third year of Jubilee; the priests may never enter into possession until another has redeemed it.10 5. If a man bought a field from his father and his father died, and he afterward dedicated it, it is accounted a Field of his Possession.1 1 If he dedicated it and afterward his father died, then it is accounted afield which he hath bought.11 So R. Meir. R. Judah and R. Simeon say: [It is accounted" a Field of his Possession, for it is written, And if afield which he hath bough which is not afield of his possession — a field which was not such as might be a field of his possession; thus it excludes a field which is such as might be a field of his possession. A field which he hath bought does not go out tc the priests in the year of Jubilee, for none can dedicate what he does nol possess. Priests and levites may dedicate [their fields] at any time anc redeem them at any time, whether before the Jubilee year or after it, 8. 1. If a man dedicated his field13 at a time when the [law of the] year oi permit the field to be redeemed for two shekels and two pondions; the Temple can exact the full fifty shekejs. See p. 549, n. 10. 1 When all Israel lived in the Land of Israel I At the beginning of the Jubilee cycle. s Of a homer's sowing area.
4 A fraction more than one forty-ninth of the fifty shekels. The surplus is explained as surcharge (see Shek. 1*) to reimburse the Temple treasurer for any loss suffered by th< Temple in changing the money.
* Lev. 27l*. This fifth is really a fourth; for if the estimation was twenty shekels he musi pay twenty-five.
6 Who had dedicated it. r From the Temple treasurer.
8 Lev. 27 u, ‘holy to the Lord, the possession thereof shall De the priests’.
9 At the rate of fifty shekels for each homer’s sowing space.
10 And at the next Jubilee it goes out of his possession and becomes the priests’.
II Lev. 27**. is Lev. 27”. u His by inheritance.
Jubilee was no longer binding,1 * they say to him, ‘Make thou first a begin¬ ning’, for the owner pays the [Added] Fifth and none other pays the [Added] Fifth. Once a man dedicated his field because of its badness. They said to him, ‘Make thou first a beginning’, and he answered, ‘I will take it for an issar'. R. Jose said: He said only ‘for an egg* (for what is dedicated can be redeemed either by money or by money’s worth). Whereupon they said to him, ‘It is thine!’ Thus he lost an issar and the field was still his.
2. If one man said, ‘I bid ten selas', and another said ‘twenty’, and another ‘thirty’, and another ‘forty’, and another ‘fifty’, and then he that bid fifty recanted, they take pledges* from his property up to ten selas. If he that bid forty recanted, they take pledges from his property up to ten selas. If he that bid thirty recanted, they take pledges from his property up to ten selas. If he that bid twenty recanted, they take pledges from his property up to ten selas. If he that bid ten recanted, they sell the field for what it is worth, and exact the residue3 from him that bid ten. If the owner bid twenty, and any other bid twenty, the owner’s claim comes first, since he must add the Fifth.4 3. If [then] one said, ‘I bid twenty-one’, the owner must give twenty-six;5 if [the other bid] twenty-two, the owner must give twenty-seven; if twenty- three, the owner must give twenty-eight; if twenty-four, the owner must give twenty-nine; if twenty-five, the owner must give thirty; since they do not add the Fifth to what the other bids more. If one man said, ‘I bid twenty-six’6 and the owner was willing to pay thirty-one and one denar,7 the owner’s claim comes first; but if not, they say to the other, ‘It is thine’.
4. A man may devote8 part of his flock or his herd or his Canaanitish bondmen and bondwomen, or the field of his possession; but if he devoted the whole of them they are not deemed [validly] devoted. So R. Eliezer. R. Eleazar b. Azariah said: If even to the Highest men may not devote all their property, how much the more then must men not squander their goods!
5. If a man devoted his son or his daughter, his Hebrew bondman or bondwoman, or the field which he hath bought, they are not deemed [validly] devoted, for a man may not devote what is not his.9 Priests and levites cannot devote [their goods]. So R, Judah. R. Simeon says: Priests may not devote [their goods] since whatsoever is devoted falls to them; but levites may devote [their goods] since what is devoted does not fall to them. Rabbi says: The words of R. Judah are acceptable in cases of immovable property, for it is written, For it is their perpetual possession,10 and the words of R. Simeon in cases of movable property, since what is devoted does not fall to them.
6. What is devoted [to the use] of the priests cannot be redeemed, but 1 And the fixed valuation of fifty shekels for each homer's sowing space no longer applied, and a field must be redeemed at its market value.
1 Since he has estimated the Temple’s property at fifty, and by recanting and leaving it to him who bid forty he has involved the Temple in the loss of ten.
3 The difference between ten and what was received from the next highest bidder.
* And pay twenty-five in all. See above, p. 550, n. 5.
s But this is not outbidding him who bid twenty-one, but a compulsory surcharge.
6 Thereby outbidding the owner’s original bid of twenty (plus the added fifth).
7 The extra denar serves as an effective overbid.
* Lev. 27**. These, unlike what is dedicated, cannot be redeemed or sold again.
* He has the power to sell his daughter only when she is under age, and when she is of age she is free. A Hebrew slave is free after six years; a field that has been bought reverts to its original owner in the year of Jubilee. Lev. 25**, FIFTH DIVISION: KODASIIIM must be given to the priests. R. Judah b. Bathyra says: What is devoted without any condition falls to the Temple treasury, for it is written, Every devoted thing is most holy to the Lord.' But the Sages say: What is devoted j without any condition falls to the priests, for it is written,.4s a field devoted the possession thereof shall he the priest's r Then why is it written, Ever\ devoted thing is most holy unto the Lord? [To show] that the prescription applies both to the Most Holy Things and to the Lesser Holy Things.
7. A man may devote what he had already set apart as animal-offerings whether they are Most Holy Things or Lesser Holy Things. If it was a vowI * 3 he must give [the priest] the value thereof. If it was a freewill-offering, he must give what it was worth to him; [thus if he had said,] ‘Let this ox be a Whole -offering’, they estimate what a man would pay for this ox in order to offer it as a Whole-offering for which he was not liable. A Firstling, whether unblemished or blemished, may be devoted. How is it redeemed? They that redeem it estimate what a man would pay for this Firstling in order to give it to the son of his daughter or to the son of his sister.4 5 R. Ishmael says: One verse of Scripture says, [All the firstling males ] thou shalt sanctify p and another, [The firstling among beasts ] no man shall sanctify}' It is not possible to say, Thou shalt sanctify, since it is written, No man shall sanctify; and it is not possible to say, Thou shalt not sanctify, since it is also written. Thou shalt sanctify. Say, rather, Thou mavest sanctify it as something whose estimated value fails to the Temple; but thou mayest not sanctify it as an offering that falls to the Altar.