clearly close to the city, so that there is no need to measure in order to determine the closest city, nevertheless they must involve themselves with the measurement.

§ The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: With regard to the breaking of the neck of the heifer, the verse states: “And your elders and your judges shall go out” (Deuteronomy 21:2). “Your elders,” this is referring to the Sanhedrin; “and your judges,” this is referring to the king and the High Priest. The baraita explains the assertion that the king is called a judge, as it is written: “The king by justice establishes the land” (Proverbs 29:4), and the High Priest is also called a judge, as it is written: “And you shall come to the priests the Levites, and to the judge that will be in those days” (Deuteronomy 17:9), referring to the High Priest.

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Does Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov disagree with the tanna’im of the mishna only with regard to one matter, or does he disagree with regard to two matters? Does he disagree only with regard to the requirement for the king and the High Priest to participate in the measurement, but with regard to the Sanhedrin he holds either in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda or in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? Or perhaps he disagrees with regard to the Sanhedrin, too, as he says we require all of the members of the Sanhedrin to participate in the measurement.

Rav Yosef said: Come and hear a solution to this dilemma from a baraita discussing the case of a rebellious elder, a Sage who publicly teaches a halakha against the ruling of the Great Sanhedrin: If the rebellious elder found the members of the Sanhedrin in Beit Pagei outside of Jerusalem and rebelled against them by rejecting their decision, one might have thought that his rebellion is deemed a rebellion and he will be liable to receive the death penalty if he instructs the public to follow his opinion. Therefore, the verse states: “And you shall arise and go up to the place that the Lord your God shall choose” (Deuteronomy 17:8), and this teaches that the location determines the authority of the Sanhedrin; to a certain extent this authority exists only when the Sanhedrin is situated in the Chamber of Hewn Stone, adjacent to the Temple.

The Gemara clarifies: In the case discussed in the baraita, how many members of the Sanhedrin went out to Beit Pagei? If we say that only some of them went out, there is no significance in such a ruling issued by the rebellious elder, as perhaps those who are inside the Chamber of Hewn Stone are the majority and hold in accordance with his opinion; in which case he certainly would not be deemed a rebellious elder. Rather, it is obvious that they all went out. And for what reason did they go out? If we say that they did so for an optional matter, may they go out? But isn’t it written: “Your navel is like a round goblet wherein no blended wine is lacking” (Song of Songs 7:3), from which it is inferred that the Sanhedrin sit in a half-circle, and there must never be more than two-thirds of them lacking, as this is the measure of wine blended in water. Rather, since the Sanhedrin may not leave the chamber unnecessarily, it is obvious that they went out for a matter relating to a mitzva.

What are the circumstances? Is it not that they went out to measure the distance between a murder victim and the nearest city, in order to perform the ritual of the breaking of the neck of the heifer, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, from which it can be deduced that he says: We require all of the Sanhedrin to participate? Abaye said to him: No, that cannot be proven from here, as perhaps it is a case where they went out to extend the city of Jerusalem or the courtyards of the Temple, as we learned in the mishna: They may extend the city or the courtyards of the Temple only in accordance with the ruling of a court of seventy-one judges.

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef: If he found them in Beit Pagei and rebelled against them, such as in a situation where they went out to measure the distance between a murder victim and the nearest city, in order to perform the ceremony of the breaking of the neck of the heifer or to extend the city or the courtyards, one might have thought that his rebellion is deemed a rebellion. Therefore, the verse states: “And you shall arise and go up to the place,” which teaches that the location determines the authority of the Sanhedrin. This proves that there is a tanna who maintains that all of the members of the Sanhedrin must participate in the measurement.

§ The mishna teaches: Valuations of the fruits of a fourth-year sapling or second-tithe produce in cases where their value is not known is performed by three judges. The Sages taught in a baraita: What is the second tithe whose value is not known and requires a special court to assess it? This is fruit that has decomposed, and wine that has developed a film, and coins that have become rusted and cannot be traded at full value. Therefore, there is a need for expert assessment. The Sages taught in another baraita: The second tithe whose value is not known may be redeemed by three purchasers, i.e., experts in trade, but not by three ordinary people who are not purchasers. This may be done even if one of them is a gentile, and even if one of them is the owner.

Rabbi Yirmeya asks: Concerning three people who deposit their funds into one single purse, meaning they are partners in expenses and profits, what is the halakha? With regard to valuations, are they considered as three people or as one? The Gemara answers: Come and hear a solution to the matter from a baraita: A man and his two wives may redeem produce of the second tithe where its value is unknown. It is apparent that three partners are considered a court for this matter. The Gemara rejects this proof: Perhaps this was a case of a marriage with special arrangements, such as that between Rav Pappa and his wife, the daughter of Abba of Sura. Rav Pappa and his wife handled their finances independently; she had her own property and was responsible for her own expenses.

§ The mishna teaches that the valuation of consecrated property is performed by three judges. The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: Even a simple item such as a small fork of consecrated property requires a valuation by ten people in order to redeem it.

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: Granted, the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov can be understood, since what he says is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. As Shmuel says: Ten priests are written in this Torah portion, meaning the word “priest” appears ten times in the passage discussing consecrated property and redeeming consecrated property (Leviticus, chapter 27). For each time the word “priest” is stated, a judge is added to the court that must endorse the calculation of the redemption, leading to a total of ten judges. But according to the opinion of the Rabbis, from where do they derive a requirement for three judges?

And if you would say that the word “priest” is written with regard to them, i.e., with regard to the specific halakha of redeeming a consecrated animal, which can be generalized to any case of movable property, only three times (Leviticus 27:11–12), then in a case of redeeming land, with regard to which the word “priest,” is written four times (Leviticus 27:14, 18, 23), it should be enough to perform the valuation in a court of four judges. And if you would say: Indeed that is the case, why did we learn in the mishna that the valuation of consecrated land is performed by nine judges and one priest?

Rather, what would you say? That the count of ten instances of the word “priest” written in the section is completed with these, meaning that there is a cumulative calculation of all mentions of the word since the beginning of the passage? If so, concerning consecrated items such as animals, given that a similar cumulative count of six is completed with them, they should require six judges to perform the valuation. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, the matter is difficult.

§ The mishna teaches that the valuations that are movable property are performed by three judges. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: Valuations that are movable property? The term: Valuations, generally is referring to a unique type of calculation in which one vows to contribute the value of a person, according to the set amounts explicitly stated in the Torah (see Leviticus 27:1–8). This type of calculation does not apply to property, so to what does the mishna refer? Rav Giddel says that Rav says: The mishna was discussing a case where one says: The valuation of this utensil is incumbent upon me to contribute. As Rav Giddel says that Rav says: