Judges 19:20-20:26

This is a challenging, yet fascinating, request. The sheer brutality of the text in Judges and the subsequent civil war it ignites demands careful, rigorous analysis. Let's dive in.

Sugya Map

• Issue: The horrific sexual assault and subsequent dismemberment of a Levite's concubine in Gibeah, and the resulting civil war between the tribes of Israel and Benjamin.
• Nafka Mina(s):
  • The nature of the "sin" in Gibeah: Was it a violation of hachnasat orchim (hospitality), pirtzat ha'aretz (disruption of order, especially in the absence of a king), a violation of divine law, or a combination? How does the text's portrayal of the Benjaminites ("a depraved lot") influence our understanding?
  • The Levite's response: His act of handing over his concubine, followed by her dismemberment and distribution, is extreme. What does this reveal about the societal breakdown and the Levite's own agency or lack thereof?
  • The tribal response: The unity of Israel against Benjamin, the consultation with God, and the devastating war. How does this reflect the concept of klal Yisrael (the community of Israel) and the consequences of collective sin or inaction?
  • The role of God in the war: God's initial pronouncements, the devastating losses for Israel, and the eventual victory. What does this teach about divine justice, middot ha'rachamim (attributes of mercy), and middot ha'din (attributes of judgment)?
  • The "no king in Israel" refrain: How does this frame the entire episode and its resolution? Does it suggest a need for centralized authority, or is it a commentary on the inherent dangers of societal anarchy?
• Primary Sources:
  • Tanakh: Judges 19:20-21:25 (the core narrative).
  • Talmud: Sanhedrin 51b-52b (discussing the laws related to the incident, particularly concerning idolatry and sexual offenses), Sotah 1b (on the state of Israel when there is no king), Makkot 23b (on the severity of the sin).
  • Midrash: Tanchuma, VaYishlach 13 (on the significance of the concubine's dismemberment).

Text Snapshot

Judges 19:20-21:

"ואמר הזקן שלום לך רק כל מחסורך עלי ואל תלין ברחוב׃ ויבא אתו אל ביתו ויאכל תבן לתחמי האתנים ויתרחצו רגלים המה ועבדיו ויאכלו וישתו׃"

• Nuance: The phrase "רק כל מחסורך עלי" (Rach kol machsorcha alei) is pivotal. Metzudat David interprets it as reassurance: "Peace be with you. Meaning, do not fear, for you will not spend the night in the street. Only all your needs are upon me." (Metzudat David on Judges 19:20:1). The second part clarifies: "Meaning, since you have food and drink with you, I will not give you anything, and eat what you have, and only whatever you lack is upon me." (Metzudat David on Judges 19:20:2). This shows the host's desire to fulfill his obligation of hospitality fully, even providing for the traveler's own provisions. Minchat Shai notes a linguistic detail: "אל תלן (al talon). In some manuscripts the 'lamed' has a 'kamatz,' but in all accurate ones it has a 'patach,' and so R. David Kimchi wrote, as I will write below concerning 'vayavol' and so in Masoret, 'talon' (תלין) with a 'patach' and also in Iyov 17:2 ('vehem tylon einai' - and my eyes are fixed) and both have a 'patach,' and so in a manuscript tradition it is explicitly stated 'ba' (בַ) meaning 'bet' with a 'patach'." (Minchat Shai on Judges 19:20:1). This linguistic point, while seemingly minor, highlights the meticulous textual tradition and the emphasis on precise pronunciation, which can subtly alter meaning. Malbim adds a conceptual layer: "And he said. Meaning, he made a covenant with him that all his needs were upon him, for in this way he would fulfill the commandment properly." (Malbim on Judges 19:20:1). Abarbanel expands on the host's intent: "And the elder replied, 'Peace be with you, only all your needs are upon me, and do not spend the night in the street.' Meaning, in his house there will be peace for him, no disaster will befall him. And whatever he lacks (for he only mentioned bread and wine for his provisions), whatever he lacks besides this, such as meat and fruits and the like, he will feed him, and at least he will not spend the night in the street but in his house." (Abarbanel on Judges 19:20:1).

Judges 19:22-24:

"וְהָיוּ לִבּוֹת הָאֲנָשִׁים הָעִיר אֲנָשִׁים בְּלִיָּעל וַיַּכּוּ אֶת הַבַּיִת וַיִּקְרְאוּ אֶל הַזָּקֵן לֵאמֹר הוֹצֵא אֶת הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר־בָּא אֶל־בֵּיתְךָ וְנֵדְעֶנּוּ׃ וַיֵּצֵא הָאִישׁ הַזָּקֵן אֲלֵיהֶם וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵיהֶם אַחַי אַל־תָּרֵעוּ נָא אַחֲרֵי הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה אֲשֶׁר בָּא אֶל־בֵּיתִי אַל־תַּעֲשׂוּ אֶת־הָרָעָה הַזֹּאת׃ הִנֵּה בִתִּי הַבְּתוּלָה וּפִילַגְשׁוֹ הִנֵּה אֶצְעָרֶנָּה וּנְדוּ אֹתָן וְעֲשׂוּ־בָן מַה־טּוֹב בְּעֵינֵיכֶם וּלְאִישׁ הַזֶּה אַל־תַּעֲשׂוּ דָּבָר זֶה הַזִּמָּה׃"

• Nuance: The phrase "אנשים בליעל" (anshei b'liya'al) describes the townsmen. This is a strong term, often translated as "worthless men" or "wicked men." It signifies individuals who are morally corrupt and act without restraint. The owner's plea, "אל תעשו את הרעה הזאת" (al ta'asu et ha'ra'ah ha'zot - do not commit this evil thing), highlights the severity of the proposed act, even from his perspective. However, his subsequent offer, "הנה בתי הבתולה ופילגשו הנה אצעירנה ונדו אותן ועשו בהן מה טוב בעיניכם" (Hineh bitti ha'betulah u'pilagesho hineh etz'arenah v'nedu otan v'asu vah'en mah tov b'einichem - Behold, here is my virgin daughter and his concubine; I will bring them out to you. Use them, do what you like with them), is a shocking display of moral bankruptcy, attempting to sacrifice his own daughter and the concubine to save the Levite. The term "ונדעה" (v'ned'enu - "and we shall know them") is a euphemism for sexual intercourse, often with a connotation of violation or subjugation.

Readings

The Nature of the Sin and the Response

The core of the Sugya revolves around the horrific events in Gibeah and the subsequent tribal war. The commentary here will focus on understanding the nature of the sin, the Levite's actions, and the initial responses of the tribes.

1. Ramban on Judges 19:25 (Hebrew/Aramaic - translated):

"וַיִּקַּח אֶת־פִּילַגְשׁוֹ וַיַּעֲלֶהָ עָלָיו וַיַּעֲלֶהָ עָלָיו לְשִׁבְעָה חֲלָקִים כְּבָשָׂר אָדָם׃ וַיִּשְׁלַח אֹתָהּ בְּכָל־גְּבוּל יִשְׂרָאֵל׃"

"And he took his concubine, and he took her up upon him, and he took her up upon him in seven pieces, like human flesh. And he sent her throughout the border of Israel."

Ramban's Chiddush: The Ramban, in his commentary on the Torah (Devarim 21:14), grapples with the Levite's gruesome act of dismemberment and distribution. He posits that this act was not merely an act of revenge but a divinely orchestrated catalyst. Ramban argues that the Levite's intention was to reveal the enormity of the sin and shame the tribes into action. He writes: "And the reason for this was that the Levite saw that the men of Gibeah had committed a terrible sin, and that the tribes of Israel did not arise to punish them, and therefore he took his concubine and cut her into twelve pieces and sent them to the twelve tribes. And the intention of the Levite was to reveal the sin to them and to awaken them to punish the men of Gibeah, so that the land would not be defiled. And it was as if he was saying to them: 'See what has happened in Israel, and if you do not punish them, then the sin will be upon all of you.' And when they saw this, they arose and punished the men of Gibeah." (Ramban, Commentary on the Torah, Devarim 21:14, citing the incident from Judges). This perspective elevates the Levite's action from a personal vendetta to a quasi-prophetic act of communal awakening, driven by a desire to cleanse the land of sin. He sees it as a necessary, albeit brutal, means to achieve collective repentance and justice.

The Nature of the "Anshei Bliya'al" and the Host's Compromise

2. Sifrei, Shoftim, Parshat Shoftim, Siman 162 (Hebrew/Aramaic - translated):

"וַיָּבֹא הָאִישׁ הַזָּקֵן לִקְרָאתוֹ וַיֹּאמֶר אֵי מִזֶּה תָּבֹא וּמְקוֹם אָנָה תֵּלֵךְ וְלֹא יָכִיל אֹתְךָ הָעָם לָלִין בָּרְחוֹב׃ וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו הַלְוִיָּה אֲנַחְנוּ בָאִים מִבֵּית לֶחֶם יְהוּדָה וְאָנֹכִי בָא אֶל־בֵּית יְהוָה וְאֵין אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר־יְכַלְכְּלֵנִי לָלִין בַּבַּיִת׃"

"And the old man came to meet him and said, 'From where do you come and where are you going? And the people cannot contain you to lodge in the street.' And the Levite said to him, 'We are coming from Bethlehem of Judah, and I am going to the House of God, and there is no man who will host me in the house.'"

Sifrei's Chiddush: The Sifrei offers a crucial insight into the nature of the "people" who failed to provide hospitality. It states: "וכי שמו י-ה-ו-ה בְּרְחוֹב? והלא כל אחד ואחד מישראל חייב בהכנסת אורחים, שנאמר (ויקרא יט, לג): 'וְכִי יָגּוּר אִתְּךָ גֵּר בְּאַרְצְכֶם לֹא תִלְחֲצוּ אֹתוֹ. כְּאֶזְרָחֵס יִהְיֶה לָכֶם הַגֵּר הַגָּר אִתְּכֶם וְאָהַבְתָּ כָּמוֹךָ'. אלא מה תלמוד לומר 'ואין איש אשר יכלכלני'? אלא שהיו אנשי גיבח כתינוקות של בית רבן שאין להם דעת. או שהיו אנשי גיבח כמקולקלין שאין דעתם להכניס אורחים." (And is His Name, Hashem, in the street? Is it not that every single person in Israel is obligated in hospitality, as it is said (Leviticus 19:33): 'And when a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not oppress him. The stranger who sojourns with you shall be to you as the native-born, and you shall love him as yourself.' But what does it mean to say, 'and there is no man who will host me'? Rather, the people of Gibeah were like young students who have no understanding, or they were corrupt individuals who had no sense of hospitality.) (Sifrei, Shoftim, Siman 162). The Sifrei identifies the failure as a collective lapse in the observance of hachnasat orchim, a fundamental mitzvah. It presents two possibilities for the townsmen's behavior: either they were ignorant (like young children) or deliberately corrupt. This interpretation directly links the societal breakdown to a failure in basic ethical and religious observance, setting the stage for the subsequent tragedy. It moves beyond simply labeling them "anshei b'liya'al" to exploring the underlying causes of their depravity. The Sifrei emphasizes that hospitality is a universal obligation, not dependent on specific circumstances, and the failure of Gibeah was a profound transgression against this principle.

Friction

The narrative presents a profound moral and theological quandary, particularly concerning the Levite's actions and the divine response to the ensuing war. The friction arises from the apparent contradiction between divine justice and the seemingly arbitrary or disproportionate suffering.

The Levite's Actions: Revenge or Righteousness?

The most jarring aspect of the narrative is the Levite's response to his concubine's death. His act of dismembering her body and sending the pieces throughout Israel is both gruesome and strategic.

Kushya: How can the Levite's act of mutilation and distribution be seen as anything other than a barbaric act of revenge, driven by personal rage? If the goal was to unify Israel, why employ such a horrifying method? Does this not suggest a breakdown of justice and morality even in the accuser's actions, mirroring the depravity of Gibeah?

Terutz 1 (Ramban's perspective revisited): As alluded to in the Readings, the Ramban's interpretation offers a compelling defense. He suggests the Levite's action was a divinely inspired act to expose the sin and force the tribes to confront their own complicity through inaction. The phrase "וַיִּשְׁלַח אֹתָהּ בְּכָל־גְּבוּל יִשְׂרָאֵל" (vayishlach otah b'chol gvul Yisrael - "and he sent her throughout the border of Israel") implies a deliberate dissemination, not a random act of violence. The sending of the pieces to the twelve tribes specifically (implied by the number of pieces and the subsequent tribal assembly) signifies an appeal to the collective. The Levite is essentially presenting a k'tubah of atrocity, a testament to the defilement of Israel. By making the horror undeniable and visible to all, he forces their hand. This terutz argues that the Levite, in a time of anarchy ("אין מלך בישראל"), took upon himself the role of the divine prosecutor, using an extreme measure to achieve a righteous outcome. The brutality is not an end in itself but a means to shocking clarity.

Terutz 2 (Focus on societal collapse): Alternatively, one could argue that the Levite's actions are a symptom of the extreme societal breakdown described by "אין מלך בישראל." In the absence of established law and order, and with the failure of local authorities (Gibeah) and the indifference of the broader community, individuals are forced to resort to extreme measures to seek justice or at least to provoke a response. The Levite, having suffered a profound loss and injustice, and facing an unresponsive national structure, acts out of desperation. His dismemberment is a visceral scream for attention, a way to ensure that the atrocity cannot be ignored or swept under the rug. This perspective doesn't necessarily condone his actions but explains them as a consequence of a society that has lost its moral compass and its governing structure. The "justice" he seeks is not necessarily legal justice, but a communal reckoning.

The Divine Response: From "Go Up" to Devastating Losses

The narrative also presents a significant challenge regarding God's role. Israel consults God twice before engaging the Benjaminites, and both times God instructs them to proceed. Yet, on the first two days of battle, Israel suffers devastating losses, with tens of thousands killed.

Kushya: If God is all-knowing and all-powerful, and if He commanded Israel to go to war, why did He allow them to suffer such catastrophic defeats? Does this imply that God is either unaware of the future, unwilling or unable to prevent the losses, or perhaps even tacitly approving of Benjamin's initial success? How does this reconcile with the concept of divine providence and the idea of God fighting for Israel?

Terutz 1 (Theological interpretation of din and rachamim): This challenge is often addressed by understanding the interplay of middot ha'din (attributes of judgment) and middot ha'rachamim (attributes of mercy). The initial defeats can be seen as a manifestation of divine judgment, a consequence of Israel's collective failure to uphold justice and morality for so long. The phrase "בְּיוֹם הַהוּא וַיֶּחֱרַד יִשְׂרָאֵל" (B'yom hahu vayech'rad Yisrael - "On that day Israel trembled") after the first day's defeat (Judges 20:21) suggests a profound shock and realization of their vulnerability. The subsequent weeping and fasting at Bethel (Judges 20:22-23) are acts of teshuvah (repentance). God's "Go up" command, in this context, is not a guarantee of immediate victory but an instruction to proceed with the process of judgment and repentance. The suffering becomes a crucible, purging Israel of its complacency and forcing a deeper commitment to justice. The ultimate victory on the third day, after the rectification of their approach (including the ambush and proper consultation), demonstrates that God's ultimate will is for justice, but the path to it can involve severe trials. This interpretation posits that God's command to "go up" was conditional on Israel's sincere pursuit of justice, and the initial losses served as a necessary lesson in humility and dependence.

Terutz 2 (Theological interpretation of "no king"): The refrain "אין מלך בישראל" (ein melech b'Yisrael - "there was no king in Israel") is crucial. In a kingless society, the concept of divine monarchy takes precedence. When Israel acts as a unified entity, they are expected to consult God directly. However, the initial defeats can also be seen as a consequence of their own flawed strategy and perhaps a lack of full spiritual readiness. God's command to "go up" might have been a test of their faith and perseverance, rather than a simple directive for easy victory. The enormous losses serve as a stark reminder of the fragility of human endeavors when not fully aligned with divine will and strategy. The fact that Israel does not give up after the devastating losses, but rather rallies, consults again, and ultimately prevails, underscores their resilience and their commitment to klal Yisrael. The war itself, though terrible, becomes a cleansing fire, establishing a precedent for national responsibility and divine oversight in the absence of earthly kingship.

Intertext

The Echo of Sodom and Gomorrah: A Violation of Hospitality and Divine Order

1. Genesis 19:1-11 (The Destruction of Sodom):

"וַיָּבֹאוּ שְׁנֵי הַמַּלְאָכִים סְדֹמָה בָּעֶרֶב וְלוֹט יֹשֵׁב בְּשַׁעַר סְדֹמָה וַיַּרְא־לוֹט וַיָּקָם לִקְרָאתָם וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ אַפַּיִם אַרְצָה׃ וַיֹּאמֶר הִנֵּה־נָא אֲדֹנַי סֻרוּ־נָא אֶל־בֵּית עַבְדְּכֶם וְלִינוּ וְרַחֲצוּ רַגְלֵיכֶם וְשַׁכַּמְתֶּם וַהֲלַכְתֶּם לְדַרְכְּכֶם וְהִנֵּה בָּאתֶם אֶל־בֵּית עַבְדְּכֶם׃ וַיֹּאמְרוּ לֹּא כִּי בָרְחוֹב נָלִין׃ וַיֶּחֱזַק־לוֹט בָּהֶם מְאֹד וַיִּפְנוּ־אֵלָיו וַיָּבֹא אֶל־בֵּיתוֹ וַיַּעַשׂ לָהֶם מִצְוָה וַיֹּאפֶת מַצּוֹת וַיֹּאכֵלוּ׃ הִנֵּה־נָא לִפְנֵי יִשְׁכְּבוּ וְנַחְיָה הַלַּיְלָה וּרְחַצוּ אֶת־רַגְלֵיכֶם מָחָר תַּשְׁכְּמוּ וּבָאתֶם לְדַרְכְּכֶם וְאָמְרוּ כִּי־בָרְחוֹב נָלִין׃ וַיִּצְעֲקוּ עַל־הָאֲנָשִׁים בְּרֵאשִׁית הַלַּיְלָה וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֶל־לוֹט אַיֵּה הָאֲנָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר־בָּאוּ אֵלֶיךָ הַלַּיְלָה הוֹצִיאָם אֵלֵינוּ וְנֵדְעֶם׃"

"And the two angels came to Sodom in the evening; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot saw and rose up to meet them: and he bowed himself with his face to the ground. And he said, Behold now, I pray you, turn into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and you shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street. But he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat. And before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people from every quarter, compassed the house round about, and called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them."

The parallel is striking. In both narratives, strangers arrive, and the community's response is not hospitality but a demand for sexual violation. Lot, like the old man in Gibeah, attempts to protect the visitors, offering his virgin daughter in Sodom and his daughter and the concubine in Gibeah. The "anshei b'liya'al" of Gibeah are directly analogous to the men of Sodom, demonstrating a profound societal corruption that rejects fundamental human and divine laws of hospitality. The "אין מלך בישראל" in Judges mirrors the absence of divine rule in Sodom, leading to utter moral chaos. The punishment of Sodom by fire and brimstone serves as a precedent for the severe judgment that befell Gibeah, albeit in the form of civil war. Both stories underscore the extreme consequences of violating the sanctity of the stranger and the fabric of communal morality.

The Levite's Dismemberment and the "Cherem"

2. Leviticus 27:28-29 (The Ban - Cherem):

"אַךְ כָּל־חֵרֶם אֲשֶׁר יַחֲרִם אָדָם לַיהוָה מִכָּל אֲשֶׁר־לוֹ מֵאָדָם וּבְהֵמָה וּמִכַּרְמֶל שָׂדֵהוּ לֹא יִמָּכֵר וְלֹא יִגָּאֵל כָּל־חֵרֶם קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים הוּא לַיהוָה׃ כָּל־חֵרֶם אֲשֶׁר יִחֲרַם מִן־הָאָדָם לֹא יִגָּאֵל חָלוֹט יֶחֱלָט׃"

"However, no devoted thing that a man may devote to the LORD of all that he has, whether of man or beast, or of the field of his inheritance, shall be sold or redeemed; every devoted thing is most holy to the LORD. No one devoted to destruction may be ransomed; he shall surely be put to death."

While the Levite's act is not a formal cherem in the Levitical sense, the dismemberment and distribution can be seen as a symbolic act of cherem against the tribe of Benjamin, or at least against the perpetrators in Gibeah. The Levite is essentially declaring the sin so egregious that it warrants complete annihilation or ostracization. He is "devoting" the evidence of the crime to the entire nation, demanding that they "devote" the perpetrators to destruction. The text in Leviticus states that a cherem from a person cannot be redeemed; the person "shall surely be put to death." This reflects the ultimate, unforgiving nature of the punishment that the Levite seeks to instigate. The twelve pieces symbolize the division and potential destruction of the entire tribe, forcing each constituent part to confront the sin committed by one of its cities. This intertextual link highlights the extreme severity of the sin and the subsequent drastic measures taken to address it, aligning with the concept of absolute divine judgment that can be invoked when fundamental moral laws are transgressed.

Psak/Practice

The events in Judges 19-21 do not yield a direct psak in the traditional sense of a legal ruling for everyday practice. Instead, they provide a meta-level heuristic for understanding the consequences of societal breakdown and the imperative of communal responsibility, particularly in the absence of a formal king or recognized authority.

The primary takeaway for psak is the critical importance of hachnasat orchim (hospitality) and the dire consequences when this mitzvah is neglected or violated. The Talmud states in Sanhedrin 51b: "כל עיר שאין בה משום אחד משלשת הדברים הללו, אין יישובו של עולם אלא קרוב לחרבן. … וכי מה היתה גיבח? קודם שבא הלוי, היתה דומה לישוב של עולם. משבא הלוי, וקלקלו אנשיה, נתחייבה שונאיה." (Any city that does not have one of these three things... its settlement is close to destruction. ... And what was Gibeah like? Before the Levite came, it was like a settled place of the world. When the Levite came, and its people corrupted themselves, it became deserving of destruction.) The three things are: a Beit Din, a synagogue, and a mikveh. However, the Sifrei's interpretation (cited above) emphasizes the absence of basic hachnasat orchim as a cause for its downfall. This suggests that while formal institutions are important, the fundamental ethical fabric of a community, exemplified by hospitality, is equally crucial for its survival.

Furthermore, the story serves as a potent reminder of the dangers of anarchy and the "no king in Israel" syndrome. The lack of a central authority leads to moral relativism and the rise of "anshei b'liya'al." This underscores the necessity of a just legal system and a strong moral framework for any society to thrive and avoid self-destruction. The collective punishment of Benjamin, while brutal, serves as a stark warning about the interconnectedness of a people and the responsibility of each tribe for the sins of one of its cities, especially when those sins are so profoundly egregious and threaten the very existence of the nation.

Takeaway

The chilling narrative of Gibeah and the subsequent war demonstrates that the absence of justice and basic human decency, especially in the realm of hospitality, can lead to societal collapse and divine judgment.

This saga compels us to consider the profound responsibility of a community to uphold moral order, for the breakdown of one can ultimately necessitate the painful rectification of the whole.

Citations

• Judges 19:20-21:25, Sefaria: https://www.sefaria.org/Judges_19%3A20-20%3A26
• Metzudat David on Judges 19:20:1, Sefaria: https://www.sefaria.org/Metzudat_David_on_Judges_19.20.1
• Metzudat David on Judges 19:20:2, Sefaria: https://www.sefaria.org/Metzudat_David_on_Judges_19.20.2
• Minchat Shai on Judges 19:20:1, Sefaria: https://www.sefaria.org/Minchat_Shai_on_Judges_19.20.1
• Malbim on Judges 19:20:1, Sefaria: https://www.sefaria.org/Malbim_on_Judges_19.20.1
• Abarbanel on Judges 19:20:1, Sefaria: https://www.sefaria.org/Abarbanel_on_Judges_19.20.1
• Ramban, Commentary on the Torah, Devarim 21:14, Sefaria: https://www.sefaria.org/Ramban_on_Deuteronomy_21.14
• Sifrei, Shoftim, Siman 162, Sefaria: https://www.sefaria.org/Sifrei_Shoftim.162
• Genesis 19:1-11, Sefaria: https://www.sefaria.org/Genesis_19.1-11
• Leviticus 27:28-29, Sefaria: https://www.sefaria.org/Leviticus_27.28-29
• Sanhedrin 51b, Sefaria: https://www.sefaria.org/Sanhedrin_51b