SANHEDRIN 15(8 Av) - Dedicated l'Iluy Nishmas Mrs. Lily (Leah bas Pinchas) Kornfeld, who passed away on 8 Av 5765. Dedicated by her daughter and son-in-law, Diane and Andy Koenigsberg and family. May Lily and her husband's love for Torah and for Eretz Yisrael continue in all of their descendants.



תוס' ד"ה 'האומר "ערך כלי עלי", נותן דמיו'.

(Summary: After citing Rav in Erchin, who establishes this statement like R. Meir, who holds 'Ein Adam Motzi Devarav le'Vatalah', Tosfos proves from the Gemara in Gitin, that Rav does not concur with R. Meir, unless, they conclude, we adopt the second Lashon of Rav cited there).

בפ"ק דערכין (דף ה.) מוקי לה כר' מאיר, דאמר 'אין אדם מוציא דבריו לבטלה'.


Clarification: In the first Perek of Erchin, the Gemara establishes this ruling like R. Meir, who says 'Ein Adam Motzi Devarav le'Vatalah' (a person does not make a statement in vain).

ותימה, דבפרק השולח (גיטין דף לח: ושם) אמר רב "המקדיש עבדו, יצא לחירות"; מאי טעמא? גופיה לא קדיש ... ' משמע התם - דהיינו דלא כר"מ, דלדידי' קדוש לדמיו?


Question: Rav himself says in Perek ha'Shole'ach that someone who declares his Eved Hekdesh, he goes out to freedom, and it attributes this to the fact that 'his body is not sanctified'; and it is implied there that this is not like R. Meir, according to whom an Eved is sanctified for his value?

ונראה דההיא דערכין אליבא דר' מאיר קאמר רב, וליה לא סבירא ליה.


Answer #1: Rav in Erchin, establishes this ruling like R. Meir, but he himself does not agree with it.

וכן משמע התם - (ערכין דף ה.) דפריך 'לר"מ פשיטא?' ואי אתא למימר דסבר כר' מאיר, מאי פריך 'פשיטא?' אלא משמע דלא סבר כרבי מאיר אלא קאמר דלר"מ נותן דמיו.


Proof: And so it is implied there, when the Gemara asks 'According to R. Meir, is this not obvious'? Now if Rav is coming to teach us that he holds like R. Meir, why is it obvious. It is therefore clear that he does not hold like R. Meir, and that he is merely coming to teach us that according to R. Meir, he must pay his value (on which the Gemara justifiably asks 'P'shita?')

א"נ, איכא ב' לישני דרב בגיטין (דף לח:) חד במקדיש, וחד במפקיר.


Answer #2: Alternatively, there are two versions of Rav's statement in Gitin, one with reference to Makdish; the other, with reference to Mafkir - according to the second Lashon, Rav 's statement has nothing to do with R. Meir.



תוס' ד"ה 'אדם מי קדוש'?

(Summary: Tosfos gives two explanations as to why we cannot answer by establishing the Mishnah by an Eved Cana'ani).

וא"ת, ולוקמא בעבד, דקדוש, כדאמרינן בסמוך - ד'מועלין בשערו'; ואמר בהשולח (שם) 'המקדיש נכסיו והיו בהם עבדים, אין הגזברים רשאין להוציאם לחירות'.


Question: Why can we not establish the Mishnah in connection with an Eved, who is subject to Kedushah, as is implied shortly, since the Gemara asks why one is not Mo'el on the hair of an Eved, and in the Gemara in Gitin (Ibid.) where the Gemara rules that if someone declares Hekdesh his property containing Avadim, then the Gizbarim are not permitted to set them free.

וי"ל, ד'אדם' לא משמע ליה דקאי א'עבד.


Answer #1: The questioner assumes that 'Adam' does not imply Eved.

אי נמי, הכא פריך אליבא דרב, דאמר (שם) 'המקדיש עבדו יצא לחירות'.


Answer #2: Alternatively, the Gemara Kashya goes according to Rav, who holds there that if somebody declares his Eved Hekdesh, the Eved goes free.



תוס' ד"ה 'שער העומד ליגזוז'.

(Summary: Tosfos explains how it is possible to apply this principle by Me'ilah, despite the fact that we do not apply it by Terumah, and we generally learn Me'ilah from Terumah).

אף על גב דמעילה ילפינן מתרומה, ולענין תרומה לא אמרינן 'כל העומד לקצור ... '?


Implied Question: Seeing as we learn Me'ilah from Terumah, and by Terumah we don't apply 'Kol ha'Omed Liktzor ... , how can we apply it to Me'ilah?

לענין האי לא ילפינן מתרומה ד"תמעול מעל" ריבה, כדדרשינן במעילה (דף יח:) לגבי כמה דברים.


Answer: In this regard, we do not learn Me'ilah from Terumah, since the Torah writes "Tim'ol Ma'al" (a double expression), to include it, as we learn in Me'ilah regarding various issues.



תוס' ד"ה 'אין מועלין'.

(Summary: After concluding that there is no Me'ilah by Mechubar, Tosfos queries the Rashbam's explanation of the Sugya in Bava Basra, and explin it to conform with our Sugya).

כאן משמע דאין מעילה במחובר; ובהדיא אמרי' הכי במסכת מעילה (דף יד:).


Clarification: It is implied here that Me'eilah does not apply by anything that is attached, and so the Gemara specifically says in Me'ilah.

וקשה לפי' רשב"ם, דבפ' המוכר את הספינה (ב"ב דף עט. ושם) גבי מקדיש - דקתני 'מועלין בבור' ופי' 'כגון שהצניע חפצים בבור'. ולא יתכן, דהיינו מחובר?


Question: on the Rashbam in Perek ha'Mocher es ha'Sefinah, where the Mishnah rules 'Mo'alin ba'Bor', and he presents the case where one placed objects in pit. But that is incorrect, since that is Mechubar?

אלא שעקר חוליא מן הבור ונהנה ממנה.


Explanation: The case must therefore be where one pulled out a clod of earth from the pit and derived benefit from it.



תוס' ד"ה 'בענבים העומדים ליבצר'.

(Summary: Tosfos cites the discrepancy between our Gemara, where the Rabbanan do not hold 'Anavim ha'Omdim Lebatzer ki'Betzurim Damu' and the Gemara in Kesuvos, where they do; which they resolve in two ways).

תימה, דבפרק נערה (כתובות דף נא. ושם) פריך גבי 'זיל הב ליה מתמרי דעל בודיא' - 'סוף סוף, כל העומד לגזוז כגזוז דמי'? דצריכי לדיקלא קאמינא! ומאי פריך, והא רבנן דהכא לית להו הך סברא?


Question: In Perek Na'arah, in connection with the ruling there 'Go and give him from the dates that are on the mat!' 'But when all's said and done, 'Whatever is ready to be shorn, is as if it has already been shorn'? Which the Gemara refutes by establishing the case by dates which still need the tree. What is the Gemara's Kashya there, seeing as the Rabbanan here do not hold of that S'vara?

וי"ל, דגבי בעל חוב מודו דלא גבי מדבר העומד לגזוז, דלא סמכא דעתיה.


Answer #1: It is only in the case of a debt (like in our Sugya) where the Rabbanan hold 'La'av ki'Betzurin Damyan', since the creditor does not rely on it (only on what has already been picked [see Tosfos ha'Rosh])

ועוד פר"ח - דהתם פריך משום דבפרק הכונס (ב"ק דף נט:) פסיק רב כרבי שמעון, דאמר 'אכלה פירות גמורים, משלמת פירות גמורים', ו'אין שמין אגב שדה' משמע ד'כבצורות דמיין'.


Answer #2: Furthermore, Rabeinu Chananel explains, the Gemara in Kesuvos is asking according to Rav, who rules in Bava Kama, like R. Shimon. R. Shimon rules there that someone who ate ripe fruit that is ready to be picked) must pay ripe fruit, which need nopt be assessed together with the field - implying that he holds ' ... ki'Betzurin Damyan'.



תוס' ד"ה 'אם אינו ענין לשוכב ... '.

(Summary: Having established that the Pasuk "Kol Shochev im Beheimah" is needed to teach us that the Nishkav too, requires twenty-three, Tosfos explains from where various Tana'im and Amora'im, who learn other things from the same Pasuk, know the current ruling).

ומהכא נמי בפ' ד' מיתות (לקמן דף נד:) ילפינן אזהרה לנשכב - 'מה שוכב ענש והזהיר ... '.


Clarification: From here the Gemara in Arba Misos too learns the warning for the person who is being lain with - 'Just as the Torah punishes after warning, so too the Nishkav'.

ותימה, ר' אבהו דפליג עלה התם, כ"ג מנליה?


Question #1: From where does R. Avahu, who argues there, know that the Mishkav requires twenty-three Dayanim?

וכן רבי שמעון - דדריש מיניה התם (ד' ס.) ד'בני נוח מוזהרים על כישוף מדאיתקש לשוכב עם בהמה'? וכן לבן עזאי - דגמר מיניה ד'מכשף בסקילה' בההוא פירקא (דף סז:)?


Question #2 & #3: And the same question can be asked on R. Shimon there, according to whom the B'nei No'ach are warned against witchcraft since it is compared to someone who lies with an animal, and on ben Azai, who learns from the same Hekesh that a Mechashef is subject to Sekilah?

וי"ל, דאי משום הקישא הל"ל קרא ד"איש כי יתן את שכבתו בבהמה" גבי מכשפה, הלכך קרא ד"כל שוכב" מיותר לנשכב, כדדרשינן.


Answer: For the Hekesh, it would have sufficed to juxtapose "ve'Ish ki Yitein es Shechovto bi'Veheimah" by Machfeifah, rendering the Pasuk "Kol Shochev ... " superfluous to learn from it Nishkav, as we explained (see also Maharsha).




תוס' ד"ה 'אימא לקטלא הוא דאתא'.

(Summary: After extrapolating that if it did, then we would not know 'ke'Misas ha'Ba'alim' [an inference from which they finally retract], they query this from various other cases where the Gemara just learned both the Misah and a Hekesh. They refute the suggestion that it differentiate between where Misah is mentioned by each one, or whether each one is mentioned separately. In their first answer, they finally draw a distinction between whether the Pasuk subsequently writes animal and then man, or vive-versa).

משמע דאי לקטלא אתא, תו לא דרשינן מיניה 'כמיתת בעלים כך מיתת השור'.


Clarification: This implies that if the Pasuk did come to teach us (that the owner of the ox is Chayav) Misah, then we could no longer learn from it the Hekesh of the ox to the master.

ותימה, הא גבי רובע דדריש לעיל מדאיתקיש?


Question: This is difficult however, since earlier we learned that the animal requires twenty-three from the Hekesh of Beheimah to Ishah?

וכ"ת משום דחדא מיתה כתיב א'תרווייהו - דכתיב "והרגת את האשה ואת הבהמה"?


Suggested Answer: Perhaps that is because the Pasuk incorporates them both in one Misah - "ve'Haragta es ha'Ishah ve'es ha'Beheimah"?

הא גבי שוכב דרשינן מדאיתקיש, אע"ג דכתיב מיתה בכל חד באפי נפשיה "ואיש כי יתן שכבתו בבהמה מות יומת ... '.


Refutation: But by Shochev we also learn the animal from the Hekesh, even though there is a separate P'asuk for each one ("ve'Ish ki Yiten Shechovto bi'Veheimah Mos Yumas" ... "ve'es ha'Beheimah Tahorogu" [see Daf 54b, where the Gemara discusses this Pasuk]).

וי"ל דהתם 'בהמה' כתיב בתריה, לאקשויי בהמה לאיש, אבל הכא כתיב 'שור' ברישא, והדר 'בעלים' - לאקושי בעלים לשור, ולא שור לבעלים, אי לאו משום דמייתר דלא איצטריך לגופיה.


Answer: Because in the Pasuk cited earlier, the Torah writes "Beheimah" straight afterwards, to compare Beheimah to Ish, whereas here, where it writes Shor and then Ba'alim, it would be coming to compare the owner to the ox, and not vice-versa, were it not for the fact that the phrase is superfluous, as it is not needed intrinsically.

וא"ת, והא אכתי אצטריך "יומת" למיתה בידי שמים, כדדרשינן ב'אלו נערות' (כתובות לז: ושם) 'לפי שמצינו מומחין בידי שמים, נותנין ממון ומתכפר להם שנאמר "ואם כופר יושת עליו" '?


Question: But we need "Yumas" to teach us that the owner is Chayav Misah bi'Yedei Shamayim, like we Darshen in 'Eilu Na'aros', where the Gemara says 'because we find that among those who die bi'Yedei Shamayim those who pay money and are attain atonement, as the Torah says "And if money is placed on them ... "?

וי"ל, דאי למיתה בידי שמים לחוד אתא, הל"ל 'ימות' - אבל "יומת" משמע בב"ד; לכך מוקמי ליה למיתה ממש או ל'כמיתת בעלים כך מיתת השור.


Answer #1 (Part 1): If the Pasuk came to teach us Misah bi'Yedei Shamayom alone, then it ought to have said 'Yamus' - "Yumas" implies in Beis-Din; Therefore the Gemara establishes it by Misas Beis-Din, or to teach us the principle of 'ke'Misas ha'Ba'alim Kach Misas ha'Shor'.

'. ומ"מ, כי מוקמינן ליה ל'כמיתת בעלים ... ' דרשינן נמי מיתה בידי שמים, דאין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו - דמשמע דבעלים חייבין מיתה.


Answer #1 (Part 2): Nevertheless, even after learning from it 'ke'Misas ha'Shor ... , we also Darshen Misah bi'Yedei Shamayim as well, applying the principle 'Ein Mikra Yotzei mi'Yedei Peshuto' (the simple explanation of the Pasuk remains intect).

ועי"ל, דה"פ 'ואימא לקטלא נמי הוא דאתא (ולא למעוטי דרשה ד'כמיתת בעלים כך מיתת השור' קא אתי) דקדרשינן ליה נמי מדאיתקש.


Answer 2: The Gemara means to ask that it should teach us Misah as well (and not to exclude the D'rashah of 'ke'Misas ha'Ba'alim ... ', which we learn from the Hekesh).



תוס' ד"ה 'שור סיני בכמה?'

(Summary: Tosfos first extrapolates that the Gemara's question does not extend to people who sinned there, then discusses from where the Gemara knew it. Finally, they explain the point of the Gemara's question here and in Yoma, where it asks what Moshe wore during the Seven days of the Milu'im).

איש סיני לא קמיבעיא ליה, כדמוכח בסמוך - דדריש "אם בהמה אם איש" 'מה איש בכ"ג', משמע דאיש פשיטא ליה.


Clarification: The Gemara does not ask how many judges were required at Sinai to kill a man, because it is obvious to the Gemara that he required twenty-three, as is evident, when it Darshens shortly 'Just as Ish required twenty-three, so too did Shor'.

אע"ג דאכתי לא מכתב קרא ד"ושפטו העדה והצילו העדה" (במדבר לה)?


Implied Question: Even though the Pasuk "ve'Shaftu ha'Eidah ve'Hitzilu ha'Eidah" (the source for Sanhedrin Ketanah, had not yet been written ...

מ"מ כיון דתקון יתרו סנהדראות, סתמא דמילתא סנהדרי קטנה נמי לדיני נפשות תקון.


Answer: Nevertheless, since Yisro had already initiated Sanhedra'os, we can assume that he had also initiated a Sanhedra'os Ketanos to judge those who were Chayav Misah.

וא"ת, ומאי קמביעיא ליה משור סיני - דמ"נ מינה, 'מאי דהוה הוה'?


Question #1: What is the point of the query regarding Shor Sinai? Seeing as what is passed is passed, it is no practical ramifications?

וכן קשה בפ"ב דמסכת ע"ז (דף לד.) 'במה שימש משה כל ז' ימי המילואים'?


Question #2: And the same question applies to the Gemara in Avodah-Zarah, which asks 'What Moshe wore when he served in the Mishkan during the seven days of Milu'im?

ושמא מיבעי ליה למיסבר קראי כדאשכחן פ"ק דיומא (ד' ה. ושם) גבי 'כיצד הלבישן'.


Answer: Perhaps the Gemara is concerned with understanding the relevant Pesukim, like we find in the first perek of Yoma, which discusses how Moshe dressed Aharon and his sons when they came to serve on the eighth day, for that reason.



תוס' ד"ה 'מי גמרי' שעה מדורות או לא'?

(Summary: Tosfos explains why even though we do not even learn the Dinim of Mishah from one another Doros from Doros, the Dinim osf Sekilah are different).

תימה הא אפילו דורות מדורות לא ילפינן לעיל, דמיבעי לן קרא לרובע, ונרבע, ושור הנסקל?


Question: Bearing in mind that, based on the fact that we require Pesukim for Rove'a, Nirva and Shor ha'Niskal, we do not even learn Doros from Doros, why would we even think that we might learn Sha'ah from Doros?

וי"ל, דהכא אית לן למילף טפי, משום דכל דיני סקילה ילפינן לקמן מסיני בפרק נגמר הדין (דף מה.) 'מניין שבדחייה הוא? ת"ל "ירה". מניין שבסקילה? ת"ל "סקול".


Answer: We would indeed have thought so, because we learn all the Dinim of Sekilah from Sinai, like we find in the Gemara in perek Nigmar ha'Din, which learns that the person is pushed down from a cliff from "Yaroh" and that he is actually stoned from "Sakol".



תוס' ד"ה 'והברדלס'.

(Summary: Tosfos queries Rashi's definition of Bardeles here as a polecat, citing proofs from the Sugya here, as well as from Sugyos in Bava Kama and Bava Metzi'a, that it is a powerful Chayah that kills people, which they conclude, is probably a snake. Finally, they prove from a Gemara in Bechoros that there is a small species of Chayah called Bardeles, conceding that it might be a polecat).

פ"ה 'פוטיי"ש'.


Explanation #1: Rashi explains that this is a polecat.

ולא משמע כן - דאותו אינו עז כל כך; וכאן משמע שהוא עז ביותר ודרכו להמית את האדם!


Refutation #1: This does not appear to be correct however, since the Gemara here implies that it is a powerful Chayah that kills human-beings (and a polecat does not fit that description).

כן בפרק אלו מציאות (ב"מ דף כד.) אמרי' 'המציל מן הארי ומן הדוב ... '.ובפ"ק דב"ק (טו: ושם) תנן 'הרי אלו מועדים!'


Refutation #2 & #3: Likewise in Perek Eilu Metzi'os, we find that the Gemara inserts Bardeles together with a lion and a bear ('ha'Matzil min ha'Ari u'min ha'Dov ... u'min ha'Bardeles ... '), whilst in the first Perek of Bava Kama it lists it together with the Mu'adin.

ואפשר שהוא מין נחש, דהא מפרש התם בגמ' (טז: ושם) דברדלס היינו 'אפא', וצבוע זהו 'אפא' וצבוע זהו 'אפעה' - שהרי "גיא הצבועים" מתרגמינן 'מישר אפעיא' (שמואל א יג) וכתיב "אפעה ושרף מעופף" (ישעיה ל).


Explanation #2: Consequently, it may well be a species of snake, based on the fact that the Gemara there equates it with 'Afa' and to 'Tzavu'a. Now Targum translates the Pasuk "Gei ha'Tzavu'im" (in Shmuel) as 'Meishar Ef'aya', indicating that Tzavu'a is the equivalent of 'Ef'eh' - and the Pasuk in Yeshayah writes "Ef'eh ve'Saraf Me'ofef", indicating that 'Ef'ah/Ef'aya' is a species of snake (like Saraf - serpent).

ומיהו יש עדיין ברדלס אחר, דהא בפ"ק דבכורות (דף ח.) חשיב אפעה לע' שנה, ברדלס לג' שנים.


Alternative: There is however, another species of 'Bardeles', based on the Gemara in the first Perek of Bechoros, which gives the life-span of an Ef'eh as seventy years, and of a Bardeles, as three.

ואע"ג דחשיב לה התם בהדי זאב וארי?


Implied Question: In spite of the fact that there too, it lists it together with a lion and a bear ...

ע"כ לאו היינו ההוא דהכא ודב"ק, דהא מפרש התם דהיינו אפא דהוא אפעה.


Answer: Nevertheless, it cannot be the same creature as the one mentioned here and in Bava Kama, where it defines it as being synonymous with both Afa and Ef'eh.

ויתכן, דההוא דבכורות הוא 'פוטיי"ש' שפ"ה בכאן.


Compromise: In fact, it seems likely that the Bardeles mentioned in Bechoros is the polecat that Rashi mentions here

וכן ההיא דפ"ק דפסחים (דף ט.) 'אם חולדה וברדלס מצויין שם' - משמע שהיא חיה קטנה כעין חולדה.


Precedent: And so is the Bardeled mentioned in Pesachim (in connection with Bedikas Chametz) 'If weasels or Bardeleses are found there ... ' - implying that it is a small Chayah like a weasel.



תוס' ד"ה 'ור' יוחנן אמר, אע"פ שלא המיתו'.

(Summary: Tosfos first reconciles first R. Yochnan [according to R. Eliezer] here with R. Eliezer in the Mishnah in Bava Kama, who rules that as long as they can be trained, they are not Mu'adim. Then, they present two possible ways of resolving the apparent discrepancy between R. Elazar, who considers a snake tamable and the Mishnah there, which does not).

אדר"א דמתני' קאי, דקסבר 'אין להם תרבות, ואין להם בעלים'.


Clarification: R. Yochanan is referring to R. Eliezer in our Mishnah, and he holds that neither can they be trained nor do they have an owner.

ותימה, דבפ"ק דב"ק (דף טו:) תנן 'ר"א אומר, "בזמן שהם בני תרבות, אינן מועדים" '.


Question #1: There is Kashya on this from the first Perek in Bava Kama however, where R. Eliezer himself rules that as long as they can be trained, they are not Mu'adim?

ואומר ר"ת, דהתם גרס 'ר' אלעזר' שמזכירו אחר ר"מ התם בגמרא, והכא 'ר' אליעזר' שהוא קודם ר"ע.


Answer: Rabeinu Tam answers that the correct text there is (not R. Eliezer, but) R. Elazar, whom it mentions there after R. Meir (whose contemporary he was); whereas the Tana in our Mishnah is R' Eliezer, who preceded R. Akiva.

ומיהו אכתי קשה, דהתם תנן 'והנחש מועד לעולם' אליבא דכ"ע, והכא קאמר ריש לקיש 'והוא שהמיתו', אבל לא המיתו לא, דיש להם תרבות, ויש להם בעלים - אפי' נחש?


Question #2: The Kashya remains however, in that the Mishnah there rules unanimously that a snake is always Mu'ad, whereas here Resh Lakish states that all the animals listed (including a snake) are only automatically Mu'adim once they have killed; otherwise, they can be trained and they have an owner?

ושמא יש לחלק דלענין ד'אין להורגן' - 'כל הקודם ... ' קאמר הכא דיש להם תרבות, אפי' נחש; אבל לא לענין נזק שלם.


Answer #1: Perhaps one can draw a distinction between a mandate to kill them, which R. Elazar maintains in our Sugya maintains is not blanket, and paying full damages, which a snake must always do.

ועוד אר"ת 'תרבות' דהתם הוא שגידלם בביתו; ותרבות דהכא היינו בקשורים בשלשלאות כגון ארי בגוהרקי שלו, דאין להורגם אלא כשהמיתו, אפי' נחש.


Answer #2: Furthermore, says R. Tam, trainable there refers to keeping it in the house as a pet; whereas here, it refers to keeping it attached to a chain, like a lion in its cage, which one is not permitted to kill unless it has actually killed a person - likewise a snake.



תוס' ד"ה 'מאי זכה, זכה לעורן'.

במרובה (ב"ק דף פ: ושם) גבי חתול, כולהו מודו דזכה לעורו.


Precedent: In 'Merubeh' (in connection with a cat) all the opinions agree that one may take the skin.



תוס' ד"ה 'תניא כוותיה דר"ל'.

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the Gemara in ha'Choletz does not add this ruling to the three cases in Shas where the Halachah is like Resh Lakish).

הא דלא חשיב הך בריש החולץ (יבמות דף לו. ושם) בהדי תלת דהלכה כר"ל?


Implied Question: Why does the Gemara at the beginning of 'ha'Choletz' not reckon this ruling together with the three cases in Shas where the Halachah is like Resh Lakish?

משום דהכא אליבא דר"א פליגי.


Answer: Because here they are arguing according to R. Eliezer (and not personally).



תוס' ד"ה 'מעשרה עד ק''.

הא דלמר חשיב עיר בק' ולמר בעשרה - נראה דפליגי בקרא דעמוס (ה') דכתיב "העיר היוצאת אלף תשאיר מאה; והיוצאת מאה תשאיר עשרה".


Clarification: The source of their Machlokes appears to be the Pasuk in Amos "A city from which a thousand people go forth will be left with a hundred; and one from which a hundred people go forth will be left with ten".