Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

July 3, 2019 | ืœืณ ื‘ืกื™ื•ืŸ ืชืฉืขืดื˜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Arakhin 17

One should work in the business one’s ancestors worked in. What is considered suffering – and why is that important? Does the generation follow the leader or the leader follow the generation? The exemption of a poor person for arakhin goes by the one who took the vow. The mishna compares this to the case of a poor leper where one vowed to bring the sacrifices on his behalf – are the cases the same but the laws different or are the cases not comparable? If one was poor at the time of the vow and then became rich or the reverse, how does one pay? Is it the same for the leper?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

ืคื•ืจืขื ื•ืช ืžื–ื“ืžื ืช ืœื•

A calamity awaits him.

ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื”ื’ื“ื•ืœ ืื•ืžืจ ืืœืžืœื ื‘ื ื”ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื‘ืจื•ืš ื”ื•ื ืขื ืื‘ืจื”ื ื™ืฆื—ืง ื•ื™ืขืงื‘ ื‘ื“ื™ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ื™ื›ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืœืขืžื•ื“ ืžืคื ื™ ืชื•ื›ื—ื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืขืชื” ื”ืชื™ืฆื‘ื• ื•ืืฉืคื˜ื” ืืชื›ื ืœืคื ื™ ื”ืณ ืืช ื›ืœ ืฆื“ืงื•ืช ื”ืณ ืืฉืจ ืขืฉื” ืืชื›ื ื•ืืช ืื‘ื•ืชื™ื›ื

ยง The Gemara returns to the topic of rebuke. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer the Great says: Were the Holy One, Blessed be He, to have entered into judgment with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, they would not have been able to stand before the rebuke. As it is stated: โ€œNow therefore stand still, that I may plead with you before the Lord concerning all the righteous acts of the Lord, which He did to you and to your fathersโ€ (Iย Samuel 12:7). This indicates that God acted towards the patriarchs with righteousness, i.e., mercy, not as they deserved according to the strict letter of the law.

ื–ื” ื“ื•ืจ ื“ืจืฉื™ื• ืžื‘ืงืฉื™ ืคื ื™ืš ื™ืขืงื‘ ืกืœื” ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื‘ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื ืฉื™ืื” ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื—ื“ ืืžืจ ื“ื•ืจ ืœืคื™ ืคืจื ืก ื•ื—ื“ ืืžืจ ืคืจื ืก ืœืคื™ ื“ื•ืจื•

ยง The verse states: โ€œThis is the generation of them that seek after Him, that seek Your face, Jacob. Selahโ€ (Psalms 24:6). This verse teaches that the level of the generation and those who lead them, i.e., those who seek after Him, are the same. Rabbi Yehuda Nesia and the Rabbis disagree about this. One says: The level of the generation follows the level of the leader, and one says: The level of the leader follows the level of his generation.

ืœืžืื™ ื”ืœื›ืชื ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืœืžืขืœื™ื•ืชื ื“ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืื™ ืžืขืœื™ ื“ืจื ืžืขืœื™ ืคืจื ืก ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืื™ ืžืขืœื™ ืคืจื ืก ืžืขืœื™ ื“ืจื ื”ื ืื™ื›ื ืฆื“ืงื™ื” ื“ื”ื•ื” ืžืขืœื™ ื•ื“ืจื™ื” ืœื ื”ื•ื” ืžืขืœื™ ื•ื”ื ื™ื”ื•ื™ืงื™ื ื“ืœื ื”ื•ื” ืžืขืœื™ ื•ื“ืจื™ื” ื”ื•ื” ืžืขืœื™

The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha, i.e., matter, is this stated? If we say for good, that one Sage holds that if the generation is good then their leader will be good, and one Sage holds that if the leader is good then his generation will be good, this cannot be correct, as there is the case of King Zedekiah, who was good, but his generation was not good. And conversely, there is the case of Jehoiakim who was not good, but his generation was good.

ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื•ื—ื™ ืžืื™ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ืจืืฉื™ืช ืžืžืœื›ื•ืช ื™ื”ื•ื™ืงื™ื ืžืœืš ื™ื”ื•ื“ื”

The Gemara cites proof for these claims. As Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoแธฅai: What is the meaning of that which is written: โ€œIn the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim, son of Josiah, king of Judah, came this word from the Lord, sayingโ€ (Jeremiah 26:1), and similarly with regard to Zedekiah the verse states: โ€œAnd it came to pass the same year, in the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah, in the fourth year, in the fifth month, that Hananiah, son of Azzur, the prophet, who was of Gibeon, spoke to me in the house of the Lord, in the presence of the priests and of all the people, sayingโ€ (Jeremiah 28:1). Why did the prophet use the term โ€œin the beginningโ€ exclusively with regard to these two kings, as opposed to: During the first year of his reign, or a similar formulation?

ื‘ื™ืงืฉ ื”ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื‘ืจื•ืš ื”ื•ื ืœื”ื—ื–ื™ืจ ืืช ื”ืขื•ืœื ืœืชื•ื”ื• ื•ื‘ื”ื• ื‘ืฉื‘ื™ืœ ื™ื”ื•ื™ืงื™ื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ืฉื ืกืชื›ืœ ื‘ื“ื•ืจื• ื ืชื™ื™ืฉื‘ื” ื“ืขืชื• ื‘ื™ืงืฉ ื”ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื‘ืจื•ืš ื”ื•ื ืœื”ื—ื–ื™ืจ ืืช ื”ืขื•ืœื ืœืชื•ื”ื• ื•ื‘ื”ื• ืžืคื ื™ ื“ื•ืจื• ืฉืœ ืฆื“ืงื™ื”ื• ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ืฉื ืกืชื›ืœ ื‘ืฆื“ืงื™ื”ื• ื ืชื™ื™ืฉื‘ื” ื“ืขืชื•

This term teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, sought to revert the world to chaos and void, as it was in the beginning before Creation (Genesis 1:1โ€“2), on account of Jehoiakim, who did evil in the eyes of God. Once He observed the people of his generation, His mind was settled. Likewise, the Holy One, Blessed be He, sought to revert the world to chaos and void, on account of the generation of Zedekiah, but once He observed Zedekiah, His mind was settled. This shows that the leader and his generation are not necessarily on the same level in terms of righteousness.

ืืœื ืœืขื ื™ืŸ ืชื•ืงืคื ื•ื ื™ื—ื•ืชื ืงืืžืจื™ื ืŸ

The Gemara answers: Rather, we are speaking in terms of harshness and gentleness. One Sage holds that if the leader is harsh, then the generation will be harsh. If the leader is gentle and kind, the generation will be the same. The other Sage holds that if the people of a certain generation are harsh, they will have a harsh leader; if the generation is gentle and kind, the leader will be similar.

ื”ื“ืจืŸ ืขืœืš ื™ืฉ ื‘ืขืจื›ื™ืŸ

 

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืฉื’ ื™ื“ ื‘ื ื•ื“ืจ ื•ื”ืฉื ื™ื ื‘ื ื™ื“ืจ ื•ื”ืขืจื›ื™ืŸ ื‘ื ืขืจืš ื•ื”ืขืจืš ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ื”ืขืจืš

MISHNA: Affordability, which is written in the Torah: โ€œAccording to the means of him who vowed shall the priest valuate himโ€ (Leviticus 27:8), is determined in accordance with the means of the one taking the vow, and the sum fixed by the Torah based on the years of age is in accordance with the age of the subject of the vow. And the distinction based on sex that is written in the halakhot of valuations is stated with regard to the one valuated, and the different valuation based on the age of the one valuated is determined at the time one takes the vow of valuation.

ื”ืฉื’ ื™ื“ ื‘ื ื•ื“ืจ ื›ื™ืฆื“ ืขื ื™ ืฉื”ืขืจื™ืš ืืช ื”ืขืฉื™ืจ ื ื•ืชืŸ ืขืจืš ืขื ื™ ื•ืขืฉื™ืจ ืฉื”ืขืจื™ืš ืืช ื”ืขื ื™ ื ื•ืชืŸ ืขืจืš ืขืฉื™ืจ

The mishna elaborates: Affordability is in accordance with the means of the one taking the vow; how so? A destitute person who valuated a wealthy person gives the valuation in accordance with the means of a destitute person, as determined by the priest. And a wealthy person who valuated a destitute person gives the valuation in accordance with the means of a wealthy person, the sum of which is fixed in the Torah.

ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ืื™ื ื• ื›ืŸ ื”ืจื™ ืฉืืžืจ ืงืจื‘ื ื• ืฉืœ ืžืฆื•ืจืข ื–ื” ืขืœื™ ื”ื™ื” ืžืฆื•ืจืข ืขื ื™ ืžื‘ื™ื ืงืจื‘ืŸ ืขื ื™ ืขืฉื™ืจ ืžื‘ื™ื ืงืจื‘ืŸ ืขืฉื™ืจ

But with regard to offerings that is not so, as one who took a vow and said: It is incumbent upon me to provide the offering of this leper, to a leper who requires it for his purification; if the one undergoing purification was a destitute leper, the one who took the vow brings the offering of a destitute leper, which is one male sheep, a tenth of an ephah of fine flour, and two doves or two pigeons (see Leviticus 14:21โ€“22). If the one undergoing purification was a wealthy leper, the one who took the vow brings the offering of a wealthy leper, which is two male sheep, a ewe, and three-tenths of a ephah of fine flour (see Leviticus 14:10).

ืจื‘ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืื ื™ ืืฃ ื‘ืขืจื›ื™ืŸ ื›ืŸ ื•ื›ื™ ืžืคื ื™ ืžื” ืขื ื™ ืฉื”ืขืจื™ืš ืืช ื”ืขืฉื™ืจ ื ื•ืชืŸ ืขืจืš ืขื ื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื”ืขืฉื™ืจ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื›ืœื•ื ืื‘ืœ ืขืฉื™ืจ ืฉืืžืจ ืขืจื›ื™ ืขืœื™ ื•ืฉืžืข ืขื ื™ ื•ืืžืจ ืžื” ืฉืืžืจ ื–ื” ืขืœื™ ื ื•ืชืŸ ืขืจืš ืขืฉื™ืจ

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: I say: Even with regard to valuations it is so. He explains: For what reason does a destitute person who valuated a wealthy person give the valuation in accordance with the means of a destitute person? It is due to the fact that the wealthy person is not obligated to pay anything, as the debt was generated by the destitute person who vowed to donate the valuation of a wealthy individual. But in a case similar to that of the offerings of a leper, in the case of a wealthy person who said: It is incumbent upon me to donate my valuation, and a destitute person heard him and said: It is incumbent upon me to donate that which he said, the destitute person gives the valuation of a wealthy person.

ื’ืžืณ ื”ืฉื’ ื™ื“ ื‘ืžืขืจื™ืš ื”ื•ื ื›ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืืฉืจ ืชืฉื™ื’ ื™ื“ ื”ื ื•ื“ืจ ื™ืขืจื™ื›ื ื• ื”ื›ื”ืŸ

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that affordability is determined in accordance with the means of the one taking the vow. The Gemara asks: The halakha of affordability is written in the Torah with regard to the case of one who valuates, i.e., one who says he will give the Temple treasury the set sum assigned to a particular individualโ€™s age and sex. Why, then, is the mishna referring to affordability in the context of one pledging anotherโ€™s worth by taking a vow, in which the obligation is calculated individually rather than by predetermined assigned values? The Gemara answers: The mishna employs the language of the verse, which uses the word โ€œvow,โ€ as it is written: โ€œAccording to the means of him who vowed shall the priest valuate himโ€ (Leviticus 27:8).

ื”ืฉื ื™ื ื‘ื ื™ื“ืจ ื‘ื ืขืจืš ื”ื•ื ืื™ื™ื“ื™ ื“ืืžืจ ื”ืฉื’ ื™ื“ ื‘ื ื•ื“ืจ ืืžืจ ื ืžื™ ื”ืฉื ื™ื ื‘ื ื™ื“ืจ

Similarly, the Gemara asks: Is the mishnaโ€™s wording accurate when it states that the sum of the obligation based on the years of age is in accordance with the age of the subject of the vow? The mishna should state that the sum based on years is determined in accordance with the age of the subject of the valuation, not the vow. The Gemara answers: Although it is discussing valuations, since the mishna uses the term vow when it says: Affordability is determined in accordance with the means of the one taking the vow, the mishna also deploys the same term when it says: The sum of the obligation based on the years of age is in accordance with the age of the subject of the vow.

ื”ืฉื’ ื™ื“ ื‘ื ื•ื“ืจ ื›ื™ืฆื“ ืขื ื™ ืฉื”ืขืจื™ืš ืืช ื”ืขืฉื™ืจ ื ื•ืชืŸ ืขืจืš ืขื ื™ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืืฉืจ ืชืฉื™ื’ ื™ื“ ื”ื ื“ืจ ื‘ื ื•ื“ืจ ืชืœื” ืจื—ืžื ื

The mishna further teaches: Affordability is in accordance with the one taking the vow; how so? A destitute person who valuated a wealthy person gives the valuation in accordance with the means of the destitute person. The Gemara asks: What is the reason? As the verse states: โ€œAccording to the means of him who vowed,โ€ which teaches that the Merciful One renders the matter dependent on the one who vows, not upon the subject of the vow.

ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ืื™ื ื• ื›ืŸ ื”ืจื™ ืฉืืžืจ ืงืจื‘ื ื• ืฉืœ ืžืฆื•ืจืข ื–ื” ืขืœื™ืณ ื”ื™ื” ืžืฆื•ืจืข ืขื ื™ ืžื‘ื™ื ืงืจื‘ืŸ ืขื ื™ ื•ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืžื“ื™ืจื• ืขืฉื™ืจ ื•ืื ื“ืœ ื”ื•ื ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ื•ืœื ื“ืœ ื”ื•ื

ยง The mishna teaches: But with regard to offerings that is not so, as in the case of one who vowed and said: It is incumbent upon me to provide the offering of this leper, if the one undergoing purification was a destitute leper, the one who vowed brings the offering of a destitute leper. The Gemara asks: And is this the halakha even though it was a wealthy person who takes the vow to provide the offerings for him? But the Merciful One states: โ€œAnd if he is poor, and his means do not suffice, then he shall take one sheepโ€ (Leviticus 14:21). This indicates that the specified offering is only for the poor, and in this instance the one taking the vow is not poor.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื›ืฉื”ื™ื” ืžื“ื™ืจื• ืขื ื™ ื•ื“ืœืžื ืขืœื™ื” ื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ื—ืก ืจื—ืžื ื ืืžื“ื™ืจื• ืœื ื“ื”ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื”ื•ื

Rabbi Yitzแธฅak said: The mishna is referring specifically to a case where it was a poor person who was taking the vow to provide the offerings for the leper. The Gemara asks: But what is the basis for this ruling? Perhaps the Merciful One had compassion on him, i.e., the leper, and not on the one taking the vow to provide the offerings for him. As isnโ€™t it written: โ€œAnd if he is poorโ€? If so, the leniency that a destitute leper brings less expensive offerings should apply only to an actual leper, and not to one who vows to bring the leperโ€™s offerings, even if he too is poor.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื“ื ื‘ืจ ืื”ื‘ื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ื™ื“ื• ืžืฉื’ืช ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ืืช ื”ื ื•ื“ืจ

Rav Adda bar Ahava said: The next clause in the verse: โ€œAnd his means do not suffice,โ€ serves to include the one taking the vow to provide the offering, i.e., if he too is poor he provides the offering mandated for a destitute leper.

ืื‘ืœ ืžื“ื™ืจื• ืขืฉื™ืจ ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ื‘ืขืฉื™ืจื•ืช

The Gemara raises a difficulty with the answer of Rabbi Yitzแธฅak: But according to this answer, when a wealthy person takes the vow to provide the offering for him, so too, the halakha is that he brings the offering of the leper brought in a situation of wealth.

ืื ื›ืŸ ืžืื™ ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ืื™ื ื• ื›ืŸ

If so, what is the meaning of the mishnaโ€™s statement that valuations are determined based on the means of the one making the commitment, but with regard to offerings, that is not so? This clause seems to indicate that unlike the previous ruling, where a wealthy person who valuated a destitute individual gives the valuation in accordance with the means of a wealthy person, here it all depends on the means of the one undergoing purification. Therefore, in this case a wealthy person brings the offerings of one who is destitute, contrary to the statement of Rabbi Yitzแธฅak.

ื—ื“ื ืืžืฆื•ืจืข ืขื ื™ ื•ืžื“ื™ืจื• ืขื ื™ ื•ื—ื“ื ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ืžืฆื•ืจืข ืขืฉื™ืจ ื•ืžื“ื™ืจื• ืขื ื™

The Gemara explains: The mishna states two different principles with regard to one who vows to provide the offering of a leper on behalf of another. One principle applies to a destitute leper for whom another destitute person takes a vow to provide his offering. In that case, he provides the offering of the destitute. And the one other principle, i.e., the statement that the halakha is different in the case of offerings, serves to exclude the case of a wealthy leper for whom a destitute person takes a vow to provide his offering. In that situation, although the one who took the vow is destitute, he must provide the offering of a wealthy person.

ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ืื™ืชืจื‘ื• ืื™ืชืจื‘ื• ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

The Gemara explains why this last ruling is necessary. It might enter your mind to say: Since the destitute were included in the verse: โ€œAnd his means do not suffice,โ€ with regard to the leniency which allows them to bring the offering of the destitute when taking vows to provide for destitute lepers, they should likewise be included in this leniency when providing for all lepers, even wealthy ones. Consequently, the tanna teaches us that this leniency does not apply when the lepers are wealthy.

ืœืคื™ ืฉืžืฆื™ื ื• ื‘ืขืจื›ื™ืŸ ืขื ื™ ืฉื”ืขืจื™ืš ืืช ื”ืขืฉื™ืจ ื ื•ืชืŸ ืขืจืš ืขื ื™ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืืฃ ื–ื” ื›ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืื ื“ืœ ื”ื•ื

Similarly, it is taught in a baraita: Since we find with regard to valuations that a destitute person who valuated a wealthy person gives the valuation in accordance with the means of a destitute person, one might have thought that in this case, where one takes a vow to provide the offering of a wealthy leper, the halakha is also so. Consequently, the verse states: โ€œAnd if he is poor,โ€ from which it is derived that the offering of the destitute leper is brought only when the leper himself is destitute.

ื•ืœืจื‘ื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืื ื™ ืืฃ ื‘ืขืจื›ื™ืŸ ื›ืŸ ืืœืžื ืืžืจ ื‘ืชืจ ื—ื™ื•ื‘ื ื“ื’ื‘ืจื ืื–ืœื™ื ืŸ ื•ื”ื ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื ืงืจื ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ื”ื•ื ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ืžืื™

The Gemara objects: But according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, this is difficult. As he says in the mishna: I say even with regard to valuations it is so, i.e., that if a wealthy person said: It is incumbent upon me to donate my valuation, and a destitute person heard him and said: It is incumbent upon me to donate that which he said, then the destitute person gives the valuation of a wealthy person. Evidently, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: We follow the obligation of the original person valuated, even with regard to valuations. And if so, then the reasoning stated in the aforementioned baraita does not apply, and therefore a verse is not necessary to exclude a destitute person who takes a vow to provide a wealthy leperโ€™s offering from having the leniency of bringing the offering of a destitute leper. Consequently, when the verse specifies: โ€œAnd if he is poor,โ€ this serves to exclude what?

ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ืžืฆื•ืจืข ืขื ื™ ื•ืžื“ื™ืจื• ืขืฉื™ืจ ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื‘ืชืจ ื—ื™ื•ื‘ื ื“ื’ื‘ืจื ืื–ืœื™ื ืŸ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

The Gemara explains: The verse serves to exclude the case of a destitute leper for whom a wealthy person takes a vow. In that case, it might enter your mind to say that since Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: We follow the obligation of the original person specified as the subject of the vow, therefore the wealthy person brings only the offering of the destitute leper. Consequently, the exclusion from the verse: โ€œAnd if he is poor,โ€ teaches us that in this case he brings the offering of a wealthy individual, not that of the destitute leper.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ื™ื” ืขื ื™ ื•ื”ืขืฉื™ืจ ืขืฉื™ืจ ื•ื”ืขื ื™ ื ื•ืชืŸ ืขืจืš ืขืฉื™ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืขื ื™ ื•ื”ืขืฉื™ืจ ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื•ื”ืขื ื™ ื ื•ืชืŸ ืขืจืš ืขืฉื™ืจ

MISHNA: If when one took a vow of valuation he was destitute and he became wealthy, or if he was wealthy and became destitute, he gives the valuation in accordance with the means of a wealthy person. Rabbi Yehuda says: This is the halakha not only in a case where one was wealthy either at the time he took the vow or at the time of payment; even if when one took a vow of valuation he was destitute and he became wealthy and again became destitute, he gives the valuation in accordance with the means of a wealthy person.

ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ืื™ื ื• ื›ืŸ ืืคื™ืœื• ืžืช ืื‘ื™ื• ื•ื”ื ื™ื— ืœื• ืจื™ื‘ื•ื ืื• ืกืคื™ื ืชื• ื‘ื™ื ื•ื‘ืื” ืœื• ื‘ืจื‘ื•ืื•ืช ืื™ืŸ ืœื”ืงื“ืฉ ื‘ื” ื›ืœื•ื

But with regard to the offerings of a leper that is not so, as the offerings that one brings are determined by his status at the time he brings them. Even if it is common knowledge that his father died and left him an inheritance of ten thousand dinars, or that his ship is at sea and merchandise valued at ten thousand dinars is coming into his possession, the Temple treasury has no share in it. His payment is determined solely by his present situation.

ื’ืžืณ ืขื ื™ ื•ื”ืขืฉื™ืจ ืืฉืจ ืชืฉื™ื’ ื™ื“ ื”ื ื“ืจ ืขืฉื™ืจ ื•ื”ืขื ื™ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืืฉืจ ืชืฉื™ื’

GEMARA: The mishna teaches: If he was destitute when he took the oath and he became wealthy, he gives the valuation appropriate for a wealthy individual. The Gemara explains that this is derived from the verse: โ€œAccording to the means of him who vowed shall the priest valuate himโ€ (Leviticus 27:8), and in this case he had the means of a wealthy individual when he was ready to give the donation. The mishna further teaches that one who was wealthy and became destitute also gives the valuation as though he was wealthy. The Gemara explains that this is derived from the beginning of the same verse: โ€œAccording to [al pi] the means of him who vowed shall the priest valuate him.โ€ The phrase al pi serves to emphasize the moment when the person uttered the vow with his mouth [peh], and at that moment he was wealthy.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ืขื ื™ ื•ื”ืขืฉื™ืจ ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื•ื”ืขื ื™ ื ื•ืชืŸ ืขืจืš ืขืฉื™ืจ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ืื ืžืš ื”ื•ื ืžืขืจื›ืš ืขื“ ืฉื™ื”ื ื‘ืžื›ื•ืชื• ืžืชื—ืœืชื• ื•ืขื“ ืกื•ืคื•

ยง The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if one made a valuation when he was destitute and he became wealthy and again became destitute, he gives the valuation according to the means of a wealthy person. The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda? The verse states: โ€œBut if he is too poor for your valuationโ€ (Leviticus 27:8). The word order serves to emphasize โ€œhe,โ€ which indicates that he is considered poor only if he remains in his state of poverty from his beginning until his end of involvement with the vow.

ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ื•ืื ื“ืœ ื”ื•ื ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ืขื“ ืฉื™ื”ื ื‘ื“ืœื•ืชื• ืžืชื—ืœืชื• ื•ืขื“ ืกื•ืคื•

The Gemara objects: If that is so, then when the verse similarly states with regard to a destitute leper: โ€œAnd if he is poorโ€ (Leviticus 14:21), so too, Rabbi Yehuda should maintain that he is considered poor only if he is in his state of poverty from his beginning until his end of bringing the leperโ€™s offering, but if he was wealthy in between he should be obligated to bring the offering of a wealthy individual, even if he is now poor.

ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื•ื”ืชื ืŸ ืžืฆื•ืจืข ืฉื”ื‘ื™ื ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืชื™ื• ืขื ื™ ื•ื”ืขืฉื™ืจ ืขืฉื™ืจ ื•ื”ืขื ื™ ื”ื›ืœ ื”ื•ืœืš ืื—ืจ ื—ื˜ืืช ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ

And if you would say that indeed, this is the halakha, but didnโ€™t we learn in a mishna (Negaโ€™im 14:11): With regard to a leper who brought his offerings when he was destitute, and subsequently became wealthy, or he brought his offerings when he was wealthy and then became destitute, everything follows the sin offering that the leper brings. If he was wealthy when he brought the sin offering he brings the burnt offering of a wealthy individual; if he was destitute when he brought the sin offering he brings the burnt offering of a destitute individual. This is the statement of Rabbi Shimon.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื”ื›ืœ ื”ื•ืœืš ืื—ืจ ืืฉื ื•ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืื•ืžืจ ื”ื›ืœ ื”ื•ืœืš ืื—ืจ ืฆืคืจื™ื

Rabbi Yehuda says: Everything, i.e., the sin offering and the burnt offering, follows his status at the time the leperโ€™s guilt offering is brought. And it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™akov says: Everything follows the offering of the birds, which are brought by the leper seven days earlier as part of his purification process. Clearly, everyone agrees that one brings the offerings of the destitute even if he is not destitute from the beginning until the end of the process.

ื”ื ืืชืžืจ ืขืœื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื•ืฉืœืฉืชืŸ ืžืงืจื ืื—ื“ ื“ืจืฉื• ืืฉืจ ืœื ืชืฉื™ื’ ื™ื“ื• ื‘ื˜ื”ืจืชื• ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืกื‘ืจ ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ืžื›ืคืจ ืžืื™ ื ื™ื”ื• ื—ื˜ืืช

The Gemara explains: It was stated with regard to this dispute that Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: And all three of these tannaโ€™im derived their opinions from one verse, which deals with the destitute leper: โ€œThis is the law of him in whom is the mark of leprosy, whose means do not suffice for that which pertains to his purificationโ€ (Leviticus 14:32). Rabbi Shimon holds: The individualโ€™s status depends on an item that atones, and what is it? The sin offering.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืกื‘ืจ ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ืžื›ืฉื™ืจ ื•ืžืื™ ื ื™ื”ื• ืืฉื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืกื‘ืจ ื”ื’ื•ืจื ืœื• ื˜ื”ืจื” ื•ืžืื™ ื ื™ื”ื• ืฆื™ืคืจื™ื

And Rabbi Yehuda holds: His status depends on an item that renders him fit to enter the Temple and eat consecrated food, and what is it? The guilt offering. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™akov holds: His status depends on that which causes him ritual purity, and what is it? The sacrificial birds, as the rite of the birds partially purifies him and enables him to bring the rest of his offerings and to complete his purification process. If so, in the particular case of a leper bringing his own offerings, it is a Torah edict that one does not need to be destitute throughout the entire process, which is why, with regard to one who takes a vow to bring the offerings of a leper, Rabbi Yehuda does not derive from the verse: โ€œAnd if he is poor,โ€ that he is considered poor only if he is in a state of poverty from the beginning, i.e., when he takes the vow, until the end, i.e., when he fulfills it.

ื•ืืœื ื”ื•ื ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืœืจื‘ื™ ื›ื“ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื•ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ื›ื“ืื™ืช ืœื”ื•

But in that case why do I need the exclusion in the verse: โ€œAnd if he is poorโ€? The Gemara answers: According to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, it is necessary in accordance with his opinion stated earlier, that it serves to exclude a wealthy individual who vows to provide the offering of a destitute leper, i.e., he must bring the offering of a wealthy individual. And according to the Rabbis, it is necessary in accordance with their opinion, that it serves to exclude a destitute individual who vows to provide the offering of the wealthy leper, and he must bring the offering of a wealthy individual.

ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ื•ื”ื•ื ืขื“ ืขื“ ืฉื™ื”ื ื›ืฉืจ ืžืชื—ืœืชื• ื•ืขื“ ืกื•ืคื•

The Gemara objects: If that is so, that Rabbi Yehuda maintains that the phrase: โ€œAnd if he is poor,โ€ teaches that one is classified as destitute only if he is destitute from beginning to end, he should similarly derive from a verse that deals with testimony: โ€œAnd he is a witness, whether he has seen or known, if he does not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquityโ€ (Leviticus 5:1), that this applies only if the witness is fit to testify from his beginning, when he obtained the information about which he is testifying, until his end, when he testifies.

ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื•ื”ื ืชื ื™ื ื”ื™ื” ื™ื•ื“ืข ืœื• ื‘ืขื“ื•ืช ืขื“ ืฉืœื ื ืขืฉื” ื—ืชื ื• ื•ื ืขืฉื” ื—ืชื ื• ืคืงื— ื•ื ืชื—ืจืฉ ืคืชื•ื— ื•ื ืกืชืžื ืฉืคื•ื™ ื•ื ืฉืชื˜ื” ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ืคืกื•ืœ ืื‘ืœ ื”ื™ื” ื™ื•ื“ืข ืœื• ืขื“ื•ืช ืขื“ ืฉืœื ื ืขืฉื” ื—ืชื ื• ื•ื ืขืฉื” ื—ืชื ื•

And if you would say that indeed, that is the halakha with regard to the qualification of a witness, but isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita: If someone knew testimony about another before he, the one who knew the testimony, became the otherโ€™s son-in-law, and then he became his son-in-law; or when he was able to hear, and then he became a deaf-mute; or when he could see, and he subsequently became blind; or while he was halakhically competent, and he then became an imbecile; in all these cases, he is disqualified from testifying. But if someone knew testimony about another before he became his son-in-law, and he then became his son-in-law,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Arakhin 17

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Arakhin 17

ืคื•ืจืขื ื•ืช ืžื–ื“ืžื ืช ืœื•

A calamity awaits him.

ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื”ื’ื“ื•ืœ ืื•ืžืจ ืืœืžืœื ื‘ื ื”ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื‘ืจื•ืš ื”ื•ื ืขื ืื‘ืจื”ื ื™ืฆื—ืง ื•ื™ืขืงื‘ ื‘ื“ื™ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ื™ื›ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืœืขืžื•ื“ ืžืคื ื™ ืชื•ื›ื—ื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืขืชื” ื”ืชื™ืฆื‘ื• ื•ืืฉืคื˜ื” ืืชื›ื ืœืคื ื™ ื”ืณ ืืช ื›ืœ ืฆื“ืงื•ืช ื”ืณ ืืฉืจ ืขืฉื” ืืชื›ื ื•ืืช ืื‘ื•ืชื™ื›ื

ยง The Gemara returns to the topic of rebuke. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer the Great says: Were the Holy One, Blessed be He, to have entered into judgment with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, they would not have been able to stand before the rebuke. As it is stated: โ€œNow therefore stand still, that I may plead with you before the Lord concerning all the righteous acts of the Lord, which He did to you and to your fathersโ€ (Iย Samuel 12:7). This indicates that God acted towards the patriarchs with righteousness, i.e., mercy, not as they deserved according to the strict letter of the law.

ื–ื” ื“ื•ืจ ื“ืจืฉื™ื• ืžื‘ืงืฉื™ ืคื ื™ืš ื™ืขืงื‘ ืกืœื” ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื‘ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื ืฉื™ืื” ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื—ื“ ืืžืจ ื“ื•ืจ ืœืคื™ ืคืจื ืก ื•ื—ื“ ืืžืจ ืคืจื ืก ืœืคื™ ื“ื•ืจื•

ยง The verse states: โ€œThis is the generation of them that seek after Him, that seek Your face, Jacob. Selahโ€ (Psalms 24:6). This verse teaches that the level of the generation and those who lead them, i.e., those who seek after Him, are the same. Rabbi Yehuda Nesia and the Rabbis disagree about this. One says: The level of the generation follows the level of the leader, and one says: The level of the leader follows the level of his generation.

ืœืžืื™ ื”ืœื›ืชื ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืœืžืขืœื™ื•ืชื ื“ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืื™ ืžืขืœื™ ื“ืจื ืžืขืœื™ ืคืจื ืก ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืื™ ืžืขืœื™ ืคืจื ืก ืžืขืœื™ ื“ืจื ื”ื ืื™ื›ื ืฆื“ืงื™ื” ื“ื”ื•ื” ืžืขืœื™ ื•ื“ืจื™ื” ืœื ื”ื•ื” ืžืขืœื™ ื•ื”ื ื™ื”ื•ื™ืงื™ื ื“ืœื ื”ื•ื” ืžืขืœื™ ื•ื“ืจื™ื” ื”ื•ื” ืžืขืœื™

The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha, i.e., matter, is this stated? If we say for good, that one Sage holds that if the generation is good then their leader will be good, and one Sage holds that if the leader is good then his generation will be good, this cannot be correct, as there is the case of King Zedekiah, who was good, but his generation was not good. And conversely, there is the case of Jehoiakim who was not good, but his generation was good.

ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื•ื—ื™ ืžืื™ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ืจืืฉื™ืช ืžืžืœื›ื•ืช ื™ื”ื•ื™ืงื™ื ืžืœืš ื™ื”ื•ื“ื”

The Gemara cites proof for these claims. As Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoแธฅai: What is the meaning of that which is written: โ€œIn the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim, son of Josiah, king of Judah, came this word from the Lord, sayingโ€ (Jeremiah 26:1), and similarly with regard to Zedekiah the verse states: โ€œAnd it came to pass the same year, in the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah, in the fourth year, in the fifth month, that Hananiah, son of Azzur, the prophet, who was of Gibeon, spoke to me in the house of the Lord, in the presence of the priests and of all the people, sayingโ€ (Jeremiah 28:1). Why did the prophet use the term โ€œin the beginningโ€ exclusively with regard to these two kings, as opposed to: During the first year of his reign, or a similar formulation?

ื‘ื™ืงืฉ ื”ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื‘ืจื•ืš ื”ื•ื ืœื”ื—ื–ื™ืจ ืืช ื”ืขื•ืœื ืœืชื•ื”ื• ื•ื‘ื”ื• ื‘ืฉื‘ื™ืœ ื™ื”ื•ื™ืงื™ื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ืฉื ืกืชื›ืœ ื‘ื“ื•ืจื• ื ืชื™ื™ืฉื‘ื” ื“ืขืชื• ื‘ื™ืงืฉ ื”ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื‘ืจื•ืš ื”ื•ื ืœื”ื—ื–ื™ืจ ืืช ื”ืขื•ืœื ืœืชื•ื”ื• ื•ื‘ื”ื• ืžืคื ื™ ื“ื•ืจื• ืฉืœ ืฆื“ืงื™ื”ื• ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ืฉื ืกืชื›ืœ ื‘ืฆื“ืงื™ื”ื• ื ืชื™ื™ืฉื‘ื” ื“ืขืชื•

This term teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, sought to revert the world to chaos and void, as it was in the beginning before Creation (Genesis 1:1โ€“2), on account of Jehoiakim, who did evil in the eyes of God. Once He observed the people of his generation, His mind was settled. Likewise, the Holy One, Blessed be He, sought to revert the world to chaos and void, on account of the generation of Zedekiah, but once He observed Zedekiah, His mind was settled. This shows that the leader and his generation are not necessarily on the same level in terms of righteousness.

ืืœื ืœืขื ื™ืŸ ืชื•ืงืคื ื•ื ื™ื—ื•ืชื ืงืืžืจื™ื ืŸ

The Gemara answers: Rather, we are speaking in terms of harshness and gentleness. One Sage holds that if the leader is harsh, then the generation will be harsh. If the leader is gentle and kind, the generation will be the same. The other Sage holds that if the people of a certain generation are harsh, they will have a harsh leader; if the generation is gentle and kind, the leader will be similar.

ื”ื“ืจืŸ ืขืœืš ื™ืฉ ื‘ืขืจื›ื™ืŸ

 

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืฉื’ ื™ื“ ื‘ื ื•ื“ืจ ื•ื”ืฉื ื™ื ื‘ื ื™ื“ืจ ื•ื”ืขืจื›ื™ืŸ ื‘ื ืขืจืš ื•ื”ืขืจืš ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ื”ืขืจืš

MISHNA: Affordability, which is written in the Torah: โ€œAccording to the means of him who vowed shall the priest valuate himโ€ (Leviticus 27:8), is determined in accordance with the means of the one taking the vow, and the sum fixed by the Torah based on the years of age is in accordance with the age of the subject of the vow. And the distinction based on sex that is written in the halakhot of valuations is stated with regard to the one valuated, and the different valuation based on the age of the one valuated is determined at the time one takes the vow of valuation.

ื”ืฉื’ ื™ื“ ื‘ื ื•ื“ืจ ื›ื™ืฆื“ ืขื ื™ ืฉื”ืขืจื™ืš ืืช ื”ืขืฉื™ืจ ื ื•ืชืŸ ืขืจืš ืขื ื™ ื•ืขืฉื™ืจ ืฉื”ืขืจื™ืš ืืช ื”ืขื ื™ ื ื•ืชืŸ ืขืจืš ืขืฉื™ืจ

The mishna elaborates: Affordability is in accordance with the means of the one taking the vow; how so? A destitute person who valuated a wealthy person gives the valuation in accordance with the means of a destitute person, as determined by the priest. And a wealthy person who valuated a destitute person gives the valuation in accordance with the means of a wealthy person, the sum of which is fixed in the Torah.

ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ืื™ื ื• ื›ืŸ ื”ืจื™ ืฉืืžืจ ืงืจื‘ื ื• ืฉืœ ืžืฆื•ืจืข ื–ื” ืขืœื™ ื”ื™ื” ืžืฆื•ืจืข ืขื ื™ ืžื‘ื™ื ืงืจื‘ืŸ ืขื ื™ ืขืฉื™ืจ ืžื‘ื™ื ืงืจื‘ืŸ ืขืฉื™ืจ

But with regard to offerings that is not so, as one who took a vow and said: It is incumbent upon me to provide the offering of this leper, to a leper who requires it for his purification; if the one undergoing purification was a destitute leper, the one who took the vow brings the offering of a destitute leper, which is one male sheep, a tenth of an ephah of fine flour, and two doves or two pigeons (see Leviticus 14:21โ€“22). If the one undergoing purification was a wealthy leper, the one who took the vow brings the offering of a wealthy leper, which is two male sheep, a ewe, and three-tenths of a ephah of fine flour (see Leviticus 14:10).

ืจื‘ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืื ื™ ืืฃ ื‘ืขืจื›ื™ืŸ ื›ืŸ ื•ื›ื™ ืžืคื ื™ ืžื” ืขื ื™ ืฉื”ืขืจื™ืš ืืช ื”ืขืฉื™ืจ ื ื•ืชืŸ ืขืจืš ืขื ื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื”ืขืฉื™ืจ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื›ืœื•ื ืื‘ืœ ืขืฉื™ืจ ืฉืืžืจ ืขืจื›ื™ ืขืœื™ ื•ืฉืžืข ืขื ื™ ื•ืืžืจ ืžื” ืฉืืžืจ ื–ื” ืขืœื™ ื ื•ืชืŸ ืขืจืš ืขืฉื™ืจ

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: I say: Even with regard to valuations it is so. He explains: For what reason does a destitute person who valuated a wealthy person give the valuation in accordance with the means of a destitute person? It is due to the fact that the wealthy person is not obligated to pay anything, as the debt was generated by the destitute person who vowed to donate the valuation of a wealthy individual. But in a case similar to that of the offerings of a leper, in the case of a wealthy person who said: It is incumbent upon me to donate my valuation, and a destitute person heard him and said: It is incumbent upon me to donate that which he said, the destitute person gives the valuation of a wealthy person.

ื’ืžืณ ื”ืฉื’ ื™ื“ ื‘ืžืขืจื™ืš ื”ื•ื ื›ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืืฉืจ ืชืฉื™ื’ ื™ื“ ื”ื ื•ื“ืจ ื™ืขืจื™ื›ื ื• ื”ื›ื”ืŸ

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that affordability is determined in accordance with the means of the one taking the vow. The Gemara asks: The halakha of affordability is written in the Torah with regard to the case of one who valuates, i.e., one who says he will give the Temple treasury the set sum assigned to a particular individualโ€™s age and sex. Why, then, is the mishna referring to affordability in the context of one pledging anotherโ€™s worth by taking a vow, in which the obligation is calculated individually rather than by predetermined assigned values? The Gemara answers: The mishna employs the language of the verse, which uses the word โ€œvow,โ€ as it is written: โ€œAccording to the means of him who vowed shall the priest valuate himโ€ (Leviticus 27:8).

ื”ืฉื ื™ื ื‘ื ื™ื“ืจ ื‘ื ืขืจืš ื”ื•ื ืื™ื™ื“ื™ ื“ืืžืจ ื”ืฉื’ ื™ื“ ื‘ื ื•ื“ืจ ืืžืจ ื ืžื™ ื”ืฉื ื™ื ื‘ื ื™ื“ืจ

Similarly, the Gemara asks: Is the mishnaโ€™s wording accurate when it states that the sum of the obligation based on the years of age is in accordance with the age of the subject of the vow? The mishna should state that the sum based on years is determined in accordance with the age of the subject of the valuation, not the vow. The Gemara answers: Although it is discussing valuations, since the mishna uses the term vow when it says: Affordability is determined in accordance with the means of the one taking the vow, the mishna also deploys the same term when it says: The sum of the obligation based on the years of age is in accordance with the age of the subject of the vow.

ื”ืฉื’ ื™ื“ ื‘ื ื•ื“ืจ ื›ื™ืฆื“ ืขื ื™ ืฉื”ืขืจื™ืš ืืช ื”ืขืฉื™ืจ ื ื•ืชืŸ ืขืจืš ืขื ื™ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืืฉืจ ืชืฉื™ื’ ื™ื“ ื”ื ื“ืจ ื‘ื ื•ื“ืจ ืชืœื” ืจื—ืžื ื

The mishna further teaches: Affordability is in accordance with the one taking the vow; how so? A destitute person who valuated a wealthy person gives the valuation in accordance with the means of the destitute person. The Gemara asks: What is the reason? As the verse states: โ€œAccording to the means of him who vowed,โ€ which teaches that the Merciful One renders the matter dependent on the one who vows, not upon the subject of the vow.

ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ืื™ื ื• ื›ืŸ ื”ืจื™ ืฉืืžืจ ืงืจื‘ื ื• ืฉืœ ืžืฆื•ืจืข ื–ื” ืขืœื™ืณ ื”ื™ื” ืžืฆื•ืจืข ืขื ื™ ืžื‘ื™ื ืงืจื‘ืŸ ืขื ื™ ื•ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืžื“ื™ืจื• ืขืฉื™ืจ ื•ืื ื“ืœ ื”ื•ื ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ื•ืœื ื“ืœ ื”ื•ื

ยง The mishna teaches: But with regard to offerings that is not so, as in the case of one who vowed and said: It is incumbent upon me to provide the offering of this leper, if the one undergoing purification was a destitute leper, the one who vowed brings the offering of a destitute leper. The Gemara asks: And is this the halakha even though it was a wealthy person who takes the vow to provide the offerings for him? But the Merciful One states: โ€œAnd if he is poor, and his means do not suffice, then he shall take one sheepโ€ (Leviticus 14:21). This indicates that the specified offering is only for the poor, and in this instance the one taking the vow is not poor.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื›ืฉื”ื™ื” ืžื“ื™ืจื• ืขื ื™ ื•ื“ืœืžื ืขืœื™ื” ื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ื—ืก ืจื—ืžื ื ืืžื“ื™ืจื• ืœื ื“ื”ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื”ื•ื

Rabbi Yitzแธฅak said: The mishna is referring specifically to a case where it was a poor person who was taking the vow to provide the offerings for the leper. The Gemara asks: But what is the basis for this ruling? Perhaps the Merciful One had compassion on him, i.e., the leper, and not on the one taking the vow to provide the offerings for him. As isnโ€™t it written: โ€œAnd if he is poorโ€? If so, the leniency that a destitute leper brings less expensive offerings should apply only to an actual leper, and not to one who vows to bring the leperโ€™s offerings, even if he too is poor.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื“ื ื‘ืจ ืื”ื‘ื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ื™ื“ื• ืžืฉื’ืช ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ืืช ื”ื ื•ื“ืจ

Rav Adda bar Ahava said: The next clause in the verse: โ€œAnd his means do not suffice,โ€ serves to include the one taking the vow to provide the offering, i.e., if he too is poor he provides the offering mandated for a destitute leper.

ืื‘ืœ ืžื“ื™ืจื• ืขืฉื™ืจ ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ื‘ืขืฉื™ืจื•ืช

The Gemara raises a difficulty with the answer of Rabbi Yitzแธฅak: But according to this answer, when a wealthy person takes the vow to provide the offering for him, so too, the halakha is that he brings the offering of the leper brought in a situation of wealth.

ืื ื›ืŸ ืžืื™ ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ืื™ื ื• ื›ืŸ

If so, what is the meaning of the mishnaโ€™s statement that valuations are determined based on the means of the one making the commitment, but with regard to offerings, that is not so? This clause seems to indicate that unlike the previous ruling, where a wealthy person who valuated a destitute individual gives the valuation in accordance with the means of a wealthy person, here it all depends on the means of the one undergoing purification. Therefore, in this case a wealthy person brings the offerings of one who is destitute, contrary to the statement of Rabbi Yitzแธฅak.

ื—ื“ื ืืžืฆื•ืจืข ืขื ื™ ื•ืžื“ื™ืจื• ืขื ื™ ื•ื—ื“ื ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ืžืฆื•ืจืข ืขืฉื™ืจ ื•ืžื“ื™ืจื• ืขื ื™

The Gemara explains: The mishna states two different principles with regard to one who vows to provide the offering of a leper on behalf of another. One principle applies to a destitute leper for whom another destitute person takes a vow to provide his offering. In that case, he provides the offering of the destitute. And the one other principle, i.e., the statement that the halakha is different in the case of offerings, serves to exclude the case of a wealthy leper for whom a destitute person takes a vow to provide his offering. In that situation, although the one who took the vow is destitute, he must provide the offering of a wealthy person.

ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ืื™ืชืจื‘ื• ืื™ืชืจื‘ื• ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

The Gemara explains why this last ruling is necessary. It might enter your mind to say: Since the destitute were included in the verse: โ€œAnd his means do not suffice,โ€ with regard to the leniency which allows them to bring the offering of the destitute when taking vows to provide for destitute lepers, they should likewise be included in this leniency when providing for all lepers, even wealthy ones. Consequently, the tanna teaches us that this leniency does not apply when the lepers are wealthy.

ืœืคื™ ืฉืžืฆื™ื ื• ื‘ืขืจื›ื™ืŸ ืขื ื™ ืฉื”ืขืจื™ืš ืืช ื”ืขืฉื™ืจ ื ื•ืชืŸ ืขืจืš ืขื ื™ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืืฃ ื–ื” ื›ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืื ื“ืœ ื”ื•ื

Similarly, it is taught in a baraita: Since we find with regard to valuations that a destitute person who valuated a wealthy person gives the valuation in accordance with the means of a destitute person, one might have thought that in this case, where one takes a vow to provide the offering of a wealthy leper, the halakha is also so. Consequently, the verse states: โ€œAnd if he is poor,โ€ from which it is derived that the offering of the destitute leper is brought only when the leper himself is destitute.

ื•ืœืจื‘ื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืื ื™ ืืฃ ื‘ืขืจื›ื™ืŸ ื›ืŸ ืืœืžื ืืžืจ ื‘ืชืจ ื—ื™ื•ื‘ื ื“ื’ื‘ืจื ืื–ืœื™ื ืŸ ื•ื”ื ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื ืงืจื ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ื”ื•ื ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ืžืื™

The Gemara objects: But according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, this is difficult. As he says in the mishna: I say even with regard to valuations it is so, i.e., that if a wealthy person said: It is incumbent upon me to donate my valuation, and a destitute person heard him and said: It is incumbent upon me to donate that which he said, then the destitute person gives the valuation of a wealthy person. Evidently, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: We follow the obligation of the original person valuated, even with regard to valuations. And if so, then the reasoning stated in the aforementioned baraita does not apply, and therefore a verse is not necessary to exclude a destitute person who takes a vow to provide a wealthy leperโ€™s offering from having the leniency of bringing the offering of a destitute leper. Consequently, when the verse specifies: โ€œAnd if he is poor,โ€ this serves to exclude what?

ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ืžืฆื•ืจืข ืขื ื™ ื•ืžื“ื™ืจื• ืขืฉื™ืจ ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื‘ืชืจ ื—ื™ื•ื‘ื ื“ื’ื‘ืจื ืื–ืœื™ื ืŸ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

The Gemara explains: The verse serves to exclude the case of a destitute leper for whom a wealthy person takes a vow. In that case, it might enter your mind to say that since Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: We follow the obligation of the original person specified as the subject of the vow, therefore the wealthy person brings only the offering of the destitute leper. Consequently, the exclusion from the verse: โ€œAnd if he is poor,โ€ teaches us that in this case he brings the offering of a wealthy individual, not that of the destitute leper.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ื™ื” ืขื ื™ ื•ื”ืขืฉื™ืจ ืขืฉื™ืจ ื•ื”ืขื ื™ ื ื•ืชืŸ ืขืจืš ืขืฉื™ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืขื ื™ ื•ื”ืขืฉื™ืจ ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื•ื”ืขื ื™ ื ื•ืชืŸ ืขืจืš ืขืฉื™ืจ

MISHNA: If when one took a vow of valuation he was destitute and he became wealthy, or if he was wealthy and became destitute, he gives the valuation in accordance with the means of a wealthy person. Rabbi Yehuda says: This is the halakha not only in a case where one was wealthy either at the time he took the vow or at the time of payment; even if when one took a vow of valuation he was destitute and he became wealthy and again became destitute, he gives the valuation in accordance with the means of a wealthy person.

ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ืื™ื ื• ื›ืŸ ืืคื™ืœื• ืžืช ืื‘ื™ื• ื•ื”ื ื™ื— ืœื• ืจื™ื‘ื•ื ืื• ืกืคื™ื ืชื• ื‘ื™ื ื•ื‘ืื” ืœื• ื‘ืจื‘ื•ืื•ืช ืื™ืŸ ืœื”ืงื“ืฉ ื‘ื” ื›ืœื•ื

But with regard to the offerings of a leper that is not so, as the offerings that one brings are determined by his status at the time he brings them. Even if it is common knowledge that his father died and left him an inheritance of ten thousand dinars, or that his ship is at sea and merchandise valued at ten thousand dinars is coming into his possession, the Temple treasury has no share in it. His payment is determined solely by his present situation.

ื’ืžืณ ืขื ื™ ื•ื”ืขืฉื™ืจ ืืฉืจ ืชืฉื™ื’ ื™ื“ ื”ื ื“ืจ ืขืฉื™ืจ ื•ื”ืขื ื™ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืืฉืจ ืชืฉื™ื’

GEMARA: The mishna teaches: If he was destitute when he took the oath and he became wealthy, he gives the valuation appropriate for a wealthy individual. The Gemara explains that this is derived from the verse: โ€œAccording to the means of him who vowed shall the priest valuate himโ€ (Leviticus 27:8), and in this case he had the means of a wealthy individual when he was ready to give the donation. The mishna further teaches that one who was wealthy and became destitute also gives the valuation as though he was wealthy. The Gemara explains that this is derived from the beginning of the same verse: โ€œAccording to [al pi] the means of him who vowed shall the priest valuate him.โ€ The phrase al pi serves to emphasize the moment when the person uttered the vow with his mouth [peh], and at that moment he was wealthy.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ืขื ื™ ื•ื”ืขืฉื™ืจ ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื•ื”ืขื ื™ ื ื•ืชืŸ ืขืจืš ืขืฉื™ืจ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ืื ืžืš ื”ื•ื ืžืขืจื›ืš ืขื“ ืฉื™ื”ื ื‘ืžื›ื•ืชื• ืžืชื—ืœืชื• ื•ืขื“ ืกื•ืคื•

ยง The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if one made a valuation when he was destitute and he became wealthy and again became destitute, he gives the valuation according to the means of a wealthy person. The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda? The verse states: โ€œBut if he is too poor for your valuationโ€ (Leviticus 27:8). The word order serves to emphasize โ€œhe,โ€ which indicates that he is considered poor only if he remains in his state of poverty from his beginning until his end of involvement with the vow.

ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ื•ืื ื“ืœ ื”ื•ื ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ืขื“ ืฉื™ื”ื ื‘ื“ืœื•ืชื• ืžืชื—ืœืชื• ื•ืขื“ ืกื•ืคื•

The Gemara objects: If that is so, then when the verse similarly states with regard to a destitute leper: โ€œAnd if he is poorโ€ (Leviticus 14:21), so too, Rabbi Yehuda should maintain that he is considered poor only if he is in his state of poverty from his beginning until his end of bringing the leperโ€™s offering, but if he was wealthy in between he should be obligated to bring the offering of a wealthy individual, even if he is now poor.

ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื•ื”ืชื ืŸ ืžืฆื•ืจืข ืฉื”ื‘ื™ื ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืชื™ื• ืขื ื™ ื•ื”ืขืฉื™ืจ ืขืฉื™ืจ ื•ื”ืขื ื™ ื”ื›ืœ ื”ื•ืœืš ืื—ืจ ื—ื˜ืืช ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ

And if you would say that indeed, this is the halakha, but didnโ€™t we learn in a mishna (Negaโ€™im 14:11): With regard to a leper who brought his offerings when he was destitute, and subsequently became wealthy, or he brought his offerings when he was wealthy and then became destitute, everything follows the sin offering that the leper brings. If he was wealthy when he brought the sin offering he brings the burnt offering of a wealthy individual; if he was destitute when he brought the sin offering he brings the burnt offering of a destitute individual. This is the statement of Rabbi Shimon.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื”ื›ืœ ื”ื•ืœืš ืื—ืจ ืืฉื ื•ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืื•ืžืจ ื”ื›ืœ ื”ื•ืœืš ืื—ืจ ืฆืคืจื™ื

Rabbi Yehuda says: Everything, i.e., the sin offering and the burnt offering, follows his status at the time the leperโ€™s guilt offering is brought. And it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™akov says: Everything follows the offering of the birds, which are brought by the leper seven days earlier as part of his purification process. Clearly, everyone agrees that one brings the offerings of the destitute even if he is not destitute from the beginning until the end of the process.

ื”ื ืืชืžืจ ืขืœื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื•ืฉืœืฉืชืŸ ืžืงืจื ืื—ื“ ื“ืจืฉื• ืืฉืจ ืœื ืชืฉื™ื’ ื™ื“ื• ื‘ื˜ื”ืจืชื• ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืกื‘ืจ ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ืžื›ืคืจ ืžืื™ ื ื™ื”ื• ื—ื˜ืืช

The Gemara explains: It was stated with regard to this dispute that Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: And all three of these tannaโ€™im derived their opinions from one verse, which deals with the destitute leper: โ€œThis is the law of him in whom is the mark of leprosy, whose means do not suffice for that which pertains to his purificationโ€ (Leviticus 14:32). Rabbi Shimon holds: The individualโ€™s status depends on an item that atones, and what is it? The sin offering.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืกื‘ืจ ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ืžื›ืฉื™ืจ ื•ืžืื™ ื ื™ื”ื• ืืฉื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืกื‘ืจ ื”ื’ื•ืจื ืœื• ื˜ื”ืจื” ื•ืžืื™ ื ื™ื”ื• ืฆื™ืคืจื™ื

And Rabbi Yehuda holds: His status depends on an item that renders him fit to enter the Temple and eat consecrated food, and what is it? The guilt offering. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™akov holds: His status depends on that which causes him ritual purity, and what is it? The sacrificial birds, as the rite of the birds partially purifies him and enables him to bring the rest of his offerings and to complete his purification process. If so, in the particular case of a leper bringing his own offerings, it is a Torah edict that one does not need to be destitute throughout the entire process, which is why, with regard to one who takes a vow to bring the offerings of a leper, Rabbi Yehuda does not derive from the verse: โ€œAnd if he is poor,โ€ that he is considered poor only if he is in a state of poverty from the beginning, i.e., when he takes the vow, until the end, i.e., when he fulfills it.

ื•ืืœื ื”ื•ื ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืœืจื‘ื™ ื›ื“ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื•ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ื›ื“ืื™ืช ืœื”ื•

But in that case why do I need the exclusion in the verse: โ€œAnd if he is poorโ€? The Gemara answers: According to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, it is necessary in accordance with his opinion stated earlier, that it serves to exclude a wealthy individual who vows to provide the offering of a destitute leper, i.e., he must bring the offering of a wealthy individual. And according to the Rabbis, it is necessary in accordance with their opinion, that it serves to exclude a destitute individual who vows to provide the offering of the wealthy leper, and he must bring the offering of a wealthy individual.

ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ื•ื”ื•ื ืขื“ ืขื“ ืฉื™ื”ื ื›ืฉืจ ืžืชื—ืœืชื• ื•ืขื“ ืกื•ืคื•

The Gemara objects: If that is so, that Rabbi Yehuda maintains that the phrase: โ€œAnd if he is poor,โ€ teaches that one is classified as destitute only if he is destitute from beginning to end, he should similarly derive from a verse that deals with testimony: โ€œAnd he is a witness, whether he has seen or known, if he does not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquityโ€ (Leviticus 5:1), that this applies only if the witness is fit to testify from his beginning, when he obtained the information about which he is testifying, until his end, when he testifies.

ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื•ื”ื ืชื ื™ื ื”ื™ื” ื™ื•ื“ืข ืœื• ื‘ืขื“ื•ืช ืขื“ ืฉืœื ื ืขืฉื” ื—ืชื ื• ื•ื ืขืฉื” ื—ืชื ื• ืคืงื— ื•ื ืชื—ืจืฉ ืคืชื•ื— ื•ื ืกืชืžื ืฉืคื•ื™ ื•ื ืฉืชื˜ื” ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ืคืกื•ืœ ืื‘ืœ ื”ื™ื” ื™ื•ื“ืข ืœื• ืขื“ื•ืช ืขื“ ืฉืœื ื ืขืฉื” ื—ืชื ื• ื•ื ืขืฉื” ื—ืชื ื•

And if you would say that indeed, that is the halakha with regard to the qualification of a witness, but isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita: If someone knew testimony about another before he, the one who knew the testimony, became the otherโ€™s son-in-law, and then he became his son-in-law; or when he was able to hear, and then he became a deaf-mute; or when he could see, and he subsequently became blind; or while he was halakhically competent, and he then became an imbecile; in all these cases, he is disqualified from testifying. But if someone knew testimony about another before he became his son-in-law, and he then became his son-in-law,

Scroll To Top