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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 4, 2019 | 讗壮 讘转诪讜讝 转砖注状讟

  • 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 18

Are there other cases besides Arakhin where “he” means that one needs to be in the same situation from the beginnin gof a particular time period until the end? Why if one’s father dies and leaves him/her a fortune or one has a boat on the way full of mechandise, is one still considered poor? The gemara explains these cases differently in order for them to make sense. From what day does each age range change for arakhin? Is it for example at the person’s sixtieth birthday or the day after? Or a month after? A list is brought of situations where years are counted from a particular moment in time and not from the beginning of the calendar year. The gemara explains why at age 60 does the woman’s value decrease by a third of its value and the man’s decreases more than a third.


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

讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪转讛 讘转讜 驻拽讞 讜谞转讞专砖 讜讞讝专 讜谞转驻拽讞 驻转讜讞 讜谞住转诪讗 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞转驻转讞 砖驻讜讬 讜谞砖转讟讛 讜讞讝专 讜谞砖转驻讛 讻砖专 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖转讞讬诇转讜 讜住讜驻讜 讘讻砖专讜转 讻砖专

and afterward his wife, who was the daughter of the father-in-law, died, which means that the witness is no longer related to the party involved; or when he was able to hear, and then became a deaf-mute, and again became able to hear; or when he could see, and subsequently became blind, and afterward could see again; or when he was halakhically competent, and then became an imbecile, and again became halakhically competent; in all these cases he is fit to testify.This is the principle: Any individual whose beginning and end is in a state of qualification to serve as a witness is qualified to testify, even if he was unfit in the interim. Evidently, it is not derived from the verse: 鈥淎nd he is a witness,鈥 that the witness must be fit from the beginning to the end.

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讗讜 专讗讛 讗诐 诇讗 讬讙讬讚 讘专讗讬讬讛 讜讛讙讚讛 转诇讗 专讞诪谞讗 诪讬诇转讗 讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讜讗诇讗 讜讛讜讗 诇诪讛 诇讬

The Gemara explains: The halakha is different there, with regard to testimony, as the verse states: 鈥淗e is a witness, whether he has seenif he does not utter鈥 (Leviticus 5:1). This formulation indicates that the Merciful One renders the matter of testimony dependent on seeing and recounting the content of his testimony. And in this instance there is both valid seeing and valid recounting, despite the fact that the witness was disqualified in the interim. The Gemara asks: But if so, why do I need the exclusion of the verse: 鈥淎nd he is a witness鈥?

诇讻讚转谞讬讗 专讗讛 住讬讗讛 砖诇 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 注讜诪讚讬谉 讜注讬讚讬讜 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讜讗诪专 诪砖讘讬注谞讬 注诇讬讻诐 讗诐 讬讜讚注讬诐 讗转诐 诇讬 注讚讜转 砖转讘讜讗讜 讜转注讬讚讜谞讬 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讜 讞讬讬讘讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛讜讗 注讚 讜讛专讬 诇讗 讬讬讞讚 注讬讚讬讜

The Gemara answers: The limiting clause is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: If someone saw a crowd of people standing, and his witnesses were among them, and he said: I hereby administer an oath to you, if you know any testimony relating to me, that you will come and testify for me, one might have thought that this form of address suffices to single out the witnesses. This would mean that if the witnesses take a false oath that they do not know testimony with regard to the person who addressed them, they would be obligated to bring an offering of an oath of testimony. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd he is a witness,鈥 to emphasize that the offering applies only to one who is singled out as a witness, and in this case the individual did not single out his witnesses, as he addressed a whole crowd of people. Consequently, the witnesses are exempt.

讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讗诪专 讻诇 诪讬 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛讜讗 注讚 讜讛专讬 讬讬讞讚 注讬讚讬讜

The baraita continues: One might have thought that even if this individual said to the crowd: I adjure whoever knows testimony relating to me that he will come and testify for me, that even in the case of this more specific address the witnesses are likewise exempt from the offering of an oath of testimony. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd he is a witness,鈥 and by clarifying his appeal the individual did single out his witnesses. Consequently, in this situation the witnesses would be obligated to bring the offering.

讗讘诇 讘拽专讘谞讜转 讗讬谞讜 讻谉 讜讻讜壮 讗讘讬讜 诪转 讜讛谞讬讞 诇讜 专讬讘讜讗 注砖讬专 讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗讬诪讗 诪谞讬讞 诇讜 专讬讘讜讗

搂 The mishna teaches: But with regard to the offerings of a leper that is not so. If the leper is destitute, even if his father died and left him ten thousand dinars, the Temple treasury has no share in it. The Gemara raises a difficulty: If his father already died and left him ten thousand dinars, he is wealthy. How could he be considered destitute at all? Rabbi Abbahu said that one should say instead: His father is dying and leaving him ten thousand dinars, but he has not yet died.

驻砖讬讟讗 讻砖讛讬讛 讗讘讬讜 讙讜住住 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 专讜讘 讙讜住住讬谉 诇诪讬转讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara raises a further difficulty: If so, it is obvious that with regard to the Temple treasury he remains destitute, as at the time he is in fact destitute. The Gemara answers: The halakha was stated with regard to a case where his father is moribund. Lest you say that as the majority of moribund people proceed to die the son should be considered wealthy even before the father dies, the mishna therefore teaches us that the son retains his status as destitute until the father actually dies.

住驻讬谞转讜 讘讬诐 讜讘讗讛 诇讜 讘专讬讘讜讗讜转 注砖讬专 讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讻砖讛讬转讛 诪讜讞讻专转 讜诪讜砖讻专转 讘讬讚 讗讞专讬诐 讜讛讗讬讻讗 砖讻讬专讜转 砖讻讬专讜转 讗讬谞讛 诪砖转诇诪转 讗诇讗 诇讘住讜祝

The mishna likewise teaches: If his ship is at sea and merchandise valued at ten thousand dinars is coming into his possession, this money is not taken into consideration by the Temple treasury. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 he wealthy? Rav 岣sda said: The mishna is referring to a case where his ship was leased or rented to others, and therefore the merchandise it contains belongs to someone else. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 there the rent money that will be paid to the leper? The Gemara answers: Rent is paid only at the end of the rental period, which means that the owner is destitute in the meantime.

讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 住驻讬谞讛 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛讬讛 讗讬讻专 谞讜转谉 诇讜 爪诪讚讜 讜讞诪专 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讞诪讜专讜

The Gemara raises another difficulty: But let the mishna derive and determine that the leper is wealthy due to the fact that he owns a ship. The Gemara answers: In accordance with whose opinion is this statement in the mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who maintains that with regard to determining one鈥檚 obligation to bring an offering as a wealthy or destitute individual, the property that he uses for business is not taken into account. As we learned in a mishna (23b): When someone鈥檚 property is repossessed in order to pay his debt to the Temple treasury, Rabbi Eliezer says: If he was a farmer, the treasurer gives him permission to keep his pair of oxen with which he plows the field. If he was a donkey driver, the treasurer gives him permission to keep his donkey.

诪转谞讬壮 讛砖谞讬诐 讘谞讬讚专 讻讬爪讚 讬诇讚 砖讛注专讬讱 讝拽谉 谞讜转谉 注专讱 讝拽谉 讜讝拽谉 砖讛注专讬讱 讗转 讛讬诇讚 谞讜转谉 注专讱 讬诇讚 讛注专讻讬谉 讘谞注专讱 讻讬爪讚 讗讬砖 砖讛注专讬讱 讛讗砖讛 谞讜转谉 注专讱 讗砖讛 讜讗砖讛 砖讛注专讬讻讛 讗讬砖 谞讜转谞转 注专讱 讗讬砖

MISHNA: The sum fixed by the Torah based on the years of age is in accordance with the age of the subject of the vow; how so? A youth who valuated an elder gives the valuation of an elder, and an elder who valuated a youth gives the valuation of a youth. And the distinction based on sex that is written in the halakhot of valuations is stated with regard to the one valuated; how so? A man who valuated a woman gives the valuation of a woman, and a woman who valuated a man gives the valuation of a man.

讜讛注专讱 讘讝诪谉 讛注专讱 讻讬爪讚 讛注专讬讻讜 驻讞讜转 诪讘谉 讞诪砖 讜谞注砖讛 讬转专 注诇 讘谉 讞诪砖 驻讞讜转 诪讘谉 注砖专讬诐 讜谞注砖讛 讬转专 注诇 讘谉 注砖专讬诐 谞讜转谉 讘讝诪谉 讛注专讱

And the different valuation based on the age of the one valuated is determined at the time one takes the vow of valuation; how so? If one valuated another when he was less than five years old, when his valuation is five shekels, and before payment to the Temple treasury the subject of the vow became more than five years old, when his valuation is ten shekels; or if one valuated another when he was less than twenty years old, when his valuation is ten shekels, and before payment to the Temple treasury the subject of the vow became more than twenty years old, when his valuation is fifty shekels, in all these cases he gives payment according to the age of the subject of the valuation at the time of the valuation.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗转讛 讛拽砖讬转 讚诪讬诐 诇注专讻讬谉 诪专讙诇讬转 诇拽诇讬诐 讜诇讬讚讜谉 讘讻讘讜讚讜

GEMARA: With regard to the statement of the mishna: And the valuation is determined at the time one takes the vow of valuation, the Sages taught in a baraita: You have compared pledges of assessments for the Temple treasury, i.e., one who takes a vow to donate a certain person鈥檚 assessment, to vows of valuations. This comparison applies with regard to a pearl belonging to light people, i.e., the poor. In other words, just as the assessment of a pearl is determined by the pearl鈥檚 location in a village of the poor rather than by the potential price of the pearl in the city market, so too, the valuation of a person is determined at the time of the valuation. And similarly, the comparison teaches that the court is required to assess the value of the limb by its significance, i.e., in the case of a limb that is vital to one鈥檚 survival, the valuation of the limb is equivalent to the valuation of the whole person.

讬讻讜诇 谞拽讬砖 注专讻讬谉 诇讚诪讬诐 砖讬转谉 讻砖注转 谞转讬谞讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻注专讻讱 讻谉 讬拽讜诐 讗讬谞讜 谞讜转谉 讗诇讗 讘讝诪谉 讛注专讱

One might have thought that we should compare valuations to assessments in that the one pledging must give a person鈥檚 valuation not corresponding to his value at the time of the pledge but in accordance with his value at the time of giving, as is the case with regard to vows of assessments. To counter this suggestion the verse states: 鈥淎ccording to your valuation it shall stand鈥 (Leviticus 27:17), which teaches that the one making the valuation gives his donation only according to the valuation of the person at the time of the valuation, as stated in the mishna.

诪转谞讬壮 讬讜诐 砖诇砖讬诐 讻诇诪讟讛 讛讬诪谞讛 砖谞转 讞诪砖 讜砖谞转 注砖专讬诐 讻诇诪讟讛 诪讛诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗诐 诪讘谉 砖砖讬诐 砖谞讛 讜诪注诇讛 讛专讬 讗谞讜 诇诪讚讬诐 讘讻讜诇谉 诪砖谞转 砖砖讬诐 诪讛 砖谞转 砖砖讬诐 讻诇诪讟讛 讛讬诪谞讛 讗祝 砖谞转 讞诪砖 讜砖谞转 注砖专讬诐 讻诇诪讟讛 讛讬诪谞讛

MISHNA: The Torah provides three age categories that determine the amount of the valuation: From the age of one month until age five, from age five until age twenty, and from age twenty until age sixty. For anyone less than one month old there is no valuation. The halakhic status of the thirtieth day is like that of the period preceding thirty days, and therefore the one who took the vow is exempt. Likewise, the halakhic status of the fifth year and the twentieth year is like that of the period preceding them. As it is stated: 鈥淎nd if it is from sixty years old and upward鈥 (Leviticus 27:7), and we derive all the other age categories from the sixtieth year: Just as the halakhic status of the sixtieth year, where upward is written, is like that of the period preceding it, so too, the halakhic status of the fifth year and the twentieth year is like that of the period preceding them.

讛谉 讗诐 注砖讛 砖谞转 砖砖讬诐 讻诇诪讟讛 诪诪谞讛 诇讛讞诪讬专 谞注砖讛 砖谞转 讞诪砖 讜砖谞转 注砖专讬诐 讻诇诪讟讛 诪诪谞讜 诇讛拽诇

The mishna asks: Is that so? Can one derive a halakha in this manner? If the Torah rendered the halakhic status of the sixtieth year like that of the period preceding it in order to be stringent and require one who valuated a sixty-year-old person to pay his valuation to the Temple treasury, shall we render the halakhic status of the fifth year and the twentieth year like that of the period preceding them in order to be lenient and pay a lower sum?

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖谞讛 砖谞讛 诇讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 诪讛 砖谞讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 讘砖谞转 砖砖讬诐 讻诇诪讟讛 讗祝 砖谞讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 诪砖谞转 讞诪砖 讜砖谞转 注砖专讬诐 讻诇诪讟讛 诪诪谞讜 讘讬谉 诇讛拽诇 讜讘讬谉 诇讛讞诪讬专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 注讚 砖讬讛讜 讬转讬专讜转 注诇 讛砖谞讬诐 讞讚砖 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚

Therefore, the verse states 鈥測ear鈥 with regard to the fifth and twentieth years (see Leviticus 27:3鈥6), and 鈥測ear鈥 with regard to the sixtieth year (Leviticus 27:7), for a verbal analogy. Just as the halakhic status of the year stated with regard to the sixtieth year is like that of the period preceding it, so too, the halakhic status of the year stated with regard to the fifth year and the twentieth year is like that of the period preceding them, both in order to be lenient and in order to be stringent. Rabbi Eliezer says: Their halakhic status remains like that of the period preceding it, until they will be aged one month and one day beyond the fifth, twentieth, and sixtieth years.

讙诪壮 诪讜驻谞讛 讚讗讬 诇讗 诪讜驻谞讛 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 讻讚驻专讻讬谞谉 砖谞讛 砖谞讛 讬转讬专讬 讻转讬讘讬

GEMARA: The Gemara notes: Evidently, the verbal analogy in the mishna is free, i.e., in each verse the word 鈥測ear鈥 is superfluous, and therefore can be used in the verbal analogy. This means that the halakha derived from the verbal analogy is considered as though it is written explicitly in the Torah. The significance of this fact is that if a verbal analogy is not free, it can be refuted by logical reasoning. In this case the refutation would be as we refuted it in the mishna, that if the fifth year and the twentieth year are considered the same as the respective periods preceding them, this generates a leniency. The Gemara confirms: The verbal analogy is free, as both the first written mention of 鈥測ear鈥 and the second written mention of 鈥測ear鈥 are superfluous.

诇讬诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讚讗讬 专讘讬 讛讗诪专 注讚 讜注讚 讘讻诇诇

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as, if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, doesn鈥檛 he say that the word 鈥渦ntil鈥 means until and including? With regard to valuations, the Torah states: 鈥淔rom twenty years old until sixty years old鈥nd if it is from five years old until twenty years old鈥nd if it is from one month old until five years old鈥 (Leviticus 27:3鈥6). Accordingly, in the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi there should be no need for a verbal analogy to include the fifth year and the twentieth year in the periods preceding them.

讚转谞讬讗 诪讬讜诐 讛专讗砖谉 讜注讚 讬讜诐 讛砖讘注讬 讬讻讜诇 专讗砖讜谉 讜诇讗 专讗砖讜谉 讘讻诇诇 砖讘讬注讬 讜诇讗 砖讘讬注讬 讘讻诇诇

The Gemara provides the source of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 opinion. As it is taught in a baraita concerning the festival of Passover: The verse states: 鈥淔or whoever eats leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day鈥 (Exodus 12:15). One might have thought that the prohibition against eating leaven applies from the first day and onward but the first day is not included, and likewise that the prohibition continues until the seventh day but the seventh day is not included.

讻注谞讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 诪专讗砖讜 讜注讚 专讙诇讬讜 专讗砖讜 讜诇讗 专讗砖讜 讘讻诇诇 专讙诇讬讜 讜诇讗 专讙诇讬讜 讘讻诇诇

This is similar to the matter that is stated with regard to a leper: 鈥淎nd the leprosy covers all the skin of him who has the mark from his head to his feet, as far as the priest can see鈥t is all turned white: He is pure鈥 (Leviticus 13:12鈥13). This verse is understood as follows: The mark reaches from his head, but his head is not included; it reaches to his feet, but his feet are not included. Therefore, one might have thought the prohibition against consuming leaven on the festival of Passover likewise does not apply to the endpoints mentioned in the verse.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注讚 讬讜诐 讛讗讞讚 讜注砖专讬诐 诇讞讚砖 讘注专讘 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 专讗砖讜谉 讜专讗砖讜谉 讘讻诇诇 砖讘讬注讬 讜砖讘讬注讬 讘讻诇诇

Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall eat unleavened bread, until the twenty-first day of the month in the evening鈥 (Exodus 12:18). This proves that the seventh day of the Festival is included. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: It is not necessary to cite this verse, as the prohibition against consuming leaven is from the first day of Passover, and the first day is included; and the ban continues until the seventh day, and the seventh day is included. Accordingly, with regard to valuations, even without a verbal analogy Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi should maintain that the twentieth year is included in the preceding period.

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 砖拽讜诇讬 诪砖拽诇讬 拽专讗讬 诪讻讚讬 讻转讬讘 诪讘谉 讞讚砖 讜注讚 讘谉 讞诪砖 砖谞讬诐 转讜 诪讘谉 讞诪砖 讜注讚 讘谉 注砖专讬诐 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛讬诇讻讱 讗讬砖转拽诇讜 诇讛讜

The Gemara answers: You may even say that the opinion in the mishna is in accordance with that of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as the verses offset each other, and therefore their meaning is unclear without the verbal analogy. The Gemara elaborates: Since it is written: 鈥淔rom one month old until five years old鈥 (Leviticus 27:6), this ostensibly includes the fifth year within the stated category. If so, why do I need this mention of five years as well: 鈥淎nd if it is from five years old until twenty years old, then your valuation shall be for the male twenty shekels鈥 (Leviticus 27:5)? Therefore, with regard to the fifth year, as both verses mention that year, the verses offset each other. Consequently, even according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi the verbal analogy is necessary.

讗诪专 诪专 专讗砖讜 讜诇讗 专讗砖讜 讘讻诇诇 专讙诇讬讜 讜诇讗 专讙诇讬讜 讘讻诇诇 诪谞诇谉 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 砖讗谞讬 住讬诪谞讬诐 讚讙讜驻讜 诪住讬诪谞讬诐 讚专讗砖讜 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇讻诇 诪专讗讛 注讬谞讬 讛讻讛谉

The Master said above, with regard to a leper: The mark reaches from his head, but his head is not included; it reaches to his feet, but his feet are not included. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this interpretation? If you wish, say that it is deduced logically: The signs of leprosy of his body are different from the signs of leprosy of his head with regard to the different colors of hair that indicate leprosy. Alternatively, if you wish, say instead that it is derived from the phrase in that verse: 鈥淎s far as the priest can see.鈥 This excludes a leprous mark on the head, which is obscured from the priest鈥檚 view by the hair, as well as leprous marks between the toes.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 注讚 砖讬讛讜 讬转讬专讜转 注诇 讛砖谞讬诐 讞讜讚砖 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 诇诪注诇讛 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 讞讚砖 讜诪注诇讛 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 诪讘谉 讞讜讚砖 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讗祝 讻讗谉 诪讘谉 讞讜讚砖 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Eliezer says: Their halakhic status remains like that of the period preceding it, until they will be aged one month and one day beyond the respective years. With regard to this opinion, it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: It is stated here, with regard to valuations, 鈥渦pward鈥 (Leviticus 27:7), and it is stated there, with regard to the census of the Levites in the wilderness: 鈥淔rom one month old and upward you shall number them鈥 (Numbers 3:15). Just as there, in the case of the census, the verse means: From one month and one day old, so too here, with regard to valuations, the verse means that each respective category is counted from one month and one day old beyond the stated ages of five years, twenty years, or sixty years.

讜讗讬诪讗 讻讬 讛转诐 诪讛 讛转诐 讞讚 讬讜诪讗 讗祝 讻讗谉 讞讚 讬讜诪讗 讗诐 讻谉 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 诪讗讬 讗讛谞讬

The Gemara asks: And why doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Eliezer say that the verse dealing with valuation should be understood like the verse written there, with regard to the census, in the following manner: Just as there it is one day more than the enumerated age of thirty days, so too here, it should be one day more than the enumerated ages of five years, twenty years, and sixty years. Why does Rabbi Eliezer add a month? The Gemara answers: If so, that only one day should be added, what purpose does this verbal analogy from the census serve? Even without any connection to the verse dealing with the census, it would be understood in the case of valuations that the new period begins from the day after the respective year is fully completed.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖谞讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 讘拽讚砖讬诐 砖谞讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 讘讘转讬 注专讬 讞讜诪讛 砖转讬 砖谞讬诐 砖讘砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 讜砖砖 砖谞讬诐 砖讘注讘讚 注讘专讬 讜讻谉 砖讘讘谉 讜砖讘讘转 讻讜诇谉 诪注转 诇注转

The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to the period of one year stated with regard to sacrificial animals, e.g., 鈥渟heep in their first year鈥 (Numbers 28:3); and the one year stated with regard to houses of walled cities, during which time it is permitted to redeem a sold house in a walled city (Leviticus 25:29); and the two years stated with regard to an ancestral field, during which one may not yet redeem an ancestral field he has sold (Leviticus 25:15); and the six years stated with regard to a Hebrew slave (Exodus 21:2); and similarly, the years stated with regard to a son and with regard to a daughter, as explained below; all of these are calculated from the time of day at the start of the period to the time of day at the end of the period, i.e., these periods are units of whole years; they do not expire on predetermined dates, such as at the end of the calendar year.

砖谞讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 讘拽讚砖讬诐 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讘砖 讘谉 砖谞转讜 砖谞转讜 砖诇讜 讜诇讗 砖诇 诪谞讬谉 注讜诇诐

The Gemara asks: With regard to the one year stated with regard to sacrificial animals, from where do we derive that it is calculated by whole years rather than calendar years? Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov says that the verse states: 鈥淎 sheep in its first year鈥 (Leviticus 12:6). Since the verse does not state: A sheep in the first year, it means a year based on the calculation of its own life, and not a year based on the counting of the world, i.e., the calendar year.

砖谞讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 讘讘转讬 注专讬 讞讜诪讛 讚讻转讬讘 注讚 转诐 砖谞转 诪诪讻专讜 诪诪讻专讜 砖诇讜 讜诇讗 砖谞讛 诇诪谞讬谉 注讜诇诐

The Gemara continues clarifying the baraita: The halakha that the one year stated with regard to houses of walled cities is calculated by a whole year and not a calendar year is derived from the fact that it is written: 鈥淭hen he may redeem it within a whole year after it is sold, for a full year he shall have the right of redemption鈥 (Leviticus 25:29). The verse is referring to a year counted from the day of its own sale, and not the year of the counting of the world.

砖转讬 砖谞讬诐 砖讘砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 讚讻转讬讘 讘诪住驻专 砖谞讬 转讘讜讗转 讬诪讻专 诇讱 驻注诪讬诐 砖讗讚诐 讗讜讻诇 砖诇砖 转讘讜讗讜转 讘砖转讬 砖谞讬诐

The Gemara states: Concerning the two years stated with regard to an ancestral field, this is derived from the fact that it is written: 鈥淎ccording to the number of years of the crops he shall sell to you鈥 (Leviticus 25:15). The plural form of both 鈥測ears鈥 and 鈥渃rops鈥 indicates that the number of years does not necessarily correspond to the quantity of crops. Consequently, there are times when a person might eat three yields of crops in two years. If one purchased a field at the end of the calendar year when its yield had not yet been harvested, and he harvested that yield and subsequently grew and harvested two more crops before the completion of two whole years from the sale, he would have eaten three yields in less than two years. This is not possible if one follows the calendar years, as a new year would start soon after the purchase.

砖砖 砖讘注讘讚 注讘专讬 讚讻转讬讘 砖砖 砖谞讬诐 讬注讘讚 讜讘砖讘讬注讬转 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚讘砖讘讬注讬转 谞诪讬 讬注讘讜讚

The Gemara states: The halakha that the six years stated with regard to a Hebrew slave is calculated by whole years, not calendar years, is derived from the fact that it is written: 鈥淪ix years he shall work; and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing鈥 (Exodus 21:2). The word 鈥渁nd鈥 in the phrase: 鈥淎nd in the seventh,鈥 teaches that sometimes it turns out that he shall also work in the seventh calendar year, if six full years have not passed from when he was sold. For example, if he was sold in the month of Nisan, although five years and six months have passed when Tishrei, the first month of the seventh year, arrives, since he has not yet completed six years of service he must work in this seventh calendar year as well, until the day of the month in which he was sold.

讜砖讘讘谉 讜砖讘讘转 讻讜诇谉 诪注转 诇注转 诇诪讗讬 讛讬诇讻转讗 讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘 诇注专讻讬谉 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 诇驻专拽讬谉 讚讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉

The baraita also teaches: The years stated with regard to a son and with regard to a daughter are among these terms calculated from the time at the start of the period to the time at the end of the period. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha is this stated? Rav Giddel said that Rav said: With regard to valuations, i.e., that the age of a valuated male or female is calculated in whole years from the date of their birth, not by calendar years. Rav Yosef said: The halakha is stated with regard to the matters taught in the fifth chapter of tractate Nidda, which is called after its opening words: Yotze Dofen, i.e., an animal born by caesarean section. In other words, when a mishna in that chapter, which deals with various matters related to the ages of sons and daughters, mentions years, it means full years, even when it does not state this explicitly.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讬 驻诇讙讬转讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讗谞讗 讗诪专讬 讞讚讗 讜讛讜讗 讗诪专 讞讚讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 驻诇讬讙讬 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇注专讻讬谉 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讛讬诇讻转讗 讘讻讜诇讛 驻讬专拽讗 诪注转 诇注转

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Do you and Rav dispute this matter, i.e., when you apply the mention of a son and a daughter to different cases, do each of you reject the opinion of the other? Rav Yosef said to Abaye: No, we do not disagree; I said one matter and he said one different matter. The Gemara adds: This too stands to reason, as if it enters your mind that they disagree on this matter, then with regard to the one who says full years are required for determining valuations, does he not also say that full years are used for the halakhot of Yotze Dofen? But doesn鈥檛 Rav say, like Rav Yosef, that the halakha in that entire chapter is that the ages of the sons and daughters are determined from the time at the start of the period to the time at the end of the period, not by calendar years?

讜讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇注专讻讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讛谞讱 诪讛 讛谞讱 讚讻转讬讘讗 讗祝 讛谞讱 讚讻转讬讘讗

The Gemara asks: But if that is the case, then according to the one who says that the reference to full years mentioned in the baraita is for determining valuations, i.e., Rav, what is the reason he did not say that the baraita is referring to the halakhot of Yotze Dofen? The Gemara answers: Rav would claim that the years of a son and a daughter in the baraita are similar to these other cases mentioned in the baraita: Just as those numbers of years are explicitly written in the Torah, so too these years of the sons and daughters are referring to matters where the years are written in the Torah, i.e., the years of valuations, unlike the topics discussed in Yotze Dofen, where the years are not mentioned expressly in the Torah.

讜讗讬讚讱 讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讻转讬讘讗 讛讗讬 砖讘讘谉 讜砖讘讘转

The Gemara asks: And with regard to the other, Rav Yosef, how would he respond to this contention? He would maintain that if it enters your mind that the baraita is referring to the years of valuations, which are written in the Torah, then this phrase in the baraita: With regard to a son and with regard to a daughter, is unsuitable.

  • 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 18

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Arakhin 18

讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪转讛 讘转讜 驻拽讞 讜谞转讞专砖 讜讞讝专 讜谞转驻拽讞 驻转讜讞 讜谞住转诪讗 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞转驻转讞 砖驻讜讬 讜谞砖转讟讛 讜讞讝专 讜谞砖转驻讛 讻砖专 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖转讞讬诇转讜 讜住讜驻讜 讘讻砖专讜转 讻砖专

and afterward his wife, who was the daughter of the father-in-law, died, which means that the witness is no longer related to the party involved; or when he was able to hear, and then became a deaf-mute, and again became able to hear; or when he could see, and subsequently became blind, and afterward could see again; or when he was halakhically competent, and then became an imbecile, and again became halakhically competent; in all these cases he is fit to testify.This is the principle: Any individual whose beginning and end is in a state of qualification to serve as a witness is qualified to testify, even if he was unfit in the interim. Evidently, it is not derived from the verse: 鈥淎nd he is a witness,鈥 that the witness must be fit from the beginning to the end.

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讗讜 专讗讛 讗诐 诇讗 讬讙讬讚 讘专讗讬讬讛 讜讛讙讚讛 转诇讗 专讞诪谞讗 诪讬诇转讗 讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讜讗诇讗 讜讛讜讗 诇诪讛 诇讬

The Gemara explains: The halakha is different there, with regard to testimony, as the verse states: 鈥淗e is a witness, whether he has seenif he does not utter鈥 (Leviticus 5:1). This formulation indicates that the Merciful One renders the matter of testimony dependent on seeing and recounting the content of his testimony. And in this instance there is both valid seeing and valid recounting, despite the fact that the witness was disqualified in the interim. The Gemara asks: But if so, why do I need the exclusion of the verse: 鈥淎nd he is a witness鈥?

诇讻讚转谞讬讗 专讗讛 住讬讗讛 砖诇 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 注讜诪讚讬谉 讜注讬讚讬讜 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讜讗诪专 诪砖讘讬注谞讬 注诇讬讻诐 讗诐 讬讜讚注讬诐 讗转诐 诇讬 注讚讜转 砖转讘讜讗讜 讜转注讬讚讜谞讬 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讜 讞讬讬讘讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛讜讗 注讚 讜讛专讬 诇讗 讬讬讞讚 注讬讚讬讜

The Gemara answers: The limiting clause is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: If someone saw a crowd of people standing, and his witnesses were among them, and he said: I hereby administer an oath to you, if you know any testimony relating to me, that you will come and testify for me, one might have thought that this form of address suffices to single out the witnesses. This would mean that if the witnesses take a false oath that they do not know testimony with regard to the person who addressed them, they would be obligated to bring an offering of an oath of testimony. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd he is a witness,鈥 to emphasize that the offering applies only to one who is singled out as a witness, and in this case the individual did not single out his witnesses, as he addressed a whole crowd of people. Consequently, the witnesses are exempt.

讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讗诪专 讻诇 诪讬 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛讜讗 注讚 讜讛专讬 讬讬讞讚 注讬讚讬讜

The baraita continues: One might have thought that even if this individual said to the crowd: I adjure whoever knows testimony relating to me that he will come and testify for me, that even in the case of this more specific address the witnesses are likewise exempt from the offering of an oath of testimony. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd he is a witness,鈥 and by clarifying his appeal the individual did single out his witnesses. Consequently, in this situation the witnesses would be obligated to bring the offering.

讗讘诇 讘拽专讘谞讜转 讗讬谞讜 讻谉 讜讻讜壮 讗讘讬讜 诪转 讜讛谞讬讞 诇讜 专讬讘讜讗 注砖讬专 讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗讬诪讗 诪谞讬讞 诇讜 专讬讘讜讗

搂 The mishna teaches: But with regard to the offerings of a leper that is not so. If the leper is destitute, even if his father died and left him ten thousand dinars, the Temple treasury has no share in it. The Gemara raises a difficulty: If his father already died and left him ten thousand dinars, he is wealthy. How could he be considered destitute at all? Rabbi Abbahu said that one should say instead: His father is dying and leaving him ten thousand dinars, but he has not yet died.

驻砖讬讟讗 讻砖讛讬讛 讗讘讬讜 讙讜住住 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 专讜讘 讙讜住住讬谉 诇诪讬转讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara raises a further difficulty: If so, it is obvious that with regard to the Temple treasury he remains destitute, as at the time he is in fact destitute. The Gemara answers: The halakha was stated with regard to a case where his father is moribund. Lest you say that as the majority of moribund people proceed to die the son should be considered wealthy even before the father dies, the mishna therefore teaches us that the son retains his status as destitute until the father actually dies.

住驻讬谞转讜 讘讬诐 讜讘讗讛 诇讜 讘专讬讘讜讗讜转 注砖讬专 讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讻砖讛讬转讛 诪讜讞讻专转 讜诪讜砖讻专转 讘讬讚 讗讞专讬诐 讜讛讗讬讻讗 砖讻讬专讜转 砖讻讬专讜转 讗讬谞讛 诪砖转诇诪转 讗诇讗 诇讘住讜祝

The mishna likewise teaches: If his ship is at sea and merchandise valued at ten thousand dinars is coming into his possession, this money is not taken into consideration by the Temple treasury. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 he wealthy? Rav 岣sda said: The mishna is referring to a case where his ship was leased or rented to others, and therefore the merchandise it contains belongs to someone else. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 there the rent money that will be paid to the leper? The Gemara answers: Rent is paid only at the end of the rental period, which means that the owner is destitute in the meantime.

讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 住驻讬谞讛 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛讬讛 讗讬讻专 谞讜转谉 诇讜 爪诪讚讜 讜讞诪专 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讞诪讜专讜

The Gemara raises another difficulty: But let the mishna derive and determine that the leper is wealthy due to the fact that he owns a ship. The Gemara answers: In accordance with whose opinion is this statement in the mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who maintains that with regard to determining one鈥檚 obligation to bring an offering as a wealthy or destitute individual, the property that he uses for business is not taken into account. As we learned in a mishna (23b): When someone鈥檚 property is repossessed in order to pay his debt to the Temple treasury, Rabbi Eliezer says: If he was a farmer, the treasurer gives him permission to keep his pair of oxen with which he plows the field. If he was a donkey driver, the treasurer gives him permission to keep his donkey.

诪转谞讬壮 讛砖谞讬诐 讘谞讬讚专 讻讬爪讚 讬诇讚 砖讛注专讬讱 讝拽谉 谞讜转谉 注专讱 讝拽谉 讜讝拽谉 砖讛注专讬讱 讗转 讛讬诇讚 谞讜转谉 注专讱 讬诇讚 讛注专讻讬谉 讘谞注专讱 讻讬爪讚 讗讬砖 砖讛注专讬讱 讛讗砖讛 谞讜转谉 注专讱 讗砖讛 讜讗砖讛 砖讛注专讬讻讛 讗讬砖 谞讜转谞转 注专讱 讗讬砖

MISHNA: The sum fixed by the Torah based on the years of age is in accordance with the age of the subject of the vow; how so? A youth who valuated an elder gives the valuation of an elder, and an elder who valuated a youth gives the valuation of a youth. And the distinction based on sex that is written in the halakhot of valuations is stated with regard to the one valuated; how so? A man who valuated a woman gives the valuation of a woman, and a woman who valuated a man gives the valuation of a man.

讜讛注专讱 讘讝诪谉 讛注专讱 讻讬爪讚 讛注专讬讻讜 驻讞讜转 诪讘谉 讞诪砖 讜谞注砖讛 讬转专 注诇 讘谉 讞诪砖 驻讞讜转 诪讘谉 注砖专讬诐 讜谞注砖讛 讬转专 注诇 讘谉 注砖专讬诐 谞讜转谉 讘讝诪谉 讛注专讱

And the different valuation based on the age of the one valuated is determined at the time one takes the vow of valuation; how so? If one valuated another when he was less than five years old, when his valuation is five shekels, and before payment to the Temple treasury the subject of the vow became more than five years old, when his valuation is ten shekels; or if one valuated another when he was less than twenty years old, when his valuation is ten shekels, and before payment to the Temple treasury the subject of the vow became more than twenty years old, when his valuation is fifty shekels, in all these cases he gives payment according to the age of the subject of the valuation at the time of the valuation.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗转讛 讛拽砖讬转 讚诪讬诐 诇注专讻讬谉 诪专讙诇讬转 诇拽诇讬诐 讜诇讬讚讜谉 讘讻讘讜讚讜

GEMARA: With regard to the statement of the mishna: And the valuation is determined at the time one takes the vow of valuation, the Sages taught in a baraita: You have compared pledges of assessments for the Temple treasury, i.e., one who takes a vow to donate a certain person鈥檚 assessment, to vows of valuations. This comparison applies with regard to a pearl belonging to light people, i.e., the poor. In other words, just as the assessment of a pearl is determined by the pearl鈥檚 location in a village of the poor rather than by the potential price of the pearl in the city market, so too, the valuation of a person is determined at the time of the valuation. And similarly, the comparison teaches that the court is required to assess the value of the limb by its significance, i.e., in the case of a limb that is vital to one鈥檚 survival, the valuation of the limb is equivalent to the valuation of the whole person.

讬讻讜诇 谞拽讬砖 注专讻讬谉 诇讚诪讬诐 砖讬转谉 讻砖注转 谞转讬谞讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻注专讻讱 讻谉 讬拽讜诐 讗讬谞讜 谞讜转谉 讗诇讗 讘讝诪谉 讛注专讱

One might have thought that we should compare valuations to assessments in that the one pledging must give a person鈥檚 valuation not corresponding to his value at the time of the pledge but in accordance with his value at the time of giving, as is the case with regard to vows of assessments. To counter this suggestion the verse states: 鈥淎ccording to your valuation it shall stand鈥 (Leviticus 27:17), which teaches that the one making the valuation gives his donation only according to the valuation of the person at the time of the valuation, as stated in the mishna.

诪转谞讬壮 讬讜诐 砖诇砖讬诐 讻诇诪讟讛 讛讬诪谞讛 砖谞转 讞诪砖 讜砖谞转 注砖专讬诐 讻诇诪讟讛 诪讛诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗诐 诪讘谉 砖砖讬诐 砖谞讛 讜诪注诇讛 讛专讬 讗谞讜 诇诪讚讬诐 讘讻讜诇谉 诪砖谞转 砖砖讬诐 诪讛 砖谞转 砖砖讬诐 讻诇诪讟讛 讛讬诪谞讛 讗祝 砖谞转 讞诪砖 讜砖谞转 注砖专讬诐 讻诇诪讟讛 讛讬诪谞讛

MISHNA: The Torah provides three age categories that determine the amount of the valuation: From the age of one month until age five, from age five until age twenty, and from age twenty until age sixty. For anyone less than one month old there is no valuation. The halakhic status of the thirtieth day is like that of the period preceding thirty days, and therefore the one who took the vow is exempt. Likewise, the halakhic status of the fifth year and the twentieth year is like that of the period preceding them. As it is stated: 鈥淎nd if it is from sixty years old and upward鈥 (Leviticus 27:7), and we derive all the other age categories from the sixtieth year: Just as the halakhic status of the sixtieth year, where upward is written, is like that of the period preceding it, so too, the halakhic status of the fifth year and the twentieth year is like that of the period preceding them.

讛谉 讗诐 注砖讛 砖谞转 砖砖讬诐 讻诇诪讟讛 诪诪谞讛 诇讛讞诪讬专 谞注砖讛 砖谞转 讞诪砖 讜砖谞转 注砖专讬诐 讻诇诪讟讛 诪诪谞讜 诇讛拽诇

The mishna asks: Is that so? Can one derive a halakha in this manner? If the Torah rendered the halakhic status of the sixtieth year like that of the period preceding it in order to be stringent and require one who valuated a sixty-year-old person to pay his valuation to the Temple treasury, shall we render the halakhic status of the fifth year and the twentieth year like that of the period preceding them in order to be lenient and pay a lower sum?

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖谞讛 砖谞讛 诇讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 诪讛 砖谞讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 讘砖谞转 砖砖讬诐 讻诇诪讟讛 讗祝 砖谞讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 诪砖谞转 讞诪砖 讜砖谞转 注砖专讬诐 讻诇诪讟讛 诪诪谞讜 讘讬谉 诇讛拽诇 讜讘讬谉 诇讛讞诪讬专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 注讚 砖讬讛讜 讬转讬专讜转 注诇 讛砖谞讬诐 讞讚砖 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚

Therefore, the verse states 鈥測ear鈥 with regard to the fifth and twentieth years (see Leviticus 27:3鈥6), and 鈥測ear鈥 with regard to the sixtieth year (Leviticus 27:7), for a verbal analogy. Just as the halakhic status of the year stated with regard to the sixtieth year is like that of the period preceding it, so too, the halakhic status of the year stated with regard to the fifth year and the twentieth year is like that of the period preceding them, both in order to be lenient and in order to be stringent. Rabbi Eliezer says: Their halakhic status remains like that of the period preceding it, until they will be aged one month and one day beyond the fifth, twentieth, and sixtieth years.

讙诪壮 诪讜驻谞讛 讚讗讬 诇讗 诪讜驻谞讛 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 讻讚驻专讻讬谞谉 砖谞讛 砖谞讛 讬转讬专讬 讻转讬讘讬

GEMARA: The Gemara notes: Evidently, the verbal analogy in the mishna is free, i.e., in each verse the word 鈥測ear鈥 is superfluous, and therefore can be used in the verbal analogy. This means that the halakha derived from the verbal analogy is considered as though it is written explicitly in the Torah. The significance of this fact is that if a verbal analogy is not free, it can be refuted by logical reasoning. In this case the refutation would be as we refuted it in the mishna, that if the fifth year and the twentieth year are considered the same as the respective periods preceding them, this generates a leniency. The Gemara confirms: The verbal analogy is free, as both the first written mention of 鈥測ear鈥 and the second written mention of 鈥測ear鈥 are superfluous.

诇讬诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讚讗讬 专讘讬 讛讗诪专 注讚 讜注讚 讘讻诇诇

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as, if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, doesn鈥檛 he say that the word 鈥渦ntil鈥 means until and including? With regard to valuations, the Torah states: 鈥淔rom twenty years old until sixty years old鈥nd if it is from five years old until twenty years old鈥nd if it is from one month old until five years old鈥 (Leviticus 27:3鈥6). Accordingly, in the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi there should be no need for a verbal analogy to include the fifth year and the twentieth year in the periods preceding them.

讚转谞讬讗 诪讬讜诐 讛专讗砖谉 讜注讚 讬讜诐 讛砖讘注讬 讬讻讜诇 专讗砖讜谉 讜诇讗 专讗砖讜谉 讘讻诇诇 砖讘讬注讬 讜诇讗 砖讘讬注讬 讘讻诇诇

The Gemara provides the source of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 opinion. As it is taught in a baraita concerning the festival of Passover: The verse states: 鈥淔or whoever eats leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day鈥 (Exodus 12:15). One might have thought that the prohibition against eating leaven applies from the first day and onward but the first day is not included, and likewise that the prohibition continues until the seventh day but the seventh day is not included.

讻注谞讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 诪专讗砖讜 讜注讚 专讙诇讬讜 专讗砖讜 讜诇讗 专讗砖讜 讘讻诇诇 专讙诇讬讜 讜诇讗 专讙诇讬讜 讘讻诇诇

This is similar to the matter that is stated with regard to a leper: 鈥淎nd the leprosy covers all the skin of him who has the mark from his head to his feet, as far as the priest can see鈥t is all turned white: He is pure鈥 (Leviticus 13:12鈥13). This verse is understood as follows: The mark reaches from his head, but his head is not included; it reaches to his feet, but his feet are not included. Therefore, one might have thought the prohibition against consuming leaven on the festival of Passover likewise does not apply to the endpoints mentioned in the verse.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注讚 讬讜诐 讛讗讞讚 讜注砖专讬诐 诇讞讚砖 讘注专讘 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 专讗砖讜谉 讜专讗砖讜谉 讘讻诇诇 砖讘讬注讬 讜砖讘讬注讬 讘讻诇诇

Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall eat unleavened bread, until the twenty-first day of the month in the evening鈥 (Exodus 12:18). This proves that the seventh day of the Festival is included. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: It is not necessary to cite this verse, as the prohibition against consuming leaven is from the first day of Passover, and the first day is included; and the ban continues until the seventh day, and the seventh day is included. Accordingly, with regard to valuations, even without a verbal analogy Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi should maintain that the twentieth year is included in the preceding period.

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 砖拽讜诇讬 诪砖拽诇讬 拽专讗讬 诪讻讚讬 讻转讬讘 诪讘谉 讞讚砖 讜注讚 讘谉 讞诪砖 砖谞讬诐 转讜 诪讘谉 讞诪砖 讜注讚 讘谉 注砖专讬诐 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛讬诇讻讱 讗讬砖转拽诇讜 诇讛讜

The Gemara answers: You may even say that the opinion in the mishna is in accordance with that of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as the verses offset each other, and therefore their meaning is unclear without the verbal analogy. The Gemara elaborates: Since it is written: 鈥淔rom one month old until five years old鈥 (Leviticus 27:6), this ostensibly includes the fifth year within the stated category. If so, why do I need this mention of five years as well: 鈥淎nd if it is from five years old until twenty years old, then your valuation shall be for the male twenty shekels鈥 (Leviticus 27:5)? Therefore, with regard to the fifth year, as both verses mention that year, the verses offset each other. Consequently, even according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi the verbal analogy is necessary.

讗诪专 诪专 专讗砖讜 讜诇讗 专讗砖讜 讘讻诇诇 专讙诇讬讜 讜诇讗 专讙诇讬讜 讘讻诇诇 诪谞诇谉 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 砖讗谞讬 住讬诪谞讬诐 讚讙讜驻讜 诪住讬诪谞讬诐 讚专讗砖讜 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇讻诇 诪专讗讛 注讬谞讬 讛讻讛谉

The Master said above, with regard to a leper: The mark reaches from his head, but his head is not included; it reaches to his feet, but his feet are not included. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this interpretation? If you wish, say that it is deduced logically: The signs of leprosy of his body are different from the signs of leprosy of his head with regard to the different colors of hair that indicate leprosy. Alternatively, if you wish, say instead that it is derived from the phrase in that verse: 鈥淎s far as the priest can see.鈥 This excludes a leprous mark on the head, which is obscured from the priest鈥檚 view by the hair, as well as leprous marks between the toes.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 注讚 砖讬讛讜 讬转讬专讜转 注诇 讛砖谞讬诐 讞讜讚砖 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 诇诪注诇讛 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 讞讚砖 讜诪注诇讛 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 诪讘谉 讞讜讚砖 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讗祝 讻讗谉 诪讘谉 讞讜讚砖 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Eliezer says: Their halakhic status remains like that of the period preceding it, until they will be aged one month and one day beyond the respective years. With regard to this opinion, it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: It is stated here, with regard to valuations, 鈥渦pward鈥 (Leviticus 27:7), and it is stated there, with regard to the census of the Levites in the wilderness: 鈥淔rom one month old and upward you shall number them鈥 (Numbers 3:15). Just as there, in the case of the census, the verse means: From one month and one day old, so too here, with regard to valuations, the verse means that each respective category is counted from one month and one day old beyond the stated ages of five years, twenty years, or sixty years.

讜讗讬诪讗 讻讬 讛转诐 诪讛 讛转诐 讞讚 讬讜诪讗 讗祝 讻讗谉 讞讚 讬讜诪讗 讗诐 讻谉 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 诪讗讬 讗讛谞讬

The Gemara asks: And why doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Eliezer say that the verse dealing with valuation should be understood like the verse written there, with regard to the census, in the following manner: Just as there it is one day more than the enumerated age of thirty days, so too here, it should be one day more than the enumerated ages of five years, twenty years, and sixty years. Why does Rabbi Eliezer add a month? The Gemara answers: If so, that only one day should be added, what purpose does this verbal analogy from the census serve? Even without any connection to the verse dealing with the census, it would be understood in the case of valuations that the new period begins from the day after the respective year is fully completed.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖谞讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 讘拽讚砖讬诐 砖谞讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 讘讘转讬 注专讬 讞讜诪讛 砖转讬 砖谞讬诐 砖讘砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 讜砖砖 砖谞讬诐 砖讘注讘讚 注讘专讬 讜讻谉 砖讘讘谉 讜砖讘讘转 讻讜诇谉 诪注转 诇注转

The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to the period of one year stated with regard to sacrificial animals, e.g., 鈥渟heep in their first year鈥 (Numbers 28:3); and the one year stated with regard to houses of walled cities, during which time it is permitted to redeem a sold house in a walled city (Leviticus 25:29); and the two years stated with regard to an ancestral field, during which one may not yet redeem an ancestral field he has sold (Leviticus 25:15); and the six years stated with regard to a Hebrew slave (Exodus 21:2); and similarly, the years stated with regard to a son and with regard to a daughter, as explained below; all of these are calculated from the time of day at the start of the period to the time of day at the end of the period, i.e., these periods are units of whole years; they do not expire on predetermined dates, such as at the end of the calendar year.

砖谞讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 讘拽讚砖讬诐 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讘砖 讘谉 砖谞转讜 砖谞转讜 砖诇讜 讜诇讗 砖诇 诪谞讬谉 注讜诇诐

The Gemara asks: With regard to the one year stated with regard to sacrificial animals, from where do we derive that it is calculated by whole years rather than calendar years? Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov says that the verse states: 鈥淎 sheep in its first year鈥 (Leviticus 12:6). Since the verse does not state: A sheep in the first year, it means a year based on the calculation of its own life, and not a year based on the counting of the world, i.e., the calendar year.

砖谞讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 讘讘转讬 注专讬 讞讜诪讛 讚讻转讬讘 注讚 转诐 砖谞转 诪诪讻专讜 诪诪讻专讜 砖诇讜 讜诇讗 砖谞讛 诇诪谞讬谉 注讜诇诐

The Gemara continues clarifying the baraita: The halakha that the one year stated with regard to houses of walled cities is calculated by a whole year and not a calendar year is derived from the fact that it is written: 鈥淭hen he may redeem it within a whole year after it is sold, for a full year he shall have the right of redemption鈥 (Leviticus 25:29). The verse is referring to a year counted from the day of its own sale, and not the year of the counting of the world.

砖转讬 砖谞讬诐 砖讘砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 讚讻转讬讘 讘诪住驻专 砖谞讬 转讘讜讗转 讬诪讻专 诇讱 驻注诪讬诐 砖讗讚诐 讗讜讻诇 砖诇砖 转讘讜讗讜转 讘砖转讬 砖谞讬诐

The Gemara states: Concerning the two years stated with regard to an ancestral field, this is derived from the fact that it is written: 鈥淎ccording to the number of years of the crops he shall sell to you鈥 (Leviticus 25:15). The plural form of both 鈥測ears鈥 and 鈥渃rops鈥 indicates that the number of years does not necessarily correspond to the quantity of crops. Consequently, there are times when a person might eat three yields of crops in two years. If one purchased a field at the end of the calendar year when its yield had not yet been harvested, and he harvested that yield and subsequently grew and harvested two more crops before the completion of two whole years from the sale, he would have eaten three yields in less than two years. This is not possible if one follows the calendar years, as a new year would start soon after the purchase.

砖砖 砖讘注讘讚 注讘专讬 讚讻转讬讘 砖砖 砖谞讬诐 讬注讘讚 讜讘砖讘讬注讬转 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚讘砖讘讬注讬转 谞诪讬 讬注讘讜讚

The Gemara states: The halakha that the six years stated with regard to a Hebrew slave is calculated by whole years, not calendar years, is derived from the fact that it is written: 鈥淪ix years he shall work; and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing鈥 (Exodus 21:2). The word 鈥渁nd鈥 in the phrase: 鈥淎nd in the seventh,鈥 teaches that sometimes it turns out that he shall also work in the seventh calendar year, if six full years have not passed from when he was sold. For example, if he was sold in the month of Nisan, although five years and six months have passed when Tishrei, the first month of the seventh year, arrives, since he has not yet completed six years of service he must work in this seventh calendar year as well, until the day of the month in which he was sold.

讜砖讘讘谉 讜砖讘讘转 讻讜诇谉 诪注转 诇注转 诇诪讗讬 讛讬诇讻转讗 讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘 诇注专讻讬谉 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 诇驻专拽讬谉 讚讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉

The baraita also teaches: The years stated with regard to a son and with regard to a daughter are among these terms calculated from the time at the start of the period to the time at the end of the period. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha is this stated? Rav Giddel said that Rav said: With regard to valuations, i.e., that the age of a valuated male or female is calculated in whole years from the date of their birth, not by calendar years. Rav Yosef said: The halakha is stated with regard to the matters taught in the fifth chapter of tractate Nidda, which is called after its opening words: Yotze Dofen, i.e., an animal born by caesarean section. In other words, when a mishna in that chapter, which deals with various matters related to the ages of sons and daughters, mentions years, it means full years, even when it does not state this explicitly.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讬 驻诇讙讬转讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讗谞讗 讗诪专讬 讞讚讗 讜讛讜讗 讗诪专 讞讚讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 驻诇讬讙讬 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇注专讻讬谉 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讛讬诇讻转讗 讘讻讜诇讛 驻讬专拽讗 诪注转 诇注转

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Do you and Rav dispute this matter, i.e., when you apply the mention of a son and a daughter to different cases, do each of you reject the opinion of the other? Rav Yosef said to Abaye: No, we do not disagree; I said one matter and he said one different matter. The Gemara adds: This too stands to reason, as if it enters your mind that they disagree on this matter, then with regard to the one who says full years are required for determining valuations, does he not also say that full years are used for the halakhot of Yotze Dofen? But doesn鈥檛 Rav say, like Rav Yosef, that the halakha in that entire chapter is that the ages of the sons and daughters are determined from the time at the start of the period to the time at the end of the period, not by calendar years?

讜讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇注专讻讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讛谞讱 诪讛 讛谞讱 讚讻转讬讘讗 讗祝 讛谞讱 讚讻转讬讘讗

The Gemara asks: But if that is the case, then according to the one who says that the reference to full years mentioned in the baraita is for determining valuations, i.e., Rav, what is the reason he did not say that the baraita is referring to the halakhot of Yotze Dofen? The Gemara answers: Rav would claim that the years of a son and a daughter in the baraita are similar to these other cases mentioned in the baraita: Just as those numbers of years are explicitly written in the Torah, so too these years of the sons and daughters are referring to matters where the years are written in the Torah, i.e., the years of valuations, unlike the topics discussed in Yotze Dofen, where the years are not mentioned expressly in the Torah.

讜讗讬讚讱 讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讻转讬讘讗 讛讗讬 砖讘讘谉 讜砖讘讘转

The Gemara asks: And with regard to the other, Rav Yosef, how would he respond to this contention? He would maintain that if it enters your mind that the baraita is referring to the years of valuations, which are written in the Torah, then this phrase in the baraita: With regard to a son and with regard to a daughter, is unsuitable.

Scroll To Top