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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 20, 2019 | 讬状讝 讘住讬讜谉 转砖注状讟

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

Arakhin 4

After the gemara brings several more examples of sources that say everyone is obligated – priests, levites and israelites and explains the reason for it, it then brings a braita that expounds the verses about arakhin in various ways. The purpose was to explain the source why one with boils or despicable is included in arakhin. But in the process it brings several drashot and then explains how one can learn multiple laws from the same words (which generally is not allowed).


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

讜讙讜讗诇讬谉 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 讘诪爪讜转 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 诇讬讞讬讬讘讜 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 谞讛讬 讚诇讬转谞讛讜 讘讛砖诪讟转 拽专拽注 讘讛砖诪讟转 讻住驻讬诐 讘砖讬诇讜讞 注讘讚讬诐 诪讬讛讗 讗讬转谞讛讜

and they may also redeem lands that they sold at any time, i.e., even right after selling the field, and are not bound by the halakhot of the Jubilee Year, one might say that they should also not be obligated to fulfill the mitzva of blowing the shofar on Rosh HaShana. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that this is not the case. This is due to the fact that although priests are not included in the release of land, in any event they are included in the release of money and in the release of slaves in the Jubilee Year. Therefore, the priests are obligated in the sounding of the shofar on Rosh HaShana.

讛讻诇 讞讬讬讘讬诐 讘诪拽专讗 诪讙讬诇讛 讻讛谞讬诐 诇讜讬诐 讜讬砖专讗诇讬诐 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 诇讬讘讟讬诇 注讘讜讚转诐 讜讻讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻讛谞讬诐 讘注讘讜讚转诐 讜诇讜讬诐 讘讚讜讻谞谉 讜讬砖专讗诇 讘诪注诪讚谉 诪讘讟诇讬谉 注讘讜讚转诐 讜讘讗讬谉 诇砖诪讜注 诪拽专讗 诪讙讬诇讛

搂 The Gemara cites another similar baraita: Everyone is obligated in the reading of the Megilla including priests, Levites, and Israelites. The Gemara asks as before: Isn鈥檛 that obvious? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to teach that they cancel their service in the Temple and come to hear the reading of the Megilla, and this is in accordance with that which Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says. As Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The priests at their Temple service, and the Levites on their platform in the Temple where they sang the daily psalm, and the Israelites at their non-priestly watches for the offerings of the community, all cancel their service and come to hear the reading of the Megilla.

讛讻诇 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘讝讬诪讜谉 讻讛谞讬诐 诇讜讬诐 讜讬砖专讗诇讬诐 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚拽讗讻诇讬 拽讚砖讬诐 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讜讗讻诇讜 讗讜转诐 讗砖专 讻驻专 讘讛诐 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讛讗 讻驻专讛 讛讬讗

The Gemara cites yet another similar baraita: Everyone is obligated to form a zimmun and recite Grace after Meals, including priests, Levites, and Israelites. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that obvious? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to teach this halakha in a case where the priests partake of sacrificial meat. It might enter your mind to say that since the Merciful One states in the Torah: 鈥淎nd they shall eat those things with which atonement was made鈥 (Exodus 29:33), indicating that the owners of those offerings thereby achieve atonement, and therefore this consumption is an obligatory ritual act to bring about atonement, consequently, it is not considered a social meal requiring one to form a zimmun.

拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讜讗讻诇转 讜砖讘注转 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讛讗 讗讬转谞讛讜

Therefore, the baraita teaches us that since the Merciful One states in the Torah: 鈥淎nd you shall eat, and be satisfied, and bless the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 8:10), the obligation to recite Grace after Meals is contingent upon eating and being satisfied. Since there is eating and satisfaction in the case of priests partaking of the sacrificial meat, they are obligated to form a zimmun, despite the fact that the purpose of the meal is to bring about atonement.

讛讻诇 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诇讝讬诪讜谉 讻讛谞讬诐 诇讜讬诐 讜讬砖专讗诇讬诐 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚拽讗讻诇讬 讻讛谞讬诐 转专讜诪讛 讗讜 拽讚砖讬诐 讜讝专 拽讗讻讬诇 讞讜诇讬谉

The Gemara cites another baraita: Everyone joins a zimmun: Priests, Levites, and Israelites. The Gemara asks again: Isn鈥檛 that obvious? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to teach this halakha in a case where the priests are partaking of teruma, the portion of produce designated for priests, or sacrificial meat, and a non-priest is eating non-sacred food.

住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬 讘注讬 讝专 诇诪讬讻诇 讘讛讚讬 讻讛谉 诇讗 诪爪讬 讗讻讬诇 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 诇讬爪讟专祝 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 谞讛讬 讚讝专 讘讛讚讬 讻讛谉 诇讗 诪爪讬 讗讻讬诇 讻讛谉 讘讛讚讬 讝专 诪爪讬 讗讻讬诇

In such a case, it might enter your mind to say that since if the non-priest wants to eat together with the priest he cannot eat with him from the teruma, as it is forbidden to him, one could say that he cannot join with the priests for a zimmun. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that he can join them, as although a non-priest cannot eat together with a priest from his teruma, nevertheless, a priest can eat together with a non-priest from his food. Consequently, they can join together to form a zimmun.

讛讻诇 诪注专讬讻讬谉 讻讛谞讬诐 诇讜讬诐 讜讬砖专讗诇讬诐 驻砖讬讟讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇讘谉 讘讜讻专讬 讚转谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛注讬讚 讘谉 讘讜讻专讬 讘讬讘谞讛 讻诇 讻讛谉 砖砖讜拽诇 讗讬谞讜 讞讜讟讗

搂 The Gemara applies the same line of questioning to the mishna here: Everyone takes vows of valuation鈥riests, Levites, and Israelites. Isn鈥檛 that obvious? Rava said: This halakha is necessary only according to the opinion of ben Bukhri, who holds that priests are not obligated to contribute a yearly half-shekel to purchase the communal supplies. Therefore, one might have thought that they are not subject to the halakha of valuations, as the Gemara will explain. As we learned in a mishna (Shekalim 1:4) that Rabbi Yehuda said that ben Bukhri testified before the Sages in Yavne: Any priest who contributes the half-shekel for communal offerings is not considered a sinner, despite the fact that he is not obligated to contribute.

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 诇讗 讻谉 讗诇讗 讻诇 讻讛谉 砖讗讬谞讜 砖讜拽诇 讞讜讟讗 讗诇讗 砖讛讻讛谞讬诐 讚讜专砖讬谉 诪拽专讗 讝讛 诇注爪诪谉 讜讻诇 诪谞讞转 讻讛谉 讻诇讬诇 转讛讬讛 诇讗 转讗讻诇

Rabbi Yehuda added that Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai said to ben Bukhri: That is not the case; rather, any priest who does not contribute his half-shekel is considered a sinner, as they are obligated in this mitzva like all other Jews. But with regard to the priests who do not contribute the half-shekel, in order to excuse themselves from the mitzva they interpret this verse to their own advantage: 鈥淎nd every meal offering of the priest shall be wholly made to smoke; it shall not be eaten鈥 (Leviticus 6:16).

讛讜讗讬诇 讜注讜诪专 讜砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讜诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 砖诇谞讜 讛诐 讛讬讗讱 讛诐 谞讗讻诇讬谉

Those priests claim as follows: Since the omer offering, the measure of barley brought as a communal offering on the sixteenth of Nisan, and the two loaves, i.e., the public offering of two loaves from the new wheat, brought on the festival of Shavuot, and the shewbread placed on the Table in the Sanctuary each Shabbat, which are all meal offerings, are ours, i.e., if we would contribute half-shekels we would have partial ownership of these communal offerings, as they are purchased with the half-shekels, how then can they be eaten? They would be regarded as priests鈥 meal offerings, which must be wholly burnt, in accordance with the aforementioned verse.

讜诇讘谉 讘讜讻专讬 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讻转讞讬诇讛 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 讻讬 诪讬讬转讬 谞诪讬 讞讜讟讗 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 诪注讬讬诇 讞讜诇讬谉 诇注讝专讛 讚诪讬讬转讬 诇讛讜 讜诪住专 诇爪讘讜专

The Gemara clarifies: But according to the opinion of ben Bukhri, as well, why is a priest who contributes a half-shekel not considered a sinner? Since he is not obligated to bring the half-shekel ab initio, when he brings the half-shekel he is also a sinner, since he is causing the bringing of a non-sacred item into the Temple courtyard. The Gemara answers that the priest brings and transfers the half-shekel as a consecrated gift to the community, so it is considered part of the communal funds.

住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讻转讬讘 讜讻诇 注专讻讱 讬讛讬讛 讘砖拽诇 讛拽讚砖 讻诇 讚讗讬转讬讛 讘砖拽诇讬诐 讗讬转讬讛 讘注专讻讬谉 讜讛谞讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诇讬转谞讛讜 讘砖拽诇讬诐 诇讬转谞讛讜 讘注专讻讬谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara explains the relevance of ben Bukhri鈥檚 opinion to the question of the priests鈥 status with respect to valuations. According to ben Bukhri, who exempts the priests from contributing the half-shekel, it might enter your mind to say that since it is written: 鈥淎nd all your valuations shall be according to the shekel of the Sanctuary鈥 (Leviticus 27:25), perhaps this juxtaposition teaches that anyone who is included in the obligation to contribute half-shekels is included in the halakha of valuations. But with regard to these priests, since they are not included in the obligation to contribute half-shekels, they are also not included in the halakha of valuations. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that even according to the opinion of ben Bukhri, priests are included in the halakha of valuations.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讛讗讬 讜讻诇 注专讻讱 诇讻诇 注专讻讬谉 砖讗转讛 诪注专讬讱 诇讗 讬讛讜 驻讞讜转讬谉 诪住诇注 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗

Abaye said to Rava: One could not have thought that this phrase: 鈥淎nd all your valuations shall be according to the shekel of the Sanctuary鈥 (Leviticus 27:25), might be coming to exempt the priests, as it comes to teach something else, namely that all valuations that you assess should not be less than the value of a sela coin. In other words, a poor person, who gives according to his means rather than the amount prescribed in the Torah, does not fulfill his obligation unless he gives at least a shekel, which is a sela coin.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讻转讬讘 讜驻讚讜讬讜 诪讘谉 讞讚砖 转驻讚讛 讘注专讻讱 讻诇 讚讗讬转讬讛 讘驻讚讬讜谉 讛讘谉 讗讬转讬讛 讘注专讻讬谉 讜讛谞讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诇讬转谞讛讜 讘驻讚讬讜谉 讛讘谉 诇讬转谞讛讜 讘注专讻讬谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Rather, Abaye said: It was necessary for the mishna to teach that priests are included in the halakha of valuation, as it might enter your mind to say: Since it is written with regard to a firstborn: 鈥淎nd their redemption money, from a month old you shall redeem them, shall be, according to your valuation, five shekels of silver鈥 (Numbers 18:16), one might have said that anyone included in the mitzva of redemption of the firstborn son is included in the halakha of valuations; but with regard to these priests, since they are not included in the mitzva of redemption of the firstborn son, they are also not included in the halakha of valuations. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that priests are also included in the halakha of valuations.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讙讘讬 讗讬诇 讗砖诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗转 讗砖诪讜 讬讘讬讗 诇讛壮 讗讬诇 转诪讬诐 诪谉 讛爪讗谉 讘注专讻讱 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讻诇 讚讗讬转讬讛 讘注专讻讬谉 讗讬转讬讛 讘讗讬诇 讛讗砖诐 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讚诇讬转谞讛讜 讘注专讻讬谉 诇讬转谞讛讜 讘讗讬诇 讛讗砖诐

Rava said to Abaye: If that is so, that one can expound the term 鈥渁ccording to your valuation鈥 in this manner, one could expound similarly with regard to the ram of the guilt offering brought by one who robs and then takes a false oath. As it is written with regard to that offering: 鈥淎nd he shall bring his guilt offering to the Lord, a ram without blemish out of the flock, according to your valuation鈥 (Leviticus 5:25). One can argue that so too, anyone who is included in the halakha of valuations is included in the ram of the guilt offering. Therefore, a tumtum or a hermaphrodite, who are not included in the halakha of valuations, as stated in the mishna, should also not be included in the ram of the guilt offering. But that is not so, as there is no opinion that exempts them from this offering.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讗砖讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讻转讬讘 讜讛注诪讬讚讜 诇驻谞讬 讛讻讛谉 讜诇讗 讻讛谉 诇驻谞讬 讻讛谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Rather, Rava said, and some say it was Rav Ashi: It was necessary to teach that priests are included in the halakha of valuation because it might enter your mind to say: Since it is written concerning valuations: 鈥淏ut if he is too poor for your valuation, then he shall be set before the priest鈥 (Leviticus 27:8), this indicates that a poor man is placed before the priest for valuation, but a priest is not placed before another priest for valuation. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that priests are also included in the halakha of valuations.

谞注专讻讬谉 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪谞讜讜诇 讜诪讜讻讛 砖讞讬谉 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬

搂 The Gemara stated (2a) that the mishna鈥檚 statement: And everyone is valuated, serves to add that a repulsive man and one afflicted with boils are valuated in accordance with the Torah鈥檚 categories of age and sex despite their lack of market value. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived?

讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘注专讻讱 诇讛讘讬讗 注专讱 住转讜诐 讚讘专 讗讞专 讘注专讻讱 注专讱 讻讜诇讜 讛讜讗 谞讜转谉 讜诇讗 注专讱 讗讘专讬诐

The Gemara answers that it is as the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淲hen a man shall clearly utter a vow of persons to the Lord, according to your valuation鈥 (Leviticus 27:2). The term serves to include an unspecified valuation, as explained below. Alternatively, the verse teaches that one gives the valuation of his entire self and not the valuation of his limbs. If someone vows that he will give the valuation of a limb, he is not obligated to give anything.

讬讻讜诇 砖讗谞讬 诪讜爪讬讗 讗祝 讚讘专 砖讛谞砖诪讛 转诇讜讬讛 讘讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 谞驻砖讜转 谞驻砖讜转 讜诇讗 讛诪转

The baraita continues: One might have thought that I should exclude even the valuation of an item upon which the soul is dependent, without which one would die, e.g., the liver. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淧ersons [nefashot],鈥 which teaches that if one valuated a limb upon which the soul [nefesh] is dependent, he is obligated to give the valuation of his entire self. The Gemara further derives from the term 鈥減ersons鈥 that one is obligated to pay the valuation only of a live person, and not the valuation of the dead. If one valuates a deceased person, his statement is of no effect.

讗讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛诪转 讜诇讗 讗讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛讙讜住住 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛注诪讬讚 讜讛注专讬讱 讻诇 砖讬砖谞讜 讘讛注诪讚讛 讬砖谞讜 讘讛注专讻讛 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 讘讛注诪讚讛 讗讬谞讜 讘讛注专讻讛

Furthermore, one might have thought that I should exclude only the dead from valuation, but I should not exclude a moribund person, who is about to die but is still alive, and who is therefore included in the category of 鈥減ersons.鈥 Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淭hen he shall be set before the priest, and the priest shall value him鈥 (Leviticus 27:8). This teaches that anyone who is included in the category of setting, i.e., he can stand, is included in the halakha of valuation. And anyone not included in the category of setting, who cannot stand, e.g., one who is on his deathbed, is not included in the halakha of valuation. Therefore, one who valuates a moribund individual is not obligated to pay anything.

讚讘专 讗讞专 谞驻砖转 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讗讞讚 砖讛注专讬讱 讗讞讚 讗讞讚 砖讛注专讬讱 诪讗讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 谞驻砖转 讚讘专 讗讞专 谞驻砖转

Alternatively, since the verse states: 鈥淧ersons,鈥 in the plural, it is expounded as follows: Were the verse to have written: A person, I would have derived only that this applies to one person who valuated one person. From where is it derived that even if one person valuated a hundred people, it is also an effective evaluation? The verse states: 鈥淧ersons,鈥 in the plural. This teaches that in such a case he must pay the valuation of each and every one of the hundred. Alternatively, one interprets the plural form of 鈥減ersons鈥 as follows: Were the verse to have written only: A person, one might have said that

讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讗讬砖 砖讛注专讬讱 讘讬谉 讗讬砖 讘讬谉 讗砖讛 讗砖讛 砖讛注专讬讻讛 讗讬砖 讗砖讛 砖讛注专讬讻讛 讗砖讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 谞驻砖转

I have derived only that this halakha applies in a case of a man who valuated another, whether a man or a woman, as the section begins: 鈥淲hen a man shall clearly utter a vow鈥 (Leviticus 27:2). From where is it derived that the halakha of valuations also applies to a woman who valuated a man, or a woman who valuated a woman? The Gemara answers: The same verse states: 鈥淰ow of persons to the Lord, according to your valuation,鈥 to include women.

讚讘专 讗讞专 谞驻砖转 诇专讘讜转 诪谞讜讜诇 讜诪讜讻讛 砖讞讬谉

Alternatively, the word 鈥減ersons鈥 serves to add a repulsive man and one afflicted with boils. If one valuates such a person, he is obligated to give the set amount according to age and sex.

砖讬讻讜诇 谞讚专 讘注专讻讱 讻诇 砖讬砖谞讜 讘讚诪讬诐 讬砖谞讜 讘注专讻讬谉 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 讘讚诪讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讘注专讻讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 谞驻砖转

This derivation is necessary as one might have thought that since the verse states: 鈥淎 vow of persons to the Lord, according to your valuation鈥 (Leviticus 27:2), it is juxtaposing a person who is valuated and one who is the object of a vow. Therefore, anyone who is included in the category of assessments, i.e., one who is obligated to pay his assessment to the Temple if he takes such a vow, is also included in the category of valuations. If he vows to pay his valuation, he must pay. But anyone who is not included in the category of assessments is not included in the category of valuations. Having no market value, these people are not subject to assessment, and are consequently also not subject to valuation. The verse, therefore, states: 鈥淧ersons [nefashot],鈥 teaching that anyone who has any amount of life [nefesh] is subject to valuation.

讜讛讬讛 注专讻讱 诇专讘讜转 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 诇讚诪讬诐 砖讬讻讜诇 谞讚专 讘注专讻讱 讻诇 砖讬砖谞讜 讘注专讻讬谉 讬砖谞讜 讘讚诪讬诐 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 讘注专讻讬谉 讗讬谞讜 讘讚诪讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛讬讛 注专讻讱

A baraita teaches that the apparently superfluous phrase: 鈥淭hen your valuation shall be鈥 (Leviticus 27:3), serves to include a tumtum and a hermaphrodite in the halakha of assessments, despite the fact that they are not included in the halakha of valuations. If one assesses a tumtum or a hermaphrodite, he is obligated to give that assessment. The baraita explains that one might have thought that since the verse states: 鈥淎 vow of persons to the Lord, according to your valuation,鈥 anyone who is included in the category of valuations is also included in the category of assessments, but anyone who is not included in the category of valuations is also not included in the category of assessments. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淭hen your valuation shall be,鈥 to include a tumtum and a hermaphrodite in the halakha of assessment.

讛讝讻专 讝讻专 讜诇讗 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讛讜 讘注专讱 讗讬砖 讗讘诇 讬讛讬讜 讘注专讱 讗砖讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛讬讛 注专讻讱 讛讝讻专 讜讗诐 谞拽讘讛 讛讬讗 讝讻专 讜讚讗讬 谞拽讘讛 讜讚讗讬转 讜诇讗 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住

The baraita continues: This halakha, that a tumtum and a hermaphrodite are not included in valuation, is derived from the term: 鈥淭he male鈥 (Leviticus 27:3). The definite article teaches that this halakha applies specifically to a male, and not to a tumtum or a hermaphrodite. One might have thought that a tumtum and a hermaphrodite should not be valuated by the valuation of a man, but they should be valuated by the valuation of a woman. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淭hen your valuation shall be for the male鈥nd if it be a female鈥 (Leviticus 27:3鈥4). This teaches that valuation applies only to a definite male or a definite female, but not to a tumtum or a hermaphrodite, who are categorized as neither male nor female.

讗诪专 诪专 讘注专讻讱 诇专讘讜转 注专讱 住转讜诐 诪讗讬 注专讱 住转讜诐

The Master said above in the beginning of the baraita that the verse: 鈥淲hen a man shall clearly utter a vow of persons to the Lord, according to your valuation鈥 (Leviticus 27:2), serves to include an unspecified valuation. The Gemara asks: What is an unspecified valuation?

讚转谞讬讗 讛讗讜诪专 注专讱 住转讜诐 注诇讬 谞讜转谉 讻驻讞讜转 砖讘注专讻讬谉 讜讻诪讛 驻讞讜转 砖讘注专讻讬谉 砖诇砖转 砖拽诇讬诐

The Gemara answers: As it is taught in a baraita: One who says: It is incumbent upon me to donate an unspecified valuation, without specifying any particular person, gives the amount of the smallest of the valuations. And how much is the smallest of the valuations? It is three shekels, which is the valuation of a female who is younger than five years old (Leviticus 27:6).

讜讗讬诪讗 讞诪砖讬诐 转驻砖转讛 诪专讜讘讛 诇讗 转驻砖转讛 转驻砖转讛 诪讜注讟 转驻砖转讛

The baraita asks: And why not say that one who does not specify a person should give fifty shekels, which is the largest of the valuations, that of a male between the ages of twenty and sixty (Leviticus 27:3)? The baraita answers: This ruling is based on the principle that if you grasped a lot you did not grasp anything, but if you grasped a little, you grasped something. In other words, if one can derive two sums from the verses, one should choose the smaller number, as it is included within the larger number and is therefore considered certain.

讜讗讬诪讗 砖拽诇 讚讻转讬讘 讜讻诇 注专讻讱 讬讛讬讛 讘砖拽诇 讛拽讚砖 讛讛讜讗 讘讛砖讙 讬讚 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘

The baraita asks: And why not say that smallest of the valuations is one shekel, as it is written: 鈥淎nd all your valuations shall be according to the shekel of the Sanctuary鈥 (Leviticus 27:25)? The baraita answers: That verse is written with regard to affordability. If one vows to donate the valuation of a person to the Temple treasury but does not have sufficient funds to fulfill his vow, he must pay at least a shekel.

讜讗诇讗 拽专讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 诇讜诪专 砖讗讬谞讜 谞讬讚讜谉 讘讛砖讙 讬讚 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻诪驻专砖 讚诪讬

The Gemara asks: But since the payment of three shekels can be derived from the principle of grasping the lesser amount, why do I need the verse 鈥渁ccording to your valuation鈥? Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says: The verse is required to teach that unlike other valuations, where a person who cannot afford the set amount can fulfill his obligation with one shekel, in the case of an unspecified valuation even a poor person鈥檚 obligation is not determined by affordability, and he must give at least three shekels. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? The Gemara answers: It is because it is considered as though he explicitly vowed that he is obligated to pay three shekels. The principle of affordability applies only to the valuations fixed by the Torah.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 谞讬讚讜谉 讘讛砖讙 讬讚 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻诪驻专砖 讚诪讬 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉

There are those who say that Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says the opposite: The term 鈥渁ccording to your valuation鈥 actually teaches that even an unspecified valuation is determined based on affordability, and a poor person fulfills his obligation by giving one shekel. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that obvious? Why would one think that this case differs from any other valuation? The Gemara answers that the verse is necessary lest you say that one who obligates himself in an unspecified valuation is considered as though he articulated that he is obligated to pay three shekels, and may not pay less. Therefore, this verse teaches us that an unspecified valuation is also subject to affordability, like other valuations.

讚讘专 讗讞专 讘注专讻讱 注专讱 讻讜诇讜 讛讜讗 谞讜转谉 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讜转谉 注专讱 讚诪讬 讗讘专讬诐 讜讛讗 讗驻讬拽转讬讛 诇注专讱 住转诐 拽专讬 讘讬讛 注专讱 讘注专讻讱

搂 It is further stated in the baraita cited above: Alternatively, the term 鈥渁ccording to your valuation鈥 teaches that one gives the valuation of his entire self and does not give the valuation of the value of limbs. If one vows that he will give the valuation of a limb, he is not obligated to give anything. The Gemara asks: But you have already derived from this term: 鈥淎ccording to your valuation,鈥 the halakha of an unspecified valuation. How can you then derive another halakha from the same source? The Gemara answers: Read into this term two sources, as it could have merely written: 鈥淰aluation,鈥 and instead it wrote: 鈥淎ccording to your valuation.鈥

讬讻讜诇 砖讗谞讬 诪讜爪讬讗 讚讘专 砖讛谞砖诪讛 转诇讜讬讛 讘讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 谞驻砖转 谞驻砖转 讜诇讗 讗转 讛诪转

The baraita adds: One might have thought that I should exclude even the valuation of an item upon which the soul is dependent, without which one will die, e.g., the head. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淧ersons [nefashot],鈥 which teaches that if one valuated a limb upon which the soul [nefesh] is dependent, he is obligated to give the valuation of his entire self. In addition, we derive from 鈥減ersons鈥 that one is obligated to pay only the valuation of a live person, and not the valuation of the dead.

讜讛讗 讗驻讬拽转讬讛 拽专讬 讘讬讛 谞驻砖 谞驻砖转

The Gemara asks: But you have already derived from this term: 鈥淧ersons [nefashot],鈥 that one who valuates a limb upon which the soul [nefesh] is dependent is obligated to give the valuation of his entire self. The Gemara answers: Read into the verse two derivations, as it could have merely written: Person, and instead it wrote: Persons.

讗讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛诪转 讜诇讗 讗讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛讙讜住住 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛注诪讬讚 讜讛注专讬讱

The baraita continues: Perhaps I should exclude only the dead from valuation, as they no longer possess life [nefesh], but I should not exclude a moribund person, as he is still alive. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淭hen he shall be set before the priest, and the priest shall value him鈥 (Leviticus 27:8). This teaches that anyone included in the category of setting, i.e., who can stand, is included in the halakha of valuation. But one who is on his deathbed is not included in the halakha of valuation.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪转 谞诪讬 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬 诪讜讛注诪讬讚 讜讛注专讬讱 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讗诇讗 谞驻砖 谞驻砖转 诇诪讛 诇讬 讻讚讘注讬谞谉 诇诪讬诪专 拽诪谉

The Gemara asks: If so, let me also derive that the dead are not subject to valuation from the same verse: 鈥淭hen he shall be set before the priest, and the priest shall value him,鈥 as the dead cannot stand. Why do I need to derive this halakha from the fact that the verse wrote: 鈥淧ersons,鈥 instead of person? The Gemara answers that so too, this is correct, i.e., the halakha with regard to the dead is derived from that same verse. But if that is the case, why do I need the derivation based on the difference between person and 鈥減ersons鈥? The Gemara answers that this teaches a different halakha, as we are about to state below, i.e., to add a repulsive man and one afflicted with boils.

讚讘专 讗讞专 谞驻砖转 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讗讞讚 砖讛注专讬讱 讗讞讚 讗讞讚 砖讛注专讬讱 诪讗讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 谞驻砖转

The Gemara continues its review of the baraita: Alternatively, as the verse states: 鈥淧ersons,鈥 in the plural, it is expounded as follows. Were the verse to have written only: A person, I would have derived only that this applies to one person who valuated one person. From where is it derived that even if one person valuated a hundred people, this is also an effective evaluation? Thefore, the verse states: 鈥淧ersons,鈥 in the plural.

讚讘专 讗讞专 谞驻砖转 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讗讬砖 砖讛注专讬讱 讘讬谉 讗讬砖 讘讬谉 讗砖讛 讗砖讛 砖讛注专讬讻讛 讗讬砖 讜讗砖讛 砖讛注专讬讻讛 讗砖讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 谞驻砖转

The baraita continues: Alternatively, one can expound the plural form of 鈥減ersons鈥 as follows: Were the verse to have written only: A person, one might have said that I can derive only that this halakha applies to a man who valuates anyone, whether a man or a woman, as the section begins: 鈥淲hen a man clearly utters a vow鈥 (Leviticus 27:2). From where is it derived that the halakha of valuations also applies to a woman who valuated a man, or a woman who valuated a woman? The same verse states: 鈥淰ow of persons to the Lord, according to your valuation鈥 (Leviticus 27:2), to include women.

讚讘专 讗讞专 谞驻砖转 诇讛讘讬讗 诪谞讜讜诇 讜诪讜讻讛 砖讞讬谉 讜讛讗 讗驻讬拽转讬讛 诇讛谞讱

The baraita continues: Alternatively, the word 鈥減ersons鈥 serves to add a repulsive man and one afflicted with boils. The Gemara asks: But you have already derived the halakha of these cases, i.e., one who valuated a hundred men or a woman who valuated, from 鈥減ersons.鈥 How, then, can you derive the halakha of a repulsive man and one afflicted with boils from this same word?

讛谞讱 诇讗 爪专讬讻讬 拽专讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讬 砖拽讜诇 讛讜讗 讜讬讘讜讗讜 讻讜诇诐 讻讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗 诇诪谞讜讜诇 讜诪讜讻讛 砖讞讬谉 讛讜讗 讚讗爪讟专讬讱

The Gemara answers: These do not require another verse. What is the reason? Each of these halakhot is equivalent to the others, i.e., each derivation from the word: Person, is equally valid. It teaches that one may valuate a limb that is vital to a person, that both men and women may take a vow of valuation, and that one may vow to give the valuation of multiple people. There is no reason to prefer one of these derivations over the others. And therefore, all of them are derived from the word: Person. When the verse, i.e., the plural term 鈥減ersons,鈥 is required, it is required only to include a repulsive man and one afflicted with boils.

讜讛讬讛 注专讻讱 诇专讘讜转 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 诇讚诪讬诐 讚诪讬诐 诇诪讛 诇讬 拽专讗 诇讗 讬讛讗 讗诇讗 讚诪讬 讚讬拽诇讗 讗讬诇讜 讗诪专 讚诪讬 讚讬拽诇讗 诪讬 诇讗 讬讛讬讘

搂 The baraita also teaches that the phrase: 鈥淭hen your valuation shall be鈥 (Leviticus 27:2), serves to include a tumtum and a hermaphrodite in the halakha of assessments, despite the fact that they are not included in the halakha of valuations. The Gemara asks: Why do I need a verse to include them in the halakha of assessments? Even let this be considered only like the assessment of a tree; were one to say: The assessment of that tree is incumbent upon me, is he not obligated to give its assessment?

讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讜诪专 砖谞讬讚讜谉 讘讻讘讜讚讜

Rava said: The verse serves to say that a tumtum and a hermaphrodite are assessed by the significance of the body part that one specified. If one vowed to give a vital part of his body, he is not merely obligated to pay the value of that organ but must give the value of his entire body.

住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 谞讚专 讘注专讻讱 讻转讬讘 讻诇 砖讬砖谞讜 讘注专讻讬谉 谞讬讚讜谉 讘讻讘讜讚讜 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 讘注专讻讬谉 讗讬谞讜 谞讬讚讜谉 讘讻讘讜讚讜

As it might enter your mind to say that since it is written in the verse: 鈥淎 vow of persons to the Lord, according to your valuation,鈥 a person who is valuated is juxtaposed to one who is the object of a vow of assessments. Therefore, anyone who is included in the category of valuations is also included in the halakha of being assessed by the significance of the body part that he specifies. But anyone who is not included in the category of valuations, such as a tumtum and a hermaphrodite, is not included in the halakha of being assessed by the significance of the body part that he specifies. Therefore, the verse teaches that although a tumtum and a hermaphrodite are not included in valuations, they are nevertheless included in the halakha of being assessed by the significance of the body part in question.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讚诇讗 讗讬转讬讛 讘注专讻讬谉 诪讬 谞讬讚讜谉 讘讻讘讜讚讜 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讗砖 注讘讚 讝讛 讛拽讚砖 讛讜讗 讜讛拽讚砖 砖讜转驻讬谉 讘讜 专讗砖 注讘讚 诪讻讜专 诇讱 诪砖诪谞讬谉 讘讬谞讬讛诐 专讗砖 讞诪讜专 讝讛 讛拽讚砖 讛讜讗 讜讛拽讚砖 砖讜转驻讬谉 讘讜 专讗砖 讞诪讜专 诪讻讜专 诇讱 诪砖诪谞讬谉 讘讬谞讬讛诐

Abaye said to Rava: And is it true that one who is not included in valuations is nevertheless assessed by the significance of the body part that he specifies? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that if one says: The head of this slave is consecrated property, he and the Temple treasury are partners in the entire slave. Similarly, if one says to another: The head of this slave is sold to you, they appraise the slave and split the value between them. Likewise, if one says: The head of this donkey is consecrated property, he and the Temple treasury are partners in the donkey. And if one says to another: The head of this donkey is sold to you, they appraise the donkey and split the value between them.

专讗砖 驻专讛 诪讻讜专 诇讱 诇讗 诪讻专 讗诇讗 专讗砖讛 砖诇 驻专讛 讜诇讗 注讜讚 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 专讗砖 驻专讛 讛拽讚砖 讗讬谉 诇讛拽讚砖 讗诇讗 专讗砖讛 讜讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讚讛讗 诪讝讚讘谉 专讬砖讗 讚转讜专讗 讘讘讬 讟讘讞讗

But if one says to another: The head of this cow is sold to you, he has sold him only the head of the cow. Moreover, even if he says: The head of this cow is consecrated property, the Temple treasury has ownership only of the cow鈥檚 head. And Rav Pappa said: This difference between these cases is due to the fact that the head of an ox is sold independently in the butcher shop.

讜讛讗 讞诪讜专 讜驻专讛 诇讬转谞讛讜 讘注专讻讬谉 讜讗讬谉 谞讬讚讜谉 讘讻讘讜讚讜 讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 转讬拽砖讬 诇讱 注讘讚 讚讗讬转讬讛 讘注专讻讬谉 讜讗讬谉 谞讬讚讜谉 讘讻讘讜讚讜

Abaye explains the difficulty that arises from this baraita: But isn鈥檛 it the halakha that a donkey and a cow are not included in valuations, and therefore are not assessed by the significance of the body part that is mentioned? If one consecrated their heads, their entire body is not consecrated. Rava said to Abaye: And according to your reasoning, that the halakha of assessment by the significance of the specified body part is contingent on inclusion in valuations, the case of a slave should pose a difficulty for you: A slave is included in the halakha of valuations, as stated in the mishna, and yet the baraita teaches that he is not assessed by the significance of the body part that is specified.

讗诇讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘拽讚砖讬 诪讝讘讞 讛讗 讘拽讚砖讬 讘讚拽 讛讘讬转

Rather, this is not difficult. This baraita, which states that in the case of a slave or donkey the head alone is consecrated, is referring to items consecrated in order to purchase offerings for the altar. On the other hand, that baraita, which rules that in the case of a tumtum one must pay his entire value, is referring to items consecrated for Temple maintenance. In such a case, it is assessed by the significance of the body part that is specified. Here we follow the paradigm of valuation, whose payment is also used for Temple maintenance.

讘诪讗讬 讗讜拽讬诪转讛 讘拽讚砖讬 诪讝讘讞 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讜诇讗 注讜讚 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讗诪专 专讗砖 驻专讛 讝讜 讛拽讚砖 讗讬谉 诇讛拽讚砖 讗诇讗 专讗砖讛 讗诪讗讬 转驻砖讜讟 拽讚讜砖讛 讘讻讜诇讛 诪讬 诇讗 转谞讬讗 讛讗讜诪专

The Gemara raises a difficulty: In what manner did you interpret the baraita that discusses consecrating the head of a slave? You interpreted it as dealing with a case of items consecrated in order to purchase offerings for the altar. But if so, say the latter clause: Moreover, even if he says: The head of this cow is consecrated property, the Temple treasury has ownership only of the cow鈥檚 head. According to this interpretation, that it is referring to items consecrated for the altar, why is the head alone consecrated? Let its sanctity spread throughout the entire cow. Isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: In a case where one says:

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

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 4

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Arakhin 4

讜讙讜讗诇讬谉 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 讘诪爪讜转 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 诇讬讞讬讬讘讜 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 谞讛讬 讚诇讬转谞讛讜 讘讛砖诪讟转 拽专拽注 讘讛砖诪讟转 讻住驻讬诐 讘砖讬诇讜讞 注讘讚讬诐 诪讬讛讗 讗讬转谞讛讜

and they may also redeem lands that they sold at any time, i.e., even right after selling the field, and are not bound by the halakhot of the Jubilee Year, one might say that they should also not be obligated to fulfill the mitzva of blowing the shofar on Rosh HaShana. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that this is not the case. This is due to the fact that although priests are not included in the release of land, in any event they are included in the release of money and in the release of slaves in the Jubilee Year. Therefore, the priests are obligated in the sounding of the shofar on Rosh HaShana.

讛讻诇 讞讬讬讘讬诐 讘诪拽专讗 诪讙讬诇讛 讻讛谞讬诐 诇讜讬诐 讜讬砖专讗诇讬诐 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 诇讬讘讟讬诇 注讘讜讚转诐 讜讻讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻讛谞讬诐 讘注讘讜讚转诐 讜诇讜讬诐 讘讚讜讻谞谉 讜讬砖专讗诇 讘诪注诪讚谉 诪讘讟诇讬谉 注讘讜讚转诐 讜讘讗讬谉 诇砖诪讜注 诪拽专讗 诪讙讬诇讛

搂 The Gemara cites another similar baraita: Everyone is obligated in the reading of the Megilla including priests, Levites, and Israelites. The Gemara asks as before: Isn鈥檛 that obvious? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to teach that they cancel their service in the Temple and come to hear the reading of the Megilla, and this is in accordance with that which Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says. As Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The priests at their Temple service, and the Levites on their platform in the Temple where they sang the daily psalm, and the Israelites at their non-priestly watches for the offerings of the community, all cancel their service and come to hear the reading of the Megilla.

讛讻诇 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘讝讬诪讜谉 讻讛谞讬诐 诇讜讬诐 讜讬砖专讗诇讬诐 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚拽讗讻诇讬 拽讚砖讬诐 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讜讗讻诇讜 讗讜转诐 讗砖专 讻驻专 讘讛诐 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讛讗 讻驻专讛 讛讬讗

The Gemara cites yet another similar baraita: Everyone is obligated to form a zimmun and recite Grace after Meals, including priests, Levites, and Israelites. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that obvious? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to teach this halakha in a case where the priests partake of sacrificial meat. It might enter your mind to say that since the Merciful One states in the Torah: 鈥淎nd they shall eat those things with which atonement was made鈥 (Exodus 29:33), indicating that the owners of those offerings thereby achieve atonement, and therefore this consumption is an obligatory ritual act to bring about atonement, consequently, it is not considered a social meal requiring one to form a zimmun.

拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讜讗讻诇转 讜砖讘注转 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讛讗 讗讬转谞讛讜

Therefore, the baraita teaches us that since the Merciful One states in the Torah: 鈥淎nd you shall eat, and be satisfied, and bless the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 8:10), the obligation to recite Grace after Meals is contingent upon eating and being satisfied. Since there is eating and satisfaction in the case of priests partaking of the sacrificial meat, they are obligated to form a zimmun, despite the fact that the purpose of the meal is to bring about atonement.

讛讻诇 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诇讝讬诪讜谉 讻讛谞讬诐 诇讜讬诐 讜讬砖专讗诇讬诐 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚拽讗讻诇讬 讻讛谞讬诐 转专讜诪讛 讗讜 拽讚砖讬诐 讜讝专 拽讗讻讬诇 讞讜诇讬谉

The Gemara cites another baraita: Everyone joins a zimmun: Priests, Levites, and Israelites. The Gemara asks again: Isn鈥檛 that obvious? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to teach this halakha in a case where the priests are partaking of teruma, the portion of produce designated for priests, or sacrificial meat, and a non-priest is eating non-sacred food.

住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬 讘注讬 讝专 诇诪讬讻诇 讘讛讚讬 讻讛谉 诇讗 诪爪讬 讗讻讬诇 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 诇讬爪讟专祝 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 谞讛讬 讚讝专 讘讛讚讬 讻讛谉 诇讗 诪爪讬 讗讻讬诇 讻讛谉 讘讛讚讬 讝专 诪爪讬 讗讻讬诇

In such a case, it might enter your mind to say that since if the non-priest wants to eat together with the priest he cannot eat with him from the teruma, as it is forbidden to him, one could say that he cannot join with the priests for a zimmun. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that he can join them, as although a non-priest cannot eat together with a priest from his teruma, nevertheless, a priest can eat together with a non-priest from his food. Consequently, they can join together to form a zimmun.

讛讻诇 诪注专讬讻讬谉 讻讛谞讬诐 诇讜讬诐 讜讬砖专讗诇讬诐 驻砖讬讟讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇讘谉 讘讜讻专讬 讚转谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛注讬讚 讘谉 讘讜讻专讬 讘讬讘谞讛 讻诇 讻讛谉 砖砖讜拽诇 讗讬谞讜 讞讜讟讗

搂 The Gemara applies the same line of questioning to the mishna here: Everyone takes vows of valuation鈥riests, Levites, and Israelites. Isn鈥檛 that obvious? Rava said: This halakha is necessary only according to the opinion of ben Bukhri, who holds that priests are not obligated to contribute a yearly half-shekel to purchase the communal supplies. Therefore, one might have thought that they are not subject to the halakha of valuations, as the Gemara will explain. As we learned in a mishna (Shekalim 1:4) that Rabbi Yehuda said that ben Bukhri testified before the Sages in Yavne: Any priest who contributes the half-shekel for communal offerings is not considered a sinner, despite the fact that he is not obligated to contribute.

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 诇讗 讻谉 讗诇讗 讻诇 讻讛谉 砖讗讬谞讜 砖讜拽诇 讞讜讟讗 讗诇讗 砖讛讻讛谞讬诐 讚讜专砖讬谉 诪拽专讗 讝讛 诇注爪诪谉 讜讻诇 诪谞讞转 讻讛谉 讻诇讬诇 转讛讬讛 诇讗 转讗讻诇

Rabbi Yehuda added that Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai said to ben Bukhri: That is not the case; rather, any priest who does not contribute his half-shekel is considered a sinner, as they are obligated in this mitzva like all other Jews. But with regard to the priests who do not contribute the half-shekel, in order to excuse themselves from the mitzva they interpret this verse to their own advantage: 鈥淎nd every meal offering of the priest shall be wholly made to smoke; it shall not be eaten鈥 (Leviticus 6:16).

讛讜讗讬诇 讜注讜诪专 讜砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讜诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 砖诇谞讜 讛诐 讛讬讗讱 讛诐 谞讗讻诇讬谉

Those priests claim as follows: Since the omer offering, the measure of barley brought as a communal offering on the sixteenth of Nisan, and the two loaves, i.e., the public offering of two loaves from the new wheat, brought on the festival of Shavuot, and the shewbread placed on the Table in the Sanctuary each Shabbat, which are all meal offerings, are ours, i.e., if we would contribute half-shekels we would have partial ownership of these communal offerings, as they are purchased with the half-shekels, how then can they be eaten? They would be regarded as priests鈥 meal offerings, which must be wholly burnt, in accordance with the aforementioned verse.

讜诇讘谉 讘讜讻专讬 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讻转讞讬诇讛 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 讻讬 诪讬讬转讬 谞诪讬 讞讜讟讗 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 诪注讬讬诇 讞讜诇讬谉 诇注讝专讛 讚诪讬讬转讬 诇讛讜 讜诪住专 诇爪讘讜专

The Gemara clarifies: But according to the opinion of ben Bukhri, as well, why is a priest who contributes a half-shekel not considered a sinner? Since he is not obligated to bring the half-shekel ab initio, when he brings the half-shekel he is also a sinner, since he is causing the bringing of a non-sacred item into the Temple courtyard. The Gemara answers that the priest brings and transfers the half-shekel as a consecrated gift to the community, so it is considered part of the communal funds.

住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讻转讬讘 讜讻诇 注专讻讱 讬讛讬讛 讘砖拽诇 讛拽讚砖 讻诇 讚讗讬转讬讛 讘砖拽诇讬诐 讗讬转讬讛 讘注专讻讬谉 讜讛谞讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诇讬转谞讛讜 讘砖拽诇讬诐 诇讬转谞讛讜 讘注专讻讬谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara explains the relevance of ben Bukhri鈥檚 opinion to the question of the priests鈥 status with respect to valuations. According to ben Bukhri, who exempts the priests from contributing the half-shekel, it might enter your mind to say that since it is written: 鈥淎nd all your valuations shall be according to the shekel of the Sanctuary鈥 (Leviticus 27:25), perhaps this juxtaposition teaches that anyone who is included in the obligation to contribute half-shekels is included in the halakha of valuations. But with regard to these priests, since they are not included in the obligation to contribute half-shekels, they are also not included in the halakha of valuations. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that even according to the opinion of ben Bukhri, priests are included in the halakha of valuations.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讛讗讬 讜讻诇 注专讻讱 诇讻诇 注专讻讬谉 砖讗转讛 诪注专讬讱 诇讗 讬讛讜 驻讞讜转讬谉 诪住诇注 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗

Abaye said to Rava: One could not have thought that this phrase: 鈥淎nd all your valuations shall be according to the shekel of the Sanctuary鈥 (Leviticus 27:25), might be coming to exempt the priests, as it comes to teach something else, namely that all valuations that you assess should not be less than the value of a sela coin. In other words, a poor person, who gives according to his means rather than the amount prescribed in the Torah, does not fulfill his obligation unless he gives at least a shekel, which is a sela coin.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讻转讬讘 讜驻讚讜讬讜 诪讘谉 讞讚砖 转驻讚讛 讘注专讻讱 讻诇 讚讗讬转讬讛 讘驻讚讬讜谉 讛讘谉 讗讬转讬讛 讘注专讻讬谉 讜讛谞讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诇讬转谞讛讜 讘驻讚讬讜谉 讛讘谉 诇讬转谞讛讜 讘注专讻讬谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Rather, Abaye said: It was necessary for the mishna to teach that priests are included in the halakha of valuation, as it might enter your mind to say: Since it is written with regard to a firstborn: 鈥淎nd their redemption money, from a month old you shall redeem them, shall be, according to your valuation, five shekels of silver鈥 (Numbers 18:16), one might have said that anyone included in the mitzva of redemption of the firstborn son is included in the halakha of valuations; but with regard to these priests, since they are not included in the mitzva of redemption of the firstborn son, they are also not included in the halakha of valuations. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that priests are also included in the halakha of valuations.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讙讘讬 讗讬诇 讗砖诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗转 讗砖诪讜 讬讘讬讗 诇讛壮 讗讬诇 转诪讬诐 诪谉 讛爪讗谉 讘注专讻讱 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讻诇 讚讗讬转讬讛 讘注专讻讬谉 讗讬转讬讛 讘讗讬诇 讛讗砖诐 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讚诇讬转谞讛讜 讘注专讻讬谉 诇讬转谞讛讜 讘讗讬诇 讛讗砖诐

Rava said to Abaye: If that is so, that one can expound the term 鈥渁ccording to your valuation鈥 in this manner, one could expound similarly with regard to the ram of the guilt offering brought by one who robs and then takes a false oath. As it is written with regard to that offering: 鈥淎nd he shall bring his guilt offering to the Lord, a ram without blemish out of the flock, according to your valuation鈥 (Leviticus 5:25). One can argue that so too, anyone who is included in the halakha of valuations is included in the ram of the guilt offering. Therefore, a tumtum or a hermaphrodite, who are not included in the halakha of valuations, as stated in the mishna, should also not be included in the ram of the guilt offering. But that is not so, as there is no opinion that exempts them from this offering.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讗砖讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讻转讬讘 讜讛注诪讬讚讜 诇驻谞讬 讛讻讛谉 讜诇讗 讻讛谉 诇驻谞讬 讻讛谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Rather, Rava said, and some say it was Rav Ashi: It was necessary to teach that priests are included in the halakha of valuation because it might enter your mind to say: Since it is written concerning valuations: 鈥淏ut if he is too poor for your valuation, then he shall be set before the priest鈥 (Leviticus 27:8), this indicates that a poor man is placed before the priest for valuation, but a priest is not placed before another priest for valuation. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that priests are also included in the halakha of valuations.

谞注专讻讬谉 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪谞讜讜诇 讜诪讜讻讛 砖讞讬谉 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬

搂 The Gemara stated (2a) that the mishna鈥檚 statement: And everyone is valuated, serves to add that a repulsive man and one afflicted with boils are valuated in accordance with the Torah鈥檚 categories of age and sex despite their lack of market value. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived?

讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘注专讻讱 诇讛讘讬讗 注专讱 住转讜诐 讚讘专 讗讞专 讘注专讻讱 注专讱 讻讜诇讜 讛讜讗 谞讜转谉 讜诇讗 注专讱 讗讘专讬诐

The Gemara answers that it is as the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淲hen a man shall clearly utter a vow of persons to the Lord, according to your valuation鈥 (Leviticus 27:2). The term serves to include an unspecified valuation, as explained below. Alternatively, the verse teaches that one gives the valuation of his entire self and not the valuation of his limbs. If someone vows that he will give the valuation of a limb, he is not obligated to give anything.

讬讻讜诇 砖讗谞讬 诪讜爪讬讗 讗祝 讚讘专 砖讛谞砖诪讛 转诇讜讬讛 讘讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 谞驻砖讜转 谞驻砖讜转 讜诇讗 讛诪转

The baraita continues: One might have thought that I should exclude even the valuation of an item upon which the soul is dependent, without which one would die, e.g., the liver. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淧ersons [nefashot],鈥 which teaches that if one valuated a limb upon which the soul [nefesh] is dependent, he is obligated to give the valuation of his entire self. The Gemara further derives from the term 鈥減ersons鈥 that one is obligated to pay the valuation only of a live person, and not the valuation of the dead. If one valuates a deceased person, his statement is of no effect.

讗讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛诪转 讜诇讗 讗讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛讙讜住住 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛注诪讬讚 讜讛注专讬讱 讻诇 砖讬砖谞讜 讘讛注诪讚讛 讬砖谞讜 讘讛注专讻讛 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 讘讛注诪讚讛 讗讬谞讜 讘讛注专讻讛

Furthermore, one might have thought that I should exclude only the dead from valuation, but I should not exclude a moribund person, who is about to die but is still alive, and who is therefore included in the category of 鈥減ersons.鈥 Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淭hen he shall be set before the priest, and the priest shall value him鈥 (Leviticus 27:8). This teaches that anyone who is included in the category of setting, i.e., he can stand, is included in the halakha of valuation. And anyone not included in the category of setting, who cannot stand, e.g., one who is on his deathbed, is not included in the halakha of valuation. Therefore, one who valuates a moribund individual is not obligated to pay anything.

讚讘专 讗讞专 谞驻砖转 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讗讞讚 砖讛注专讬讱 讗讞讚 讗讞讚 砖讛注专讬讱 诪讗讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 谞驻砖转 讚讘专 讗讞专 谞驻砖转

Alternatively, since the verse states: 鈥淧ersons,鈥 in the plural, it is expounded as follows: Were the verse to have written: A person, I would have derived only that this applies to one person who valuated one person. From where is it derived that even if one person valuated a hundred people, it is also an effective evaluation? The verse states: 鈥淧ersons,鈥 in the plural. This teaches that in such a case he must pay the valuation of each and every one of the hundred. Alternatively, one interprets the plural form of 鈥減ersons鈥 as follows: Were the verse to have written only: A person, one might have said that

讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讗讬砖 砖讛注专讬讱 讘讬谉 讗讬砖 讘讬谉 讗砖讛 讗砖讛 砖讛注专讬讻讛 讗讬砖 讗砖讛 砖讛注专讬讻讛 讗砖讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 谞驻砖转

I have derived only that this halakha applies in a case of a man who valuated another, whether a man or a woman, as the section begins: 鈥淲hen a man shall clearly utter a vow鈥 (Leviticus 27:2). From where is it derived that the halakha of valuations also applies to a woman who valuated a man, or a woman who valuated a woman? The Gemara answers: The same verse states: 鈥淰ow of persons to the Lord, according to your valuation,鈥 to include women.

讚讘专 讗讞专 谞驻砖转 诇专讘讜转 诪谞讜讜诇 讜诪讜讻讛 砖讞讬谉

Alternatively, the word 鈥減ersons鈥 serves to add a repulsive man and one afflicted with boils. If one valuates such a person, he is obligated to give the set amount according to age and sex.

砖讬讻讜诇 谞讚专 讘注专讻讱 讻诇 砖讬砖谞讜 讘讚诪讬诐 讬砖谞讜 讘注专讻讬谉 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 讘讚诪讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讘注专讻讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 谞驻砖转

This derivation is necessary as one might have thought that since the verse states: 鈥淎 vow of persons to the Lord, according to your valuation鈥 (Leviticus 27:2), it is juxtaposing a person who is valuated and one who is the object of a vow. Therefore, anyone who is included in the category of assessments, i.e., one who is obligated to pay his assessment to the Temple if he takes such a vow, is also included in the category of valuations. If he vows to pay his valuation, he must pay. But anyone who is not included in the category of assessments is not included in the category of valuations. Having no market value, these people are not subject to assessment, and are consequently also not subject to valuation. The verse, therefore, states: 鈥淧ersons [nefashot],鈥 teaching that anyone who has any amount of life [nefesh] is subject to valuation.

讜讛讬讛 注专讻讱 诇专讘讜转 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 诇讚诪讬诐 砖讬讻讜诇 谞讚专 讘注专讻讱 讻诇 砖讬砖谞讜 讘注专讻讬谉 讬砖谞讜 讘讚诪讬诐 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 讘注专讻讬谉 讗讬谞讜 讘讚诪讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛讬讛 注专讻讱

A baraita teaches that the apparently superfluous phrase: 鈥淭hen your valuation shall be鈥 (Leviticus 27:3), serves to include a tumtum and a hermaphrodite in the halakha of assessments, despite the fact that they are not included in the halakha of valuations. If one assesses a tumtum or a hermaphrodite, he is obligated to give that assessment. The baraita explains that one might have thought that since the verse states: 鈥淎 vow of persons to the Lord, according to your valuation,鈥 anyone who is included in the category of valuations is also included in the category of assessments, but anyone who is not included in the category of valuations is also not included in the category of assessments. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淭hen your valuation shall be,鈥 to include a tumtum and a hermaphrodite in the halakha of assessment.

讛讝讻专 讝讻专 讜诇讗 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讛讜 讘注专讱 讗讬砖 讗讘诇 讬讛讬讜 讘注专讱 讗砖讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛讬讛 注专讻讱 讛讝讻专 讜讗诐 谞拽讘讛 讛讬讗 讝讻专 讜讚讗讬 谞拽讘讛 讜讚讗讬转 讜诇讗 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住

The baraita continues: This halakha, that a tumtum and a hermaphrodite are not included in valuation, is derived from the term: 鈥淭he male鈥 (Leviticus 27:3). The definite article teaches that this halakha applies specifically to a male, and not to a tumtum or a hermaphrodite. One might have thought that a tumtum and a hermaphrodite should not be valuated by the valuation of a man, but they should be valuated by the valuation of a woman. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淭hen your valuation shall be for the male鈥nd if it be a female鈥 (Leviticus 27:3鈥4). This teaches that valuation applies only to a definite male or a definite female, but not to a tumtum or a hermaphrodite, who are categorized as neither male nor female.

讗诪专 诪专 讘注专讻讱 诇专讘讜转 注专讱 住转讜诐 诪讗讬 注专讱 住转讜诐

The Master said above in the beginning of the baraita that the verse: 鈥淲hen a man shall clearly utter a vow of persons to the Lord, according to your valuation鈥 (Leviticus 27:2), serves to include an unspecified valuation. The Gemara asks: What is an unspecified valuation?

讚转谞讬讗 讛讗讜诪专 注专讱 住转讜诐 注诇讬 谞讜转谉 讻驻讞讜转 砖讘注专讻讬谉 讜讻诪讛 驻讞讜转 砖讘注专讻讬谉 砖诇砖转 砖拽诇讬诐

The Gemara answers: As it is taught in a baraita: One who says: It is incumbent upon me to donate an unspecified valuation, without specifying any particular person, gives the amount of the smallest of the valuations. And how much is the smallest of the valuations? It is three shekels, which is the valuation of a female who is younger than five years old (Leviticus 27:6).

讜讗讬诪讗 讞诪砖讬诐 转驻砖转讛 诪专讜讘讛 诇讗 转驻砖转讛 转驻砖转讛 诪讜注讟 转驻砖转讛

The baraita asks: And why not say that one who does not specify a person should give fifty shekels, which is the largest of the valuations, that of a male between the ages of twenty and sixty (Leviticus 27:3)? The baraita answers: This ruling is based on the principle that if you grasped a lot you did not grasp anything, but if you grasped a little, you grasped something. In other words, if one can derive two sums from the verses, one should choose the smaller number, as it is included within the larger number and is therefore considered certain.

讜讗讬诪讗 砖拽诇 讚讻转讬讘 讜讻诇 注专讻讱 讬讛讬讛 讘砖拽诇 讛拽讚砖 讛讛讜讗 讘讛砖讙 讬讚 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘

The baraita asks: And why not say that smallest of the valuations is one shekel, as it is written: 鈥淎nd all your valuations shall be according to the shekel of the Sanctuary鈥 (Leviticus 27:25)? The baraita answers: That verse is written with regard to affordability. If one vows to donate the valuation of a person to the Temple treasury but does not have sufficient funds to fulfill his vow, he must pay at least a shekel.

讜讗诇讗 拽专讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 诇讜诪专 砖讗讬谞讜 谞讬讚讜谉 讘讛砖讙 讬讚 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻诪驻专砖 讚诪讬

The Gemara asks: But since the payment of three shekels can be derived from the principle of grasping the lesser amount, why do I need the verse 鈥渁ccording to your valuation鈥? Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says: The verse is required to teach that unlike other valuations, where a person who cannot afford the set amount can fulfill his obligation with one shekel, in the case of an unspecified valuation even a poor person鈥檚 obligation is not determined by affordability, and he must give at least three shekels. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? The Gemara answers: It is because it is considered as though he explicitly vowed that he is obligated to pay three shekels. The principle of affordability applies only to the valuations fixed by the Torah.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 谞讬讚讜谉 讘讛砖讙 讬讚 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻诪驻专砖 讚诪讬 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉

There are those who say that Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says the opposite: The term 鈥渁ccording to your valuation鈥 actually teaches that even an unspecified valuation is determined based on affordability, and a poor person fulfills his obligation by giving one shekel. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that obvious? Why would one think that this case differs from any other valuation? The Gemara answers that the verse is necessary lest you say that one who obligates himself in an unspecified valuation is considered as though he articulated that he is obligated to pay three shekels, and may not pay less. Therefore, this verse teaches us that an unspecified valuation is also subject to affordability, like other valuations.

讚讘专 讗讞专 讘注专讻讱 注专讱 讻讜诇讜 讛讜讗 谞讜转谉 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讜转谉 注专讱 讚诪讬 讗讘专讬诐 讜讛讗 讗驻讬拽转讬讛 诇注专讱 住转诐 拽专讬 讘讬讛 注专讱 讘注专讻讱

搂 It is further stated in the baraita cited above: Alternatively, the term 鈥渁ccording to your valuation鈥 teaches that one gives the valuation of his entire self and does not give the valuation of the value of limbs. If one vows that he will give the valuation of a limb, he is not obligated to give anything. The Gemara asks: But you have already derived from this term: 鈥淎ccording to your valuation,鈥 the halakha of an unspecified valuation. How can you then derive another halakha from the same source? The Gemara answers: Read into this term two sources, as it could have merely written: 鈥淰aluation,鈥 and instead it wrote: 鈥淎ccording to your valuation.鈥

讬讻讜诇 砖讗谞讬 诪讜爪讬讗 讚讘专 砖讛谞砖诪讛 转诇讜讬讛 讘讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 谞驻砖转 谞驻砖转 讜诇讗 讗转 讛诪转

The baraita adds: One might have thought that I should exclude even the valuation of an item upon which the soul is dependent, without which one will die, e.g., the head. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淧ersons [nefashot],鈥 which teaches that if one valuated a limb upon which the soul [nefesh] is dependent, he is obligated to give the valuation of his entire self. In addition, we derive from 鈥減ersons鈥 that one is obligated to pay only the valuation of a live person, and not the valuation of the dead.

讜讛讗 讗驻讬拽转讬讛 拽专讬 讘讬讛 谞驻砖 谞驻砖转

The Gemara asks: But you have already derived from this term: 鈥淧ersons [nefashot],鈥 that one who valuates a limb upon which the soul [nefesh] is dependent is obligated to give the valuation of his entire self. The Gemara answers: Read into the verse two derivations, as it could have merely written: Person, and instead it wrote: Persons.

讗讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛诪转 讜诇讗 讗讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛讙讜住住 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛注诪讬讚 讜讛注专讬讱

The baraita continues: Perhaps I should exclude only the dead from valuation, as they no longer possess life [nefesh], but I should not exclude a moribund person, as he is still alive. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淭hen he shall be set before the priest, and the priest shall value him鈥 (Leviticus 27:8). This teaches that anyone included in the category of setting, i.e., who can stand, is included in the halakha of valuation. But one who is on his deathbed is not included in the halakha of valuation.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪转 谞诪讬 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬 诪讜讛注诪讬讚 讜讛注专讬讱 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讗诇讗 谞驻砖 谞驻砖转 诇诪讛 诇讬 讻讚讘注讬谞谉 诇诪讬诪专 拽诪谉

The Gemara asks: If so, let me also derive that the dead are not subject to valuation from the same verse: 鈥淭hen he shall be set before the priest, and the priest shall value him,鈥 as the dead cannot stand. Why do I need to derive this halakha from the fact that the verse wrote: 鈥淧ersons,鈥 instead of person? The Gemara answers that so too, this is correct, i.e., the halakha with regard to the dead is derived from that same verse. But if that is the case, why do I need the derivation based on the difference between person and 鈥減ersons鈥? The Gemara answers that this teaches a different halakha, as we are about to state below, i.e., to add a repulsive man and one afflicted with boils.

讚讘专 讗讞专 谞驻砖转 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讗讞讚 砖讛注专讬讱 讗讞讚 讗讞讚 砖讛注专讬讱 诪讗讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 谞驻砖转

The Gemara continues its review of the baraita: Alternatively, as the verse states: 鈥淧ersons,鈥 in the plural, it is expounded as follows. Were the verse to have written only: A person, I would have derived only that this applies to one person who valuated one person. From where is it derived that even if one person valuated a hundred people, this is also an effective evaluation? Thefore, the verse states: 鈥淧ersons,鈥 in the plural.

讚讘专 讗讞专 谞驻砖转 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讗讬砖 砖讛注专讬讱 讘讬谉 讗讬砖 讘讬谉 讗砖讛 讗砖讛 砖讛注专讬讻讛 讗讬砖 讜讗砖讛 砖讛注专讬讻讛 讗砖讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 谞驻砖转

The baraita continues: Alternatively, one can expound the plural form of 鈥減ersons鈥 as follows: Were the verse to have written only: A person, one might have said that I can derive only that this halakha applies to a man who valuates anyone, whether a man or a woman, as the section begins: 鈥淲hen a man clearly utters a vow鈥 (Leviticus 27:2). From where is it derived that the halakha of valuations also applies to a woman who valuated a man, or a woman who valuated a woman? The same verse states: 鈥淰ow of persons to the Lord, according to your valuation鈥 (Leviticus 27:2), to include women.

讚讘专 讗讞专 谞驻砖转 诇讛讘讬讗 诪谞讜讜诇 讜诪讜讻讛 砖讞讬谉 讜讛讗 讗驻讬拽转讬讛 诇讛谞讱

The baraita continues: Alternatively, the word 鈥減ersons鈥 serves to add a repulsive man and one afflicted with boils. The Gemara asks: But you have already derived the halakha of these cases, i.e., one who valuated a hundred men or a woman who valuated, from 鈥減ersons.鈥 How, then, can you derive the halakha of a repulsive man and one afflicted with boils from this same word?

讛谞讱 诇讗 爪专讬讻讬 拽专讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讬 砖拽讜诇 讛讜讗 讜讬讘讜讗讜 讻讜诇诐 讻讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗 诇诪谞讜讜诇 讜诪讜讻讛 砖讞讬谉 讛讜讗 讚讗爪讟专讬讱

The Gemara answers: These do not require another verse. What is the reason? Each of these halakhot is equivalent to the others, i.e., each derivation from the word: Person, is equally valid. It teaches that one may valuate a limb that is vital to a person, that both men and women may take a vow of valuation, and that one may vow to give the valuation of multiple people. There is no reason to prefer one of these derivations over the others. And therefore, all of them are derived from the word: Person. When the verse, i.e., the plural term 鈥減ersons,鈥 is required, it is required only to include a repulsive man and one afflicted with boils.

讜讛讬讛 注专讻讱 诇专讘讜转 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 诇讚诪讬诐 讚诪讬诐 诇诪讛 诇讬 拽专讗 诇讗 讬讛讗 讗诇讗 讚诪讬 讚讬拽诇讗 讗讬诇讜 讗诪专 讚诪讬 讚讬拽诇讗 诪讬 诇讗 讬讛讬讘

搂 The baraita also teaches that the phrase: 鈥淭hen your valuation shall be鈥 (Leviticus 27:2), serves to include a tumtum and a hermaphrodite in the halakha of assessments, despite the fact that they are not included in the halakha of valuations. The Gemara asks: Why do I need a verse to include them in the halakha of assessments? Even let this be considered only like the assessment of a tree; were one to say: The assessment of that tree is incumbent upon me, is he not obligated to give its assessment?

讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讜诪专 砖谞讬讚讜谉 讘讻讘讜讚讜

Rava said: The verse serves to say that a tumtum and a hermaphrodite are assessed by the significance of the body part that one specified. If one vowed to give a vital part of his body, he is not merely obligated to pay the value of that organ but must give the value of his entire body.

住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 谞讚专 讘注专讻讱 讻转讬讘 讻诇 砖讬砖谞讜 讘注专讻讬谉 谞讬讚讜谉 讘讻讘讜讚讜 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 讘注专讻讬谉 讗讬谞讜 谞讬讚讜谉 讘讻讘讜讚讜

As it might enter your mind to say that since it is written in the verse: 鈥淎 vow of persons to the Lord, according to your valuation,鈥 a person who is valuated is juxtaposed to one who is the object of a vow of assessments. Therefore, anyone who is included in the category of valuations is also included in the halakha of being assessed by the significance of the body part that he specifies. But anyone who is not included in the category of valuations, such as a tumtum and a hermaphrodite, is not included in the halakha of being assessed by the significance of the body part that he specifies. Therefore, the verse teaches that although a tumtum and a hermaphrodite are not included in valuations, they are nevertheless included in the halakha of being assessed by the significance of the body part in question.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讚诇讗 讗讬转讬讛 讘注专讻讬谉 诪讬 谞讬讚讜谉 讘讻讘讜讚讜 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讗砖 注讘讚 讝讛 讛拽讚砖 讛讜讗 讜讛拽讚砖 砖讜转驻讬谉 讘讜 专讗砖 注讘讚 诪讻讜专 诇讱 诪砖诪谞讬谉 讘讬谞讬讛诐 专讗砖 讞诪讜专 讝讛 讛拽讚砖 讛讜讗 讜讛拽讚砖 砖讜转驻讬谉 讘讜 专讗砖 讞诪讜专 诪讻讜专 诇讱 诪砖诪谞讬谉 讘讬谞讬讛诐

Abaye said to Rava: And is it true that one who is not included in valuations is nevertheless assessed by the significance of the body part that he specifies? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that if one says: The head of this slave is consecrated property, he and the Temple treasury are partners in the entire slave. Similarly, if one says to another: The head of this slave is sold to you, they appraise the slave and split the value between them. Likewise, if one says: The head of this donkey is consecrated property, he and the Temple treasury are partners in the donkey. And if one says to another: The head of this donkey is sold to you, they appraise the donkey and split the value between them.

专讗砖 驻专讛 诪讻讜专 诇讱 诇讗 诪讻专 讗诇讗 专讗砖讛 砖诇 驻专讛 讜诇讗 注讜讚 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 专讗砖 驻专讛 讛拽讚砖 讗讬谉 诇讛拽讚砖 讗诇讗 专讗砖讛 讜讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讚讛讗 诪讝讚讘谉 专讬砖讗 讚转讜专讗 讘讘讬 讟讘讞讗

But if one says to another: The head of this cow is sold to you, he has sold him only the head of the cow. Moreover, even if he says: The head of this cow is consecrated property, the Temple treasury has ownership only of the cow鈥檚 head. And Rav Pappa said: This difference between these cases is due to the fact that the head of an ox is sold independently in the butcher shop.

讜讛讗 讞诪讜专 讜驻专讛 诇讬转谞讛讜 讘注专讻讬谉 讜讗讬谉 谞讬讚讜谉 讘讻讘讜讚讜 讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 转讬拽砖讬 诇讱 注讘讚 讚讗讬转讬讛 讘注专讻讬谉 讜讗讬谉 谞讬讚讜谉 讘讻讘讜讚讜

Abaye explains the difficulty that arises from this baraita: But isn鈥檛 it the halakha that a donkey and a cow are not included in valuations, and therefore are not assessed by the significance of the body part that is mentioned? If one consecrated their heads, their entire body is not consecrated. Rava said to Abaye: And according to your reasoning, that the halakha of assessment by the significance of the specified body part is contingent on inclusion in valuations, the case of a slave should pose a difficulty for you: A slave is included in the halakha of valuations, as stated in the mishna, and yet the baraita teaches that he is not assessed by the significance of the body part that is specified.

讗诇讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘拽讚砖讬 诪讝讘讞 讛讗 讘拽讚砖讬 讘讚拽 讛讘讬转

Rather, this is not difficult. This baraita, which states that in the case of a slave or donkey the head alone is consecrated, is referring to items consecrated in order to purchase offerings for the altar. On the other hand, that baraita, which rules that in the case of a tumtum one must pay his entire value, is referring to items consecrated for Temple maintenance. In such a case, it is assessed by the significance of the body part that is specified. Here we follow the paradigm of valuation, whose payment is also used for Temple maintenance.

讘诪讗讬 讗讜拽讬诪转讛 讘拽讚砖讬 诪讝讘讞 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讜诇讗 注讜讚 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讗诪专 专讗砖 驻专讛 讝讜 讛拽讚砖 讗讬谉 诇讛拽讚砖 讗诇讗 专讗砖讛 讗诪讗讬 转驻砖讜讟 拽讚讜砖讛 讘讻讜诇讛 诪讬 诇讗 转谞讬讗 讛讗讜诪专

The Gemara raises a difficulty: In what manner did you interpret the baraita that discusses consecrating the head of a slave? You interpreted it as dealing with a case of items consecrated in order to purchase offerings for the altar. But if so, say the latter clause: Moreover, even if he says: The head of this cow is consecrated property, the Temple treasury has ownership only of the cow鈥檚 head. According to this interpretation, that it is referring to items consecrated for the altar, why is the head alone consecrated? Let its sanctity spread throughout the entire cow. Isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: In a case where one says:

Scroll To Top