004a – הכל מעריכין – פרק ראשון – ערכין, דף ד ע"א

and they redeem forever.^[1]

I might say that they should not be obligated in the mitzvah of Rosh Hashanah either;^[2]

[the beraisa] teaches us: granted that they are not included in the release of land; in the release of money [and] in the sending away of slaves, at any rate, they are included.^[3]

נהי דליתנהו בהשמטת קרקעות - That is, in the whole law of the release of land, for we learned [in a beraisa]: “they sell forever.”

All are obligated in the reading of the Megillah: Kohanim, Levi'im and Yisraelim.^[4]

That is obvious!

It is necessary only [to teach] that they interrupt their service,^[5] and as Rav Yehudah said in the name of Shmuel,^[6]

for Rav Yehudah said in the name of Shmuel: Kohanim at their service, Levi'im on their platform and Yisraelim at their ma'amad^[7] interrupt their service and come to hear the reading of the Megillah.

All are obligated in zimun: Kohanim, Levi'im and Yisraelim.^[8]

That is obvious!

It is necessary only where they ate kodshim.

You might have thought: the Merciful One said, “And they shall eat those things with which atonement was made” (Shemos 29:33), and this is [part of the] atonement [rather than a meal];^[9]

And this eating of kodshim is for atonement, as it is written, “And they shall eat those things with which atonement was made” – this teaches that the Kohanim eat and the owners gain atonement (Yoma 68b). [So] I might say zimun is not required; [the beraisa] teaches us etc.

[the beraisa] teaches us: the Merciful One said, “And you shall eat and be satisfied” (Devarim 8:10), and these are present here.^[10]

All join together for zimun: Kohanim, Levi'im and Yisraelim.^[11]

מצטרפין כו' - If one Kohen, one Levi and one Yisrael ate: a Kohen can eat chullin together with a non-Kohen; therefore they join.

That is obvious!

It is necessary only where the Kohanim ate terumah or kodshim, and the non-Kohen ate chullin.^[12]

You might have thought: since, if the non-Kohen wanted to eat together with the Kohen, he could not eat [the Kohen's food], I would say they do not join;

[the beraisa] teaches us: granted that the non-Kohen cannot eat together with the Kohen, the Kohen can eat together with the non-Kohen.^[13]

All may value: Kohanim, Levi'im and Yisraelim.^[14]

That is obvious!

Rava said: It is necessary only on account of Ben Buchri,^[15]

לא נצרכא אלא לבן בוכרי - At the end of the matter [the Gemara] explains this statement of Rava.

for we learned [in a Mishnah]: “Rabbi Yehudah said: Ben Buchri testified in Yavneh: any Kohen who gives the shekel does not sin.^[16]

ששוקל - [Who gives] the shekalim on the first of Adar.

אינו חוטא - As [the Gemara] explains below: for it is not [a case of] chullin in the Azarah,^[17] even though he is not obligated from the outset, as it is written (Shemos 38:26) “for everyone who passed among those counted”, and the tribe of Levi was not counted.^[18]

Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai said to him: Not so; rather, any Kohen who does not give the shekel sins,^[19]

חוטא - It is explained in Maseches Shekalim (3a): for it is written “This (zeh) they shall give” – zeh in gematria is twelve tribes, which includes the tribe of Levi too; and “everyone who passed” is explained as everyone who passed through the Sea of Reeds.^[20]

except that the Kohanim expound this verse for their own benefit: ‘And every minchah of a Kohen shall be wholly [burnt]; it shall not be eaten’ (Vayikra 6:16).^[21]

אלא שהכהנים דורשין מקרא זה לעצמן - For their own benefit, and not correctly.

Since the Omer, the Two Loaves and the Lechem HaPanim are ours, how can they be eaten?”^[22]

שלנו הוא - For they come from the terumah of the chamber, and if we give shekalim to the chamber, the minchah of the Omer, the Two Loaves and the Lechem HaPanim turn out to be [partly] ours – so how can they be eaten? Is it not written, “it shall not be eaten”? But we do not hold this derashah, for this “it shall be wholly burnt” is written only about a minchah belonging to a Kohen alone; but with a communal minchah, follow the majority.^[23]

And according to Ben Buchri too: since they are not obligated to bring [the shekel] in the first place, even when he does bring it he is a sinner, for he brings chullin into the Azarah!^[24]

[No:] he brings them and hands them over to the community.^[25]

דמסר להו לצבור וכו' - And therefore, on account of Ben Buchri, who exempts the Kohanim from shekalim, the Mishnah needed to teach that a Kohen who valued himself or another gives the erech like a Yisrael; for you might have thought etc. – [the Mishnah] teaches us that we do not derive [it so].

[Rava's point is:] You might have thought: since it is written, “And every valuation of yours shall be by the holy shekel” (Vayikra 27:25), whoever is included in shekalim is included in arachin; and these Kohanim, since they are not included in shekalim, are not included in arachin;^[26]

[the Mishnah] teaches us [that they are].

Abaye said to him: This [verse] “and every valuation of yours” comes [to teach] that all valuations you make should not be less than a sela!^[27]

לא יהו פחותין מסלע - For a poor man in arachin is judged by his means,^[28] as it is written (Vayikra 27:8) “according to what the hand of the one who vowed can reach” etc., yet he may never give less than a sela, as it says in the second perek (below 7b): “there is no erech less than a sela”, and it brings the reason from this verse. And since [the verse] comes for this, it would not occur to us to expound it for another derashah, to exempt Kohanim from arachin, and the Mishnah would not be needed.

Rather, Abaye said: It is necessary [for another reason]:

you might have thought: since it is written, “And those to be redeemed, from a month old you shall redeem, according to your valuation” (Bamidbar 18:16), whoever is included in pidyon haben is included in arachin; and these Kohanim, since they are not included in pidyon haben, are not included in arachin;^[29]

Kohanim were exempted from pidyon haben in the first perek of Bechoros (4a) by a kal vachomer: if they [the Levi'im] exempted those of Yisrael in the wilderness, all the more so their own [firstborn].

[the Mishnah] teaches us [that they are].

Rava said to him: But if so, regarding the ram of the asham, of which it is written, “And he shall bring his asham to Hashem, a ram without blemish from the flock, according to your valuation” (Vayikra 5:25) – would you also say that whoever is included in arachin is included in the ram of the asham, [so that] a tumtum and an androginus, who are not included in arachin, are not included in the ram of the asham?^[30]

ה"נ דליתנהו באיל אשם - But they are [ordinary] Yisraelim! Rather, certainly we do not expound this way; and still, why does the Mishnah need to teach Kohanim, Levi'im and Yisraelim?

Rather, Rava said, and some say Rav Ashi: It is necessary [for this]:

you might have thought: since it is written, “And he shall set him before the Kohen” (Vayikra 27:8) – and not a Kohen before a Kohen;^[31]

והעמידו לפני הכהן - [Said of] a poor man who valued himself or another.

ולא כהן לפני כהן - Therefore a Kohen would not be included in arachin, for if he is poor, “and he shall set him before the Kohen” cannot be applied to him; the Mishnah teaches us [otherwise].

[the Mishnah] teaches us [that they are].

“Can be valued” – to include the repulsive one and the one afflicted with boils.^[32]

נערכין לאתויי כו' - That is: [regarding what] the master said above, “all can be valued” – to include the repulsive one and the one afflicted with boils.

From where are these words [derived]?

For the Rabbis taught: “‘By your valuation’ – to include an unspecified erech.^[33]

ערך סתום - It is explained below, and the whole beraisa is explained below.

Another explanation: ‘By your valuation’ – he gives the erech of all of him, and not the erech of limbs.^[34]

ערך אבריו - If he said “the erech of my hand is upon me”, he has said nothing, for there is no erech for limbs; but if he said “the value of my hand is upon me”,^[35] he gives the value of his hand.

I might think that I exclude even a part on which life depends?^[36]

שהנשמה תלויה בו - That if he said “the erech of my head” or “the erech of my liver”.

The Torah says ‘souls’. ‘Souls’ – and not the dead.

ת"ל נפשות - The Merciful One made it depend on the soul; so if he valued a part on which life depends, he gives the erech of all of him.

ולא את המת - That if he said “the erech of this dead person is upon me”, he has said nothing.

Shall I exclude the dead, but not exclude the goses?^[37]

The Torah says, ‘he shall set him... and he shall value’ (Vayikra 27:8): whoever is subject to standing is subject to valuation, and whoever is not subject to standing is not subject to valuation.

והעמיד והעריך - It is written about a poor man who valued.

Another explanation: ‘souls’ – I have only one who valued one;^[38]

ד"א נפשות - Why is it said? For if it had not said “souls” but “soul”, I would have said: I have only one who valued one, as it is written (Vayikra 27:2), “When a man shall clearly utter [a vow] of the valuation of souls” – meaning, one who valued one.

one who valued a hundred, from where?

The Torah says ‘souls’.

Another explanation: ‘souls’...^[39]

דבר אחר נפשות - Why is it said? For if it had said “soul”, I would have said...^[40]

Tosfos

וגואלין לעולם - If they sold a field, they redeem it immediately, whereas a Yisrael is not permitted to redeem in less than two years, as it is written (ibid.) “according to the number of years of crops” etc. “Granted that they are not included in the release of land” – that is, in the whole law of the release of land, for we learned “and they sell forever” – so the Kuntres.^[41] But in Rosh Hashanah (29a) Rashi does not have the reading “granted that they are not included in the release of land”, because it implies that [their land] does not return to the Kohanim in Yovel, and that is not so; however, here he explained well. And it is somewhat difficult: what does the release of money have to do with Yovel? For it is taught in the Sifri: “In this year of Yovel” – this [year] frees slaves, but Shemittah does not free (Canaanite) slaves. Kal vachomer that Yovel releases [debts]: if Shemittah, which does not free slaves, releases [debts], is it not logical that Yovel, which frees slaves, releases? Therefore the Torah says, “And this is the matter of the release” – Shemittah releases, Yovel does not. Evidently Yovel does not release money. However, one can say that the release of money is somewhat connected with Yovel, since Shemittah applies only when Yovel applies.^[42] “And this eating of kodshim is for atonement, as it is written, ‘And they shall eat those things with which atonement was made’ etc. – this teaches that the Kohanim eat and the owners gain atonement; [so] I might say zimun is not required etc. They join: if one Kohen, one Levi and one Yisrael ate, a Kohen may eat chullin with a non-Kohen, therefore they join” – so the Kuntres. And from here it appears that three people who are forbidden by vow to benefit from one another do not join,^[43] since none of them can eat with his fellow. However, it appears that [regarding] three who are under a vow it is not a clear proof, for terumah is different, as it has no permission for a non-Kohen even through annulment, which is not so with one forbidden by vow to benefit; and in Berachos (45a, s.v. Achal) I elaborated.

כל כהן שאינו שוקל חוטא - For he expounds “This they shall give” – twelve tribes, [as] the gematria of zeh. And he could also have said “any Levi who does not give the shekel”; but [he said Kohen] because [of a Levi] he could not say “because they expound this verse for themselves”.^[44]

ערך כולו הוא נותן ואינו נותן ערך אברים - For I might have thought to include [the erech of limbs], since a person knows that there is no erech for limbs, and he [must have] concluded and meant [the erech] of all his limbs together; [the beraisa] teaches us [otherwise]. Alternatively one can say: I might have thought, since limbs are included in [vows of] value (damim), they are included in arachin as well.^[45]

נפשות ולא המת - Even though [a corpse] is forbidden in benefit by Torah law and is not subject to [vows of] value, I might have thought it is included in arachin, since the repulsive one and the one afflicted with boils were included, though they are not subject to [vows of] value.^[46]

ולא אוציא את הגוסס ת"ל והעמיד והעריך - And if you ask: but in the second perek of Chullin (30a), [an animal of which] he slaughtered two [simanim] or most of two, and it is still convulsing,^[47] is within “standing and valuation”! One can answer that an animal has more vitality and can stand; and [the Gemara there] mentions “convulsing” because [then] it is not a neveilah. And it needs further study: for the plain meaning of the verse “he shall set him... and value” refers to the one who vows, as it is written in that verse “according to what the hand of the one who vowed can reach shall [the Kohen] value him”; and a goses can vow and value, as we learned in Maseches Semachos. So from where do we derive from “and he shall set”, written in that verse about the one who values, that [a goses] is not valued?

אחד שהעריך מאה מנין - For example, he said, “The erech of so-and-so and so-and-so and so-and-so is upon me”, mentioning “erech” in the singular; I might have thought it is not an erech [of each]; [the beraisa] teaches us [that it is].

Notes

1. 1. This continues the sugya from the previous amud [Arachin 3b], where the beraisa “All are obligated in the blowing of the shofar” was brought, and it was noted that Kohanim and Levi'im “sell forever and redeem forever”, i.e. they are outside some of the laws of Yovel. Rashi s.v. “and they redeem forever” (a Levi may redeem a field he sold at once, while a Yisrael must wait two years) is printed there.
2. 2. The question assumes that the shofar of Rosh Hashanah and the shofar of Yovel are learned from one another; so one might think that whoever is outside the laws of Yovel is also exempt from the shofar on Rosh Hashanah.
3. 3. Yovel returns fields to their original owners and frees Hebrew slaves; the release of money (cancelling debts) is a law of Shemittah. Although Kohanim and Levi'im are outside part of the law of Yovel regarding land, its other laws apply to them, so they are obligated in the shofar. (Tosfos below asks what the release of money has to do with Yovel.)
4. 4. One of the beraisos phrased “All...” that the Gemara examines one after another, asking what each adds. The reading of the Megillah is the reading of Megillas Esther on Purim.
5. 5. That is, the novelty is that the Kohanim interrupt even their service in the Beis HaMikdash to hear the Megillah read.
6. 6. Rav Yehudah (bar Yechezkel) was a Babylonian Amora, a disciple of Rav and Shmuel; Shmuel was one of the leading first-generation Amoraim of Babylonia, in Nehardea.
7. 7. The duchan is the platform on which the Levi'im stood to sing during the offerings; the ma'amad was the group of Yisraelim who stood in the Beis HaMikdash, as representatives of all Israel, while the daily tamid was offered.
8. 8. Zimun: three who ate together are obliged to bentch together – one invites the others (“Let us bless”), they respond, and then Birkas HaMazon is said.
9. 9. The Kohanim's eating of the meat of a chatas or asham is part of the owner's atonement; so one might think it is not an ordinary meal and does not call for zimun.
10. 10. Birkas HaMazon is learned from “And you shall eat and be satisfied, and bless” (Devarim 8:10). Here too there is eating and satisfaction, so they are obligated in the blessing and in zimun.
11. 11. That is, a Kohen, a Levi and a Yisrael who ate together combine to make the three needed for zimun.
12. 12. Terumah and kodshim are forbidden to a zar (a non-Kohen), so the non-Kohen here ate chullin, ordinary food.
13. 13. Joining for zimun depends on the diners being able to eat together; it is enough that the Kohen can share the non-Kohen's chullin.
14. 14. This is the wording of our Mishnah [Arachin 2a]. Erech: one who says “my erech is upon me” or “so-and-so's erech is upon me” must give Hekdesh the sum fixed by the Torah for that age and sex, not the person's market value (Vayikra 27).
15. 15. Ben Buchri was a Tanna in Yavneh in the time of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai. The Mishnah quoted is in Shekalim (1:4).
16. 16. Every Jew gives a half-shekel to the Temple chamber each year, and the communal offerings are bought from it. In Ben Buchri's view Kohanim are exempt, but if they give it they commit no sin.
17. 17. Chullin in the Azarah: it is forbidden to bring unconsecrated animals or food into the Temple courtyard as an offering. A communal offering bought with the money of someone not obligated to give might be seen as such chullin.
18. 18. The verse (Shemos 38:26) shows that the shekalim were given by those who were counted, and the tribe of Levi was not counted with the rest of Israel (Bamidbar 1:49); hence Ben Buchri's exemption.
19. 19. Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai was the leading Tanna of the generation of the Churban, who founded the yeshivah at Yavneh.
20. 20. Zayin (7) plus heh (5) = 12, the twelve tribes, Levi included; and “everyone who passed” means everyone who crossed the Sea of Reeds, which also includes the Levi'im.
21. 21. Vayikra 6:16: a Kohen's minchah is burnt entirely and not eaten. The Kohanim argued that if they gave shekalim they would own a share in the communal menachos, which could then not be eaten.
22. 22. The Omer is the barley minchah of 16 Nisan; the Two Loaves are brought on Shavuos; the Lechem HaPanim are the twelve loaves on the Shulchan. All are paid for from the shekel chamber and are eaten by the Kohanim.
23. 23. That is, the halachah does not follow the Kohanim's derashah: a communal minchah, owned mostly by Yisraelim, is not “a Kohen's minchah”.
24. 24. The Gemara objects: even for Ben Buchri, a Kohen who gives a shekel he does not owe is like an individual donating to a communal offering – that is bringing chullin into the Azarah; so why does he “not sin”?
25. 25. The answer: the Kohen hands his shekel over to the community completely, so it becomes communal property and is no longer chullin.
26. 26. Vayikra 27:25 links arachin to the holy shekel, so one might think that whoever is exempt from shekalim (Kohanim, according to Ben Buchri) is also exempt from arachin; that is why the Mishnah had to say “Kohanim”.
27. 27. Abaye rejects Rava's explanation: the verse is needed for another law, that no erech is less than a sela [below 7b], so no one would derive an exemption for Kohanim from it.
28. 28. Hasagas yad: a poor man who cannot pay the fixed erech is assessed by the Kohen according to his means.
29. 29. Bamidbar 18:16. Pidyon haben: a father redeems his firstborn son from a Kohen with five sela'im. Kohanim and Levi'im are exempt [Bechoros 4a].
30. 30. Rava rejects this with “but if so”: the asham ram must be worth two sela'im (“according to your valuation”), yet a tumtum (whose sex is hidden) and an androginus (who has the features of both), though not subject to arachin, surely bring an asham; so the word “valuation” does not tie the two together.
31. 31. Vayikra 27:8: a poor man who made a vow of erech is set before the Kohen to be assessed by his means; one might think a Kohen is not set before another Kohen, and so is outside arachin.
32. 32. The Mishnah says “all... can be valued”, to include the repulsive and the boil-stricken, who have no market value; even so, their fixed erech applies.
33. 33. An unspecified erech: one who says “an erech is upon me” without naming whose; the Gemara explains it on the next amud [Arachin 4b].
34. 34. The fixed erech applies to a whole person, not to one of his limbs.
35. 35. Damim (value): one who says “so-and-so's value is upon me” gives his market value, as if he were a slave being sold; this can apply to a limb, unlike an erech.
36. 36. A part without which one cannot live, such as the head or the liver; one who vows its erech is treated as vowing the erech of the whole person.
37. 37. A goses is a person on the point of death. He cannot be made to stand, so he cannot be valued.
38. 38. The verse “When a man shall clearly utter a vow of the valuation of souls” (Vayikra 27:2) uses the plural, and several derashos are drawn from it.
39. 39. The beraisa continues on the next amud [Arachin 4b]: “I have only a man who valued...”.
40. 40. Rashi's comment continues on the next amud [Arachin 4b]: “I have only a man who valued, whether a man or a woman...”.
41. 41. “So the Kuntres” means Rashi's commentary; Tosfos quote Rashi's words here and discuss them.
42. 42. Tosfos ask: releasing debts is a law of Shemittah, not Yovel, as the Sifri shows; they answer that Shemittah applies only when Yovel applies, so it is connected with Yovel. The Sifri is the halachic midrash on Bamidbar and Devarim.
43. 43. People who have vowed not to benefit from one another cannot eat together. Tosfos are unsure whether they are like the non-Kohen and the Kohen, since a vow can be annulled by a sage.
44. 44. That is, a Levi too was not counted and is still obligated according to Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai; the Mishnah says “Kohen” because of the Kohanim's argument about the menachos, which does not apply to a Levi.
45. 45. According to the second answer: since one can vow the value of a limb, one might have thought one can also vow its erech.
46. 46. A corpse has no market value, since benefit from it is forbidden; but one might have said it has an erech, just as the repulsive and the boil-stricken have an erech though they have no value.
47. 47. Mefarkeses: an animal that has been slaughtered but is still convulsing; for kodshim it still counts as “standing and valuation” [Chullin 30a]. Maseches Semachos is a minor tractate on the laws of mourning.