004b – הכל מעריכין – פרק ראשון – ערכין, דף ד ע”ב

… I only know [that the vow applies to] a man who evaluated, whether a man or a woman; from where [do I know] a woman who evaluated a man, or a woman who evaluated a woman? The verse says, “persons.”^[1]

[… I would have said: I only know] a man who evaluated, whether a man or a woman, as it is written (Vayikra 27), “When a man expresses a vow by your evaluation of persons” – which implies that the man evaluates a person of any kind.^[2]

Another explanation: “persons” – to include one who is repulsive and one afflicted with boils.^[3] For I might have thought: “a vow by your evaluation”^[4] – whoever has a monetary value has an evaluation, and whoever has no monetary value has no evaluation; the verse says, “persons.”

נפשות - For this is what “by your evaluation of persons” implies: all persons are able to evaluate.

(Vayikra 27) “Your evaluation shall be” – to include a tumtum and an androgynos^[5] for monetary value. For I might have thought: “a vow by your evaluation” – whoever has an evaluation has a monetary value, and whoever has no evaluation has no monetary value; the verse says, “your evaluation shall be.”

וכל שאינו בערכין - For example, a tumtum and an androgynos, for it is written “the male,” which implies a definite male, a definite female.

“The male” – a male, and not a tumtum or an androgynos.

I might have thought they would not have the evaluation of a man but would have the evaluation of a woman; the verse says, “Your evaluation shall be: the male … and if it is a female” – a definite male, a definite female, and not a tumtum or an androgynos.^[6]

The Master said: “‘By your evaluation’ – to include an unspecified evaluation.”^[7]

What is an unspecified evaluation?

As it was taught in a beraisa: “One who says, ‘An unspecified evaluation is upon me,’ gives the smallest of the evaluations.

ערך סתום - That he did not say, “My evaluation is upon me,” nor “The evaluation of So-and-so is upon me,” but said, “An evaluation is upon me.”

And how much is the smallest of the evaluations? Three shekels.”^[8]

שלשת שקלים - As it is written, “and for a female, three shekels,” and this is the smallest of the evaluations.

But say fifty!

If you grasped much, you did not grasp; if you grasped little, you grasped.^[9]

מרובה לא תפסתה - For one can object: take the small amount!

תפסתה מועט תפסתה - For if someone objects to you, “Take the large amount,” he does not disagree with your words but adds to them, since the small amount is included in the large one.

But say one shekel, as it is written (Vayikra 27): “And every evaluation of yours shall be by the shekel of the Sanctuary”!

That is written regarding [the law of] what one’s means can reach.^[10]

בהשג יד - That if he is poor, “too poor for your evaluation,” the Kohen may not evaluate him at less than a shekel; but the law of a fixed evaluation is not less than three shekels.

But then, why do I need the verse?^[11]

אלא קרא - “By your evaluation” – what does it come for? Since an unspecified evaluation is only three shekels, even without the verse I would know that he is not exempt with nothing, and he cannot give less than this, since no fixed evaluation is called less than this.

Rav Nachman said in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha:^[12] To say that he is not judged by what his means can reach.

שאינו נידון בהשג יד - That even if his means do not reach three shekels, he gives three shekels.

What is the reason?

It is as if he specified [the amount].^[13]

כמפרש דמי - Since he said, “An unspecified evaluation is upon me,” and he knows that this, the smallest of the evaluations, is three shekels, it is like one who said, “Three shekels are upon me.” It is not like one who says, “My evaluation is upon me,” or “The evaluation of So-and-so is upon me,” for there the matter is not evident, since not everyone knows his age; but here it is an open matter, for he did not tie it to any person.

Some say: Rav Nachman said in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha: He is judged by what his means can reach.^[14]

איכא דאמרי א"ר נחמן - The verse comes for this: to say that it is called an evaluation, and its law is like other evaluations, and it is judged by what his means can reach.

That is obvious!

פשיטא - For how is it different from other evaluations?

You might have said it is as if he specified [the amount];

so it teaches us [otherwise].

“Another explanation: ‘By your evaluation’ – he gives the evaluation of the whole, and he does not give the evaluation of the value of limbs.”^[15]

But you have already taken it out [to teach] an unspecified evaluation!

Read in it “evaluation” and “by your evaluation.”

קרי ביה ערך בערכך - It could have written “evaluation” and that would have brought the unspecified evaluation; and since it wrote “by your evaluation,” [it is] to expound this too.

“I might have thought that I exclude [even] a thing on which life depends; the verse says, ‘persons.’^[16]

‘Persons’ – and not the dead.”

But you have already taken it out [for the previous teaching]!

Read in it “person” and “persons.”^[17]

“Shall I exclude the dead and not exclude one who is dying? The verse says (Vayikra 27): ‘He shall stand him … and evaluate.’”^[18]

If so, let me derive the dead too from “he shall stand him and evaluate”!

That is indeed so.

But then, why do I need “person,” “persons”?

For what we are about to say.^[19]

למימר קמן - To include one who is repulsive and one afflicted with boils.

“Another explanation: ‘Persons’ – I only know one who evaluated one; from where [do I know] one who evaluated a hundred? The verse says, ‘persons.’^[20]

Another explanation: ‘Persons’ – I only know a man who evaluated, whether a man or a woman; from where [do I know] a woman who evaluated a man, or a woman who evaluated a woman? The verse says, ‘persons.’

Another explanation: ‘Persons’ – to include one who is repulsive and one afflicted with boils.”

But you have already taken it out for those [other teachings]!

הא אפיקתיה להנך - For one who evaluated a hundred, and for a woman who evaluated.

Those do not need a verse.

What is the reason?

Because it is equally balanced, and they all come [from the plain word]; where the verse was needed, it was needed for one who is repulsive and one afflicted with boils.^[21]

שקול הוא - Even if “person” alone were written, all of them would come: whether a thing on which life depends, or one who evaluated a hundred, or a woman who evaluated; for “person” implies a woman and implies many persons, as it says (Bamidbar 31), “and the human persons, of the women, sixteen thousand.” And although from a single “person” we could not expound three teachings, they would all come, since they are equally balanced, equal, and heard from this verse; and you cannot establish it for one teaching more than another – which of them would you exclude? Therefore they all come from it, and “persons” was needed for one who is repulsive and one afflicted with boils, that you should not exclude them from a vow of evaluation.

שקול - Equal: for all the teachings are equally implied by this verse, and none of them is weightier than another that we should say this one alone is included and that one not, but they are equally balanced. There is also something of this kind in Bava Kamma (3a), in the first sugya.

(Vayikra 27) “‘Your evaluation shall be’ – to include a tumtum and an androgynos for monetary value.”^[22]

לדמים - For if it does not apply to evaluations, since we require a definite male, apply it to monetary value.

Monetary value – why do I need a verse?

Let it be no better than the value of a palm tree: had he said, “The value of a palm tree [is upon me],” would he not give?^[23]

Rava said:^[24] To say that he is judged by his vital part.^[25]

שנידון בכבודו - That he is judged entirely according to one limb on which his worth depends: if he said, “The value of his head is upon me,” he gives the value of all of him.

It would enter your mind to say: “A vow by your evaluation” is written – whoever has an evaluation is judged by his vital part, and whoever has no evaluation is not judged by his vital part.

ה"ג סד"א נדר בערכך נפשות כתיב כל שישנו בערכין נידון בכבודו - Even when he said, “The value of my head is upon me”; and whoever has no evaluation, when he said, “The value of my head is upon me,” is not judged by his vital part, since “persons” is written regarding evaluation – so it teaches us [otherwise].^[26]

Abaye said to him:^[27] And is one who has no evaluation judged by his vital part?

But it was taught in a beraisa: “‘The head of this slave is hekdesh’ – he and hekdesh are partners in him. ‘The head of this slave is sold to you’ – they assess [its value] between them. ‘The head of this donkey is hekdesh’ – he and hekdesh are partners in it. ‘The head of this donkey is sold to you’ – they assess between them.^[28]

משמנין ביניהן - How much it is worth, and they divide its value. And I am puzzled why it uses “partners” there and “assess” here.

‘The head of this cow is sold to you’ – he sold only the head of the cow. And not only that, but even ‘The head of this cow is hekdesh’ – hekdesh has only its head.”

And Rav Papa said:^[29] Because the head of an ox is sold [separately] at the butcher’s shop.

וא"ר פפא - What is the reason that with a cow he consecrated only its head?

דהא מזדבן ריש תורא בבי טבחא - But the head of a slave and the head of a donkey are not usually sold [on their own]; therefore, half of it he sold and half of it he consecrated.

So a donkey and a cow have no evaluation, and they are not judged by their vital part!

ואין נידון בכבודו - For it teaches, “he and hekdesh are partners in it,” and it does not all belong to hekdesh.

And according to your reasoning, the slave should be difficult for you, for he has an evaluation, and yet he is not judged by his vital part!^[30]

והא עבד דאיתיה בערכין - As our Mishnah teaches,^[31] and this beraisa teaches regarding a slave too, “he and hekdesh are partners in him,” so that he is not judged by his vital part.

Rather, it is not difficult: this [beraisa] is about sanctities of the Altar; that [teaching] is about sanctities for the upkeep of the Temple.^[32]

אלא ל"ק - This beraisa is about sanctities of the Altar – that he said, “The head of this donkey or slave is for the value of an olah” – and he is not judged by his vital part; for when “persons” is written, it is written regarding evaluations, which are sanctities for the upkeep of the Temple; and when we said that he is judged by his vital part, [that applies] even to a tumtum who vowed his value, in sanctities for the upkeep of the Temple.

How did you establish it – as sanctities of the Altar?

Say the latter clause: “And not only that, but even if he said, ‘The head of this cow is hekdesh,’ hekdesh has only its head.”

Why? Let the sanctity spread through all of it!^[33]

תפשוט קדושה בכולה - Since it is fit for offering.

Was it not taught in a beraisa: “One who says …^[34]

Tosfos

וכמה פחות שבערכין שלשה שקלים - Although it says in the Tosefta of our tractate, “[One who says,] ‘An unspecified evaluation is upon me,’ brings the least, and how much is the least? Five shekels (selaim),”^[35] one can answer that there it is about an unspecified evaluation of a male.

לומר שאין נידון בהשג יד - What is the reason? It is as if he specified, “since he said, ‘An unspecified evaluation is upon me,’ and he knows that this, the smallest of the evaluations, is three shekels, it is like one who said, ‘Three shekels are upon me’; and it is not like one who says, ‘The evaluation of So-and-so,’ for there the matter is not evident, since not everyone knows his age; but here it is an open matter, for he did not tie it to any person” – this is the wording of the Kuntres.^[36] But it is difficult: when he says, “The evaluation of So-and-so is upon me,” he knows that he is not [younger than] a month old and owes five selaim, and yet he is judged by what his means can reach, one sela or two! It seems right to explain: “It is as if he specified” – it is like one who says explicitly, “Three selaim are upon me,” since he said “an unspecified evaluation.” For certainly if he said, “The evaluation of So-and-so, who is twenty years old,” even though he knows he will owe fifty selaim, nevertheless it is a decree of the verse: since he tied the evaluation to the evaluated person, it is a decree of the verse that he is judged by what his means can reach, and it is not like one who specifies, “Fifty selaim are upon me for the upkeep of the Temple.”

קרי ביה ערך בערכך - [The verse] expounds from the extra [letters of] “by your evaluation,” since it could have written “evaluation”; it expounds from the extra, whereas “evaluation” itself was needed.

הוא והקדש שותפין כו' - The Kuntres explains that with hekdesh it uses “partnership” to say that he and hekdesh share, for one who consecrates does so generously; but with a sale “assess” fits, meaning valuation – that is, they assess that limb which he sold, for what work it is fit, and he takes according to its worth.

והא פרה וחמור דליתנהו בערכין ואינו נידון בכבודו - And all the more so when one consecrates the body, so that the sanctity spreads through all of it.

הא לא קשיא הא בקדשי מזבח הא בקדשי בדק הבית - The beraisa is about sanctities of the Altar, that he said, “The head of this donkey is hekdesh for the value of an olah,” and he is not judged by his vital part; for when “persons” is written, it is written regarding evaluations, which are sanctities for the upkeep of the Temple; and when we said that he is judged by his vital part, [that applies] even to a tumtum who vows his value for the upkeep of the Temple.

Notes

1. 1. This continues the beraisa begun on the previous amud [Arachin 4a], expounding “When a man expresses a vow by your evaluation of persons.” Arachin: one who vows a person’s “evaluation” to the Temple treasury pays a sum fixed by the Torah according to age and sex, not according to the person’s market worth.
2. 2. This completes Rashi’s comment beginning “Another explanation: persons” at the foot of the previous amud [Arachin 4a]: “Why is it said? For had it said ‘person’ I would have said …”
3. 3. Menuval – a person of repulsive appearance; mukeh shechin – one afflicted with boils. One might have thought they have no evaluation, since they have no market value (no one would buy them as a slave).
4. 4. Value versus evaluation: one who says, “My value is upon me,” pays what he would fetch on the market as a slave; one who says, “My evaluation is upon me,” pays the fixed sum set by the Torah, regardless of his worth.
5. 5. Tumtum – one whose genitals are covered, so that it is not known whether male or female; androgynos – one with both male and female features. They have no evaluation, but they do have a monetary value.
6. 6. The Torah’s fixed evaluations [Vayikra 27:2-7]: a male from twenty to sixty, fifty shekels, and a female thirty; less for other ages, down to one month old: a male five shekels and a female three.
7. 7. The Gemara returns to explain the beraisa [Arachin 4a]: “by your evaluation” includes an “unspecified evaluation” – one who vowed an evaluation without saying whose.
8. 8. Three shekels is the evaluation of a female from one month to five years old, the smallest evaluation in the Torah’s list.
9. 9. A rule of interpretation: when in doubt between a large and a small amount, we take the small one, which is included in the large one and is certainly owed; the excess is not imposed on a doubt.
10. 10. Hesseg yad – a poor man who cannot afford the evaluation is assessed by the Kohen according to his means [Vayikra 27:8], but never below one sela (shekel). “By the shekel of the Sanctuary” refers to that law.
11. 11. The question assumes that even without a verse we would know that an unspecified evaluation costs three shekels: he cannot go free with nothing, and no evaluation is less than that. So what does “by your evaluation” add?
12. 12. Rav Nachman (bar Yaakov) – a leading Babylonian Amora of the third generation, a judge in Nehardea. Rabbah bar Avuha – his teacher, of the Exilarch’s family.
13. 13. Since everyone knows an unspecified evaluation is three shekels, it is as if he said outright, “Three shekels are upon me,” and a vow of a stated sum is not reduced for poverty. Tosfos disputes Rashi’s reasoning (see below).
14. 14. Another version of Rav Nachman’s statement: the verse teaches that an unspecified evaluation is like any other evaluation, so a poor man pays according to his means.
15. 15. One who says, “The evaluation of my hand is upon me,” has said nothing, since a limb has no evaluation; but “the value of my hand” obliges him to pay its worth. The Gemara objects that “by your evaluation” was already used for the unspecified evaluation.
16. 16. A thing on which life depends – a limb one cannot live without, such as the head or the liver. One who says, “The evaluation of my head is upon me,” pays the evaluation of his whole self.
17. 17. That is: “person” teaches the vital limb, and the plural “persons” excludes the dead.
18. 18. Goses – a dying person who is still alive. He has no evaluation, since he cannot be “stood before the Kohen” [Vayikra 27:8].
19. 19. That is, “person, persons” is needed for the teaching that follows: to include one who is repulsive or afflicted with boils.
20. 20. The Gemara cites the beraisa’s three teachings from “persons” [Arachin 4a]: one who evaluated a hundred (pays each one’s evaluation), a woman who evaluated, and one repulsive or afflicted with boils – and asks how all three can be derived.
21. 21. Shakul – equally balanced. “Person” alone already covers a woman and many people, so those need no extra word; the plural “persons” is needed only for one repulsive or afflicted with boils.
22. 22. A tumtum and androgynos have no evaluation, since a definite male is required; so “your evaluation shall be” is applied to value: one who vows their value must pay.
23. 23. Dikla – a palm tree. Anything with a market value must be paid if one vows its value; why then is a verse needed to include a tumtum for value?
24. 24. Rava – a leading Babylonian Amora of the fourth generation, head of the academy in Mechoza; his colleague was Abaye, and their disputes run through the Talmud.
25. 25. Judged by his vital part – one who vows “the value of my head,” a limb his life depends on, pays the value of his whole self. Rava says the verse teaches that even a tumtum, who has no evaluation, is treated so.
26. 26. Rashi’s text here reads “a vow by your evaluation of persons is written”; our printed Gemara has “a vow by your evaluation is written,” without “persons.”
27. 27. Abaye – head of the academy in Pumbedisa, Rava’s contemporary and colleague. He challenges from a beraisa in which a donkey, which has no evaluation, is not judged by its vital part.
28. 28. Partners – hekdesh owns a share of the slave or donkey, in proportion to the head’s worth; they assess – the head is valued, and the buyer takes according to its worth. See Rashi and Tosfos on the change of wording.
29. 29. Rav Papa – a fifth-generation Babylonian Amora, a student of Abaye and Rava. He explains why with a cow hekdesh owns only the head: a cow’s head is sold on its own at the butcher’s.
30. 30. Rava answers Abaye: even on your view the slave is difficult, for he has an evaluation and yet is not judged by his vital part; so the beraisa must deal with a different case.
31. 31. The Mishnah at the start of the tractate [Arachin 2a]: “All may evaluate and be evaluated … Kohanim, Levi’im and Yisraelim, women and slaves.”
32. 32. Sanctities of the Altar – consecrated for offerings; sanctities of bedek habayis – consecrated for the Temple’s upkeep. Evaluations go to bedek habayis, so “judged by his vital part,” learned from evaluations, applies only there.
33. 33. When one consecrates a limb of an animal fit for the Altar, the sanctity spreads through the whole animal, as the beraisa on the next amud teaches; so “hekdesh has only its head” cannot be about Altar sanctities.
34. 34. The beraisa continues on the next amud [Arachin 5a]: “One who says, ‘The leg of this [animal] is an olah’ …”
35. 35. The Tosefta of our tractate – the Tosefta on Arachin. A sela is the sanctuary shekel.
36. 36. The Kuntres – Rashi’s commentary. Tosfos rejects his reason: even with “So-and-so’s evaluation” he knows he owes at least five, yet pays by his means; in their view this is a decree of the verse whenever the vow is tied to a person.