005a – הכל מעריכין – פרק ראשון – ערכין, דף ה ע"א

… “Its leg is an olah” – I might think that all of it is an olah? The verse says (Vayikra 27), “All that he gives of it to Hashem shall be holy” – “of it” is holy, and not all of it is holy.^[1]

I might think that it goes out to chullin? The verse says, “shall be” – it shall remain as it is.^[2]

How so?

It is sold to someone who needs olos, and its money is chullin, except for the value of that limb in it. These are the words of Rabbi Meir.^[3]

תימכר לצורכי עולה ודמיה חולין - Since he did not consecrate its body.

חוץ מדמי אבר - That he [the owner] does not receive its value: since sanctity of the body has come upon it, he may not sell it, and if he sold it, it is not sold, for it is his olah. And since it does not go out to chullin, for it is unblemished, sanctity does not take effect on the money of the limb; therefore it is not sold. And if you ask: then this buyer offers an olah missing a limb, for this limb is not his! We raised that question in the first chapter of Temurah (11b),^[4] and we answered it: for example, where he said, “An olah is upon me, [valued] as it lives.”

Rabbi Yehudah, Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say: From where do we know that one who says “Its leg is an olah” – all of it is an olah? The verse says, “All that he gives of it to Hashem shall be holy” – to include all of it.^[5]

And even according to the one who says that not all of it is an olah, that applies where he consecrated a part on which life does not depend; but a part on which life depends – all of it becomes holy!^[6]

ואפילו למ"ד כו' - So we established at the end of the first chapter of Temurah (11b): Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehudah disagree only about a part on which life does not depend, such as from the knee down.

It is not difficult: this is with sanctity of the body, that is with sanctity of value.^[7]

This is the reading: “It is not difficult,” and we do not read “Rather.”

הא בקדושת הגוף - That which it teaches, that sanctity spreads through all of it, is where he consecrated it with sanctity of the body, as when he said, “The head of this animal I shall offer as an olah”; and the beraisa above, that the Altar’s sanctities have only the head of the cow, is where he consecrated it for value, as when he said, “The head of this animal is upon me for the value of an olah” – like a slave and a donkey, to which sanctity of the body for offering does not apply.

But the Master is the one who said: “One who consecrates a male for its value – it is holy with sanctity of the body”!^[8]

והא מר הוא דאמר - In the first chapter of Temurah (11b): if he consecrated a male ram, fit for an olah, and consecrated it for the value of an olah, it is holy with sanctity of the body and it itself is offered as an olah; for since sanctity of value came upon it, sanctity of the body came upon it,^[9] since it is fit in itself. So too, when he said “The head of the cow for the value of an olah,” let it become holy in its body, since it is fit, and let the sanctity spread through all of it.

It is not difficult: this is where he consecrated all of it, that is where he consecrated one limb.^[10]

הא דאקדיש כוליה - For its value – it is holy with sanctity of the body, for there is only one “since.”

הא דאקדיש חד אבר - As here, where he said, “The head of the cow for the value of an olah”: we do not say, since one limb became holy all of it became holy too, and since sanctity of value came upon it sanctity of the body came upon it – for two “since”s together we do not say.

One limb too was a question for us, for Rabbah asked: “If he consecrated a limb for its value, what is the law?”^[11]

אבר נמי איבעויי איבעיא ליה למר - At the end of the first chapter of Temurah (11b).

הקדיש אבר לדמיו מהו - That the whole animal becomes holy in its body: do we say, since one limb became holy for value it became holy in its body, and since one limb became holy all of it became holy; or perhaps we do not say two “since”s? And if it were so [that the beraisa speaks of an unblemished animal], let the Master resolve it from this beraisa, that it does not, for it teaches “hekdesh has only its head,” and we established it as Altar sanctities and as where he said “for value.”

When it was a question for us, it was about an unblemished animal; here it is about a blemished animal, like a donkey.^[12]

בתם - For one can say that sanctity of the body should come upon it, since it is fit for offering; and the beraisa, for which it is obvious that not all of it becomes holy, deals with a blemished animal, like a slave and a donkey, which are not fit in themselves.

A blemished one too was a question for us, for Rabbah asked: “‘The value of my head [is upon me]’ for the Altar – what is the law?”^[13]

When it was a question for us, that was before he heard this beraisa; now that he has heard this beraisa, it is no question for us.^[14]

The matter itself:^[15] “Rabbah asked: ‘The value of my head [is upon me]’ for the Altar – what is the law?” Is he judged by his vital part, or is he not judged by his vital part?

דמי ראשי למזבח מי נידון בכבודו או אין נידון בכבודו - And he gives half the value. Now there is no blemished one for the Altar greater than this, for he is a human being, and yet he asks about it! Why? Let him resolve it from that [beraisa], that he is not judged [by his vital part].

[Do we say:] We have not found, with vows of value, that one is not judged by his vital part [so here too he is]; or perhaps we have not found, for the Altar, that one is judged by his vital part?^[16]

מי אמרי' לא אשכחן - Do we say: we have not found a vow anywhere where one is not judged by his vital part; or perhaps we have not found it for the Altar, etc.

Let it stand.^[17]

Rava asked: “My evaluation is upon me” for the Altar – what is the law? Is he judged by his means, or is he not judged by his means?^[18]

נידון בהשג יד - Regarding a vow or a gift-offering such as this.

[Do we say:] We have not found, with evaluations, that one is not judged by his means [so here too he is]; or perhaps we have not found, for the Altar, that anything is redeemed except at its worth?^[19]

Let it stand.

Rav Ashi asked: If he consecrated an ancestral field for the Altar, what is the law?^[20]

הקדיש שדה אחוזה - For the value of an olah.

מהו - How does he redeem it, if he wants to redeem it? For it is obvious to us that had he consecrated it for Temple upkeep, he would redeem it at the sowing of a chomer of barley for fifty silver shekels,^[21] for it is a decree of Scripture, even if it is worth a thousand zuz.

Do we say: we have not found an ancestral field redeemed except at “the sowing of a chomer of barley for fifty silver shekels”; or perhaps we have not found, for the Altar, that anything is redeemed except at its worth?

שדה אחוזה דמיפרקא - For we have not found an ancestral field except for Temple upkeep, since unspecified consecrations are for Temple upkeep; therefore when he designates it for the Altar too, he redeems it only in this way. Or perhaps we have not found [redemption] for the Altar except at its worth, for we have not found verses for the Altar except about animals, and for those the Torah certainly set no fixed sum for their redemption if they became blemished;^[22] and here too we say: at its worth. Let it stand.

Let it stand.

Mishnah

One less than a month old may be vowed [for his value], but is not evaluated.^[23]

מתני' פחות מבן חדש נידר - If another said, “His value is upon me,” for he has some value.

אבל לא נערך - For the passage says only “from a month old and up.”

Gemara

The Rabbis taught: “One who evaluates one less than a month old – Rabbi Meir says: He gives his value; and the Sages say: He has said nothing.”^[24]

גמ' נותן דמיו - As much as he would sell for in the market.

On what do they disagree?

Rabbi Meir holds: A person does not utter his words for nothing;^[25] he knows that there is no evaluation for one less than a month old, and he went on and said it for the sake of value.

And the Rabbis hold: A person does utter his words for nothing.

Whom does that follow which Rav Gidel said in the name of Rav: “One who says, ‘The evaluation of a vessel is upon me,’ gives its value”?^[26]

Rabbi Meir.

כר"מ - Who said that a person does not utter his words for nothing; and a person knows that there is no evaluation for a vessel, for “persons” is written; and he went on and said it for the sake of value.

It is obvious that it follows Rabbi Meir!^[27]

פשיטא דכר"מ - Why say “Whom does this follow”?

You might have said: even according to the Rabbis – there he erred, thinking that just as there is evaluation for one a month old, there is also evaluation for one less than a month old;

התם - Regarding one less than a month old the Rabbis exempt, because one can say: even if a person does not utter his words for nothing, that applies where he knows that his words are void; but this one thought that there is evaluation for one less than a month old as for one a month old, and there is none, so it is a mistaken consecration,^[28] and value he did not mention, that he should give value. But regarding a vessel, let him be liable [even according to the Rabbis]. It teaches us that it is Rabbi Meir and not the Rabbis, for the Rabbis’ reason is that a person utters his words for nothing, even when he knows that these words of his are void.

but here, where there is no room for error, a person certainly knows that there is no evaluation for a vessel, and he went on and said it for the sake of value;

it teaches us [that it follows only Rabbi Meir].^[29]

Tosfos

ימכר לצרכי עולה - And if you ask: but this buyer offers an olah missing a limb, for this limb is not his! We raised that in the first chapter of Temurah (11b), and answered: where he said, “An olah is upon me, as it lives” – that is, as it can live, even though its leg is cut off from the knee down. And why did it not answer: where he said, “Its leg is an olah, to discharge So-and-so’s olah,” like the one who says in the first chapter of Chullin (23b),^[30] “Bread is upon me, to discharge So-and-so’s todah”? One can answer that it gives this only in the wording of an Amora’s statement, but the wording of the beraisa does not imply it.

והא מר הוא דאמר הקדיש זכר לדמיו - From here it is implied that we read “Rabbah,” for Abaye would not call Rava, his colleague, “Master.” Although we find that Rav Yosef said to Abaye, his student, “The Master, for he is a great man, knows what I am saying,” in Zevachim, chapter Kodshei Kodashim (62a)^[31] – there it is different, for Abaye understood what others did not understand.

דבעי רבה דמי ראשי לגבי מזבח כו' תיקו - That was before we heard the Mishnah [the beraisa] above, as we concluded.

(בעי רבה דמי ראשי למזבח) - It needs investigation: why did he not say “the evaluation of my head for the Altar,” as in the question just after?

בעי רבא ערכי עלי לגבי מזבח - If we read “Rabbah” in all of them, one can explain it as “if you conclude to say,” as above.

אדם יודע שאין ערך לפחות מבן חדש - And even if he does not know, in any case his intent follows the wording that the Sages established. And if you ask: how is this different from what is said in chapter Tamid Nishchat (Pesachim 63a):^[32] one who intends to say terumah and said maaser, or maaser and said terumah, has said nothing? One can answer that he has said nothing as to what he utters with his mouth, but what is in his heart stands. Or one can answer that there it is different, for what he said with his mouth he does not want, and in what he said in his heart he erred.

Notes

1. 1. This continues the beraisa begun at the foot of the previous amud [Arachin 4b] (“Was it not taught: One who says …”), which Abaye brings to show that with Altar sanctities the sanctity spreads through the whole animal. An olah is an offering burnt entirely on the Altar. The verse: [Vayikra 27:9].
2. 2. That is, “of it” teaches that only the limb is holy; “shall be” teaches that the limb keeps its sanctity, so the animal does not go out entirely to chullin (unconsecrated status).
3. 3. That is, the animal is sold to someone who must bring an olah; the money goes to the owner, except the value of the consecrated limb, which goes to hekdesh. Rabbi Meir: a Tanna of the fourth generation, a student of Rabbi Akiva.
4. 4. An olah missing a limb is invalid. The question and its answer are in Temurah [Temurah 11b]: where he said “an olah as it lives” – an animal able to live, even with its leg cut off below the knee (as Tosfos explains).
5. 5. Rabbi Yehudah (bar Ilai), Rabbi Yosei (ben Chalafta) and Rabbi Shimon (bar Yochai) were students of Rabbi Akiva. In their view the sanctity spreads through the whole animal, and all of it is offered as an olah.
6. 6. A part on which life depends is a limb without which the animal cannot live, such as the head or the liver. If so, the beraisa on [Arachin 4b] is difficult: “The head of a cow is hekdesh – hekdesh has only its head.”
7. 7. Sanctity of the body: the animal itself is holy as an offering. Sanctity of value: only its worth is holy; it is sold and the money goes to hekdesh. The “head of a cow” beraisa deals with one who consecrated for value.
8. 8. “The Master” is Rava, with whom Abaye is debating (Tosfos reads “Rabbah”; see below). The statement is in Temurah [Temurah 11b]: one who consecrates an unblemished male for the value of an olah – it itself is offered as an olah.
9. 9. “Since” (migo): since sanctity of value took hold of it, sanctity of the body takes hold as well, because the animal itself is fit to be offered.
10. 10. Consecrating the whole animal for value needs only one “since” (from value to body). Consecrating one limb needs two – from the limb to the whole animal, and from value to body – and two “since”s together are not applied.
11. 11. Rabbah (bar Nachmani): an Amora of the third generation, head of the yeshivah of Pumbedisa. His question is in Temurah [Temurah 11b]; if the beraisa resolves it, why was he in doubt?
12. 12. Unblemished (tam): an animal without a blemish, fit to be offered. A blemished animal cannot be offered and can hold only sanctity of value. The beraisa deals with a blemished cow, like a donkey.
13. 13. That is, one who says “The value of my head is upon me” for offerings (not for Temple upkeep) – is he judged by his vital part and pays his whole value? A person is like a blemished animal as regards the Altar; if the beraisa resolves the blemished case, why was he in doubt?
14. 14. “This beraisa” is the one on the previous amud [Arachin 4b], where the head of a slave or a donkey for the Altar is not judged by its vital part. Rabbah asked before he heard it.
15. 15. “The matter itself”: the Gemara returns to the question mentioned in passing, to set out its two sides.
16. 16. The two sides: for Temple upkeep we found that one who vows the value of a vital limb pays his whole value; does that hold for every vow of value, or perhaps with Altar sanctities this rule is not found at all?
17. 17. “Let it stand” (teiku): the question remains unresolved.
18. 18. Rava: an Amora of the fourth generation, head of the yeshivah in Mechoza. “By his means”: a poor man who cannot afford his evaluation pays what he can [Vayikra 27:8]. The question is about one who vows “my evaluation” for offerings.
19. 19. The two sides: with evaluations the poor man’s rule always applies; or perhaps whatever belongs to the Altar is redeemed only at its full worth, with no reduction for the poor.
20. 20. Rav Ashi: an Amora of the sixth generation, head of the yeshivah of Sura and editor of the Talmud. An ancestral field is one inherited from one’s fathers; when consecrated it is redeemed at a fixed sum [Vayikra 27:16].
21. 21. The sowing of a chomer of barley: an area sown with a chomer (thirty se’ah) of barley; it is redeemed for fifty shekels for the whole Yovel period, whatever its worth.
22. 22. “Became blemished”: an offering that develops a blemish is redeemed at its worth, not at a fixed sum.
23. 23. “Vowed”: one who says “His value is upon me” pays his market worth. “Evaluated”: one who says “His evaluation is upon me” pays a fixed sum, and evaluations are stated only from a month old and up [Vayikra 27:6].
24. 24. That is, one who says “The evaluation of this baby is upon me,” though it has no evaluation. According to Rabbi Meir he pays its value; according to the Sages he is exempt entirely.
25. 25. That is, a person does not say empty words; so we assume he knew the baby has no evaluation and meant its value instead.
26. 26. Rav Gidel: an Amora of the second generation, a student of Rav. A vessel has no evaluation, since evaluations are stated for persons; according to Rav he pays the vessel’s worth.
27. 27. That is, Rav clearly follows Rabbi Meir, since this is his very reasoning; why ask whom it follows?
28. 28. A mistaken consecration is one made in error, and it does not take effect. On this view the Sages exempt with the baby because he erred, not because his words are void.
29. 29. The Gemara continues on the next amud [Arachin 5b]: “And according to Rabbi Meir, why was it needed?”
30. 30. In Chullin [Chullin 23b]: one who says “Bread is upon me to discharge So-and-so’s todah” brings the todah loaves for his friend’s todah. Tosfos asks why the Gemara did not answer that way here.
31. 31. That is, Abaye and Rava were colleagues, and Abaye would not call him “Master”; so we read “Rabbah,” Abaye’s teacher. In Zevachim [Zevachim 62a] Rav Yosef called his student Abaye “Master” because he understood what others did not.
32. 32. In Pesachim [Pesachim 63a]: one who meant to say terumah and said maaser has said nothing, since mouth and heart must agree. Tosfos answers that here what is in his heart (value) stands.