005b – הכל מעריכין – פרק ראשון – ערכין, דף ה ע”ב

And according to Rabbi Meir, why was it necessary [for Rav to say it]?^[1]

ולרבי מאיר למאי איצטריך - Since Rav spoke according to Rabbi Meir and not according to the Rabbis, why did he need to say that he gives its value? It is obvious! There [with a child under a month], where one could say that he erred and did not speak in terms of value but thought that the child has an evaluation, Rabbi Meir obligates him; here, where he certainly knows that a vessel has no evaluation, all the more so!

You might have said: Rabbi Meir’s reason there is that he decreed regarding [a child] less than a month old on account of [one who is] a month old,^[2] but here, where there is nothing to decree about, say not.

It teaches us: Rabbi Meir’s reason is that a person does not utter his words for nothing,^[3] no difference here and no difference there.

In accordance with whom is that which Rabbah bar Yosef said in the name of Rav, and some say Rav Yeiva bar Yosi said in the name of Rav: “One who consecrates his fellow’s animal gives its value”?^[4]

נותן דמיה - For a person knows that consecration does not take effect on something that is not his, and he resolved to speak in terms of its value.

In accordance with whom? In accordance with Rabbi Meir.

But Rav already said it once, for Rav Gidel said in the name of Rav: “One who says, ‘The evaluation of a vessel is upon me,’ gives its value”!^[5]

You might have said: there, it is because he knows that a vessel has no evaluation, so he resolved to speak in terms of value; but an animal, which is fit to be consecrated, one could say that this is what he meant: if I tell its owner, he will sell it to me; let it be consecrated from now and I will offer it,^[6] but its value he did not mention.

תיקדוש מהשתא ואקריבנה - When I acquire it – and he intended to consecrate its body, for he erred in this; but its value he did not mention. Therefore he should not give anything, for his consecration does not take effect on its body, and he did not intend its value.

It teaches us [otherwise].

קא משמע לן - That we do not say that he erred; rather, he certainly knows that his consecration does not take effect on its body, and he intended its value.

Rav Ashi said: And that is when he said “upon me”; but if he said “this is,” not.^[7]

והוא דאמר עלי - [He said:] “The value of my fellow’s animal is upon me to offer” – he gives the value, for he did not speak of the animal itself, but he accepted the value upon himself.

אבל אמר זו - He did not say “upon me,” but said, “This animal is an olah” – he has said nothing.

Mishnah

A gentile^[8] – Rabbi Meir says: He is evaluated, but does not evaluate.^[9]

מתני' עובד כוכבים נערך - If a Jew said, “His evaluation is upon me,” he gives his evaluation according to the gentile’s years.

אבל לא מעריך - But if the gentile said, “My evaluation is upon me,” or “The evaluation of others is upon me,” he has said nothing.

Rabbi Yehudah says: He evaluates, but is not evaluated.

ר' יהודה אומר מעריך - If he said of a Jew, “His evaluation is upon me.”

[אבל] לא נערך - That if he said, “My evaluation is upon me,” he has no evaluation; or if a Jew said, “The evaluation of this gentile is upon me,” he has said nothing.

And both agree that they may vow and be vowed.^[10]

Gemara

The Rabbis taught: The children of Israel evaluate, but gentiles do not evaluate.^[11]

I might have thought that they are not evaluated either; the verse says (Vayikra 27), “a man” – the words of Rabbi Meir.

גמ' איש - It implies anyone at all.

Rabbi Meir said: Now since one verse includes and one verse excludes, why do I say that he is evaluated but does not evaluate?

Because the Torah included more among those evaluated than among those who evaluate, for a deaf-mute, an insane person and a minor are evaluated but do not evaluate.^[12]

Rabbi Yehudah says: The children of Israel are evaluated, but gentiles are not evaluated.

I might have thought that they do not evaluate either; the verse says, “a man.”

Rabbi Yehudah said: Now since one verse includes and one verse excludes, why do I say that a gentile evaluates but is not evaluated?

Because the Torah included more among those who evaluate than among those evaluated, for a tumtum and an androgynos evaluate but are not evaluated.^[13]

Rava said: Rabbi Meir’s ruling is reasonable, his reason is not reasonable; Rabbi Yehudah’s reason is reasonable, his ruling is not reasonable.^[14]

Rabbi Meir’s ruling is reasonable, as it is written (Ezra 4), “It is not for you and us to build the house of our God.”^[15]

הלכתיה דר"מ מסתבר - That gentiles do not evaluate.

His reason is not reasonable, for he derives it from a deaf-mute, an insane person and a minor; a deaf-mute, an insane person and a minor are different, for they lack understanding.

וטעמיה לא מסתבר - For he derives his reason from a deaf-mute, an insane person and a minor, and one can refute: there it is because they lack understanding, for they also do not vow and do not consecrate; but a gentile, who vows and consecrates – for Rabbi Meir agrees that he vows and is vowed – say he also evaluates, were it not for this verse “not for you and us,” written in the book of Ezra, when gentiles were volunteering and wanting to help them build the Second Temple, and Nechemiah son of Chachaliah said to them, “It is not for you and us to build,” but for us alone.

Rabbi Yehudah’s reason is reasonable, for he derives it from a tumtum and an androgynos, who, although they have understanding, the Torah excluded.^[16]

טעמיה דר' יהודה מסתבר - For it is certainly more reasonable to apply the exclusion that the verse makes to those evaluated and the inclusion to those who evaluate; for a tumtum and an androgynos, who have understanding like gentiles, evaluate but are not evaluated, since the verse excluded them, as it is written “the male” – from the extra heh^[17] we expound: a definite male, and not a tumtum or an androgynos.

His ruling is not reasonable, as it is written, “It is not for you and us to build the house of our God.”

והלכתיה לא מסתבר - For he certainly does not evaluate, because evaluations go to the upkeep of the Temple, and the verse writes, “It is not for you and us to build.”

And Rabbi Yehudah – what does he do with this “not for you and us”?

Rav Chisda said in the name of Avimi: His evaluation is hidden away.^[18]

אמר אבימי - That which Rabbi Yehudah said, that they evaluate, is not because it goes to the upkeep of the Temple, for it is written “not for you and us”; rather, it is consecrated and hidden away, being forbidden for benefit.

But if so, one should not commit me’ilah with it,^[19] for we learned: “The five sin-offerings left to die, and money that goes to the Dead Sea – one may not benefit from them, but one does not commit me’ilah with them,”^[20]

אלא מעתה - Since it goes to destruction, one should not commit me’ilah with it: one who benefits from it should not be liable to a me’ilah offering; for we learned “sin-offerings left to die” – these are the sin-offerings we speak of in Temurah: “the offspring of a sin-offering and the substitute of a sin-offering,” etc.

ומעות ההולכות לים המלח - For they are like a sin-offering whose owner died, which goes to its death; and if a person benefits from them he is not liable to an offering, for we do not apply to it “from the holy things of Hashem” (Vayikra 5), since they go to destruction.

why then was it taught regarding the consecrated things of gentiles: “When is this said? With sanctities of the Altar; but with sanctities for the upkeep of the Temple, one commits me’ilah with them”?^[21]

ואילו גבי קדשי עובדי כוכבים - It is taught in [the order of] Shechitas Kodashim, in the chapter Beis Shammai (Zevachim 45b).^[22]

במה דברים אמורים - That one does not commit me’ilah with the sanctities of gentiles – that is with sanctities of the Altar, because we derive me’ilah from terumah through “sin”–“sin”:^[23] just as with terumah the death penalty applies only to terumah of Jews, for it is explicitly written (ibid. 22), “They shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel,” so me’ilah applies only to sanctities of Jews.

אבל קדשי עובדי כוכבים של בדק הבית מועלין בהן - And it explains there the reason: when me’ilah was derived from terumah through “sin”–“sin,” it was like terumah, which has sanctity of the body; but sanctity of value is not derived from it.^[24] This reason I found explained in Zevachim, and it is the main one, for it is explicitly taught there. And from the mouth of my teacher I heard: with gentiles’ sanctities of the Altar one does not commit me’ilah because we find a distinction between gentiles’ sanctities of the Altar and Jews’ sanctities of the Altar – that one is not liable for them for piggul, nosar and tamei,^[25] as we say in the first sugya of Temurah (2b); but with gentiles’ sanctities for the upkeep of the Temple we find no distinction, therefore one commits me’ilah with them. This I heard, but the first is the main one. In any case it teaches that one commits me’ilah with them – so it is not hidden away, since me’ilah applies to it.

Rather, Rava said: It is because of the weakening of hands,^[26] as it is written (Ezra 4), “And the people of the land weakened the hands of the people of Yehudah and frightened them from building.”^[27]

אלא אמר רבא - It certainly goes to the upkeep of the Temple; and in the days of Ezra, this was the reason they sent them, “not for you and us.”

משום רפיון ידים - Because they did not intend good, but that [the Jews] should rely on them too and listen to their counsel, and they would delay the building until they turned the heart of Koresh against building it.

Tosfos

יכול לא יהו נערכין ת"ל איש - Although “a man” is written of the one who evaluates, “a man” is written twice; if it is not needed for the one who evaluates, apply it to the one evaluated.^[28] And if you ask: we exclude gentiles by this “man” regarding temurah, in the first chapter of Temurah (3a)^[29] – one can answer that in the chapter Beis Shammai in tractate Zevachim (45a) there is another derivation to exclude gentiles from temurah, and it relies on that: we learn from animal tithe, an obligation with no fixed time, which Jews bring and gentiles do not bring.

שאני חרש שוטה וקטן דלאו בני דעה נינהו - And Rabbi Meir, who derives from them, holds that they are somewhat alike, since they are evaluated though they do not evaluate; so too he can say of gentiles.

אלא מעתה לא ימעלו בו - According to Rabbi Yehudah: why then was it taught, “but with sanctities for the upkeep of the Temple one commits me’ilah with it”? And to whom will you attribute it?^[30] It certainly cannot be explained according to Rabbi Meir, since he takes his ruling from “not for you and us,” which shows that gentiles do not consecrate for the upkeep of the Temple at all; and at least it does not follow Rabbi Yehudah. One cannot explain that according to the conclusion, because of the weakening of hands, it fits well with Rabbi Meir – that is not so, for Rabbi Meir does not hold this reason, since if so, from where would he derive the ruling that gentiles do not evaluate, from the verse “not for you and us”? And it requires study: since according to Rabbi Meir gentiles do not donate to the upkeep of the Temple, how did we learn, “both agree that they may vow” – gentiles do not vow for the upkeep of the Temple according to Rabbi Meir! It is forced to explain that “they may vow” means for the Altar, for apparently the Mishnah is like evaluations, which concern the upkeep of the Temple. Perhaps it is good to explain that Rava retracted, with this conclusion, from what he said at first, that the ruling follows Rabbi Meir from the verse “not for you and us.”^[31]

Notes

1. 1. On the previous amud [Arachin 5a] Rav Gidel quoted Rav: one who says “the evaluation of a vessel is upon me” pays its value. The Gemara there set this according to Rabbi Meir, who rules that one who evaluates a baby under a month old (who has no evaluation) pays the baby’s value. Now it asks what Rav added according to Rabbi Meir.
2. 2. That is, perhaps Rabbi Meir obligates one who evaluates a baby under a month old only as a precaution, lest people treat lightly the evaluation of a baby a month old, who does have an evaluation. With a vessel there is nothing to confuse it with.
3. 3. A person does not utter his words for nothing: he does not speak in vain, so when he uses a formula that cannot take effect as said, we assume he meant one that can – a pledge of the value.
4. 4. A person cannot consecrate what does not belong to him. Rav rules that since he knows this, he meant to pledge the animal’s value, and he pays it to hekdesh (the Temple treasury).
5. 5. That is, Rav’s ruling about the vessel already shows that one who knows his words cannot take effect as said means them as a pledge of value. Why did he need to say it again about a fellow’s animal?
6. 6. An animal can itself be consecrated, so perhaps he meant its body to become holy once he buys it. That does not take effect, and he never mentioned its value – so he would owe nothing.
7. 7. “Upon me” is the language of a vow (neder): he takes an obligation upon himself, so he owes the value. “This is” is the language of a freewill dedication (nedavah) of the animal itself, which cannot take effect on an animal that is not his.
8. 8. A gentile: a non-Jew. Rashi (as printed) calls him “oved kochavim.”
9. 9. Evaluated: someone else says “his evaluation is upon me” and pays the sum the Torah fixes for a person of his age and sex (Vayikra 27). Evaluates: he himself says “the evaluation of so-and-so is upon me.”
10. 10. To vow (nodrin) is to say “the value of so-and-so is upon me,” pledging his market worth as a slave; to be vowed (nidrin) is to have others pledge one’s value. Both agree a gentile may do both.
11. 11. The verse [Vayikra 27:2]: “Speak to the children of Israel and say to them: When a man expresses a vow by your evaluation of persons to Hashem.” “The children of Israel” excludes gentiles; “a man” includes anyone.
12. 12. A deaf-mute, an insane person and a minor lack legal understanding (da’as), so their vows do not bind and they cannot evaluate; but they have an evaluation, and others may evaluate them.
13. 13. A tumtum’s sex is concealed and unknown; an androgynos has both male and female features. The Torah fixes evaluations only for a definite male or female, so they have no evaluation; but having understanding, they may evaluate others.
14. 14. That is, Rabbi Meir’s conclusion – that a gentile does not evaluate – is right, but his proof is weak; Rabbi Yehudah’s proof is sound, but his conclusion is wrong.
15. 15. [Ezra 4:3] Zerubavel and Yeshua’s answer to the adversaries of Yehudah and Binyamin, who asked to join in building the Second Temple. Evaluations go to the upkeep of the Temple (bedek habayis), so a gentile’s evaluation is not accepted.
16. 16. That is, just as the tumtum and androgynos, though they have understanding, are excluded from being evaluated by decree of the verse, so the gentile evaluates but is not evaluated.
17. 17. The heh of “ha-zachar” (“the male,” Vayikra 27:3) is superfluous and teaches: a definite male.
18. 18. Hidden away: the money is consecrated and forbidden for benefit, but it is not used for the Temple; it is put away to be lost. So Rabbi Yehudah too agrees that the verse rejects a gentile’s contribution to the Temple.
19. 19. Me’ilah: one who inadvertently benefits from consecrated property brings an asham offering and repays its value plus a fifth (Vayikra 5:15).
20. 20. The five sin-offerings left to die: the offspring of a sin-offering, its substitute, one whose owner died, one whose owner already gained atonement with another, and one past its first year. They cannot be offered and are left to die. Something destined for destruction carries no me’ilah.
21. 21. Sanctities of the Altar are dedicated for offerings; sanctities of the Temple upkeep are dedicated for the Temple’s repair. If one commits me’ilah with a gentile’s Temple-upkeep dedication, it is not hidden away – a difficulty for Avimi.
22. 22. That is, in tractate Zevachim, in the chapter beginning “Beis Shammai” [Zevachim 45b].
23. 23. A gezeirah shavah (word analogy): “sin” is said both of me’ilah (Vayikra 5:15) and of terumah (Vayikra 22:9), so laws are derived from one to the other.
24. 24. Sanctity of the body: the thing itself is holy, as an offering. Sanctity of value: it is holy only for its worth, like property dedicated to the Temple upkeep, which is sold and its money used.
25. 25. Piggul: an offering during whose service one intended to eat it beyond its time; nosar: sacrificial meat left past its time; tamei: eating sanctities while impure [Temurah 2b].
26. 26. That is, they were refused not because a gentile’s gift is never accepted, but because they came to weaken the builders’ resolve. So according to Rabbi Yehudah a gentile’s evaluation does go to the Temple upkeep.
27. 27. The discussion continues on the next amud [Arachin 6a], with conflicting beraisos about a gentile who donated to the Temple upkeep.
28. 28. “If it is not needed for its own matter”: a rule of exposition – a verse superfluous in its own context is applied to another matter.
29. 29. Temurah: one who says of an ordinary animal “this instead of that” offering – both become holy. In Temurah [Temurah 3a] “a man” is expounded to exclude gentiles from temurah; Zevachim [Zevachim 45a] has another derivation.
30. 30. “To whom will you attribute it?” – that is, whose view does the beraisa follow?
31. 31. That is, by Rava’s conclusion – that “not for you and us” was said because of the weakening of hands – the ruling follows Rabbi Yehudah that a gentile evaluates, and Rava retracted his earlier “Rabbi Meir’s ruling is reasonable.”