006b – הכל מעריכין – פרק ראשון – ערכין, דף ו ע”ב

Is that so? But Rabbi Yannai would borrow and repay!^[1]

רבי ינאי - He was a charity collector, and he would borrow the charity money for his own needs and repay.

Rabbi Yannai is different, for it is agreeable to the poor, since the longer he delays, he presses [the donors] and brings them [more].^[2]

דכמה דמשהי - Rabbi Yannai, who has no money to repay – it is agreeable to the poor.

דמעשה - Rabbi Yannai [presses] the community, saying that he has no money to distribute to the poor, and compels them to give charity; and so there is a gain for the poor.

The Rabbis taught: “A Jew who donated a menorah or a lamp to a synagogue – it is forbidden to change it.”^[3]

מנורה - As it sounds.

נר - A croisel^[4] of silver or of gold.

Rabbi Chiya bar Abba thought to say: there is no difference whether for an optional matter or for a mitzvah matter.^[5]

Rav Ami said to him: Thus said Rabbi Yochanan: They taught this only for an optional matter, but for a mitzvah matter it is permitted to change it.

[This follows] from what Rabbi Assi said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: “A gentile who donated a menorah or a lamp to a synagogue – as long as its owner’s name has not been forgotten, it is forbidden to change it; once its owner’s name has been forgotten, it is permitted to change it.”^[6]

מדאמר ר' אסי כו' - That is: since Rabbi Assi chose a gentile, who complains and cries out, “Why did you change what I gave?” – it follows that a Jew, who does not complain, may change it for a mitzvah matter; for if it were forbidden with a Jew, why would he need to choose a gentile?

שלא נשתקע שם בעליה ממנה - For people still say, “This is the menorah donated by So-and-so the gentile.”

אסור לשנותה - Because he complains.

For what [use]?

ולמאי - [For what use] did Rabbi Assi say that it is forbidden to change it? If you say, etc.

If you say for an optional matter – why specifically a gentile? Even a Jew too [may not change it]!

Rather, for a mitzvah matter; and the reason is that a gentile complains,^[7] but a Jew, who does not complain – it is fine.

Sha’azrak the Arab^[8] donated a lamp to the synagogue of Rav Yehudah; Rechava changed it, and Rava objected.

שעזרק - He was a gentile.

Some say: Rava changed it, and Rechava objected.

And some say: the attendants of Pumbedita^[9] changed it, and Rechava objected and Rabbah objected.

The one who changed it held that he is not often around; and the one who objected held that sometimes he happens to come.

לא שכיח - Sha’azrak [is not often] in the town to complain, for he was a merchant and travelled around the towns.

Mishnah

One in death throes and one going out to be executed^[10] – [their value] cannot be vowed and they cannot be evaluated.^[11]

מתני' הגוסס והיוצא ליהרג כו' - The Gemara explains the reason.

Rabbi Chanina ben Akavya says: He can be evaluated, because his value is fixed.^[12]

ר"ח בן עקביא - He disputes concerning one going out to be executed, but concerning one in death throes he agrees, for it is written (ויקרא כז), “He shall stand him … and [the kohen] shall evaluate him,”^[13] and one in death throes is not fit to be stood up and evaluated.

שדמיו קצובין - In the passage of evaluations. But concerning vowing [his value] he agrees, for that must be assessed as one sold in the market, and this one is not sold in the market – that is, no one would buy him and lose his money.^[14]

Rabbi Yosi says: He may vow, evaluate and consecrate; and if he caused damage, he is liable.^[15]

נודר ומעריך כו' - And in the Gemara it explains what Rabbi Yosi comes to tell us, since the Tanna Kamma did not say “he does not vow” – that if he said, “The value of So-and-so is upon me,” he would be exempt – for he said, “[his value] cannot be vowed.”

Gemara

Granted, one in death throes cannot be vowed, for he has no monetary value, and he cannot be evaluated, for he is not fit to be stood up and evaluated. But one going out to be executed – granted, he cannot be vowed, for he has no monetary value; but why can he not be evaluated?

גמ' אלא לא נערך אמאי לא - His value is fixed!

For it was taught: From where [do we know] that one going out to be executed who said, “My evaluation is upon me,” has said nothing? The verse says (Vayikra 27), “Any proscribed [person] shall not be redeemed.”^[16]

כל חרם לא יפדה - One who is fit to be proscribed and executed is not included in redemption.

I might think even before his sentence was concluded; the verse says (Vayikra 27), “of man” – and not all of man.^[17]

And according to Rabbi Chanina ben Akavya, who said, “he can be evaluated, because his value is fixed,” what does he do with this “any proscribed”?

[He needs it] for that which was taught: Rabbi Yishmael the son of Rabbi Yochanan ben Beroka says: Since we find that those liable to death at the hands of Heaven give money and are atoned for, as it is said (Shemos 21), “If a ransom is laid upon him,”^[18]

למומתין בידי שמים - Such as that which is written, “The ox shall be stoned, and its owner too shall be put to death”; and this death cannot be said to be at human hands, for we say in the first chapter of Sanhedrin (דף טו:):^[19] “The one who struck shall surely be put to death, he is a murderer” – for his own murder you execute him, but you do not execute him for the murder done by his ox.

I might think that with death at human hands it is the same; the verse says, “Any proscribed [person] shall not be redeemed.”

I only have the severe death penalties, whose inadvertent transgression was not given atonement; the lighter death penalties, whose inadvertent transgression was given atonement – from where? The verse says, “Any proscribed.”^[20]

שלא ניתנה שגגתן לכפרה - Such as a blasphemer and one who curses his father, for if he did it inadvertently there is neither an offering nor exile.

מיתות קלות - That is, lighter in this respect, that their inadvertent transgression was given atonement, such as a murderer, whose inadvertent act brings exile, and one who serves idols, desecrates Shabbos, or has forbidden relations, whose inadvertent act brings a sin-offering.^[21]

“Rabbi Yosi says: He may vow and evaluate, etc.”^[22]

But does the Tanna Kamma say that he may not?

Rather, concerning vowing, evaluating and consecrating, all agree; where they disagree is “if he caused damage.”

כולי עלמא לא פליגי - That certainly his vow is a vow and his consecration is consecration, and he may evaluate others, for he is a person of understanding.

The Tanna Kamma holds: if he caused damage he is not liable to pay; and Rabbi Yosi holds: if he caused damage he is liable to pay.

On what do they disagree?

Rav Yosef said: They disagree whether an oral loan is collected from the heirs.^[23]

מלוה על פה - Such as this one who caused damage and did not stand trial over it before his death. Payments for damage are written in the Torah, and by Torah law [his property] is pledged to [the injured party] even against his will.

The Tanna Kamma holds: an oral loan is not collected from the heirs; and Rabbi Yosi holds: an oral loan is collected from the heirs.

Rava said: All agree that an oral loan is not collected from the heirs; and here they disagree about a debt written in the Torah.^[24]

The Tanna Kamma holds: a debt written in the Torah is not like one written in a document; and Rabbi Yosi holds: it is like one written in a document.

And some teach it on this [beraisa]:^[25]

ואיכא דמתני לה - This [dispute] of Rav Yosef and Rabbah.

“One going out to be executed – if he wounded others, he is liable; if others wounded him, they are exempt.

חייב - For he is a person of understanding.

פטורין - For he has no monetary value and he stands to be wounded [in his execution]; and all these [rulings] speak of one to be executed under Jewish law.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Even he, if he wounded others, is exempt, because he is not given to being brought back to stand in court …”^[26]

Tosfos

אילימא לדבר הרשות מאי איריא עובד כוכבים אפילו ישראל נמי - It could equally have said: why specifically [before] its owner’s name has been forgotten? Even [after] it has been forgotten too [it should be forbidden]!

מנין ליוצא ליהרג ואמר ערכי עלי שלא אמר כלום - And because he has no monetary value, one cannot exclude [him], for above (דף ב.) one who is repulsive and one afflicted with boils were included.^[27]

כי פליגי באם הזיק - But about “if he consecrated” they do not disagree, for as soon as he consecrates, the consecration takes effect, and it is not like a loan. But one may ask: why do they not disagree about “if he vowed or evaluated”? One can answer that it mentions “damaged” because it teaches “liable to pay” (because) [on “damaged”], which implies that they disagree about “damaged” alone; and with vowing and evaluating, perhaps it takes effect at once, but [the question of] collecting from the heirs [remains]. And “he may vow and evaluate” was needed, for I might have thought: since he cannot be vowed or evaluated, he also cannot vow or evaluate; it teaches us that he vows, evaluates and consecrates like other people.

Notes

1. 1. The Gemara challenges the beraisa at the end of the previous amud [Arachin 6a]: “once [the coin] has reached the hand of the gabbai, it is forbidden to change it.” The gabbai is the charity collector and treasurer; “changing” the money includes borrowing it for himself.
2. 2. The word מעשה means “compels.” While the fund appears empty, Rabbi Yannai presses the community to give more, so the poor gain from his delay in repaying (Rashi).
3. 3. “To change it” – to use it for a purpose other than the one the donor intended.
4. 4. An Old French word (croisel): a hanging oil lamp.
5. 5. An “optional matter” is a use that is not a mitzvah; a “mitzvah matter” is a use for another mitzvah.
6. 6. Until its owner’s name is forgotten – until people no longer say, “This is So-and-so’s donation” (Rashi).
7. 7. He cries out in complaint, “Why did you change what I gave?” (Rashi). Changing a gentile’s gift could cause resentment against the community.
8. 8. A Tayya is an Arab; Sha’azrak was a gentile, a travelling merchant (Rashi). Rechava was an Amora of Pumbedita, a student of Rav Yehudah, whose synagogue this was.
9. 9. Chazanim here are the synagogue attendants. Pumbedita was Rav Yehudah’s town and the seat of his yeshivah.
10. 10. A goses is one in his final death throes; “one going out to be executed” is one whom beis din has sentenced to death.
11. 11. “Cannot be vowed” – one who says “his value is upon me” (his worth as a slave in the market) owes nothing; “cannot be evaluated” – one who says “his evaluation is upon me” (the sum fixed by the Torah by age and sex) owes nothing.
12. 12. The evaluation is a sum fixed in the Torah by age and sex; it does not depend on the person’s market worth, so the condemned man’s lack of worth should not matter.
13. 13. “He shall stand him before the kohen, and the kohen shall evaluate him” (Vayikra 27:8): the one evaluated must be stood before the kohen, and one in death throes cannot be stood up.
14. 14. One who vows “So-and-so’s value” pays what that person would fetch if sold as a slave; no one would buy a man about to be executed, so he has no value.
15. 15. “If he caused damage, he is liable” – if he damaged others before his execution, he must pay, and it is collected from his property after his death.
16. 16. “Any proscribed [person] who is proscribed from among men shall not be redeemed; he shall surely be put to death” [Vayikra 27:29]: expounded about one sentenced to death, who has no redemption and no evaluation.
17. 17. “Of man, and not all of man” – only once his sentence has been concluded is he not evaluated; before that he is evaluated like anyone else.
18. 18. “If a ransom is laid upon him” [Shemos 21:30]: the owner of a forewarned ox that killed a person is liable to death at the hands of Heaven, and he pays a ransom (kofer) instead and is atoned for.
19. 19. [Sanhedrin 15b]: there it is derived that beis din does not execute the owner for a killing done by his ox.
20. 20. Here “severe” and “lighter” are not by the mode of execution but by whether the inadvertent transgression has atonement through an offering or exile (Rashi).
21. 21. Exile: one who kills inadvertently flees to a city of refuge. A sin-offering (chatas) is brought for the inadvertent violation of a sin whose deliberate violation carries kares.
22. 22. In the Mishnah Rabbi Yosi rules that one going out to be executed may vow, evaluate and consecrate, and pays if he caused damage; the Tanna Kamma said only that he himself “cannot be vowed or evaluated.”
23. 23. An oral loan is one made without a document. A loan with a document places a lien on the borrower’s property and is collected from his heirs; whether an oral loan is collected from heirs is disputed. Damages not collected before the execution can only be collected from the heirs.
24. 24. A debt written in the Torah is one the Torah itself imposes, such as payment for damage; the question is whether it carries a lien on property like a loan with a document.
25. 25. That is, some teach the dispute of Rav Yosef and Rava on the following beraisa, where the Tanna Kamma and Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar disagree.
26. 26. The discussion continues on the next amud [Arachin 7a]: “This implies that the Tanna Kamma holds he is given to being brought back to court.” Rashi “לחזרת עמידת ב"ד”, which explains this line (he cannot be brought back to court over his wounding, since his sentence is not delayed), is printed there.
27. 27. [Arachin 2a]: there one who is repulsive and one afflicted with boils are included in evaluations although they have no market value; so the condemned man cannot be excluded for that reason alone.