017a – יש בערכין – פרק שלישי – ערכין, דף יז ע”א

Punishment comes upon him by chance.

פורענות מזדמנת לו - For one who has gone forty days without suffering.

It was taught: Rabbi Eliezer the Great^[1] says: Had the Holy One, blessed be He, come with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in strict judgment^[2], they could not stand before the rebuke.

מפני התוכחה - That he rebuked them for their deeds.

As it is said: “Now therefore stand still, that I may reason with you before the LORD of all the righteous acts of the LORD which He did to you and to your fathers” (I Samuel 12:7); “This is the generation of those who seek Him, who seek Your face, O Jacob. Selah” (Psalms 24:6).

מאי דכתיב זה דור דורשיו - Equating the generation with those who seek Him.

They disagree about this: Rabbi Yehuda Nesia^[3] and the Rabbis. One says: the generation is judged according to its leader; the other says: the leader is judged according to his generation^[4].

What is the practical difference?

If you say it concerns merit: the one who holds that the generation follows the leader holds that if the leader has merit, the generation has merit; and the other holds that if the generation has merit, the leader has merit.

למעליותא - In the sense of piety.

But there is Tzidkiyahu^[5], who was meritorious while his generation was not meritorious.

And there is Yehoyakim^[6], who was not meritorious while his generation was meritorious.

For Rabbi Yochanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai^[7]: What is written, “In the beginning of the reign of Yehoyakim, king of Judah^[8]” (Jeremiah 26:1), [teaches]?

מאי שנא דכתיב ביהויקים וצדקיהו בראשית - Why is “bereshit” written about Yehoyakim and Tzidkiyahu? Because He wished to reverse the work of creation in their days.

The Holy One, blessed be He, wished to return the world to tohu va-vohu^[9] because of Yehoyakim, but when He looked at his generation, His mind was settled.

The Holy One, blessed be He, wished to return the world to tohu va-vohu because of the generation of Tzidkiyahu, but when He looked at Tzidkiyahu, His mind was settled.

Rather, we are speaking of the matter of anger (tokfa) and calm (nichuta)^[10].

End of the chapter: Yesh Be-Arakhin

Chapter Four: Hasag Yad

תוקפא - Anger.

ניחותא - Easy to appease.

The reach of the hand^[11] applies to the one who vows.

מתני' השג יד בנודר - The law of reach of the hand: a poor person is assessed in valuations according to what his hand can reach, as it is written, “If he is poor, he shall be valued”; we follow the vower and not the one vowed, as will be explained below.

And the years apply to the one vowed.

והשנים בנידר - As will be explained below: a child who valued an elder gives the elder's value, since we do not follow the years of the vower, for he did not say “my valuation is upon me” but “the valuation of so-and-so is upon me”; and the value of an elder over sixty is less than the value of a child.

And valuations^[12] apply to the one valued.

והערכין בנערך - The valuation scale for male and female follows the one valued and not the valuer, as will be explained below: a man who valued a woman, saying “the valuation of so-and-so is upon me,” gives the value of the one valued.

And the value is fixed at the time of the valuation.

בזמן הערך - As will be explained below: if he valued himself under twenty, it is a minor's valuation; and if before giving he became twenty, he gives only the amount he was when he first valued.

The reach of the hand in a vow, how? If a poor man valued a rich man, he gives the poor man's value; if a rich man valued a poor man, he gives the rich man's value.

But with offerings it is not so.

If one said, “The offering of this leper^[13] is upon me”: if the leper was poor, he brings a poor man's offering; if he was rich, he brings a rich man's offering.

Rabbi^[14] says: I say that also with valuations it is so.

אומר אני אף בערכין כן - That is, if it were in valuations as in offerings, it would be like offerings. You said that valuations are not like offerings, because they are not alike: why does a poor man who valued a rich man give the poor man's value according to his means? Because the rich man is not obligated at all, and it is not like the leper. He who spoke about the rich man intended only the rich man's years, which are less or more than his own; therefore he is judged by reach of the hand, since he specified nothing but the valuation of the rich man's years, and the law of valuation is judged by reach of the hand.

And why, if a poor man valued a rich man, does he give the poor man's value?

Because the rich man is not obligated at all.

But if a rich man said, “My valuation is upon me,” and a poor man heard and said, “What he said is upon me,” he gives the rich man's value.

אבל עשיר שאמר ערכי עלי - That he is obligated a full valuation, like a rich leper, and a poor man heard, etc.^[15]

The reach of the hand is stated for the valuer (the one who values).

גמ' וקפריך השג יד במעריך הוא - And not for the vower: one who says “my value is upon me” is not judged by reach of the hand; he gives what he can, as we learn in the chapter “The one who says my weights are upon me” (below, 20b): vows are stricter than valuations, since vows are not judged by reach of the hand.

As it is written: “According to what the hand of the vower can reach, the priest shall value him” (Leviticus 27:8).

ומשני כדכתיב על פי אשר תשיג וגו' - That is: the one called here “the vower” is the valuer; the Gemara uses the language of the verse.

The years are stated in the case of the vower^[16], and in the case of the one valued, it is because, having said “the reach of the hand in a vow,” the Mishnah also said “the years in a vow.”

השנים בנערך ולא בנידר - One who says “the valuation of so-and-so is upon me” is not judged by the years, but according to how that person is sold in the market.

“The reach of the hand in a vow, how? A poor man who valued a rich man gives the poor man's value.”

What is the reason?

For the verse says, “What the hand of the vower can reach”; the Merciful One attached it to the vower.

But with offerings it is not so: if one said, “The offering of this leper is upon me,” and the leper was poor, he brings a poor man's offering.

Even though his vower is rich.

ואף על גב דמדירו עשיר - “His vower” here means one who said, “the offering of this leper is upon me.”

(Leviticus 14:21): “If he is poor^[17]”; the Merciful One said it.

And not “he is poor”; Rabbi Yitzchak said: this is when the one who vowed for him was poor.

Perhaps the Merciful One had pity on him because of his own means, but not on the vower.

דלמא עליה דמצורע חס רחמנא - Perhaps the Merciful One had pity on the leper because of poverty, but not on the one who vowed for him, even though he is poor.

For it is written: Rav Ada bar Ahava^[18] said, “and his hand does not reach”, to include the vower.

But if his vower is rich, so too he brings the offering of a rich man.

If so, what is the meaning of “But with offerings it is not so”?

מאי אבל בקרבנות אינו כן - This too: in offerings also the law follows the vower.

Tosafot

מתני' השג יד בנודר והשנים בנידר והערכין בנערך - Why did it not combine them and teach “the years and valuations in the case of the one valued”? And further: why did it not teach “a male gives the value of a female,” so that later there would be no need to say “valuations in the case of the one valued”?

כיצד עני שהעריך את העשיר כו' - (Rashi's explanation.) Above (Arakhin 7b), in the chapter “Ein Nei'erakhin Pachot”, etc.

השג יד בנודר במעריך הוא - “For the valuer” specifically, not the vower, as is said below in “the one who says my weights are upon me” (Arakhin 20b): vows are stricter than valuations, since vows apply to animals and birds and are not judged by reach of the hand, unlike valuations. (This is to exclude a rich leper.)

השג יד בנודר כיצד עני שהעריך את העשיר נותן ערך עני - In the name of Rabbi Menachem Meiuni: for example, a rich man who said, “my valuation is upon me,” and a poor man heard and said, “this is upon me,” gives the poor man's valuation; but with offerings it is not so, since if he said “the offering of this leper is upon me”... Rabbi disagrees and says: a rich man who said “my valuation is upon me,” and a poor man heard and said “what he said is upon me,” gives the rich man's valuation, as with offerings. And so, it seems, is the meaning of the Mishnah.

אבל מדירו עשיר מאי הכי נמי דמייתי בעשירות א"ה מאי אבל בקרבנות אינו כן - But surely with offerings the law is the same: if a rich man said, “The offerings of a poor leper are upon me,” he brings a rich offering; so what is the difference between offerings and valuations? The answer: it is a case of a rich leper with a poor vower. For in the case of a leper, if a poor man said, “The offering of a rich leper is upon me,” he gives a rich man's valuation, since we do not follow the vower; but in valuations we follow the vower. And if a rich man said, “My valuation is upon me,” and a poor man heard and said, “What he said is upon me,” he gives a poor man's valuation, since we follow the vower. Therefore it was necessary to exclude [the rich leper], since we do not follow the vower, as in valuations. But according to Rabbi, who says that valuations and offerings are equal in this law, it was not necessary to exclude a rich leper whose vower is poor, since in valuations too the law is so. Rather, it was necessary to exclude a poor leper whose vower is rich, lest one think: since Rabbi follows the obligation of the person, so too we follow the person's obligation and he brings a poor man's offering; the Gemara teaches that this is not so. But according to the Rabbis it was not necessary to exclude a poor leper whose vower is rich, since in valuations we follow the vower, so it is clear that in the case of a leper too we follow the vower, and it was not needed for this, as explained. So Rashi explains. And if we examine the sugya here, so it is. But one must study Rabbi, who compares “A rich man says, my valuation is upon me” to the offering of a rich leper: the poor vower must bring a rich offering. And this is only when the poor man said, “The offerings of this leper are upon me”, to release himself. If he said so in valuations, what is the reason of the Rabbis? Since he said, “What he said is upon me,” to release himself, he has explicitly vowed fifty sela'im; how is he released with a poor man's valuation?

Notes

1. 1. Rabbi Eliezer the Great (Eliezer ben Hyrcanus), a tanna of the second generation.
2. 2. Din: strict judgment, by the measure of justice. Under it no one could stand.
3. 3. Rabbi Yehuda Nesia, the leader (nasi) and a leading sage of his generation.
4. 4. The dispute: does the generation follow its leader (dor le-fi parnas), or the leader follow the generation (parnas le-fi doro)?
5. 5. Tzidkiyahu, the last king of Judah, a righteous man.
6. 6. Yehoyakim, king of Judah, who did evil in God's eyes.
7. 7. Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, a tanna.
8. 8. The verse dates the prophecy to "bereshit", the beginning of Yehoyakim's reign. The Gemara hears in the word an echo of Creation (ma'aseh bereshit).
9. 9. Tohu va-vohu: the formless and empty state of the world before Creation (Genesis 1:2).
10. 10. Tokfa means force or anger; nichuta means calm or appeasement. The Gemara concludes that the question is about God's anger and his calm, not about merit.
11. 11. Hasag yad, "reach of the hand": the valuation is set by what the vower can afford.
12. 12. Arakhin (valuations): a vow to give the monetary value of a person to the Temple, fixed by age and sex (Vayikra 27:1-8).
13. 13. A leper brings the offerings of Vayikra 14; a poor leper brings the smaller set.
14. 14. Rabbi: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, redactor of the Mishnah.
15. 15. Rashi explains the Mishnah's words here; the "etc." stands for the Mishnah text printed above.
16. 16. Shenayim: the ages in the valuation scale. The Gemara asks whether the age follows the vower or the one valued.
17. 17. Vayikra 14:21: "if he is poor and his means do not reach": the poor leper's lesser offering.
18. 18. Rav Ada bar Ahava, an Amora.