017b – השג יד – פרק רביעי – ערכין, דף יז ע”ב

One [teaching] is about a poor leper whose vower is poor, and the other is to exclude a rich leper whose vower is poor.^[1]

ומשני חדא אמצורע עני ומדירו עני וחדא למעוטי מצורע עשיר ומדירו עני - It answers: one of those matters in the Mishnah — the one that teaches "if the leper was poor, he brings a poor offering" — certainly speaks of a poor vower, as we established; and from the other matter we derive that for offerings it is not so, for it teaches "if the leper was rich, he brings a rich offering," even though his vower is poor. That is to exclude a vower in the laws of valuations, since we do not follow the vower.

One might have thought^[2] that since both were included, both are included; he teaches us [otherwise].

ס"ד אמינא כו' - That is: it was necessary to teach us that "for offerings it is not so": where a rich leper has a poor vower, he brings a rich offering. For one might have thought: since the vower is included, and his hand does not reach [the full amount], the Merciful One had compassion on him when he is poor — and since a poor leper is included, even where the leper is rich, since he is poor, it teaches us. In my view the text reads otherwise, and I heard it as it is written in the books; its explanation is as I explained it, though this is not the approach of the Talmud.

For we find in [the laws of] valuations^[3] that a poor person who valued a rich person gives a poor valuation.

One might think: this too is so.

יכול אף זה כן - A poor person who said: "the offering of a rich leper is upon me."

The verse says: "if he is poor."

אם דל הוא - The Merciful One had compassion on him, and not on his vower.

And according to Rabbi, who says: "I say that in valuations too it is so."

ולרבי דאמר אף בערכין כן - For if he were rich and obligated in a valuation, and the poor one said "what he says is upon me," he gives a rich valuation. Thus we see that we follow the obligation of the one valued, where he owes something, like the leper. The case of a rich leper with a poor vower need not be excluded, for it is derived from valuations: he comes into riches.

Then it is evident that he holds we follow the one who bears the obligation.

But is a verse not needed to exclude it? To exclude what?

To exclude a poor leper whose vower is rich.

למעוטי מצורע עני ומדירו עשיר - Which he brings in riches. For the Rabbis there is no need to exclude, since in valuations we follow the vower, so in the leper's case too we follow the vower; but for Rabbi it is needed for this.

One might have thought: since Rabbi says we follow the one who bears the obligation, he teaches us [otherwise].

If he was poor and became rich, or rich and became poor, the poor one gives a rich valuation.

מתני' היה עני והעשיר - Mishnah: "if he was poor and then rich" — before the giving, or rich and then poor before the giving: he gives a rich valuation.

Rabbi Yehuda says: [if he was] poor and became rich, and then returned to poverty, the poor one gives a rich valuation.

But regarding offerings it is not so.^[4]

אבל בקרבנות אינו כן - That is: if he was a rich leper and then poor, or poor and then rich, everything follows the bringing of his offerings, as the baraita in the Gemara says, "a leper who brought his offerings." The reason is that it is fixed by Scripture for one as he holds, and for the other as he holds; but from all of them we learn that we follow the bringing of his offerings.

Even if his father died and left him ten thousand, or his ship at sea came to him in tens of thousands, nothing from it is consecrated.

אפי' מת אביו כו' - It refers to valuations, and it is a matter by itself: even if the father of this valuer died at the time the priest values him, and left him a myriad of maneh, or his ship, and so on. The Gemara explains it.

Poor and rich.

(Leviticus 27)^[5] "as the vower's hand reaches" — the rich, and the poor, "according to what his hand reaches."

גמ' עשיר והעני אשר תשיג יד הנודר - The Gemara: "rich and poor" — "as the vower's hand reaches" — implies that we follow the time of the vow.

Rabbi Yehuda says: even if he was poor and became rich, and returned to being poor, the poor one gives a rich valuation.

What is the reason^[6] of R. Yehuda? The verse says:

(Leviticus 27) "And if he has become poorer than your valuation" until his diminishment is from beginning to end.

But then (Leviticus 14): "And if he is poor" — so too, until his poverty is from beginning to end.

And if you say, that too is so.

But we learned in the Mishnah: A leper who brought his offerings^[7], poor and then rich, or rich and then poor — everything follows the sin-offering; these are the words of R. Shimon.

שהביא קרבנותיו - Some of his offerings.

הכל הולך אחר חטאת - If he brought a beast sin-offering when rich, he also brings a beast burnt-offering; and if he brought a bird sin-offering when poor, even though he later became rich, he also brings a burnt-offering when poor.

R. Yehuda says: everything follows the guilt-offering. And it was taught in a baraita:

R. Eliezer ben Yaakov says: everything follows the birds.^[8]

אחר צפורין - Two live birds that he brings for sprinkling before the shaving. If at the time they were sprinkled upon him he was poor, he brings his offerings in poverty; and if at that moment he was rich, he brings all his offerings in wealth.

Concerning this it was stated:

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: all three of them derived [their rulings] from one verse.

מקרא אחד דרשו - That it is a decree of Scripture.

(Leviticus 14) "Whose hand does not reach, in his purification"

R. Shimon holds: "a matter that atones" — what is it? The sin-offering.

דבר המכפר - For so it is written regarding a poor leper (Leviticus 14:32): "and the priest shall atone for him"; and the verse that follows, "this is the law of him in whom is the plague of tzara'at," implies that "whose hand does not reach" at the time of atonement, he shall have this law of poverty, even if his hand later reached [wealth].

And R. Yehuda holds: "a matter that makes fit" — and what is it? The guilt-offering.

דבר המכשיר - for so it implies: "whose hand does not reach" at the time of purity, he shall have the law of poverty and of purity. This is the guilt-offering, which makes him fit to enter the Temple and eat sacred food, for from the blood of the guilt-offering he places it on the thumbs and big toes and the lobes of the ears.

R. Eliezer ben Yaakov holds: "that which causes him purity" — and what is it? The birds.

צפרין גורמין לו טהרה - The birds cause him purity: as long as he has not brought the birds, he cannot shave.

Otherwise, why is that verse needed?

[Each verse works] for Rabbi as he holds, and for the Rabbis as they hold.

לרבי כדאית ליה כו' - As we expounded above.

But then (Leviticus 5): "and he" until he is fit from beginning to end.

And if you say, that too is so.

But it was taught in a baraita:

One who knew testimony about him before he became his son-in-law^[9], and became his son-in-law — if he was sighted and became deaf, if he was open and became closed, if he was sane and became insane — he is disqualified.

But one who knew the testimony before he became his son-in-law, and became his son-in-law —

סומא פסול לעדות - Because we require "or saw" (that the witness saw the events).

Tosafot

לפי שמצינו בערכין - Difficult: without this reason, "because we find in valuations" should have been said about a leper: a poor leper who said "the offering of the leper is upon me" gives a poor valuation, from the inclusive "poor" since his hand does not reach, to include the vower, as was derived above. One can answer: even if we did not find such a case in valuations, we would not derive from "if his hand does not reach" the case of a poor person who valued a rich person.

הכא נמי בתר חיובא דגברא [אזלינן] קמ"ל - Here too, "we follow the obligation of the person" — he teaches us. Rabbeinu Elchanan asked: since we said that also according to Rabbi, a poor leper whose vower is rich, we follow the obligation of the person, were it not for the verse that excludes him, then in valuations too let us say so: if a poor person said "my valuation is upon me," and a rich person heard and said "what this poor one said is upon me," he gives a poor valuation, since we have no verse excluding him, and we do not follow the obligation of the person there. Rabbeinu Elchanan answered that a leper is different: we could say we follow the obligation of the person, were it not for the verse that excludes him, since the leper's offering is the only thing he vows. But in valuations, where the rich one said "what this poor man said is upon me," it is obvious that we do not follow the obligation of the person: for if the poor man had no obligation at all and the rich man said "such-and-such a valuation is upon me," he would give a rich valuation; and all the more, if he is obligated, we cannot reduce it for the rich to give a poor valuation.

אבל בקרבנות [כו'] אפי' מת - One cannot explain that in valuations, if the priest values him while he is poor, he should wait until his father dies, who was rich, and then give a rich valuation. For the Tosefta on valuations says: a poor person who valued himself — we do not tell him to work and bring a rich valuation; rather it is better to bring the poor valuation than to bring a rich one later. This implies that one does not wait. Rather, the meaning is: even if his father died while he was dying — as the Gemara establishes for the leper's offerings, that if the father was dying at the time of bringing the sin-offering, and the father died before he finished bringing his offerings, nothing from them goes to the Temple — but in valuations it is not so: since the priest did not value him as poor for a sela, and before he finished giving the sela his father died, the rich man gives a rich valuation. It is difficult: why does the Gemara ask "obviously"? For it is taught that if the father died before he finished bringing his offerings and he became rich, nothing from them goes to the Temple. One can answer: it refers to R. Yehuda's words, who said "poor, then rich, and returned to poor, gives a rich valuation"; but for offerings, even if his father died while dying — e.g. he was first rich and then poor, and is now close to being rich from his father's inheritance — nothing goes to the Temple from them. The Gemara asks: "obviously nothing goes to the Temple, for he never had that money."

רבי יהודה סבר דבר המכשירו ומאי ניהו אשם - And if you ask: the Gemara says later (Arakhin 21) about one who says "my shekels are upon me," and in the third chapter of Nazir (19), that just as his sin-offering and guilt-offering are essential, so his burnt-offering is essential; so the sin-offering too should make fit, but here only the guilt-offering is said to make fit. One can answer: all of them are essential for eating sacred food, since in the sin-offering there is more atonement than in the guilt-offering. For the guilt-offering's whole purpose is only to make fit the leper, on whom one sprinkles blood of the guilt-offering on the thumbs and big toes; therefore it is called "the one that makes fit."

עד שלא נעשה חתנו ונעשה חתנו (ונעשה חתנו) ואח"כ מתה בתו כשר - This speaks where the daughter has no children, since it is established here according to R. Yehuda, who holds (Sanhedrin 27b): if he was his son-in-law and his daughter died, if she has children from him, this one is a relative; but if he has no children, he is not a relative.

Notes

1. 1. Vower – one who vowed, obligating himself to bring an offering by his vow.
2. 2. One might have thought – a hypothetical objection which the Gemara then rejects.
3. 3. Valuations (erakhin) – a sum a person pledges to the Temple, fixed by the priest according to age and means; the laws are in Leviticus 27.
4. 4. Meaning: for offerings, one follows the status of the one bringing them at the time of bringing, not at the time of the vow.
5. 5. Leviticus 27 – the chapter dealing with valuations and vows.
6. 6. Mah ta'ama – "what is the reason."
7. 7. After his purification the leper brings offerings: birds, a guilt-offering, a sin-offering, a burnt-offering, and a meal-offering.
8. 8. Birds – two live birds, one slaughtered and one sent free, which bring the leper to purity before he shaves.
9. 9. Son-in-law – the husband of one's daughter, or the father of one's husband; this kinship disqualifies a witness.