020a – האומר משקלי עלי – פרק חמישי – ערכין, דף כ ע”א

Shall we estimate him once for both ^[1], or, since he made the vows one after the other, do we estimate him twice?

בחד זימנא אמדינן ליה - He pays double, in money.

And if you would say: since he vowed one after the other, we estimate him twice.

If he said: two valuations are upon me at once, what is the law?

Here, if he vowed at one time, it is clear that we estimate him once. Or perhaps, since he said 'two of this kind, one after the other,' we estimate him twice?

If you would say: since he said 'two of this kind, one after the other', [then we do estimate him twice].

They estimated him of their own accord: what is the law?

אמדוהו מאליו - Without any need, only to appraise things in general, with ten people present: what is the law?

Does an estimate made of his own accord stand, or do we require deliberate intent for an estimation?

This is proved from one Mishnah: 'My worth is upon me,' and he dies: the heirs do not pay, since there is no worth for the dead. ^[2]

פשוט מהא מתני' חדא - This Mishnah settles these questions.

שאין דמים למתים - Because we did not know from the beginning how much it was worth.

And if you say they estimated him of their own accord, that is an estimation, and 'he was estimated and stands'.

הא אמיד וקאי - Because there is no person who is not worth four zuz.

Is there any man who is not worth four zuz? ^[3]

They estimated him of their own accord: he is included in the estimation.

But 'my worth is upon me' is not included in the estimation.

לא נחית לאומדנא - That he was never valued before; only now are we valuing him, and we require an estimate.

Valuations are more stringent than vows. How so? ^[4]

One who says, 'My valuation is upon me,' and dies, the heirs pay.

מתני' ערכי עלי - This is a fixed sum, therefore the heirs pay.

'My worth is upon me,' and he dies: the heirs do not pay, since there is no worth for the dead.

שאין דמים למתים - And as for what is taught in Bava Kama (27a): 'and he gives the ransom of his life' (the damages for injury): there the reason is that from the moment of the injury the obligation to pay falls on him as at the time of the injury, and at that moment he was alive. But 'my worth is upon me': he vows only what the court will assess, and this did not come about, since he died; the heirs do not pay.

'The valuation of my hand and the valuation of my foot is upon me': he has said nothing.

'The valuation of my head and the valuation of my liver is upon me': he gives the full valuation. ^[5]

נותן ערך כולו - 'According to your valuation, persons' is written.

This is the principle: anything on which life depends, he gives its full valuation.

'Half my valuation is upon me': he gives half his valuation.

'The valuation of my half is upon me': he gives the full valuation.

ערך חציי עלי - Is like the valuation of the head and the valuation of the liver, since it is a matter on which life depends.

'Half my worth is upon me': he gives half his worth.

'The worth of my half is upon me': he gives the full worth.

דמי חציי עלי נותן דמי כולו - For it is taught in the chapter 'Hasag Yad' (above 18a): the Torah compared money-vows to valuations, to be judged by his [means].

This is the principle: anything on which life depends, he gives the full worth.

One who says, 'The valuation of so-and-so is upon me,' and the vower dies, or the one named dies: the heirs pay.

'The worth of so-and-so is upon me,' and the vower dies: the heirs pay.

If the one named dies, the heirs do not pay, since there is no worth for the dead.

A Tanna taught: vows are more stringent than valuations, for vows apply to domestic animals, wild animals and birds.

גמ' על בהמה - If he said, 'the value of my animal is upon me' [this is money], but a valuation applies only to a person.

and they are not judged by means, unlike valuations. ^[6]

ואינן נידונין בהשג יד - For if he said 'my worth is upon me' and his means do not reach, he gives it all when he is able.

Valuations are more stringent than vows. How so?

He said: 'My valuation is upon me,' and he dies: the heirs pay.

'My worth is upon me,' and he dies: the heirs do not pay, since there is no worth for the dead.

'My valuation is upon me,' and he dies: the heirs pay.

We learn that an oral loan is collected from the heirs. ^[7]

ש"מ מלוה על פה כו' - And there is a disagreement in several places.

But there it is different: here the loan is one that the Torah itself writes.

We learn that a loan written in the Torah is like a loan written in a document.

ש"מ מלוה הכתובה כו' - And there is a disagreement in tractate Bekhorot, chapter 'Yesh Bekhor Lenachalah' (49b).

The case is when he stood in judgment. ^[8]

כשעמד בדין - And they obligated him before his death, so it is like a loan with a document.

The same applies to 'my worth is upon me', when he stood in judgment.

Why do the heirs not pay for 'my worth is upon me'?

אמאי לא יתנו יורשין - Behold, the court estimated him.

Because the sum lacked an estimate.

מחסרא אומדנא - That they obligated him to pay, and did not manage to estimate him before he died.

But 'my valuation is upon me' does not lack an estimate, and it is not nothing.

'The valuation of my hand and my foot is upon me', etc. ^[9]

R. Gidal said in the name of Rav ^[10]: and he gives its worth.

But the Mishnah teaches: he has said nothing.

That is according to the Rabbis, who hold that he has said nothing.

לא אמר כלום לרבנן - For we say in the first chapter (5a): a person does not void his words.

And he gives its worth is according to R. Meir. ^[11]

But this was already said once: R. Gidal said, Rav said [that].

'One who says, the valuation of this vessel is upon me, gives its worth.' Lest you say ^[12]

נותן דמיו - And we established in the first chapter that it is said according to R. Meir.

There, a person knows that a vessel has no valuation, and so he meant money by it.

But here he errs: he thinks that just as there is a valuation of the head and the liver, there is also a valuation of the hand and the foot.

But he did not say 'its worth': this teaches us.

אבל דמי לא קאמר - Therefore he does not pay the money; this teaches us.

'The valuation of the head and the liver is upon me': he gives the full valuation.

What is the reason? The Torah said 'persons' (nefashot).

'This is the principle: anything on which life depends', etc.

'To include' ^[13] from the knee and upward.

'Half my valuation is upon me', he gives, etc.

A beraita taught: 'Half my valuation is upon me': he gives half its valuation.

R. Yose b. R. Yehuda says: he is flogged, and gives the full valuation.

Why is he flogged?

R. Pappa said: he is flogged for the full valuation.

What is the reason? It is a decree: 'half my valuation' is treated like 'the valuation of his half', and the valuation of his half is a matter on which life depends.

'Half my worth is upon me': he gives, etc.

'The worth of my half is upon me': he gives the full worth.

What is the reason? It is written: 'When a man shall clearly vow the valuation of persons' (Leviticus 27). ^[14]

נדר בערכך - Vows are compared to valuations.

'This is the principle: anything on which life depends.'

'To include' from the knee and upward.

A Tanna taught: one who assesses half the valuation of a vessel: R. Meir says he gives its worth, and the Sages say he has said nothing.

Rava ^[15] fell ill. Abaye and the Rabbis came, sat down, and said:

Granted, R. Meir holds that a person does not void his words ^[16], whether for the whole or for half. But the Rabbis, what do they hold?

It makes no difference whether it is the whole or the half.

ל"ש כולו ול"ש חציו - And we are taught about the half, and certainly about the whole: even though it is not usual to donate half the value of a vessel, he nevertheless gives it, and certainly the whole.

But the Rabbis, what do they hold?

If a person does void his words, then even for the whole [it would be void].

אפי' כולו נמי - Even if he said 'the valuation of this vessel is upon me', he is exempt.

And if a person does not void his words, then even for half [it is binding].

[Abaye and Rava] said to them: the Rabbis here hold like R. Meir.

סברי לה כר"מ - Therefore they do not disagree about the whole.

They also hold like R. Shimon; they hold like R. Meir, who says a person does not void his words.

And they hold like R. Shimon, who says he did not donate as donors do: the whole is the way to donate, a part is not the way to donate. ^[17]

ר"ש פוטר - R. Shimon exempts: one who says 'a meal-offering from the measures is upon me' (Menachot, ch. 2, 103a).

One who says, 'The valuation of so-and-so is upon me,' and the vower dies, etc.

What does 'stood in judgment' mean?

מאי ניהו שעמד בדין - That is: the Mishnah says 'the heirs pay'; how can this be explained? Only if he stood in judgment before his death, as established for the first clause. And why does it teach it again?

This is the same as the last clause; it was needed to teach the case: 'The worth of so-and-so is upon me, and the vower dies: the heirs pay.'

Tosafot

אמדוהו מאליו מהו מי אמרי' כו' - Here the question is not answered by 'if you say, like the case above'; he could have asked it alone, but he wanted to join it to the other questions.

דמי עלי ומת לא יתנו יורשים לפי שאין דמים וכו' - The Bava Kama case, 'he gives the ransom of his life': there they assess him after death, as he was worth while alive, and this is a decree of the verse. But here he vowed only what the court will assess, and since he died before the assessment, the heirs do not pay his worth.

ת"ר חומר בנדרים מבערכין כו' - This is difficult: why does the Gemara not challenge the Tanna, who says 'this is the stricter rule of vows over valuations, and nothing more', when there are many [such stricter rules]? The answer: in Bava Metzia (57b), the stricter point of sacred property over ordinary property is no novelty, so the challenge is raised; but here the stricter point of vows over valuations is a real novelty, so the challenge 'this is the stricter point and nothing more' cannot be raised; the Tanna taught it and omitted the rest.

ואין נידונין בהשג יד כערכין - And it is difficult, since we asked above (18a) that monetary vows are compared to valuations, 'a pearl to light things', and there is no comparison of a half. One can say there is one exclusion, the verse 'the priest shall value it' regarding valuations, which implies him and no other; so regarding valuations he is judged by his means, but not regarding vows.

לאתויי מן הארכובה ולמעלה - Why did he specify 'from the knee upward' more than the other eighteen kinds of tereifah? The answer: there is an extra point here, to exclude R. Shimon, who says (Chullin 42b) that she can bend and live.

ת"ר המעריך חצי ערך כלי ר"מ אומר נותן דמיו - The reading in most editions does not seem right: otherwise, what is the meaning of 'a part is not customary to donate' below, and why is it not customary to donate half the value of a vessel? So it seems to R. Yitzchak that the reading is 'the one who values the worth of half a vessel', and then it is clear: 'a part is not customary to donate', since half a vessel has no worth at all.

Notes

1. 1. Estimation (אומדנא): the court's valuation of the sum of a vow. The question is whether two valuations said at one time are estimated once, or are estimated as separate vows, as if said one after the other.
2. 2. 'There is no worth for the dead' (אין דמים למתים): a monetary vow ('my worth is upon me') is not collected from the heirs, because the sum was never fixed while the vower was alive.
3. 3. Four zuz (ארבעה זוזי) make one sela, a common minimal sum. The point: every person is worth at least this much.
4. 4. Valuations (ערכין) are a vow to give the value of a person, fixed by the Torah (Leviticus 27). They are treated differently from vows (נדרים) of objects.
5. 5. Kaved (כבד) is the liver. The head and the liver are organs on which life depends, so their valuation is given in full.
6. 6. Hasagat yad (השגת יד): a person is judged according to what his hand can reach, that is, what he can afford. The Gemara says valuations are judged this way, while vows of animals, wild beasts and birds are not.
7. 7. An oral loan (מלוה על פה) is a debt without a document. The Gemara contrasts it with a debt the Torah itself writes (מלוה הכתובה בתורה), which is treated like a document.
8. 8. 'Standing in judgment' (עמד בדין): he was sued and ordered to pay during his life. Such a debt is like a loan secured by a document, so the heirs pay.
9. 9. The Mishnah: a valuation of the hand or foot is worth nothing, because life does not depend on them. Only parts on which life depends (דבר שהנשמה תלויה בו) are valued in full.
10. 10. Rav: Abba Arikha, the first-generation Babylonian Amora. R. Gidal, an Amora, transmits his statement here.
11. 11. R. Meir (ר"מ) was a Tanna of the third generation of Tannaim.
12. 12. 'Lest you say' (מהו דתימא): the Gemara raises a possible misreading of the ruling and then answers it.
13. 13. 'To include' (לאתויי): the rule is derived to reach as far as the knee joint (ארכובה). The knee and above count as vital parts; the lower leg does not.
14. 14. Leviticus 27: the verse from which the Gemara compares vows to valuations ('vows are compared to valuations', הוקשו).
15. 15. Rava and Abaye (אביי): Babylonian Amoraim who often argue with each other. Here Rava 'fell ill' (חלש) and the sages came to visit him.
16. 16. 'A person does not void his own words' (אין אדם מוציא דבריו לבטלה): so R. Meir holds that a vow stands even for half a vessel, and he makes the vower pay.
17. 17. 'As donors do': the principle that people donate whole objects, not parts of them.