020b – האומר משקלי עלי – פרק חמישי – ערכין, דף כ ע”ב

Lest you say: since they did not assess it, the property is not bound (to pay the vow's value);

מהו דתימא - Even though he stood in judgment, a vower before his death: since they did not assess it during the vower's lifetime, the orphans' property is not bound.

it teaches us: since he stood in judgment, the property is bound. The estimate only clarifies the matter.^[1]

גלויי מלתא בעלמא הוא - To clarify what he is liable for; since the vow is valid, we assess it.

[If one said] "This ox is an olah and this house is a sacrifice," and the ox died or the house fell, he is exempt from paying.^[2]

מתני' ובית זה קרבן - For the repair fund of the Temple.^[3]

ונפל הבית - Before the treasurer took hold of it.^[4]

[If one said] "This ox is upon me as an olah and this house is upon me as a sacrifice," and the ox died or the house fell, he is liable to pay.

Rav Chiya bar Rav said: they taught it only where he said, "the value of this ox is upon me as an olah."

גמ' לא שנו - That is, when he did not say "upon me, he is liable to pay," but said "the value is upon me": if the ox is lost, the money is not lost, since he did not say "these monies" and they were not in existence.

But if he said, "This ox is upon me as an olah," then, since he said "this," if it dies he is not liable for its safekeeping; "upon me" refers to bringing it.

עלי להביאו - To exert himself until it is brought near.

They raised an objection: "This ox is an olah; the ox is consecrated and misuse may be made of it. If it died or was stolen, he is not liable for it. "This ox is upon me as an olah; the ox is consecrated and misuse may be made of it. If it died or was stolen, he is liable for it."^[5]

Shall we say that the objection is like our Mishnah, which we explained as referring to value? Here too it says "value."

ה"נ דקאמר דמי - Here too it says "value," as we explain below: he said "let this ox be consecrated for its value, and the value is upon me as an olah." Therefore the ox is holy; for he said "let the ox be consecrated," so if it dies he is liable, since he said "upon me." Here one cannot say as above: there, since he said "this," he was freeing himself of liability, and "upon me" referred to bringing it; but here the value was not before him and he did not say "these," so "upon me" refers to liability. And his saying "this" means: this ox shall be holy until I sell it and bring its value.

But from the latter clause, which says "value," it follows that the first clause does not say "value."

For the latter clause teaches: "The value of this ox as an olah; the ox is ordinary (hullin) and misuse may not be made of it. If it died or was stolen, he is not liable for it, but he is liable for its value."^[6]

השור חולין - Since he consecrated only the money, the value of the ox when it will be sold.

אינו חייב באחריותו - Since it was not sold, and it turns out he consecrated nothing.

אבל חייב באחריות דמיו - If the ox was sold and its value became sanctified and the money was lost, he is liable for it.

The first and the latter clauses both speak of value. The first says: "let the ox be consecrated for its value,"^[7]

רישא דאמר יקדש השור לדמיו - Therefore he is liable for its safekeeping, since the sanctity of value took effect on the ox and he accepted liability for its value; this "upon me" is a liability, since it refers to value, and the value was not before him so that he would say "these."

and the latter says: "when its value comes, let it be consecrated."

סיפא דאמר לכשיבואו דמיו יקדשו - Therefore he is not liable for it: since the ox died and did not come into the status of value, it turns out he consecrated nothing.

But a person cannot consecrate something that has not yet come into existence!

Rav Yehuda said in Rav's name: whose view is this? It is R Meir's, who holds that a person can consecrate something that does not yet exist.^[8]

ר"מ היא - As it was taught: "Behold you are betrothed to me after I convert" ... (and so on); R Meir says she is betrothed.^[9]

Some say Rav Pappa said to Abaye, and others say Rami bar Chama said to Rav Chisda: is it according to R Meir, who holds that a person can consecrate what does not yet exist?

He said to him: then according to whom is it?

And some teach it as referring to a case where one rented a house to another and it was afflicted (with tzara'at).^[10]

ואיכא דמתני לה - As the view of Rav Yehuda, Abaye and Rami bar Chama.

Even though a kohen declared it impure, he tells him: "Here is yours before you"; once it is demolished, he must provide him another house.^[11]

אע"פ שחלטו כהן - That is, he said it is impure and about to be demolished. As long as it has not been demolished, the landlord says to the tenant: "Here is yours before you, and I will not rent you another house, since the house I rented you is still standing."

נתצו - Once it is demolished, the landlord must provide another house to the tenant, because (the landlord) is suspected of robbery or of the evil eye.

Tosafot

אמר ר' חייא בר רב ל"ש אלא דאמר דמי שור זה עלי עולה אבל אמר שור זה עלי עולה כיון דאמר זה ומת אינו חייב באחריותו עלי להביאו קאמר - Only where he said, "the value of this ox is upon me as an olah" (Rashi: "to toil until it is brought near"). Objection: then the first clause of the Mishnah, "this ox is an olah... the ox died, the house fell, he is exempt," would teach that even if he said "upon me" he is exempt, and that is indeed the ruling R Chiya bar Rav concludes. Our explanation: the whole Mishnah, both clauses, speaks of value. The first clause: the value of this ox is an olah, the value of this house is a sacrifice; the ox died and the house fell, so he is exempt because he did not say "upon me." The second clause: "the value of this ox is upon me as an olah" is liable. This is taught in Rosh HaShanah 6a: what is the difference between a vow and a freewill offering? A vow ("upon me") is liable if the animal dies or is stolen; a freewill offering is exempt. The Mishnah's "this ox" teaches that even though he said "this," since he said "upon me" he is liable. It seems that when he says "the value of this ox is upon me as an olah," the ox itself is ordinary (hullin) and not holy, like "the value of another man's ox is upon me" (where the ox is not his to consecrate). But it is not like one who consecrates the value of his own male animal, where the body itself becomes holy (Temurah 19a). Here, where the ox is his own, the body becomes holy, and so the Gemara's "let the ox be consecrated for its value" means that the body of the ox is holy.

מיתיבי שור זה עולה כו' שור זה עלי עולה השור הקדש ומועלין בו מת או נגנב (אינו) חייב באחריותו - Objection: "This ox is an olah... the ox is consecrated, and misuse may be made of it; if it died or was stolen he is not liable," so it appears that we do not say "upon me, to bring it" as R Chiya said, and the objection stands against him. The answer: "Shall we say it is like our Mishnah, which we explained as referring to value? Here too it says value." Rashi's explanation (quoted here) resolves the difficulty: here too it says "value," as we explain below, "let this ox be consecrated for its value, and its value is upon me as an olah"; therefore the ox is holy. Since he said "let the ox be consecrated, and if it dies he is liable, since he said 'upon me,'" and here the value was not before him and he did not say "these," "upon me" refers to liability. Rashi's words: his saying "this" means that this ox shall be holy until I sell it and bring its value. End of Rashi.

והא מדסיפא דקאמר דמי רישא דלא קאמר דמי דקתני סיפא כו' - Shall we say from the latter clause that the objection is from the first clause and not from the Mishnah? The Gemara could have objected directly from the latter clause, according to R Chiya bar Rav, who teaches that the latter clause says "the value of this ox as an olah; the ox is ordinary and misuse may not be made of it; if it died or was stolen he is not liable, but liable for its value," while the Mishnah says he is liable. But the Gemara first started its objection from the first clause and then concluded it there. According to the resolution, all is explained. There is a difficulty from Chullin 139b, where one who consecrates a maneh to the Temple treasury and it is stolen or lost: R Yochanan says he is liable until it reaches the treasurer, and Resh Lakish says that wherever it is in the treasury it is the Lord's, and even though he said "upon me" he is not liable. And why does the Gemara object? Resh Lakish's case is when he already set aside the maneh; the Mishnah is when he set aside nothing, so the Mishnah says he is liable, since the ox itself is ordinary. Tosafot (R Yitzchak): it seems here in the Mishnah the ox's body is holy, like one who consecrates a male for its value, and the body is holy, unlike one who says "the value of another's ox is upon me." The Gemara's resolution: the ox became an offering. It is hard why we must explain "let the ox be consecrated for its value" when even "the value of this ox is upon me as an olah" makes the body holy. Answer: the first clause means: when he said "let the ox be consecrated for its value," the ox is holy. Alternatively, R Chiya's view means that he said "the value of this ox is an olah," so the ox is holy; this explains the whole sugya, and it also explains the Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish ruling in Chullin, where since the ox's body is holy it is as if he had set it aside, like one who consecrates a maneh to the Temple.

אע"פ שחלטו כהן אומר לו הרי שלך לפניך - "Even though the kohen declared it impure, he says to him: here is yours before you." Tosafot (Ori): from here it appears that a house afflicted with tzara'at and declared impure is permitted for benefit, and that is why he says "here is yours before you," similar to the case in Bava Metzia 78: if one rented a donkey and it became a ... (and the hire) ... "here is yours before you" (his wage remains). If we said a house declared impure is forbidden for benefit, then this is like the case where it died or broke, where he must provide another, as taught there: he must provide another donkey. The teacher (Rabbeinu Tam) asks this from the Torat Kohanim on garments of tzara'at, "give it a curse, that he not benefit from it," which seems to show it is forbidden for benefit; and Yevamot 103b: a sandal that is "muscar" (ostracized) one should not perform chalitzah with it, and if one did, the chalitzah is valid, since the commandment is not given for benefit. Rather, the answer is that it is indeed forbidden for benefit. And the case here, "here is yours before you," is where he said "this house"; since it is still present, he is not obligated to provide another house; but he loses his rent, like the case of the donkey where he must provide another, as Rashi explains there: or he forfeits his wage.

Notes

1. 1. Estimate (omdana): the court's assessment of what the vower intended, here the value he pledged.
2. 2. An olah is a burnt offering burned wholly on the altar; a korban is any item dedicated to the Temple, forbidden to its owner for benefit.
3. 3. Bedek ha-Bayit: the fund used for the upkeep and repair of the Temple.
4. 4. Gizbar: the Temple treasurer who receives and holds the funds dedicated to the Temple.
5. 5. Me'ilah: deriving benefit from consecrated property is forbidden; the one who does so repays the principal plus a fifth and brings a guilt offering.
6. 6. Hullin: ordinary, unconsecrated property, which is permitted for benefit.
7. 7. Sanctity of value (kedushat damim): consecrating the monetary value of an object, which makes the value sacred rather than the object itself.
8. 8. R Meir holds that one may consecrate or betroth something that does not yet exist.
9. 9. A conditional betrothal: he betrothed her on condition that he convert, and the condition decides whether the betrothal takes effect.
10. 10. A nega of a house: a tzara'at-type affliction on the walls; the kohen examines and declares it impure, and the house is then dismantled.
11. 11. A house declared impure (muchlat): a house declared impure and due to be demolished; the question is whether the tenant keeps his rights to it.