Arakhin 17a — the Talmud in English

The sign is that

punishment befalls him!

And concerning this they said that these matters are sufferings, for anyone upon whom one of these has passed is not considered to have had forty days pass over him without sufferings.

It was taught: Rabbi Eliezer the Great says: Were [

if it had been ]

the Holy One, blessed be He, to come with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to judgment, they would not be able

to stand

they

before reproof

with which He would have reproved them!

As it is stated: “And now, stand forth, and I shall judge you before the Lord concerning all the righteous acts of the Lord that He performed for you ‘and your fathers’”

for He also performed an act of righteousness with them, in that He did not contend with them in judgment — Rashi in Ein Yaakov. [And Rabbeinu Gershom and the Maharsha explained: Everything that the Lord did for your fathers is “the righteous acts of the Lord,” and not according to strict justice].

What is written [

Rashi ]:

“This is the generation of those who seek Him, those who seek Your face, Jacob, Selah,”

and it compares a generation to those who seek it [that is, according to the generation, so are those who seek it, namely, its leaders — Rabbeinu Gershom]?

Rabbi Judah the Prince and the Rabbis disagree

concerning this comparison.

One says: The generation is according to the leader, and one says: The leader is according to his generation,

as explained below.

For what halakhic purpose

was it said that as the generation, so are its leaders?

If you say, for the better

and concerning piety, and they disagree about this:

the one who

said that the leader is according to his generation

holds: If the generation is superior, [

if the generation is pious ]

the leader is superior [

the leader too is pious ].

And the one who

said that the generation is according to the leader

holds: If the leader is superior, [

if the leader is pious ]

does the generation become superior?!

It is impossible to say this, for

behold, there is Zedekiah, who was superior [

who was a pious leader ]

while his generation was not superior,

so the generation is not according to the leader.

And

we also find

Jehoiakim, who was not superior, while his generation was superior,

so the leader is not according to the generation, and it is difficult for both of them!

And the source for what we said, that Zedekiah was pious but his generation was not, and that Jehoiakim’s generation was pious but he was not, is:

For Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai: What

is different, that concerning Jehoiakim and Zedekiah there is written the expression “at the beginning,”

as it is written: “At the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim son of Josiah, king of Judah,” and it is written: “At the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah” [

Rashash ]?

The Holy One, blessed be He, sought to return the world to void and desolation

in the days of Jehoiakim

on account of Jehoiakim; once He looked at his generation,

of Jehoiakim

His mind was settled.

And

the Holy One, blessed be He, sought to return the world to void and desolation

in the days of Zedekiah

because of the generation of Zedekiah; once He looked at Zedekiah, His mind was settled,

and since the Holy One, blessed be He, sought to overturn the work of Creation in their days, therefore “at the beginning” is written concerning them.

And if so, it is impossible to explain “as the generation, so are its leaders” as praise.

And we explain it:

Rather, concerning harshness [

anger ]

and mildness [

easy to appease] is what

we are saying

that as the generation, so are its leaders.

We have completed the chapter “There Is in Valuations.”

Mishna:

This which the Torah said in the passage of Arakhin [Leviticus 27] to judge one who assessed a person with

assessment of means,

that if his means do not suffice to pay the entire valuation fixed by the Torah, he is not obligated to pay to the Temple treasury more than his means attain —

with regard to the one who vows

[the one who assesses] the matter is stated, for the measure of the obligation depends upon the means of the one who assesses, as the Mishna explains below.

And the years

[the age] upon which the Torah made the measure of the valuations dependent

with regard to the one vowed about

[the one assessed] the matter is stated, and not with regard to the one who assesses! For the measure of the obligation changes according to the age of the one assessed, and not according to the age of the one who assesses.

And the valuations

— that which the Torah distinguished between the fixed valuation of a male and the valuation of a female —

with regard to the one assessed

the matter is stated, and not with regard to the one who assesses! And the measure of the obligation changes according to the sex of the one assessed, and not according to the sex of the one who assesses.

And the valuation

which the Torah fixed according to the age of the one assessed

at the time of the valuation

the matter is stated, and not at the time of the giving! For example, if the one assessed was younger than twenty when they assessed him [whose valuation is fixed by the Torah for a male at twenty shekels], and at the time of the giving he had already become older than twenty [whose valuation is fixed by the Torah for a male at fifty shekels], they must give the amount of his valuation as one younger than twenty.

Assessment of means with regard to the one who vows —

How so?

A poor person who assessed a rich person

who said concerning the rich person, “Your valuation is upon me.” [And the same law applies if initially the rich person said, “My valuation is upon me,” and the poor person heard and said: “What this one said is upon me”] —

gives

the poor person

the valuation of a poor person

according to all that his means attain, for in the case of the one who vows the law depends upon him, and he is poor, and not upon the one assessed, who is rich.

And a rich person who assessed a poor person,

who said concerning the poor person, “Your valuation is upon me.” [And the same law applies if initially the poor person said, “My valuation is upon me,” and the rich person heard and said: “What this one said is upon me”] —

gives

the rich person

the valuation of a rich person,

and pays everything that the Torah fixed to give for one who assessed a person of the age of the poor person, for the matter depends upon the one who vows, and he is rich, and not upon the one assessed, who is poor.

This clause was explained according to Rashi’s understanding; see Tosafot and Zevah Todah.

But

the law of the assessment of means stated

with regard to offerings,

that the poor person whose means do not suffice brings a different offering from the rich person

is not so,

for one does not follow the means of the one who vows, but rather as the Mishna explains [Rabbeinu Gershom]:

If he said,

the one who vows: “

The offering of this leper”

[which he must bring on the eighth day of his purification]

is upon me.”

— If

the leper was poor, he brings

this one who vowed, who accepted upon himself to bring his offerings,

the offering of a poor person,

[whose sin-offering and burnt-offering come from birds]. And if the leper was

rich —

he brings

the one who vows

the offering of a rich person,

[whose sin-offering and burnt-offering are from an animal], even though the one who vows is poor.

Rabbi

disagrees and

says: I say: Even with regard to valuations,

when they resemble offerings, [as the Mishna explains below, that initially the rich person said, “My valuation is upon me,” and the poor person heard and said, “What this one said is upon me”], the law is

so,

as with offerings, and not as the First Tanna, who also in this case distinguished between valuations and offerings.

And the reason is:

And for what reason

is the law with regard to valuations that

a poor person who assessed a rich person,

who said concerning the rich person, “Your valuation is upon me,”

gives the valuation of a poor person

and not the valuation of a rich person, whereas with offerings, when a poor person said, “The offering of this leper [the rich person] is upon me,” the poor person brings the offering of a rich person? Because it is not similar to offerings.

For the rich person

whom the poor person assessed

is obligated

by himself

in anything,

and therefore the poor person’s intention when he said to the rich person, “Your valuation is upon me,” was only that it should be according to the measure of the rich person’s years, which are fewer or greater than his own years; and since he specified nothing, but only accepted upon himself the valuation of the measure of the rich person’s years, the law of the “valuation” is that it is judged according to assessment of means. This is not so with offerings, for the leper himself is obligated in them, and this one who vows to bring an offering like his is as though he explicitly said that he would bring what the rich leper is obligated in; therefore he brings the offering of a rich person, even though the one who vows is poor.

And since this is the principal reason for the distinction, one may distinguish only in the first manner that we said: if the poor person said concerning the rich person, “Your valuation is upon me,” only in this manner does the poor person give the valuation of a poor person.

But

in the second manner: with

a rich person who said: “My valuation is upon me,” and a poor person heard and said: “What this one said

is upon me” —

the poor person gives

the

valuation of a rich person 3 .

For in this manner the rich person too is obligated — since he assessed himself — and it resembles offerings; therefore its law is like that of offerings.

Gemara:

And we raise a difficulty concerning the wording of the Mishna, which stated assessment of means with regard to “the one who vows”: But the law of

assessment of means is with regard to the one who assesses

and not with regard to the one who vows. For the one who vows is one who said, “My monetary value is upon me,” who is not judged according to assessment of means, but must give everything when he is able to give it, even though at present his means do not suffice. If so, the tanna should have stated the law of assessment of means with regard to the one who assesses?!

And we answer: that which the tanna stated in the language “the one who vows” is

as it is written

in the Torah in this language concerning valuations in the law of assessment of means. And so it is written: “According to

what the hand of ‘the one who vows’ attains, the priest shall assess him.”

And again we raise an objection concerning the wording of the Mishna: Why,

“the years” —

with regard to the one vowed about

are they dependent? Behold, the division of the years

is with regard to “the one assessed”

and not with regard to “the one vowed about.” For one who says, “The monetary value of so-and-so is upon me,” is not judged according to the number of years of that person, but according to the value of that person’s being sold in the market. If so, the tanna should have taught: “And the years — with regard to the one assessed”?!

And we answer:

Since he said

the tanna:

“Assessment of means with regard to ‘the one who vows’”

as we explained,

he also said: “The years —

with regard to the one vowed about.”

We learned in the Mishna:

“Assessment of means with regard to the one who vows — how so? A poor person who assessed a rich person gives the valuation of a poor person.”

What is the reason? For the verse says: According to what the hand of “the one who vows” attains —

the Merciful One made it dependent upon the one who vows

and not upon the one vowed about! [Included in this is also the second case in the Mishna, concerning the one who vows who said, “What this one said is upon me,” for this too is a person who vows — according to the Raavad in the Sifra; see Tosafot.]

We learned in the Mishna:

“But with offerings it is not so: if he said, ‘The offering of this leper is upon me,’ and the leper was poor, he brings the offering of a poor person!”

And we raise a difficulty concerning this, for according to its simple meaning, when the leper is poor, the one who imposes the vow brings the offering of a poor person even though he is rich:

Even though the one who imposes the vow

[that is, the one who vows]

is rich,

does he bring the offering of a poor person?! But the law is not so. For

“And if he is poor”

[he brings the offering — Rabbeinu Gershom]

the Merciful One said

that he should bring the offering of a poor person,

and not one who is not poor

— this one who brings the offering, for the one who imposes the vow, who is rich, is the one who brings the offering.

And we answer: Rabbi Yitzhak said:

Rabbi Yitzhak said

The intention of the Mishna is not to say that with offerings one judges according to assessment of means only according to the means of the leper, and if the leper’s means do not suffice, the one who imposes the vow brings an offering of a poor person even though the means of the one who imposes the vow suffice to bring an offering of a rich person! Rather, this that we learned in the Mishna, that if the leper was poor the one who imposes the vow brings an offering of a poor person, is speaking

when

also

the one who imposed the vow was

poor.

And in this manner the Mishna distinguishes between whether the leper himself was also poor and whether the leper was rich.

And we challenge: Even so, from where do we know that the one who imposes the vow should bring an offering of a poor person when he is poor [and the leper too is poor]?

And perhaps concerning him

— the leper, when he himself brings his offerings —

the Merciful One had compassion

[the Torah showed compassion], that if he is poor he should bring an offering of a poor person; but

with regard to the one who imposed the vow,

when he is poor,

the Merciful One did not

show compassion, and he should bring an offering of a rich person even though he is poor?

For it is written: And if he is poor,

“he”

— meaning: he, the leper himself, if he is poor, should bring an offering of a poor person, but not the one who imposes the vow [Rabbeinu Gershom].

And we answer:

Rav Adda bar Ahava said: “And if he is poor” —

“and his means do not suffice”

is written. It was unnecessary to write “and his means do not suffice,” since “and if he is poor” is already written [Rabbeinu Gershom]; and the superfluous verse comes

to include the one who vows

[the one who imposes the vow], that if his means do not suffice, he should bring an offering of a poor person [when the leper too is poor]!

And now they raise a difficulty concerning Rabbi Yitzhak’s answer, who said that this which we learned in the Mishna, “But with offerings it is not so, etc.; if the leper was poor, he brings an offering of a poor person,” is speaking only when the one who imposes the vow is also poor:

But if the one who imposes the vow is rich

and the leper is poor,

is it indeed so that he brings it in affluence?! If so, what is “But with offerings it is not so”?!

For the tanna came to distinguish between valuations, which depend upon the one who vows, and offerings, which depend upon the leper. If the example that the tanna gave, “If the leper was poor, he brings an offering of a poor person,” refers to a case where the one who imposes the vow is also poor, this example does not distinguish from valuations, for with valuations too the law is that if the one who vows was poor, he brings the valuation of a poor person.

Folio 17b

And we answer: What the tanna said, “But with offerings it is not so,” does not refer to the two examples that the tanna taught concerning the leper: (a) “If the leper was poor, he brings an offering of a poor person”; (b) “If the leper was rich, he brings an offering of a rich person.” Rather,