Arakhin 17b — the Talmud in English

one: concerning a poor leper and a poor one who imposes the vow, and one: to exclude

— Rashi did not have this version.)

One:

concerning a rich leper and a poor one who imposes the vow,

which is the second example, and to inform us that with offerings, even when the one who imposes the vow is poor, he brings an offering of a rich person. And this example distinguishes from valuations, for with valuations, since the one who assesses is poor, he is judged according to assessment of means and brings only the valuation of a poor person; but in the first example valuations and offerings are the same.

And the novelty of this law is that if the leper was rich and the one who imposes the vow was poor, he brings an offering of a rich person:

It might enter your mind to say

that the one who imposes the vow should bring an offering of a poor person because he is poor, since

since he was included

the one who imposes the vow to be judged according to assessment of means, and the Torah had compassion upon him to bring an offering of a poor person when he is poor and the leper is poor, as we expounded above from “and his means do not suffice,”

he was included

to be judged according to assessment of means also when the leper is rich!

It teaches us

that the one who imposes the vow was not included to be judged according to assessment of means except when the leper too is poor, and not when the leper is rich.

And the reason is:

As it was taught in a beraita: Since we find with valuations

that

a poor person who assessed a rich person,

for example, 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 valuation of a poor person, could this one too

who said, “The offering of this leper is upon me,” have the law

be so,

that the poor one who imposes the vow should bring an offering of a poor person, even though the leper is rich

?

The verse states: If he is poor, “he”

to exclude the one who imposes the vow [Rabbeinu Gershom].

And we challenge:

And according to Rabbi,

that is, although according to the Rabbis the exposition “he” is needed to exclude a poor one who imposes the vow and a rich leper, and to teach that the one who imposes the vow brings an offering of a rich person, since they hold that with valuations, when the rich person said, “My valuation is upon me,” and the poor person said, “What this one said is upon me,” the poor person brings the valuation of a poor person, and I would say that with a leper it is likewise, therefore “he” is needed to exclude him; but according to Rabbi,

who says: I say, even with valuations it is so,

the law, that when a rich person says, “My valuation is upon me,” and a poor person says, “What this one said is upon me,” the poor person brings the valuation of a rich person,

it follows

that where the first one [the rich person] is also obligated,

according to the obligation of the man

the first one

we follow,

and the poor person gives according to the obligation of the first one.

But this —

that is, and if so —

does not require a verse

in the case of the leper

to exclude,

that we should follow the obligation of the first one [the leper], for with valuations too the law is so. If so, according to Rabbi,

“he”

written concerning the leper

to exclude what?!

And we answer: For Rabbi, “he” comes

to exclude a poor leper whose one who makes a vow for him is wealthy,

so that we should not make him comparable to Arakhin in a similar manner—that is, when the poor man said, “My valuation is upon me,” and the wealthy man said, “What this man said is upon me.” And

it might enter your mind to say: Since Rabbi said

in Arakhin

we follow the obligation of the person

the first

one, [as is explained in the Mishna: if a poor man said concerning a wealthy man who valued himself and became obligated, “What this man said is upon me,” the poor man is obligated in the valuation of a wealthy man, according to the obligation of the first. And included in this is that if a wealthy man said this concerning a poor man who valued himself and became obligated, the second is obligated only according to the obligation of the first, and gives the valuation of a poor man], and if so,

as explained in the Mishna: If a poor man said concerning a wealthy man who had valued himself and thereby incurred an obligation, “What this man said is upon me,” the poor man is obligated to pay the valuation of a wealthy man, in accordance with the first man’s obligation. Likewise, if a wealthy man said this concerning a poor man who had valued himself and thereby incurred an obligation, the second man is obligated only in accordance with the first man’s obligation and pays the valuation of a poor man; and if so,

here too

with a leper,

we should follow the obligation of the person

and say that the wealthy one who makes the vow should bring a poor man’s offering, according to the obligation of the leper.

He teaches us

from the verse “he” that, with a leper, the one who makes a vow for him brings a wealthy man’s offering, since he himself is wealthy. But according to the Rabbis, a verse is not needed for this, since in their view, even in Arakhin, one follows the one who makes the vow and not the obligation of the first.

Mishna:

If

the one who makes a valuation was

poor

at the time when he made the valuation [the thanksgiving sacrifice, according to Rashi’s understanding],

and became wealthy

before the giving,

or

was

wealthy

at the time when he made the valuation,

and became poor

before the giving,

he gives the valuation of a wealthy man. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if

the one who makes the valuation was

poor

at the time when he made the valuation,

and became wealthy,

and then became

poor

until the time of the giving,

he gives the valuation of a wealthy man,

since he was not poor from beginning to end.

But with offerings,

where there is a distinction between a wealthy man’s offering and a poor man’s offering,

it is not so!

For if a leper was wealthy and became poor, or poor and became wealthy, everything follows the time of the bringing of his offerings. [And below, in the baraita in the Gemara, it is explained with regard to which offerings the matter depends].

Even if his father died

of the one who makes a valuation,

and left him ten thousand (

dinars),

or his ship

of the one who makes a valuation

was at sea, and came to him with ten-thousands [and merchandise worth ten-thousands of dinars was upon it],

[with merchandise worth tens of thousands of dinars],

the Temple treasury has no claim upon it at all, [this is its simple meaning, but the reason for the law is not understood; it is explained in the Gemara].

[this is the straightforward meaning, although the reason for the law is not understood; it is explained in the Gemara.]

Gemara:

It is written in the section of Arakhin: “And if he is poor in comparison with your valuation [that his financial capacity does not reach the amount of this valuation that the Torah fixed], then he shall be stood [the one being valued] before the priest, and the priest shall value him according to what the hand of the one who makes the vow can reach; the priest shall value him.”

And from this verse they derive the laws stated in the Mishna:

“He was poor and became wealthy,”

he gives the valuation of a wealthy man, from what is written:

“according to what the ‘hand’ of the one who makes the vow can reach,”

which implies that the time when the hand gives determines—Rabbeinu Gershom;

and his hand can reach

at the time of the giving.

And the second law in the Mishna:

“He was wealthy and became poor,”

he gives the valuation of a wealthy man, from what is written:

“according to what the hand of ‘the one who makes the vow’ can reach,”

which implies that one follows the time of the vow.

We learned in the Mishna:

“Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if he was poor and became wealthy and then became poor, he gives the valuation of a wealthy man.”

What is the reason of Rabbi Yehuda? The verse says: “And if he is ‘poor’ in comparison with your valuation,”

and so on, “according to what [his hand] can reach,” and they derive:

until “he is in his poverty” [

his impoverishment]

from the beginning

at the time of the vow, and

until the end

at the time of the giving; then he shall bring according to what his hand can reach. This teaches that if he became wealthy in the interim, he gives his entire valuation.

And we raise an objection:

But if that is so,

that we derive from “he is poor” that he must be in his poverty from beginning to end, this that is written in the section of the leper, concerning the offerings that the leper brings on the eighth day of his purification:

“And if he is ‘poor’”

and his hand does not reach, he brings a poor man’s offering;

likewise here

shall we also say that he does not bring a poor man’s offering, but

until “he is in his poverty” from the beginning [

from the time he began to bring his offerings. Or the intention is from the time when he became obligated to bring his offerings]

until the end,

when he brought his offering, a poor man’s offering?!

But did we not learn

otherwise:

A leper who brought

some of

his offerings

that he is required to bring [namely: a guilt-offering, an animal sin-offering, and an animal burnt-offering for a wealthy man, and a bird sin-offering and a bird burnt-offering for a poor man, as well as a meal-offering and a log of oil], when he was

poor, and became wealthy

before he brought his offerings as a poor man, or he was

wealthy

at the beginning of bringing his offerings

and became poor

before he brought all his offerings as a wealthy man,

everything follows

the bringing of the

sin-offering ,

for if he was wealthy when he brought his sin-offering, and brought it from an animal, he also brings his burnt-offering from an animal, as a wealthy man, even though he became poor between the sin-offering and the burnt-offering. And if at the time when he brought his sin-offering he was poor, and brought it from a bird, as a poor man, he likewise brings his burnt-offering from a bird, even though he became wealthy between the sin-offering and the burnt-offering,

the words of Rabbi Shimon.

Rabbi Yehuda says: Everything follows

the bringing of the

guilt-offering,

for if he brought his guilt-offering while poor, he brings his sin-offering and his burnt-offering from birds, as a poor man; and if he was wealthy at the time of bringing his guilt-offering, he brings his sin-offering and his burnt-offering from animals, as a wealthy man.

And it was taught

another, third view:

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says:

poverty and wealth, with regard to bringing his offerings, are not determined according to what he is at the time of bringing the offerings; rather,

everything follows

the time of the sprinkling of the

birds

that are alive, which the leper brings before his first shaving [before he counts seven days]. If, when they sprinkled upon him, he was poor, he brings a poor man’s offering! And if he was wealthy when they sprinkled upon him, he brings a wealthy man’s offering!

And now it is difficult, for it is proven that we do not derive from “if he is poor” that he must be in his poverty from beginning to end; even if for part of the time he was wealthy, he brings a poor man’s offering. Whereas concerning Arakhin we derived: “if he is poor,” until he is in his poverty from beginning to end?

And we answer: With regard to a leper, it is a scriptural decree that he need not be so from beginning to end, for

it was stated concerning it, Rabbi Yehuda said in the name of Rav: And all three of them [

Rabbi Shimon, who follows the sin-offering; Rabbi Yehuda, who follows the guilt-offering; and Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, who follows the birds]

derived from one verse—

and they learned their views from it. It is written in the section of the leper, after the laws of the offering of a poor leper: “This is the law of the plague of leprosy

whose hand does not reach for his purification.”

Rabbi Shimon holds:

Since it is written: “And the priest shall atone for the one being purified before the Lord. This is the law of the plague of leprosy whose hand does not reach for his purification,” and the verse juxtaposed “and the priest shall atone” to “this is the law, and so on, whose hand does not reach, and so on,” it comes to teach that he brings the offering mentioned above—a leper whose hand does not reach

the atoning matter 13 ,

for sin—Rabbeinu Gershom. And

what is it? The sin-offering! For the afflictions come on account of eight matters, and the sin-offering atones.—Rabbeinu Gershom, see there. [Explained according to Rashi here, but in Nidda 70a and Keritot 9b Rashi explained it differently; see there].

—Rabbeinu Gershom, see there. [This has been explained according to Rashi here, but in Nidda 70a and Keritot 9b Rashi explains it differently; see there.]

And Rabbi Yehuda holds:

Since it is written, “whose hand does not reach ‘for his purification,’” it comes to teach that one whose hand does not reach

“at the time of purification” shall have the law of poverty; and what is the time of purification? The matter that renders him fit—and what is it? The guilt-offering!

For “purification” is the guilt-offering, which renders him fit to enter the Temple and eat sacred food [from which the leper was prohibited], for the priest places the blood of the guilt-offering on the thumbs and the ear-lobe of the leper.

And Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov holds:

The time of purification, to which the verse attaches it, implies

“the matter that causes him purification—and what is it? The birds!”

For as long as he does not bring the birds, he cannot shave.

And we raise an objection:

But if so,

since we do not derive “he” to teach that he must be in his poverty from beginning to end, and if he is poor,

why do I need “he”?

And we answer: It comes to teach

for Rabbi

[who is in the preceding Mishna]:

according to what is his view

[as was explained above in the Gemara], that “he” comes to exclude a poor leper whose one who makes a vow for him—who said, “The offerings of this leper are upon me”— \-

a wealthy man, so that the one who makes a vow for him does not bring a poor leper’s offering, but rather a wealthy leper’s offering.

And for the Rabbis

[who are in the preceding Mishna]:

according to what is their view

[as was explained above in the Gemara], “he” comes to exclude a wealthy leper whose one who makes a vow for him is poor, so that the one who makes a vow for him is not exempted through a poor leper’s offering; rather, he brings a wealthy man’s offering.

They raise another objection to this, that we derive from “he is poor” that he must be so from beginning to end:

But if that is so,

this that is written concerning testimony:

“And he is a witness,”

whether he saw or knew, if he does not declare it, he shall bear his iniquity—shall we also derive

until he is fit

for testimony

from the beginning

at the time of seeing the testimony

until the end

at the time of giving the testimony, and disqualify for testimony one who was fit for testimony at the time of seeing and at the time of giving, but between the two he was disqualified [for example, he became related to the litigant in the interim, and afterward ceased to be related]?!

And should you say: Indeed, so,

that he is disqualified for testimony!

But it was taught

that he is fit:

If he knew testimony concerning him [

the litigant]

through testimony

that he saw

before he became his son-in-law, and he became his son-in-law [

which disqualifies him for testimony on account of relationship], or he was

of sound mind

at the time of seeing the testimony and

became deaf

because of illness, and he is an imbecile [Rashbam, Bava Batra 128a], or he was

sighted,

with his eyes open and seeing well [there],

and became blind

and was disqualified for testimony, for it is necessary that “and he is a witness” [means] “or he saw,” or he was

sound of mind, and became insane—he is disqualified

for testimony, since at the time of giving testimony he is disqualified.

But if he knew testimony

through seeing the testimony

before he became his son-in-law, and he became

in the interim

his son-in-law

of the litigant,