Arakhin 19a (יט.) — the Talmud in English

“That which applies to a male and that which applies to a female”

as in the wording of the verse concerning valuations

it should have said,

and necessarily it is referring to the ages of an exceptional category, all of which are taught using the wording “son” and “daughter”: “son,” twelve, and “daughter,” twelve, and the like.

Now they explain the essential law that the Torah stated regarding the fixed valuation of a male and a female: In the case of a male, he gives fifty shekels when he is under sixty years old, and when he is over sixty, his valuation decreases to fifteen shekels. In the case of a female, she gives thirty shekels when she is under sixty years old, and when she is over sixty, her valuation decreases to ten shekels.

And we ask:

And what is different about

the valuation of a

female, such that when she grows old and her valuation decreases

[when she grows old and is over sixty, and the amount of her valuation decreases]

it remains

[her valuation remains at ten shekels]

one-third

[one-third] of her valuation when she is a girl under sixty, which is thirty shekels?

And what is different about a male, such that it does not remain

[his valuation does not remain the same when he is over sixty]

one-third

[one-third] of his valuation when he is a boy under sixty?! [For his valuation as a boy is fifty shekels, whereas as an old man it is only fifteen shekels.]

And we answer:

Hezekiah said:

The reason is that

people say: “An old man in the house

[an old man when he lives in another’s house]

is destruction in the house

[he is a breakage in the house,” for an old man is nothing but a burden upon the members of the household. But

“an old woman in the house

[an old woman when she lives in another’s house]

is a treasure in the house

[she is a treasure for the house,” since she is able to toil and perform work in her old age. Therefore, the valuation of an old woman in relation to her youth is greater than that of an old man in relation to his youth.

We have completed Chapter “Heseig Yad.”

Mishna:

One who says, “My weight is upon me”

[who vowed to give to the Temple treasury an amount corresponding to his weight],

gives

according to

his weight

according to what he specified.

If

he said, “I will give”

silver

whose weight is equal to his weight, he gives

silver

according to his weight.

And if

he said

gold,

he gives

gold

according to his weight.

There was an incident involving the mother of Yirmatya, who said: “The weight of my daughter is upon me!”

and she did not specify in what substance.

She went up to Jerusalem and weighed

her daughter,

and gave

according to

her weight in gold.

One who says

“The weight of my hand is upon me”—

how does he weigh it?

Rabbi Yehuda says: He fills a barrel with water and inserts his arm up to his elbow

[for the part up to there is called the hand; through this, the water in the barrel is reduced by a volume equal to the volume of the hand],

and he weighs donkey meat

[whose specific gravity is like that of a person’s flesh], so that it contains

bones and sinews

in the same proportion as those found in a human hand.

And he places

the donkey meat

into it until it is filled

with water to the brim. Thus, the volume of the donkey meat inserted is equal to the volume of the hand, and the weight of this meat is equal to the weight of his hand.

Rabbi Yosei said: How is it possible to determine precisely

the precise measure of

the flesh

of the donkey

corresponding to the flesh

in the hand,

and bones corresponding to bones?

If the correspondence is not exact, their weights will not be equal, since the weight of bones is not equal to the weight of flesh! This is not how it is assessed.

Rather, they assess the hand

by estimation

of how much it ought to weigh.

Gemara:

We raise a question concerning this:

What is meant by “If silver, silver; if gold, gold,”

which is written in the Mishna?

And we explain:

Rav Yehuda said:

If he

specified

that he would give

silver, he gives

he

silver, and if he

specified

gold, he gives

he gives

gold.

And we challenge this:

It is obvious,

that everything is according to what he vowed!?

And we answer:

This teaches us

what the Mishna means:

The reason is that he specified,

and therefore he gives accordingly.

But if he did not specify

what substance he meant, but merely said, “My weight is upon me”—

he exempts himself with anything at all 3 .

He gives according to his weight using the least valuable of the substances.

As Ravah said. For Ravah said: In a place where they weigh pitch

[which is sold by weight, its price being low], if he said, “My weight is upon me,”

he exempts himself even

with his weight in

pitch.

And he challenges this:

It is obvious,

that anything customarily sold by weight is included in his words, since he spoke without specification.

And we answer:

It is necessary

only in a place

where there is

someone

who weighs,

who sells by weight,

and there is

someone

who measures,

who sells by measure and not by weight.

You might have said that, since none of them weigh,

it should be said that he has

not

fulfilled his vow with this, since he based it on something sold by weight.

This teaches us

Ravah’s ruling: pitch is considered something sold by weight, and he is discharged with it.

Rav Pappa said: In a place where they weigh shamkhei

[onions]—

he exempts himself even with shamkhei!

And we challenge this:

It is obvious,

since this is something sold by weight!?

And we answer:

It is necessary

only in a case where their custom is

that after they weigh them—

they add

something to the weight,

two

or

three

onions, as sellers customarily do.

You might have said

that because of this addition

the status

of

a weighed item is nullified,

since the sale is no longer strictly according to weight.

This teaches us,

Rav Pappa’s ruling: the status of weighing is not nullified by this small addition.

We learned in the Mishna:

“There was an incident involving the mother of Yirmatya, etc.”

And we challenge this: Does the

incident

brought by the Mishna

contradict

the law? For it was explained from the Mishna that if he spoke without specification, he discharges himself with anything at all, whereas this incident also involved an unspecified vow, and nevertheless it says, “And she weighed her weight in gold”!?

And we answer:

Something is missing

from the wording of the Mishna,

and this is what it teaches: If he is an important person, even though he did not specify,

we assess him according to his honor

and determine his obligation!

He certainly intended the finest of the substances, namely gold. Concerning this, the Mishna says:

“There was an incident involving the mother of Yirmatya, who said, ‘The weight of my daughter is upon me,’ and she went up to Jerusalem, and they weighed her, and she gave her weight”

“in gold.”

Since she was an important woman, they assessed her according to her honor.

Rav Yehuda said: One who says, “My height is upon me

to give to the Temple treasury,” meaning something tall, like the height of the one who vowed—

gives a rod

that is thick

and does not bend,

as tall as the one who vowed. If he specified gold, he gives a gold rod; if silver, silver.

He must give a thick rod that can stand upright and does not bend, since this is the “height” of a person.

But if he said

“The full measure of my height is upon me,” he gives

even a

rod

that is thin and

bends.

For “the full measure of height” means only the measurement of his height.

The Gemara raises an objection:

Was it not taught in a beraita: “Whether he says

‘My height is upon me’

or

‘The full measure of my height is upon me,’ he gives a rod that does not bend!” This is not in accordance with Rav Yehuda, who distinguishes between them.

And we answer: Rav Yehuda

And they answer: Rav Yehuda

speaks in accordance with Rabbi Akiva, who expounds an extra expression,

and because he added the word “full” to his statement, his words are interpreted differently from the way they would be if he had said only, “My height.” The beraita from which we raised the objection is not in accordance with Rabbi Akiva.

We find this approach of Rabbi Akiva

as we learned: One who sells a house does not sell

One who sells a house does not sell

neither the pit nor the cistern

within it.

And even though he wrote

that he sells

its depth and its height,

he did not include them in the sale.

And

the seller

must acquire a path for himself

from the buyer through the house, so that he can walk on it to that pit and cistern,

the words of Rabbi Akiva.

He sold him the entire house and did not reserve a path for himself. Rabbi Akiva holds that a seller sells generously.

And the Sages say: He does not need

to acquire a path, because the seller reserved one for himself in the house; in their view, a seller sells begrudgingly.

And Rabbi Akiva concedes

to the Sages

when he said to him: “I am selling you the house

except for

these,”

the pit and the cistern,

that he does not need to acquire

for himself a

path.

For in that case, we assume that he reserved it for himself in the sale.

Evidently,

according to Rabbi Akiva,

since he need not

say “except for these” [since even without this stipulation he did not sell them],

and he said “except”—

the word “except”

comes to add something,

namely, to inform us that he reserved a path.

Here too,

according to Rav Yehuda,

since he need not

say the word “full,”

and he said it,

the word

comes to add something, and he intends to fulfill his vow with a rod whose length alone corresponds to his height, and not with one that actually represents his height.

They raised a dilemma:

One who says

“My

standing”

is upon me—

what is the law?

Does this mean his height, or not? [And he has said nothing, since this expression is not used in vows. Rabbenu Gershom.]