Arakhin 19a — the Talmud in English

"that which is in the male and that which is in the female"

as the wording of the verse concerning valuations

should have been said,

and you are necessarily forced to say that it is referring to the two years of an exceptional age-period, all of which were taught in the wording of "son and daughter": "son" twelve and "daughter" twelve, and similarly.

And now they explain the essential law that the Torah stated concerning the fixed valuation of a male and a female: in the case of a male, he gives fifty shekels when he is younger than sixty years old, and when he is older than sixty years old, his valuation decreases to fifteen shekels. And in the case of a female, she gives thirty shekels when she is younger than sixty years old, and when she is older than sixty years old, her valuation decreases to ten shekels.

And we ask:

And what is different about

the valuation of

a female, that when she grows old and decreases

[when she grows old, becoming older than sixty, and the measure of her valuation decreases]

it remains

[the measure of her valuation remains at ten shekels]

one-third

[of her valuation when she is a girl younger than sixty, which is thirty shekels].

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

[for his valuation does not remain when he is older than sixty]

one-third

[of his valuation when he is a boy younger than 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

this is the reason, for

people say: "An old man in the house

[an old man when he lives in the house of others]

is destruction in the house

[he is a ruin for the house]," for the 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 the house of others]

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; and 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 shall return to you, chapter “The Reach of Hand”

Mishna:

One who says, “My weight is upon me”

[that he vowed to give to the Temple treasury according to his weight],

gives

according to

his weight

according to what he specified.

If

he said, “I shall give”

silver

whose weight is like my 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 material.

And 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 it up to his elbow

[for up to there it is called a hand; through this, water is lacking from the barrel according to the volume of the hand],

and he weighs donkey flesh

[whose specific gravity is like that of a person] in which there are also

bones and sinews

according to the measure found in a human hand.

And he places

the donkey flesh

into it until it is filled

with water to its brim. It follows that the volume of the donkey flesh that he inserted is equal to the volume of the hand, and the weight of this flesh is equal to the weight of his hand.

Rabbi Yosei said: But how is it possible to determine

the precise measure of

flesh

of the donkey

corresponding to flesh

that is in the hand,

and bones corresponding to bones?

And if it is not determined, they will not be equal in their weight, since the weight of the bones is not equal to the weight of the flesh! And this is not how they estimate;

rather, they assess the hand

by estimation

how much it is fit to weigh.

Gemara:

And we raise an objection concerning it:

What is “if silver, silver; if gold, gold”

that is written in the Mishna?

And we explain:

Rav Yehuda said:

If he

specified

to give

silver, he gives

he

silver,

and if he

specified gold, he gives

he gives

gold.

And we challenge:

It is obvious,

that everything follows what he vowed!?

And we answer:

This teaches us

the Mishna:

The reason is that he specified,

and therefore he gives accordingly.

But if he did not specify

in what material, but simply said, “My weight is upon me”—

he exempts himself with anything whatsoever 3 .

For he gives according to his weight from the cheapest of the types.

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

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

he exempts himself even

with his weight in

pitch.

And he challenges:

It is obvious,

that everything whose manner is to be sold by weight is included in his words, since he left his words unspecified.

And we answer:

It is necessary

only in a place

where there is

one who

weighs,

who sells by weight,

and there is

one who

measures,

who sells by measure and not by weight.

Lest you say: Since not all of them weigh pitch

let it be said

that he did not

fulfill his vow with this, since he tied it to something sold by weight,

this teaches us

Reḥava that it is considered something sold by weight and he is released through it .

Rav Pappa said: In a place where they weigh shemkhei

[onions]—

he exempts himself even with shemkhei!

And we challenge:

It is obvious,

since this is something sold by weight!?

And we answer:

It is necessary,

rather, in a case where their practice is

that after they weigh—

they throw in,

adding to the weight

two

or

three

onions, as sellers do.

Lest you say

that because of this addition,

the status

of

weight is nullified

, since the sale is no longer according to weight,

this teaches us

Rav Pappa that the status of weight 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: Is

an incident

brought by the Mishna

to contradict

the law? For it was explained from the Mishna that if he spoke without specification and did not specify, he exempts himself with anything at all. But this incident was without specification, and nevertheless it says, “And she weighed her weight in gold”!?

And we answer:

There is something missing

from the words of the Mishna,

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

according to his honor —

we assess him!

For he certainly intended the finest of the types, which is gold. And 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,” whose meaning is a tall object like the height of the one who vowed—

gives a rod

that is thick,

which does not bend,

like the height of the one who vowed. And if he specified gold, he gives a golden rod; and if silver, silver.

And he must give a thick rod that can stand upright and does not bend, for 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 measure of his height.

He objects:

But it was taught in a beraita: “Whether he said

‘My height is upon me’ or

whether

‘The full measure of my height is upon me,’ he gives a rod that does not bend!”

This is not like Rav Yehuda, who distinguishes between them.

And we answer: Rav Yehuda

spoke according to Rabbi Akiva, who interprets an extra expression,

and from the fact that he added the word “full,” his words are understood in a different manner than if he had said only “my height.” But the beraita from which we challenged is not according to Rabbi Akiva.

And we find Rabbi Akiva’s method in this matter,

as we learned:

One who sells a house does not sell

either the pit or the cistern

that is in 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 for himself a path

from the buyer within the house, to walk on it to that pit and cistern,

the words of Rabbi Akiva.

For he sold him the entire house and did not retain 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 retained it for himself in the house; for according to their opinion, a seller sells begrudgingly.

And Rabbi Akiva concedes

to the Sages

when he said to him

“I am selling

except for these,”

the pit and cistern,

that he does not need to acquire

for himself a

path.

For then we assume that he retained it for himself in the sale.

Apparently,

according to Rabbi Akiva,

since it is unnecessary

to say “except for these [which he would not have sold even without this],”

and he said

“except”—

it comes to add a matter,

and to inform him that he retains a path.

Here too,

according to Rav Yehuda,

since it is unnecessary

to say the word “full,”

and he said

it,

it comes to add a matter,

and his intention is to fulfill it with the measure of his length alone and not with his actual height.

They raised a dilemma before them:

One who says

“My standing”

is upon me,

what is the law?

Does this mean like his height, or not? [And he has said nothing, for there is no such expression in vows. Rabbenu Gershom.]