Arakhin 2a — the Talmud in English

It is stated in the section of Bechukotai: " When a person explicitly makes a vow, in the assessment of persons for Hashem'. And your assessment shall be of the male from twenty years old until sixty years old, and your assessment shall be fifty silver shekels according to the sacred shekel." There are two forms for one who vows the value of a person to the Temple, according to the worth of a person. The first is to obligate himself to the Temple by a vow for the person's monetary value, according to what he is worth to be sold in the market as a slave [Hebrew or Canaanite, as will be explained]. The second is to obligate oneself for a person's "assessment," according to the value that the Torah fixed for him in the section of Arakhin. One who vows to bring to the Temple the "monetary value of a person"—this is an ordinary vow of monetary value for the Temple. Whereas one who obligates himself for his "assessment" obligates himself under the law of one who makes an assessment, according to the special rules stated in the section of Arakhin. Mishna:

1.

All—

make assessments,

who obligate themselves for the assessment of a certain person, as explained in the section of Arakhin, each person according to his assessment, in accordance with his years.

And

all—

are assessed,

for every person has an "assessment" and can obligate himself for the assessment stated in the Torah, or another person can obligate himself for his assessment and say, "The assessment of so-and-so is upon me."

2. All—

make vows

concerning the monetary value of a certain person: "His monetary value is upon me for the Temple," and they are obligated to pay his value according to his market price as a slave.

And

all

are the subjects of vows,

for every person can say concerning himself, "My monetary value is upon me," and likewise his fellow can obligate himself by a vow concerning his monetary value, when he says, "The monetary value of so-and-so is upon me."

And included among them are—

priests, Levites, and Israelites. Women and slaves 4 ,

who will pay after they are divorced or freed.

3.

A tumtum 7 ,

[who is of uncertain male or female status because the place of his male organ is covered by a membrane],

and an androgynos,

who has both male organs and female organs—these are

subjects of vows and the objects of vows,

because they have monetary value to be sold in the market as a slave. And likewise a tumtum and an androgynos

make assessments,

for they say, "The assessment of a certain person is upon me" [who is neither a tumtum nor an androgynos], and they obligate themselves to the Temple for his assessment stated in the Torah; but they are not

assessed,

because the Torah did not fix an assessment for them, since male and female were stated in the section, thereby excluding a tumtum and an androgynos. Therefore, if they say, "My assessment is upon me," or others say concerning them, "The assessment of so-and-so [who is a tumtum or an androgynos] is upon me," they are not obligated at all,

for only a definite male and a definite female are assessed!

4.

A deaf-mute,

and are subject to valuation

an imbecile, and a minor are the objects of vows,

for they have monetary value to be sold in the market as a slave,

and are assessed

according to their value fixed in the Torah.

But

a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor

do not make vows and do not make assessments—

because they have no understanding,

and a person is needed who knows

how to distinguish,

to understand for whom he is making a vow and an assessment [Rabbeinu Gershom].

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna:

All make assessments!

And we raised a difficulty concerning it: "All"—

to include

what?

And we answer:

to include

a minor who has reached the age of twelve and knows for whom vows and consecrations are made, who is called a

"mufla"

[one who knows and understands how to distinguish],

near to

[the age of thirteen, at which he becomes]

"a man"!

For he too makes an assessment .

And again we raised a difficulty concerning it: this that it is written "all"

are assessed—

for the "all" written at the beginning of the Mishna also applies to those who are assessed—

to include what?

And we answer:

to include

one who is

disfigured and afflicted with boils,

for even though they have no monetary value to be sold in the market, they have an assessment fixed in the Torah.

For

it might enter your mind to say

that since "When a person explicitly makes a vow"—

"he vows for his assessment" is written,

the verse compared vows to assessments, and we would say that only

everyone

who

has monetary value

and can be obligated for his monetary value

has a place in assessments,

to be obligated for his assessment,

whereas anyone who does not have monetary value,

such as one who is disfigured and afflicted with boils, who has no value for being sold in the market,

has no place in assessments,

and even if they obligate themselves for their assessments, the obligation would not take effect.

It teaches us

this from what is written afterward, "for the assessment of

persons,"

that

any kind of

person can also be obligated for his assessment, despite the fact that he has no monetary value for being sold in the market.

And again we raised a difficulty concerning this: that which is written, "all

make vows"—

to include what?

And we answer: "all

are the objects of vows"—

it was necessary for him

to write this, and because of this he also wrote at the beginning, "all make vows."

And we explain: "all

are the objects of vows"—

to include what? If it is to include a tumtum and an androgynos,

for it is possible to obligate oneself for their monetary values even though it is impossible to obligate oneself for their assessments, behold,

it explicitly teaches them

in the Mishna, that they are the objects of vows!?

And if it is to include a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor,

that they are the objects of vows, this too

it explicitly teaches them!?

If it is to include

that it is possible to obligate oneself for the monetary value of a baby who is

less than one month old—

this too

it explicitly teaches them

later in the Mishna, that he is the object of a vow but is not assessed!?

And if it is to include a gentile

who, although he is not assessed according to Rabbi Yehuda, is nevertheless the object of a vow, this too

it explicitly teaches them!?

And we answer: Rather,

in truth, it is to include one less than one month old,

who, although he has no assessment, has monetary value for being sold in the market. And although this is explicitly stated in the Mishna below, this is the way of the tannai:

he teaches, and afterward explains!

And likewise, it is possible to establish it in this manner concerning a gentile or a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor. [And see Rashi for an additional explanation!] .

And since we have explained what the word "all" comes to include, we also explain what is written "all" in other places in the Mishnayot.

All lay their hands

on the sacrifice—"

all,"

to include what?

To include an heir,

who lays his hands on a sacrifice that his father designated,

and not in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda,

who holds in a beraita below that an heir does not lay his hands on it.

All effect substitution

of a consecrated animal with an unconsecrated animal—

to include what?

To include

an heir who effects substitution of a sacrifice that his father designated with an unconsecrated animal,

and not in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda!

For it was taught: An heir

of a sacrifice

lays his hands

on it, and likewise an

heir

of a sacrifice

effects substitution.

Rabbi Yehuda says: An heir does not lay his hands on it; an heir does not effect substitution!

And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

What is the reason of Rabbi Yehuda?

And we answer: The verse writes three times in the passage concerning laying on of hands

"his sacrifice,"

and from one of them Rabbi Yehuda learns

"his sacrifice, but not his father's sacrifice!" And he derives

the law of substitution, which is

"the beginning of consecration,"

meaning that when one comes to effect substitution of one animal for another and to impose the sanctity of the sacrifice of "substitution" upon the unconsecrated animal, this is the beginning of consecration in the unconsecrated animal; and Rabbi Yehuda learns this

from

the law of laying on of hands, which is

the end of consecration

[since it is close to slaughter]—

just as

laying on of hands, which is

the end

of consecration,

an heir does not lay his hands on it, so too

substitution, which is

the beginning of consecration, an heir does not effect substitution!

And the Rabbis,

who hold that an heir effects substitution, expound that which is written

"he shall surely substitute"—

to include the heir!

And according to them

we derive

the opposite: the law of

laying on of hands,

which is

the end of consecration,

close to slaughter, is learned

from

the law of substitution, which is

the beginning of consecration

of the sacrifice—

just as an heir effects substitution at the beginning of consecration,

as the Rabbis expound from "he shall surely substitute,"

so too an heir lays his hands on it at the end of consecration!

And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

And the Rabbis,

who hold that an heir lays his hands on it,

this "his sacrifice"

written concerning laying on of hands, from which Rabbi Yehuda excludes an heir from laying on of hands—

what do they do with it?

And we answer: For the Rabbis,

they need it

for the three verses "his sacrifice," for these expositions:

a.

"His sacrifice"—

but not the sacrifice of a gentile,

for the sacrifice of a gentile was excluded from laying on of hands [see Tosafot, that the exclusion is from the laying on of hands by a priest].

b.

"His sacrifice"—

but not his fellow's sacrifice!

For a person does not lay hands on a sacrifice that is not his.

c.

"His sacrifice"—

to include all partners in laying on of hands,

for if several partners brought a sacrifice in partnership, all of them must lay hands on it. It is not sufficient for one to lay hands on behalf of all.

And now we raise the question:

And Rabbi Yehuda,

who derives from “his offering” to exclude an offering brought by an heir from the laying on of hands—from where does he derive the three expositions that the Rabbis expounded?

And we answer: What the Rabbis derived from “his offering”

to include all joint owners for the laying on of hands—

he does not have it!

Rather, Rabbi Yehuda holds that one of the partners performs the laying on of hands on behalf of them all .

Alternatively, he does have

this exposition, like the Rabbis, and one “his offering” still remains superfluous for him, to derive from it that an heir does not perform the laying on of hands,