Arakhin 4a (ד.) — the Talmud in English

And

as we learned:

Exact page location

Kohanim and Levites sell forever—

even if they sold property in the Jubilee year itself, the sale is valid and it leaves the buyer’s possession immediately. This is unlike an Israelite, for whom a sale made in the Jubilee year itself does not take effect at all [the practical difference concerns the money: in the case of an Israelite, the money is returned to the buyer, since there was no sale, whereas in the case of a priest, the sale takes effect; therefore, even though the sale is immediately reversed, the money remains with the priests. Rashi. And in Rosh HaShana 29a, Rashi explained the matter differently]. If so,

say that they should likewise not be obligated in the mitzvot of Rosh HaShana; this teaches us

that

although they are not subject to the remission of land,

meaning, in all the laws of the remission of land they are like Israelites, except that they differ with regard to a sale made in the Jubilee year itself, nevertheless

with regard to the remission of monetary debts

in the Sabbatical year

and with regard to the emancipation of slaves in the Jubilee year, they are indeed subject to them. [Although the remission of monetary debts does not apply in the Jubilee year and pertains only to the Sabbatical year, it is connected to the mitzva of the Jubilee, because the Sabbatical year applies only when the Jubilee is observed, Tosafot.] Since they are subject to several laws of the Jubilee, they are therefore obligated in the sounding of the shofar on Rosh HaShana.

And we challenge: Is it not obvious that it is written,

“Everyone is obligated in the reading of the Megilla, priests, Levites, and Israelites”?

And we answer:

It is necessary

only to teach us that they are obligated

to suspend their service, in accordance with what Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel. For Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: “The priests in their service, the Levites on their platform, and the Israelites at their assigned stations suspend

their service and come to hear the reading of the Megilla.”

And we challenge: Is it not obvious concerning that which the beraita teaches:

“Everyone is obligated in zimmun, priests, Levites, and Israelites”?

And we answer:

It is necessary

only in a case

where they are eating sacrificial meat.

For

it might enter your mind to say: The Merciful One said, “And they shall eat them through whom atonement is achieved,”

teaching that the priests eat and the owners attain atonement.

But

the eating is not for the sake of eating, but for the sake of

atonement.

If so, one might say that they should not be obligated in zimmun.

It teaches us

that they are obligated, for

the Merciful One said, “And you shall eat and be satisfied,” and here too that condition exists,

since even the eating of sacrificial meat is eating that brings satiety.

And we challenge:

Everyone joins together for zimmun, priests, Levites, and Israelites—

is this not obvious?

And we answer:

It is necessary

only in a case

where priests are eating teruma or sacrificial meat, while a non-priest is eating non-sacred food.

It might enter your mind to say: Since, if the non-priest wished to eat together with the priest,

from teruma or sacrificial meat,

he could not eat,

as these foods are forbidden to a non-priest,

say that they do not join together for zimmun,

because they are not considered to have eaten together.

It teaches us: Although a non-priest cannot eat together with a priest,

nevertheless

a priest can

eat together with a non-priest,

and for that reason they are considered to have joined together, as though they had eaten together.

And we challenge: Is it not obvious concerning that which is written:

“Everyone makes valuations, priests, Levites, and Israelites”?

And we answer:

Rabba said: It is necessary only with regard to

the position of

ben Bukhri.

As we learned: Rabbi Yehuda said: Ben Bukhri testified in Yavne: Any priest who gives shekels

the half-shekel given on the first of Adar for the communal offerings

does not sin, [although he is not obligated, as it is written, “for everyone who passes among those counted,” and the tribe of Levi was not counted]. If he gives a shekel despite being exempt, he thereby becomes a partner in all the communal offerings; and since he is not obligated, his share is non-sacred property, causing non-sacred property to be sacrificed in the Temple courtyard. Nevertheless, he is not considered to have sinned, as will be explained.

Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai said to him: It is not so

as you say,

but any priest who does not give a shekel

is

a sinner,

because he is obligated in the shekels. [He derives this from “This they shall give”: the numerical value of “zeh” is twelve, corresponding to the twelve tribes, including the tribe of Levi; and “everyone who passes” Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai interprets as everyone who passed through the Sea of Reeds],

but the priests expound this verse

below

for themselves,

improperly and for their own benefit.

And this is how they expounded it:

“Every meal-offering of a priest shall be entirely burned; it shall not be eaten,”

but it is burned in its entirety upon the altar. And they say:

“Since the omer, the two loaves, and the showbread,

if we give a half-shekel,

are ours,

for we too are partners in them, since they too come from the contribution of the shekels, like all communal offerings, then

how are they eaten?

Are they not the meal-offering of a priest?” [In truth, this is not an argument. Only when the meal-offering belongs entirely to a priest is it required to be burned in its entirety; but with a communal meal-offering, the majority, who are not priests, determines the matter, and it does not have the status of a priest’s meal-offering].

And since we cited the Mishna, we challenge:

And according to ben Bukhri too, since they are not initially obligated,

the tribe of Levi,

when they do give, they too are sinners,

since

they bring non-sacred property into the Temple courtyard.

For every communal offering brought from the priest’s shekels contains a share belonging to him; and since he is not obligated, the priest’s share in the offering is not sacred. Why, then, does he say that he does not sin?

And he answers:

He brings them,

the shekels,

and gives them to the community

as a gift before their consecration, and the community consecrates them as the priest’s shekels. At that point, they no longer belong to the priest.

Now we return to explaining why it was written, “Everyone makes valuations, priests, etc.” And we answer: In the view of ben Bukhri,

it might enter your mind to say: Since it is written, “And every valuation of yours shall be in the shekel of the Sanctuary,”

we should infer from this that

everyone who is subject to shekels is subject to valuations; and these priests,

since

in the view of ben Bukhri

they are not subject to shekels, they are not subject

also

to valuations. It teaches us

that this is not inferred.

And we reject this:

Abaye said to him:

This phrase,

“and every valuation,”

does not come to teach this, but comes for the following law:

Every valuation that you make,

not according to the fixed valuation stated in the Torah, but according to the law of “the extent of one’s means,” when the person who made the vow is poor [as it is written, “But if he is too poor for your valuation, then he shall be presented before the priest, and the priest shall value him according to what the person who vowed can afford”]

shall not be less than a sela—

that is what it comes

to teach [that if he was assessed at less than a sela, he gives nothing, and if he subsequently becomes wealthy, he pays the fixed valuation. Rabbeinu Gershom], as the verse “and every valuation of yours shall be in the shekel of the Sanctuary” indicates: at the very least, the payment of the valuation shall be one sela.

Rather, Abaye said: It is necessary

to teach us that priests are included for another reason. Namely,

it might enter your mind to say: Since it is written, “And its redemption, from one month shall you redeem according to your valuation,”

we might compare the redemption of the firstborn to valuations

and

say:

Everyone who is subject to the redemption of the firstborn is subject to valuations.

And these priests,

since they are not subject to the redemption of the firstborn [as explained in tractate Bekhorot, by a kal va-chomer: if the firstborn of Israelites were exempt in the wilderness, all the more so their own firstborn],

[as explained in tractate Bekhorot, by an a-fortiori inference: if the firstborn Israelites were exempted in the wilderness, all the more so the firstborn of the Levites themselves],

are not subject to valuations. It teaches us

that we do not make this comparison.

And we reject this:

Rava said to him: If that is so,

if you compare valuations to the redemption of the firstborn,

with regard to a guilt-offering ram, as it is written, “And he shall bring his guilt-offering to the Lord, a ram without blemish from the flock, according to your valuation

for a guilt-offering,”

is it likewise

appropriate to compare them and say that

everyone who is subject to valuations is subject to a guilt-offering ram?

Therefore,

a tumtum and an androgynos, who are not subject to valuations,

as stated in the Mishna,

are they not subject to a guilt-offering ram?

Rather, Rava said—and some say Rav Ashi:

For another reason, it is

necessary

to teach us that priests are included. For

it might enter your mind to say: Since it is written

with regard to valuations, concerning a poor person who made a valuation and does not have the means to pay the valuation fixed by the Torah,

“And he shall stand before the priest, and the priest shall value him,”

this implies that this law was stated only with regard to

an Israelite,

who alone stands

before a priest

to have his valuation determined so that he can pay according to what he can afford, and because the passage says, “Speak to the children of Israel” [Rabbeinu Gershom],

but not a priest before a priest. It teaches us

that priests too are included among Israel with regard to this law.

Now the Gemara returns to the primary laws of our Mishna and to what we said at the beginning of the chapter.

Everyone

is subject to valuations—

this comes to include an ugly person and one afflicted with boils!

And we inquire:

From where are these matters derived?

And we answer:

For the Sages taught: “According to your valuation

of persons”—

to include an unspecified valuation [and below the Gemara explains this].

[and below the Gemara explains this].

Alternatively: “According to your valuation”

comes to exclude the following:

He gives the valuation of the entire person, but he does not give the valuation of his limbs!

For example, if he said, “The valuation of my hand is upon me,” he has said nothing. This is not like a vow, which takes effect even when one says, “The monetary value of my hand is upon me,” in which case he gives the value of his hand. With monetary value, the matter depends on its market value, and it is possible to sell the use of one’s labor; whereas with a “valuation,” which is fixed by the Torah, the Torah did not establish valuations for limbs, and the verse comes to exclude the possibility of learning this from vows.

One might think that I should also exclude

a person who made a valuation of a limb that is

essential to life,

for example, if he said, “The valuation of my head” or “the valuation of my liver,” so that it too would not take effect.

The verse states: “Persons”—

the Torah made the matter dependent on a living person; if he made a valuation of something upon which life depends, he gives the valuation of the entire person.

The verse also comes to exclude:

“Persons,” but not a dead person.

If he said, “The valuation of this dead person is upon me,” although, with regard to valuations, the person being valued need not possess monetary value, he has said nothing, because a dead person has no living soul.

One might

exclude the dead person

on the basis of this verse,

but

still

not exclude a dying person,

and say that he is subject to valuation, since he is included within the category of a living person?

The verse states

with regard to the law of the extent of one’s means for a poor person,

“And he shall stand and be valued.” Anyone who is subject to standing is subject to valuation, and anyone who is not subject to standing

such as a dying person, who, because of his weakness, cannot stand before the priest,

is not subject to valuation. 55 .

Alternatively,

the verse is expounded as follows:

“Persons”

—why is this word stated? If the verse had said “person,” I would say:

I know only of one person who valued one person,

as it is written, “When a person explicitly vows a valuation,” implying that the verse speaks of one person being valued.

What is the source for one person who valued one hundred people?

The verse states: “Persons.”