Arakhin 4a — the Talmud in English

And so too,

as we learned: Priests and Levites sell forever

— precise page location

and redeem forever

, for even in the very year of the Jubilee, if they sold, it is sold and leaves immediately. And it is not like an Israelite, for one who sells in the very year of the Jubilee—the sale does not take effect at all [and the practical difference is regarding the money. In the case of an Israelite, the money returns to the buyer, for there is no sale here, whereas in the case of Priests the sale takes effect. Therefore, even though the sale returns immediately, the money nevertheless remains in their possession. Rashi. And in Rosh Hashana 29a, Rashi explained it differently], and if so,

say that with regard to the mitzva of Rosh Hashana as well they should not be obligated; it teaches us

that

although they are not included in the remission of land,

that is, in every law of the remission of lands as an Israelite, but they differ in the law of sale in the very Jubilee year, nevertheless

in the remission of debts

in the Sabbatical year

and in the release of slaves of the Jubilee, at least, they are included. [Although the remission of debts does not apply in the Jubilee and relates only to the Sabbatical year, it has a connection to the mitzva of Jubilee, for the Sabbatical year applies only when the Jubilee applies, Tosafot.] And since they are included in several matters of Jubilee, they are therefore obligated in the sounding of the shofar of Rosh Hashana.

And we challenge: This that it is written

“Everyone is obligated in the reading of the Scroll: Priests, Levites, and Israelites”—is it not obvious!?]]

And we answer:

It is necessary

only to teach us that they are obligated

to interrupt their service, in accordance with what Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel. For Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: “Priests in their service, Levites on their platform, and Israelites at their station interrupt

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

And we challenge: This that it is taught in a

“Everyone is obligated in zimmun: Priests, Levites, and Israelites”—is it not obvious!?]]

And we answer:

It is necessary

only in a case

where they are eating sacred offerings.

For

it might enter your mind to say: “For they shall eat them by whom atonement is made,” the Merciful One said,

teaching that the Priests eat and the owners receive atonement.

But

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

atonement,

and if so, let us say that they should not be obligated in zimmun.

It teaches us

that they are obligated, for

“and you shall eat and be satisfied,” the Merciful One said, and here too they are included

for even the eating of sacred offerings is eating for satiety.

And we challenge:

Everyone joins for zimmun, Priests, Levites, and Israelites—

is it not obvious!?

And we answer:

It is necessary

only when

Priests are eating teruma or sacred offerings, and an ordinary Israelite is eating unconsecrated food.

It might enter your mind to say: Since, if the ordinary Israelite wished to eat together with the Priest

from teruma and sacred offerings,

he could not eat,

for they are forbidden to an ordinary Israelite,

say that they do not join for zimmun,

since it is not considered that they ate together.

It teaches us: Although an ordinary Israelite cannot eat together with a Priest,

but

a Priest can

eat together with an ordinary Israelite,

and for this reason it is considered a joining, as though they ate together.

And we challenge: This that it is written:

“Everyone makes valuations, Priests, Levites, and Israelites”—is it obvious?!]]

And we answer:

Rabba said: It is necessary only for

the position of

Ben Bukri.

For we learned: Rabbi Yehuda said: Ben Bukri testified in Yavne: Any Priest who weighs shekels

in Adar, the half-shekel for the communal offerings,

does not sin, [even though he is not obligated, as it is written, “for everyone who passes among those counted,” and the tribe of Levi was not counted]. And if he weighs despite being exempt, it turns out that he is a partner in all the communal offerings; and since he is not obligated, his portion is unconsecrated and causes unconsecrated property to be offered in the Temple courtyard. Nevertheless, he is not considered a sinner, as will be explained.

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

as you say,

but any Priest who does not weigh

is

a sinner,

for he is obligated in the shekels. [And he learns this from “this they shall give”: “this” has the numerical value of twelve tribes, meaning also the tribe of Levi; “everyone who passes” Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai interprets as everyone who passed through the Reed Sea].

Rather, the Priests interpret this verse

below

for themselves

not according to law, but for their own benefit.

And this is how they interpreted it:

“Every meal-offering of a Priest shall be wholly offered; it shall not be eaten,”

but it is entirely burned upon the altar. And they say:

Since the Omer, the two loaves, and the showbread,

if we weigh half a 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,

for is this not a Priest’s meal-offering? [But in truth this is not an argument. Only when it is entirely the Priest’s does its law require that it be wholly burned; but regarding a communal meal-offering, one follows the majority, who are not Priests , and it does not have the status of a Priest’s meal-offering].

And incidentally, since we brought the mishna, we challenge:

And according to Ben Bukri as well, since initially they are not obligated,

the tribe of Levi,

when they bring them, they too are sinners,

since

they bring unconsecrated property into the Temple courtyard.

For every communal offering that comes from the Priest’s shekels contains a portion belonging to him, and he is not obligated; it follows that the Priest’s portion in the offering is not sacred but is unconsecrated property. And why 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 consecration, and the community consecrates them as the Priest’s shekels; then it is no longer the Priest’s.

And now we return to answer the question of why it was written, “Everyone makes valuations, Priests, etc.” And we answer: Regarding Ben Bukri,

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

and we should infer from this that

everyone who is included in shekels is included in valuations; and these Priests

since

according to Ben Bukri

they are not included in shekels, they are not included

also

in valuations. It teaches us

that we do not learn this.

And we reject this:

Abaye said to him

: Behold,

this “and every valuation”

was not written to teach us this, but it comes for this law:

Every valuation that you make

not according to the fixed valuation in the Torah, but according to the law of “means,” when the one who vows is poor [as it is written, “But if he is too poor for your valuation, then he shall be placed before the Priest, and the Priest shall value him according to what the hand of the one who vows can afford”]

shall not be less than a sela—

it is what it came

to teach [that if he was valued at less than a sela, he gives nothing, and if afterward he becomes wealthy, he pays according to his fixed valuation. Rabbenu Gershom], for this is what the verse “and every valuation of yours shall be in the sacred shekel” implies: that at the very least the payment of the valuation shall be a sela.

Rather, Abaye said: It was necessary

to teach us about Priests for another reason. And this is:

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

and perhaps we should compare the redemption of the firstborn to valuations,

and

say:

Everyone who is included in the redemption of the firstborn is included in valuations.

And these Priests

since they are not included in 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],

they are not included in valuations. It teaches us

that we do not make this comparison.

And we reject this:

Rava said to him: But if that is so,

that you compared valuations to the redemption of the firstborn,

regarding the guilt-ram, as it is written, “And he shall bring his guilt-offering to the Lord, an unblemished ram from the flock, according to your valuation

for a guilt-offering,”

is it also so

that we should compare them and say that

everyone who is included in valuations is included in the guilt-ram,

and therefore

a tumtum and an androgynos, who are not included in valuations,

as is explained in the mishna,

are not included in the guilt-ram!?

Rather, Rava said—and some say Rav Ashi:

for another reason

it was necessary

to teach us about Priests. For

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

regarding 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,”

and it implies that this law was stated only concerning

an Israelite,

for only he must stand

before a Priest

to value him, so that he may pay according to what his hand can afford; and because it is written in the passage, “Speak to the children of Israel” [Rabbenu Gershom],

and not a Priest before a Priest, it teaches us

that Priests too are included among Israel in this law.

And now the Gemara returns to the principal laws of our mishna and to what we said at the beginning of the chapter.

Everyone

is subject to valuations—

to include a repulsive person and one afflicted with boils!

And we inquire:

From where are these matters?

And we answer:

For the Sages taught: “According to your valuation

of persons”—

to include an unspecified valuation

[and below it explains this].

Another matter: “According to your valuation”

comes to exclude:

He gives the entire valuation and 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 value of my hand is upon me,” in which case he gives the value of his hand. For with values, the matter depends on its sale-value in the marketplace, and it is possible to sell the labor of his hands; whereas with a “valuation,” which is fixed by the Torah, the Torah did not fix a valuation for limbs, and the verse comes to exclude that we should not learn it from a vow.

One might think that I exclude even

if he valued a limb that is

a thing upon which the soul depends,

for example, if he said, “The valuation of my head,” or “the valuation of my liver,” which likewise would not take effect?

The verse states, “persons”

: The Torah made the matter dependent on the soul, and if he valued something upon which the soul depends, he gives the entire valuation.

And it also comes to exclude:

“Persons,” and not the dead.

If he said, “The valuation of this dead person is upon me,” although with valuations it is not necessary that the person valued have monetary value, he has said nothing, because the dead has no soul.

One might

exclude the dead

from this verse,

and

still

not exclude one who is dying,

and say that he is subject to valuation, for he is included in “person”?

The verse states

regarding the law of means for a poor person,

“And he shall stand and he shall be valued.” Everyone who is included in standing is included in valuation, and everyone who is not included in standing

such as one who is dying who, because of his weakness, cannot stand before the Priest,

is not included in valuation 55 .

Another matter

: Thus the verse is expounded:

“Persons”

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

I have only one who valued one,

as it is written, “When a person expressly makes a valuation according to your valuation,” implying that the verse speaks of one person valued.

One who valued one hundred—

from where? The verse states, “persons.”