Arakhin 4b — the Talmud in English

Alternatively:

“souls”

is needed for this purpose.

I have only that a man who assessed, whether

he assessed

a man or a woman, as it is written, “When a man explicitly vows,” which implies specifically a man who assessed.

as it is written: “When a man expressly takes a vow,” which implies specifically a man who made the assessment.

A woman who assessed a man,

and likewise

a woman who assessed a woman—

from where?

The verse states, “according to your assessment,

souls,”

which implies that all souls, whether a man or a woman, can assess.

Alternatively: “souls”

why is it stated?

To include the disfigured and the leper,

so that if they were assessed, the obligation of the assessment applies.

One might have thought

that we should compare vows to assessments, from the verse

“a vow according to your assessment,”

and it is stated:

“Anyone who has

a vow

of monetary value has an assessment, and anyone who does not have a monetary value”

such as the disfigured and the leper, who have no monetary worth,

does not have an assessment.

The verse states

“souls,”

to include everything that is a soul, even when it has no monetary value.

They brought the entire beraita because of this exposition, for through it what we asked is resolved: from where is it known that the disfigured and the leper are assessed? And they further expound:

“And your assessment shall be

the male,”—

to include a tumtum and an androgynos for monetary value,

from “and it shall be.”

One might have thought

that we should compare monetary values to assessments, from the verse

“a vow according to your assessment,”

and it is stated:

“Anyone who has an assessment has a monetary value, and anyone who does not have an assessment,”

such as a tumtum and an androgynos,

does not have a monetary value; the verse states, ‘And your assessment shall be”

that they have a monetary value. [Although the main verse speaks of assessments, if it is not needed for assessments, apply it to monetary values. Rashi].

And now he explains from where we know that a tumtum and an androgynos do not have an assessment:

“Male,” and not a tumtum or an androgynos. Could it be that they will not have the

law of

the assessment

of

a man ,

since they are not certainly a man,

but they will have

the law of

the assessment

of

a woman,

which is the lesser of the two?

The verse states, ‘And your assessment shall be the male

[and later in the verses]

and if she is female’—

a definite male and a definite female

are obligated in assessments,

but not a tumtum,

which is uncertain,

and

not

an androgynos,

which has a male aspect and a female aspect.

And now we return to explain the beginning of the beraita:

The Master said: “According to your assessment,” to include an unspecified assessment!

What is an unspecified assessment?

As it was taught: One who says, “An unspecified assessment is incumbent upon me,”

and did not specify whose, but merely said, “An assessment is incumbent upon me,” and nothing more,

gives the least of the assessments. And how much is the least of the assessments—

the assessment of a female from one month old until five years old, which is

three shekels.

And he challenges:

But say fifty

shekels, according to the greatest amount, as the assessment of a male from twenty years old until sixty?

And he answers: It is a general principle:

You have grasped the greater—

you have not grasped it!

For from where do you know to grasp specifically the greater amount? But if

you have grasped the lesser—

you have grasped it!

For this is certainly true, since the lesser is included in the greater.

And he further challenges:

But say one shekel,

which is the least of the assessments,

“as it is written, ‘And every assessment of yours shall be in the sacred shekel’”?

And we answer:

That

verse

in

“attainment of his means”

is what is written: if he is poor and his means do not suffice to pay his full assessment, the priest may not assess him at less than one shekel. But the law of a fixed assessment is that it is not less than three shekels.

The Gemara challenges:

He challenges:

But then,

since an unspecified assessment is three sela,

the

verse “according to your assessment,” from which an unspecified assessment is learned,

why do I need it?

Is it not obvious logically that one must give the lowest fixed assessment among the assessments?

And we answer:

Rav Naḥman said in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha: It teaches that he is not judged,

one who says an unspecified assessment,

according to

“attainment of his means,”

even if his means suffice only for one shekel, he is not exempted with less than three shekels.

What is the reason

that one who says an unspecified assessment is not judged according to attainment of his means like all those who make assessments?

And we answer: One who says an unspecified assessment

is considered like one who specified,

for he obligates himself to three shekels. Specifically, when one says, “The assessment of so-and-so is incumbent upon me,” and does not specify the assessment, where it is not evident how much he obligated himself to, for not everyone knows the years of the person assessed, there is the law of attainment of means. But in an unspecified assessment, it is evident that he obligates himself to the lowest fixed assessment, which is three shekels.

Some say: Rav Naḥman said in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha:

the verse comes for this purpose, to teach that even an unspecified assessment

is judged according to attainment of his means.

He challenges:

It is obvious,

as with the other assessments?

And he answers:

Lest you say that he is considered like one who specified,

and like one who says, “Three shekels are incumbent upon me,” to which the law of attainment of means does not apply,

it teaches us

that it is like the other assessments, and this disagrees with the first formulation as a matter of halakha.

And now he explains the entire continuation of the words of the beraita, what the tannai said in the beraita:

“According to your assessment”—

he gives the entire assessment, and he does not give the assessment of limbs!

This is difficult:

But you have used it up

for this verse, to expound from it

an unspecified assessment,

and it is not superfluous for this exposition.

And we answer:

Read in it

as follows: The tannai expounds that it could have written

“assessment,”

but it is written

“according to your assessment,”

and both the additional bet and the additional kaf are superfluous; from this the two expositions are derived.

And the beraita continues:

“I might exclude something upon which the soul depends”

so that it is not assessed;

the verse states, “souls.”

And afterward the tannai expounds from this verse

“souls”—

and not the dead,

for the dead is not assessed. And this is difficult:

But you have used it up

for the verse “souls” for another exposition; how can two expositions be derived from it?

And we answer:

Read in it:

it could have written

“soul,”

but it is written

“souls,”

and from the superfluous plural wording the second exposition is derived.

And concerning this exposition,

“I will exclude the dead

who is not assessed

but I will not exclude the dying person,”

and he will be assessed,

the verse states, “And he shall assess and present,”

for the dying person is not assessed. They ask:

If so—

the dead person too can be excluded by “and he shall present and assess,”

for he is not fit to be presented; why is the exclusion of “souls” needed?

And we answer:

That is also so,

the dead person too is excluded from there.

But then, the exposition of

“soul” and “souls”—why do I need it?

It comes for another exposition,

as we shall say below,

to include the disfigured and the leper.

And later in the beraita we learned:

Alternatively: “souls.”

I have only that one person assessed one person.

One person who assessed one hundred—from where? The verse states, “souls.”

Alternatively: “souls.”

I have only that a man assessed, whether

he assessed

a man or

he assessed

a woman.

A woman who assessed a man, and a woman who assessed a woman—from where? The verse states, “souls.”

Alternatively: “souls,” to include the disfigured and the leper.

And we ask:

But you have used it up

for “souls,”

for those

expositions above; how is it possible additionally to include the disfigured and the leper?

And we answer:

Those,

one who assessed one hundred and a woman who assessed,

do not require a verse

of “souls,” which is written in the plural. For even if “soul” had been written in the singular, we would have learned everything: both something upon which the soul depends, and one person who assessed one hundred, and a woman who assessed. For “soul” implies many souls as well as a woman and something upon which the soul depends. And although these are three expositions, nevertheless we would have learned all of them from the verse “soul.”

What is the reason? For it is evenly balanced

between all three of these expositions, and there is no basis for preferring one over the other; and whichever of them you remove,

and

necessarily

all of them will come in.

The verse was needed

“souls” in the plural

for the disfigured and the leper

who is assessed;

that is what it was needed for.

And concerning the exposition

“And your assessment shall be”—

to include a tumtum and an androgynos for monetary value!

We asked:

Monetary value—

why do I need a verse

to include them? [Although the Gemara explained above that we would have reasoned to compare monetary values to assessments, and just as they are not assessed, they are not subject to vows of monetary value, it is nevertheless difficult how we could entertain this],

let it be only

like one

who says

“the value of a date palm”

is incumbent upon me!

If he said

“the value of a date palm,”

would he not give

its value to the Temple treasury? And in what way are a tumtum and an androgynos diminished?

And we answer:

Rabbah said:

The verse is needed

to say that

even in the case of a tumtum and an androgynos,

each limb is judged

according to

its full value!

For if one vows the monetary value of a limb upon which the soul depends, he gives the value of the entire person. For

it might enter your mind to say, “A vow according to your assessment,

souls,”

is written,

and from there we learn the law that he is judged according to his full value [from the inclusion “souls”],

and let us say: Anyone who has an assessment is judged according to his full value, and anyone who does not have an assessment,

such as a tumtum and an androgynos, is not judged according to his full value;

it teaches us

that even one who does not have an assessment is judged according to his full value.

Abaye said to him:

But is it so that one

who is not present among those subject to assessments—does he

have the law of

being judged according to his full value? But it was taught:

One who says,

“The head of this slave is consecrated,”

but did not consecrate the rest of his body, behold,

he and the Temple treasury are partners

in him! They sell him and divide the money. And likewise concerning a sale, if one says to his fellow,

“The head of a slave is sold to you,” they assess [

estimate]

between them

how much he is worth and divide his value. [Rashi found it difficult why concerning consecration partnership is stated, whereas concerning a sale assessment between them is stated] .

And the same law applies to

“The head of this donkey is consecrated”:

he and the Temple treasury are partners in it,

and likewise,

“The head of a donkey is sold to you”—

they assess between them.

But

“The head of a cow is sold to you”—he sold only the head of the cow,

and they do not divide the whole of it as with a donkey.

And furthermore

[only concerning a sale]

but even if he said

“The head of a cow is consecrated,”

the Temple treasury has only its head,

and not half of it.

And Rav Pappa said,

concerning the reason for the distinction between a cow and a donkey and a slave:

for the head of an ox is sold in the butcher’s market,

and therefore it has value in itself, and consequently the intention of the one who consecrates and the one who sells is that it should apply to the head alone. This is not so with a donkey and a slave, whose heads are not customarily sold separately; certainly, when he consecrates their heads, he intends half.

And Abaye challenges Rabbah:

But a donkey and a cow are not subject to assessments,

they are not assessed, and because of this

there is no

law of

being judged according to its full value in their case. And although the head is a limb upon which the soul depends, not the whole is consecrated—only the head in the case of a cow, or half in the case of a donkey. This is difficult for Rabbah, who said that even one who does not have an assessment is judged according to its full value in the realm of monetary values .

And although the head is a limb upon which life depends, the entire animal is not consecrated: only the head in the case of a cow, or half in the case of a donkey. This is difficult for Rabba, who said that even one who is not subject to valuations is, with regard to monetary values, assessed according to his full value.

And Rabbah answers:

“According to your reasoning,”

that the reason concerning a cow and a donkey is that they are not subject to assessments, you still

should have difficulty with a slave,

for he too is not entirely consecrated, even though

he is present among those subject to assessments,

as is explained in the Mishna,

and he is not judged according to his full value.

Rather,

Rabbah says: It is necessary to divide it thus:

This is not difficult:

that which is not judged according to its value—it is speaking

of the sanctities of the altar,

where he said: “The head of this donkey, or the head of this slave, for the value of a burnt offering.” And this that we said is judged according to its value, in one who vows its value, this is only

in the sanctities

of Temple maintenance,

because the law of “judged according to its value” is learned from the verse “persons,” which is written concerning valuations, that they are given for Temple maintenance; and from this they learn only a vow of monetary value for Temple maintenance, but not for the sanctities of the altar.

And Abaye further challenges:

How did you establish

the beraita?

As referring to the sanctities of the altar.

Say the latter clause

of the beraita:

“And not only this, but even if he said, ‘The head of this cow is consecrated,’ the consecrated property has only its head! Why?”

For behold, it is fit for offering, and the sanctity of the body takes effect in it, and

sanctity should spread throughout it,

even though he consecrated only its head.