Arakhin 5b — the Talmud in English

:

And according to Rabbi Meir,

since the words of Rav Giddel were stated according to his method, it is obvious that, in the case of a vessel, he gives its value, for all the more so he completed his statement with the intention of [giving] money, since it is impossible to say that he erred,

and for what purpose was it necessary

for Rav Giddel to say this?

And we answer:

lest you say that Rabbi Meir’s reason there

is not because he completed his statement with the intention of [giving] money, but because it is a decree.

For he decreed concerning one less than a month old on account of one a month old.

And if we exempt one less than a month old, there is concern that he will come to exempt even one a month old.

But here,

in the case of a vessel,

where there is no basis for decreeing

lest they err between a vessel and a person and say that he is not liable,

it teaches us that Rabbi Meir’s reason

is not because of a decree, but because

a person does not utter his words in vain. It makes no difference here

with regard to one less than a month old,

and it makes no difference here

in the case of a vessel, for this reason certainly applies to it.

We inquire concerning this:

According to whom does this statement go, which Rabbah bar Yosef said in the name of Rav—and some say Rav Yeiva bar Yosef said in the name of Rav: “One who consecrates his fellow’s animal gives its value”?

And he answers,

according to whom? According to Rabbi Meir,

who holds that a person does not utter his words in vain; and likewise here, a person knows that consecration does not take effect upon something that is not his, and he completed his statement with the intention of [giving] money.

And he objects:

But Rav already stated it

according to Rabbi Meir’s method

one time!? For Rav Giddel said in the name of Rav: “One who says, ‘The valuation of this vessel is upon me,’ gives its value,”

and why was it necessary for him to repeat and teach it?

And we answer:

lest you say that there

in the case of a vessel,

it

is where Rabbi Meir’s reason applies,

for he knows that there is no valuation for a vessel and completed his statement with the intention of [giving] money; but an animal

belonging to his fellow,

which is fit to be consecrated

and whose owners can consecrate its very body,

it may be said that this is what he said,

the one consecrating:

If I say to its owner

that he should sell it to me—

“he will sell it to me,”

therefore

“let it be consecrated for him now, and I will offer it

when I acquire it.” And although it is not yet his, he is mistaken in this and thinks that consecration from now is effective for after he takes possession of it; but he did not intend to obligate himself to give money.

It teaches us

that he is not mistaken in this; rather, he certainly knows that consecration does not take effect upon its body, and he intended [to give] money.

Mar bar Rav Ashi said

concerning this law:

And this is so when he says

“this animal of my fellow”

“is upon me,”

]] and then an obligation of money applies, [for the expression “it is upon me” signifies an obligation upon the person].

But if he said, “Behold,

the animal of my fellow

this one

as consecration,” and did not say “upon me,”

he

said nothing, for he did not obligate himself in anything; rather, he spoke about the animal.

Mishna:

A gentile—

Rabbi Meir says: is assessed [if an Israelite said, “His valuation is upon me,” he gives his valuation].

if a Jew says, “His valuation is upon me,” the Jew gives the prescribed valuation.

But he does not assess [if the gentile said, “My valuation,” or “the valuation of another,” is upon me, he has said nothing].

if the gentile says, “My valuation,” or “The valuation of another person, is upon me,” he has said nothing.

Rabbi Judah says: he assesses

but he is not assessed.

And both this one and that one [Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah]

Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda

agree

that gentiles

vow

“the value of so-and-so is upon me,”

and are the subject of vows

through saying, “Behold, the value of a gentile is upon me.”

Gemara:

The Sages taught: “The children of Israel”

is written in the passage. And they expound that specifically they

assess, but gentiles do not assess.

Could it be

even

gentiles

gentiles

not be assessed?

The verse says: “A man

who articulately vows,” which implies everyone and includes gentiles.

The words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Meir said

to explain his words:

Now since one verse, “a man,”

“a person”

includes

gentiles,

and one verse, “the children of Israel,”

“the children of Israel”

excludes

gentiles,

for what reason

do I

say

that a gentile

is assessed

and exclude

that he does not assess?

Is it not possible to say the opposite?

And he answers:

Because the verse included more

in the law of

those who are assessed

than in the law of

those who assess.

For a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor are assessed,

for he is included in the fixed valuation stated in the passage,

but they do not assess.

Therefore it is reasonable to assign the inclusion to those assessed and the exclusion to those who assess.

Rabbi Judah says: “The children of Israel”

is written in the passage, to expound that specifically they

are assessed, and gentiles are not assessed. Could it be

even

they do not assess? The verse says: “A man

who articulately vows,” to include gentiles.

Rabbi Judah said

to explain his words:

Now since one verse, “a man,”

“a person”

includes

gentiles,

and one verse, “the children of Israel,”

“the children of Israel”

excludes

gentiles,

for what reason do I say that a gentile assesses but is not assessed?

And he answers:

Because the verse included

to be stringent

with regard to those who assess more than with regard to those who are assessed. For a tumtum and an androgynos assess, but are not assessed,

since only a definite male and a definite female are assessed; therefore it is more reasonable to assign the inclusion to gentiles who assess.

Rava said: Rabbi Meir’s halakha

that a gentile is assessed but does not assess

is reasonable,

but

his reason is not reasonable.

Rabbi Meir’s halakha is reasonable

because

it is written: “It is not for you

and for us to build a house for our God.”

Thus Nehemiah son of Hachaliah said to gentiles who were donating and wished to assist in building the Temple, that it was not proper for gentiles to participate in building the Temple. And from this one can learn concerning arakhin, which likewise are for the repair of the Temple, that gentiles do not assess, and assign the verse “the children of Israel” to this.

The reason

of Rabbi Meir

is not reasonable, for he brings it

from the fact that the verse included more with regard to those assessed than with regard to those who assess

from a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor—

this is no proof.

For a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor are different,

since this is a logical consideration: throughout the entire Torah it is the law

that they are not people of understanding

and their acts are nothing, and therefore they do not assess; but concerning a gentile who vows and consecrates, it should be said that he also assesses, were it not for the verse cited above. [“It is not for you and for us to build a house for our God.”]

Rabbi Judah’s reason is reasonable, for he brings it

from the fact that the verse included more with regard to those who assess,

from a tumtum and an androgynos, for although they are people of understanding

like gentiles,

the Merciful One excluded them

from valuation, and this is considered a leniency with regard to those assessed in comparison with those who assess. Therefore, concerning gentiles as well, one can say so.

His halakha

of Rabbi Judah

is not reasonable.

For it is written: “It is not for you and for us to build a house for our God.”

This shows that the power of gentiles to consecrate was weakened, and likewise one should say that they do not assess.

And we object:

But Rabbi Judah,

who holds that they assess,

what does he do with this “for you and not for us,”

which implies from the verse that they do not assess,

what does he do with it?

And we answer:

Rav Hisda said in the name of Avimi:

Rabbi Judah also concedes that the money of the gentile’s valuations is not used for the repair of the Temple; rather,

his valuation is stored away.

As is demonstrated by the fact that Nehemiah son of Hachaliah prevented gentiles from bringing [offerings], but they do assess, in the sense that sanctity takes effect upon the money.

And he objects:

If so,

since the consecration for the repair of the Temple that a gentile consecrated is destined to be lost,

one should not commit meila with it

and become liable for an offering of meila. For it was taught:

“Sin-offerings that are put to death” [the offspring of a sin-offering, the substitution of a sin-offering, and so on, which are not offered but are left until they die on their own].

such as the offspring of a sin offering and an animal exchanged for a sin offering, which are not offered but are left until they die on their own,

And

likewise

money

that he set aside for a sin-offering, which was lost and found after the owner had already achieved atonement, whose law is

that they go to the Salt Sea

to destroy them—

one may not benefit

from them, for they are forbidden for benefit,

and one does not commit meila

with them, for if he benefits, he is not liable for an offering of meila, since this is not considered “from the holy things of the Lord,” which is stated concerning liability for an offering, since it is destined to be lost. And likewise it should be said concerning a gentile’s sacred property for the repair of the Temple, whose law is that it be stored away, that there should be no meila with it.

Therefore, it was taught concerning the sacred property of gentiles: “When are these words said, that one does not commit meila with them? With sacred property of the altar,”

for meila, in which “sin” is written, is learned by a gzera shava from “sin,” which is written concerning a non-kohen who ate teruma; and just as with teruma the liability for death applies only to the teruma of an Israelite, so meila applies only to the sacred property of an Israelite.

But with the sacred property

of gentiles for

the repair of the Temple, one does commit meila with them,

and they are not learned from teruma, for the sanctity of the body applies to it, and it is not like the sacred property for the repair of the Temple, which has sanctity of money. And from the fact that it is written that one commits meila with the sacred property of gentiles, it is proven that it is not stored away; rather, it is used for the repair of the Temple.

Rather, Rava said

to reconcile the verse “It is not for you and for us” according to Rabbi Judah: certainly, they accept the sacred property of gentiles for the repair of the Temple. And the fact that Nehemiah son of Hachaliah prevented them from bringing it was

because of weakening of hands,

since the gentiles did not intend for the good; rather, they intended that reliance would also be placed upon them and that their counsel would be heard, and they would delay the building until they turned Cyrus’s heart against building it.

For it is written: “And the people of the land weakened the hands of the people of Judah and terrified them from building.”