האומר ערך כלי זה עלי נותן דמיו מ"ט אדם יודע שאין ערך לכלי וגמר ואמר לשום דמים משום הכי נותן דמיו האי ערכין המטלטלין ערכין של מטלטלין מיבעיא ליה תני ערכין של מטלטלין
If one declares, 'I dedicate the value of this vessel [to the Sanctuary]', its value must be handed over. Why so? Because it is well known<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'a man knows'.
');"><sup>1</sup></span> that there is no fixed assessment [in the Torah] for such objects:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the Bible, the word [H] ('erek) is used only in reference to men, and indicates a dedication of fixed sums varying according to the age and sex of the person who is the subject of such a dedication. Hence, strictly speaking, the word is meaningless when used in reference to utensils, and therefore a different meaning has to be given to it here.
');"><sup>2</sup></span>
Tosafot on Kiddushin
"If so, then it would be property that has capacity for mortgage [i.e. the wife, that is bought along with property that doesn't, i.e. the maneh, which doesn't work]!" Rashi's explanation: "Because humans are compared to land, as it is written, 'You will inherit them [Canaanite slaves] as an inheritance holding [a phrase normally applied to land]'. Problem: This verse is written about a slave, but a freeman is not compared [to land] except only in [the case of one who vowed to bring to the Temple by saying] "My own value is upon me", since [that person] is evaluated like a slave as we see in the first chapter of Sanhedrin (15b), and a slave [being similar to land] is anyway subject to a dispute in the first chapter of Baba Kama (12a) whether they are similar to land or moveable property! Solution: [Rav Ashi's objection] is not specifically [based on the fact that people] have capacity for mortgage, but even if they don't have capacity for mortgage, there is no case where moveables can be acquired "on the back of" moveables [unlike land, for which you can acquire all the moveables "on its back"], since [the idea of] "on its back" is not relevant for property that doesn't have capacity for mortgage. Alternative solution: This is what he meant to say: You're forced to say, if a wife is acquired "on the back of" moveables, a field could also be acquired "on the back of" moveables, for we derive the acquisition of money for a wife from the field [of Efron] from [the ג״ש of] "purchase" "purchase", and if a field can't be acquired [in this way], from where would you derive it for a wife!?
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
