Arakhin 10

ולרבי מאיר למאי איצטריך

But why was it necessary [for Rab] to state [this ruling] on the view of R'Meir? - One might have thought the reason for R'Meir in that case was that he decreed [the obligation to pay] in the case of a child less than one month old out of consideration<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. , to safeguard the payment fixed in the Bible.');">¹</span>

מהו דתימא

for one which was one month old, but that in the case here,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Referring to a vessel.');">²</span>

טעמא דרבי מאיר התם דגזר פחות מבן חודש אטו בן חודש אבל הכא דליכא למיגזר אימא לא קמ"ל

where no such decree is warranted, one might [assume that R'Meir would] not [rule thus], therefore we are informed that R'Meir's reason is that no man utters his words at random, so that the same rule applies in both cases.

טעמא דרבי מאיר דאין אדם מוציא דבריו לבטלה לא שנא הכא ול"ש הכא

According to whose view will be the teaching of Rabbah B'Jose<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So Sh. Mek. cur. edd. Joseph.');">³</span>

כמאן אזלא הא דאמר רבה בר יוסף אמר רב ואמרי לה אמר רב ייבא בר יוסי אמר רב

in the name of Rab [according to others R'Yeba B'Jose in the name of Rab]: If one consecrates [to the sanctuary] his neighbour's animal, he shall pay its worth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since none can consecrate an object not belonging to himself, the suggestion is that he meant to offer the money value of the object in question, such offering, of course, being independent of his owning the animal.');">⁴</span>

המקדיש בהמת חבירו נותן דמיה

According to whom?

כמאן כרבי מאיר

According to R'Meir.

הא אמרה רב חדא זימנא דאמר רב גידל אמר רב

But Rab has already said that once before, for R'Giddal in the name of Rab said: If one said, 'The valuation of a vessel be upon me, he shall pay its worth'.

האומר ערך כלי עלי נותן דמיו

- You might have said: In the one case he knew that a vessel has no valuation whereupon he made up his statement with the intention for its worth, but in the case of an animal, which is normally fit to be consecrated, one might say that this is what he meant: If I report it to its owner he will sell it [to me], therefore let it be consecrated as from now already, and I shall offer it up [after having purchased it], but th he did not mean its worth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If his hope was to obtain the animal and to consecrate it (and not its money value) , then his utterance was quite in vain and no obligation results: The money value he had not vowed, the animal itself did not belong to him, wherefore he incurred no obligation whatsoever.');">⁵</span>

מהו דתימא

therefore he informs us [that this is not so].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That, according to R. Meir he must have known that the animal itself cannot be consecrated, and therefore must have had in mind the payment of its market value, which is now obligatory.');">⁶</span>

התם הוא דיודע שאין ערך לכלי וגמר ואמר לשם דמים

R'Ashi<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sh. Mek.: Mar b. R. Ashi.');">⁷</span>

אבל בהמה דבת מיקדש היא איכא למימר דהכי קאמר

said: This applies only where he said: I undertake the responsibility [for an animal], but not if he said: I assume the obligation [to consecrate] this [animal].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a man said: My neighbour's animal do I consecrate, only then does an obligation arise to pay its money value, but if he said 'This animal' shall I provide for the altar,' he obviously has said nothing. For he could undertake to make himself responsible for the money value of an animal, but he could surely not oblige himself to dedicate the animal that does not belong to him. In the latter case his words are for practical purposes meaningless. He has said nothing.');">⁸</span>

אי אמינא לה למרה מזבין לה ניהלי תיקדוש לה מהשתא ואקרבה אבל דמי לא קאמר קמ"ל

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>AN IDOL-WORSHIPPER ACCORDING TO R'MEIR CAN BE MADE THE SUBJECT OF A VALUATION BUT CANNOT EVALUATE, WHEREAS ACCORDING TO R'JUDAH HE MAY EVALUATE BUT CANNOT BE MADE THE SUBJECT OF A VALUATION.

אמר רב אשי

BOTH AGREE, HOWEVER, THAT HE CAN BOTH VOW ANOTHER'S WORTH AND HAVE HIS WORTH VOWED BY OTHERS.

והוא דאמר עלי אבל אמר הרי זו לא:

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Our Rabbis taught: The children of Israel<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus does the chapter on dedications commence: Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them (Lev. XXVII, 2) , the inference being obvious.');">⁹</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> עובד כוכבים רבי מאיר אומר

may evaluate, but idol-worshippers may not evaluate.

נערך אבל לא מעריך רבי יהודה אומר

One might have assumed that they cannot be made the subject of a valuation either, therefore the text states: Man,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid.');">¹⁰</span>

מעריך אבל לא נערך

these are the words of R'Meir.

וזה וזה מודים שנודרין ונידרין:

Said R'Meir: Now that one Scriptural verse includes and the other excludes, whence am I [justified in] saying: He may be made the subject of a valuation, but may not evaluate himself?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' What is the justification for declaring the idol-worshipper fit for one rather than for the other? The text has both inclusive and exclusive indications. 'The children of Israel' excludes, while 'man' includes.');">¹¹</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ת"ר בני ישראל מעריכין ואין העובדי כוכבים מעריכין

It is because Scripture has included more among those subject to valuation than among those fit to evaluate; for a deaf-mute, an imbecile and a minor each may be made the subject of a valuation, but is not fit to evaluate.

יכול לא יהו נערכין

R'Judah said: The children of Israel may be made the subject of a valuation, but idol-worshippers are not fit to be made the subject of a valuation.

תלמוד לומר

One might have assumed that they [the latter] are not fit to evaluate either, therefore the text states: 'Man'.

(ויקרא כז, ב) איש דברי ר' מאיר

Said R'Judah: Since on verse includes and the other excludes, whence do I come to make the statement that idol-worshippers are fit to evaluate and are not subject to valuation?

אמר רבי מאיר

Because Scripture has included more among those fit to evaluate than among those subject to valuation.

וכי מאחר שמקרא אחד מרבה ומקרא אחד ממעט מפני מה אני אומר נערך ולא מעריך

For one of doubtful sex and a hermaphrodite are fit to evaluate, but are not subject to valuation.

מפני שריבה הכתוב בנערכין יותר מבמעריכין שהרי חרש שוטה וקטן נערך אבל לא מעריכין

Said Raba: The decision of R'Meir appeals to logic, but not the reason; the reason of R'Judah is logical, but not his decision.

רבי יהודה אומר

The decision of R'Meir appeals to logic as it written: Ye have nothing to do with us to build a house unto our God.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ezra IV, 3.');">¹²</span>

בני ישראל נערכין ואין העובדי כוכבים נערכין

His reason does not appeal, for he argues from the case of a deaf-mute, an imbecile or a minor; but it is different with them since they have no intelligence.

יכול לא יהו מעריכין

The reason of R'Judah is logical, for he deduces it from the case of one of doubtful sex and a hermaphrodite, which, although endowed with intelligence, are yet excluded by the Divine Law [from evaluation].

תלמוד לומר

His decision, however, does not appeal, as it is written: 'Ye have nothing to do with us to build a house unto our God'.

איש

How, indeed, does R'Judah deal with 'Ye have nothing to do with us'? - R'Hisda said in the name of Abimi: His valuation [money] must be hidden.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Judah's view that idol-worshippers are fit to evaluate does not imply that such money is to be used - that is excluded by Ezra IV, 3, - but it does mean that it acquires sacredness, so as to be forbidden for profane use; and since it is also not fit for sacred use, it must be hidden or destroyed.');">¹³</span>

אמר רבי יהודה

But then one should not be guilty of sacrilege in connection with them, for it was taught: Concerning the five kinds of sin-offerings which must be left to die, and all moneys that must be cast into the Dead Sea, one must not derive any benefit from them, nor is one guilty of sacrilege [if one has used them].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Me'ilah 3a.');">¹⁴</span>

וכי מאחר שמקרא אחד מרבה ומקרא אחד ממעט מפני מה אני אומר עובד כוכבים מעריך ולא נערך

Why then was it taught with regard to the consecration of idol-worshippers: These things apply only to things consecrated for the altar, but things consecrated for Temple repairs are subject to the law of sacrilege?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since they are to be destroyed they ought not, according to the cited Baraitha from Me'ilah be subject to the law of sacrilege.');">¹⁵</span>

מפני שריבה הכתוב במעריכין יותר מבנערכין שהרי טומטום ואנדרוגינוס מעריכין אבל לא נערכין

- Rather, said Raba: It<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The refusal to accept the idol-worshippers' gifts in the days of Ezra.');">¹⁶</span>

אמר רבא

was due to the 'weakening of the hands', as it is written: Then the people of the land weakened the hands of the people of Judah and harried them while they were building.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ezra IV, 4.');">¹⁷</span>

הלכתיה דרבי מאיר מסתברא טעמיה לא מסתברא

טעמא דרבי יהודה מסתברא הלכתיה לא מסתברא

הלכתיה דרבי מאיר מסתברא דכתיב

(עזרא ד, ג) לא לכם ולנו לבנות (את) בית אלהינו

טעמיה לא מסתברא דקא מייתי ליה מחרש שוטה וקטן

שאני חרש שוטה וקטן דלאו בני דעה נינהו

טעמא דרבי יהודה מסתברא דקא מייתי ליה מטומטום ואנדרוגינוס דאף על גב דבני דעה נינהו מעטינהו רחמנא

הלכתיה לא מסתברא דכתיב

לא לכם ולנו לבנות (את) בית אלהינו

ורבי יהודה האי לא לכם ולנו מאי עביד ליה

אמר רב חסדא אמר אבימי

וערכו נגנז

אלא מעתה לא ימעלו בו

דתנן

חמש חטאות המתות ומעות ההולכות לים המלח לא נהנין ולא מועלין

אלמה תניא גבי קדשי עובדי כוכבים

במה דברים אמורים בקדשי מזבח אבל בקדשי בדק הבית מועלין בהן

אלא אמר רבא

משום רפיון ידים הוא דכתיב

(עזרא ד, ד) ויהי עם הארץ מרפין ידי עם יהודה ומבהלים אותם לבנות: