Arakhin 39
הכא ודאי בבת אחת נדר בבת אחת אמדינן ליה או דלמא
And if you find a reason for saying that since he said, 'Twice' it is to be as if he had vowed one time after the other, what is [the law] if they had estimated him incidentally?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., not with any particular purpose in view.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
אם תימצי לומר
Behold he stands estimated, or do we require intention for an estimation [to be valid]? - Solve at least one [of these questions], for we learnt: [If one said,] 'I vow my worth' and died, the heirs need not give anything', because a dead man has no worth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. next MISHNAH:');"><sup>3</sup></span>
כיון דקאמר שני כזה אחר זה דמי אמדוהו מאליו מהו
Now if you were to say that if they had estimated him incidentally the estimate would be considered valid, then he, too, stands estimated already; for is there a person who is not worth four zuz [at least]? - [No,] one estimated incidentally has been estimated at any rate, but one who merely said: 'I vow my worth', has not reached [the stage of] estimation at all.
ערכו של פלוני עלי מת הנודר והנידר יתנו היורשין
<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Our Rabbis taught: Vows of worth are in the direction of greater stringency than vows of valuations, for vows of worth apply to cattle, game and birds, and are not estimated according to sufficiency of means, whereas it is not so with valuations.
חומר בנדרים מבערכין שהנדרים חלין על בהמה חיה ועוף ואין נדונים בהשג יד משא"כ בערכין
If one said: 'I vow my valuation' and then died, his heirs must pay it; [but if he said,] 'I vow my worth' and then died, his heirs need not give anything, for dead persons have no worth [market-value].'
ערכי עלי ומת יתנו יורשין דמי עלי ומת לא יתנו יורשין שאין דמים למתים
- It is different here because it is a debt arising from the law of the Torah Then we may infer from here that a debt arising from the law of the Torah has the force of one acknowledged in a document of indebtedness? - Here we speak of the case where he stood before the court.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To have his payment enforced.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
אמר ערכי עלי ומת יתנו יורשין
Then, in the same situation where he had said: 'I vow my worth', if he stood before the court, why should the heirs not have to pay? - Because in the case of where he says, 'I vow my worth', he still lacked estimate, whilst in the case where he had said, 'I vow my valuation', he lacked nothing.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The payment being determined according to age and sex by the law in Lev. XXVII.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
שאני הכא דמלוה כתובה בתורה היא
But he [R'Giddal] has said that once already, for R'Giddal had said in the name of Rab: [If someone said:] 'I vow the valuation of this vessel', he must pay its market-value?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Giddal holds with R. Meir (supra 5a) that no man utters his words in vain, hence, whilst careless as to technical terms, he has something definite in mind. A vessel not being subject to valuation, he must have had in mind its market-value.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
מלוה הכתובה בתורה ככתובה בשטר דמיא
But here he was really mistaken, in that he believed that just as there is valuation to 'my hand or liver', there is one to 'my foot or hand', but he never meant the market-value; therefore he informs us [that he must pay the market-value nevertheless].
דכוותה גבי דמי עלי שעמד בדין אמאי לא יתנו יורשין
Why? - The Divine Law said: souls.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Persons, souls (life) , all members or parts of the body upon which life depends can be dedicated, their value being equal to the valuation of the whole person.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
ערך ידי ורגלי עלי וכו':
That includes [his saying: I vow the valuation of anything] from the knee upwards.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The suggestion is that the removal of any part of the body above the knee would constitute a danger to life, hence would mean the valuation of the person. just as if somebody said: I 'vow my liver, or my heart'.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
והא לא אמר כלום קתני
R'Jose son of R'Judah says: He receives punishment and must pay his full valuation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Lakah', the term, tech. for the thirty-nine stripes, means literally to suffer', 'to be at a disadvantage'; hence R. Papa's interpretation. Cf. B.M. 43a.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
הא אמרה חדא זימנא דא"ר גידל א"ר
What is the reason? - [It means,] We are stringent about the vow, 'Half of my valuation' because [of its possible confusion with] 'The valuation of one half of him', and the valuation of the half of oneself is tantamount to [the valuation of] something on which one's life depends.
מהו דתימא
What is the reason? - Scripture said: A vow of persons [souls] according to thy valuation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVII, 2. The some interpretation as to vitality of the organ concerned applies to both vows of worth and valuations.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
לאתויי מן הארכובה ולמעלה:
If they hold a man does utter his words in vain, then he should be free from any obligation to pay even if he said, [I vow the valuation] of a whole vessel; and [if they hold] that a man does not utter his words in vain, then he ought to pay even though he vowed half of its valuation? - Rabbah answered them: The Rabbis here hold with R'Meir and with R'Simeon: They hold with R'Meir that no man utters his words in vain, and they agree with R'Simeon who said [that he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who vowed to bring a meal-offering of barley. v. Men. 103a.');"><sup>14</sup></span>
ת"ר
Now it would make a full gift for one to vow a whole [vessel], but it is not usual to vow only half [a vessel].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore, if he had evaluated a whole object on the principle that no man utters words in vain, he would have been considered liable. But an unusual gift made in the additionally abnormal form of half of an object must have been meant 'in vain', not seriously. hence the Rabbis decide that he need not pay anything at all.');"><sup>15</sup></span>
לוקה ונותן ערך שלם
But that is the same as the other?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Above, exactly the same case was reported, and interpreted also as one in which he stood before the court. Why then this repetition?');"><sup>17</sup></span>