Arakhin 7

Chapter 7

א וגואלין לעולם אימא במצות ר"ה נמי לא ליחייבו קמשמע לן נהי דליתנהו בהשמטת קרקע בהשמטת כספים בשילוח עבדים מיהא איתנהו:

1 and redeem at any time, one might say that they are not affected by the laws governing the New Year either, therefore we are informed that although they are unaffected by the law of release of landed property, the law concerning the release of debts and the emancipation of slaves binds them at any rate.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Jubilee year affects more than the sale of land, viz., also the manumission of slaves; the priests do not enjoy any privileged position, hence they are also included in Jubilee legislation, whence their obligation to blow the horn on New Year's day.');">1 'All are obliged to read the scroll, even priests, Levites and Israelites'.

ב הכל חייבים במקרא מגילה כהנים לוים וישראלים פשיטא לא צריכא ליבטיל עבודתם וכדרב יהודה אמר שמואל דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל כהנים בעבודתם ולוים בדוכנן וישראל במעמדן מבטלין עבודתם ובאין לשמוע מקרא מגילה

2 is that not self-evident? - No, necessary [to state that] concerning the interruption of their [Temple] service, in accord with Rab Judah in the name of Rab; for Rab Judah in the name of Rab said: Both the priests in their [Temple] service, the Levites on their platform, the Israelites at their posts2 interrupt their work and come to listen to the reading of the scroll.' All are obliged to arrange a zimmun even priests, Levites and Israelites'. Is not that self-evident? - No, is necessary for the case in which the priests were eating consecrated foods. I might have thought since the Divine Law said: And they shall eat those things wherewith atonement hath been made,3

ג הכל חייבין בזימון כהנים לוים וישראלים פשיטא לא צריכא דקאכלי קדשים סד"א (שמות כט, לג) ואכלו אותם אשר כופר בהם אמר רחמנא והא כפרה היא

3 that this is an atonement, therefore we are informed: The Divine Law has said: Thou shalt eat and be satisfied,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. VIII, 10. According to Sh. Mek.: 'I would have thought that since it is written: Thou shalt eat and be satisfied, and bless, i.e., only when you eat for the purpose of appeasing your hunger is it obligatory for you to pronounce the blessing, but since priests (also) eat to obtain forgiveness, they would be free from that obligation, therefore we are informed etc.'.');">4 and this applies to them as well.' All may be joined for a zimmun, even priests, Levites and Israelites'. Is that not self-evident? - No, it i necessary for the case where the priests eat of terumah5

ד קמ"ל (דברים ח, י) ואכלת ושבעת אמר רחמנא והא איתנהו:

4 or of consecrated foods, whilst the non-priest eats of profane foods.

ה הכל מצטרפין לזימון כהנים לוים וישראלים פשיטא לא צריכא דקאכלי כהנים תרומה או קדשים וזר קאכיל חולין

5 I might have assumed that since the commoner, even though he desired to eat with the priest [of the latter's food], he could not do so, therefore he could not be joined to him [for the zimmun] either, so we are informed that granted that the non-priest may not eat together with the priest, the priest could surely eat together with the non-priest.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It need not be mutually possible to join in the meal, hence as long as priest and non-priest are able to partake of one meal together, the zimmun is obligatory, for even the priest is permitted to eat non-consecrated food.');">6 ALL MAY EVALUATE, EVEN PRIESTS, LEVITES AND ISRAELITES. But that is self-evident? - Rabbah said: This is necessary in view of the opinion of Ben Bukri, for we learnt:7

ו סד"א הואיל ואי בעי זר למיכל בהדי כהן לא מצי אכיל אימא לא ליצטרף קמ"ל נהי דזר בהדי כהן לא מצי אכיל כהן בהדי זר מצי אכיל

6 R'Judah said: Ben Bukri testified at Jabneh that any priest who paid the shekel<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sin, as explained infra, would lie in his bringing profane money into the sanctuary. The command of Ex. XXX, 13: This they shall give, every one that passeth among them that are numbered, half a shekel after the shekel of the sanctuary, yields several inferences. 'Among then that are numbered' excludes the tribe of Levi who were not numbered among the rest of the tribes. Hence the priest offering his shekel might be assumed to offend by introducing non-consecrated, i.e., profane, hence forbidden, money into the sanctuary. Nevertheless, Ben Bukri maintains he does not offend, because he may surrender it to the non-priestly community, which is obliged to offer the shekel, thus converting his own shekel into consecrated money. R. Johanan b. Zakkai, however, points out that there are indications in the text justifying a different interpretation. - Every one that passeth' may refer to the whole people, including the Levites, who passed through the Red Sea.');">8 does not thereby commit a sin. R'Johanan B'Zakkai said to him: Not so! But a priest who does not pay the shekel commits a sin.

ז הכל מעריכין כהנים לוים וישראלים פשיטא אמר רבא לא נצרכא אלא לבן בוכרי דתנן א"ר יהודה העיד בן בוכרי ביבנה כל כהן ששוקל אינו חוטא

7 The priests, however, Used to explain the following verse to their advantage: And every meal-offering of the priest shall be wholly made to smoke; it shall not be eaten.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VI, 16. They argued: Since this verse prohibits the enjoyment of anything offered up by priests, our shekel, the proceeds of which should be completely used for 'smoking' would render the 'omer and the shewbread, the costs of which were defrayed from the shekel payments, prohibited for any human use; whereas they are eaten by the priests in the sanctuary. Consequently, for any priest to pay the shekel would be sinful. But this argument is faulty for it is only the priest's own flour-offering which must be wholly burnt, in all other cases the majority of the givers, i.e., the non.priestly community, determine the character of the offering, which need therefore not be consumed wholly on the altar.');">9 Now, [they argued] since the 'Omer and the two loaves and the shewbread are ours, how could they be eaten? - But according to Ben Bukri, since they are not de jure obliged to bring it [pay the shekel], if one brings it he should be considered a sinner, for he brings profane things to the Temple Court?10 - [The assumption is that] they bring the shekel and hand it over to the community.10 Now I might have assumed that since Scripture reads: And all thy valuations shall be according to the shekel of the Sanctuary,11 that only he to whom the obligation of the shekel applies is subject to the laws of valuation, but as to priests, since the obligation of the shekel does not apply to them, are not subject to the laws of valuation; therefore we are informed [that they are]. Said Abaye to him: But the words, 'And all thy valuations' serve to teach that 'all thy valuations' must each amount to no less than one sela'? Rather, said Abaye, [the inclusion of priests] is necessary [for this reason]: I might have assumed that since Scripture reads: And their redemption money - from a month old shalt thou redeem them - shall be according to thy valuation,12

ח אמר לו רבן יוחנן בן זכאי לא כן אלא כל כהן שאינו שוקל חוטא אלא שהכהנים דורשין מקרא זה לעצמן (ויקרא ו, טז) וכל מנחת כהן כליל תהיה לא תאכל

8 that only he to whom the law of redeeming [the first-born] applies, is subject to the laws of valuation, but as to priests, since they are not included in the law concerning redemption, therefore they are not subject to the law of valuations; therefore we are informed [that they are]. Said Raba to him: If so, since with regard to the ram of guilt-offering Scripture reads: And he shall bring his forfeit unto the Lord, a ram without blemish out of the flock, according to thy valuation,13 let us also argue that only he to whom the law of valuation applies is liable to bring a ram of guilt-offerings but one of doubtful sex, or a hermaphrodite, who is not subject to the law of valuation, is free from the obligation to offer up a ram of guilt-offering?

ט הואיל ועומר ושתי הלחם ולחם הפנים שלנו הם היאך הם נאכלין

י ולבן בוכרי נמי כיון דלכתחילה לא מיחייבי לאיתויי כי מייתי נמי חוטא הוא דקא מעייל חולין לעזרה דמייתי להו ומסר לצבור

10 Rather, said Raba, or as some say, R'Ashi: [The inclusion of priests] is necessary, for I might have said, since Scripture reads: Then he shall be set before the priest, etc. ,14 that [only an Israelite is set before the priest, but not a priest before a fellow priest; therefore we are informed [that priests, too, are included in the law of valuation].

יא סד"א הואיל וכתיב (ויקרא כז, כה) וכל ערכך יהי' בשקל הקדש כל דאיתיה בשקלים איתי' בערכין והני כהנים הואיל וליתנהו בשקלים ליתנהו בערכין קמ"ל

11 What does ALL ARE FIT TO BE MADE THE SUBJECT OF VALUATION include? - That includes one disfigured or afflicted with boils. Whence do we derive that? - For our Rabbis have taught: 'According to thy valuation', that includes a general valuation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The normal form of the valuation is: The valuation of So-and-so or the valuation of myself be upon me, i.e., I undertake to pay. A general valuation is: I undertake to pay a valuation, without referring to any person thus to be valued.');">15

יב א"ל אביי האי וכל ערכך לכל ערכין שאתה מעריך לא יהו פחותין מסלע הוא דאתא

12 Another interpretation: 'According to thy valuation', i.e., one pays only for the valuation of a whole person, but not for the valuation of his limbs. One might have assumed that they exclude [the valuation of] any thing on which life [the soul] depends, therefore the text states: 'Persons'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVII, 2: persons, souls. Without a leg, for example, one would still be a person, but not without the head. Hence the valuation, say, of a man's head or heart, is taken to be equal to the valuation of his whole person, whereas the valuation of a non-vital part of his body has no significance.');">16

יג אלא אמר אביי איצטריך סד"א הואיל וכתיב (במדבר יח, טז) ופדויו מבן חדש תפדה בערכך כל דאיתיה בפדיון הבן איתיה בערכין והני כהנים הואיל וליתנהו בפדיון הבן ליתנהו בערכין קמ"ל

13 'Persons' [souls], but not a dead person. Thence I would exclude the dead, but not the dying, therefore the text states: Then he shall be set [before the priest], and the priest shall value him,17 [which means] only one who can be set [before the priest] can be evaluated but one who cannot be set before the priest cannot be evaluated either.

יד א"ל רבא אלא מעתה גבי איל אשם דכתיב (ויקרא ה, כה) ואת אשמו יביא לה' איל תמים מן הצאן בערכך ה"נ דכל דאיתיה בערכין איתיה באיל האשם טומטום ואנדרוגינוס דליתנהו בערכין ליתנהו באיל האשם

14 Another interpretation: 'Persons' - thence I could infer only the case of one evaluating person; whence do I know the case of one evaluating a hundred persons? The text therefore states: 'Persons'. Another interpretation: 'Persons'

טו אלא אמר רבא ואיתימא רב אשי איצטריך סד"א הואיל וכתיב (ויקרא כז, ח) והעמידו לפני הכהן ולא כהן לפני כהן קמ"ל

טז נערכין לאתויי מנוול ומוכה שחין מנה"מ

יז דת"ר בערכך להביא ערך סתום ד"א בערכך ערך כולו הוא נותן ולא ערך אברים

יח יכול שאני מוציא אף דבר שהנשמה תלויה בו ת"ל נפשות נפשות ולא המת

יט אוציא את המת ולא אוציא את הגוסס ת"ל (ויקרא כז, ח) והעמיד והעריך כל שישנו בהעמדה ישנו בהערכה וכל שאינו בהעמדה אינו בהערכה

כ ד"א נפשות אין לי אלא אחד שהעריך אחד אחד שהעריך מאה מנין ת"ל נפשות דבר אחר נפשות

Previous Chapter Next Chapter