Arakhin 8
נפשות לרבות מנוול ומוכה שחין
according to thy valuation' [meaning] whatsoever can have its worth vowed is subject to valuation, but whatsoever cannot have its worth vowed is not subject to valuation,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 16 n. 4.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
(ויקרא כז, ג) והיה ערכך לרבות טומטום ואנדרוגינוס לדמים
For I might have assumed: Since [Scripture reads]: 'A vow according to thy valuation' that only such things as are subject to valuation can have their worth vowed; but whatsoever is not subject to valuation cannot have its worth vowed, therefore the text states: Then shall thy valuation be for the male,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 3.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ת"ל
What is a general valuation? - For it was taught: If someone says, I assume the obligation of a general valuation,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The suggestion is that the lowest possible amount is involved, namely three shekels, for a female from one month to five years of age.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
שלשת שקלים
As it is written: And all thy valuations shall be according to the shekel of the sanctuary?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If, however, we consider it safer to impose the minimum amount, because that is definitely included in any general valuation, whereas the maximum may be fought as against the intention of the man who dedicated, then why not impose the minimum possible in connection with valuations, one shekel, v. 25.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ואימא
- That passage refers to the regard to one's means.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That verse refers to a poor person, having made a vow of valuation, in which case the payment of his vow is regulated in accord with the valuator's means, never less than a shekel. But that does not affect the case of one who made a vague general evaluation, who, therefore, must pay the minimum of a valuation, viz., three shekels.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
חמשים
What then is the purpose of the Scriptural passage?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' What is the significance then of 'According to thy valuation'? Since it is simple inference that a general valuation implies the minimum of three shekels, below which no valuation can go, the text seems meaningless.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
תפשתה מרובה לא תפשתה תפשתה מועט תפשתה
- R'Nahman, in the name of Rabbah B'Abbuha said: To tell us that in this case he is not adjudged according to his means.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of a general valuation the payment is fixed at three shekels, even if it is beyond the means of him who made the vow.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
ואלא קרא למה לי
But you have used this text to infer the rule concerning a general valuation? - Read: [Since instead of] 'valuation', it says, 'according to thy valuation'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The word without any suffix would have sufficed. The redundancy of the suffix implies additional information. Hence a double inference such as made here is quite legitimate.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
נפשות נפשות ולא את המת
- No Scriptural text is necessary for these, because the balance [between them] is even, hence all may be inferred therefrom.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The word 'nefesh' (person, soul) allows with even logic a number of inferences: any person, male or female, may dedicate or he dedicated; person as well as persons may be dedicated; anything that is vital (to person, or soul) may be dedicated, even if it be but part of a person. Anyone of these inferences are therefore 'balanced', evenly justified and neither could one be inferred exclusively as more logical than the other. But the inclusion of one disfigured or afflicted with boils, which would have seemed incongruous because such persons cannot have their worth vowed, needed some textual justification or at least intimation, and that is provided by the plural 'persons', which includes even persons disfigured etc.');"><sup>14</sup></span>
נפש נפשות
Let them be no worse than the worth of a palm tree! If he said: The worth of a palm tree [do I oblige myself to pay], would he not have to pay it? - Said Rabbah:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So Sh. Mek. Cur. edd. Raba.');"><sup>15</sup></span>
אוציא את המת ולא אוציא את הגוסס
It means to say that he [his worth] be assessed according to the importance [of his limb].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So R. Gershom; e.g.,if a person's head or heart or any other vital organ were vowed, such vow, because of the vital need to that person of the respective organ, would be considered as equal to a vow of the whole person's worth, thereupon due to the Temple Treasury.');"><sup>16</sup></span>
תלמוד לומר
I would have thought that since it is written: 'A vow according to thy valuation', that whatsoever is affected by the law of evaluation is assessed according to the importance [of the limb] ' but that whosoever is not affected by the laws of evaluation is not assessed according to the importance [of the limb, hence the Scriptural indication].
אי הכי מת נמי תיפוק לי מוהעמיד והעריך
Was it not taught: [If someone said], The head of this slave shall be consecrated to the sanctuary, then he and the sanctuary share it in partnership.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. its worth, which then is divided between them.');"><sup>17</sup></span>
נפשות אין לי אלא אחד שהעריך אחד אחד שהעריך מאה מנין
And R'Papa said: [The reason why there is no partnership in the case of a cow is] because the head of an ox is sold<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of slave and donkey the head could not be (cut off and) sold, whence the vow implies part ownership. This shows that objects to which the law of valuation does not apply, are nevertheless not considered as having been vowed in their totality when a vital organ has been vowed, which contradicts the thesis, above, of Rabbah.');"><sup>19</sup></span>
ד"א
But according to your own position, what of the case of a slave to whom the law of valuation does apply, and yet he is not assessed according to the importance [of the limb]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The same question applies to Abaye's position inasmuch as from the same Baraitha it appears that even a slave, who is affected by the law of valuation, is not assumed to have been vowed in his totality, even though one of his vital organs has been vowed.');"><sup>20</sup></span>
אשה שהעריכה איש ואשה שהעריכה אשה מנין
This latter [Baraitha] refers to things dedicated to the altar, the former to things dedicated to the Repair of the House.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Only with regard to dedications, the money of which flows to the repair fund, do we go by vow of vital organs, therefore also a hermaphrodite whose worth had been vowed to the repair fund, would be considered totally vowed, as long as a vital organ had been vowed; but such a regulation does not apply to objects dedicated to the altar.');"><sup>21</sup></span>