Arakhin 9
רגלה של זו עולה יכול תהא כולה עולה
If one said: 'The leg of this [animal] shall be a burnt-offering', one might have assumed that the whole animal thereby becomes a burnt-offering, therefore the text states: All that any man giveth thereof unto the Lord shall be holy,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVII, 9.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
(ויקרא כז, ט) כל אשר יתן ממנו לה' יהיה קדש ממנו קודש ולא כולה קודש
One might have assumed that the whole becomes profane,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The whole animal, apart from the dedicated limb, is profane without further ado.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
יהיה בהוייתה תהא
It is sold for the purchase of burnt-offerings and the money realized, with the exception<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both groups base their interpretation on the same Scriptural verse, emphasis deciding the issue. R. Meir stresses the words 'that any man giveth thereof' in a private sense, to exclude such portions as were not included in his gift. The other Rabbis interpret: 'All that any man giveth thereof' to mean that all animals whereof any part is given become fully consecrated.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
תמכר לצורכי עולות ודמיה חולין חוץ מדמי אותו אבר שבה דברי ר"מ
R'Judah, R'Jose and R'Simeon say: Whence do we know that if a man said: The leg of this animal shall be a burnt-offering, that the whole animal is a burnt-offering, therefore the text states: 'All that any m giveth thereof unto the Lord shall be holy': that means to include the whole.
רבי יהודה ורבי יוסי ור"ש אומרים
Now even according to the view that thereby the whole animal does not become consecrated, that applies only to [the vow of] an organ upon which life does not depend, but whenever a limb is vowed upon which the life [of the animal] depends, the whole [animal] becomes consecrated?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tem. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
תלמוד לומר
One speaks of the vow of the animal itself,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The consecration of one organ is suggested as spreading over the whole animal, when that organ itself has been consecrated, but where only the money value of such an organ has been vowed there, that organ itself remains a detached entity, not connected in its consecration with the rest of the body, hence not affecting it as to consecration.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
והא מר הוא דאמר
speaks of his having dedicated the whole, the other of his dedicating one member of the body.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case where he consecrated the head only for its value obviously the consecration is limited to the monetary value of the member consecrated.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
מקדיש זכר לדמיו קדוש קדושת הגוף
But even concerning [the dedication of] one member it is a matter of doubt, for Rabbah asked: If a man had dedicated one member in its money value, how then? - The question was asked about a perfect animal, whereas here we are dealing with a blemished one, similar to the donkey<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both a blemished animal of a class admitted to the altar, or an animal, though unblemished, but of a class unfit for sacrifices, are in one category.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
הא דאקדיש כולה הא דאקדיש חד אבר
But the case of [the dedication of] a blemished one is also doubtful, for Rabbah asked: If someone says the money value of my head<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shall the vowing of his head be considered, because of the vital importance of the head, as equal to the vowing of his whole worth or not? Now a man is in the same category as an unblemished animal as far as the altar is concerned.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
חד אבר נמי איבעויי איבעיא לן דבעי רבה
is [dedicated] to the altar, what then? - The question was asked before he heard this teaching,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cited supra. If one consecrates the head of an ass.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
בעל מום נמי איבעויי איבעיא לן דבעי רבה
[Do we say that] it never happens that a vow regarding [a person's] worth be not assessed according to the importance [of the limb] or, [on the other hand, do we say] it never happens with regard to a consecration for the altar that [the consecration] is determined by the importance [of the limb]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that by consecrating the value of one vital organ the worth of the animal is consecrated to the altar.');"><sup>13</sup></span>
גופא בעי רבה
[Do we say,] It is never found in connection with valuation that one is not adjudged according to one's means; or, [on the other hand] it never happens with regard to any vow to the altar that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Text corrected in accordance with Sh. Mek. cur. ed.: That it can be redeemed except for its value.');"><sup>14</sup></span>
תיקו
Do we say it never occurs that a field of possession can be redeemed except on the basis of fifty shekels for each [part of the field sufficient for] the sowing of a homer of barley, or [perhaps, we say] it does not happen with regard to any [gift for] the altar that it be redeemed otherwise than in accord with its actual value?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If someone consecrated that field for the fund from which burnt-offerings were provided, how could he redeem his pledge? Do we abide by the general rule in such cases of a vow for Temple repairs, or do we consider the special circumstance governing vows for the altar?');"><sup>16</sup></span>
ערכי עלי לגבי מזבח מהו
<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>A PERSON LESS THAN ONE MONTH OLD MAY HAVE HIS WORTH VOWED<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because, no matter how young, it would fetch its price in a market; but as to valuation a definite minimum age is stated.');"><sup>17</sup></span>
לא אשכחן לגבי מזבח דמיפריק אלא בשויו
Wherein are they of divided opinion? - R'Meir says: No man utters his words in vain,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Meir holds that no man utters any statement uselessly; he might, however, talk loosely, use terms applicable to a case somewhat different ost from the one involved. Thus the terminology of dedication might well be used by someone who has in his mind a vow. 'Or, as Tosaf. s.v. has it: A man, indifferent to the exact terminology, or ignorant of it, would intend to have his utterance serve whatever purpose the Rabbis attributed to the words he used.');"><sup>18</sup></span>
מי אמרינן
if one said: the valuation of this vessel<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Valuation' was fixed only for human beings, hence vessels cannot be evaluated, thus an illustration of the former problem is offered here.');"><sup>19</sup></span>
<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> פחות מבן חדש נידר אבל לא נערך:
For in the other case one could have erred in thinking that just as a child of one month has valuation thus also one less than one month old; but in this case where there is nothing to err about, for a man surely knows that a vessel has no valuation, and therefore he had intended his statement to mean to vow the vessel's worth, therefore we are informed [that even here the Sages do not so hold].