Arakhin 9

Chapter 9

א רגלה של זו עולה יכול תהא כולה עולה תלמוד לומר (ויקרא כז, ט) כל אשר יתן ממנו לה' יהיה קדש ממנו קודש ולא כולה קודש

1 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,1 i.e., only [that] 'thereof' [which he giveth] shall be holy, but not the whole thereof sha be holy. One might have assumed that the whole becomes profane,2

ב יכול תצא לחולין ת"ל יהיה בהוייתה תהא הא כיצד תמכר לצורכי עולות ודמיה חולין חוץ מדמי אותו אבר שבה דברי ר"מ

2 therefore the text states: '[It] shall b i.e., It retains its present character. How then? 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.');">3 of the [value of the] limb dedicated, shall be profane; this is the view of R'Meir. 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.

ג רבי יהודה ורבי יוסי ור"ש אומרים מנין לאומר רגלה של זו עולה שכולה עולה תלמוד לומר כל אשר יתן ממנו לה' יהיה קדש לרבות את כולה

3 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?4 - This is no difficulty. 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.');">5 the other of the vow of its equivalent in money.

ד ואפילו למ"ד אין כולה עולה הני מילי דאקדיש דבר שאין הנשמה תלויה בו אבל דבר שהנשמה תלויה בו קדשה כולה

4 But it 'was the Master himself6

ה (אלא) לא קשיא הא בקדושת הגוף הא בקדושת דמים

5 who said that if someone consecrates a male [animal] in its money equivalent, that [animal] becomes consecrated in itself !7 - That is no difficulty: one case8

ו והא מר הוא דאמר מקדיש זכר לדמיו קדוש קדושת הגוף

6 speaks of his having dedicated the whole, the other of his dedicating one member of the body.9 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 donkey10

ז לא קשיא הא דאקדיש כולה הא דאקדיש חד אבר

7 [discussed above]. 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.');">11

ח חד אבר נמי איבעויי איבעיא לן דבעי רבה הקדיש אבר לדמיו מהו

8 is [dedicated] to the altar, what then? - The question was asked before he heard this teaching,12 but now that he has heard this teaching, it is no more doubtful to him.

ט כי איבעי לן בתם הכא בבעל מום דומיא דחמור

9 [To turn to] the main text: Rabbah asked, [If a man said,] The money value of my head be for the altar, shall he be valued according to the importance [of this], or shall he not be so valued?

י בעל מום נמי איבעויי איבעיא לן דבעי רבה דמי ראשי לגבי מזבח מהו כי אבעיא לן מקמי דאשמעה להא מתניתא השתא דשמעה הא מתניתא לא מיבעיא לן

10 [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]?13 - The question remains [unanswered]. Raba asked: [If someone said:] The valuation of myself I undertake to pay for the altar, is he adjudged according to his means, or not?

יא גופא בעי רבה דמי ראשי לגבי מזבח מהו נידון בכבודו או אינו נידון בכבודו

11 [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 that14 one be adjudged according to his means? - The question remains [unanswered]. R'Ashi asked: If a man dedicated a field of possession15

יב לא אשכחן בדמים דאינו נידון בכבודו או דלמא לא אשכחן לגבי מזבח דנידון בכבודו תיקו

12 for the altar, what then? 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?');">16

יג בעי רבא ערכי עלי לגבי מזבח מהו נידון בהשג יד או אין נידון בהשג יד

13 - The question remains [unanswered]. <big>MISHNAH: </big>A PERSON LESS THAN ONE MONTH OLD MAY HAVE HIS WORTH VOWED17 BUT NOT HIS VALUATION.

יד לא אשכחן בערכין דאין נידון בהשג יד או דלמא לא אשכחן לגבי מזבח דמיפריק אלא בשויו תיקו

14 <big>GEMARA: </big>Our Rabbis taught: If one evaluates a person less than one month old, R'Meir says, He gives his worth [its market value], but the Sages say, 'He has said nothing'. 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.');">18 and knowing that a person less than one month old cannot be made the subject of a valuation [and having spoken] he makes up his mind to vow his worth.

טו בעי רב אשי הקדיש שדה אחוזה לגבי מזבח מהו מי אמרינן לא אשכחן שדה אחוזה דמיפרקא אלא בית זרע חומר שעורים בחמשים שקל כסף או דלמא לא אשכחן לגבי מזבח דמיפריק אלא בשויו תיקו:

15 The Sages, however, hold that a man may utter his words in vain. According to whose view [of the disputants] will be what R'Giddal said in the name of Rab, who said. if one said: the valuation of this vessel19 is upon me, he shall pay its worth! - That is in accord with R'Meir. But this is self-evident? - You might have said: It could be in accord with the view of the Rabbis [Sages].

טז <big>מתני׳</big> פחות מבן חדש נידר אבל לא נערך:

16 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].

יז <big>גמ׳</big> ת"ר המעריך פחות מבן חדש ר"מ אומר נותן דמיו וחכמים אומרים לא אמר כלום

יח במאי קמיפלגי ר"מ סבר אין אדם מוציא דבריו לבטלה יודע שאין ערכין לפחות מבן חדש וגמר ואמר לשם דמים ורבנן סברי אדם מוציא דבריו לבטלה

יט כמאן אזלא הא דאמר רב גידל א"ר האומר ערך כלי עלי נותן דמים כר"מ פשיטא דכר"מ אתיא

כ מהו דתימא אפילו כרבנן התם הוא דטעי סבר כי היכי דאיכא ערכין לבן חודש איכא נמי לפחות מבן חודש

כא אבל הכא דליכא למיטעי ודאי אדם יודע שאין ערך לכלי וגמר ואמר לשם דמים קמשמע לן

Previous Chapter Next Chapter