Torah Community Connections

Week 166 - Friday - 31 January 2003

ARAKHIN: CHAPTER 5: MISHNAH 4

"I dedicate so-and-so's valuation" and the noder and the nidar died, the heirs must pay. "I vow so-and-so's worth," and the noder died, the heirs must pay. If the nidar died, the heirs need not pay, since the dead have no worth.

Kehati

If one says, "I dedicate so-and-so's valuation," and the noder and the nidar - i.e., the ma’arikh and the ne’erakh - died and the latter stood before the Court before he died (Gemara), the heirs of the ma’arikh must pay the ne’erakh's valuation. But if the ne’erakh died before he could stand before the Court, the ma’arikh, although alive, is exempt from payment since the dead have no valuation (Rambam Hil. Arakhin 1:23).

If one says, "I vow so-and-so's worth," and the noder died after standing before the Court, then even though he died before the nidar's worth was estimated, the heirs must pay his worth to the Temple; since the nidar is alive his worth can be assessed, and since the noder stood before the Court before he died, he became liable to payment; hence the nidar is estimated, and the noder's heirs must pay this amount to the Temple. But if the nidar died before the Court could estimate his worth, the heirs need not pay the Temple, since the dead have no worth, as explained in mishnah 2 above.

ARAKHIN: CHAPTER 5: MISHNAH 5

"This ox shall be a burnt-offering, this house shall be an offering," and the ox died or the house collapsed, he does not have to pay. "I vow (the worth of) this ox for a burnt-offering," or "(the worth of) this house for an offering," and the ox died or the house collapsed, he must pay.

Kehati

After we learned in the preceding mishnah that "the dead have no worth," this mishnah teaches that this rule applies only to human beings but not to animals.

If one says, "This ox shall be a burnt-offering," or that "this house shall be an offering," i.e., it shall be dedicated to the Temple maintenance fund, and the ox died or the house collapsed before the Temple treasurer could take possession of them, he does not have to pay; since he dedicated that ox or that house specifically he is not liable for their replacement.

But if he said "I vow to give (the worth of) this ox for a burnt-offering," or "(the worth of) this house for an offering," and the ox died or the house collapsed, he must pay the worth of the ox or of the house, since he mentioned "the worth." The Gemara omits "the worth" and reads: "I vow this ox for a burnt-offering, or this house for an offering, and the ox died or the house collapsed, he must pay." However, the Gemara clarifies: "This (rule of the second section, that he must pay) applies only to the case where he said 'I vow the worth of this ox for a burnt-offering,' but if he said 'I vow this ox as a burnt-offering,' then since he said "this" he need not replace it if it died, (and even though he said "I vow") he only meant that he must bring it (do his utmost until it is offered - Rashi).

Hence the words "the worth of” were inserted in the mishnah in accordance with the Gemara. Tosafot, however, query that in this case the first section of the mishnah - rather than teaching "This ox shall be a burnt-offering... and the ox died, he does not have to pay" - should have read "I vow this ox as a burnt-offering," i.e., even though he said "I vow" he need not pay? Hence Tosafot hold that "the worth of” is the correct version in both sections of the mishnah, which teaches that if one says, "The worth of this ox for a burnt-offering" or "the worth of this house for an offering," and the ox died or the house collapsed, he is exempt from payment since he did not say "I vow"; however, if one says "I vow to give the worth of this ox for a burnt-offering" or "I vow to give the worth of this house for an offering," and the ox died or the house collapsed, he must pay; having vowed, he is liable for their replacement.

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives