Torah Community Connections

Week 166 - Monday - 27 January 2003

ARAKHIN: CHAPTER 3: MISHNAH 5

One that has brought up an evil name affects us leniently and stringently. How so? Whether he brought up an evil name against the greatest among the priestly stock or the least in Israel, he pays a hundred selas, Thus he who speaks with his mouth outweighs the one who commits an act. Thus also we find that judgment against our fathers in the wilderness was sealed only because of the evil tongue, as stated (Num. 14:22): "Yet they have tried Me these ten times, and have not hearkened to My voice."

Kehati

The law of one that has brought up an evil name affects us leniently and stringently. How so?

Whether he - the slanderer - brought up an evil name against his wife who was of the greatest - i.e., noblest - among the priestly stock or she was of the least - i.e., humblest - in Israel, he pays a hundred selas, as stated (Deut. 22:13-19): "If a man take a wife and come to her and hate her, and lay accusing speeches against her, and bring out an evil name upon her... And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him, and they fine him a hundred shekels of silver."

Thus he who speaks with his mouth - bringing up an evil name - outweighs - i.e., suffers a greater penalty, having to pay one hundred shekels - the one who commits an act - e.g., a violator or a seducer who pays only fifty shekels.

Thus also we find that judgment against our fathers in the wilderness - who were barred from entering the Promised Land - was sealed only because of the evil tongue spoken by the Spies against the Land, as stated (Num. 14:22) in the account of the Spies' journey: "Yet they have tried Me these – “zeh” - ten times, and have not hearkened to My voice." The redundant zeh (lit., this) indicates that the penalty that they would not see the Promised Land was imposed because of this sin (Rashi, Bartenura). Alternatively, zeh (this) indicates that this sin outweighed all the ten others and that it alone brought about the Divine punishment rather than merely tipping the scale (Tiferet Yisrael).

ARAKHIN: CHAPTER 4: MISHNAH 1

The sufficiency of means is according to the noder, the years according to the nidar, the valuations according to the ne’erakh, and the valuation at the time of the valuation. The sufficiency of means is according to the noder - how so? If a poor man dedicated the valuation of a rich man, he gives the valuation of a poor man; if a rich man dedicated the valuation of a poor man, he gives the valuation of a rich man.

Kehati

As explained in the preceding chapters, if one says, "I dedicate so-and-so's valuation (erekh)”, he must pay the Temple Treasury the amount fixed by the Torah (Lev. 27:3-7) according to the age of the ne’erakh. If he does not possess sufficient means to pay the statutory amount, the Torah (ibid. ibid.8) enjoins that, "The priest shall value him, according to the ability of him that vowed shall the priest value him." This amount may not be less than one sela (see 2:1 above). This chapter sums up a variety of rules concerning valuation.

The sufficiency of means is - the priest establishes the poor man's capacity to pay - according to the noder - i.e., the ma’arikh and not the ne’erakh, in accordance with the above quoted verse, "according to the ability of him that vowed shall the priest value him," as is further elaborated in our mishnah; the value fixed in the Torah corresponding to the years must be made according to those of the nidar - i.e., the ne’erakh, as elaborated in mishnah 4 below.

According to the Gemara, our mishnah uses in the first section the term noder (instead of ma’arikh), as in the Scriptural text "according to the ability of him that vowed (hanoder), which style is continued in the second clause, "the years according to the nidar" (instead of ne’erakh); the valuations fixed for males and females are paid according to the ne’erakh rather than the ma’arikh, and the valuation is paid according to the age of the ne’erakh at the time of the valuation - i.e., when the ma’arikh pronounced his dedication and not when it is paid (see mishnah 4 below).

The sufficiency of means is according to the noder - how so? If a poor man dedicated the valuation of a rich man, - e.g., by declaring: "I dedicate this rich man's value" - he gives the valuation of a poor man - i.e., according to the latter's means, but if a rich man dedicated the valuation of a poor man, - e.g., by declaring: "I dedicate this poor man's value" - he gives the valuation of a rich man - i.e., the amount fixed by the Torah, according to the age of the ne’erakh.

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives