Torah Community Connections

Week 166 - Tuesday - 28 January 2003

ARAKHIN: CHAPTER 4: MISHNAH 2

But it is not so with offerings. If one said, "I take upon myself the offering of this metzora," and the metzora was a poor man, he brings the offering of a poor man; a rich man, he brings the offering of a rich man. Rabbi says: I say, this is so also with valuations. Indeed, why does a poor man who dedicated the valuation of a rich man pay the valuation of a poor man? Because the rich man incurred no liability whatsoever. But if a rich man said, "I dedicate my valuation," and the poor man heard and said, "What this man said I take upon myself," he pays the valuation of a rich man. If he was poor and then became rich, or rich and then became poor, he pays the valuation of a rich man. R. Yehudah says, Even if he was poor and became rich and then again became poor, he pays the valuation of a rich man.

Kehati

The above mishnah, a continuation of the preceding mishnah, teaches that the law of the sufficiency of means concerning valuations differs from that regarding the oleh veyored offerings.

But it is not so with offerings regulated by the sufficiency of means, e.g., those of a metzora who after being rendered clean "on the eighth day shall take two he-lambs without blemish and one ewe lamb of the first year without blemish... And if he is poor, and his means do not suffice, then he shall take one lamb.., and two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, such as his means permit" (Lev. 14:10, 21-22).

Thus if one said - i.e., vowed - "I take upon myself the offering of this metzora" which he must bring after becoming clean, and the metzora was a poor man, he - the noder - brings the offering of a poor man - one he-lamb for a guilt-offering and two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one for a sin-offering and the other for a burnt-offering (see above). If the metzora is a rich man, he - the noder - brings the offering of a rich man - two he-lambs and one ewe lamb, corresponding to the nidar and not to the noder.

Rabbi says: I say, this is so also with valuations such as are similar to offerings; their difference is merely a result of their dissimilarity.

Indeed, why does a poor man who dedicated the valuation of a rich man pay the valuation of a poor man? Because the rich man incurred no liability whatsoever, it is the poor man who imposed upon himself the liability to pay the Temple the valuation according to the rich man's age; hence he pays according to his own means. It is not so with the metzora, since a wealthy metzora must bring a rich man's offering; hence he who vows to bring the offering of the wealthy metzora must, like the metzora himself, bring a rich man's offering.

But in the case of valuations similar to the metzora's offering - e.g., if a rich man said, "I dedicate my valuation," thus becoming liable to pay the valuation of a rich man, i.e., the amount established by the Torah according to his age, and the poor man heard and said, "What this man said I take upon myself," and thus renders himself liable to pay the amount that the rich man dedicated, he pays the valuation of a rich man that he is required-to give, like in the case of the metzora.

According to Rambam (in his Mishnah Commentary ad loc.), Rabbi does not disagree with the Sages (i.e., the First Tanna); he merely amplifies their statement. Thus, according to the Sages, if one took upon himself the offering of a poor metzora, he brings the offering of a poor man. The Gemara confines this to a poor noder, but if rich, he brings a rich man's offering, and if the metzora is rich, the noder must, even if he is poor, bring a rich man's offering; in the case of valuations, however, if a poor man dedicated the valuation of a rich man, he gives the valuation of a poor man; it is in this context that the Sages say "but it is not so with offerings." Here Rabbi adds that "this is so also with valuations" if similar to the offerings. Accordingly, 'if a rich man said, "I dedicate my valuation," and the poor man heard and said, "What this man said I take upon myself," he pays the valuation of a rich man.'

This is indeed Rambam's ruling (Hil. Arakhin 3:6). However, according to the commentators who differ from Rambam, Rabbi and the Sages disagree in our mishnah, and according to the latter, even if the rich man said, "I dedicate my valuation," and the poor man thereupon declared, "What this man said I take upon myself," he must give only a poor man's valuation (Tosafot; Ravad; Tosefot R. Akiva Eiger); see also Tosefot Yom Tov and Rambam's supercommentaries ad loc.).

If he - the ma’arikh - was poor when he dedicated the valuation and then - before paying it (Rashi; Bartenura); according to others, before the priest valued him (Tosefot Yom Tov; Tiferet Yisrael) - he became rich, or he was rich when he dedicated the valuation and then before paying (according to Rashi) or before the priest valued him (according to Tosefot Yom Tov) he became poor, he pays the valuation of a rich man - thus (Lev. 27:8): "according to the ability of him that vowed shall the priest value him" - hence we learn that whether he had the means when paying (when the priest values him) or when he dedicated the valuation ("according to the ability of him that vowed"), he invariably pays the valuation of a rich man (Gemara).

Thus Rambam: "Wherein does he who is liable to the valuation of a poor man differ from him (i.e., the poor man) who is liable to the valuation of a rich man, i.e., the full fixed amount? In that the one liable to the valuation of a poor man who was divested of whatever lay within his reach, of even a single sela, who then became rich, need not pay any more. But if he undertook the valuation of a rich man, he remains liable to the balance until he becomes rich, when he must pay it (Hil. Arakhin 3:7).

R. Yehudah says, Even if he was poor - when he dedicated the valuation - and then became rich and then again became poor - before he paid the valuation (or before the priest valued him)- he pays the valuation of a rich man, since the Torah (ibid.) states, "But if he be too poor for the estimated value...," i.e., in this state throughout the entire period (Gemara, ibid.). The halakhah does not follow R. Yehudah; thus, if he was poor when he dedicated the valuation and poor again when he pays, he is charged the valuation of a poor man (Rambam Hil. Arakhin 3:5; see Radbaz).

ARAKHIN: CHAPTER 4: MISHNAH 3

But it is not so with offerings. Even if his father died and left him ten thousand, his ship was on the sea bringing tens of thousands, the Temple receives nothing.

Kehati

The above follows upon the preceding mishnah's second section: "If he was poor and then became rich, or rich and then became poor, he pays the valuation of a rich man." We now learn that this does not apply to an oleh veyored offering where all is according to the time of the offering.

But it is not so in the case of valuations as it is with offerings, the latter's value being subject to the sufficiency of means of the offerer, e.g., that of a metzora who has become clean (see preceding mishnah); thus an impoverished rich or an enriched poor both bring their offerings according to their means at the time of the offering.

Even if his father died and left him an inheritance of ten thousand zuz - according to the Gemara a father about to die bequeathed to him ten thousand zuz since, if he [the father] were already dead, the son would be a rich man (Gemara); or even if his ship was on the sea bringing goods worth tens of thousands of zuz; according to the Gemara, our mishnah does not refer to a ship whose cargo is worth this sum, in which case he would be a rich man, but to a ship leased for the above sum, payable when the contract ends, so that he is not yet rich. The possession of a ship does not classify him as rich, since our mishnah holds that the Temple Treasury does not collect the payment of a vow from one's means of sustenance, e.g., a driver's donkey or a farmer's yoke of oxen, which likewise applies to a ship that provides sustenance; hence, even though he is about to become rich, the Temple receives nothing - some commentators reconnect the second section with the subject of valuations to teach that even if the ma’arikh's father was dying when the priest valued him, and he leaves an inheritance worth tens of thousands of zuz, or even if his ship was on the sea... (as explained above), the priest is not to delay the valuation until his father is dead or until he receives his rent, but values him according to his current means (Rashi).

Others view the second section as continuing the first section's concern with offerings ("But it is not so with offerings"). Accordingly, even if his father died after the metzora became liable to the offering, leaving him ten thousand zuz, or his ship was at sea, etc., the Temple receives nothing; even though he became rich before he brought his offering, he brings that of a poor man, i.e., according to his condition when he became liable to it (Rambam in his Mishnah Commentary; R. Gershon; Bartenura; see Tosafot Arakhin 17b; s.v. aval).

Yet others associate the second section with both valuations, and offerings which share this rule (Tosafot Arakhin 18a; s.v. lo tzerikha; see also Rambam Hil. Shegagot 10:10 and Lehem Mishneh ad loc.). Likewise the Tosefta: If a poor man dedicated his own valuation he is not told, "Go and borrow money, go and work and bring the valuation of a rich man"; let him rather bring a poor man's valuation now than bring a rich man's later. R. Yehudah says: If his father was sick or critically ill, or his ship was abroad, he is not told to wait and pay the valuation of a rich man; let him rather pay the valuation of a poor man now than that of a rich man later. R. Eliezer says: If he was liable to an oleh veyored offering we do not tell him, "Go and borrow money, go and work and bring the valuation of a rich man; let him rather bring a poor man's offering now than a rich man's later." The above Tannaim do not differ, but adduce a different example for the principle that it is desirable to perform a mitzvah without delay (see Sifra Lev. 5:11).

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives