Arakhin — Daf 17b

חדא אמצורע עני ומדירו עני וחדא למעוטי מצורע עשיר ומדירו עני

סלקא דעתך אמינא הואיל ואיתרבו איתרבו קמ"ל

לפי שמצינו בערכין עני שהעריך את העשיר נותן ערך עני יכול אף זה כן ת"ל אם דל הוא

ולרבי דאמר אומר אני אף בערכין כן אלמא אמר בתר חיובא דגברא אזלינן והא לא צריכא קרא למעוטי הוא למעוטי מאי

למעוטי מצורע עני ומדירו עשיר סד"א הואיל ואמר רבי בתר חיובא דגברא אזלינן קמ"ל:

מתני׳ היה עני והעשיר עשיר והעני נותן ערך עשיר ר' יהודה אומר עני והעשיר וחזר והעני נותן ערך עשיר

אבל בקרבנות אינו כן אפי' מת אביו והניח לו ריבוא או ספינתו בים ובאה לו ברבואות אין להקדש בה כלום:

גמ׳ עני והעשיר (ויקרא כז, ח) אשר תשיג יד הנודר עשיר והעני על פי אשר תשיג

ר' יהודה אומר אפי' עני והעשיר וחזר והעני נותן ערך עשיר מ"ט דר' יהודה אמר קרא (ויקרא כז, ח) ואם מך הוא מערכך עד שיהא במכותו מתחלתו ועד סופו

אלא מעתה (ויקרא יד, כא) ואם דל הוא הכי נמי עד שיהא בדלותו מתחלתו ועד סופו

וכי תימא הכי נמי והתנן מצורע שהביא קרבנותיו עני והעשיר עשיר והעני הכל הולך אחר חטאת דברי ר' שמעון

רבי יהודה אומר הכל הולך אחר אשם ותניא ר' אליעזר בן יעקב אומר הכל הולך אחר צפרים

הא אתמר עלה אמר רב יהודה אמר רב ושלשתן מקרא אחד דרשו (ויקרא יד, לב) אשר לא תשיג ידו בטהרתו רבי שמעון סבר דבר המכפר מאי ניהו חטאת

ור' יהודה סבר דבר המכשיר ומאי ניהו אשם ר' אליעזר בן יעקב סבר הגורם לו טהרה ומאי ניהו ציפרים

ואלא הוא למה לי לרבי כדאית ליה ולרבנן כדאית להו

אלא מעתה (ויקרא ה, א) והוא עד עד שיהא כשר מתחלתו ועד סופו

וכי תימא הכי נמי והא תניא היה יודע לו בעדות עד שלא נעשה חתנו ונעשה חתנו פקח ונתחרש פתוח ונסתמא שפוי ונשתטה הרי זה פסול אבל היה יודע לו עדות עד שלא נעשה חתנו ונעשה חתנו

One refers to a poor leper. when the person who vowed [his sacrifice] was poor; the other to a rich leper when he who vows is poor. One might have believed that since he was included, he was completely included, therefore we are informed [that it is not so]. even as it was taught: Since we find in case of valuation that a poor man who evaluated a rich man need pay but the valuation of a poor man, one might have assumed that the same applied also to this [case], therefore the text states: And if he be poor’. But according to Rabbi who said: I SAY THE SAME APPLIES ALSO WITH REGARD TO A VALUATION which shows that we are guided by the liability of the person, so that no Scriptural verse is necessary to exclude, what then does: ‘[If] he [be too poor]’ exclude? — It excludes the case of a poor leper whilst he who vowed was rich. I might have assumed that since Rabbi said: We are guided by the liability of the person, we shall here too be guided by the liability of the person, therefore we are informed [that we are not so guided here]. MISHNAH. IF HE WAS POOR AND THEN BECAME RICH, OR RICH AND THEN BECAME POOR, HE MUST PAY THE VALUATION OF A RICH MAN. R. JUDAH SAYS: EVEN IF HE WAS POOR AND BECAME RICH AND THEN AGAIN BECAME POOR HE MUST PAY THE VALUATION OF A RICH MAN. BUT IT IS NOT SO WITH OFFERINGS. EVEN IF HIS FATHER WAS DYING [WHILST A MAN VOWED] AND LEFT HIM TEN THOUSAND, OR IF HE HAD A SHIP ON THE SEA AND IT BROUGHT TO HIM TEN THOUSAND, THE SANCTUARY HAS NO CLAIM AT ALL ON THEM. GEMARA. IF HE WAS POOR AND THEN BECAME RICH etc., [as it is written,] According to the means of him that vowed. OR RICH AND THEN BECAME POOR [etc.]. [as it is written,] According to the means of him that vowed. R. JUDAH SAID: EVEN IF HE WAS POOR AND BECAME RICH AND THEN AGAIN BECAME POOR etc. What is the reason of R. Judah's view? — Scripture said: But if he be too poor for thy valuation, i.e., only if he remains in his poor state from the beginning to the end. But if that be so [consider that]: ‘If he be too poor’. [Would you say] here, too, ‘only if he remains poor from the beginning to the end’? And if you were to say, ‘Indeed so’! Have we not learnt: If a leper offered up [part of] his offering as a poor man and became rich, or as a rich man and became poor, all should be guided by what the sin-offering was. These are the words of R. Simeon. R. Judah says: Everything should be guided by [what he was when he brought] the guilt-offering. And it was taught: R. Eleazar b. Jacob says. All should be guided by what [he was when he brought] the birds? — But surely it was said with regard thereto; R. Judah said in the name of Rab: All the three inferred it from one Scriptural verse: Whose means suffice not for that which pertaineth to his cleansing. R. Simeon holds: [The reference is to] the thing that procures atonement, that is, the sin-offering. R. Judah holds: It is to the thing which renders him fit, that is, the guilt-offering. R. Eleazar b. Jacob says: The thing which causes his cleansing, that is, the birds. But then why is it said: ‘[If] he [be too poor]’? According to Rabbi, as he explains it, and according to the Sages, as they explain it. But then, [when it is written:] He being a witness, would you here, too, say that he must be a fit [witness] from beginning to end? And if you will say: Indeed so! Surely it was taught: If a man knew testimony [to give] for another before he became his son-in-law, and then became his son-in-law; or if he then could hear and now became deaf; could see and now became blind; was of sound mind then and now became stupid, then he is disqualified [as witness]. But if he knew testimony [to give] for him before he became his son-in-law, then became his son-in-law,