Arakhin — Daf 20a

בחד זימנא אמדינן ליה או דלמא כיון דבזה אחר זה נדר תרי זימני אמדינן ליה

ואם תמצא לומר כיון דבזה אחר זה נדר תרי זימני אמדינן ליה אמר שני דמי עלי בבת אחת מהו הכא ודאי בבת אחת נדר בבת אחת אמדינן ליה או דלמא כיון דקאמר שני כזה אחר זה דמי

אם תימצי לומר כיון דקאמר שני כזה אחר זה דמי אמדוהו מאליו מהו מי אמרינן הא אמיד מאליו וקאי או דלמא בעינן כוונה לאומדנא

פשוט מהא חדא דתנן דמי עלי ומת לא יתנו יורשין שאין דמים למתים

ואי ס"ד אמדוהו מאליו הוי אומדנא הא אמיד וקאי מי איכא גברא דלא שוי ארבעה זוזי

אמדוהו מאליו נחית לאומדנא דמי עלי לא נחית לאומדנא:

מתני׳ חומר בערכין מבנדרים כיצד האומר ערכי עלי ומת יתנו היורשים דמי עלי ומת לא יתנו היורשים שאין דמים למתים

ערך ידי וערך רגלי עלי לא אמר כלום ערך ראשי וערך כבידי עלי נותן ערך כולו זה הכלל דבר שהנשמה תלויה בו נותן ערך כולו

חצי ערכי עלי נותן חצי ערכו ערך חציי עלי נותן ערך כולו חצי דמי עלי נותן חצי דמיו דמי חציי עלי נותן דמי כולו זה הכלל דבר שהנשמה תלויה בו נותן דמי כולו

האומר ערכו של פלוני עלי מת הנודר והנידר יתנו היורשין דמיו של פלוני עלי ומת הנודר יתנו היורשין מת הנידר לא יתנו היורשין שאין דמים למתים:

גמ׳ ת"ר חומר בנדרים מבערכין שהנדרים חלין על בהמה חיה ועוף ואין נדונים בהשג יד משא"כ בערכין

חומר בערכין מבנדרים כיצד אמר ערכי עלי ומת יתנו יורשין דמי עלי ומת לא יתנו יורשין שאין דמים למתים

אמר ערכי עלי ומת יתנו יורשין ש"מ מלוה על פה גובה מן היורשין שאני הכא דמלוה כתובה בתורה היא

ש"מ מלוה הכתובה בתורה ככתובה בשטר דמיא הב"ע כשעמד בדין

דכוותה גבי דמי עלי שעמד בדין אמאי לא יתנו יורשין דמי עלי מחוסר אומדנא ערכי עלי לא מחוסר ולא כלום:

ערך ידי ורגלי עלי וכו': א"ר גידל אמר רב ונותן דמיה

והא לא אמר כלום קתני לא אמר כלום לרבנן ונותן דמיה לר"מ

הא אמרה חדא זימנא דא"ר גידל א"ר האומר ערך כלי זה עלי נותן דמיו

מהו דתימא התם הוא דאדם יודע שאין ערך לכלי וגמר ואמר לשם דמים אבל הכא מיטעא קטעי דסבר כי היכי דאיכא ערך ראשי וערך כבידי איכא נמי ערך ידי וערך רגלי אבל דמי לא קאמר קמ"ל:

ערך ראשי וערך כבידי נותן ערך כולו: מ"ט נפשות קאמר רחמנא:

זה הכלל דבר שהנשמה תלויה בו כו': לאתויי מן הארכובה ולמעלה:

חצי ערכי עלי נותן כו': ת"ר חצי ערכי עלי נותן חצי ערכו ר' יוסי בר' יהודה אומר לוקה ונותן ערך שלם

לוקה אמאי א"ר פפא לוקה בערך שלם מ"ט גזירה חצי ערכי אטו ערך חציו וערך חציו הוי דבר שהנשמה תלויה בו:

חצי דמי עלי נותן כו' דמי חציי עלי נותן דמי כולו: מ"ט

(ויקרא כז, ב) נדר בערכך נפשות כתיב:

זה הכלל דבר שהנשמה תלויה בו: לאתויי מן הארכובה ולמעלה

ת"ר המעריך חצי ערך כלי ר"מ אומר נותן דמיו וחכ"א לא אמר כלום רבא חלש עול לגביה אביי ורבנן ויתבי וקאמרי בשלמא ר"מ קסבר אין אדם מוציא דבריו לבטלה לא שנא כולו ול"ש חציו

אלא רבנן מאי קסברי אי אדם מוציא דבריו לבטלה אפי' כולו נמי ואי אין אדם מוציא דבריו לבטלה אפי' חציו נמי

אמר להו (רבא ואביי) רבנן דהכא כר"מ סברי לה וסברי לה כר"ש סברי לה כר' מאיר דאמר אין אדם מוציא דבריו לבטלה

וסברי לה כר"ש דאמר שלא התנדב כדרך המתנדבים כוליה אורחיה לאיתנדובי פלגיה לאו אורחיה לאיתנדובי:

האומר ערכו של פלוני עלי ומת הנודר כו': מאי ניהו שעמד בדין

היינו הך סיפא איצטריך ליה דמיו של פלוני עליו ומת הנודר יתנו היורשים

to be estimated once [only],1 or perhaps since he vowed one time after the other, he is [formally] to be estimated twice? And if you find a reason for saying that because he vowed one time after the other he is to be estimated twice, what is [the law] if he said, ‘Twice my worth do I vow’? [Do we say] he has definitely vowed only once and hence he should be estimated only once, or perhaps since he said, ‘Twice’ it is to be as if he had vowed one time after the other? And if you find a reason for saying that since he said, ‘Twice’ it is to be as if he had vowed one time after the other, what is [the law] if they had estimated him incidentally?2 Do we say. Behold he stands estimated, or do we require intention for an estimation [to be valid]? — Solve at least one [of these questions], for we learnt: [If one said,] ‘I vow my worth’ and died, the heirs need not give anything’, because a dead man has no worth.3 Now if you were to say that if they had estimated him incidentally the estimate would be considered valid, then he, too, stands estimated already; for is there a person who is not worth four zuz [at least]? — [No,] one estimated incidentally has been estimated at any rate, but one who merely said: ‘I vow my worth’, has not reached [the stage of] estimation at all. MISHNAH. VALUATIONS ARE IN THE DIRECTION OF MORE STRINGENCY THAN VOWS OF WORTH. HOW IS THAT? IF ONE SAID: I VOW MY VALUATION AND THEN HE DIES. HIS HEIRS MUST PAY IT. [BUT IF HE SAID:] I VOW MY WORTH AND THEN HE DIES, THEN HIS HEIRS NEED NOT PAY ANYTHING BECAUSE DEAD PERSONS HAVE NO WORTH [MARKET-VALUE]. [IF HE SAID,] ‘THE VALUATION OF MY HAND OR FOOT I VOW’, HE HAS SAID NOTHING, [BUT IF HE SAID,] ‘I VOW THE VALUATION OF MY HEAD OR OF MY LIVER’, HE MUST PAY HIS WHOLE valuation. THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE: [WHENEVER HE VOWED THE VALUATION OF ANY] THING ON WHICH HIS LIFE DEPENDS. HE MUST PAY HIS VALUATION IN FULL. [IF HE SAID:] ‘I VOW. HALF MY VALUATION’, HE MUST PAY HALF HIS VALUATION, [BUT IF HE SAID,] ‘THE VALUATION OF ONE HALF OF ME HE MUST PAY HIS WHOLE VALUATION. [IF HE SAID] ‘HALF OF MY WORTH I VOW’, HE MUST PAY HALF HIS WORTH. [IF HE SAID,] ‘I VOW THE WORTH OF ONE HALF OF ME, HE MUST PAY HIS WHOLE WORTH. THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE: [IF HE VOWED] THE WORTH OF ANYTHING ON WHICH HIS LIFE DEPENDS, HE MUST PAY HIS WHOLE WORTH. IF HE SAID: I VOW THE VALUATION OF SO-AND-SO’, AND BOTH THE VOWER AND THE SUBJECT OF THE VOW DIED, THEN THE HEIRS MUST PAY IT. [IF HE SAID,] ‘THE WORTH OF SO-AND-SO I VOW’, AND THE VOWER DIED, THE HEIRS MUST PAY IT. BUT IF THE SUBJECT OF THE VOW DIED, THE HEIRS NEED NOT PAY ANYTHING BECAUSE DEAD PERSONS HAVE NO WORTH. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: Vows of worth are in the direction of greater stringency than vows of valuations, for vows of worth apply to cattle, game and birds, and are not estimated according to sufficiency of means, whereas it is not so with valuations. Valuations are in the direction of greater stringency than vows of worth. How is that? If one said: ‘I vow my valuation’ and then died, his heirs must pay it; [but if he said,] ‘I vow my worth’ and then died, his heirs need not give anything, for dead persons have no worth [market-value]. ‘If he said: "I vow my valuation" and then died, his heirs must pay.’ We infer therefrom that an oral debt may be collected from the heirs?4 — It is different here because it is a debt arising from the law of the Torah. Then we may infer from here that a debt arising from the law of the Torah has the force of one acknowledged in a document of indebtedness? — Here we speak of the case where he stood before the court.5 Then, in the same situation where he had said: ‘I vow my worth’, if he stood before the court, why should the heirs not have to pay? — Because in the case of where he says, ‘I vow my worth’, he still lacked estimate, whilst in the case where he had said, ‘I vow my valuation’, he lacked nothing.6 I VOW THE VALUATION OF MY HAND OR OF MY FOOT etc. R. Giddal in the name of Rab said: And he must pay its worth [market-value]. But it was said, He has said nothing? — He has said nothing according to the Rabbis, but he must pay according to R. Meir.7 But he [R. Giddal] has said that once already, for R. Giddal had said in the name of Rab: [If someone said:] ‘I vow the valuation of this vessel’, he must pay its market-value?8 You might have said: There [he must pay the market-value] because a man knows that a vessel is not subject to valuation, therefore he had made up his mind to [use the phrase meaning, however, its] worth. But here he was really mistaken, in that he believed that just as there is valuation to ‘my hand or liver’, there is one to ‘my foot or hand’, but he never meant the market-value; therefore he informs us [that he must pay the market-value nevertheless]. THE VALUATION OF MY HEAD OR MY LIVER’, HE MUST PAY HIS WHOLE VALUATION. Why? — The Divine Law said: souls.9 THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE: [WHENEVER HE VOWED THE VALUATION OF] ANYTHING ON WHICH HIS LIFE DEPENDS, HE MUST PAY HIS VALUATION IN FULL. That includes [his saying: I vow the valuation of anything] from the knee upwards.10 HALF OF MY VALUATION etc.’ Our Rabbis taught: [If a man said:] ‘I vow half my valuation’, he must pay half his valuation. R. Jose son of R. Judah says: He receives punishment and must pay his full valuation.11 Why [should he be punished]? — Said R. Papa: He receives the punishment of having to pay the full valuation. What is the reason? — [It means,] We are stringent about the vow, ‘Half of my valuation’ because [of its possible confusion with] ‘The valuation of one half of him’, and the valuation of the half of oneself is tantamount to [the valuation of] something on which one's life depends. HALF OF MY WORTH DO I VOW etc. [BUT IF HE SAID:] ‘I VOW THE WORTH OF ONE HALF OF ME, HE MUST PAY THE WHOLE OF HIS WORTH. What is the reason? — Scripture said: A vow of persons [souls] according to thy valuation.12 THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE: [WHENEVER HE VOWED THE VALUATION OF] ANYTHING ON WHICH LIFE DEPENDS, HE MUST PAY HIS WHOLE VALUATION. That includes his vowing the worth of anything from the knee upwards.13 Our Rabbis taught: If one vows half the valuation of a vessel, then R. Meir says he must pay its market-value, whereas the Sages say he need not pay anything. Rabbah was ill. Abaye and the Rabbis entered his home. They were sitting and saying: That is right according to R. Meir for he holds that ‘no man utters his words in vain [without purpose]’, there being no difference whether one half or the whole is concerned. But [the difficulty is with] the Rabbis. What is their view? If they hold a man does utter his words in vain, then he should be free from any obligation to pay even if he said, [I vow the valuation] of a whole vessel; and [if they hold] that a man does not utter his words in vain, then he ought to pay even though he vowed half of its valuation? — Rabbah answered them: The Rabbis here hold with R. Meir and with R. Simeon: They hold with R. Meir that no man utters his words in vain, and they agree with R. Simeon who said [that he14 is exempt] because he did not make a freewill-offering in the manner proper to those that make freewill-offerings. Now it would make a full gift for one to vow a whole [vessel], but it is not usual to vow only half [a vessel].15 IF SOMEONE SAID: ‘I VOW THE VALUATION OF SO-AND-SO AND THEN THE VOWER DIED etc. How is this [case] to be explained? presumably that he stood before the court?16 But that is the same as the other?17 — It is necessary [to state that] because of the second clause: [If he said,] ‘I vow the worth of So-and-so’. and he who vowed died, then the heirs must pay it terms, he has something definite in mind. A vessel not being subject to valuation, he must have had in mind its market-value. equal to the valuation of the whole person. would mean the valuation of the person. just as if somebody said: I ‘vow my liver, or my heart’. Papa's interpretation. Cf. B.M. 43a. valuations. considered liable. But an unusual gift made in the additionally abnormal form of half of an object must have been meant ‘in vain’, not seriously. hence the Rabbis decide that he need not pay anything at all. then this repetition?