Arakhin — Daf 5a

רגלה של זו עולה יכול תהא כולה עולה תלמוד לומר (ויקרא כז, ט) כל אשר יתן ממנו לה' יהיה קדש ממנו קודש ולא כולה קודש

יכול תצא לחולין ת"ל יהיה בהוייתה תהא הא כיצד תמכר לצורכי עולות ודמיה חולין חוץ מדמי אותו אבר שבה דברי ר"מ

רבי יהודה ורבי יוסי ור"ש אומרים מנין לאומר רגלה של זו עולה שכולה עולה תלמוד לומר כל אשר יתן ממנו לה' יהיה קדש לרבות את כולה

ואפילו למ"ד אין כולה עולה הני מילי דאקדיש דבר שאין הנשמה תלויה בו אבל דבר שהנשמה תלויה בו קדשה כולה

(אלא) לא קשיא הא בקדושת הגוף הא בקדושת דמים

והא מר הוא דאמר מקדיש זכר לדמיו קדוש קדושת הגוף

לא קשיא הא דאקדיש כולה הא דאקדיש חד אבר

חד אבר נמי איבעויי איבעיא לן דבעי רבה הקדיש אבר לדמיו מהו

כי איבעי לן בתם הכא בבעל מום דומיא דחמור

בעל מום נמי איבעויי איבעיא לן דבעי רבה דמי ראשי לגבי מזבח מהו כי אבעיא לן מקמי דאשמעה להא מתניתא השתא דשמעה הא מתניתא לא מיבעיא לן

גופא בעי רבה דמי ראשי לגבי מזבח מהו נידון בכבודו או אינו נידון בכבודו

לא אשכחן בדמים דאינו נידון בכבודו או דלמא לא אשכחן לגבי מזבח דנידון בכבודו תיקו

בעי רבא ערכי עלי לגבי מזבח מהו נידון בהשג יד או אין נידון בהשג יד

לא אשכחן בערכין דאין נידון בהשג יד או דלמא לא אשכחן לגבי מזבח דמיפריק אלא בשויו תיקו

בעי רב אשי הקדיש שדה אחוזה לגבי מזבח מהו מי אמרינן לא אשכחן שדה אחוזה דמיפרקא אלא בית זרע חומר שעורים בחמשים שקל כסף או דלמא לא אשכחן לגבי מזבח דמיפריק אלא בשויו תיקו:

מתני׳ פחות מבן חדש נידר אבל לא נערך:

גמ׳ ת"ר המעריך פחות מבן חדש ר"מ אומר נותן דמיו וחכמים אומרים לא אמר כלום

במאי קמיפלגי ר"מ סבר אין אדם מוציא דבריו לבטלה יודע שאין ערכין לפחות מבן חדש וגמר ואמר לשם דמים ורבנן סברי אדם מוציא דבריו לבטלה

כמאן אזלא הא דאמר רב גידל א"ר האומר ערך כלי עלי נותן דמים כר"מ פשיטא דכר"מ אתיא

מהו דתימא אפילו כרבנן התם הוא דטעי סבר כי היכי דאיכא ערכין לבן חודש איכא נמי לפחות מבן חודש

אבל הכא דליכא למיטעי ודאי אדם יודע שאין ערך לכלי וגמר ואמר לשם דמים קמשמע לן

If one said: ‘The leg of this [animal] shall be a burnt-offering’, one might have assumed that the whole animal thereby becomes a burnt-offering, therefore the text states: All that any man giveth thereof unto the Lord shall be holy, i.e., only [that] ‘thereof’ [which he giveth] shall be holy, but not the whole thereof shall be holy. One might have assumed that the whole becomes profane, therefore the text states: ‘[It] shall be’, i.e., It retains its present character. How then? It is sold for the purchase of burnt-offerings and the money realized, with the exception of the [value of the] limb dedicated, shall be profane; this is the view of R. Meir. R. Judah, R. Jose and R. Simeon say: Whence do we know that if a man said: The leg of this animal shall be a burnt-offering, that the whole animal is a burnt-offering, therefore the text states: ‘All that any man giveth thereof unto the Lord shall be holy’: that means to include the whole. Now even according to the view that thereby the whole animal does not become consecrated, that applies only to [the vow of] an organ upon which life does not depend, but whenever a limb is vowed upon which the life [of the animal] depends, the whole [animal] becomes consecrated? — This is no difficulty. One speaks of the vow of the animal itself, the other of the vow of its equivalent in money. But it ‘was the Master himself who said that if someone consecrates a male [animal] in its money equivalent, that [animal] becomes consecrated in itself ! — That is no difficulty: one case speaks of his having dedicated the whole, the other of his dedicating one member of the body. But even concerning [the dedication of] one member it is a matter of doubt, for Rabbah asked: If a man had dedicated one member in its money value, how then? — The question was asked about a perfect animal, whereas here we are dealing with a blemished one, similar to the donkey [discussed above]. But the case of [the dedication of] a blemished one is also doubtful, for Rabbah asked: If someone says the money value of my head is [dedicated] to the altar, what then? — The question was asked before he heard this teaching, but now that he has heard this teaching, it is no more doubtful to him. [To turn to] the main text: Rabbah asked, [If a man said,] The money value of my head be for the altar, shall he be valued according to the importance [of this], or shall he not be so valued? [Do we say that] it never happens that a vow regarding [a person's] worth be not assessed according to the importance [of the limb] or, [on the other hand, do we say] it never happens with regard to a consecration for the altar that [the consecration] is determined by the importance [of the limb]? — The question remains [unanswered]. Raba asked: [If someone said:] The valuation of myself I undertake to pay for the altar, is he adjudged according to his means, or not? [Do we say,] It is never found in connection with valuation that one is not adjudged according to one's means; or, [on the other hand] it never happens with regard to any vow to the altar that one be adjudged according to his means? — The question remains [unanswered]. R. Ashi asked: If a man dedicated a field of possession for the altar, what then? Do we say it never occurs that a field of possession can be redeemed except on the basis of fifty shekels for each [part of the field sufficient for] the sowing of a homer of barley, or [perhaps, we say] it does not happen with regard to any [gift for] the altar that it be redeemed otherwise than in accord with its actual value? — The question remains [unanswered]. MISHNAH. A PERSON LESS THAN ONE MONTH OLD MAY HAVE HIS WORTH VOWED BUT NOT HIS VALUATION. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: If one evaluates a person less than one month old, R. Meir says, He gives his worth [its market value], but the Sages say, ‘He has said nothing’. Wherein are they of divided opinion? — R. Meir says: No man utters his words in vain, and knowing that a person less than one month old cannot be made the subject of a valuation [and having spoken] he makes up his mind to vow his worth. The Sages, however, hold that a man may utter his words in vain. According to whose view [of the disputants] will be what R. Giddal said in the name of Rab, who said. if one said: the valuation of this vessel is upon me, he shall pay its worth! — That is in accord with R. Meir. But this is self-evident? — You might have said: It could be in accord with the view of the Rabbis [Sages]. For in the other case one could have erred in thinking that just as a child of one month has valuation thus also one less than one month old; but in this case where there is nothing to err about, for a man surely knows that a vessel has no valuation, and therefore he had intended his statement to mean to vow the vessel's worth, therefore we are informed [that even here the Sages do not so hold].