Arakhin

Retribution is prepared for him. It was taught: R. Eliezer the great said: If the Holy One, blessed be He, wished to enter in judgment with Abraham, Isaac or Jacob, not [even] they could stand before His reproof! As it is said: Now therefore stand still, that I may plead with you before the Lord concerning all the righteous acts of the Lord, which He did to you and to your fathers.1 [It is written:] Such is the generation of them that seek after Him, that seek Thy face, even Jacob. Selah.2 R. Judah Nesi'ah3 and the Rabbis differ [as to the meaning]: One says, as the leader, so the generation; the other: as the generation, so the leader. For what practical purpose [is this discussion]? Would you say: It refers to virtue so that one holds: if the generation is virtuous, so is the leader; the other's view being: if the leader is virtuous, so is the generation; but surely there is Zedekiah who was virtuous, whereas his generation was not so; and there is Jehoiakim who was not virtuous, whilst his generation was so. For R. Johanan said in the name of R. Simeon b. Yohai: What is the meaning of: In the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim, the son of Josiah, king of Judah?4 The Holy One, blessed be He, wanted to reduce the world to formlessness and emptiness because of Jehoiakim, but when He considered His generation. His anger subsided.5 The Holy One, blessed be He, wanted to reduce the world to formlessness and emptiness because of the generation of Zedekiah, but when he considered Zedekiah, his anger subsided? — Rather, it refers to anger and gentleness respectively. 6 MISHNAH. AS TO THE SUFFICIENCY OF MEANS,7 THIS SHALL BE DONE ACCORDING TO THE ABILITY OF HIM WHO VOWS. AND [WHEN ACCORDING TO] THE YEARS OF HIS AGE, THIS SHALL BE ACCORDING TO HIM WHO IS THE SUBJECT OF THE VOW. AS FOR VALUATIONS,8 THIS SHALL BE ACCORDING TO HIM WHO IS THE SUBJECT OF THE VALUATION. AND THE VALUATIONS [SHALL BE PAID ACCORDING TO THE RATE PRESCRIBED] AT THE TIME OF THE VALUATION. AS TO THE SUFFICIENCY OF MEANS, THIS SHALL BE ACCORDING TO THE MAN WHO VOWS’. HOW IS THAT? IF A POOR MAN EVALUATED A RICH MAN, HE SHALL PAY ONLY THE VALUATION OF A POOR MAN.9 BUT IF A RICH MAN EVALUATED A POOR MAN, HE MUST PAY THE VALUATION OF A RICH MAN. BUT IT IS NOT SO WITH OFFERINGS. IF A MAN SAID: I TAKE UPON MYSELF THE OFFERING OF THIS LEPER, AND THE LEPER WAS POOR, HE BRINGS THE OFFERING OF A POOR MAN.10 BUT IF THE LEPER WAS RICH, HE MUST BRING THE OFFERING OF A RICH MAN.11 RABBI SAYS: I SAY THE SAME APPLIES WITH REGARD TO A VALUATION.12 WHY IS A POOR MAN WHO EVALUATED A RICH MAN OBLIGED TO PAY ONLY THE VALUATION OF A POOR MAN? BECAUSE THE RICH MAN HAD NOT INCURRED ANY LIABILITY WHATSOEVER. BUT IF THE RICH MAN SAID: I EVALUATE MYSELF’ AND THE POOR MAN, HEARING THAT, SAID: WHAT THIS MAN HAS SAID, I TAKE UPON MYSELF, THEN HE MUST PAY THE VALUATION OF A RICH MAN. GEMARA. Surely ‘sufficiency of means’ is written only in connection with evaluation?13 As it is written: According to the means of him that vowed shall the priest value him.14 But is [payment according to] the years of his age with regard to one [whose worth has been] vowed, is it not only [stated] with regard to one who has been subject to valuation? — Since he [the Tanna] had spoken of ‘sufficiency of means’ in connection with ‘one who vows’, he speaks, touching the years, also of one who had been the subject of a vow. AS TO SUFFICIENCY OF MEANS, THIS SHALL BE ACCORDING TO THE MAN WHO VOWS’. HOW IS THAT? IF A POOR MAN EVALUATED A RICH MAN HE SHALL PAY ONLY THE VALUATION OF A POOR MAN. But why? Scripture said: ‘According to the means of him that vowed’, i.e., the Divine Law made it dependent upon him who ‘vowed’. BUT IT IS NOT SO WITH OFFERINGS. IF A MAN SAID: I TAKE UPON MYSELF THE OFFERING OF THIS LEPER. AND THE LEPER WAS POOR, HE BRINGS THE OFFERING OF A POOR MAN. This means although he who vowed is rich! But did not the Divine Law say: And if he be poor,15 and he [who vowed] is not poor? Said R. Isaac: This refers to the case where he who vowed [too] was poor. But perhaps the All Merciful spared only [the leper] himself, but not him who vowed, as it is written: [If] he [be too poor]?16 — Said R. Adda b. Ahabah: ‘And his means suffice not’,17 includes him who vows. But if he who vows were a rich man, would he indeed have to bring the offering of a rich man? If so, what means BUT IT IS NOT SO WITH OFFERINGS?18 — notes. man would under all circumstances incur no liability beyond that of a poor man's valuation, i.e., according to his means; even though he heard the rich man vow his own valuation and thereupon he (the poor man) said: I take upon myself what this man has said. According to Rabbi, however, in such a case the poor man would be liable to pay the rich man's (i.e., the normal) valuation, since in saying: ‘I take upon myself what this man has said’ he deliberately assumes the full liability, and he would owe the sum until able to pay it. (ii) Maimonides interprets Rabbi's attitude to be in accord with the first Tanna's, opposing only the suggestion that it is not so with offerings’. because if the same conditions which prevail at the leper's vow prevailed in the case of a valuation, the same rules would apply, according to the view of the Tanna which Rabbi holds. applies not to the vower (of a man's market value), but to the valuations. valuation, that is why the Mishnah, too, uses the same term, not in the stricter but in the general sense. (Lev. XXVII, 8). might not be willing to extend the same consideration to a healthy poor man, who without any compulsion assumed his liability.