Arakhin

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.1 One might have believed that since he was included, he was completely included,2 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,3 so that no Scriptural verse is necessary to exclude,4 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,5 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.6 GEMARA. IF HE WAS POOR AND THEN BECAME RICH etc., [as it is written,] According to the means of him that vowed.7 OR RICH AND THEN BECAME POOR [etc.]. [as it is written,] According to the means of him that vowed.7 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,7 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’.8 [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.9 And it was taught: R. Eleazar b. Jacob says. All should be guided by what [he was when he brought] the birds?10 — 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.11 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.12 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. 13 But then,14 [when it is written:] He being a witness,15 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, sacrifice, therefore the remark, ‘But it is not so with offerings’, is justified. But it does apply to the case of a poor man vowing a poor leper's sacrifice. man vowing a poor leper's sacrifice in the consideration due to a poor man's dedicating a rich man, that therefore we might extend the same consideration even to a poor man vowing a rich leper's sacrifice, therefore we need the exclusive meaning of, ‘If he be too poor’, i.e., only a poor leper's sacrifice is reduced, but a rich leper's sacrifice, even if vowed by a poor man, is not reduced. derived from valuations, we are guided by the liability of the leper and not by the means of him that vowed. the priest as to his means. between the rules governing them, and those governing valuations; the second part of the Mishnah, however, applies evenly to both. Maimonides, on the other hand, sees the two parts forming one whole. The difference between offering and valuation lies in this: with regard to the former, everything depends on the sufficiency of means of him from whom the offering is due at the moment when the offering is due, which, according to R. Simeon and the other Tannaim (v. infra) means the time when the sin- and guilt-offerings respectively are offered up. and according to R. Eliezer b. Jacob, the time when he brings the birds into the Sanctuary. If at that moment he is poor, then he need bring but the sacrifice of a poor leper, even though his father be dying. or his boat be on the way back and thus promising him an increase in his sufficiency of means. Tosaf. has valid objections to this interpretation. s.v. kct . according whether he be poor or rich. If his condition changed after having brought his sin-offering, the whole-offering which he subsequently brings must be a bird if the sin-offering he had brought as a poor man was a bird, or a he-lamb if the sin-offering he had brought as a rich man had been an ewe lamb]. applied the blood thereof on the tip of his right ear and great toe of his right foot and thumb of the right hand. Lev. XIV, 14. of condition all the time.