Arakhin

and after that his daughter [the father-in-law's. i.e., his wife] died; or if he could hear, became deaf, and now regained his hearing; or if he could see, lost his sight, and now recovered it; or was of sound mind, lost his mind, and now recovered it, then he is eligible [as witness]. This is the general rule: Whosoever was capable at the beginning and, again, at the end, is eligible?1 — It is different there because Scripture says: If he do not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity.2 the Divine Law has made the matter dependent on seeing and hearing, and that is found here.3 But then what is the need of: ‘He being a witness’? — Because of what has been taught: If he saw a company of men standing, among whom are his witnesses, and he says: I adjure you that if you know a testimony on my behalf you come and testify for me, one might have assumed that they then are obliged [to do so], therefore the text states: ‘He being a witness’, whilst he has not singled out his witnesses. One might assume that [the same applies] even if he said: Whosoever [of you knows a fact to testify to. etc.], therefore the text states: ‘He being a witness’, and he has singled them out. 4 BUT IT IS NOT SO WITH OFFERINGS: IF HIS FATHER DIED AND LEFT HIM TEN THOUSAND etc. But then he is a rich man? R. Abbuha said: Say, He was leaving him ten thousand.5 But that is self-evident? — It means that his father lies in a dying condition. You might have said: Most of the people in a dying condition really die, therefore we are informed [that the Sanctuary has nevertheless no claim]. IF HIS BOAT IS ON THE SEA RETURNING TO HIM WITH TEN THOUSAND. But then he is a rich man? R. Hisda said: It refers to a case when he had rented out or hired it out to others. But there is the rent? — Rent is not payable before the end [of the contracted period]. But derive [his richness] from his boat alone? This is in accord with the view of R. Eliezer, for it was taught: If he was a farmer, they must leave him his yoke of oxen, and if he was an ass-driver, they must leave him his ass.6 MISHNAH. ‘AS FOR THE YEARS THIS SHALL BE [VALUED] ACCORDING TO [THE AGE OF] HIM WHO IS VOWED’? IF A CHILD EVALUATES AN OLD MAN. HE MUST PAY THE VALUATION OF AN OLD MAN. AND IF AN OLD MAN EVALUATES A CHILD. HE MUST PAY THE VALUATION OF A CHILD. AS FOR VALUATION: THIS SHALL BE ACCORDING TO HIM WHO IS THE SUBJECT OF THE VALUATION. HOW IS THAT? IF A MAN EVALUATED A WOMAN, HE MUST PAY THE VALUATION OF A WOMAN. AND IF A WOMAN EVALUATED A MAN, SHE MUST PAY THE VALUATION OF A MAN. ‘AND THE VALUATION DEPENDS UPON THE TIME OF THE VALUATION’. HOW IS THAT? IF HE EVALUATED ONE WHO WAS LESS THAN FIVE YEARS OF AGE, AND HE BECAME [MEANTIME] OLDER THAN FIVE YEARS OF AGE; OR [HE EVALUATED ONE] WHO WAS LESS THAN TWENTY YEARS OF AGE AND HE BECAME TWENTY YEARS OLD. HE MUST PAY [ONLY] IN ACCORD WITH THE AGE AT THE TIME OF THE VALUATION. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: You have compared vows [of market value] to valuations, both with regard to [the valuation of] pearls for the poor,7 and to the rule that the value of a limb be judged in accord with its importance.8 One might have assumed that we shall compare valuations with vows of market value also with regard to the rule that there, too, he shall have to pay its value according to the time of the payment,9 therefore it is said: According to thy valuation it shall stand,10 i.e., [in the case of valuation] he shall pay only as much as it was worth at the time of the valuation. MISHNAH. THE THIRTIETH DAY IS ACCOUNTED UNDER THIS AGE. THE FIFTH YEAR OR TWENTIETH YEAR IS ACCOUNTED UNDER THIS AGE. FOR IT IS WRITTEN: AND IF IT BE FROM SIXTY YEARS OLD AND UPWARD.11 WE LEARN THUS WITH REGARD TO ALL OTHERS FROM WHAT IS SAID ABOUT SIXTY YEARS: JUST AS THE SIXTIETH YEAR IS ACCOUNTED UNDER THIS AGE. SO ALSO THE FIFTH AND TWENTIETH YEARS ARE ACCOUNTED UNDER THIS AGE. WHAT! BECAUSE [THE TORAH] HAS RECKONED THE SIXTIETH YEAR TO BE UNDER THIS AGE, THEREBY BEING MORE STRINGENT, SHALL THE FIFTH OR THE TWENTIETH YEAR BE CONSIDERED UNDER THIS AGE. WHEREBY IT WOULD BE MORE LENIENT?12 TO TEACH US THAT, IT IS SAID: ‘YEARS’, ‘YEARS’ TO SET FORTH THIS ANALOGY: JUST AS WITH THE SIXTIETH YEAR THE WORD ‘YEARS’ MEANS THAT IT BE RECKONED UNDER AGE, SO THE WORD YEARS’ WITH THE FIFTH AND WITH THE TWENTIETH YEAR MEANS THAT IT IS TO BE RECKONED UNDER AGE, NO MATTER WHETHER IT BEARS LENIENTLY OR STRINGENTLY. R. ELEAZAR SAYS: [THIS RULE HOLDS GOOD] UNTIL THEY ARE A MONTH AND A DAY BEYOND THE YEARS CONCERNED. GEMARA. Now this is superfluous,13 for were that not the case, it could be refuted as we did. For [the fact is that] the words ‘years’, ‘years’ are written superfluously. Shall we say that our Mishnah is not in accord with Rabbi; for if it were in accord with Rabbi, surely he said: ‘Until’ is meant to be inclusive. For it was taught: [It is written:] From the first day until the seventh day.14 One might have assumed [this to mean]: ‘From the first day on’ but the first not included, and ‘until the seventh day’ but the seventh day not included, other time irrelevant. indicates that a definite person must be involved. When the adjurer says: If someone among you knows etc., he speaks in general terms, hence does not affect those few who know among the majority who do not. But if he said: Whosoever of you knows, then he is addressing himself individually to each who does, hence he does oblige those who can give testimony on his behalf, to do so. Sanctuary has no claim whatsoever on the son, because the general experience that people in a dying condition die, does not, for the purpose of the law, assume that the person is dead, that the inheritance is available, but we say that the son now has no money yet. reason may not be taken in pledge, so is this man's boat, a tool wherewith he earns his living and must not be taken either. a large town where there are many buyers, it would be worth fifty-one must assume that it is worth only what the poor man can get for it now, in his place of residence. The poor man who vowed his own valuation would hence not have to pay fifty sela's (if he were between twenty and fifty years of age), although the pearl might fetch that price elsewhere. Now the same rule applies to the case of one who said: ‘I take it upon myself to pay to the Sanctuary the value of this pearl’. Here, too since we compared valuation to vow of market-value, the vower would have to pay the lower price. The comparison, based on analogy of expression, is found supra 2a. Now the Torah in considering one of sixty years to be under age, imposes upon the vower the highest payment — a stringency. Would one stretch the analogy so far as to do just the opposite: to lower the payment by considering one of twenty to be nineteen, which would mean reducing the sum due from fifty shekels to twenty? occurring in two different texts, has not been engaged for any deduction or interpretation, thus is ‘free’ and legitimately a source of comparison for the case in question. The repetition of the word ‘years’. which has no meaning in the context, and which suggests no other teaching. thereby justifies the inferences made here from the analogous expression.