Arakhin

. Now you might have said: Since there has been no estimate,1 his possessions are not subject [to payment], therefore we are informed that since he stood before the court, his possessions have [automatically] become liable [for the vow], the estimating being a mere statement of fact [as to the monetary value]. MISHNAH. [IF SOMEONE SAID:] THIS OX SHALL BE A BURNT-OFFERING. OR THIS HOUSE SHALL BE AN OFFERING,2 AND THE OX DIED OR THE HOUSE FELL DOWN, HE IS FREE FROM PAYING [THEIR WORTH]. [BUT IF HE SAID:] ‘I VOW THIS OX AS A BURNT-OFFERING’ OR ‘THIS HOUSE AS AN OFFERING AND THE OX DIED, OR THE HOUSE FELL DOWN. THEN HE IS OBLIGED TO PAY [THEIR WORTH].3 GEMARA. R. Hiyya b. Rab said: This has been taught only for the case where he said: ‘I vow4 the worth of this ox for a burnt-offering’, but if he said: ‘I vow this ox as a burnt-offering’, since he had said ‘this’ and [this one] died, he is not obliged [to make restitution for it], for he [merely] meant: ‘[I vow] to bring him’.5 An objection was raised: [If he said,] ‘This ox shall be a burnt-offering’, then the ox is sacred property and the law of sacrilege applies to it.6 If it die or be stolen, he is not obliged to make restitution. [But if he said:] ‘I vow this ox as a burnt-offering’, the ox becomes sacred property and the law of sacrilege applies to it. If it died or is stolen, he is obliged to make restitution! — Is this [teaching] any stronger than our Mishnah? There we assumed it refers to the case where he said: ‘I vow its worth’, thus here too, the reference is to the case where he said: ‘I vow its worth’. But since the second part speaks of the case where he said ‘the worth’, the first must needs speak of the case where he did not say ‘the worth’! For the second part reads: [If he said:] The money of the ox shall be a burnt-offering, then the ox remains profane, and the law of sacrilege does not apply to it. If it die or be stolen, he is not obliged to make restitution. But he is obliged to make restitution for his money?7 — Both the first and the second part speak of the case where he said: ‘Its money value’; but in the first case he said: ‘The ox be sanctified in respect of its money’, in the second he said: ‘The money thereof be sanctified when realized’. But how can a man sanctify a thing that is non-existent?8 Said Rab Judah in the name of Rab, This is in accord with R. Meir who said: A man may sanctify a thing that is non-existent. Some say. R. Papa said to Abaye (or, according to others, Rama b. Hama said to R. Hisda): According to whom will [this teaching be]? According to R. Meir, who holds a man may consecrate a thing that is non-existent? He replied: According to whom else [will it be]? Some refer it to the following: If a man rents a house to his neighbour and it became leprous, then although the priest has declared it definitely leprous, he could say to him: Behold. before you lies your own!9 If the priest has broken it down, he is obliged to place another one at his disposal; 10 offering. and the ox died or the house fell down, then he is not obliged to pay because he made the vow contingent upon these objects or upon their value when extant. But if he said: ‘I vow (lit., "(I take) upon me") this ox or house’, then he makes the payment depending on none but himself, and he must redeem his pledge independent of the condition or existence of the objects (referred to). Maimonides makes this distinction: The preceding Mishnah taught: Dead persons have no market-value. This applies only to human beings. Oxen, however, have value even when dead. responsibility for any accident (like death) that would render his effort futile. house for the use of him who had rented it.