Arakhin

and redeem at any time, one might say that they are not affected by the laws governing the New Year either, therefore we are informed that although they are unaffected by the law of release of landed property, the law concerning the release of debts and the emancipation of slaves binds them at any rate.1 ‘All are obliged to read the scroll, even priests, Levites and Israelites’. is that not self-evident? — No, it is necessary [to state that] concerning the interruption of their [Temple] service, in accord with Rab Judah in the name of Rab; for Rab Judah in the name of Rab said: Both the priests in their [Temple] service, the Levites on their platform, the Israelites at their posts2 interrupt their work and come to listen to the reading of the scroll. ‘All are obliged to arrange a zimmun even priests, Levites and Israelites’. Is not that self-evident? — No, it is necessary for the case in which the priests were eating consecrated foods. I might have thought since the Divine Law said: And they shall eat those things wherewith atonement hath been made,3 that this is an atonement, therefore we are informed: The Divine Law has said: Thou shalt eat and be satisfied,4 and this applies to them as well. ‘All may be joined for a zimmun, even priests, Levites and Israelites’. Is that not self-evident? — No, it is necessary for the case where the priests eat of terumah5 or of consecrated foods, whilst the non-priest eats of profane foods. I might have assumed that since the commoner, even though he desired to eat with the priest [of the latter's food], he could not do so, therefore he could not be joined to him [for the zimmun] either, so we are informed that granted that the non-priest may not eat together with the priest, the priest could surely eat together with the non-priest.6 ALL MAY EVALUATE, EVEN PRIESTS, LEVITES AND ISRAELITES. But that is self-evident? — Rabbah said: This is necessary in view of the opinion of Ben Bukri, for we learnt:7 R. Judah said: Ben Bukri testified at Jabneh that any priest who paid the shekel8 does not thereby commit a sin. R. Johanan b. Zakkai said to him: Not so! But a priest who does not pay the shekel commits a sin. The priests, however, Used to explain the following verse to their advantage: And every meal-offering of the priest shall be wholly made to smoke; it shall not be eaten.9 Now, [they argued] since the ‘Omer and the two loaves and the shewbread are ours, how could they be eaten? — But according to Ben Bukri, since they are not de jure obliged to bring it [pay the shekel], if one brings it he should be considered a sinner, for he brings profane things to the Temple Court?10 — [The assumption is that] they bring the shekel and hand it over to the community.10 Now I might have assumed that since Scripture reads: And all thy valuations shall be according to the shekel of the Sanctuary,11 that only he to whom the obligation of the shekel applies is subject to the laws of valuation, but as to priests, since the obligation of the shekel does not apply to them, are not subject to the laws of valuation; therefore we are informed [that they are]. Said Abaye to him: But the words, ‘And all thy valuations’ serve to teach that ‘all thy valuations’ must each amount to no less than one sela’? Rather, said Abaye, [the inclusion of priests] is necessary [for this reason]: I might have assumed that since Scripture reads: And their redemption money — from a month old shalt thou redeem them — shall be according to thy valuation,12 that only he to whom the law of redeeming [the first-born] applies, is subject to the laws of valuation, but as to priests, since they are not included in the law concerning redemption, therefore they are not subject to the law of valuations; therefore we are informed [that they are]. Said Raba to him: If so, since with regard to the ram of guilt-offering Scripture reads: And he shall bring his forfeit unto the Lord, a ram without blemish out of the flock, according to thy valuation,13 let us also argue that only he to whom the law of valuation applies is liable to bring a ram of guilt-offerings but one of doubtful sex, or a hermaphrodite, who is not subject to the law of valuation, is free from the obligation to offer up a ram of guilt-offering? Rather, said Raba, or as some say, R. Ashi: [The inclusion of priests] is necessary, for I might have said, since Scripture reads: Then he shall be set before the priest, etc.,14 that [only an Israelite is set] before the priest, but not a priest before a fellow priest; therefore we are informed [that priests, too, are included in the law of valuation]. What does ALL ARE FIT TO BE MADE THE SUBJECT OF VALUATION include? — That includes one disfigured or afflicted with boils. Whence do we derive that? — For our Rabbis have taught: ‘According to thy valuation’, that includes a general valuation.15 Another interpretation: ‘According to thy valuation’, i.e., one pays only for the valuation of a whole person, but not for the valuation of his limbs. One might have assumed that they exclude [the valuation of] any thing on which life [the soul] depends, therefore the text states: ‘Persons’.16 ‘Persons’ [souls], but not a dead person. Thence I would exclude the dead, but not the dying, therefore the text states: Then he shall be set [before the priest], and the priest shall value him,17 [which means] only one who can be set [before the priest] can be evaluated but one who cannot be set before the priest cannot be evaluated either. Another interpretation: ‘Persons’ — thence I could infer only the case of one evaluating person; whence do I know the case of one evaluating a hundred persons? The text therefore states: ‘Persons’. Another interpretation: ‘Persons’ privileged position, hence they are also included in Jubilee legislation, whence their obligation to blow the horn on New Year's day. and bless, i.e., only when you eat for the purpose of appeasing your hunger is it obligatory for you to pronounce the blessing, but since priests (also) eat to obtain forgiveness, they would be free from that obligation, therefore we are informed etc.’. meal together, the zimmun is obligatory, for even the priest is permitted to eat non-consecrated food. 13: This they shall give, every one that passeth among them that are numbered, half a shekel after the shekel of the sanctuary, yields several inferences. ‘Among then that are numbered’ excludes the tribe of Levi who were not numbered among the rest of the tribes. Hence the priest offering his shekel might be assumed to offend by introducing non-consecrated, i.e., profane, hence forbidden, money into the sanctuary. Nevertheless, Ben Bukri maintains he does not offend, because he may surrender it to the non-priestly community, which is obliged to offer the shekel, thus converting his own shekel into consecrated money. R. Johanan b. Zakkai, however, points out that there are indications in the text justifying a different interpretation. — Every one that passeth’ may refer to the whole people, including the Levites, who passed through the Red Sea. proceeds of which should be completely used for ‘smoking’ would render the ‘omer and the shewbread, the costs of which were defrayed from the shekel payments, prohibited for any human use; whereas they are eaten by the priests in the sanctuary. Consequently, for any priest to pay the shekel would be sinful. But this argument is faulty for it is only the priest's own flour-offering which must be wholly burnt, in all other cases the majority of the givers, i.e., the non.priestly community, determine the character of the offering, which need therefore not be consumed wholly on the altar. undertake to pay. A general valuation is: I undertake to pay a valuation, without referring to any person thus to be valued. Hence the valuation, say, of a man's head or heart, is taken to be equal to the valuation of his whole person, whereas the valuation of a non-vital part of his body has no significance.