Arakhin

, thence I could infer only the case of a man evaluating either man or woman. But whence do we know the case of a woman evaluating a man, or of a woman evaluating a woman? The text therefore states: ‘Persons’. Another interpretation: ‘Persons’ — that means to include one disfigured or afflicted with boils. For I might have assumed: ‘A vow . . . according to thy valuation’ [meaning] whatsoever can have its worth vowed is subject to valuation, but whatsoever cannot have its worth vowed is not subject to valuation,1 therefore Scripture states: ‘Persons’. ‘Then thy valuation shall be’ — that includes the person of ‘doubtful sex and the hermaphrodite among those who can have their worth vowed. For I might have assumed: Since [Scripture reads]: ‘A vow according to thy valuation’ that only such things as are subject to valuation can have their worth vowed; but whatsoever is not subject to valuation cannot have its worth vowed, therefore the text states: Then shall thy valuation be for the male,2 [viz.,] only for the male but not for one of doubtful sex, or an hermaphrodite. One might have assumed that they may not be subject to the valuation of a man, but that they are subject to the valuation of a woman, therefore [the text reads]: Then thy valuation shall be for the male . . . and if it be a female — that means only one definitely male or female [is subject to valuation], but not one of doubtful sex or a hermaphrodite. The Master taught: ‘According to thy valuation’: that includes a general valuation. What is a general valuation? — For it was taught: If someone says, I assume the obligation of a general valuation,3 then he gives according to the minimum amount possible in valuations. What is the minimum due in valuations? Three shekels. But say, perhaps, fifty shekels?4 — If you take hold of the larger [amount], you may lose your hold, but if you take hold of the lower, you will keep it!5 Then say, perhaps, one shekel? As it is written: And all thy valuations shall be according to the shekel of the sanctuary?6 — That passage refers to the regard to one's means.7 What then is the purpose of the Scriptural passage?8 — R. Nahman, in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha said: To tell us that in this case he is not adjudged according to his means.9 What is the reason? — Because it is as if he had made an express statement [of the minimum]. Others say: R. Nahman in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha said, He is adjudged according to his means. But that is self-evident? — I might have assumed that [a general valuation] is considered like an express statement, therefore we are informed [that it is regarded like a poor man's vow]. ‘Another interpretation: "According to thy valuation", i.e., he pays only in case of the dedication of a whole person, but not for the valuation of his limbs’. But you have used this text to infer the rule concerning a general valuation? — Read: [Since instead of] ‘valuation’, it says, ‘according to thy valuation’. 10 ‘One might have assumed that this excludes anything on which life [the soul] depends, therefore the text states: "Persons" [souls] viz., souls but not the dead person’. But you have used that word for another purpose. Read: [Since instead of] ‘person’ [it says] persons’.11 ‘Thence I would exclude the dead but not the dying, therefore the text states: "He shall be set [before the priest] and [the priest] shall value him"’. But, if so, you might exclude the dead also through inference from: ‘He shall be set . . . and the priest shall value him’? — In truth so. Wherefore then [the exposition] of ‘person’, ‘persons’? As we shall explain later on. 12 ‘Another interpretation: "Persons", thence I could infer the case of one evaluating one person; whence do I know the case of one evaluating a hundred? The text therefore states: "Persons". Another interpretation: "Persons" , thence I could infer only the case of a man evaluating either ma_n or woman. But whence do I know the case of a woman evaluating a man, or of a woman evaluating a woman? The text therefore states: "Persons". Another interpretation: "Persons", that means one disfigured or afflicted with boils’. But you have used the word for these [other teachings]?13 — No Scriptural text is necessary for these, because the balance [between them] is even, hence all may be inferred therefrom.14 The passage is necessary only for [the inclusion of] one disfigured or afflicted with boils. "’Then thy valuation shall be", that includes one of doubtful sex and an hermaphrodite among those who can have their worth vowed’. But why is a Scriptural passage necessary for [including these in the rule of those whose] worth [can be vowed]? Let them be no worse than the worth of a palm tree! If he said: The worth of a palm tree [do I oblige myself to pay], would he not have to pay it? — Said Rabbah:15 It means to say that he [his worth] be assessed according to the importance [of his limb].16 I would have thought that since it is written: ‘A vow according to thy valuation’, that whatsoever is affected by the law of evaluation is assessed according to the importance [of the limb] ‘ but that whosoever is not affected by the laws of evaluation is not assessed according to the importance [of the limb, hence the Scriptural indication]. Said Abaye to him: Is indeed one to whom the laws of valuation do not apply assessed according to the importance [of the limb]? Was it not taught: [If someone said], The head of this slave shall be consecrated to the sanctuary, then he and the sanctuary share it in partnership.17 If he said: The head of this slave be sold to you, they assess its value between them.18 [If he said], The head of this ass is consecrated, he and the sanctuary share it in partnership; [if he said], The head of this ass is sold to you, they assess it between them. [If he said], The head of this cow is sold to you, he has sold no more than her head. And not only that but even if he said: The head of this cow Is consecrated to the sanctuary, the sanctuary has no more than her head. And R. Papa said: [The reason why there is no partnership in the case of a cow is] because the head of an ox is sold19 in the butcher's shop. Now ass and cow are not affected by the law of valuations, and yet are not assessed according to the importance [of the limb]? But according to your own position, what of the case of a slave to whom the law of valuation does apply, and yet he is not assessed according to the importance [of the limb]?20 Rather: There is no difficulty. This latter [Baraitha] refers to things dedicated to the altar, the former to things dedicated to the Repair of the House.21 How did you explain [the latter Baraitha]? As referring to things dedicated to the altar? But look at the second part: And not only that, but even if he said: The head of this cow is consecrated to the sanctuary, the sanctuary owns no more than her head. Why that? Let the sacred character spread so as to include the whole animal?22 Has it not been taught: five years of age. valuation, whereas the maximum may be fought as against the intention of the man who dedicated, then why not impose the minimum possible in connection with valuations, one shekel, v. 25. regulated in accord with the valuator's means, never less than a shekel. But that does not affect the case of one who made a vague general evaluation, who, therefore, must pay the minimum of a valuation, viz., three shekels. implies the minimum of three shekels, below which no valuation can go, the text seems meaningless. made the vow. Hence a double inference such as made here is quite legitimate. dedicate or he dedicated; person as well as persons may be dedicated; anything that is vital (to person, or soul) may be dedicated, even if it be but part of a person. Anyone of these inferences are therefore ‘balanced’, evenly justified and neither could one be inferred exclusively as more logical than the other. But the inclusion of one disfigured or afflicted with boils, which would have seemed incongruous because such persons cannot have their worth vowed, needed some textual justification or at least intimation, and that is provided by the plural ‘persons’, which includes even persons disfigured etc. need to that person of the respective organ, would be considered as equal to a vow of the whole person's worth, thereupon due to the Temple Treasury. This shows that objects to which the law of valuation does not apply, are nevertheless not considered as having been vowed in their totality when a vital organ has been vowed, which contradicts the thesis, above, of Rabbah. is affected by the law of valuation, is not assumed to have been vowed in his totality, even though one of his vital organs has been vowed. therefore also a hermaphrodite whose worth had been vowed to the repair fund, would be considered totally vowed, as long as a vital organ had been vowed; but such a regulation does not apply to objects dedicated to the altar.