Arakhin

But it is not so, for R. Jannai borrowed and paid it [afterwards]?1 — It is different with R. Jannai, for what he did was acceptable to the poor, for the more he delayed the more did he succeed in collecting and bringing in to them. Our Rabbis taught: If an Israelite dedicated a candlestick or a lamp to the synagogue, he is not permitted to exchange it. R. Hiyya had thought that was to say [it may not be changed] either for a secular or a religious purpose. Whereupon R. Ammi said to him: This is what R. Johanan said: We have learnt [of the prohibition] only in connection with a secular purpose, but for a religious purpose it is permitted to exchange [the object dedicated] — For R. Assi said in the name of R. Johanan: If an idol-worshipper had dedicated a candlestick or a lamp to the synagogue, then, before the name of its owner has become forgotten, it is forbidden to exchange it; after the name of the owner has been forgotten, it is permitted to change it. Now to what purpose is it to be changed? Shall I say for secular use? — Then why speak of an idol-worshipper's gift, the same applies to that of an Israelite? Hence you must say for a religious use, and nevertheless the reason [why it may not be changed is]2 because an idol-worshipper would create a row about it, but in the case of an Israelite who would not create a row about it, it would be proper [to change it].3 Sha'azrek, an Arab, made a gift of a lamp to the synagogue of Rab Judah. Rehaba changed it[‘s use] and Raba took it amiss. (Some say: Raba changed it and Rehaba took it amiss. Others say: The sextons of pumbeditha changed it and both Rehaba and Raba rebuked them for it.) He who changed it held: It would4 be a rare occurrence, whereas he who rebuked held: It may happen that he comes.5 MISHNAH. ONE AT THE POINT OF DEATH OR ABOUT TO BE PUT TO DEATH CANNOT HAve HIS WORTH VOWED, NOR BE SUBJECT TO VALUATION. R. HANINA B. AKABIA SAID: HE IS FIT TO BE MADE THE SUBJECT OF A VALUATION BECAUSE HIS PRICE IS FIXED. R. JOSE SAID: HE MAY VOW ANOTHER'S WORTH, EVALUATE, AND CONSECRATE [TO THE SANCTUARY], AND IF HE CAUSED DAMAGE, HE IS OBLIGED TO MAKE RESTITUTION. GEMARA. It is quite right that one at the point of death cannot have his worth vowed, because he has no money [value]; nor can he be made the subject of a valuation because he is not fit to be set and valued.6 But as regards one about to be put to death, whilst it is true that he cannot have his worth vowed since he has no money [value], why should he be unfit to be made the subject of a valuation?7 — Because it was taught: Whence do we know that if one about to be put to death says: The valuation of myself is upon me,8 he has said nothing? The text states: No devoted thing . . . shall be redeemed.9 One might have assumed that this holds good even before the proceedings [of his case] are finished, therefore the text states: Of man,10 i.e.,but not [as long as he is] a whole man. But what will R. Hanina b. Akabya who holds him fit to be made the subject of a valuation ‘because his price is fixed’, do with ‘No devoted thing, etc.’? — He needs this in accord with what was taught: R. Ishmael the son of R. Johanan b. Beroka said: Since we find that those to be put to death by the hand of heaven can offer a monetary expiation and thereby obtain atonement, as it is said: If there be laid on him a ransom,11 I might have thought the same applied to those who are to be put to death by the hand of man, therefore we are taught: ‘No devoted thing shall be redeemed’. From here I may derive teaching only for severer penalties of death , for which even when committed in error no atonement is possible.12 But whence do I know that it applies also to lesser penalties of death,for which at least when committed in error atonement is possible? The text therefore states: ‘Any devoted thing, etc.’. R. JOSE SAYS: HE MAY VOW ANOTHER'S WORTH, EVALUATE. But did the first Tanna say that he may? Rather, there is no dispute whatsoever that he may vow another's worth, evaluate and consecrate, the dispute touches only the case of his having caused damage,13 the first Tanna holding that if he had caused damage he is not obliged to make compensation, whereas R. Jose holds he is obliged to make compensation when he has caused damage. What principle are they disputing? — R. Joseph said: They are disputing whether an oral14 debt can be collected from the heirs, the first Tanna holding an oral debt cannot be collected from the heirs, whereas R. Jose considers it can be collected. Raba15 said: All agree that an oral debt cannot be collected from the heirs, what they are here disputing is the [nature of a] debt arising from the law of the Torah, the first Tanna holding that a debt arising from the law of the Torah is not to be considered equal to one acknowledged in a document [of indebtedness], whilst R. Jose considers it like one acknowledged in a document [of indebtedness]. There are some who refer it16 to the following matter: If one17 about to be executed wounded others, he is obliged to make reparation, but if others have wounded him, they are free [from reparation].18 R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: Even if he has wounded someone he is free, because he may not be placed before the Court of Law again.19 therefore their rebuke. such a sentence has actually been pronounced, be is still a whole man to whom the text, ‘of man’ (i.e., part of man, in the ad hoc meaning) does not apply. of heaven for his negligence, and in such a case the evil decree may be averted by a monetary compensation or expiation. The word ‘devoted’ is interpreted as devoted by human beings, hence ‘devoted to death’ by human beings. Such interpretation removed the possibility of any devoted thing being saved from execution by compensation-payment, for, No devoted thing shall be redeemed (from death by payment). committed crimes, by sin-offering or (in the case of involuntary manslaughter) by exile. would, of course, descend upon his heirs, hence the principle involved. definite decision had been made by the court on the question of his damage, a delay in his execution would be considered unnecessary, hence prohibited. Nevertheless the debt arising from the law of the Torah is considered an oral debt. responsible. But since he is about to be executed, his body as such is no more in its integrity, hence one who wounds him should be free from any obligation to make compensation payment. All these refer to someone about to be executed by the laws of Israel, i.e., after careful investigation and examination. One, however, sentenced to death by the heathen tyrants or other malefactors, might perhaps be ransomed, freed by persuasion or payment, hence his physical integrity may yet be said to be unimpaired. which is forbidden, v. Sanh. 89a.