Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Arakhin

Arakhin 17 for kids: Leaders and Generations

ערכין י״ז

👑 This daf asks whether a leader shapes a generation or a generation shapes its leader. It also asks how a person’s means affect a promised valuation or a leper’s offering.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Arakhin 17a in Daf QuestOpen Arakhin 17b in Daf Quest

In the app: the Gemara with Rashi and Tosafot, the printed page, games made from this daf, play coins and treasure chests.

Stories from Arakhin 17

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Arakhin 17 in simple English

Rashi on Arakhin 17a, in English Tab translation (19)
  1. A calamity comes upon him — upon someone who has gone forty days without suffering.
  2. Because of the rebuke — for he rebuked them over their deeds.
  3. What is meant by “This is the generation of those who seek Him”? — The verse compares the generation to those who lead it.
  4. For the good — with regard to righteousness.
  5. Why does it say “in the beginning” of Jehoiakim and Zedekiah? — Because the Holy One, Blessed be He, sought to undo creation in their days.
  6. Harshness — anger.
  7. Gentleness — being easily appeased.
  8. Mishna: Means-based assessment follows the one who makes the vow — When a poor person makes a vow of valuation, the amount is assessed according to what he can afford, as it says, “But if he is too poor to pay your valuation.” We follow the means of the one who makes the vow, not the person valued, as explained below.
  9. And age follows the person valued — As explained below, a child who declares a valuation for an elderly person pays the elderly person’s prescribed valuation. We do not follow the child’s age, since he said not “My valuation is upon me” but “So-and-so’s valuation is upon me.” The prescribed valuation for someone aged sixty or older is less than that for a child.
  10. And the prescribed valuation follows the person valued — The fixed amount for a male or female follows the person valued, not the one who declares the valuation. As explained below, a man who says, “The valuation of this woman is upon me,” pays the amount prescribed for her.
  11. At the time of the valuation — As explained below, if someone declares his own valuation while under twenty, when a lower amount applies, and turns twenty before paying, he pays only the amount that applied when he first made the declaration.
  12. I say that valuations work the same way — If a case arose in valuations like the case of offerings, the same rule would apply. You said valuations differ from offerings, but the cases are not alike: A poor person who values a wealthy person pays according to his own means because the wealthy person owes nothing, unlike a leper. By naming the wealthy person, he intended only that person’s age bracket, whether its prescribed amount is lower or higher than his own. Since that is all he specified, his obligation is a valuation, which is assessed according to means.
  13. But if a wealthy person said, “My valuation is upon me” — He owes the full prescribed amount, like a wealthy leper. Then a poor person heard him and said, “That obligation is upon me.”
  14. Gemara: It asks, “Means-based assessment applies to one who declares a valuation” — not to one who makes an ordinary vow. Someone who says, “My monetary worth is upon me,” is not assessed according to his means; he must pay the full amount when he can. As stated in the chapter “One Who Says, ‘My Weight Is Upon Me’”: Vows are stricter than valuations because vows are not assessed according to means.
  15. And it answers, “According to what he can afford,” and so forth — It calls one who declares a valuation a “vower” here because that is the Torah’s wording.
  16. Age follows the person valued, not the one who makes the vow — For someone who says, “So-and-so’s monetary worth is upon me,” the amount is not determined by age but by what that person would sell for in the marketplace.
  17. Even though the person who undertook the offering is wealthy? — This is a question. “The person who undertook the offering” means the one who said, “The leper’s offering is upon me.”
  18. Perhaps the Torah showed consideration for him — for the leper’s poverty, but not for the poverty of someone who undertook to provide his offering.
  19. What does “But with offerings it is not so” mean? — With offerings, too, you follow the one who makes the vow.
Tosafot on Arakhin 17a, in English Tab translation (5)
  1. Mishnah: Affordability follows the one who vows, while age follows the person named in the vow and the valuation follows the person valued — Why does the Mishnah separate the last two rules instead of saying, “Age and valuation follow the person valued”? And why does it not teach that a male who vows to give the valuation of a female pays the female valuation? Then it would not need to state later that the valuation follows the person valued.
  2. How so? A poor person who valued a wealthy person, and so on — See Rashi’s explanation earlier, in the chapter “There Are No Valuations of Less Than…” (Arakhin 7b).
  3. Affordability follows the one who vows—but the verse speaks of one who declares a valuation — That is, this rule applies specifically to a valuation, not to vows in general. As stated later, in the chapter “One Who Says, ‘My Weight’” (Arakhin 20a), vows are more stringent than valuations: they can apply to animals and birds and are not assessed according to affordability. This is unlike valuations. The word “he” in the verse excludes the case of a wealthy leper.
  4. Affordability follows the one who vows. How so? A poor person who valued a wealthy person pays a poor person’s valuation — Rabbi Menachem of Yoni explained this case to me as follows: A wealthy person said, “My valuation is upon me,” and a poor person heard him and said, “What he undertook is upon me.” The poor person pays according to his own means. But the Mishnah says this is not so with offerings: if someone says, “This leper’s offering is upon me,” and so on. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi disagrees about the valuation case: when a poor person takes on what the wealthy person said, he must pay the wealthy person’s full valuation, just as with offerings. This also appears to be the meaning of the Mishnah.
  5. But if the one undertaking the leper’s offering is wealthy, must he likewise bring a wealthy person’s offering? If so, why say, “But with offerings it is not so”? — The same rule would seem to apply to offerings: if a wealthy person says, “The offerings of this poor leper are upon me,” he brings a wealthy person’s offering. What, then, distinguishes offerings from valuations? The Gemara answers that the contrast concerns just one case: a wealthy leper whose offering a poor person undertakes. For a leper, the poor person brings a wealthy person’s offering; the giver’s means do not determine it. For valuations, if a wealthy person says, “My valuation is upon me,” and a poor person hears him and says, “What he said is upon me,” the poor person pays according to his own means. Thus the word “he” is needed to teach that a leper’s offering, unlike a valuation, does not follow the means of the one who undertakes it. According to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, however, valuations and offerings follow the same rule in that case. For him, “he” is instead needed for a poor leper whose offering a wealthy person undertakes. One might have thought that, since Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi follows the obligation of the person originally liable, the wealthy person should bring a poor person’s offering. The verse teaches otherwise. The Rabbis do not need “he” for that case: since a valuation follows the means of the one who undertakes it, it is evident to them that the wealthy person’s undertaking of a leper’s offering does too. Rashi explains it this way as well, and a close reading of the discussion supports it. But Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s comparison still needs examination. It appears to concern a poor person who undertakes to discharge a wealthy person’s obligation. If that is also the valuation case, why do the Rabbis disagree? By saying, “I take upon myself what he said, to discharge his obligation,” the poor person has expressly undertaken fifty sela. How can he discharge that obligation by paying a poor person’s valuation?
Rashi on Arakhin 17b, in English Tab translation (19)
  1. One concerns a poor leper whose sponsor is poor, and one excludes a wealthy leper whose sponsor is poor — The mishna’s statement that a poor leper brings a poor person’s offering concerns a poor sponsor, as explained earlier. Its statement that offerings are different teaches that a wealthy leper requires a wealthy person’s offering even when his sponsor is poor. Unlike valuations, we do not follow the means of the person who made the vow.
  2. You might have thought — The mishna must teach that a poor sponsor of a wealthy leper brings a wealthy person’s offering. Since the Torah includes a poor sponsor in the leniency when the leper is poor, one might have thought it includes him when the leper is wealthy too. I think the preferred reading introduces this as a question about what “But offerings are different” teaches. The reading in the books can be explained as above, but it is not the Gemara’s usual wording.
  3. One might think this case is the same — That a poor person who says, “I undertake this wealthy leper’s offering,” may bring a poor person’s offering.
  4. If he is poor — The Torah shows consideration for the leper’s poverty, not his sponsor’s.
  5. And according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who says valuations are also like this — If a wealthy person undertakes his own valuation and a poor person says, “I undertake what he said,” the poor person pays the wealthy valuation. Thus, when the person originally obligated owes something himself, as a leper does, we follow his obligation. We already know from valuations that a poor sponsor of a wealthy leper brings a wealthy person’s offering, so no verse is needed to teach it.
  6. To exclude a poor leper whose sponsor is wealthy — The sponsor brings a wealthy person’s offering. The Rabbis need no verse for this: since they follow the person making the vow in valuations, they do so for a leper’s offering too. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi does need the verse.
  7. If he was poor and became wealthy — If he became wealthy before paying, or was wealthy and became poor before paying, he gives the valuation of a wealthy person.
  8. But offerings are different — If a wealthy leper becomes poor or a poor leper becomes wealthy, his offerings are determined by the stage at which he brings them. The Torah fixes the determining point, which the sages identify differently; all agree that it relates to bringing his offerings.
  9. Even if his father died — This is a separate statement about valuations. Even if the father of the person making the valuation died while the priest was assessing him and left him ten thousand minas, or his ship was at sea, the rule remains as stated. The Gemara explains this.
  10. If he was wealthy and became poor: “According to the means of the one who vowed” — This implies that we follow his means when he made the vow.
  11. He brought his offerings — He brought some of his offerings.
  12. Everything follows the sin offering — If he brought an animal as his sin offering while wealthy, he also brings an animal as his burnt offering. If he brought a bird as his sin offering while poor, he also brings the burnt offering of a poor person, even if he has since become wealthy.
  13. The birds — These are the two live birds brought for sprinkling before he shaves. If he was poor when he was sprinkled, he brings a poor person’s offerings; if he was wealthy then, he brings a wealthy person’s offerings.
  14. They interpreted one verse — This is a rule fixed by Scripture.
  15. The offering that atones — Regarding a poor leper, the Torah says, “The priest shall atone for him,” immediately before the verse, “This is the law for one who has the plague of leprosy … whose means do not suffice.” This implies that if he lacks the means at the time of atonement, the law for a poor person applies even if he becomes wealthy afterward.
  16. The offering that makes him eligible — The verse implies that if he lacks the means at the time of purification, the law for a poor person applies. This refers to the guilt offering, whose blood is placed on his thumbs, big toes, and earlobes and enables him to enter the Temple and eat consecrated food.
  17. The birds bring about his purification — Until he brings the birds, he cannot shave.
  18. For Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, according to his view — As explained above.
  19. A blind person is disqualified from testifying — The Torah requires a witness who “saw.”
Tosafot on Arakhin 17b, in English Tab translation (5)
  1. Since we find in valuations — Why is that comparison needed? The verse “and his means do not suffice” already includes a poor person who vows to provide a leper’s offering, allowing him to bring a poor person’s offering, as explained above. The answer is that without a parallel case in valuations—a poor person who valuates a wealthy person—we would not have interpreted that verse as including the person who makes the vow.
  2. Here too, we follow the obligation of the person originally liable; this teaches otherwise — Rabbenu Elchanan asks: According to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, a wealthy person who vows to provide a poor leper’s offering would bring a poor person’s offering if not for the verse excluding that case. Why, then, does a wealthy person who undertakes a poor person’s valuation not pay the poor person’s amount? He answers that the vow for a leper concerns that particular leper’s offering. A valuation is different: even if the poor person had made no vow, a wealthy person who declared, “So-and-so’s valuation is upon me,” would pay according to his own means. The poor person’s vow cannot reduce that amount.
  3. But with offerings, even if his father died — This does not mean that, for valuations, a priest waits for a poor person’s wealthy father to die before assessing him. The Tosefta says he is not even told to work so that he can later pay a wealthy person’s valuation; it is better that he pay the poor person’s amount now. Rather, the leper’s father was dying when the leper brought his sin offering, and died before he completed his offerings. The Temple treasury has no claim on the inheritance. With valuations, however, if his father dies before he finishes paying the poor person’s assessed amount, he must pay the wealthy person’s valuation. Why, then, does the Gemara call the ruling obvious? The point is that, unlike the case Rabbi Yehuda describes in which a person was poor, became wealthy, and became poor again, this leper had never possessed his father’s wealth. Even though an inheritance was imminent, the Temple treasury plainly has no claim on it.
  4. Rabbi Yehuda holds that it is the offering that qualifies him—and that is the guilt offering — But elsewhere we learn that a leper’s burnt offering, like his sin and guilt offerings, is indispensable. The answer is that all three are required before he may eat consecrated food. The guilt offering is called the one that qualifies him because its blood is applied to him as part of his purification.
  5. Before he became his son-in-law, then became his son-in-law, and afterward his daughter died, he is eligible — This applies only if the daughter had no children. Rabbi Yehuda holds that if she left children by her husband, the husband remains a relative even after her death.

Sources

Kid summary and story cards written by Tab from the William Davidson Edition English (Sefaria, CC BY-NC 4.0).

Tab translation (machine-assisted) of Rashi and Tosafot, from the Vilna Edition Hebrew (public domain) on Sefaria. May contain mistakes.

In the app, the Gemara text comes from Sefaria (William Davidson Edition, CC BY-NC 4.0; Hebrew/Aramaic Vilna Edition). Rashi and Tosafot Hebrew: Vilna Edition (public domain) via Sefaria.

Also spelled: Arachin, Erchin 17.