Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Arakhin

Arakhin 18 for kids: When Does Age Count?

ערכין י״ח

📅 This daf asks when a person is counted as wealthy and how age sets a Torah valuation. It also asks whether a year means a full year or ends with the calendar year.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Arakhin 18a in Daf QuestOpen Arakhin 18b 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 18

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Arakhin 18 in simple English

Rashi on Arakhin 18a, in English Tab translation (29)
  1. And afterward his daughter died — before he came to court to testify.
  2. Siah — a group of people.
  3. One might have thought they are liable — that the witnesses must bring an offering for a false oath about testimony if they do not testify for him.
  4. But he did not single out his witnesses — because he administered the oath to everyone.
  5. One might have thought that even if he said, ‘Whoever knows testimony’ — and administered an oath to them, they would not be liable.
  6. The verse says, ‘And he is a witness,’ and he did single out his witnesses — because he administered the oath only to those who were witnesses.
  7. He is wealthy — so why does the Temple treasury have no claim on that money?
  8. Leaving him — his father has not yet died but is expected to leave him the money.
  9. It is obvious — because he does not yet have the money.
  10. When his father was dying — at the time the priest assessed his means.
  11. When his ship was leased — to others; he had nothing aboard it, only the rent due to him. That is the ten thousand dinars mentioned in the mishna.
  12. Whose opinion is this? It is Rabbi Eliezer’s — for he says later, in the chapter on assessing orphans’ property, that if a donkey driver owes a valuation, the treasurer leaves him his donkey rather than taking it for the Temple treasury.
  13. His pair — a pair of oxen, by which he earns his living.
  14. Mishna: A youth — someone from age twenty to age sixty, whose valuation is fifty shekels.
  15. Valuations follow the person valuated — we do not set the amount according to the person making the vow.
  16. Gemara: You compared monetary vows to valuations — in the first chapter we derive both from ‘a vow according to your valuation of persons’: ‘a vow’ refers to a monetary vow, and ‘according to your valuation’ to a fixed valuation. Scripture compares them for these two matters.
  17. A gem according to the local market — for valuations, the verse says, ‘He shall give the valuation on that day.’ As explained later, one does not wait to take a gem to a market where it will sell for more. If a poor person who vowed his own valuation has a gem worth thirty shekels where he is assessed, we do not say that it could fetch fifty shekels in a city, so he can pay the full valuation. The Temple treasury takes account only of its value at that place and time. Likewise, if he vows to pay the value of a gem, it is assessed by its current local selling price, not by the price in a city.
  18. And let us judge by its importance — if someone vows the valuation of a body part essential to life, saying, ‘I undertake the valuation of my head,’ he pays a full valuation. For the verse says ‘the valuation of persons,’ making the valuation depend on life itself.
  19. That he should pay according to the time of payment — for a monetary vow, it is clear that he pays according to the time he comes to court, not the time of the vow: the person is assessed like a slave in the market. If he vowed in Tishrei and came to court in Nisan, who would know what he had been worth when he made the vow?
  20. The verse says, ‘According to your valuation it shall stand’ — implying that the fixed valuation follows the time of the vow. If he vowed his own valuation while in the higher age bracket and then passed age sixty, he pays the higher valuation, not that of an elder.
  21. Mishna: The thirtieth day is treated as below the threshold — if someone vows the valuation of an infant who is thirty days old that day, the vow has no fixed valuation. The Torah sets no valuation for one less than a month old.
  22. And upward — this implies that only after completing the sixtieth year is a person assessed as an elder; during that year, the higher valuation still applies.
  23. Is that what we did? — This is a question: Did we treat the sixtieth year as below the threshold in order to be strict? The valuation below the age threshold is fifty shekels, whereas above it the valuation is only fifteen shekels.
  24. To be lenient — the valuation above age twenty is higher than below age twenty, and likewise for age five, as stated in the verses.
  25. Rabbi Eliezer says — the fifth, twentieth, and sixtieth years are always treated as below the threshold until the whole year has passed, plus a month and a day of the following year.
  26. Gemara — The same objection can be raised as was raised against the Mishnah.
  27. Extra mentions of “years” are written — The verse could have said, “If from five years old up to twenty,” and I would know that twenty also means years. Why add “years”? The same question applies to “sixty years.”
  28. Shall we say the Mishnah — which needs a verse to teach that the twentieth year is treated like the younger ages—disagrees with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? For he says that “up to” includes the endpoint. Since the verse says “from five years old up to twenty,” we would already know that the twentieth year is included with the younger ages.
  29. One might have thought — The prohibition against leaven applies only after the first day, not on the first day itself.
Tosafot on Arakhin 18a, in English Tab translation (4)
  1. Then why is ‘and he’ needed? — Rabbi interprets it one way, and the Sages another. But according to Rabbi, how do the Sages interpret ‘he’ in ‘If he is too poor for your valuation’? Perhaps they derive a teaching from that ‘he’ elsewhere.
  2. His father was dying — Rashi explains that valuations differ from offerings: the Torah makes them depend on the priest’s assessment, and if the priest sees that the father is dying, he waits until the father dies before assessing the son. But this is difficult. We learn below that consecrated property is assessed only at its present place and time. Thus, if a poor man who vowed his own valuation owns a pearl now worth twenty sela, we do not wait for market day, when it might be worth fifty; he pays twenty. Why, then, wait for his father to die? Rabbi Yitzhak therefore explains that ‘but offerings are different’ does not refer to the father’s death. It refers to the preceding point and concludes Rabbi Yehuda’s statement. The later discussion of ‘even if his father died and left him…’ is a separate matter, in which offerings and valuations are alike.
  3. That he pays according to the time of payment — Rashi explains that, for a vow to pay a person’s monetary value, it is obvious that payment follows the value at payment, not at the vow: the person is priced like a slave in the marketplace. If he vowed in Tishrei and came to court in Nisan, who could know his value when he vowed? ‘Time of payment’ means when he comes to court. But why assume his earlier value cannot be known? If he is weak now but was strong then, we know he was worth at least a sela more; using his present value would deprive the Temple treasury of that amount. Rabbi Yitzhak therefore says the rule must have a scriptural basis. Moreover, a later mishna says that if the person whose value was vowed dies, the heirs pay nothing, since the dead have no monetary value. Yet we know he was worth at least a sela while alive. Why exempt them entirely unless the rule has a scriptural basis?
  4. One might think the first and seventh days are excluded — But Exodus says, ‘Seven days you shall eat matzah.’ The question concerns liability to being cut off, since the verse under discussion says, ‘Whoever eats leavened food shall be cut off … from the first day to the seventh day.’ That is why the teaching cites ‘until the evening of the twenty-first day’: that passage also states the penalty of being cut off.
Rashi on Arakhin 18b, in English Tab translation (20)
  1. As it says, “from his head to his feet” — It is clear to us, as explained below, that “from his head” does not include his head.
  2. The verse says, “Until the twenty-first day of the month in the evening” — The first day is included, as the verse begins, “In the evening you shall eat unleavened bread.” The seventh day is also included, as the verse ends, “in the evening.”
  3. The verses balance each other — According to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s method of interpretation, the fifth year could belong to either age group. “From one month old until five years old” includes age five in the younger group, while “from five years old until twenty years old” includes it in the older group, just as he includes the first day of Passover. Without the verbal analogy, we could not decide.
  4. Why mention “from five years old” again? — The verse could instead have said, “Until twenty years old, your valuation shall be…” and then, “Until sixty years old, your valuation shall be…”
  5. The signs on his body differ from those on his head — A leprous mark where hair grows is judged by yellow hair; a mark on the skin is judged by white hair and by whether the mark spreads.
  6. As far as the priest can see — He cannot see a mark on the head because of the hair, or one on the foot between the toes.
  7. And it says elsewhere — Regarding the Levites, “from one month old and upward” means one month and one day old: the child has entered the next month. The same applies here.
  8. Just as there, one day — There, “and upward” adds only one day to the month; so here it should add only one day to the stated years.
  9. What does the verbal analogy add? — Even without it, we would know that one more day is needed, since the verse says “and upward.”
  10. The year stated for sacrificial animals — For example, “sheep in their first year.”
  11. The two years for an ancestral field — One who sells an ancestral field may not redeem it until it has been in the buyer’s possession for two years. The verse says it is sold according to the number of harvest years, and the minimum number of years is two.
  12. Harvest years — Why mention harvests as well as years? To teach that the buyer may eat every harvest that occurs during those two years, even three. For example, if the field is sold in Nisan with a standing crop, it cannot be redeemed until the same day two years later. If the buyer harvests that first crop, he has eaten three harvests. At redemption, the price is calculated by the years remaining until the Jubilee: if ten years remained when the field was sold for ten maneh, and eight remain now, the seller pays eight maneh. The buyer thus had three harvests in two years. If years were counted by the calendar, the seller could redeem the field in the following Tishrei, and the buyer would have only two harvests.
  13. And the years stated for a son and a daughter — These are explained below.
  14. From one moment to the same moment — The period ends on the same date and at the same time of day in the following year. It is not counted by calendar years, as though reaching Tishrei completed a year.
  15. For valuations — The ages of five, twenty, and sixty are not reckoned by calendar years.
  16. For the chapter ‘A Child Born by Caesarean Section’ — In tractate Niddah, it says that a boy’s vows are examined at age twelve and are binding at thirteen; a girl’s vows are examined at eleven and are binding at twelve. Many other ages for boys and girls are taught there. Here, the baraita says they are all counted from the exact time of birth.
  17. Did Rav not say — There, in tractate Niddah.
  18. The law throughout that chapter — In ‘A Child Born by Caesarean Section,’ ages are counted from the exact time of birth.
  19. Why did he not mention ‘A Child Born by Caesarean Section’? — He too holds there that ages are counted from the exact time of birth.
  20. He could answer: Even so, the baraita does not list those ages here. It lists years like those for sacrificial animals and a Hebrew slave, which are stated in the Torah; the ages in ‘A Child Born by Caesarean Section’ are all rabbinic.
Tosafot on Arakhin 18b, in English Tab translation (6)
  1. Or, if you wish, say: “As far as the priest can see” — The priest cannot see the head because of the hair, or between the toes. But this suggests that a mark spreading over the entire body cannot include the foot. In Zevaḥim 49b, however, Rabbi Natan ben Avtolmos derives that a mark spreading over an entire garment is pure from the comparison between baldness in garments and baldness in people. The proof for people comes from “from his head to his feet”: just as a mark that has turned entirely white at the foot is pure, so too at the head. This indicates that spreading does apply to the foot, since the law for the head is learned from it.
  2. And those to be redeemed, from one month old and upward — We searched for this verse but found only, “And those to be redeemed, from one month old, you shall redeem.” Perhaps “from one month old” implies “and upward,” since otherwise the verse could have said simply “one month old.”
  3. Its own year, not a calendar year — Rabbi Shmuel son of Rabbi Elḥanan asks why a verse is needed. Logically, how could there otherwise be lambs fit for the daily offerings on Rosh Hashanah? One born earlier would already be in its second calendar year, while one born that day would be too young. Some explain that an animal’s year is counted only from the day it becomes fit for offering, as is said of a firstborn animal concerning the prohibition against delaying its offering. But that rule applies only to that prohibition, not to the animal’s age. Zevaḥim 25b says that hours can disqualify an offering: a lamb slaughtered shortly before the exact time of its first birthday becomes unfit if its blood is not sprinkled until after that time. Its age must therefore be counted from birth, and the question remains. Rabbi Shmuel answers that the verses are still needed; without them, we would not know to count a full year from the time of day of birth to the same time of day, as discussed below.
  4. By the number of years of crops—sometimes a person eats three crops in two years — Why infer three crops rather than four, since “years” and “crops” are both plural? “Number” implies two crops, while the plural “crops,” where the singular could have been used, indicates one more. Rabbi Yitzḥak asks: Even when counting calendar years, one can obtain three crops in two years—for example, by buying a fruit-laden field on the second of Tishrei and harvesting the last crop before the next two years have ended. The answer is that three crops in two years is more common when counting two full years from the date of sale.
  5. And in the seventh year too, he shall work — Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Yom Tov asks: This establishes a full final year, but how do we know the earlier years must also be full years? Perhaps the thirty days before Rosh Hashanah count as a year. Rashbam replies that the verse’s rule for the final year applies equally to the other years: each is counted as a full year, like the other periods listed.
  6. For valuations — How do we know that ages for valuations are counted in full years? Rabbi Yitzḥak explains that this is learned from “one month old”: a child cannot be valued until a full month has passed, since a calendar month cannot be meant here. The same applies to the ages of five and twenty years.

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 18.