Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Arakhin

Arakhin 20 for kids: Words That Change a Pledge

ערכין כ׳

🐂 This daf asks how much a person must give after promising a valuation or an assessed amount. It also asks whether someone must pay if a bull pledged as an offering dies.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Arakhin 20a in Daf QuestOpen Arakhin 20b 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 20

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Arakhin 20 in simple English

Rashi on Arakhin 20a, in English Tab translation (27)
  1. We assess him once — He pays twice the amount of that assessment.
  2. They assessed him on their own — Ten people assessed him for no particular purpose, merely to determine his value. What is the law?
  3. Resolve from this — Resolve one of these questions from the mishna.
  4. For the dead have no monetary value — And we do not know what he was worth beforehand.
  5. He already stands assessed — For everyone is worth at least four zuz.
  6. He never underwent an assessment — He had never been assessed; we would have to assess him now, and an actual assessment is required.
  7. Mishna: “My valuation is incumbent upon me” — The amount is fixed, so his heirs must pay it.
  8. For the dead have no monetary value — Bava Kamma teaches that “he shall give a ransom for his life” means payment based on the injured person’s value. There, the obligation arose when the injury occurred, while the injured person was alive. But one who says, “My assessment is incumbent upon me,” pledges only what a court will assess him to be worth. If he dies before that happens, his heirs need not pay.
  9. He gives his entire valuation — Scripture speaks of the valuation of persons.
  10. “The valuation of half of me is incumbent upon me” — This is like saying “the valuation of my head” or “of my liver”: it concerns something on which life depends.
  11. “The assessment of half of me is incumbent upon me”: He gives the assessment of his entire self — For a baraita teaches that assessments are compared to valuations, so that an essential part is treated as the whole.
  12. Gemara: An animal — If he says, “The assessment of my animal is incumbent upon me,” the vow takes effect. Valuations, however, apply only to people.
  13. They are not assessed according to ability to pay — If he says, “My assessment is incumbent upon me,” and cannot afford it, he must pay the full amount when he can.
  14. Learn from this that an oral loan, etc. — This is disputed in several places.
  15. Learn from this that a debt prescribed by the Torah, etc. — This is disputed in tractate Bekhorot, in the chapter “The Firstborn for Inheritance.”
  16. When he had appeared in court — The court obligated him to pay before his death, making the debt like one recorded in a written contract.
  17. Why should his heirs not pay? — After all, the court assessed him.
  18. It still lacks an assessment — The court obligated him to pay but did not manage to assess him before he died.
  19. He has said nothing, according to the Rabbis — They hold that a person can utter words that have no legal effect.
  20. He gives its monetary value — The first chapter establishes that this ruling follows Rabbi Meir.
  21. But he did not say “its assessment” — One might therefore think he need not pay its monetary value; the teaching tells us otherwise.
  22. “A vow according to your valuation” — Scripture compares vows of assessment to valuations.
  23. Whether the whole or half — It teaches the case of half, and all the more so the whole: even though people do not ordinarily pledge half an implement’s value, he must pay it.
  24. Even the whole, too — Even if he says, “The valuation of this entire implement is incumbent upon me,” he should be exempt.
  25. They agree with Rabbi Meir — That is why he does not disagree in the case of the whole implement.
  26. Rabbi Shimon exempts one who says, “I undertake to bring a meal offering of barley,” as taught in the second chapter of Menachot (103a).
  27. What does it mean that he appeared before the court? — The mishna’s ruling that the heirs must pay must refer to a case where he appeared before the court before his death, as the Gemara explained for the first case. Why, then, does the mishna teach it again?
Tosafot on Arakhin 20a, in English Tab translation (6)
  1. If they assessed him on their own, what is the law? — This question does not depend on an “if you conclude” answer to the preceding question. It could have been asked separately, but the Gemara groups it with the other questions.
  2. My assessment is incumbent upon me, and he died; his heirs need not pay — Yet a baraita explains the verse “he shall give a ransom for his life” as requiring payment of the victim’s value, assessed after death according to what the victim was worth while alive. That is a special scriptural decree. Here, the person pledged only the value a court would assess for him. Since he died before being assessed, his heirs need not pay.
  3. The Sages taught: Vows of assessment are more stringent than valuations — Why does the Gemara not challenge the mishna’s wording, “This is a stringency of vows of assessment over valuations,” by asking, “Is this the only one?” It raises just such a challenge elsewhere when comparing sacred and ordinary property. But there, it is no surprise that sacred property has more stringent rules, so listing just one calls for explanation. Here, the very fact that vows of assessment can be more stringent than valuations is noteworthy; the mishna can give one example without claiming to list them all.
  4. They are not assessed according to means, as valuations are — But earlier we linked vows of assessment to valuations for the rule concerning a pearl, and a scriptural comparison cannot apply only in part. One can answer that Scripture also excludes vows of assessment here: “the priest shall assess him” is written concerning valuations, implying that assessment according to means applies there, not to other vows.
  5. To include a limb from the knee upward — Why single this out rather than any of the other eighteen injuries that render an animal unfit? Because this case makes an additional point: it rejects Rabbi Shimon’s view that the animal can be cauterized and survive.
  6. The Sages taught: One who pledges half the valuation of a vessel—Rabbi Meir says he pays its value — Most texts read this way, but that reading is difficult: why would the Gemara say that people do not ordinarily pledge “half of it”? People can readily pledge half a vessel’s value. Rabbi Yitzhak therefore prefers the reading, “One who pledges the valuation of half a vessel.” The Gemara’s reasoning then makes sense: half a vessel is worth nothing, so people do not ordinarily pledge it.
Rashi on Arakhin 20b, in English Tab translation (16)
  1. Lest you say — Although the person who made the vow appeared in court before he died, the object of his vow was not assessed during his lifetime, so his heirs’ property was not bound to pay.
  2. It is merely a disclosure of the matter — The assessment only establishes how much he owes. Since the object of the vow still exists, we can assess it.
  3. And this house is an offering — It is consecrated for the Temple’s upkeep.
  4. And the house collapsed — Before the Temple treasurer took possession of it.
  5. The mishna taught this only — He must pay when he says, “Its value is incumbent upon me.” If the bull is lost, its value is not lost: he did not designate particular money, and no such money was before him.
  6. It is incumbent upon me to bring it — He undertook the effort of bringing it until it was offered.
  7. Here too, he says “its value” — As explained below, he says, “Let this bull be consecrated for its value, and its value is incumbent upon me as a burnt offering.” The bull is consecrated, and if it dies he must pay. Unlike the earlier case, “incumbent upon me” means he accepts responsibility: no money was before him, and he did not designate particular money. By “this bull,” he means that it is consecrated until he sells it and brings its proceeds.
  8. The bull is non-sacred — He consecrated only the money from its sale, once it is sold.
  9. He does not bear responsibility for its loss — Since the bull was not sold, he has not consecrated anything.
  10. But he bears responsibility for its proceeds — If the bull was sold and the proceeds became consecrated, he must replace them if they are lost.
  11. In the first clause, he says, “Let the bull be consecrated for its value” — The bull itself becomes consecrated for its monetary value, and he accepts responsibility for that value. Here, “incumbent upon me” means financial responsibility, since he is speaking of money not yet before him.
  12. In the latter clause, he says, “When its proceeds come, let them be consecrated” — If the bull dies before it is sold, there are no proceeds, so he has consecrated nothing and bears no responsibility.
  13. It follows Rabbi Meir — As a baraita teaches: If a man says, “You are betrothed to me after I convert,” or “after you convert,” Rabbi Meir says the betrothal takes effect.
  14. Some teach this discussion differently — They give this version of the exchange involving Rav Yehuda, Abaye, and Rami bar Ḥama.
  15. Even though a priest confirmed it as impure — The priest declared the house impure and it is due to be dismantled. Until then, the landlord may tell the renter, “The house you rented is still here,” and need not provide another.
  16. Once the priest dismantles it — The landlord must provide the renter with another house. The affliction is attributed to the landlord’s misfortune, as he is suspected of theft or stinginess.
Tosafot on Arakhin 20b, in English Tab translation (4)
  1. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Rav said — When someone says, “The value of this bull is incumbent upon me as a burnt offering,” he is responsible if the bull dies. But if he says, “This bull is incumbent upon me as a burnt offering,” he means only that he must make the effort to bring this particular bull; he is not responsible if it dies. Why, then, does the first clause of the mishna teach that one who says “This bull is a burnt offering” is exempt? Would he not be exempt even if he said “incumbent upon me”? Rabbi Yitzḥak answers that both clauses concern the bull’s or house’s value: without “incumbent upon me,” he is exempt if it is lost; with those words, he is responsible. The mishna teaches that this remains true even though he specified “this” bull. At first, Rabbi Yitzḥak suggests that when one pledges the bull’s value, the bull itself remains non-sacred, unlike a case where one explicitly consecrates a bull for its value. In that case, its body also becomes consecrated.
  2. An objection was raised: “This bull is a burnt offering” — The baraita says that if one says, “This bull is incumbent upon me as a burnt offering,” the bull is consecrated and he is responsible if it dies or is stolen. This challenges Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Rav’s claim that “incumbent upon me” refers only to bringing it. The Gemara answers that, as with the mishna, he pledged its value. But this is difficult if pledging its value leaves the bull non-sacred, since the baraita calls it consecrated. Rashi explains that he said, “Let this bull be consecrated for its value, and its value is incumbent upon me as a burnt offering.” Thus the bull is consecrated, and he is responsible for its value. Since the money does not yet exist before him, “incumbent upon me” expresses responsibility, not merely an obligation to bring something already specified.
  3. But since the latter clause says “value,” the first clause must not say “value” — The Gemara could also have challenged Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Rav directly from the latter clause: it says that when one pledges the bull’s value, he is not responsible if the bull dies, whereas the mishna says he is. Having begun its challenge from the first clause, however, it completes it there; the Gemara’s answer resolves both. A further difficulty comes from the discussion in Ḥullin, which challenges Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish’s ruling about a stolen consecrated sum from our mishna. If, as suggested above, the bull itself remains non-sacred, the cases differ: in Ḥullin the money was already set aside, but here nothing was. Apparently that discussion does not accept Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Rav’s reading, or else a pledge of the value of one’s own bull consecrates the bull itself, as when one consecrates a male animal for its value. One cannot similarly consecrate another person’s bull. This also explains why the baraita calls the bull consecrated, though it leaves some difficulty as to why the Gemara specifies that he said, “Let the bull be consecrated for its value.” Alternatively, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Rav meant precisely that wording; then the bull is consecrated, and both discussions fit.
  4. Even though a priest has declared it definitively impure, he may say, “What is yours is before you” — Rabbi Yitzḥak initially infers that such a house remains permitted for use: otherwise, it would be like a rented donkey that dies or is injured, for which the owner must provide another. But teachings about an afflicted garment and a definitively impure sandal indicate that they are forbidden for use. We must therefore say that the house, too, is forbidden for use. The owner can nevertheless say, “What is yours is before you,” when he rented out this specific house: while it still exists, he need not provide another, though he forfeits the rent. This is like the case of a donkey that dies or is injured, where the owner must provide another donkey or forfeit the rent.

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 20.