Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Arakhin

Arakhin 4 for kids: Who Is Included?

ערכין ד׳

📖 This daf asks when priests join duties shared by everyone, from hearing the Megilla to making valuation vows. It also asks how much someone gives when a valuation vow does not name a person.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Arakhin 4a in Daf QuestOpen Arakhin 4b 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 4

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Arakhin 4 in simple English

Rashi on Arakhin 4a, in English Tab translation (24)
  1. And they may redeem at any time — If they sell a field, they may redeem it immediately. An Israelite may not redeem a field within two years of selling it, as the verse says, “According to the number of years of crops he shall sell to you.”
  2. Although they are not subject to the release of land — That is, to the laws governing the release of land, since we learned that priests may sell their land at any time.
  3. Eating sacrificial meat is for atonement — The verse says, “They shall eat those things with which atonement was made.” This teaches that the priests eat and the owners gain atonement. One might therefore think that this meal does not require a zimmun; the baraita teaches otherwise.
  4. They join together — This applies when a priest, a Levite, and an Israelite each eat. The priest can eat ordinary food with the non-priest, so they can join in a zimmun.
  5. This is needed only according to ben Bukhri — Rava’s point is explained later in the discussion.
  6. Who contributes — That is, contributes shekels on the first of Adar.
  7. He is not a sinner — As explained below, his contribution is not unconsecrated property brought into the Temple courtyard. Nevertheless, he is not obligated to contribute: the verse says, “Everyone who passes among those counted,” and the tribe of Levi was not counted.
  8. Rather, the priests interpret this verse for themselves — They interpret it for their own benefit, contrary to the law.
  9. They are ours — These offerings come from the Temple treasury. If we contribute to that treasury, the omer meal offering, the two loaves, and the shewbread are partly ours. How, then, can they be eaten, when the verse says that a priest’s meal offering must not be eaten? We do not accept this interpretation: the rule that it must be wholly burned applies to an offering belonging solely to a priest. For a communal offering, its status follows the majority of its owners.
  10. He transfers it to the community — Therefore, according to ben Bukhri, who exempts priests from contributing shekels, the mishna must teach that a priest who vows his own valuation or someone else’s must pay it just as an Israelite does, despite a possible reason to think otherwise.
  11. They must not be less than a sela — A poor person who makes a valuation vow pays according to what he can afford, as the verse says, “According to what the vower can afford.” But he must never pay less than a sela, as stated later. Since the verse teaches this rule, there was no reason to think it also exempts priests from valuations; the mishna would not need to teach that they are included.
  12. Priests are exempt from redemption of the firstborn — As taught in the first chapter of Bekhorot by an a fortiori argument: If they exempted the firstborn of Israelites in the wilderness, all the more so are their own firstborn exempt.
  13. Are they likewise excluded from the guilt-offering ram? — But priests are Israelites. Clearly, the verse is not interpreted that way. Why, then, does the mishna need to specify priests, Levites, and Israelites?
  14. And he shall present him before the priest — This refers to a poor person who vows his own valuation or someone else’s.
  15. But not a priest before a priest — One might therefore think that a priest cannot make a valuation vow: if he is poor, the requirement to present him before the priest would not apply to him. The mishna teaches otherwise.
  16. Those who are subject to valuation includes… — That is, the earlier statement that everyone is subject to valuation includes a disfigured person and a person afflicted with boils.
  17. An unspecified valuation — This is explained below, along with the entire baraita.
  18. The valuation of his limbs — If someone says, “I undertake the valuation of my hand,” his words have no effect, because limbs have no fixed valuation. But if he says, “I undertake the monetary value of my hand,” he must pay its monetary value.
  19. On which life depends — For example, if he says, “I undertake the valuation of my head” or “the valuation of my liver.”
  20. The verse says, ‘persons’ — The Torah makes the valuation depend on the person. If someone vows the valuation of a body part on which life depends, he pays the valuation of the whole person.
  21. But not the dead — If someone says, “I undertake the valuation of this dead person,” his words have no effect.
  22. And he shall present him, and the priest shall value him — This is written concerning a poor person who makes a valuation vow.
  23. Another explanation of ‘persons’ — Why does the verse use the plural? Had it said “person,” I might have thought the law applies only when one person vows the valuation of one person, as in “When a man makes a valuation vow concerning persons.”
  24. Another explanation of ‘persons’ — Why does the verse use the plural? Had it said “person,” I might have thought only a man can vow a valuation, whether of a man or of a woman, since the verse says, “When a man makes a valuation vow concerning persons.”
Tosafot on Arakhin 4a, in English Tab translation (6)
  1. And they may redeem at any time — If priests sell a field, they may redeem it immediately; an Israelite must wait two years, as the verse says, “according to the number of years of crops.” Rashi explains that priests are not subject to all the rules governing the release of land, since the mishna says they may sell at any time. In Rosh HaShana, however, Rashi omits “although they are not subject to the release of land,” because it could imply that their land does not return to them at the Jubilee, which is untrue. Here his explanation works. Still, why speak of land release in connection with the Jubilee? The Sifrei teaches that the Jubilee releases slaves, but the sabbatical year does not. One might therefore argue: If the sabbatical year cancels debts without releasing slaves, surely the Jubilee, which releases slaves, cancels debts. But Scripture teaches that the sabbatical year cancels debts and the Jubilee does not. Even so, the two are connected in one respect: the sabbatical year applies only when the Jubilee applies. On the discussion of sacred meat, Rashi explains that priests eat it to bring atonement to its owners, so one might think their meal does not require a zimmun. He also explains that a priest, a Levite, and an Israelite can join a zimmun because the priest can eat ordinary food with the Israelite. This suggests that three people who have each forbidden the others to benefit from them cannot join a zimmun, since none can eat the others’ food. But the proof is inconclusive: unlike such a prohibition, teruma cannot become permitted to a non-priest even by seeking release from its designation. I discuss this at greater length in Berakhot.
  2. Any priest who does not contribute sins — Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai interprets the word “this” in “This they shall give”: its Hebrew letters have the numerical value twelve, corresponding to the twelve tribes. He could also have said that any Levite who does not contribute sins. The passage singles out priests because it goes on to describe how they interpret another verse to support their exemption.
  3. He gives the valuation of the whole person, but not the valuation of limbs — One might have thought that a person who mentions a limb knows that limbs have no prescribed valuation and therefore intends to value the whole person. Alternatively, since limbs can have a monetary value, one might have thought they also have a prescribed valuation. The teaching rules out both possibilities.
  4. Persons, excluding the dead — Although Torah law forbids benefit from a corpse, so that it has no monetary value, one might have thought it still has a prescribed valuation, since a disfigured person and a person with severe skin disease are included despite having no monetary value.
  5. And should I not also exclude a dying person? Scripture says, “He shall present him, and the priest shall value him” — But in Ḥullin, an animal whose windpipe and gullet, or most of them, have been cut during slaughter is considered capable of being presented and valued while it is still convulsing. The answer is that an animal retains more vitality and can stand; its convulsing is mentioned to show that it is not carrion. This still requires examination: the plain sense of “he shall present him, and the priest shall value him” concerns the person making the vow, as that verse says, “The priest shall value him according to the means of the one who vows.” A dying person can make vows and declare valuations, as taught in tractate Semaḥot. How, then, do we infer from this verse that a dying person cannot be the subject of a valuation?
  6. How do we know that one person can declare valuations for a hundred? — For example, he says, “The valuation of so-and-so, so-and-so, and so-and-so is upon me.” Because he says “valuation” in the singular, one might have thought his declaration does not take effect. The teaching tells us that it does.
Rashi on Arakhin 4b, in English Tab translation (27)
  1. Persons — The wording means that all persons can make valuation vows.
  2. Anyone not included in valuations — For example, a tumtum or a hermaphrodite. The verse says “the male,” meaning a definite male, just as “the female” means a definite female.
  3. An unspecified valuation — He said neither “I undertake to pay my valuation” nor “I undertake to pay so-and-so’s valuation,” but simply “I undertake to pay a valuation.”
  4. Three shekels — The verse assigns a female child a valuation of three shekels, the smallest fixed valuation.
  5. If you grasp the larger amount, you have not grasped it — One could object: Grasp the smaller amount instead.
  6. If you grasp the smaller amount, you have grasped it — Someone arguing for the larger amount does not dispute the smaller one; he merely adds to it, since the smaller amount is included in the larger.
  7. According to what he can afford — If a person is poor and cannot pay his valuation, the priest may not assess his payment at less than one shekel. But no fixed valuation is less than three shekels.
  8. Then why the verse? — Why is “according to your valuation” needed? Even without it, we know that an unspecified valuation cannot be discharged with nothing, or with less than three shekels, since there is no smaller fixed valuation.
  9. It is not determined by what he can afford — Even if he cannot afford three shekels, he must pay three shekels.
  10. It is as though he specified the amount — By undertaking an unspecified valuation, he takes on the known minimum of three shekels. This is like saying, “I undertake to pay three shekels.” It differs from undertaking his own or another person’s valuation, since not everyone knows that person’s age; here, the amount is clear because he named no person.
  11. There are those who say Rav Naḥman said — The verse teaches that this is called a valuation. It therefore follows the rules for other valuations and is determined by what the person can afford.
  12. Isn’t it obvious? — How is this different from other valuations?
  13. Read it as “valuation, according to your valuation” — The verse could have said “valuation” to include an unspecified valuation. By saying “according to your valuation,” it teaches this additional rule.
  14. To tell us later — To include a repulsive person and one afflicted with boils.
  15. But you have already used it for those cases — For one person who valuated a hundred people and for a woman who made a valuation.
  16. It is equally open to each interpretation — Even if the verse had said “person” in the singular, it could have included a person whose life depends on an organ, one who valuated a hundred people, and a woman who made a valuation. “Person” can refer to a woman or to many people, as Scripture speaks of “human persons among the women.” Although one word cannot ordinarily yield three separate interpretations, all three fit equally here; there is no basis to choose one and exclude the others. The plural “persons” is needed to include a repulsive person and one afflicted with boils, who might otherwise be excluded because they have no assessable market value.
  17. Equally open — All these interpretations fit the verse equally; none has a stronger claim than another. A similar discussion appears at the beginning of Bava Kamma.
  18. For monetary assessments — If the verse does not apply to fixed valuations, which require a definite male, apply it to assessments of monetary worth.
  19. Assessed by an organ on which his life depends — His whole value is assessed from an organ essential to his life. If he says, “I undertake to pay the value of my head,” he pays his whole value.
  20. This is how the text should read — One might have thought that because “persons” is written alongside “valuation,” only someone included in fixed valuations is assessed by the value of his whole person when he says, “I undertake to pay the value of my head.” Someone not included in fixed valuations would not be assessed that way. The verse teaches otherwise.
  21. They appraise it between them — They determine its value and divide the proceeds. I wonder why the teaching there says “they are partners,” while this one says “they appraise it.”
  22. And Rav Pappa said — He explains why, in the case of a cow, only its head was consecrated.
  23. For an ox’s head is sold at the butcher’s shop — A slave’s head or a donkey’s head is not customarily sold separately. Therefore, in those cases, he sold half the animal or person and consecrated the other half.
  24. And it is not assessed by its whole value — The teaching says that he and the Temple are partners in it; the whole does not belong to the Temple.
  25. But a slave is included in valuations — As the Mishnah teaches. Yet this baraita says that, in the case of a slave, he and the Temple are partners, so it is not assessed by his whole value.
  26. Rather, there is no contradiction — That baraita concerns sacrificial offerings: someone says, “The head of this donkey or slave is pledged toward the cost of a burnt offering.” Its value is not assessed according to the value of the whole, because “persons” is written about valuations, which go toward Temple upkeep. When we say that even a tumtum who pledges his own value is assessed according to his full value, we mean a pledge for Temple upkeep.
  27. Sanctity should extend to the whole animal — Since it is fit to be offered as a sacrifice.
Tosafot on Arakhin 4b, in English Tab translation (6)
  1. And how much is the smallest valuation? Three shekels — Although the Tosefta in this tractate says that one who vows an unspecified valuation pays the smallest amount, five shekels, that refers to an unspecified valuation of a male.
  2. To teach that it is not adjusted according to his means — Why? Because his vow is like an explicit pledge: when he says, “I owe an unspecified valuation,” he knows the smallest valuation is three shekels. Rashi explains that this differs from valuating a particular person, whose age is not always known. But even if the person is plainly over one month old, so that the minimum is five shekels, the payer can still qualify to pay just one or two shekels. Rather, an unspecified valuation is like an explicit pledge of three shekels. Even if someone valuates a particular twenty-year-old and knows the amount is fifty shekels, the Torah allows adjustment according to his means because he tied the vow to a person. It is not like simply pledging fifty shekels for Temple upkeep.
  3. Read it as ‘a valuation according to your valuation’ — The phrase ‘according to your valuation’ is extra; the verse could have said only ‘a valuation.’ The deduction comes from those extra words, since ‘a valuation’ itself is needed.
  4. He and the Temple treasury are partners — Rashi explains that with consecration, ‘partners’ means they divide the property, because one consecrates generously. With a sale, however, the term means appraisal: they assess what work the sold limb can perform, and the seller receives its value.
  5. But a cow and a donkey have no fixed valuations, yet they are not assessed by their full worth — This is all the more striking when one consecrates the animal itself, since sanctity then extends to the whole animal.
  6. This is not difficult: one case concerns altar offerings, the other Temple upkeep — The baraita concerns altar offerings: someone declares a donkey’s head consecrated for the value of a burnt offering, and it is not assessed by the animal’s full worth. The verse about ‘persons’ appears in the laws of valuations, which concern Temple upkeep. When we say the full worth is assessed, that applies even to a tumtum who vows to give their value for Temple upkeep.

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 4.