## Arakhin Daf 17b

###### Arakhin 17b:1
[Arakhin 17b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/17b:1)

חֲדָא אַמְּצוֹרָע עָנִי וּמַדִּירוֹ עָנִי, וַחֲדָא לְמַעוֹטֵי מְצוֹרָע עָשִׁיר וּמַדִּירוֹ עָנִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: The mishna states two different principles with regard to one who vows to provide the offering of a leper on behalf of another. **One** principle applies **to a destitute leper for whom** another **destitute person takes a vow** to provide his offering. In that case, he provides the offering of the destitute. **And** the **one** other principle, i.e., the statement that the *halakha* is different in the case of offerings, serves **to exclude** the case of **a wealthy leper for whom a destitute person takes a vow** to provide his offering. In that situation, although the one who took the vow is destitute, he must provide the offering of a wealthy person.


###### Arakhin 17b:2
[Arakhin 17b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/17b:2)

סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וְאִיתְרַבּוֹ, אִיתְרַבּוֹ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains why this last ruling is necessary. It might **enter your mind to say: Since** the destitute **were included** in the verse: “And his means do not suffice,” with regard to the leniency which allows them to bring the offering of the destitute when taking vows to provide for destitute lepers, they should likewise **be included** in this leniency when providing for all lepers, even wealthy ones. Consequently, the *tanna* **teaches us** that this leniency does not apply when the lepers are wealthy.


###### Arakhin 17b:3
[Arakhin 17b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/17b:3)

לְפִי שֶׁמָּצִינוּ בַּעֲרָכִין, עָנִי שֶׁהֶעֱרִיךְ אֶת הֶעָשִׁיר נוֹתֵן עֵרֶךְ עָנִי, יָכוֹל אַף זֶה כֵּן, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אִם דַּל הוּא״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Similarly, it is taught in a *baraita*: **Since we find with regard to valuations** that **a destitute person who valuated a wealthy person gives** the **valuation** in accordance with the means of **a destitute person,** one **might** have thought that in **this** case, where one takes a vow to provide the offering of a wealthy leper, the *halakha* **is also so.** Consequently, **the verse states: “And if he is poor,”** from which it is derived that the offering of the destitute leper is brought only when the leper himself is destitute.


###### Arakhin 17b:4
[Arakhin 17b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/17b:4)

וּלְרַבִּי, דְּאָמַר: ״אוֹמֵר אֲנִי אַף בַּעֲרָכִין כֵּן״ — אַלְמָא אָמַר: בָּתַר חִיּוּבָא דְּגַבְרָא אָזְלִינַן, וְהָא לָא צְרִיכָא קְרָא לְמַעוֹטֵי הוּא, לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **But according to** the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, this is difficult. **As he says** in the mishna: **I say even with regard to valuations** it is **so,** i.e., that if a wealthy person said: It is incumbent upon me to donate my valuation, and a destitute person heard him and said: It is incumbent upon me to donate that which he said, then the destitute person gives the valuation of a wealthy person. **Evidently,** Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi **says: We follow the obligation of** the original **person** valuated, even with regard to valuations. **And** if so, then the reasoning stated in the aforementioned *baraita* does not apply, and therefore **a verse is not necessary to exclude** a destitute person who takes a vow to provide a wealthy leper’s offering from having the leniency of bringing the offering of a destitute leper. Consequently, when the verse specifies: “And if **he** is poor,” this serves **to exclude what?**


###### Arakhin 17b:5
[Arakhin 17b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/17b:5)

לְמַעוֹטֵי מְצוֹרָע עָנִי וּמַדִּירוֹ עָשִׁיר, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וְאָמַר רַבִּי: ״בָּתַר חִיּוּבָא דְּגַבְרָא אָזְלִינַן״, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: The verse serves **to exclude** the case of **a destitute leper for whom a wealthy person takes a vow.** In that case, it might **enter your mind to say** that **since Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says: We follow the obligation of the** original **person** specified as the subject of the vow, therefore the wealthy person brings only the offering of the destitute leper. Consequently, the exclusion from the verse: “And if he is poor,” **teaches us** that in this case he brings the offering of a wealthy individual, not that of the destitute leper.


###### Arakhin 17b:6
[Arakhin 17b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/17b:6)

**מַתְנִי׳** הָיָה עָנִי וְהֶעֱשִׁיר, עָשִׁיר וְהֶעֱנִי — נוֹתֵן עֵרֶךְ עָשִׁיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: עָנִי וְהֶעֱשִׁיר וְחָזַר וְהֶעֱנִי — נוֹתֵן עֵרֶךְ עָשִׁיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If when one took a vow of valuation **he was destitute and he became wealthy,** or if **he was wealthy and became destitute, he gives the valuation** in accordance with the means of **a wealthy person. Rabbi Yehuda says:** This is the *halakha* not only in a case where one was wealthy either at the time he took the vow or at the time of payment; even if when one took a vow of valuation **he was destitute and he became wealthy and again became destitute, he gives** the **valuation** in accordance with the means of **a wealthy person.**


###### Arakhin 17b:7
[Arakhin 17b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/17b:7)

אֲבָל בַּקׇּרְבָּנוֹת אֵינוֹ כֵּן, אֲפִילּוּ מֵת אָבִיו וְהִנִּיחַ לוֹ רִיבּוֹא, אוֹ סְפִינָתוֹ בַּיָּם וּבָאָה לוֹ בְּרִבּוֹאוֹת — אֵין לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ בָּהּ כְּלוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But with regard to** the **offerings** of a leper **that is not so,** as the offerings that one brings are determined by his status at the time he brings them. **Even** if it is common knowledge that **his father died and left him** an inheritance of **ten thousand** dinars, **or** that **his ship is at sea and** merchandise valued at **ten thousand** dinars **is coming into his** possession, **the Temple** treasury **has no** share **in it.** His payment is determined solely by his present situation.


###### Arakhin 17b:8
[Arakhin 17b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/17b:8)

**גְּמָ׳** עָנִי וְהֶעֱשִׁיר — ״אֲשֶׁר תַּשִּׂיג יַד הַנֹּדֵר״. עָשִׁיר וְהֶעֱנִי — ״עַל פִּי אֲשֶׁר תַּשִּׂיג״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna teaches: If he was **destitute** when he took the oath **and he became wealthy,** he gives the valuation appropriate for a wealthy individual. The Gemara explains that this is derived from the verse: “According to **the means of him who vowed** shall the priest valuate him” (Leviticus 27:8), and in this case he had the means of a wealthy individual when he was ready to give the donation. The mishna further teaches that one who was **wealthy and became destitute** also gives the valuation as though he was wealthy. The Gemara explains that this is derived from the beginning of the same verse: **“According to [*al pi*] the means** of him who vowed shall the priest valuate him.” The phrase *al pi* serves to emphasize the moment when the person uttered the vow with his mouth [*peh*], and at that moment he was wealthy.


###### Arakhin 17b:9
[Arakhin 17b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/17b:9)

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ עָנִי וְהֶעֱשִׁיר וְחָזַר וְהֶעֱנִי — נוֹתֵן עֵרֶךְ עָשִׁיר. מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְאִם מָךְ הוּא מֵעֶרְכֶּךָ״ — עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא בְּמָכוּתוֹ מִתְּחִלָּתוֹ וְעַד סוֹפוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that **Rabbi Yehuda says: Even** if one made a valuation when he was **destitute and he became wealthy and again became destitute, he gives** the **valuation** according to the means of **a wealthy person.** The Gemara asks: **What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda? The verse states: “But if he is too poor for your valuation”** (Leviticus 27:8). The word order serves to emphasize “he,” which indicates that he is considered poor **only if he** remains **in his** state of **poverty from his beginning until his end** of involvement with the vow.


###### Arakhin 17b:10
[Arakhin 17b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/17b:10)

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, וְאִם ״דַּל הוּא״, הָכִי נָמֵי עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא בְּדַלּוּתוֹ מִתְּחִלָּתוֹ וְעַד סוֹפוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **If that is so,** then when the verse similarly states with regard to a destitute leper: **“And if he is poor”** (Leviticus 14:21), **so too,** Rabbi Yehuda should maintain that he is considered poor **only if he is in his** state of **poverty from his beginning until his end** of bringing the leper’s offering, but if he was wealthy in between he should be obligated to bring the offering of a wealthy individual, even if he is now poor.


###### Arakhin 17b:11
[Arakhin 17b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/17b:11)

וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכִי נָמֵי, וְהָתְנַן: מְצוֹרָע שֶׁהֵבִיא קׇרְבְּנוֹתָיו עָנִי וְהֶעֱשִׁיר, עָשִׁיר וְהֶעֱנִי — הַכֹּל הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר חַטָּאת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say** that **indeed,** this is the *halakha*, **but didn’t we learn** in a mishna (*Nega’im* 14:11): With regard to **a leper who brought his offerings** when he was **destitute, and** subsequently **became wealthy,** or he brought his offerings when he was **wealthy and** then **became destitute, everything follows** the **sin offering** that the leper brings. If he was wealthy when he brought the sin offering he brings the burnt offering of a wealthy individual; if he was destitute when he brought the sin offering he brings the burnt offering of a destitute individual. This is **the statement of Rabbi Shimon.**


###### Arakhin 17b:12
[Arakhin 17b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/17b:12)

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: הַכֹּל הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר אָשָׁם, וְתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: הַכֹּל הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר צִפֳּרִים!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yehuda says: Everything,** i.e., the sin offering and the burnt offering, **follows** his status at the time the leper’s **guilt offering** is brought. **And** it **is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: Everything follows** the offering of the **birds,** which are brought by the leper seven days earlier as part of his purification process. Clearly, everyone agrees that one brings the offerings of the destitute even if he is not destitute from the beginning until the end of the process.


###### Arakhin 17b:13
[Arakhin 17b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/17b:13)

הָא אִתְּמַר עֲלַהּ, אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: וּשְׁלׇשְׁתָּן מִקְרָא אֶחָד דָּרְשׁוּ, ״אֲשֶׁר לֹא תַשִּׂיג יָדוֹ בְּטׇהֳרָתוֹ״. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבַר: דָּבָר הַמְכַפֵּר, מַאי נִיהוּ — חַטָּאת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: It **was stated with regard to this** dispute that **Rav Yehuda says** that **Rav says: And** all **three of these** *tanna’im* **derived** their opinions **from one verse,** which deals with the destitute leper: “This is the law of him in whom is the mark of leprosy, **whose means do not suffice for that which pertains to his purification”** (Leviticus 14:32). **Rabbi Shimon holds:** The individual’s status depends on **an item that atones,** and **what is it?** The **sin offering.**


###### Arakhin 17b:14
[Arakhin 17b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/17b:14)

וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: דָּבָר הַמַּכְשִׁיר, וּמַאי נִיהוּ — אָשָׁם. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב סָבַר: הַגּוֹרֵם לוֹ טׇהֳרָה, וּמַאי נִיהוּ — צִיפֳּרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yehuda holds:** His status depends on **an item that renders him fit** to enter the Temple and eat consecrated food, **and what is it?** The **guilt offering. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov holds:** His status depends on that **which causes him ritual purity, and what is it?** The sacrificial **birds,** as the rite of the birds partially purifies him and enables him to bring the rest of his offerings and to complete his purification process. If so, in the particular case of a leper bringing his own offerings, it is a Torah edict that one does not need to be destitute throughout the entire process, which is why, with regard to one who takes a vow to bring the offerings of a leper, Rabbi Yehuda does not derive from the verse: “And if he is poor,” that he is considered poor only if he is in a state of poverty from the beginning, i.e., when he takes the vow, until the end, i.e., when he fulfills it.


###### Arakhin 17b:15
[Arakhin 17b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/17b:15)

וְאֶלָּא ״הוּא״ לְמָה לִי? לְרַבִּי — כִּדְאִית לֵיהּ, וּלְרַבָּנַן — כִּדְאִית לְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But** in that case **why do I** need the exclusion in the verse: “And if **he** is poor”? The Gemara answers: **According to Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, it is necessary **in accordance with his** opinion stated earlier, that it serves to exclude a wealthy individual who vows to provide the offering of a destitute leper, i.e., he must bring the offering of a wealthy individual. **And according to the Rabbis,** it is necessary **in accordance with their** opinion, that it serves to exclude a destitute individual who vows to provide the offering of the wealthy leper, and he must bring the offering of a wealthy individual.


###### Arakhin 17b:16
[Arakhin 17b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/17b:16)

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, ״וְהוּא עֵד״, עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא כָּשֵׁר מִתְּחִלָּתוֹ וְעַד סוֹפוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **If that is so,** that Rabbi Yehuda maintains that the phrase: “And if he is poor,” teaches that one is classified as destitute only if he is destitute from beginning to end, he should similarly derive from a verse that deals with testimony: **“And he is a witness,** whether he has seen or known, if he does not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 5:1), that this applies **only if** the witness **is fit** to testify **from his beginning,** when he obtained the information about which he is testifying, **until his end,** when he testifies.


###### Arakhin 17b:17
[Arakhin 17b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/17b:17)

וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכִי נָמֵי, וְהָא תַּנְיָא: הָיָה יוֹדֵעַ לוֹ בְּעֵדוּת עַד שֶׁלֹּא נַעֲשָׂה חֲתָנוֹ, וְנַעֲשָׂה חֲתָנוֹ, פִּקֵּחַ וְנִתְחָרֵשׁ, פָּתוּחַ וְנִסְתַּמֵּא, שָׁפוּי וְנִשְׁתַּטָּה — הֲרֵי זֶה פָּסוּל. אֲבָל הָיָה יוֹדֵעַ לוֹ עֵדוּת עַד שֶׁלֹּא נַעֲשָׂה חֲתָנוֹ, וְנַעֲשָׂה חֲתָנוֹ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say** that **indeed,** that is the *halakha* with regard to the qualification of a witness, **but isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: If someone **knew testimony about** another **before he,** the one who knew the testimony, **became** the other’s **son-in-law, and** then he **became his son-in-law;** or when he was **able to hear, and** then he **became a deaf-mute;** or when he **could see, and** he subsequently **became blind;** or while he was halakhically **competent, and** he then **became an imbecile;** in all these cases, **he is disqualified** from testifying. **But** if someone **knew testimony about** another **before he became his son-in-law, and** he then **became his son-in-law,**