## Arakhin Daf 20b

###### Arakhin 20b:1
[Arakhin 20b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/20b:1)

מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא, כֵּיוָן דְּלָא אֲמָדוּהוּ לָא אִישְׁתַּעְבּוּד נִכְסֵי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: כֵּיוָן דְּעָמַד בַּדִּין אִישְׁתַּעְבּוֹדֵי אִישְׁתַּעְבּוּד נִכְסֵי, וְאוּמְדָּנָא גַּלּוֹיֵי מִילְּתָא בְעָלְמָא הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is necessary **lest you say:** Although the one who took the vow stood in judgment before he died and the court obligated him, **since** the object of his vow **was not assessed** before he died, **the property of** the one who vowed **is not liened** to the debt, and consequently the heirs are not obligated to pay. Therefore, the mishna **teaches us** that **the property of** the one who took the vow **was liened, since he stood in judgment** while he was still alive, and **the assessment** of the object of the vow **is** considered to be **a mere disclosure of the matter,** which can be performed after the death of the one who vowed.


###### Arakhin 20b:2
[Arakhin 20b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/20b:2)

**מַתְנִי׳** ״שׁוֹר זֶה עוֹלָה״, וּ״בַיִת זֶה קׇרְבָּן״, וּמֵת הַשּׁוֹר וְנָפַל הַבַּיִת — פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּם. ״שׁוֹר זֶה עָלַי עוֹלָה״, וּ״בַיִת זֶה עָלַי קׇרְבָּן״, מֵת הַשּׁוֹר וְנָפַל הַבַּיִת — חַיָּיב לְשַׁלֵּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** In the case of one who says: **This bull** is consecrated as **a burnt offering, or: This house** is consecrated as **an offering, and the bull died or the house collapsed,** he **is exempt from paying** his commitment. But in the case of one who says: It is incumbent **upon me** to give **this bull as a burnt offering, or:** It is incumbent **upon me** to give **this house** as **an offering,** if **the bull died or the house collapsed,** he is **obligated to pay** its value.


###### Arakhin 20b:3
[Arakhin 20b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/20b:3)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר רַב: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא דְּאָמַר ״דְּמֵי שׁוֹר זֶה עָלַי עוֹלָה״, אֲבָל אָמַר ״שׁוֹר זֶה עָלַי עוֹלָה״, כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר ״זֶה״ וָמֵת — אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתוֹ, ״עָלַי לַהֲבִיאוֹ״ קָאָמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Rav says:** The Sages **taught** in the mishna **only that** one who **said:** It is incumbent **upon me** to give **the monetary value of this bull** as **a burnt offering,** is obligated to pay its value if it dies. **But** if **he said:** It is incumbent **upon me** to give **this bull** as **a burnt offering, since he said: This,** thereby referring specifically to that animal, **and** then the bull **died, he does not bear** financial **responsibility for its** loss. And as for his statement: It is incumbent upon me, he did not intend to accept financial responsibility for the loss of the bull. Rather, he meant to **say:** It is incumbent **upon me to bring** this bull as an offering to the Temple.


###### Arakhin 20b:4
[Arakhin 20b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/20b:4)

מֵיתִיבִי: שׁוֹר זֶה עוֹלָה — הַשּׁוֹר הֶקְדֵּשׁ וּמוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ, מֵת אוֹ נִגְנַב — אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתוֹ. ״שׁוֹר זֶה עָלַי עוֹלָה״ — הַשּׁוֹר הֶקְדֵּשׁ וּמוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ, מֵת אוֹ נִגְנַב — חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** from a *baraita* (*Tosefta* 3:11): With regard to one who says: **This bull is** consecrated as **a burnt offering, the bull is consecrated property and** one who benefits **from it** is liable for **misuse** of consecrated property. If the bull **dies or is stolen, he does not bear** financial **responsibility for its** loss. If one says: It is incumbent **upon me** to give **this bull** as **a burnt offering, the bull is consecrated property, and** one who benefits **from it** is liable for **misuse** of consecrated property. If the bull **dies or is stolen, he bears** financial **responsibility for its** loss, despite the fact that he did not vow to give the monetary value of the bull.


###### Arakhin 20b:5
[Arakhin 20b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/20b:5)

מִי אַלִּימָא מִמַּתְנִיתִין, דְּאוֹקֵימְנָא דְּקָאָמַר ״דְּמֵי״? הָכָא נָמֵי דְּקָאָמַר ״דְּמֵי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Is** the *baraita* **stronger than the mishna,** with regard to which **we established that** it is referring to a case where **he says: The monetary value of** the bull? **Here too,** in the case of the *baraita*, **he says:** It is incumbent upon me to give **the monetary value of** this bull as a burnt offering.


###### Arakhin 20b:6
[Arakhin 20b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/20b:6)

וְהָא מִדְּסֵיפָא דְּקָאָמַר ״דְּמֵי״, רֵישָׁא דְּלָא קָאָמַר ״דְּמֵי״! דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: דְּמֵי שׁוֹר עוֹלָה — הַשּׁוֹר חוּלִּין וְאֵין מוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ, מֵת אוֹ נִגְנַב — אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתוֹ, אָבֵל חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּת דָּמָיו!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **But from** the fact **that the latter clause** of the *baraita* is referring to a case **where he says: Monetary value of,** it may be inferred that **the first clause** of the *baraita* is referring to a case **where he does not say monetary value. As it teaches** in **the latter clause** of the *baraita* (*Tosefta* 3:12): With regard to one who said: It is incumbent upon me to give **the monetary value of** this **bull** as **a burnt offering, the bull is non-sacred** property **and** one who benefits **from it** is **not** liable for **misuse** of consecrated property. If the bull **dies or is stolen, he does not bear** financial **responsibility for its** loss. **But** if he sold the bull and received money for the sale, **he does bear** financial **responsibility** for that money, since he accepted financial responsibility **for the monetary value of** the bull in his vow.


###### Arakhin 20b:7
[Arakhin 20b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/20b:7)

רֵישָׁא וְסֵיפָא דְּקָאָמַר ״דְּמֵי״, רֵישָׁא דְּאָמַר: ״יִקְדַּישׁ הַשּׁוֹר לְדָמָיו״, וְסֵיפָא דְּקָאָמַר: ״לִכְשֶׁיָּבֹאוּ דָּמָיו יִקְדְּשׁוּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **The first clause and the latter clause** of the *baraita* are both referring to one **who says: Monetary value of,** in his vow. The difference between them is that **the first clause** is dealing with **one who says: Let the bull be consecrated for its monetary value,** and therefore the bull is consecrated and he bears financial responsibility for its value. **But the latter clause** is referring to **one who says: When** this bull shall be sold, **the money received** from the sale **shall be consecrated** for use as a burnt offering.


###### Arakhin 20b:8
[Arakhin 20b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/20b:8)

וְהָא אֵין אָדָם מַקְדִּישׁ דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בָּא לָעוֹלָם? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: הָא מַנִּי? רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, דְּאָמַר: אָדָם מַקְדִּישׁ דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בָּא לָעוֹלָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Can this possibly be the case of the latter clause of the *baraita*? **But a person cannot consecrate an entity that has not** yet **come into the world,** and therefore one cannot consecrate the money he will receive in the future from the sale of the bull. **Rav Yehuda says** that **Rav says:** In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** *baraita*? **It is** taught in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Meir, who says: A person can consecrate an entity that has not** yet **come into the world.**


###### Arakhin 20b:9
[Arakhin 20b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/20b:9)

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא לְרַב חִסְדָּא: כְּמַאן? כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּאָמַר: אָדָם מַקְדִּישׁ דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בָּא לָעוֹלָם? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְאֶלָּא כְּמַאן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Some say** a slightly different version of this discussion, that **Rav Pappa said to Abaye, and some say Rami bar Ḥama** said **to Rav Ḥisda: In accordance with whose** opinion is this *baraita*? Is it **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir, who says** that **a person can consecrate an entity that has not** yet **come into the world?** Abaye **said to him: Rather, in accordance with who** else’s opinion could this *baraita* be? Certainly it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.


###### Arakhin 20b:10
[Arakhin 20b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/20b:10)

וְאִיכָּא דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַהָא, הַמַּשְׂכִּיר בַּיִת לַחֲבֵרוֹ וְנִתְנַגֵּעַ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחֲלָטוֹ כֹּהֵן, אוֹמֵר לוֹ: ״הֲרֵי שֶׁלְּךָ לְפָנֶיךָ״, נְתָצוֹ — חַיָּיב לְהַעֲמִיד לוֹ בַּיִת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And some teach** this discussion **with regard to this** *baraita* (*Tosefta*, *Bava Metzia* 8:30): In the case of **one who rents a house to another and** the house **became ritually impure with leprosy, even though a priest confirmed** the house as impure, condemning it to be dismantled, as long as the house is still standing its owner may **say to** the renter: **That which is yours is before you,** and the owner is not required to compensate the renter. Nevertheless, in accordance with the *halakha* of a house afflicted with leprosy, once the priest has **dismantled** the house the owner is **obligated to provide** a new **house for** the renter.