## Arakhin Daf 2a

###### Arakhin 2a:1
[Arakhin 2a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/2a:1)

מַתְנִי׳ **הַכֹּל מַעֲרִיכִין**, וְנֶעֱרָכִין, נוֹדְרִין וְנִידָּרִין — כֹּהֲנִים, לֹוִים וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִים, נָשִׁים וַעֲבָדִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **Everyone takes** vows of **valuation** and is thereby obligated to donate to the Temple treasury the value fixed by the Torah (see Leviticus 27:3–7) for the age and sex of the person valuated. **And** similarly, everyone **is valuated,** and therefore one who vowed to donate his fixed value is obligated to pay. Likewise, everyone **vows** to donate to the Temple treasury the assessment of a person, based on his market value to be sold as a slave, and is thereby obligated to pay; **and** everyone is the object of **a vow** if others vowed to donate his assessment. This includes **priests, Levites and Israelites, women, and** Canaanite **slaves.**


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

טוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס, נוֹדְרִין וְנִידָּרִין וּמַעֲרִיכִין, אֲבָל לֹא נֶעֱרָכִין, שֶׁאֵינוֹ נֶעֱרָךְ אֶלָּא הַזָּכָר וַדַּאי וּנְקֵבָה וַדָּאִית.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A *tumtum*,** whose sexual organs are concealed, **and a hermaphrodite [*androginos*], vow, and** are the object of **a vow, and take** vows of **valuation, but they are not valuated.** Consequently, if one says, with regard to a *tumtum*: The valuation of so-and-so is incumbent upon me to donate to the Temple treasury, he is not obligated to pay anything, **as only a definite male or a definite female are valuated.**


###### Arakhin 2a:3
[Arakhin 2a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/2a:3)

חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן נִידָּרִין וְנֶעֱרָכִין, אֲבָל לֹא נוֹדְרִין וְלֹא מַעֲרִיכִין, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶם דַּעַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor** are the object of **a vow and are valuated, but neither vow** to donate the assessment of a person **nor take** a vow of **valuation, because they lack the** presumed **mental competence** to make a commitment.


###### Arakhin 2a:4
[Arakhin 2a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/2a:4)

**גְּמָ׳** ״הַכֹּל מַעֲרִיכִין״ — לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? לְאֵתוֹיֵי מוּפְלָא סָמוּךְ לְאִישׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **What is added** by the mishna’s statement: **Everyone [*hakol*] takes** vows of **valuation?** When a principle is stated in a mishna, it serves to include a particular case that it does not mention explicitly in its *halakha*. Which case is included by the broad statement here? The Gemara answers: The mishna teaches it **to add a discriminating** minor **on** the **brink of adulthood [*mufla samukh le’ish*],** i.e., during the year before a minor reaches majority.


###### Arakhin 2a:5
[Arakhin 2a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/2a:5)

״נֶעֱרָכִין״ — לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? לְאֵתוֹיֵי מְנוָּּול וּמוּכֵּה שְׁחִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara similarly asks: **What is added** by the statement: And everyone **is valuated?** The Gemara answers: The mishna serves **to add a repulsive** man **and one afflicted with boils,** who have no market value.


###### Arakhin 2a:6
[Arakhin 2a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/2a:6)

סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: ״נֶדֶר בְּעֶרְכְּךָ״ כְּתִיב, כֹּל שֶׁיֶּשְׁנוֹ בְּדָמִים — יֶשְׁנוֹ בַּעֲרָכִין, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְּדָמִים — אֵינוֹ בַּעֲרָכִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains why this addition is necessary: It might **enter your mind to say** that as **it is written** in the verse: **“A vow** of persons to the Lord, **according to your valuation”** (Leviticus 27:2), which juxtaposes one who is valuated to one who is the object of a vow, **anyone who is** included **in** the category of **assessments,** i.e., if he vows to pay his assessment he must pay it to the Temple, **is** also included **in** the category of **valuations. But anyone who is not** included **in** the category of **assessments is not** included **in** the category of **valuations.** Since these people, a repulsive man and one afflicted with boils, are not subject to assessment, as they have no market value, perhaps they are also not subject to valuation.


###### Arakhin 2a:7
[Arakhin 2a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/2a:7)

קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן ״נְפָשֹׁת״, כָּל דְּהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Therefore, the mishna **teaches us** that these too are subject to valuation, as the same verse also states: **“Persons [*nefashot*],”** indicating anyone who has **any amount** of life [*nefesh*] is subject to valuation.


###### Arakhin 2a:8
[Arakhin 2a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/2a:8)

״נוֹדְרִין״ — לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? נִידָּרִין אִיצְטְרִיךְ לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further asks: **What is added** by the mishna’s statement: Everyone **vows** to donate the assessment of a person? The Gemara answers: Actually, this statement is not necessary, but it is mentioned because the continuation: And everyone is the object of **a vow, was necessary.**


###### Arakhin 2a:9
[Arakhin 2a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/2a:9)

״נִידָּרִין״ — לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? אִי לְאֵתוֹיֵי טוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס — בְּהֶדְיָא קָתָנֵי לְהוּ! וְאִי לְאֵתוֹיֵי חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן — בְּהֶדְיָא קָתָנֵי לְהוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara inquires: **What,** then, **is added** by the clause: And everyone is the object of **a vow? If** one were to suggest that this serves **to add a *tumtum* and a hermaphrodite,** that cannot be correct, as they **are explicitly taught** in the mishna itself. **And if** one were to suggest that it serves **to add a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor,** they too **are explicitly taught** in the mishna.


###### Arakhin 2a:10
[Arakhin 2a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/2a:10)

אִי לְאֵתוֹיֵי פָּחוֹת מִבֶּן חוֹדֶשׁ, בְּהֶדְיָא קָתָנֵי לְהוּ! וְאִי לְאֵתוֹיֵי נָכְרִי, בְּהֶדְיָא קָתָנֵי לְהוּ! לְעוֹלָם לְאֵתוֹיֵי פָּחוֹת מִבֶּן חוֹדֶשׁ, וְתָנֵי וַהֲדַר מְפָרֵשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
And **if** you say that this clause serves **to add** the *halakha* that a child who is **less than a month old,** who is not subject to valuation, is nevertheless subject to assessment, this too **is explicitly taught** in a mishna (5a). And **if** one were to say that it serves **to add a gentile,** that **is** also **explicitly taught** in a mishna (5b). The Gemara answers: **Actually,** the phrase: And everyone is the object of a vow, is mentioned in the mishna in order **to add** a child who is **less than a month old, and** the mishna **teaches** this *halakha* in general terms **and then explains** it in detail later.


###### Arakhin 2a:11
[Arakhin 2a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/2a:11)

״הַכֹּל סוֹמְכִין״ — לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? לְאֵתוֹיֵי יוֹרֵשׁ, וּדְלָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara inquires about similar general expressions that appear in other *mishnayot*. **What is added** by the mishna (*Menaḥot* 93a): **Everyone** who brings an offering **places hands** on the head of the animal? The Gemara answers: This clause serves **to add** that **an heir** places hands on the offering of the deceased, **and** the mishna is **not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda** that an heir does not place his hands on an offering he inherited.


###### Arakhin 2a:12
[Arakhin 2a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/2a:12)

״הַכֹּל מְמִירִין״ — לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? לְאֵתוֹיֵי יוֹרֵשׁ, וּדְלָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is added** by the ruling of the mishna (*Temura* 2a): **Everyone substitutes** a non-sacred animal for a consecrated animal? The Gemara answers: Here too, the mishna serves **to add** that **an heir** substitutes a non-sacred animal for his father’s consecrated animal, i.e., the non-sacred animal also becomes sanctified. **And** this mishna is also **not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda,** as he maintains that an heir cannot substitute a non-sacred animal for the consecrated animal he inherited.


###### Arakhin 2a:13
[Arakhin 2a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/2a:13)

דְּתַנְיָא: יוֹרֵשׁ סוֹמֵךְ, יוֹרֵשׁ מֵימֵר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: יוֹרֵשׁ אֵינוֹ סוֹמֵךְ, יוֹרֵשׁ אֵינוֹ מֵימֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites the source for these two opinions of Rabbi Yehuda. **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: **An heir places hands** on his father’s offering, and **an heir can effect substitution** for an offering inherited from his father. **Rabbi Yehuda says: An heir does not place hands** and **an heir cannot effect substitution.**


###### Arakhin 2a:14
[Arakhin 2a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/2a:14)

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? ״קׇרְבָּנוֹ״ וְלֹא קׇרְבַּן אָבִיו, וְיָלֵיף תְּחִלַּת הֶקְדֵּשׁ מִסּוֹף הֶקְדֵּשׁ — מָה סוֹף הֶקְדֵּשׁ יוֹרֵשׁ אֵינוֹ סוֹמֵךְ, אַף תְּחִלַּת הֶקְדֵּשׁ יוֹרֵשׁ אֵינוֹ מֵימֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda?** With regard to placing of hands, he expounds the term: **“His offering”** (Leviticus 3:2), as teaching that one places his hands only on his own offering, **but not** on **his father’s offering. And** with regard to the ruling that an heir cannot effect substitution, Rabbi Yehuda **derives** the *halakha* of **the initial stage of consecration,** i.e., substitution, in which a previously non-sacred animal is consecrated, **from the final stage of consecration,** the act of placing hands, which is performed upon an already-consecrated animal immediately before it is slaughtered: **Just as** with regard to **the final stage of consecration, an heir does not place hands, so too,** with regard to **the initial stage of consecration, an heir cannot effect substitution.**


###### Arakhin 2a:15
[Arakhin 2a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/2a:15)

וְרַבָּנַן, הָמֵר יָמִיר — לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַיּוֹרֵשׁ, וְיָלְפִינַן סוֹף הֶקְדֵּשׁ מִתְּחִלַּת הֶקְדֵּשׁ: מָה תְּחִלַּת הֶקְדֵּשׁ — יוֹרֵשׁ מֵימֵר, אַף סוֹף הֶקְדֵּשׁ — יוֹרֵשׁ סוֹמֵךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** from where do **the Rabbis** derive their opinion? The verse states: “If **he shall substitute [*hamer yamir*]** animal for animal” (Leviticus 27:10), with the doubled form of *hamer yamir* serving **to include the heir** as one capable of effecting substitution. **And** the Rabbis **derive the final stage of consecration,** i.e., the placing of hands, **from the initial stage of consecration,** i.e., substitution: **Just as** with regard to **the initial stage of consecration an heir can effect substitution, so too,** with regard to **the final stage of consecration, an heir can place hands.**


###### Arakhin 2a:16
[Arakhin 2a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/2a:16)

וְרַבָּנַן, הַאי ״קׇרְבָּנוֹ״ מַאי עָבְדִי לֵיהּ? מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ: ״קׇרְבָּנוֹ״ — וְלֹא קׇרְבַּן גּוֹי, ״קׇרְבָּנוֹ״ — וְלֹא קׇרְבַּן חֲבֵירוֹ, ״קׇרְבָּנוֹ״ — לְרַבּוֹת כׇּל בַּעֲלֵי חוֹבְרִין לִסְמִיכָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** as for **the Rabbis, what do they do with this** term: **“His offering,”** from which Rabbi Yehuda derives that an heir does not place his hands? The Gemara explains how the Rabbis expound each mention of the term, which appears three times (Leviticus 3:2, 7, 12). One instance of **“his offering”** teaches that one places hands only on one’s own offering, **but not** on the **offering of a gentile.** Another instance of **“his offering”** teaches that one places hands only on one’s own offering, **but not** on the **offering of another** person. The third instance of **“his offering”** serves **to include all** the **owners of** a jointly owned **offering in** the requirement of **placing hands,** i.e., they are all required to place their hands on the offering.


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

וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, לְרַבּוֹת כׇּל בַּעֲלֵי חוֹבְרִין לִסְמִיכָה לֵית לֵיהּ, וְאִי נָמֵי אִית לֵיהּ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: **And** how does Rabbi Yehuda respond to this claim? The Gemara explains that **Rabbi Yehuda does not hold** that one of the mentions serves **to include all owners** of a jointly owned **offering in** the requirement of **placing hands.** Rather, one of the owners places his hands on the offering on behalf of the entire group. Consequently, he is left with one spare mention of “his offering,” from which he derives that an heir does not place his hands. The Gemara adds: **Alternatively,** one can say that Rabbi Yehuda **holds** that one of the mentions serves to include owners of a jointly owned offering,