## Arakhin Daf 4a

###### Arakhin 4a:1
[Arakhin 4a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/4a:1)

וְגוֹאֲלִין לְעוֹלָם, אֵימָא בְּמִצְוַת רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה נָמֵי לָא לִיחַיְּיבוּ, קָמַשְׁמַע לַן: נְהִי דְּלֵיתַנְהוּ בְּהַשְׁמָטַת קַרְקַע בְּהַשְׁמָטַת כְּסָפִים — בְּשִׁילּוּחַ עֲבָדִים מִיהָא אִיתַנְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**and they** may also **redeem** lands that they sold **at any time,** i.e., even right after selling the field, and are not bound by the *halakhot* of the Jubilee Year, one might **say** that **they should** also **not be obligated to fulfill the mitzva of** blowing the shofar on **Rosh HaShana.** Therefore, the *baraita* **teaches us** that this is not the case. This is due to the fact that **although** priests **are not** included **in** the **release of land, in any event they are** included **in** the **release of money** and in the **release of slaves** in the Jubilee Year. Therefore, the priests are obligated in the sounding of the shofar on Rosh HaShana.


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

הַכֹּל חַיָּיבִים בְּמִקְרָא מְגִילָּה, כֹּהֲנִים לְוִיִּם וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִים. פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא לִיבַטֵּיל עֲבוֹדָתָם, וְכִדְרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כֹּהֲנִים בַּעֲבוֹדָתָם, וּלְוִיִּם בְּדוּכָנָן, וְיִשְׂרָאֵל בְּמַעֲמָדָן — מְבַטְּלִין עֲבוֹדָתָם וּבָאִין לִשְׁמוֹעַ מִקְרָא מְגִילָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara cites another similar *baraita*: **Everyone is obligated in the reading of the Megilla** including **priests, Levites, and Israelites.** The Gemara asks as before: Isn’t that **obvious?** The Gemara answers: **No,** it is **necessary to** teach that they **cancel their service** in the Temple and come to hear the reading of the Megilla, **and** this is **in accordance** with **that** which **Rav Yehuda** says that **Shmuel says. As Rav Yehuda says** that **Shmuel says: The priests at their** Temple **service, and the Levites on their platform** in the Temple where they sang the daily psalm, **and the Israelites at their** non-priestly **watches** for the offerings of the community, all **cancel their service and come to hear the reading of the Megilla.**


###### Arakhin 4a:3
[Arakhin 4a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/4a:3)

הַכֹּל חַיָּיבִין בְּזִימּוּן, כֹּהֲנִים לְוִיִּם וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִים. פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּקָאָכְלִי קׇדָשִׁים. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: ״וְאָכְלוּ אוֹתָם אֲשֶׁר כֻּפַּר בָּהֶם״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְהָא כַּפָּרָה הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites yet another similar *baraita*: **Everyone is obligated to form a *zimmun*** and recite Grace after Meals, including **priests, Levites, and Israelites.** The Gemara asks: Isn’t that **obvious?** The Gemara answers: **No,** it is **necessary to** teach this *halakha* in a case **where** the priests **partake of sacrificial** meat. It might **enter your mind to say** that since **the Merciful One states** in the Torah: **“And they shall eat those things with which atonement was made”** (Exodus 29:33), indicating that the owners of those offerings thereby achieve atonement, **and** therefore **this** consumption **is** an obligatory ritual act to bring about **atonement,** consequently, it is not considered a social meal requiring one to form a *zimmun*.


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

קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, ״וְאָכַלְתָּ וְשָׂבָעְתָּ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְהָא אִיתַנְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Therefore, the *baraita* **teaches us** that since **the Merciful One states** in the Torah: **“And you shall eat, and be satisfied,** and bless the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 8:10), the obligation to recite Grace after Meals is contingent upon eating and being satisfied. Since **there is** eating and satisfaction in the case of priests partaking of the sacrificial meat, they are obligated to form a *zimmun*, despite the fact that the purpose of the meal is to bring about atonement.


###### Arakhin 4a:5
[Arakhin 4a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/4a:5)

הַכֹּל מִצְטָרְפִין לְזִימּוּן, כֹּהֲנִים לְוִיִּם וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִים. פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּקָאָכְלִי כֹּהֲנִים תְּרוּמָה אוֹ קׇדָשִׁים, וְזָר קָאָכֵיל חוּלִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites another *baraita*: **Everyone joins a *zimmun*: Priests, Levites, and Israelites.** The Gemara asks again: Isn’t that **obvious?** The Gemara answers: **No,** it is **necessary to** teach this *halakha* in a case **where** the **priests are partaking of *teruma*,** the portion of produce designated for priests, **or sacrificial** meat, **and a non-priest is eating non-sacred** food.


###### Arakhin 4a:6
[Arakhin 4a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/4a:6)

סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וְאִי בָּעֵי זָר לְמֵיכַל בַּהֲדֵי כֹּהֵן לָא מָצֵי אָכֵיל, אֵימָא לָא לִיצְטָרֵף, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: נְהִי דְּזָר בַּהֲדֵי כֹּהֵן לָא מָצֵי אָכֵיל, כֹּהֵן בַּהֲדֵי זָר מָצֵי אָכֵיל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In such a case, it might **enter your mind to say** that **since if the non-priest wants to eat together with the priest he cannot eat** with him from the *teruma*, as it is forbidden to him, one could **say** that **he cannot join** with the priests for a *zimmun*. Therefore, the *baraita* **teaches us** that he can join them, as **although a non-priest cannot eat together with a priest** from his *teruma*, nevertheless, **a priest can eat together with a non-priest** from his food. Consequently, they can join together to form a *zimmun*.


###### Arakhin 4a:7
[Arakhin 4a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/4a:7)

הַכֹּל מַעֲרִיכִין, כֹּהֲנִים לְוִיִּם וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִים. פְּשִׁיטָא! אָמַר רָבָא: לֹא נִצְרְכָא אֶלָּא לְבֶן בּוּכְרִי, דִּתְנַן: אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הֵעִיד בֶּן בּוּכְרִי בְּיַבְנֶה: כׇּל כֹּהֵן שֶׁשּׁוֹקֵל אֵינוֹ חוֹטֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara applies the same line of questioning to the mishna here: **Everyone takes** vows of **valuation…priests, Levites, and Israelites.** Isn’t that **obvious? Rava said:** This *halakha* **is necessary only according to** the opinion of **ben Bukhri,** who holds that priests are not obligated to contribute a yearly half-shekel to purchase the communal supplies. Therefore, one might have thought that they are not subject to the *halakha* of valuations, as the Gemara will explain. **As we learned** in a mishna (*Shekalim* 1:4) that **Rabbi Yehuda said** that **ben Bukhri testified** before the Sages **in Yavne: Any priest who contributes** the half-**shekel** for communal offerings **is not** considered **a sinner,** despite the fact that he is not obligated to contribute.


###### Arakhin 4a:8
[Arakhin 4a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/4a:8)

אָמַר לוֹ רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי: לֹא כֵּן, אֶלָּא כׇּל כֹּהֵן שֶׁאֵינוֹ שׁוֹקֵל חוֹטֵא, אֶלָּא שֶׁהַכֹּהֲנִים דּוֹרְשִׁין מִקְרָא זֶה לְעַצְמָן: ״וְכׇל מִנְחַת כֹּהֵן כָּלִיל תִּהְיֶה לֹא תֵאָכֵל״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yehuda added that **Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said to** ben Bukhri: **That is not** the case; **rather, any priest who does not contribute his** half-**shekel** is considered **a sinner,** as they are obligated in this mitzva like all other Jews. **But** with regard to **the priests** who do not contribute the half-shekel, in order to excuse themselves from the mitzva they **interpret this verse to their own** advantage: **“And every meal offering of the priest shall be wholly made to smoke; it shall not be eaten”** (Leviticus 6:16).


###### Arakhin 4a:9
[Arakhin 4a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/4a:9)

הוֹאִיל וְעוֹמֶר וּשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם וְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים שֶׁלָּנוּ הֵם, הֵיאַךְ הֵם נֶאֱכָלִין?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Those priests claim as follows: **Since** the ***omer*** offering, the measure of barley brought as a communal offering on the sixteenth of Nisan, **and the two loaves,** i.e., the public offering of two loaves from the new wheat, brought on the festival of *Shavuot*, **and the shewbread** placed on the Table in the Sanctuary each Shabbat, which are all meal offerings, **are ours,** i.e., if we would contribute half-shekels we would have partial ownership of these communal offerings, as they are purchased with the half-shekels, **how** then **can they be eaten?** They would be regarded as priests’ meal offerings, which must be wholly burnt, in accordance with the aforementioned verse.


###### Arakhin 4a:10
[Arakhin 4a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/4a:10)

וּלְבֶן בּוּכְרִי נָמֵי, כֵּיוָן דִּלְכַתְּחִילָּה לָא מִיחַיְּיבִי לְאֵיתוֹיֵי, כִּי מַיְיתֵי נָמֵי — חוֹטֵא הוּא, דְּקָא מְעַיֵּיל חוּלִּין לָעֲזָרָה! דְּמַיְיתֵי לְהוּ וּמָסַר לַצִּבּוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: **But according to** the opinion of **ben Bukhri, as well,** why is a priest who contributes a half-shekel not considered a sinner? **Since he is not obligated to bring** the half-shekel ***ab initio*, when he brings** the half-shekel **he is also a sinner, since he is** causing the **bringing** of **a non-sacred** item **into the** Temple **courtyard.** The Gemara answers **that** the priest **brings and transfers** the half-shekel as a consecrated gift **to the community,** so it is considered part of the communal funds.


###### Arakhin 4a:11
[Arakhin 4a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/4a:11)

סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וּכְתִיב ״וְכׇל עֶרְכְּךָ יִהְיֶה בְּשֶׁקֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ״, כׇּל דְּאִיתֵיהּ בִּשְׁקָלִים — אִיתֵיהּ בַּעֲרָכִין, וְהָנֵי כֹּהֲנִים, הוֹאִיל וְלֵיתַנְהוּ בִּשְׁקָלִים — לֵיתַנְהוּ בַּעֲרָכִין, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the relevance of ben Bukhri’s opinion to the question of the priests’ status with respect to valuations. According to ben Bukhri, who exempts the priests from contributing the half-shekel, **it might enter your mind to say** that **since it is written: “And all your valuations shall be according to the shekel of the Sanctuary”** (Leviticus 27:25), perhaps this juxtaposition teaches that **anyone who is** included **in** the obligation to contribute half-**shekels is** included **in** the *halakha* of **valuations. But** with regard to **these priests, since they are not** included **in** the obligation to contribute half-**shekels, they are** also **not** included **in** the *halakha* of **valuations.** Therefore, the mishna **teaches us** that even according to the opinion of ben Bukhri, priests are included in the *halakha* of valuations.


###### Arakhin 4a:12
[Arakhin 4a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/4a:12)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: הַאי ״וְכׇל עֶרְכְּךָ״, לְכׇל עֲרָכִין שֶׁאַתָּה מַעֲרִיךְ לֹא יְהוּ פְּחוּתִין מִסֶּלַע הוּא דַּאֲתָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to** Rava: One could not have thought that **this** phrase: **“And all your valuations** shall be according to the shekel of the Sanctuary” (Leviticus 27:25), might be coming to exempt the priests, as **it comes to** teach something else, namely that **all valuations that you assess should not be less than** the value of **a *sela*** coin. In other words, a poor person, who gives according to his means rather than the amount prescribed in the Torah, does not fulfill his obligation unless he gives at least a shekel, which is a *sela* coin.


###### Arakhin 4a:13
[Arakhin 4a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/4a:13)

אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וּכְתִיב ״וּפְדוּיָו מִבֶּן חֹדֶשׁ תִּפְדֶּה בְּעֶרְכְּךָ״, כׇּל דְּאִיתֵיהּ בְּפִדְיוֹן הַבֵּן — אִיתֵיהּ בַּעֲרָכִין, וְהָנֵי כֹּהֲנִים הוֹאִיל וְלֵיתַנְהוּ בְּפִדְיוֹן הַבֵּן — לֵיתַנְהוּ בַּעֲרָכִין, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Abaye said:** It **was necessary** for the mishna to teach that priests are included in the *halakha* of valuation, as **it might enter your mind to say: Since it is written** with regard to a firstborn: **“And their redemption money, from a month old you shall redeem them, shall be, according to your valuation,** five shekels of silver” (Numbers 18:16), one might have said that **anyone** included **in** the mitzva of **redemption of the** firstborn **son is** included **in** the *halakha* of **valuations; but** with regard to **these priests, since they are not** included **in** the mitzva of **redemption of the** firstborn **son,** they **are** also **not** included **in** the *halakha* of **valuations.** Therefore, the mishna **teaches us** that priests are also included in the *halakha* of valuations.


###### Arakhin 4a:14
[Arakhin 4a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/4a:14)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, גַּבֵּי אֵיל אָשָׁם, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְאֶת אֲשָׁמוֹ יָבִיא לַה׳ אַיִל תָּמִים מִן הַצֹּאן בְּעֶרְכְּךָ״, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּכׇל דְּאִיתֵיהּ בַּעֲרָכִין אִיתֵיהּ בְּאֵיל הָאָשָׁם, טוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס דְּלֵיתַנְהוּ בַּעֲרָכִין לֵיתַנְהוּ בְּאֵיל הָאָשָׁם?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said to** Abaye: **If that is so,** that one can expound the term “according to your valuation” in this manner, one could expound similarly **with regard to** the **ram of** the **guilt offering** brought by one who robs and then takes a false oath. **As it is written** with regard to that offering: **“And he shall bring his guilt offering to the Lord, a ram without blemish out of the flock, according to your valuation”** (Leviticus 5:25). One can argue that **so too, anyone** who **is** included **in** the *halakha* of **valuations is** included **in the ram of the guilt offering.** Therefore, **a *tumtum* or a hermaphrodite, who are not** included **in** the *halakha* of **valuations,** as stated in the mishna, should also **not** be included **in the ram of the guilt offering.** But that is not so, as there is no opinion that exempts them from this offering.


###### Arakhin 4a:15
[Arakhin 4a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/4a:15)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב אָשֵׁי: אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא, הוֹאִיל וּכְתִיב ״וְהֶעֱמִידוֹ לִפְנֵי הַכֹּהֵן״, וְלֹא כֹּהֵן לִפְנֵי כֹּהֵן, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rava said, and some say** it was **Rav Ashi:** It **was necessary** to teach that priests are included in the *halakha* of valuation because **it might enter your mind to say: Since it is written** concerning valuations: “But if he is too poor for your valuation, **then he shall be set before the priest”** (Leviticus 27:8), this indicates that a poor man is placed before the priest for valuation, **but a priest is not** placed **before** another **priest** for valuation. Therefore, the mishna **teaches us** that priests are also included in the *halakha* of valuations.


###### Arakhin 4a:16
[Arakhin 4a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/4a:16)

״נֶעֱרָכִין״ — לְאֵתוֹיֵי מְנוָּּול וּמוּכֵּה שְׁחִין. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara stated (2a) that the mishna’s statement: And everyone **is valuated,** serves **to add** that **a repulsive** man **and one afflicted with boils** are valuated in accordance with the Torah’s categories of age and sex despite their lack of market value. The Gemara asks: **From where is this matter** derived?


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

דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״בְּעֶרְכְּךָ״ — לְהָבִיא עֵרֶךְ סָתוּם. דָּבָר אַחֵר: ״בְּעֶרְכְּךָ״ — עֵרֶךְ כּוּלּוֹ הוּא נוֹתֵן, וְלֹא עֵרֶךְ אֵבָרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that it is **as the Sages taught** in a *baraita*: The verse states: “When a man shall clearly utter a vow of persons to the Lord, **according to your valuation”** (Leviticus 27:2). The term serves **to include an unspecified valuation,** as explained below. **Alternatively,** the verse teaches that **one gives the valuation of his entire** self **and not the valuation of** his **limbs.** If someone vows that he will give the valuation of a limb, he is not obligated to give anything.


###### Arakhin 4a:18
[Arakhin 4a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/4a:18)

יָכוֹל שֶׁאֲנִי מוֹצִיא אַף דָּבָר שֶׁהַנְּשָׁמָה תְּלוּיָה בּוֹ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״נְפָשׁוֹת״, נְפָשׁוֹת — וְלֹא הַמֵּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: One **might** have thought **that I** should **exclude even** the valuation of **an item upon which the soul is dependent,** without which one would die, e.g., the liver. Therefore, **the verse states: “Persons [*nefashot*],”** which teaches that if one valuated a limb upon which the soul [*nefesh*] is dependent, he is obligated to give the valuation of his entire self. The Gemara further derives from the term **“persons”** that one is obligated to pay the valuation only of a live person, **and not** the valuation of **the dead.** If one valuates a deceased person, his statement is of no effect.


###### Arakhin 4a:19
[Arakhin 4a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/4a:19)

אוֹצִיא אֶת הַמֵּת, וְלֹא אוֹצִיא אֶת הַגּוֹסֵס? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהֶעֱמִיד... וְהֶעֱרִיךְ״ — כֹּל שֶׁיֶּשְׁנוֹ בְּהַעֲמָדָה, יֶשְׁנוֹ בְּהַעֲרָכָה, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְּהַעֲמָדָה, אֵינוֹ בְּהַעֲרָכָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Furthermore, one might have thought that **I should exclude** only **the dead** from valuation, **but I should not exclude a moribund** person, who is about to die but is still alive, and who is therefore included in the category of “persons.” Therefore, **the verse states: “Then he shall be set** before the priest, **and** the priest **shall value** him” (Leviticus 27:8). This teaches that **anyone who is** included **in** the category of **setting,** i.e., he can stand, **is** included **in** the *halakha* of **valuation. And anyone not** included **in** the category of **setting,** who cannot stand, e.g., one who is on his deathbed, is **not** included **in** the *halakha* of **valuation.** Therefore, one who valuates a moribund individual is not obligated to pay anything.


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

דָּבָר אַחֵר: ״נְפָשֹׁת״, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אֶחָד שֶׁהֶעֱרִיךְ אֶחָד, אֶחָד שֶׁהֶעֱרִיךְ מֵאָה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״נְפָשֹׁת״. דָּבָר אַחֵר: ״נְפָשֹׁת״,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Alternatively,** since the verse states: **“Persons,”** in the plural, it is expounded as follows: Were the verse to have written: A person, **I** would **have** derived **only** that this applies to **one** person **who valuated one** person. **From where** is it derived that even if **one** person **valuated a hundred** people, it is also an effective evaluation? **The verse states: “Persons,”** in the plural. This teaches that in such a case he must pay the valuation of each and every one of the hundred. **Alternatively,** one interprets the plural form of **“persons”** as follows: Were the verse to have written only: A person, one might have said that