## Arakhin Daf 4b

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

אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אִישׁ שֶׁהֶעֱרִיךְ בֵּין אִישׁ בֵּין אִשָּׁה, אִשָּׁה שֶׁהֶעֱרִיכָה אִישׁ, אִשָּׁה שֶׁהֶעֱרִיכָה אִשָּׁה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״נְפָשֹׁת״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**I have** derived **only** that this *halakha* applies in a case of **a man who valuated** another, **whether a man or a woman,** as the section begins: “When a man shall clearly utter a vow” (Leviticus 27:2). **From where** is it derived that the *halakha* of valuations also applies to **a woman who valuated a man,** or **a woman who valuated a woman?** The Gemara answers: **The** same **verse states:** “Vow of **persons** to the Lord, according to your valuation,” to include women.


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

דָּבָר אַחֵר: ״נְפָשֹׁת״ — לְרַבּוֹת מְנוָּּול וּמוּכֵּה שְׁחִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Alternatively,** the word **“persons”** serves **to add a repulsive** man **and one afflicted with boils.** If one valuates such a person, he is obligated to give the set amount according to age and sex.


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

שֶׁיָּכוֹל ״נֶדֶר בְּעֶרְכְּךָ״: כֹּל שֶׁיֶּשְׁנוֹ בְּדָמִים — יֶשְׁנוֹ בַּעֲרָכִין, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְּדָמִים — אֵינוֹ בַּעֲרָכִין, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״נְפָשֹׁת״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This derivation is necessary **as** one **might** have thought that since the verse states: **“A vow** of persons to the Lord, **according to your valuation”** (Leviticus 27:2), it is juxtaposing a person who is valuated and one who is the object of a vow. Therefore, **anyone who is** included **in** the category of **assessments,** i.e., one who is obligated to pay his assessment to the Temple if he takes such a vow, **is** also included **in** the category of **valuations.** If he vows to pay his valuation, he must pay. **But anyone who is not** included **in** the category of **assessments is not** included **in** the category of **valuations.** Having no market value, these people are not subject to assessment, and are consequently also not subject to valuation. **The verse,** therefore, **states: “Persons [*nefashot*],”** teaching that anyone who has any amount of life [*nefesh*] is subject to valuation.


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

״וְהָיָה עֶרְכְּךָ״ — לְרַבּוֹת טוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס לְדָמִים, שֶׁיָּכוֹל: נֶדֶר ״בְּעֶרְכְּךָ״ — כֹּל שֶׁיֶּשְׁנוֹ בַּעֲרָכִין יֶשְׁנוֹ בְּדָמִים, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵינוֹ בַּעֲרָכִין אֵינוֹ בְּדָמִים, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהָיָה עֶרְכְּךָ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
A *baraita* teaches that the apparently superfluous phrase: **“Then your valuation shall be”** (Leviticus 27:3), serves **to include a *tumtum* and a hermaphrodite in** the *halakha* of **assessments,** despite the fact that they are not included in the *halakha* of valuations. If one assesses a *tumtum* or a hermaphrodite, he is obligated to give that assessment. The *baraita* explains **that** one **might** have thought that since the verse states: **“A vow** of persons to the Lord, **according to your valuation,” anyone who is** included **in** the category of **valuations is** also included **in** the category of **assessments, but anyone who is not** included **in** the category of **valuations is** also **not** included **in** the category of **assessments.** Therefore, **the verse states: “Then your valuation shall be,”** to include a *tumtum* and a hermaphrodite in the *halakha* of assessment.


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

״הַזָּכָר״ — זָכָר, וְלֹא טוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס. יָכוֹל לֹא יְהוּ בְּעֵרֶךְ אִישׁ, אֲבָל יִהְיוּ בְּעֵרֶךְ אִשָּׁה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהָיָה עֶרְכְּךָ הַזָּכָר... וְאִם נְקֵבָה הִיא״ — זָכָר וַדַּאי, נְקֵבָה וַדָּאִית, וְלֹא טוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: This *halakha*, that a *tumtum* and a hermaphrodite are not included in valuation, is derived from the term: **“The male”** (Leviticus 27:3). The definite article teaches that this *halakha* applies specifically to **a male, and not** to **a *tumtum* or a hermaphrodite.** One **might** have thought that a *tumtum* and a hermaphrodite **should not be** valuated **by** the **valuation of a man, but** they **should be** valuated **by** the **valuation of a woman.** Therefore, **the verse states: “Then your valuation shall be for the male…and if it be a female”** (Leviticus 27:3–4). This teaches that valuation applies only to **a definite male** or **a definite female, but not** to **a *tumtum* or a hermaphrodite,** who are categorized as neither male nor female.


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

אָמַר מָר: ״בְּעֶרְכְּךָ״ — לְרַבּוֹת עֵרֶךְ סָתוּם. מַאי עֵרֶךְ סָתוּם?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Master said** above in the beginning of the *baraita* that the verse: “When a man shall clearly utter a vow of persons to the Lord, **according to your valuation”** (Leviticus 27:2), serves **to include an unspecified valuation.** The Gemara asks: **What** is **an unspecified valuation?**


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

דְּתַנְיָא: הָאוֹמֵר ״עֵרֶךְ סָתוּם עָלַי״ נוֹתֵן כַּפָּחוֹת שֶׁבָּעֲרָכִין, וְכַמָּה פָּחוֹת שֶׁבָּעֲרָכִין? שְׁלֹשֶׁת שְׁקָלִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: **One who says:** It is incumbent **upon me** to donate **an unspecified valuation,** without specifying any particular person, **gives** the amount **of the smallest of the valuations. And how much is the smallest of the valuations?** It is **three shekels,** which is the valuation of a female who is younger than five years old (Leviticus 27:6).


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

וְאֵימָא חֲמִשִּׁים! תָּפַשְׂתָּה מְרוּבֶּה — לֹא תָּפַשְׂתָּה, תָּפַשְׂתָּה מוּעָט — תָּפַשְׂתָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* asks: **And** why not **say** that one who does not specify a person should give **fifty** shekels, which is the largest of the valuations, that of a male between the ages of twenty and sixty (Leviticus 27:3)? The *baraita* answers: This ruling is based on the principle that if **you grasped a lot you did not grasp** anything, but if **you grasped a little, you grasped** something. In other words, if one can derive two sums from the verses, one should choose the smaller number, as it is included within the larger number and is therefore considered certain.


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

וְאֵימָא שֶׁקֶל, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְכׇל עֶרְכְּךָ יִהְיֶה בְּשֶׁקֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ״! הָהוּא בְּהֶשֵּׂג יָד הוּא דִּכְתִיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* asks: **And** why not **say** that smallest of the valuations is one **shekel, as it is written: “And all your valuations shall be according to the shekel of the Sanctuary”** (Leviticus 27:25)? The *baraita* answers: **That** verse **is written with regard to affordability.** If one vows to donate the valuation of a person to the Temple treasury but does not have sufficient funds to fulfill his vow, he must pay at least a shekel.


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

וְאֶלָּא קָרָא לְמָה לִי? אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִידּוֹן בְּהֶשֵּׂג יָד. מַאי טַעְמָא? כִּמְפָרֵשׁ דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** since the payment of three shekels can be derived from the principle of grasping the lesser amount, **why do I** need **the verse** “according to your valuation”? **Rav Naḥman says** that **Rabba bar Avuh says:** The verse is required **to teach that** unlike other valuations, where a person who cannot afford the set amount can fulfill his obligation with one shekel, in the case of an unspecified valuation even a poor person’s obligation **is not determined by affordability,** and he must give at least three shekels. The Gemara asks: **What is the reason** for this? The Gemara answers: It is because it is **considered as though** he **explicitly** vowed that he is obligated to pay three shekels. The principle of affordability applies only to the valuations fixed by the Torah.


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

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: נִידּוֹן בְּהֶשֵּׂג יָד. פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא כִּמְפָרֵשׁ דָּמֵי, קָמַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**There are** those **who say** that **Rav Naḥman says** that **Rabba bar Avuh says** the opposite: The term “according to your valuation” actually teaches that even an unspecified valuation is **determined based on affordability,** and a poor person fulfills his obligation by giving one shekel. The Gemara asks: Isn’t that **obvious?** Why would one think that this case differs from any other valuation? The Gemara answers that the verse is necessary **lest you say** that one who obligates himself in an unspecified valuation is **considered as though** he **articulated** that he is obligated to pay three shekels, and may not pay less. Therefore, this verse **teaches us** that an unspecified valuation is also subject to affordability, like other valuations.


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

דָּבָר אַחֵר: ״בְּעֶרְכְּךָ״ — עֵרֶךְ כּוּלּוֹ הוּא נוֹתֵן, וְאֵינוֹ נוֹתֵן עֵרֶךְ דְּמֵי אֵבָרִים. וְהָא אַפֵּיקְתֵּיהּ לְעֵרֶךְ סְתָם? קְרִי בֵּיהּ ״עֵרֶךְ״ ״בְּעֶרְכְּךָ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It is further stated in the *baraita* cited above: **Alternatively,** the term **“according to your valuation”** teaches that **one gives the valuation of his entire** self **and does not give the valuation of** the **value of limbs.** If one vows that he will give the valuation of a limb, he is not obligated to give anything. The Gemara asks: **But you have** already **derived** from **this** term: “According to your valuation,” the *halakha* of **an unspecified valuation.** How can you then derive another *halakha* from the same source? The Gemara answers: **Read into** this term two sources, as it could have merely written: **“Valuation,”** and instead it wrote: **“According to your valuation.”**


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

יָכוֹל שֶׁאֲנִי מוֹצִיא דָּבָר שֶׁהַנְּשָׁמָה תְּלוּיָה בּוֹ, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״נְפָשֹׁת״, ״נְפָשֹׁת״ — וְלֹא אֶת הַמֵּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* adds: One **might** have thought **that I** should **exclude** even the valuation of **an item upon which the soul is dependent,** without which one will die, e.g., the head. 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. In addition, we derive from **“persons”** that one is obligated to pay only the valuation of a live person, **and not** the valuation of **the dead.**


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

וְהָא אַפֵּיקְתֵּיהּ! קְרִי בֵּיהּ ״נֶפֶשׁ״, ״נְפָשֹׁת״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But you have** already **derived** from **this** term: “Persons [*nefashot*],” that one who valuates a limb upon which the soul [*nefesh*] is dependent is obligated to give the valuation of his entire self. The Gemara answers: **Read into** the verse two derivations, as it could have merely written: **Person,** and instead it wrote: **Persons.**


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

אוֹצִיא אֶת הַמֵּת, וְלֹא אוֹצִיא אֶת הַגּוֹסֵס? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהָעֲמִיד וְהֶעֱרִיךְ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: Perhaps **I should exclude** only **the dead** from valuation, as they no longer possess life [*nefesh*], **but I should not exclude a moribund** person, as he is still alive. 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 included in the category of setting, i.e., who can stand, is included in the *halakha* of valuation. But one who is on his deathbed is not included in the *halakha* of valuation.


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

אִי הָכִי, מֵת נָמֵי תִּיפּוֹק לִי מִ״וְּהֶעֱמִיד וְהֶעֱרִיךְ״? הָכִי נָמֵי! וְאֶלָּא, ״נֶפֶשׁ״ ״נְפָשֹׁת״ לְמָה לִי? כִּדְבָעֵינַן לְמֵימַר קַמַּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so, let me also derive** that the **dead** are not subject to valuation **from** the same verse: **“Then he shall be set** before the priest, **and** the priest **shall value** him,” as the dead cannot stand. Why do I need to derive this *halakha* from the fact that the verse wrote: “Persons,” instead of person? The Gemara answers that **so too,** this is correct, i.e., the *halakha* with regard to the dead is derived from that same verse. **But** if that is the case, **why do I** need the derivation based on the difference between **person** and **“persons”?** The Gemara answers that this teaches a different *halakha*, **as we are about to state below,** i.e., to add a repulsive man and one afflicted with boils.


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

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues its review of the *baraita*: **Alternatively,** as the verse states: **“Persons,”** in the plural, it is expounded as follows. Were the verse to have written only: 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, this is also an effective evaluation? Thefore, **the verse states: “Persons,”** in the plural.


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

דָּבָר אַחֵר, ״נְפָשֹׁת״ — אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אִישׁ שֶׁהֶעֱרִיךְ, בֵּין אִישׁ בֵּין אִשָּׁה, אִשָּׁה שֶׁהֶעֱרִיכָה אִישׁ, וְאִשָּׁה שֶׁהֶעֱרִיכָה אִשָּׁה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״נְפָשֹׁת״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **Alternatively,** one can expound the plural form of **“persons”** as follows: Were the verse to have written only: A person, one might have said that **I can** derive **only** that this *halakha* applies to **a man who valuates** anyone, **whether a man or a woman,** as the section begins: “When a man clearly utters a vow” (Leviticus 27:2). **From where** is it derived that the *halakha* of valuations also applies to **a woman who valuated a man, or a woman who valuated a woman? The** same **verse states:** “Vow of **persons** to the Lord, according to your valuation” (Leviticus 27:2), to include women.


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

דָּבָר אַחֵר: ״נְפָשֹׁת״ — לְהָבִיא מְנוָּּול וּמוּכֵּה שְׁחִין. וְהָא אַפֵּיקְתֵּיהּ לְהָנָךְ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **Alternatively,** the word **“persons”** serves **to add a repulsive** man **and one afflicted with boils.** The Gemara asks: **But you have** already **derived** the *halakha* of **these** cases, i.e., one who valuated a hundred men or a woman who valuated, from “persons.” How, then, can you derive the *halakha* of a repulsive man and one afflicted with boils from this same word?


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

הָנָךְ לָא צְרִיכִי קְרָא, מַאי טַעְמָא? כִּי שָׁקוּל הוּא, וְיָבוֹאוּ כּוּלָּם כִּי אִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא, לִמְנוָּּול וּמוּכֵּה שְׁחִין הוּא דְּאִצְטְרִיךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **These do not require** another **verse. What is the reason?** Each of these *halakhot* **is equivalent** to the others, i.e., each derivation from the word: Person, is equally valid. It teaches that one may valuate a limb that is vital to a person, that both men and women may take a vow of valuation, and that one may vow to give the valuation of multiple people. There is no reason to prefer one of these derivations over the others. **And** therefore, **all of them are derived** from the word: Person. **When the verse,** i.e., the plural term “persons,” **is required,** it **is required** only **to** include **a repulsive man and one afflicted with boils.**


###### Arakhin 4b:21
[Arakhin 4b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/4b:21)

וְהָיָה עֶרְכְּךָ — לְרַבּוֹת טוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס לְדָמִים. דָּמִים לְמָה לִי קְרָא? לֹא יְהֵא אֶלָּא דְּמֵי דִיקְלָא, אִילּוּ אָמַר ״דְּמֵי דִיקְלָא״ מִי לָא יָהֵיב?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The *baraita* also teaches that the phrase: **“Then your valuation shall be”** (Leviticus 27:2), serves **to include a *tumtum* and a hermaphrodite in** the *halakha* of **assessments,** despite the fact that they are not included in the *halakha* of valuations. The Gemara asks: **Why do I** need **a verse** to include them in the *halakha* of **assessments?** Even **let** this **be** considered **only** like the **assessment of a tree; were** one to **say: The assessment of** that **tree** is incumbent upon me, **is he not** obligated to **give** its assessment?


###### Arakhin 4b:22
[Arakhin 4b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/4b:22)

אָמַר רָבָא: לוֹמַר שֶׁנִּידּוֹן בִּכְבוֹדוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said:** The verse serves **to say that** a *tumtum* and a hermaphrodite are **assessed by** the **significance** of the body part that one specified. If one vowed to give a vital part of his body, he is not merely obligated to pay the value of that organ but must give the value of his entire body.


###### Arakhin 4b:23
[Arakhin 4b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/4b:23)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
As it might **enter your mind to say** that since **it is written** in the verse: **“A vow** of persons to the Lord, **according to your valuation,”** a person who is valuated is juxtaposed to one who is the object of a vow of assessments. Therefore, **anyone who is** included **in** the category of **valuations is** also included **in** the *halakha* of being **assessed by** the **significance** of the body part that he specifies. **But anyone who is not** included **in** the category of **valuations,** such as a *tumtum* and a hermaphrodite, **is not** included **in** the *halakha* of being **assessed by** the **significance** of the body part that he specifies. Therefore, the verse teaches that although a *tumtum* and a hermaphrodite are not included in valuations, they are nevertheless included in the *halakha* of being assessed by the significance of the body part in question.


###### Arakhin 4b:24
[Arakhin 4b:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/4b:24)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וּדְלָא אִיתֵיהּ בַּעֲרָכִין, מִי נִידּוֹן בִּכְבוֹדוֹ? וְהָתַנְיָא: ״רֹאשׁ עֶבֶד זֶה הֶקְדֵּשׁ״ הוּא וְהֶקְדֵּשׁ שׁוּתָּפִין בּוֹ, ״רֹאשׁ עֶבֶד מָכוּר לְךָ״ מְשַׁמְּנִין בֵּינֵיהֶם, ״רֹאשׁ חֲמוֹר זֶה הֶקְדֵּשׁ״ הוּא וְהֶקְדֵּשׁ שׁוּתָּפִין בּוֹ, ״רֹאשׁ חֲמוֹר מָכוּר לָךְ״ מְשַׁמְּנִין בֵּינֵיהֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to** Rava: **And is it true** that one who **is not** included **in valuations is** nevertheless **assessed by** the **significance** of the body part that he specifies? **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* that if one says: The **head of this slave** is **consecrated property, he and the Temple** treasury are **partners in** the entire slave. Similarly, if one says to another: The **head of** this **slave** is **sold to you,** they **appraise** the slave and split the value **between them.** Likewise, if one says: The **head of this donkey** is **consecrated property, he and the Temple** treasury are **partners in** the donkey. And if one says to another: The **head of** this **donkey** is **sold to you,** they **appraise** the donkey and split the value **between them.**


###### Arakhin 4b:25
[Arakhin 4b:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/4b:25)

״רֹאשׁ פָּרָה מָכוּר לְךָ״ — לֹא מָכַר אֶלָּא רֹאשָׁהּ שֶׁל פָּרָה. וְלֹא עוֹד, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ: ״רֹאשׁ פָּרָה הֶקְדֵּשׁ״ אֵין לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ אֶלָּא רֹאשָׁהּ. וְאָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: דְּהָא מִזְדַּבַּן רֵישָׁא דְתוֹרָא בְּבֵי טַבָּחָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
But if one says to another: The **head of** this **cow** is **sold to you,** he has **sold him only the head of the cow. Moreover, even** if he says: The **head of** this **cow** is **consecrated property, the Temple** treasury **has** ownership **only** of the cow’s **head. And Rav Pappa said:** This difference between these cases is **due to** the fact **that** the **head of an ox is sold** independently **in the butcher shop.**


###### Arakhin 4b:26
[Arakhin 4b:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/4b:26)

וְהָא חֲמוֹר וּפָרָה לֵיתַנְהוּ בַּעֲרָכִין, וְאֵין נִידּוֹן בִּכְבוֹדוֹ! וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, תִּיקְשֵׁי לָךְ עֶבֶד, דְּאִיתֵיהּ בַּעֲרָכִין, וְאֵין נִידּוֹן בִּכְבוֹדוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye explains the difficulty that arises from this *baraita*: **But isn’t** it the *halakha* that **a donkey and a cow** are **not** included **in valuations, and** therefore are **not assessed by** the **significance** of the body part that is mentioned? If one consecrated their heads, their entire body is not consecrated. **Rava said to** Abaye: **And according to your reasoning,** that the *halakha* of assessment by the significance of the specified body part is contingent on inclusion in valuations, the case of **a slave should pose a difficulty for you:** A slave **is** included **in** the *halakha* of **valuations,** as stated in the mishna, **and** yet the *baraita* teaches that he is **not assessed by** the **significance** of the body part that is specified.


###### Arakhin 4b:27
[Arakhin 4b:27](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/4b:27)

אֶלָּא לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בְּקׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ, הָא בְּקׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** this is **not difficult. This** *baraita*, which states that in the case of a slave or donkey the head alone is consecrated, is referring **to items consecrated** in order to purchase offerings for **the altar.** On the other hand, **that** *baraita*, which rules that in the case of a *tumtum* one must pay his entire value, is referring **to items consecrated for Temple maintenance.** In such a case, it is assessed by the significance of the body part that is specified. Here we follow the paradigm of valuation, whose payment is also used for Temple maintenance.


###### Arakhin 4b:28
[Arakhin 4b:28](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/4b:28)

בְּמַאי אוֹקֵימְתַּהּ, בְּקׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבַּח? אֵימָא סֵיפָא: וְלֹא עוֹד, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ אָמַר ״רֹאשׁ פָּרָה זוֹ הֶקְדֵּשׁ״ — אֵין לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ אֶלָּא רֹאשָׁהּ. אַמַּאי? תִּפְשׁוֹט קְדוּשָּׁה בְּכוּלַּהּ! מִי לָא תַּנְיָא: הָאוֹמֵר

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **In what** manner **did you interpret** the *baraita* that discusses consecrating the head of a slave? You interpreted it **as** dealing with a case of **items consecrated** in order to purchase offerings for **the altar.** But if so, **say the latter clause: Moreover, even** if he **says:** The **head of this cow** is **consecrated property, the Temple** treasury **has** ownership **only** of the cow’s **head.** According to this interpretation, that it is referring to items consecrated for the altar, **why** is the head alone consecrated? **Let** its **sanctity spread throughout the entire** cow. **Isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: In a case where **one says:**