## Arakhin Daf 5a

###### Arakhin 5a:1
[Arakhin 5a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/5a:1)

״רַגְלָהּ שֶׁל זוֹ עוֹלָה״ — יָכוֹל תְּהֵא כּוּלָּהּ עוֹלָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״כֹּל אֲשֶׁר יִתֵּן מִמֶּנּוּ לַה׳ יִהְיֶה קֹּדֶשׁ״ — מִמֶּנּוּ קוֹדֶשׁ וְלֹא כּוּלָּהּ קוֹדֶשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The leg of this** animal **is a burnt offering,** one **might** have thought that **all of** the animal **will be a burnt offering.** Therefore, **the verse states:** “And if it is an animal of those that they bring as an offering to the Lord, **anything of it that one gives to the Lord, it shall be sacred”** (Leviticus 27:9). The verse indicates that the part **of it** that one gives will be **sacred, but not all of** the animal will be **sacred.**


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

יָכוֹל תֵּצֵא לְחוּלִּין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״יִהְיֶה״ — בַּהֲוָיָיתָהּ תְּהֵא. הָא כֵּיצַד? תִּמָּכֵר לְצוֹרְכֵי עוֹלוֹת, וְדָמֶיהָ חוּלִּין, חוּץ מִדְּמֵי אוֹתוֹ אֵבֶר שֶׁבָּהּ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
A non-sacred animal with a consecrated limb may not be sacrificed. Accordingly, one **might** have thought that the consecrated limb may be redeemed and thereby **transferred to non-sacred** status. Therefore **the verse states: “Shall be,”** meaning: **It shall be as it is,** i.e., the limb remains consecrated. **How** is **this** possible, i.e., what should one do in this case? The animal **should be sold for the needs of burnt offerings,** i.e., to an individual who will sacrifice the entire animal as a burnt offering, **and the payment** received **for** the animal will be **non-sacred, except for the payment** received in exchange **for that limb of it** that was consecrated. This is **the statement of Rabbi Meir.**


###### Arakhin 5a:3
[Arakhin 5a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/5a:3)

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמְרִים: מִנַּיִן לָאוֹמֵר ״רַגְלָהּ שֶׁל זוֹ עוֹלָה״, שֶׁכּוּלָּהּ עוֹלָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כֹּל אֲשֶׁר יִתֵּן מִמֶּנּוּ לַה׳ יִהְיֶה קֹּדֶשׁ״, לְרַבּוֹת אֶת כּוּלָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say: From where** is it derived **that** in the case of **one who says: The leg of this** animal **is a burnt offering, all of** the animal **becomes a burnt offering? The verse states: “All that any man give of such to the Lord shall be holy”** (Leviticus 27:9). The term “shall be” serves **to include all of** the animal, indicating that it all becomes sacred.


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

וַאֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵין כּוּלָּהּ עוֹלָה, הָנֵי מִילֵּי דְּאַקְדֵּישׁ דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין הַנְּשָׁמָה תְּלוּיָה בּוֹ, אֲבָל דָּבָר שֶׁהַנְּשָׁמָה תְּלוּיָה בּוֹ — קָדְשָׁה כּוּלָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And even according to the one,** Rabbi Meir, **who says** that if one states: The leg of this animal is a burnt offering, **not all of** the animal **is a burnt offering, that statement** applies only **if** one **consecrated an item that its life does not depend** on, e.g., its leg. **But** if he consecrated **an item that its life depends** on, such as its head, **the entire** animal is **consecrated.** This presents a difficulty for Rava, who holds that the *baraita* that discusses consecration of the head is referring to items consecrated in order to purchase offerings for the altar. Why, then, isn’t the entire animal consecrated?


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

אֶלָּא, לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בִּקְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף, הָא בִּקְדוּשַּׁת דָּמִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava responds: **Rather,** both *baraitot* are referring to items consecrated for the altar, and even so it is **not difficult. This** *baraita*, which indicates that if one consecrated the head the entire animal is consecrated, is referring **to inherent sanctity,** i.e., where he consecrated the head for the purpose of sacrificing it on the altar. **That** *baraita*, which teaches that if he consecrated the head it alone is consecrated, is referring **to sanctity** that inheres in its **value,** that is, where he consecrated the head for the sake of purchasing offerings.


###### Arakhin 5a:6
[Arakhin 5a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/5a:6)

וְהָא מָר הוּא דְּאָמַר: מַקְדִּישׁ זָכָר לְדָמָיו — קָדוֹשׁ קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye responded: **But wasn’t it** you, **Master, who said** that if one **consecrated a male** animal **for its value,** it is **sanctified** with **inherent sanctity** and it is itself sacrificed? This undermines the distinction that Rava is attempting to draw between inherent sanctity and sanctity that inheres in value.


###### Arakhin 5a:7
[Arakhin 5a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/5a:7)

לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא דְּאַקְדֵּישׁ כּוּלָּהּ, הָא דְּאַקְדֵּישׁ חַד אֵבֶר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava responds: It is **not difficult. This** statement, that an animal that was consecrated for its value attains inherent sanctity, applies only in a case **where he consecrated the entire** animal. **There,** in the *baraita* discussing the consecration of the head, it is referring to a situation **where he consecrated** only **one limb.** In such a case, the animal does not attain inherent sanctity.


###### Arakhin 5a:8
[Arakhin 5a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/5a:8)

חַד אֵבֶר נָמֵי אִיבְּעוֹיֵי אִיבַּעְיָא לַן, דְּבָעֵי רַבָּה: הִקְדִּישׁ אֵבֶר לְדָמָיו, מַהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye replied: Actually, **we also raised a dilemma** with regard to a case where one consecrated only **one limb. As Rabba raised a dilemma:** If one **consecrated a limb for its value** in order to bring an offering with the proceeds, **what is** the *halakha* as to whether or not the entire animal is consecrated? If your interpretation of the *baraita* is correct, Rabba can resolve his question based on the *baraita* and conclude definitively that the entire animal is not sanctified for the altar.


###### Arakhin 5a:9
[Arakhin 5a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/5a:9)

כִּי אִיבְּעִי לַן בְּתָם, הָכָא בְּבַעַל מוּם, דּוּמְיָא דַּחֲמוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava responded: **We raised** this **dilemma** and entertained the possibility that the entire animal might be sanctified to the altar only **in** a case where the animal is **unblemished,** and is therefore fit to be used as an offering. But **here,** the *baraita* is referring **to a blemished** animal, **similar to** the parallel case of the **donkey,** which is unfit to be sacrificed. Since the animal in question is unfit for the altar, it is clear that the entire animal is not sanctified.


###### Arakhin 5a:10
[Arakhin 5a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/5a:10)

בַּעַל מוּם נָמֵי אִיבְּעוֹיֵי אִיבַּעְיָא לַן, דְּבָעֵי רַבָּה: ״דְּמֵי רֹאשִׁי לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ״ מַהוּ? כִּי אִבַּעְיָא לָן מִקַּמֵּי דְּאֶשְׁמְעַהּ לְהָא מַתְנִיתָא, הַשְׁתָּא דְּשַׁמְעַהּ הָא מַתְנִיתָא — לָא מִיבַּעְיָא לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye responded: In fact, **we also raised a dilemma** with regard to a case where the animal is **blemished** and unfit to be sacrificed. **As Rabba raised a dilemma:** If one said: It is incumbent upon me to donate the **value of my head** to purchase offerings **to** be sacrificed **on the altar, what is** the *halakha*? Is he obligated in his entire value or not? A person is certainly not fit to be an offering, and yet Rabba does not resolve his question based on the *baraita*. Rava answered: **We** only **raised** this **dilemma before hearing this *baraita*. Now that we** have **heard this *baraita*, we no** longer **raise** this **dilemma,** as we concluded from the *baraita* that the entirety of the animal is not consecrated.


###### Arakhin 5a:11
[Arakhin 5a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/5a:11)

גּוּפָא, בָּעֵי רַבָּה: ״דְּמֵי רֹאשִׁי לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ״ מַהוּ? נִידּוֹן בִּכְבוֹדוֹ, אוֹ אֵינוֹ נִידּוֹן בִּכְבוֹדוֹ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara returns to **the** aforementioned matter itself. **Rabba raised a dilemma:** If one said: It is incumbent upon me to donate the **value of my head** to purchase offerings **to** be sacrificed **on the altar, what is** the *halakha*? Is it **assessed by** the **significance** of the body part in question, and since he consecrated a vital organ he is obligated in his entire value? **Or** perhaps it is **not assessed by** the **significance** of the body part in question, and only the head is consecrated.


###### Arakhin 5a:12
[Arakhin 5a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/5a:12)

לָא אַשְׁכְּחַן בְּדָמִים דְּאֵינוֹ נִידּוֹן בִּכְבוֹדוֹ, אוֹ דִלְמָא לָא אַשְׁכְּחַן לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ דְּנִידּוֹן בִּכְבוֹדוֹ? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the underlying issue: It can be argued that **we have not found** a case **of assessments that** is **not assessed by** the **significance** of the body part that was specified. Therefore, if one obligated himself in the value of a vital organ he should have to pay the entity’s entire value. **Or perhaps** he should be obligated only in the value of the head, as **we have not found** a case **of** an animal that is sacrificed **on the altar that** is **assessed by** the **significance** of the body part in question, i.e., that if one consecrates the value of one vital organ the entire animal is consecrated. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma **shall stand [*teiku*]** unresolved.


###### Arakhin 5a:13
[Arakhin 5a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/5a:13)

בָּעֵי רָבָא: ״עֶרְכִּי עָלַי לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ״ מַהוּ? נִידּוֹן בְּהֶשֵּׂג יָד, אוֹ אֵין נִידּוֹן בְּהֶשֵּׂג יָד?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava raised** a further **dilemma:** If one said: It is incumbent **upon me** to donate **my valuation for the altar,** rather than for Temple maintenance, as is usually the case, **what is** the *halakha*? Is this case **determined based on affordability** if he is poor, like regular valuations? **Or** perhaps it is **not determined based on affordability,** and he is obligated in the full valuation even if he is poor.


###### Arakhin 5a:14
[Arakhin 5a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/5a:14)

לָא אַשְׁכְּחַן בַּעֲרָכִין דְּאֵין נִידּוֹן בְּהֶשֵּׂג יָד, אוֹ דִלְמָא לָא אַשְׁכְּחַן לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ דְּמִיפְּרִיק אֶלָּא בְּשׇׁוְיוֹ? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the sides of the dilemma: One can argue that **we have not found** a case **of valuations that is not determined based on affordability.** Therefore, the principle of affordability should apply even when one vows for the purpose of sacrificing offerings on the altar. **Or perhaps** this case should not be determined based on affordability, as **we have not found** an item that is consecrated for the purpose of sacrificing offerings **on the altar that** is **redeemed** in a manner **other than according to its value.** The Gemara again concludes: The dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Arakhin 5a:15
[Arakhin 5a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/5a:15)

בָּעֵי רַב אָשֵׁי: הִקְדִּישׁ שְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ, מַהוּ? מִי אָמְרִינַן: לָא אַשְׁכְּחַן שְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה דְּמִיפָּרְקָא אֶלָּא ״בֵּית זֶרַע חוֹמֶר שְׂעוֹרִים בַּחֲמִשִּׁים שֶׁקֶל כָּסֶף״, אוֹ דִלְמָא לָא אַשְׁכְּחַן לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ דְּמִיפְּרִיק אֶלָּא בְּשׇׁוְיוֹ? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi raised** a similar **dilemma:** If a person **consecrated an ancestral field for** the purpose of sacrificing offerings **on the altar,** rather than for Temple maintenance, as is usually the case, **what is** the *halakha*? **Do we say** that **we have not found** a case of **an ancestral field that is redeemed other than** by the standard rate established by the Torah, which is that **an area** fit **for the sowing of a *ḥomer*,** a *kor*, of **barley seed** is redeemed **for fifty silver shekels? Or perhaps** it should be redeemed according to its market value, as **we have not found** a case of an item that is consecrated for the purpose of sacrificing offerings **on the altar that** is **redeemed** in a manner **other than according to its value.** Once again, the Gemara states: The dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Arakhin 5a:16
[Arakhin 5a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/5a:16)

**מַתְנִי׳** פָּחוֹת מִבֶּן חֹדֶשׁ נִידָּר, אֲבָל לֹא נֶעֱרָךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** A child **less than one month old is** the object of **a vow** if others vowed to donate his assessment, **but is not valuated** if one vowed to donate his fixed value, as the Torah did not establish a value for anyone less than a month old.


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

**גְּמָ׳** תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַמַּעֲרִיךְ פָּחוֹת מִבֶּן חֹדֶשׁ, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: נוֹתֵן דָּמָיו, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to a case of **one who takes** a vow of **valuation** concerning a child **less than one month old, Rabbi Meir says:** The person who valuated is obligated to **give** the child’s **assessment. The Rabbis say: He has said nothing,** i.e., he is not obligated to give anything.


###### Arakhin 5a:18
[Arakhin 5a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/5a:18)

בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? רַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: אֵין אָדָם מוֹצִיא דְּבָרָיו לְבַטָּלָה, יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאֵין עֲרָכִין לְפָחוֹת מִבֶּן חֹדֶשׁ, וְגָמַר וְאָמַר לְשֵׁם דָּמִים; וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: אָדָם מוֹצִיא דְּבָרָיו לְבַטָּלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **With regard to what** principle do they **disagree? Rabbi Meir holds: A person does not issue his statement** of consecration **for naught.** The assumption is that a person **knows that there are no valuations for** a child **less than one month old, and** therefore **he intended and said** his statement **for the sake of assessments,** i.e., he meant to vow to give the child’s market value. **And the Rabbis hold** that **a person does make his statement** of consecration **for naught.** Therefore, his statement is taken at face value, and he is not obligated to give anything.


###### Arakhin 5a:19
[Arakhin 5a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/5a:19)

כְּמַאן אָזְלָא הָא דְּאָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל אָמַר רַב: הָאוֹמֵר ״עֵרֶךְ כְּלִי עָלַי״ נוֹתֵן דָּמִים — כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר. פְּשִׁיטָא דִּכְרַבִּי מֵאִיר אַתְיָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **In accordance with whose** opinion **is that which Rav Giddel says** that **Rav says: One who says:** It is incumbent **upon me** to donate the **valuation of** this **utensil,** is obligated to **give its assessment?** It is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir,** who holds that a person does not issue a statement of consecration for naught. Since utensils are not subject to valuation, he presumably intended to obligate himself in its assessment. The Gemara asks: Isn’t it **obvious that** Rav’s statement **is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir?** Why was it necessary for the Gemara to state this?


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

מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא, אֲפִילּוּ כְּרַבָּנַן, הָתָם הוּא דְּטָעֵי, סָבַר: כִּי הֵיכִי דְּאִיכָּא עֲרָכִין לְבֶן חוֹדֶשׁ, אִיכָּא נָמֵי לְפָחוֹת מִבֶּן חוֹדֶשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains that it was necessary to state that Rav’s statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, **lest you say** that it is **even in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis,** who exempt one who valuates a child under a month old. The Gemara elaborates: One could say that **it is** only **there,** in the case of the child, **that one errs** and **thinks** that **just as there are valuations for** a child who is **one month old,** there are **also** valuations **for** a child **less than one month old.** Since his vow was based on an error, he is not obligated to pay anything.


###### Arakhin 5a:21
[Arakhin 5a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/5a:21)

אֲבָל הָכָא דְּלֵיכָּא לְמִיטְעֵי, וַדַּאי אָדָם יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאֵין עֵרֶךְ לִכְלִי, וְגָמַר וְאָמַר לְשֵׁם דָּמִים, קָמַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But here,** in the case of one who valuates a utensil, **where there is no** possibility **of erring,** it can be argued that **a person certainly knows that there is no valuation for a utensil, and he** therefore **intended and said** his statement **for the sake of assessments,** i.e., he meant to vow to donate the utensil’s value. Therefore, the Gemara **teaches us** that Rav’s statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir only, and not with that of the Rabbis. The Rabbis hold that a person does issue a statement of consecration for naught even in such a case, and therefore his declaration is taken at face value.