## Arakhin Daf 5b

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

וּלְרַבִּי מֵאִיר לְמַאי אִיצְטְרִיךְ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** as Rav stated his *halakha* **in accordance with Rabbi Meir,** who says that one who valuates a child less than a month old must pay his assessment, **for what** reason **was it necessary** for Rav to state his ruling? Isn’t this obvious?


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

מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר הָתָם, דְּגָזַר פָּחוֹת מִבֶּן חוֹדֶשׁ אַטּוּ בֶּן חוֹדֶשׁ, אֲבָל הָכָא דְּלֵיכָּא לְמִיגְזַר — אֵימָא לָא. קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר דְּאֵין אָדָם מוֹצִיא דְּבָרָיו לְבַטָּלָה, לָא שְׁנָא הָכָא וְלָא שְׁנָא הָכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It was necessary for him to state this *halakha*, **lest you say** that the **reason that Rabbi Meir** obligates him to pay the assessment **there,** in the case of the child, is **that** he **decrees** one must pay if the child is **less than a month old, due to** concern that otherwise people might mistakenly refrain from paying the valuation of a child who is **a month old. But here,** in the case of one who valuates a utensil, **where** there is no cause for such an error and therefore **no** need **to decree,** one might **say** that Rabbi Meir would **not** obligate him to pay. Therefore, Rav **teaches us** that since the **reason of Rabbi Meir** is that **a person does not make his statement** of consecration **for naught,** there **is no difference** between **here,** the case of a child, **and there,** with regard to a utensil. Rather, the *halakha* is the same in both cases.


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

כְּמַאן אָזְלָא הָא דְּאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַב, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ אָמַר רַב יֵיבָא בַּר יוֹסֵי אָמַר רַב: הַמַּקְדִּישׁ בֶּהֱמַת חֲבֵירוֹ נוֹתֵן דָּמֶיהָ? כְּמַאן — כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **In accordance with whose** opinion **is that which Rabba bar Yosef says** that **Rav says, and some say** that **Rav Yeiva bar Yosei says** that **Rav says: One who consecrates the animal of another** must **give its assessment. In accordance with whom?** It is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir,** that one does not issue a statement of consecration for naught. Since he knows that he cannot consecrate that which is not his, he meant to obligate himself in the animal’s assessment.


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

הָא אַמְרַהּ רַב חֲדָא זִימְנָא, דְּאָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל אָמַר רַב: הָאוֹמֵר ״עֵרֶךְ כְּלִי עָלַי״ נוֹתֵן דָּמָיו! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא הָתָם הוּא דְּיוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאֵין עֵרֶךְ לִכְלִי, וְגָמַר וְאָמַר לְשֵׁם דָּמִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But didn’t Rav** already **say** it **once? As Rav Giddel says** that **Rav says: One who says:** It is incumbent **upon me** to donate the **valuation of a utensil,** must **give its assessment.** The Gemara answers: Rav found it necessary to issue both statements, **lest you say** that this *halakha* applies only **there,** with regard to a utensil, **as** a person **knows that a utensil has no valuation,** i.e., that the term: Valuation, is not relevant to a utensil, **and** therefore it must be that he **decided** to donate money **and says** this expression as a reference **to** its monetary **value,** using the term: Valuation, imprecisely.


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

אֲבָל בְּהֵמָה, דְּבַת מִיקְדַּשׁ הִיא, אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר דְּהָכִי קָאָמַר: אִי אָמֵינָא לֵהּ לְמַרַּהּ מְזַבֵּין לַהּ נִיהֲלִי, תִּיקְדּוֹשׁ לַהּ מֵהַשְׁתָּא וְאַקְרְבַהּ, אֲבָל דְּמֵי לָא קָאָמַר, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But** in the case where one obligated himself in the valuation of another’s **animal, which is subject to consecration,** albeit not by him, **there is** room **to say that this** is what he **is saying** to himself: **Were I to say to the owner** that I want to buy it, **he would sell it to me.** Therefore, **let it be consecrated from now, and I will sacrifice it** once I purchase it from him. His intent is to consecrate the animal itself in order to sacrifice it. **But** since he did **not say** to himself that he would give its **assessment,** his statement is meaningless, as one cannot consecrate property that does not belong to him. Therefore, Rav **teaches us** that this is not the case. Rather, his statement should be interpreted in such a manner that he is obligated to give the assessment of the animal to the Temple treasury.


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

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: וְהוּא דְּאָמַר ״עָלַי״, אֲבָל אָמַר ״הֲרֵי זוֹ״ — לֹא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi says: And** Rav’s ruling applies only in a case **where** one **says: It is** incumbent **upon me** to donate to the Temple treasury. **But** if he **says: This** animal **is** consecrated, he is **not** obligated to pay its assessment. This formulation clearly indicates that he intended to consecrate this animal, which he cannot do, as it does not yet belong to him.


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

**מַתְנִי׳** נָכְרִי — רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: נֶעֱרָךְ, אֲבָל לֹא מַעֲרִיךְ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מַעֲרִיךְ, אֲבָל לֹא נֶעֱרָךְ. וְזֶה וָזֶה מוֹדִים שֶׁנּוֹדְרִין וְנִידָּרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to **a gentile, Rabbi Meir says:** He **is valuated** in a case where a Jew says: It is incumbent upon me to donate the fixed value of this gentile. **But** a gentile **does not take** a vow of **valuation** to donate his fixed value or the value of others. **Rabbi Yehuda says: He takes** a vow of **valuation, but is not valuated. And** both **this** *tanna*, Rabbi Meir, **and that** *tanna*, Rabbi Yehuda, **agree that** gentiles **vow** to donate the assessment of another **and are** the object of **vows,** whereby one donates the assessment of a gentile.


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

**גְּמָ׳** תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מַעֲרִיכִין וְאֵין הַגּוֹיִם מַעֲרִיכִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **The Sages taught** the following in a *baraita* that deals with the reasoning for the rulings of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda. It is written in the beginning of the passage in the Torah delineating valuations: “Speak to the children of Israel” (Leviticus 27:2). This teaches that **“the children of Israel” can take** a vow of **valuation, but gentiles cannot take** a vow of **valuation.**


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

יָכוֹל לֹא יְהוּ נֶעֱרָכִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אִישׁ״, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
One **might** have thought that this means that gentiles **cannot be** the object **of a valuation** either. Therefore, **the verse states** the inclusive expression: “When **a man** shall clearly utter a vow of persons to the Lord, according to your valuation” (Leviticus 27:2), to teach that in this regard, every “man,” even a gentile, is included in *halakhot* of valuations. This is **the statement of Rabbi Meir.**


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

אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר: וְכִי מֵאַחַר שֶׁמִּקְרָא אֶחָד מְרַבֶּה וּמִקְרָא אֶחָד מְמַעֵט, מִפְּנֵי מָה אֲנִי אוֹמֵר נֶעֱרָךְ וְלֹא מַעֲרִיךְ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Meir says** in explanation of his opinion: **Since one verse,** “a man,” **includes** gentiles, **and another verse,** “the children of Israel,” **excludes** gentiles, **for what** reason **do I say** that a gentile **can be** the object **of a valuation but cannot take** a vow of **valuation,** rather than the reverse?


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

מִפְּנֵי שֶׁרִיבָּה הַכָּתוּב בַּנֶּעֱרָכִין יוֹתֵר מִבַּמַּעֲרִיכִין, שֶׁהֲרֵי חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן נֶעֱרָךְ, אֲבָל לֹא מַעֲרִיכִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It is **due to** the fact **that the verse included more** people **in** the category of those **who are** the object **of a valuation than in** the category of those **who take** a vow of **valuation. As** the mishna teaches (2a): **A deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor** are the object of a vow and **are valuated, but** they can neither vow to donate the assessment of a person **nor take** a vow of **valuation.**


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

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל נֶעֱרָכִין וְאֵין הַגּוֹיִם נֶעֱרָכִין; יָכוֹל לֹא יְהוּ מַעֲרִיכִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אִישׁ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yehuda says** that the verses should be interpreted in the reverse manner: **“The children of Israel,” can be** the object **of a valuation but gentiles cannot be** the object **of a valuation.** One **might** have thought that gentiles **cannot take** a vow of **valuation** either. Therefore, **the verse states** the inclusive expression: **“A man”** (Leviticus 27:2), to teach that in this regard, every “man,” even a gentile, is included in the *halakha* of valuations.


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

אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: וְכִי מֵאַחַר שֶׁמִּקְרָא אֶחָד מְרַבֶּה וּמִקְרָא אֶחָד מְמַעֵט, מִפְּנֵי מָה אֲנִי אוֹמֵר נָכְרִי מַעֲרִיךְ וְלֹא נֶעֱרָךְ? מִפְּנֵי שֶׁרִיבָּה הַכָּתוּב בַּמַּעֲרִיכִין יוֹתֵר מִבַּנֶּעְרָכִין, שֶׁהֲרֵי טוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס מַעֲרִיכִין אֲבָל לֹא נֶעֱרָכִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yehuda says: Since one verse,** “a man,” **includes** gentiles, **and another verse,** “the children of Israel,” **excludes** gentiles, **for what** reason **do I say** that **a gentile can take** a vow of **a valuation but cannot be** the object **of a valuation?** It is **due to** the fact **that the verse included more** people **in** the category of those **who take** a vow of **valuation than in** the category of those **who are** the object **of a valuation. As** the mishna teaches (2a): **A *tumtum* and a hermaphrodite** vow, are the object of a vow, and **take** vows of **valuation, but they are not valuated.**


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

אָמַר רָבָא: הִלְכְתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר מִסְתַּבְּרָא, טַעְמֵיהּ לָא מִסְתַּבְּרָא, טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מִסְתַּבְּרָא, הִלְכְתֵיהּ לָא מִסְתַּבְּרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says: Rabbi Meir’s *halakha* is reasonable,** but **his explanation is not reasonable.** Conversely, **Rabbi Yehuda’s explanation is reasonable,** but **his *halakha* is not reasonable.**


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

הִלְכְתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דִּכְתִיב: ״לֹא לָכֶם וָלָנוּ לִבְנוֹת אֶת בֵּית אֱלֹהֵינוּ״, טַעְמֵיהּ לָא מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּקָא מַיְיתֵי לֵיהּ מֵחֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן, שָׁאנֵי חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן דְּלָאו בְּנֵי דֵעָה נִינְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava elaborates: **Rabbi Meir’s *halakha*** that gentiles cannot take a valuation vow **is reasonable, as it is written** that the Jews who returned to Eretz Yisrael from Babylonia rejected the Samaritans’ request to assist them in the construction of the Second Temple, saying: **“You have nothing to do with us to build a house to our God”** (Ezra 4:3). This supports Rabbi Meir’s contention that gentiles may not take vows of valuation, which are used for Temple maintenance. But **his explanation is not reasonable, as he adduces** proof **for** his *halakha* **from** the fact that **a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor** cannot take a vow of valuation. This proof is unconvincing, since **a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor are different, as** unlike gentiles, they **lack the** presumed **mental competence** to make a commitment.


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

טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּקָא מַיְיתֵי לֵיהּ מִטּוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס, דְּאַף עַל גַּב דִּבְנֵי דֵעָה נִינְהוּ מַעֲטִינְהוּ רַחֲמָנָא. הִלְכְתֵיהּ לָא מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דִּכְתִיב: ״לֹא לָכֶם וָלָנוּ לִבְנוֹת אֶת בֵּית אֱלֹהֵינוּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
By contrast, **Rabbi Yehuda’s explanation is reasonable,** in **that he adduces** proof **for** his *halakha* **from** the case of **a *tumtum* and a hermaphrodite, as even though they possess the** presumed **mental competence** to make a commitment, nevertheless **the Merciful One excludes them** from being valuated. Since they are comparable to gentiles, they can serve as a precedent. But **his *halakha*** that gentiles can take a valuation vow **is not reasonable, as it is written: “You have nothing to do with us to build a house to our God,”** which indicates that they may not contribute anything to Temple maintenance.


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

וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הַאי ״לָא לָכֶם וְלָנוּ״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר אֲבִימִי: וְעֶרְכּוֹ נִגְנָז.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And Rabbi Yehuda,** who holds that gentiles can take valuation vows and that the funds go to Temple maintenance, **what does he do with this** verse: **“You have nothing to do with us”? Rav Ḥisda said** that **Avimi said:** He derives from it that if a gentile takes a vow of valuation **and** he brings the money to the Temple, **his valuation** money **is** not utilized but rather is **interred.**


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

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, לֹא יִמְעֲלוּ בּוֹ, דִּתְנַן: חָמֵשׁ חַטָּאוֹת הַמֵּתוֹת, וּמָעוֹת הַהוֹלְכוֹת לְיָם הַמֶּלַח — לֹא נֶהֱנִין וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If that is so,** that the valuation is not utilized for the Temple, **one** who uses it **should not** be considered to have violated the prohibition of **misuse.** One who unwittingly derived benefit from the valuation should not be obligated to bring a guilt offering for misuse of consecrated property, as the Temple treasury does not derive benefit from it. **As we learned** in a *baraita*: With regard to **the five sin offerings** that may not be sacrificed and are left to **die, and** similarly, with regard to consecrated **money that is taken** and cast **into the Dead Sea,** as it is not fit for any purpose, one **may not derive benefit** from them *ab initio*. **But** after the fact, if one derived benefit from them he is **not liable** for **misuse,** as the Temple treasury has no use for them.


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

אַלְּמָה תַּנְיָא גַּבֵּי קׇדְשֵׁי גוֹיִם: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בְּקׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ, אֲבָל בְּקׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Why** then **is it taught** in a *baraita* **with regard to** the **consecrations of gentiles: In what** case **is this statement,** that consecrations of gentiles are not subject to the *halakhot* of misuse, **said?** It is specifically **with regard to consecrations for the altar. But with regard to consecrations for Temple maintenance,** one who derives benefit **from** them is liable for **misuse** of consecrated property. Why is this the *halakha*, given the fact that the consecrations of a gentile are interred?


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

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: מִשּׁוּם רִפְיוֹן יָדַיִם הוּא, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיְהִי עַם הָאָרֶץ מְרַפִּין יְדֵי עַם יְהוּדָה וּמְבַהֲלִים אוֹתָם לִבְנוֹת״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rava said** that actually Rabbi Yehuda maintains that the valuation of a gentile is given to Temple maintenance and is not interred. And as for that which the Jews said to the gentiles in the time of the Second Temple: “You have nothing to do with us,” that refusal was not for halakhic reasons. Rather, **it** was **due to** the gentiles’ attempt to foster **weakening of the hands** of those rebuilding the Temple. **As it is written: “Then the people of the land weakened the hands of the people of Judah, and harried them while they were building”** (Ezra 4:4).