Commentary for Arakhin 5:2
דְּמֵי יָדִי עָלָי, שָׁמִין אוֹתוֹ, כַּמָּה הוּא שָׁוֶה בְּיָד, וְכַמָּה הוּא שָׁוֶה בְּלֹא יָד. זֶה חֹמֶר בַּנְּדָרִים מִבָּעֲרָכִין. וְחֹמֶר בָּעֲרָכִין מִבַּנְּדָרִים, כֵּיצַד. הָאוֹמֵר, עֶרְכִּי עָלָי, וָמֵת, יִתְּנוּ הַיּוֹרְשִׁין. דָּמַי עָלָי, וָמֵת, לֹא יִתְּנוּ הַיּוֹרְשִׁים, שֶׁאֵין דָּמִים לַמֵּתִים. עֵרֶךְ יָדִי וְעֵרֶךְ רַגְלִי עָלָי, לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. עֵרֶךְ רֹאשִׁי וְעֵרֶךְ כְּבֵדִי עָלָי, נוֹתֵן עֵרֶךְ כֻּלּוֹ. זֶה הַכְּלָל, דָּבָר שֶׁהַנְּשָׁמָה תְלוּיָה בוֹ, נוֹתֵן עֵרֶךְ כֻּלּוֹ:
[If one said,] “the worth of my hand is upon me,” they estimate his worth with his hand and [what it would be] without his hand. In this respect vows of worth are more stringent than vows of value, [while] there is an aspect of vows of value that is more stringent than vows of worth How so? If one said, “my value is upon me” and then he dies, his heirs must give it. [But if he said,] “my worth is upon me,” and then he dies, his heirs need not give anything because dead persons have no worth. [If he said,] “the value of my hand or foot is upon me,” he has said nothing; [but if he said,] “the value of my head is upon me,” he must give his whole value. This is the general rule: Anything upon which his life depends, he must give his whole value.
Bartenura on Mishnah Arakhin
וכמה הוא שוה בלא יד – it explains in the Gemara (Tractate Arakhin 19b – see Rashi, s.v. אומד של נזקין), that we don’t valuate/estimate how beautiful when his hand is cut off and how much he would be worth when his hands are whole. For a person whose hand was cut off, when they come to valuate him how much he would be worth at first, they don’t valuate him other than cheaply, because we view him as despised, for this person who says: “the price of my hand is incumbent upon me,” his hand was not cut off. Therefore, it (i.e., the Gemara) explains how much he is worth without a hand, as for example, if his master sold all of him except for his hand, for his one hands is recorded/levied to his first master and we estimate how much he is worth when his master sells all of him and does not leave anything of him to himself. And how much less he is worth if his master left his one hand without selling it, for now he is not despised. And such he gives to the sanctity of the Temple.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Arakhin
Introduction
Today’s mishnah continues to deal with cases where a person dedicates the value or worth of a body part.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Arakhin
זה חומר בנדרם מבערכין – for whereas, if he said in valuation , that the value of my hand and/or my foot is upon me, he did not say anything, unless he said it with regard to which life depends.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Arakhin
[If one said] “The worth of my hand is upon me,” they estimate his worth with his hand and [what it would be] without his hand. In yesterday’s mishnah the vower dedicated the weight of his hand. In this section, he dedicates the “worth of his hand.” This is evaluated the same way that worth is always estimated by examining how much a person would be worth on the slave market. In this case, they first estimate his worth when complete (with his hand), and then how much he would be worth without his hand.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Arakhin
ערכי עלי ומת יתנו היורשים – the value of something that is determined/clearly defined. But specifically when he stood in judgment prior to his death, because he is not liable for a valuation until after he stands before the Kohen, as it is written (Leviticus 27:8): “he shall be pesented before the priest.” But my price is incumbent upon me, which is not other than what the Jewish court will estimate him, and behold he doesn’t come to that for he has died, even though he stood in judgment, he is lacking an approximate assessment, and the heirs do not pay it.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Arakhin
In this respect vows of worth are more stringent than vows of value. Later in this mishnah we will learn that if one says, “The value of my hand is upon me,” he is not liable to pay anything. Therefore, in this aspect, vows of “worth” are more stringent than vows of “value” for when one vows the worth of his hand, he must pay its worth.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Arakhin
נותן ערך כולו – for it is written (Leviticus 27:2): “the equivalent for human being.”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Arakhin
There is an aspect of vows of value that is more stringent than vows of worth. As is typical of the mishnah, once we note that vows of worth are in one way more stringent than vows of value, the mishnah now notes that sometimes the opposite is true.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Arakhin
זה הכלל – to include the rest of the limbs on which life depends.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Arakhin
How so? If one said: “My value is upon me” and then he dies, his heirs must pay it. [But if he said:] “My worth is upon me,” and then he dies, his heirs need not pay anything because dead persons have no worth. If one vows his value and then dies, the heirs must pay his value. This is because his value is set by the Torah and is not dependent upon an evaluation. However, if he vows his worth and then dies before they can estimate his worth, his heir need not pay anything because a dead person has no worth. Note that the obligation to pay is only incurred when the estimate is made, and since he has no worth when the estimate is made, the heirs owe nothing.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Arakhin
[If he said,] “The value of my hand or foot is upon me,” he has said nothing, [But if he said,] “The value of my head is upon me,” he must pay his whole value. This is the general rule: Anything upon which his life depends, he must pay his full value. If one vows the value of his foot or hand he is not liable to pay anything because the foot and the hand are not synonymous with his life. Since one can only vow the “value” of his life, in this case he has not vowed anything. In contrast, if one vows the value of his head, he has dedicated his full value because one can’t live without a head. He will now have to pay his full value, dependent upon his gender and age. The general rule that ends this mishnah explains just that if one vows the value of an organ that one can’t live without, he is liable to pay his entire value.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy