Mishnah.org Logo
Perek 4

Mishnayos Eruchin Perek 4 Mishnah 2

ערכין פרק ד׳ משנה ב׳

2
But with regard to offerings that is not so, as one who took a vow and said: It is incumbent upon me to provide the offering of this leper, to a leper who requires it for his purification; if the one undergoing purification was a destitute leper, the one who took the vow brings the offering of a destitute leper, which is one male sheep, a tenth of an ephah of fine flour, and two doves or two pigeons (see Leviticus 14:21–22). If the one undergoing purification was a wealthy leper, the one who took the vow brings the offering of a wealthy leper, which is two male sheep, a ewe, and three-tenths of a ephah of fine flour (see Leviticus 14:10). Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: I say: Even with regard to valuations it is so. He explains: For what reason does a destitute person who valuated a wealthy person give the valuation in accordance with the means of a destitute person? It is due to the fact that the wealthy person is not obligated to pay anything, as the debt was generated by the destitute person who vowed to donate the valuation of a wealthy individual. But in a case similar to that of the offerings of a leper, in the case of a wealthy person who said: It is incumbent upon me to donate my valuation, and a destitute person heard him and said: It is incumbent upon me to donate that which he said, the destitute person gives the valuation of a wealthy person. If when one took a vow of valuation he was destitute and he became wealthy, or if he was wealthy and became destitute, he gives the valuation in accordance with the means of a wealthy person. Rabbi Yehuda says: This is the halakha not only in a case where one was wealthy either at the time he took the vow or at the time of payment; even if when one took a vow of valuation he was destitute and he became wealthy and again became destitute, he gives the valuation in accordance with the means of a wealthy person.
אֲבָל בַּקָּרְבָּנוֹת אֵינוֹ כֵן. הֲרֵי שֶׁאָמַר, קָרְבָּנוֹ שֶׁל מְצֹרָע זֶה עָלָי. אִם הָיָה מְצֹרָע עָנִי, מֵבִיא קָרְבַּן עָנִי. עָשִׁיר, מֵבִיא קָרְבַּן עָשִׁיר. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר, אוֹמֵר אֲנִי אַף בָּעֲרָכִין כֵּן. וְכִי מִפְּנֵי מָה עָנִי שֶׁהֶעֱרִיךְ אֶת הֶעָשִׁיר נוֹתֵן עֵרֶךְ עָנִי, שֶׁאֵין הֶעָשִׁיר חַיָּב כְּלוּם. אֲבָל הֶעָשִׁיר שֶׁאָמַר עֶרְכִּי עָלָי, וְשָׁמַע הֶעָנִי וְאָמַר, מַה שֶּׁאָמַר זֶה עָלָי, נוֹתֵן עֵרֶךְ עָשִׁיר. הָיָה עָנִי וְהֶעֱשִׁיר אוֹ עָשִׁיר וְהֶעֱנִי, נוֹתֵן עֵרֶךְ עָשִׁיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אֲפִלּוּ עָנִי וְהֶעֱשִׁיר וְחָזַר וְהֶעֱנִי, נוֹתֵן עֵרֶךְ עָשִׁיר:
ב׳

אומר אני אף בערכין כן – if it happens by chance, even with Valuations is similar to sacrifices, then it is like sacrifices, But it was stated [in this Mishnah] that Valuations are not like Sacrifices, because they are not similar one with the other, and for what reason does a poor person who dedicated the value of a rich person, gives the value of a poor person because of the law regarding the payment of certain vows according to one’s [own] means, because the rich person is not liable for anything, and not the monetary value of the Metzorah/leper. But this [individual] who spoke regarding the rich person, did not intend other than according to the measurement of the years of the rich individual which are less or more than his own years. Therefore, he is judged according to his own means/wealth, but the rich person who said: “My value is upon me,” that he is liable for a complete/full value, similar to the [wealthy] leper and the poor person heard it and said, “What that person that this upon me,” he gives the value of a rich person. This is the reading.

היה עני והעשיר או עשיר והעני משלם ערך עשיר – if he was poor and became rich prior to giving [the valuation money], he pays the value of a rich person, for the All-Merciful one said (Leviticus 27:8): “according to what the vower can afford,” for it is in regard to one’s wealth/means. Rich and the poor [alike] also according to one’s means of the person who vows, is written (see the verse mentioned above), for he had the means at the time that he made the vow.

רבי יהודה אומר אפילו עני והעשיר וחזר והעני נותן ערך עשיר – as it is written (Leviticus 27:8): “But if one cannot afford the equivalent,” until it will be that he must have remained in his impoverished condition from the beginning to the end of the proceedings (see Talmud Arakhin 17b). But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.

אומר אני אף בערכין כן. אילו מתרמי אף בערכין דומיא דקרבנות, הוי כקרבנות. דהא דאמרת דערכין אינן כקרבנות. משום דלא דמו אהדדי, דמפני מה עני שהעריך עשיר נותן ערך עני לפי השג יד, לפי שאין העשיר חייב כלום, ולא דמי למצורע. וזה שאמר על העשיר, לא נתכוין אלא לפי מדת שנותיו של עשיר שפחותים או יתרים על שנותיו שלו, הלכך נדון בהשג יד. אבל עשיר שאמר ערכי עלי דהוי חייב ערך שלם, דומיא דמצורע [עשיר] ושמע העני ואמר מה שאמר זה עלי, נותן ערך עשיר:

הכי גרסינן היה עני והעשיר או עשיר והעני משלם ערך עשיר. היה עני והעשיר קודם נתינה, משלם ערך עשיר, אשר תשיג יד הנודר אמר רחמנא, והרי ידו משגת. עשיר והעני נמי תשיג יד הנודר כתיב, והרי היתה משגת בעת שנדר:

רבי יהודה אומר אפילו עני והעשיר וחזר והעני נותן ערך עשיר. דכתיב (ויקרא כ״ז:ח׳) ואם מך הוא מערכך, עד שיהא במכותו מתחלתו ועד סופו. ואין הלכה כרבי יהודה: