meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt_done/Mishnah/Seder Kodashim/Mishnah Arakhin/English/Sefaria Community Translation.txt"}
text: Mishnah Arakhin
  משנה ערכין
  Sefaria Community Translation
  
  
  Mishnah Arakhin
  
  
  
  
  
  All are fit to evaluate [i.e., pledge one's own worth to the Temple fund], to be evaluated [by another's pledge], to vow [another's worth to the Temple fund] or to have their worth vowed: Priests, Levites, Israelites, women and slaves. The <i>tumtum</i> [person (or animal) with recessed sexual organs whose gender is therefore impossible to determine, presently, by external examination. It is halachically uncertain whether such is male or female], or the <i>androginos</i> [person with both male and female sexual organs. It is halachically uncertain whether such a person is male, female or, perhaps, has a uniquely defined halachic gender.], are fit to vow [on another's worth], to have their worth vowed, and to evaluate, but they are not fit to be evaluated, as only those who are definitely male or definitely female are evaluated. A deaf-mute, a <i>shoteh</i>, and a minor are fit to have their worth vowed, and to be evaluated, but they are not fit to vow [on another's worth] or to evaluate, because they are not considered capable of intent. A baby less than a month old can be vowed, but not evaluated.
  Regarding a non-Jew - Rabbi Meir says: One can be evaluated, but cannot evaluate; Rabbi Yehudah says: One can evaluate but cannot be evaluated. Both agree, that one can vow, and have one's worth vowed.
  One at the point of death or about to be put to death cannot have one's worth vowed, nor can one be evaluated. Rabbi Chanina ben 'Akavia says: One can be evaluated because one's value is fixed, but one's worth cannot be vowed because his worth is not fixed. Rabbi Yose says: he may vow, evaluate, and consecrate [to the sanctuary], and if he caused damage, he is obliged to make restitution.
  If a woman is about to be executed, they do not wait for her until she gives birth. But if she had already sat on the birthstool, they wait for her until she gives birth. If a woman is executed, one may use her hair. If an animal has been executed, it is forbidden to make any use of it.
  
  
  
  There is no evaluation less than one <i>sela</i>, nor more than fifty <i>selaim</i>. How so? If one paid a <i>sela</i> and became rich, one need not give any [more]. But if one gave less than a <i>sela</i> and became rich, one must pay fifty <i>selaim</i>.   If one had five <i>selaim</i> in one's possession, Rabbi Meir says: One need not give more than one. The Sages say one must give them all. There is no evaluation less than one <i>sela</i>, nor more than fifty <i>selaim</i>. There is no re-opening for  a woman who errs [in her reckoning] of the <i>niddah</i> count earlier than seven, nor later than after seventeen days. No signs of leprosy are shut up for less than one week, nor for more than three weeks.
  There are never less than four full months in the year, nor did it seem right [to have] more than eight. <i>Shtei Halechem</i> [The two leavened loaves of wheat brought as offerings on Shavuot, which permitted using the new grain for holy offerings] were eaten, never earlier than the second day, nor later than the third day. The <i>Lechem Hapanim</i> [twelve, specially shaped unleavened loaves offered each Shabbat on the golden table in the Temple] was eaten never earlier than the ninth day, nor later than the eleventh day. An infant may never be circumcised earlier than the eighth, nor later than the twelfth day.
  There are never less than twenty-one [Shofar] blasts in the Temple and never more than forty-eight. There are never less than two harps, nor more than six. There are never less than two flutes, nor more than twelve. On twelve days in the year the flute was played before the altar:  At the slaughtering of [the <i>Pesach</i> offering for]the first <i>Pesach</i>, at the slaughtering of [the <i>Pesach</i> offering for] the second <i>Pesach</i>,  on the first festival day of <i>Pesach</i>, on the festival day of Shavuot, and on the eight days of Sukkot. And they did not play on a bronze pipe but on a reed pipe of , because its sound is sweeter. Nor was anything but a single pipe used for the finale, because it makes a pleasant finale.
  They [i.e., the Temple musicians] were [taken from] slaves of the priests - [these are]  the words of Rabbi Meir; Rabbi Yose said: they were of families from Bet Hapegarim, Bet-Zipparya and from Emmaus, places from which priests would marry [women]; Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonos said: they were Levites.
  There were never less than six inspected lambs in the chamber of lambs, enough for Shabbat and the [two] festival days of Rosh Hashanah, and their number could be increased indefinitely. There were never less than two trumpets and their number could be increased indefinitely.  There were never less than nine lyres, and their number could be increased indefinitely. But there was only one cymbal.
  There were never less than twelve Levites standing on the platform and their number could be increased indefinitely. No minor could enter the [Temple] courtyard to take part in the service except when the Levites stood up to sing. Nor did [the minors] join in the singing with harp and lyre, but with the mouth alone, to add flavor to the music. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob said: they did not count in the required number, nor did they stand on the platform. Rather they would stand on the ground, so that their heads were between the feet of the Levites. And they were called "the youth of the Levites".
  
  
  
  The law of evaluation is sometimes lenient, and at others times strict. The law of [dedicating one's] hereditary field is sometimes lenient, and at others times strict. The law concerning a warned ox that has killed a slave is sometimes lenient, and at others times strict. The law of the rapist and the seducer and the defamer is sometimes lenient, and at others times strict. The law of evaluation is sometimes lenient, and at others times strict. How so? Whether one has evaluated the finest-looking [person] in Israel, or the ugliest in Israel, one must pay fifty <i>selaim</i>.  But if one said: “Behold, that person's monetary worth is upon me,” one pays only as much as that person is worth.
  The law of [dedicating one's] hereditary field is sometimes lenient and sometimes strict. How so? Whether one dedicates a field in the sandy plain of Mahoz or in the orchards of Savaste, [to redeem it] one must give fifty <i>shekalim</i> of silver for [each section of field sufficient for] the sowing of a <i>homer</i> of barley. But if it was a field [acquired by] purchase, one must give what it is worth. Rabbi Eli'ezer says: it is all the same whether it is a hereditary field or a field [acquired by] purchase. What is the difference between the hereditary field and one [acquired by] purchase? [When redeeming] an hereditary field one must give the [added] fifth, whereas for a field [acquired by] purchase one need not give the added fifth.
  The law concerning a warned ox that has killed a slave is sometimes lenient and sometimes strict. How so? Whether it killed the fine-looking slave or an ugly slave, one must pay thirty <i>selaim</i>. If it killed a free man one must pay what that person is worth. If it only  wounded the person, in either case one must pay the full damage.
  The law of the rapist and seducer is sometimes lenient and sometimes strict. How so? Whether he raped or seduced a girl from among the best of the priestly stock or the humblest in Israel, he must pay fifty <i>selaim</i>.  But compensation for shaming and for blemish is [assessed] according to the [circumstances] of the one who shames and of the one who suffers the shame.
  The law of the defamer is sometimes lenient and sometimes strict.  How so? Whether he defamed a girl from among the best of the priestly stock or the humblest in Israel, he must pay one hundred <i>selaim</i>. Thus it turns out that one who speaks with one's mouth [is fined] more than one that commits an act. For thus we have also found that the judgment against our ancestors in the wilderness was sealed only because of their evil tongue, as it is written: “Yet you have tested Me these ten times, and you have not listened to My voice” (Numbers 14:22).
  
  
  
  The ability to pay is according to [the means of] the one making the vow; the [determination of] age is according to the subject of the vow; the [gender for] the evaluations is according to the subject of the evaluation; the [age for] evaluations [is determined] at the time of the evaluation. "The sufficiency of means is according to [the means of] the one making the vow" -  how so? If a poor man evaluated a rich man, he pays only the valuation [according to the means] of a poor man. But if a rich man evaluated a poor man, he must pay the valuation [according to the means] of a rich man.
  But it is not so with sacrifices. If a man said: 'I take upon myself the sacrifice of this leper', and the leper was poor, he bring the sacrifice of a poor man; but if the leper was rich, he must bring the sacrifice of a rich man.  Rabbi says: I say the same applies with regard to a valuation.  Why is a poor man who evaluated a rich man obliged to pay only the valuation of a poor man? Because the rich man had not incurred any liability whatsoever. But if the rich man said: 'I evaluate myself.' and the poor man, hearing that, said: 'What this man said, I take upon myself', then he must pay the valuation of a rich man. Rabbi Judah says, even if he was poor and became rich, and later became poor again, he gives the valuation of a rich man.
  But it is not so with sacrifices. Even if his father was dying [when a man vowed] and left him ten thousand, or if he had a ship on the sea and it brought to him ten thousand, the Temple has no claim at all on them.
  “The [determination of] age is according to the subject of the vow" - how so? If a child evaluated an old man, he must pay the value of an old man; but, if an old man evaluated a child he must pay the value of a child. "The [gender for] the evaluations is according to the subject of the evaluation" - how so? If a man evaluated a woman, he must pay the value of a woman; but if a woman evaluated a man, she must pay the value of a man. “The [age for] evaluations [is determined] at the time of the evaluation" - how so? If he evaluated one who was less than five years of age, and [in the meantime] he became older than five years of age, or if [he evaluated one] who was less than twenty years of age and he became twenty years old, he must pay [only] according to the age at the time of the evaluation. The thirtieth day is considered to be under this age. The fifth year or twentieth year is considered to be under this age. For it says: “And if he is from sixty years old and upward” (Leviticus 27:7), thus we learn with regard to all others from what is said about sixty years: just as the sixtieth year is considered to be under this age, so also the fifth and twentieth years are under this age. [But] is that so? Just because [the Torah] accounts the sixtieth year to be under this age, thereby being more stringent, shall we account the fifth or the twentieth year to be under this age, in order to be lenient?! Scripture says, “year,” “year” as a <i>gezerah shavah</i> [a technique of halachic interpretation employing an established link between identical or nearly identical words]: just as with the sixtieth year the word “year” means that it is considered under this age, so the word “year” with the fifth and with the twentieth year are considered under this age, whether [this results in] being lenient or being stringent. Rabbi Elazar says: [this rule holds true] until they are a month and a day beyond the year.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  [The property] of orphans which has been evaluated [must be proclaimed for] thirty days. And [the property of] the Sanctuary which has been evaluated, [for] sixty days. They must make the proclamation in the morning and in the evening.  If a man dedicates his property to the Sanctuary and he is still liable for his wife’s <i>ketubah</i>:  Rabbi Eliezer says: when he divorces her he must vow that he will not derive any further benefit from her. Rabbi Joshua says: he need not do so. Similarly, Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: Also if one guarantees a woman's <i>ketubah</i> and her husband divorces her, the husband must vow to derive no benefit from her, lest he make a conspiracy against the property of that man [the guarantor] and take his wife back again.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  If one sold his field [of possession] at the time when the Jubilee was in force, he may not redeem it for two years, as it says: “According to the number of the years of the crops he shall sell to you” (Leviticus 25:15). If there was a year of blight or mildew, or a seventh year, it is not included in the count.  If he only broke the ground [without planting] or left it fallow [for a year], that year is included in the count. Rabbi Elazar says: if he sold it to him before Rosh Hashanah, and it was still full of fruit, he enjoys three crops in two years.
  If he sold it to the first for one hundred [<i>dinar</i>] and the first sold it to the second for two hundred, then he need reckon only with the first, as it says, “With the man to whom he sold” (Leviticus 25:27).   If he sold it to the first for two hundred, and the first sold it to the second for one hundred, then he need reckon only with the second, as it says: “With the man” (ibid)— the man in possession of the field.  One may not sell a distant field in order to redeem a near one, or a poor field in order to redeem a good one. One may not borrow [money] in order to redeem, nor redeem it in halves. But in the case of objects consecrated, all these [things] are permitted. In this respect the laws concerning a person’s [property] are more stringent than those concerning sacred things.
  If one sold a house among the houses of a walled city, he may redeem it at once and at any time during twelve months.  This is a kind of interest, yet it is not interest. If the seller died, his son may redeem it. If the purchaser died, it may be redeemed from his son. One counts the year only from the time that he sold it, as it is said, “Before a full year has elapsed” (Leviticus 25:30). When it says a “a full” [year], an intercalated month is included. Rabbi says: he [always] gives him a year and its intercalation.
  If the [last] day of the twelve months has arrived and it was not redeemed, it becomes his permanent [possession]. This applies whether he bought it or received it as a gift, as it is said: “beyond reclaim” (Leviticus 25:30). In earlier times, he [the buyer] would hide on the last day of the twelve months, so that [the house] might become his permanent [possession]. Hillel enacted that he [the seller] could deposit his money in the [Temple] chamber and break down the door and enter, and that the other [the buyer], whenever he wanted, might come and take his money.
  Whatever is within the [city] wall is regarded as the houses in a walled city, with the exception of fields. Rabbi Meir says: even fields. A house built into the wall: Rabbi Judah says: it is not considered a house within a walled city. Rabbi Shimon says: its outer wall is regarded as its [city] wall.
  A city whose roofs [look as if] they form its wall, or one that was not encompassed by a wall in the days of Joshua ben Nun, is not considered like houses in a walled city. [A house in any of] the following counts a house in a walled city: [those in a city] of no less than three courtyards, having two houses each, which have been encompassed by a wall in the days of Yehoshua bin Nun, such as the old stronghold of Tzippori, the fort of Gush-Halav, old Yodfat, Gamla, G’dod, Hadid, Ono, Jerusalem and other similar cities.
  Houses in unwalled cities—we accord to them the advantages of houses in a walled city and the advantages given to fields: They can be redeemed at once, and at any time within the twelve months like houses [in a walled city], and they return [to the owners] in the Jubilee or [at an earlier time] by [payment of a] reduced price like fields. The following are considered houses in unwalled cities: [a city which has] two courtyards, each having two houses, even though they have been encompassed by a wall since the days of Yehoshua bin Nun, they count as houses in courtyards.
  If an Israelite inherited from his mother's father who was a Levite, he cannot redeem it according to the order prescribed here. Also if a Levite inherited from his mother's father who was an Israelite, he cannot redeem it according to the order prescribed here, as it says, “As for the houses of the cities of the Levites” (Leviticus 25:32)—[this order does not apply] unless he is a Levite and in the cities of the Levites - [these are] the words of Rabbi; The Sages say: these things apply to the cities of the Levites.  One may not turn a field into pasture land, nor pasture land into a field, nor pasture land into a city, nor a city into pasture land.  Rabbi Elazar said: When is this so? When it comes to the cities of the Levites, but when it comes to cities of Israelites one may turn a field into pasture land, pasture land into a field, pasture land into a city, but not a city into pasture land, in order that they should not destroy the cities of Israel. Priests and Levites may sell [a house] at any time and redeem it at any time, as it is said: “The Levites shall forever have the right of redemption” (Leviticus 25:32).