Arachin 4b — ערכין ד:

From the pasuk "a man who sets apart a vow" I would know only of a man who pledged, whether for a man or for a woman.

Where do we learn a woman who pledged, for a man or for a woman? The Torah says "nefashot."

Another explanation: "nefashot" comes to include a menuval and one stricken with boils.

We need this because the Torah says "a vow by your erech," joining the two. So we might have thought that whoever has damim (a value, what he would sell for as a slave) has an erech, and whoever has no damim has no erech. No one would pay anything for a menuval or a person stricken with boils, so we would say they have no erech.

So the Torah says "nefashot": every soul can be valued.

"And your erech shall be" (in Parshat Bechukotai) comes to include, for damim, a tumtum and an androgynous. Rabbeinu Gershom explains that one may vow "the value of this tumtum is upon me."

We need this because the Torah says "a vow by your erech." So we might have thought that whoever has an erech has damim, and whoever has no erech has no damim.

So the Torah says "and your erech shall be." Rabbeinu Gershom explains that the extra words "and shall be" include them for damim, while "the male… and if she is a female" leaves them out of arachin.

"The male": a male, and not a tumtum or an androgynous.

We might think that they are not valued as a man but are valued as a woman.

So the Torah says "your erech shall be, the male… and if she is a female." That means one who is certainly male or certainly female, and not a tumtum or an androgynous. The Rambam rules that a tumtum and an androgynous have no erech (Hilchot Arachin 1:5), but one who pledges their value gives what they are worth (1:9).

Now the Gemara goes through the baraita line by line. The Master said that "by your erech" comes to include erech satum. What is erech satum?

A baraita teaches that one who says "an erech is upon me," without saying whose, gives the lowest erech. Rashi explains that he did not say "my erech" or "the erech of so-and-so," only "an erech."

How much is the lowest erech? Three shekalim, the erech of a girl from one month old to five years. The Rambam rules this (Hilchot Arachin 1:20).

The Gemara asks: why not say fifty, the highest erech?

The Gemara answers with a rule: "tafasta merubah lo tafasta, tafasta mu'at tafasta." Reach for the large amount and you may end up holding nothing; reach for the small amount and you hold it for sure. Rashi explains that anyone could argue with the large amount, but no one argues with the small amount, since it is part of the large one.

Then why not say one shekel, since the Torah says "every erech shall be in the shekel of the Kodesh"?

That pasuk is written about hesaig yad, a poor man who is valued by what he can afford. Rashi explains that even then the Kohen does not set it below one shekel, but no fixed erech in the Torah is less than three shekalim.

Then why does the Torah need a pasuk for erech satum? Rashi explains that we would know without it that he owes three shekalim, since he must give some erech, and no fixed erech is lower.

Rav Nachman says in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha that the pasuk teaches he is not judged by hesaig yad. Even if he cannot afford three shekalim, he must give three.

Why? He is like one who named the amount outright. Rashi explains that everyone knows erech satum means three shekalim, so it is as if he said "three shekalim are upon me." When he says "the erech of so-and-so," it is different, because not everyone knows that person's age. Tosafot disagree with this reason and say that whenever the erech is tied to a person, the Torah decreed that it is judged by his means.

Some report Rav Nachman in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha the other way, that he is judged by hesaig yad.

The Gemara objects: isn't that obvious?! It is an erech like any other.

We might have thought that he is like one who named the amount, so the pasuk tells us otherwise. The Rambam rules like this second version: erech satum is judged by the giver's means like any other erech (Hilchot Arachin 3:10).

The next line of the baraita: "Another explanation of 'by your erech': he gives the erech of the whole person, and not the erech of what limbs are worth." The Rashash notes that the word "value" is not in the baraita as it was quoted on the previous amud.

The Gemara objects: this word was already used for erech satum!

Read it as two words: "erech" and "be'erkecha." Tosafot explain that the Torah could have written only "erech," so the extra letters give the second teaching.

The baraita goes on: "We might think I leave out even a limb that life depends on; so the Torah says 'nefashot.'"

"'Nefashot,' and not the dead."

The Gemara objects: this word was already used for the one who pledged for a hundred and for the woman who pledged!

Read it as two: "nefesh" and "nefashot."

The baraita goes on: "I leave out the dead, but should I leave out the goses as well? So the Torah says 'he shall stand him and value him.'"

The Gemara challenges: if so, the dead too could be learned from "he shall stand him and value him," since a dead man cannot be stood up!

That is true.

Then why do I need "nefesh" and "nefashot"? For what the baraita is about to say. Rashi explains that it comes to include the menuval and one stricken with boils.

The baraita: "Another explanation of 'nefashot': I would know only of one who pledged for one. Where do we learn one who pledged for a hundred? So the Torah says 'nefashot.'"

"Another explanation of 'nefashot': I would know only of a man who pledged, whether for a man or a woman. Where do we learn a woman who pledged, for a man or a woman? So the Torah says 'nefashot.'"

"Another explanation: 'nefashot' comes to include a menuval and one stricken with boils."

The Gemara objects: that word was already used for the other teachings!

Those others do not need a pasuk. Why? They are all equal, so all of them come from the same word. (Haggahot Ya'avetz reads "shekulim hen," they are equal.) Rashi explains that even if the Torah wrote only "nefesh," all of them would come from it, because nefesh can mean a woman and can mean many people, and no one of these teachings is stronger than another. Rabbeinu Gershom explains that the Torah made a woman equal to a man, and pledging for a hundred is no different from pledging for one.

The extra word was needed only for the menuval and one stricken with boils.

"And your erech shall be" comes to include, for damim, a tumtum and an androgynous.

The Gemara asks: why does damim need a pasuk?

Let them be worth no less than a palm tree!

If he said "the value of this palm tree is upon me," would he not have to give it?

Rava says that the pasuk teaches that he is judged by his kavod, the part his worth depends on. (Tosafot and the Rashash read "Rabbah" here, since on 5a Abaye calls him "Mar," which he would not say to his colleague Rava.) Rashi explains that if he says "the value of my head is upon me," he gives the value of his whole body, since everything depends on the head. The Rambam rules this (Hilchot Arachin 2:4).

Without the pasuk we would say: the Torah wrote "a vow by your erech," so whoever has an erech is judged by his kavod, and whoever has no erech, like a tumtum, is not. So the pasuk teaches that even for a tumtum, "the value of his head" means the value of all of him.

Abaye said to him: and is one who has no erech judged by his kavod?

But we learned in a baraita: "This slave's head is hekdesh" (given to the Beit HaMikdash) — the owner and hekdesh are partners in the slave. Rabbeinu Gershom explains that the head is hekdesh and the body is his, and since the head cannot be separated from the body, the two own him together.

"I sell you this slave's head" — the two of them have the slave appraised and divide his value.

"This donkey's head is hekdesh" — the owner and hekdesh are partners in it.

"I sell you this donkey's head" — the two have it appraised and divide its value.

"I sell you this cow's head" — only the cow's head is sold.

More than that: even if he said "this cow's head is hekdesh," hekdesh gets only its head.

Rav Papa gives the reason, that a cow's head is sold by itself at the butcher's. Rashi explains that the head of a slave or a donkey is not sold by itself, so there the words mean half of the whole.

Abaye's point is that a cow and a donkey have no erech, and they are not judged by their kavod. So the baraita seems to contradict Rava's rule that a tumtum is judged by his kavod.

Rava answered that by Abaye's reasoning, he should ask from the slave in the same baraita. A slave does have an erech, and still he is not judged by his kavod, since he and hekdesh are only partners.

Rather, there is no contradiction. The baraita is about kodshei mizbe'ach, pledges for korbanot on the mizbe'ach, and Rava's rule is about kodshei bedek habayit, pledges for the upkeep of the Beit HaMikdash. Rashi explains that the baraita speaks of one who pledges this donkey's head for the value of an olah (a korban burned whole on the mizbe'ach), and there he is not judged by his kavod, because "nefashot" is written about arachin, which go to bedek habayit. Rava's rule, that he is judged by his kavod even for a tumtum, is about bedek habayit.

The Gemara asks: how did you explain the baraita? As kodshei mizbe'ach.

Then look at its end: "More than that, even if he said 'this cow's head is hekdesh,' hekdesh gets only its head."

Why? The kedushah should spread through the whole cow, since a cow is fit to be offered on the mizbe'ach (Rashi).

Didn't we learn in a baraita, about one who says… The baraita goes on at the top of the next amud.