Arachin 4a — ערכין ד.

And they may redeem at any time. Rashi explains that a Kohen who sold a field may buy it back right away, while a Yisrael must wait two years, as the Torah says in Parshat Behar, "by the number of years of crops."

So we might say Kohanim are not obligated in the mitzvot of Rosh Hashanah either.

So the Mishnah teaches that they are. Rabbeinu Gershom explains that even if the Yovel law of returning land does not apply to them in full, the cancelling of debts and the freeing of slaves do apply to them. They are part of the mitzvot of Yovel, so they are obligated in shofar.

The list of "everyone" teachings goes on. Everyone is obligated in the mitzvah of reading the Megillah: Kohanim, Leviim and Yisraelim.

The Gemara objects: isn't that obvious?!

It is needed to teach that they stop their avodah (service in the Beit HaMikdash) to hear it.

This follows what Rav Yehuda says in the name of Shmuel, as the Gemara brings it in Megillah 3a. The Kohanim at their avodah, the Leviim on their duchan (the platform where they sang in the Beit HaMikdash) and the Yisraelim at their ma'amad (the group of Yisraelim who stood by the daily korbanot for their community) all stop their work and go to hear the Megillah. The Rambam rules this (Hilchot Megillah 1:1), and he adds that Torah learning stops for the Megillah too.

Everyone is obligated in zimun: Kohanim, Leviim and Yisraelim.

The Gemara objects: isn't that obvious?!

It is needed for Kohanim who are eating kodashim, the meat of the korbanot.

We might have thought they are exempt. In Parshat Tetzaveh the Torah says "they shall eat them, those through whom atonement was made." The Gemara in Yoma 68b learns from this that the Kohanim eat and the owners of the korban are forgiven. So this eating is part of the kaparah (atonement). Rabbeinu Gershom explains that we would then call this eating an obligation of the avodah, not a meal, and say it needs no zimun.

The baraita teaches that they are obligated. In Parshat Eikev the Torah says "you will eat and be satisfied, and you will bless." Rabbeinu Gershom explains that the Torah ties Birkat HaMazon to being satisfied, and a Kohen who eats kodashim is satisfied like anyone else.

Everyone joins together for a zimun: Kohanim, Leviim and Yisraelim.

The Gemara objects: isn't that obvious?!

It is needed where the Kohanim eat terumah or kodashim, and a zar (one who is not a Kohen) eats chullin (ordinary food). Rabbeinu Gershom gives the case of two Kohanim and one zar.

We might have thought they do not join, because the zar may not eat the Kohen's food even if he wants to.

The baraita teaches that they do join. True, the zar may not eat with the Kohen from his terumah, but the Kohen may eat with the zar from his chullin, so they can share one meal. Tosafot learn from here about three people who made vows not to benefit from one another, so none of them may eat with the others: it seems they do not join. But Tosafot add that the proof is not certain, because a vow can be undone by going to a chacham, while terumah can never become permitted to a zar.

Now the Gemara comes back to the first words of our Mishnah. Everyone may make an erech pledge: Kohanim, Leviim and Yisraelim. An erech is a pledge to give the Beit HaMikdash the fixed value the Torah sets for a person, by age and by male or female, in Parshat Bechukotai.

The Gemara objects: isn't that obvious?!

Rava says that it was needed only because of Ben Buchri.

As we learned in the Mishnah in Shekalim 1: Rabbi Yehuda reports the testimony Ben Buchri gave in Yavneh: a Kohen who gives the shekel does not sin. The shekel is the half-shekel each Jew gives every year for the communal korbanot. Rashi explains that Ben Buchri holds a Kohen has no obligation to give it, since the Torah speaks of "everyone who passes among those counted," and the tribe of Levi was not counted. Still, a Kohen who gives it does nothing wrong; the Gemara explains why further on.

Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai answered him that it is not so. Rather, a Kohen who does not give the shekel is the one who sins.

But the Kohanim read a pasuk in a way that suits themselves. In Parshat Tzav the Torah says "every minchah of a Kohen shall be burned whole; it shall not be eaten."

Their argument goes like this. The omer, the shtei halechem (the two loaves of Shavuot) and the lechem hapanim (the showbread) are bought from the shekel money. If we Kohanim give shekalim, a share of these menachot (flour offerings) is ours, and a Kohen's minchah may not be eaten. Then how could anyone eat them? Rashi explains that the halacha does not follow this: the pasuk speaks of a Kohen's own minchah, but a communal minchah follows the majority of the people, so it is not a Kohen's minchah. The Rambam rules like Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai, that Kohanim are obligated in the half-shekel (Hilchot Shekalim 1:7), though no one takes a security from them to force them to pay, for the sake of peace (1:10).

The Gemara asks about Ben Buchri too: since a Kohen owes no shekel in the first place, a Kohen who does bring it should be a sinner!

For he brings chullin into the azarah (the courtyard of the Beit HaMikdash). Rabbeinu Gershom explains that the korbanot bought with his money would be his own and not the community's, so they would be chullin offered in the azarah.

The Gemara answers that he brings the shekel and hands it over to the community. Rabbeinu Gershom explains that he gives it to them as a gift, and without that he could not bring it.

Now Rava explains why the baraita needed to say "Kohanim" for arachin. In Parshat Bechukotai the Torah says "every erech shall be in the shekel of the Kodesh." So we might have thought: whoever is part of the shekalim is part of arachin, and Kohanim, who are not part of the shekalim according to Ben Buchri, are not part of arachin.

The baraita teaches that they are.

Abaye answered Rava that this pasuk comes for something else: every erech you pledge must be at least a sela (a coin worth one shekel). Rashi explains that a poor man who cannot pay the erech is valued by what he can afford, but he never gives less than a sela, as the Mishnah in Arachin 7b says. Since the pasuk is needed for that, we would not learn from it to exempt Kohanim. Rabbeinu Gershom adds that if he cannot afford even a sela, he gives nothing now, and if he becomes rich later he pays the full erech.

Rather, Abaye says the baraita needed Kohanim for another reason. In Parshat Korach the Torah says of the bechor, "its redemption, from one month on, by your erech." So we might have thought: whoever is part of pidyon haben (redeeming the firstborn son) is part of arachin. Kohanim are not part of pidyon haben, as the Gemara in Bechorot 4a learns: if the Leviim freed the bechorot of the Yisraelim in the midbar, then definitely they freed their own. So Kohanim would not be part of arachin.

The baraita teaches that they are.

Rava answered Abaye that if so, we should look at the ram of the korban asham. In Parshat Vayikra the Torah says "he shall bring his asham to Hashem, a ram without a mum (blemish) from the flock, by your erech."

Would we say that only one who is part of arachin brings the asham ram, so a tumtum (a person whose gender cannot be seen) and an androgynous (a person with both male and female organs), who have no erech, do not bring it? Rashi explains that this cannot be, since they are Yisraelim like anyone else. So we do not learn this way.

Rather, Rava, and some say Rav Ashi, explains it this way. In Parshat Bechukotai the Torah says of a poor man whose erech is set by his means, "he shall stand him before the Kohen." That means before a Kohen, and not a Kohen before a Kohen. Rashi explains that we would then say a Kohen has no erech at all, since a poor Kohen could never be stood "before the Kohen."

The baraita teaches that Kohanim are part of arachin too. Rabbeinu Gershom explains that the parsha opens "speak to Bnei Yisrael," and Kohanim are included in Yisrael.

The next word of the Mishnah is "and are valued": everyone may be the subject of an erech. As the Gemara said in Arachin 2a, this comes to include a menuval (a person repulsive to look at) and one stricken with boils (mukeh shechin). Where do we learn this?

A baraita teaches the source. "By your erech" (be'erkecha – your value) comes to include erech satum, an erech pledged without saying whose. The Gemara explains this on the next amud.

Another explanation of "by your erech": he gives the erech of the whole person, and not the erech of a limb. Rashi explains that if he says "the erech of my hand is upon me," he has said nothing, since a limb has no erech. But if he says "the value of my hand is upon me," he gives what his hand is worth. The Rambam rules both (Hilchot Arachin 2:1 and 2:3).

We might think I leave out even a limb that life depends on, like the head or the liver.

So the Torah says "nefashot" (souls). Rashi explains that the Torah ties the erech to the soul, so for a limb that life depends on he gives the erech of the whole person.

"Nefashot," and not the dead. One who says "the erech of this dead man is upon me" has said nothing.

I leave out the dead, but should I leave out the goses, a person in his last moments of life, as well?

So the Torah says "he shall stand him and the Kohen shall value him." Only one who can be stood up before the Kohen can be valued, and one who cannot be stood up cannot be valued. The Rambam rules that a goses has neither an erech nor a value, since most gosesim die (Hilchot Arachin 1:13). Tosafot note that the plain meaning of this pasuk is about the one who makes the pledge, not the one being valued, and they leave the question open.

Another explanation of "nefashot": from the pasuk I would know only of one person who pledged the erech of one person.

Where do we learn one person who pledged the erech of a hundred? Tosafot give the case where he said "the erech of this one and this one and this one is upon me," using the word erech only once.

So the Torah says "nefashot," in the plural.

Another explanation of "nefashot"… The baraita goes on at the top of the next amud.