Sifra 13.0.11

Bechukotai, Section 3

1) (Vayikra 27:2) ("Speak to the children of Israel and say to them: A man if he utter a vow in your valuation of souls to the L–rd,"): The children of Israel assess, but gentiles do not assess. I might think, then, that they are (also) not assessed; it is, therefore, written "A man." These are the words of R. Meir. R. Meir said: If one verse includes, and the other excludes, why do I say they are assessed but do not assess? Because the power of the assessed is greater than that of the assessors. For a deaf-mute and a half-wit and a minor are assessed, but do not assess.

2) R. Yehudah says: The children of Israel are assessed, but gentiles are not assessed. I might think that they (also) do not assess; it is, therefore, written "A man." R. Yehudah said: If one verse includes, and the other excludes, why do I say they assess but are not assessed? Because the power of the assessors is greater than that of the assessed. For a tumtum (one of unknown sex) and a hermaphrodite assess, but are not assessed.

3) If "the children of Israel," I might think, only the children of Israel. Whence do I derive for inclusion proselytes and bondsmen? From "and say to them." I might think that (also) excluded is a minor (from twelve years and a day) who is able to utter (a vow distinctly). It is, therefore, written "if he utter a vow." It is written here "a vow," and elsewhere (Devarim 23:22) "a vow." Just as "a vow" here is subject to "if he utter," so, "a vow" there is subject to "if he utter." And just as "a vow" there is subject to "do not delay (to pay it"), so, "a vow" here is subject to "do not delay."

4) "a vow in your valuation": Vows are likened to valuations. Just as vows are subject to "Do not delay to pay it," so, valuations.

5) "in your valuation": to include an unspecified valuation. Variantly: He gives his entire value and not the value of individual limbs.

6) I might think that I (also) exclude (from valuation even) an organ that one's life is dependent upon; it is, therefore, written "souls" (i.e., if he dedicates such an organ, he pays the value of his entire "soul.") "souls": and not (if he dedicates the value of) a dead body. I would then exclude a dead body, but I would not exclude one who is at the point of death. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 27:8) "then he shall be stood … and the Cohein shall valuate him." One who can be "stood" is subject to valuation; one who cannot be "stood" is not subject to valuation.

7) Variantly: What is the intent of "souls"? I might think (that the valuation takes effect) only if one (pronounced the formula of) valuation for one. Whence do I derive the same for one who valuated for one hundred? From "souls." Variantly: What is the intent of "souls"? I might think (that the valuation is valid) only if a man valuated either a man or a woman. Whence do I derive (the same for) a woman who valuated a man or a woman? From "souls." Variantly: What is the intent of "souls"? I might think that all who are included in money (value) are included in valuations, but those who are (physically) repulsive or covered with boils, and not included in money (value), are not included in valuations. It is, therefore, written "souls."

8) (Vayikra 27:3) "Then your valuation shall be": What is the intent of this? I might think that all who are included in valuations are included in money (vows), and a tumtum (one of undetermined sex) and a hermaphrodite and one less than one month old, since they are not included in valuations are not included in money (vows); it is, therefore, written "shall be."

9) "For the male": and not a tumtum or a hermaphrodite. I might think they are not included in the category of "man," but they are included in the category of "woman"; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 27:4) "And if she be a female" — either a definite male or a definite female, but not a tumtum or a hermaphrodite. And whence is it derived that the sixtieth year (itself) is regarded as below it? From (Vayikra 27:7) "And if from sixty years and above" — which teaches that the sixtieth year itself is (regarded) as below it.

10) This tells me only of the sixtieth year. Whence do I derive (the same [i.e., "below it"]) for the fifth year and the twentieth year? It follows (inductively). There is liability for the sixtieth year and there is liability for the fifth year and for the twentieth year. Just as the sixtieth year is regarded as "below it," so, the fifth year and the twentieth year.

11) Now if you make the sixtieth year "below it" for stringency (of liability) would you make the fifth year as the twentieth year "below it" for leniency (of liability)! It is, therefore, written "year" - "year" for a gezeirah shavah (identity) — Just as "year" written in respect to the sixtieth year is "below it," so "year" written in respect to the fifth year and the twentieth year is "below it" — whether for leniency or for stringency. R. Eliezer says; Whence is it derived that one month and one day (above the sixtieth year) is regarded as the sixtieth year? From (Vayikra 27:7) ("And if from sixty years) and above." It is written here "and above," and elsewhere (Bamidbar 3:15) "and above." Just as "and above" elsewhere is one month and one day after the month, so, here, one day and one month after the month is regarded as the sixtieth year.

12) This tells me only of after sixty years. Whence do I derive the same for after five and after twenty? It follows (inductively). There is liability after the sixtieth year and there is liability after the fifth year and after the twentieth year. Just as after the sixtieth year, one month and one day afterwards are regarded as the sixtieth year, so, after the fifth year and after the twentieth year, one month and one day afterwards are regarded as the respective year.

13) (Vayikra 27:8) "And if he be too poor from your valuation": If he is too poor to assign a valuation, "then he shall be stood before the Cohein." What is the intent of this? Because it is written "souls," to exclude the dead, I would exclude the dead, but not the dying; it is, therefore, written "then he shall be stood … and the Cohein shall valuate him" — Where there is "standing," there is valuation; where there is no "standing," there is no valuation.

14) I might think that even if he said "The valuation of that man is upon me (to give)" and he (that man) died, he would be exempt (from payment); it is, therefore, written "the Cohein shall valuate him" — even if he died. "and the Cohein shall valuate him": He gives only according to (his age) at the time of the valuation (i.e., when he said "My valuation is upon me to give.") "According to the means of the vower (shall the Cohein valuate him"), and not according to the means of the one bevowed, whether man or woman or minor — whence they ruled: The "means" relate to the vower; the "years" (of the valuation) relate to the one bevowed; the "valuations" relate to the one evaluated (i.e., male or female); the "evaluation" relates to (his age at the time of the valuation [see above]).