Talmud - Arachin 17a ערכין י״ז א׳

A calamity awaits him.

§ The Gemara returns to the topic of rebuke. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer the Great says: Were the Holy One, Blessed be He, to have entered into judgment with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, they would not have been able to stand before the rebuke. As it is stated: “Now therefore stand still, that I may plead with you before the Lord concerning all the righteous acts of the Lord, which He did to you and to your fathers” (I Samuel 12:7). This indicates that God acted towards the patriarchs with righteousness, i.e., mercy, not as they deserved according to the strict letter of the law.

§ The verse states: “This is the generation of them that seek after Him, that seek Your face, Jacob. Selah” (Psalms 24:6). This verse teaches that the level of the generation and those who lead them, i.e., those who seek after Him, are the same. Rabbi Yehuda Nesia and the Rabbis disagree about this. One says: The level of the generation follows the level of the leader, and one says: The level of the leader follows the level of his generation.

The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha, i.e., matter, is this stated? If we say for good, that one Sage holds that if the generation is good then their leader will be good, and one Sage holds that if the leader is good then his generation will be good, this cannot be correct, as there is the case of King Zedekiah, who was good, but his generation was not good. And conversely, there is the case of Jehoiakim who was not good, but his generation was good.

The Gemara cites proof for these claims. As Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: What is the meaning of that which is written: “In the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim, son of Josiah, king of Judah, came this word from the Lord, saying” (Jeremiah 26:1), and similarly with regard to Zedekiah the verse states: “And it came to pass the same year, in the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah, in the fourth year, in the fifth month, that Hananiah, son of Azzur, the prophet, who was of Gibeon, spoke to me in the house of the Lord, in the presence of the priests and of all the people, saying” (Jeremiah 28:1). Why did the prophet use the term “in the beginning” exclusively with regard to these two kings, as opposed to: During the first year of his reign, or a similar formulation?

This term teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, sought to revert the world to chaos and void, as it was in the beginning before Creation (Genesis 1:1–2), on account of Jehoiakim, who did evil in the eyes of God. Once He observed the people of his generation, His mind was settled. Likewise, the Holy One, Blessed be He, sought to revert the world to chaos and void, on account of the generation of Zedekiah, but once He observed Zedekiah, His mind was settled. This shows that the leader and his generation are not necessarily on the same level in terms of righteousness.

The Gemara answers: Rather, we are speaking in terms of harshness and gentleness. One Sage holds that if the leader is harsh, then the generation will be harsh. If the leader is gentle and kind, the generation will be the same. The other Sage holds that if the people of a certain generation are harsh, they will have a harsh leader; if the generation is gentle and kind, the leader will be similar.

MISHNA: Affordability, which is written in the Torah: “According to the means of him who vowed shall the priest valuate him” (Leviticus 27:8), is determined in accordance with the means of the one taking the vow, and the sum fixed by the Torah based on the years of age is in accordance with the age of the subject of the vow. And the distinction based on sex that is written in the halakhot of valuations is stated with regard to the one valuated, and the different valuation based on the age of the one valuated is determined at the time one takes the vow of valuation.

The mishna elaborates: Affordability is in accordance with the means of the one taking the vow; how so? A destitute person who valuated a wealthy person gives the valuation in accordance with the means of a destitute person, as determined by the priest. And a wealthy person who valuated a destitute person gives the valuation in accordance with the means of a wealthy person, the sum of which is fixed in the Torah.

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.

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that affordability is determined in accordance with the means of the one taking the vow. The Gemara asks: The halakha of affordability is written in the Torah with regard to the case of one who valuates, i.e., one who says he will give the Temple treasury the set sum assigned to a particular individual’s age and sex. Why, then, is the mishna referring to affordability in the context of one pledging another’s worth by taking a vow, in which the obligation is calculated individually rather than by predetermined assigned values? The Gemara answers: The mishna employs the language of the verse, which uses the word “vow,” as it is written: “According to the means of him who vowed shall the priest valuate him” (Leviticus 27:8).

Similarly, the Gemara asks: Is the mishna’s wording accurate when it states that the sum of the obligation based on the years of age is in accordance with the age of the subject of the vow? The mishna should state that the sum based on years is determined in accordance with the age of the subject of the valuation, not the vow. The Gemara answers: Although it is discussing valuations, since the mishna uses the term vow when it says: Affordability is determined in accordance with the means of the one taking the vow, the mishna also deploys the same term when it says: The sum of the obligation based on the years of age is in accordance with the age of the subject of the vow.

The mishna further teaches: Affordability is in accordance with the one taking the vow; how so? A destitute person who valuated a wealthy person gives the valuation in accordance with the means of the destitute person. The Gemara asks: What is the reason? As the verse states: “According to the means of him who vowed,” which teaches that the Merciful One renders the matter dependent on the one who vows, not upon the subject of the vow.

§ The mishna teaches: But with regard to offerings that is not so, as in the case of one who vowed and said: It is incumbent upon me to provide the offering of this leper, if the one undergoing purification was a destitute leper, the one who vowed brings the offering of a destitute leper. The Gemara asks: And is this the halakha even though it was a wealthy person who takes the vow to provide the offerings for him? But the Merciful One states: “And if he is poor, and his means do not suffice, then he shall take one sheep” (Leviticus 14:21). This indicates that the specified offering is only for the poor, and in this instance the one taking the vow is not poor.

Rabbi Yitzḥak said: The mishna is referring specifically to a case where it was a poor person who was taking the vow to provide the offerings for the leper. The Gemara asks: But what is the basis for this ruling? Perhaps the Merciful One had compassion on him, i.e., the leper, and not on the one taking the vow to provide the offerings for him. As isn’t it written: “And if he is poor”? If so, the leniency that a destitute leper brings less expensive offerings should apply only to an actual leper, and not to one who vows to bring the leper’s offerings, even if he too is poor.

Rav Adda bar Ahava said: The next clause in the verse: “And his means do not suffice,” serves to include the one taking the vow to provide the offering, i.e., if he too is poor he provides the offering mandated for a destitute leper.

The Gemara raises a difficulty with the answer of Rabbi Yitzḥak: But according to this answer, when a wealthy person takes the vow to provide the offering for him, so too, the halakha is that he brings the offering of the leper brought in a situation of wealth.

If so, what is the meaning of the mishna’s statement that valuations are determined based on the means of the one making the commitment, but with regard to offerings, that is not so? This clause seems to indicate that unlike the previous ruling, where a wealthy person who valuated a destitute individual gives the valuation in accordance with the means of a wealthy person, here it all depends on the means of the one undergoing purification. Therefore, in this case a wealthy person brings the offerings of one who is destitute, contrary to the statement of Rabbi Yitzḥak.

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Arachin 17a explores divine judgment of the patriarchs and debates whether a generation's righteousness reflects its leader's or vice versa, citing Zedekiah and Jehoiakim.