Mishneh Torah, Appraisals and Devoted Property 1

הָאוֹמֵר עֵרֶךְ יָדִי אוֹ עֵרֶךְ עֵינִי אוֹ רַגְלִי עָלַי אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר עֵרֶךְ יָד זֶה אוֹ עֵינוֹ עָלַי לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. עֵרֶךְ לִבִּי אוֹ כְּבֵדִי עָלַי אוֹ עֵרֶךְ לִבּוֹ שֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי אוֹ כְּבֵדוֹ עָלַי נוֹתֵן עֵרֶךְ כֻּלּוֹ. וְכֵן כָּל אֵיבָר שֶׁאִם יִנָּטֵל מִן הַחַי יָמוּת אִם אָמַר עֶרְכּוֹ עָלַי נוֹתֵן עֵרֶךְ כֻּלּוֹ: When a person says: "I pledge the airech of my hand," "...my eye," or "...my foot," or "...that person's hand" or "...that person's eye," his words are of no consequence.¹The rationale is that the Torah prescribed an airech for a person in his or her totality, not for his individual limbs (Arachin 4a; 20a). [If he says:] "I pledge the airech of my heart" or "...my liver" or "...that person's heart" or "...that person's liver," he must pay the entire airech.²Since the person's life is dependent on his heart or his liver, pledging the airech of these organs is like pledging his entire airech. See Arachin 20a. Similarly, with regard to any limb which if removed would cause the person to die, if one says: "I pledge its airech," he must pay the airech of the entire person.

אָמַר חֲצִי עֶרְכִּי עָלַי נוֹתֵן חֲצִי עֶרְכּוֹ. עֵרֶךְ חֶצְיִי עָלַי נוֹתֵן עֵרֶךְ כֻּלּוֹ שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיִּנָּטֵל חֶצְיוֹ וְיִחְיֶה: If a person says: "I pledge half my airech," he must pay half his airech. If he says: "I pledge the airech of half myself," he must pay his entire airech, for it is impossible for him to live if half his body is removed.³The same law applies if he pledges the airech of half of his heart (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Arachin 5:3).

הָאוֹמֵר דְּמֵי יָדִי עָלַי אוֹ דְּמֵי יַד פְּלוֹנִי עָלַי שָׁמִין אוֹתוֹ כַּמָּה הוּא שָׁוֶה בְּיָד וְכַמָּה הוּא שָׁוֶה בְּלֹא יָד וְנוֹתֵן לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ. כֵּיצַד. אִם נִמְכַּר הוּא כֻּלּוֹ [יִהְיֶה] שָׁוֶה חֲמִשִּׁים. וְאִם יִמָּכֵר חוּץ מִיָּדוֹ שֶׁתִּשָּׁאֵר יָדוֹ זוֹ לִבְעָלָיו וְלֹא יִהְיֶה לַלּוֹקֵחַ בָּהּ כְּלוּם שָׁוֶה אַרְבָּעִים. נִמְצָא זֶה יִתְחַיֵּב לְשַׁלֵּם לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ עֲשָׂרָה. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: When a person says: "I pledge the worth of my hand" or "...the worth of so-and-so's hand," we evaluate how much he is worth with a hand and how much he would be worth without a hand and he should give [the difference] to the Temple treasury.⁴This reflects one of the differences between pledges of worth and arechim. He is liable for his pledge, because his words have significance. His hand has value that can be appraised.
What is implied? If he is sold in his entirety, he will be worth fifty [zuz], but if he were sold aside from his hand - i.e., his hand would remain the property of its owner and the purchaser would not have any portion of it⁵Arachin 19b emphasizes that we do not evaluate his value as if his hand were amputated, for then his worth would depreciate greatly, because no one wants a person without a hand. - he would be worth forty, he is obligated to pay ten to the Temple treasury. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

הָאוֹמֵר דְּמֵי רֹאשִׁי אוֹ כְּבֵדִי עָלַי אוֹ דְּמֵי רֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי עָלַי אוֹ לִבּוֹ אוֹ כְּבֵדוֹ עָלַי נוֹתֵן דְּמֵי כֻּלּוֹ. וְכֵן הָאוֹמֵר דְּמֵי חֶצְיִי עָלַי נוֹתֵן דְּמֵי כֻּלּוֹ. אֲבָל הָאוֹמֵר חֲצִי דָּמַי עָלַי נוֹתֵן חֲצִי דָּמָיו: When a person says: "I pledge the worth of my head" or "...my liver" or "I pledge the worth of so-and-so's head" or "...so-and-so's liver," he must pay his entire worth.⁶Again, since the person's life is dependent on that organ, it is as if his entire worth was pledged. Similarly, if one says: "I pledge the worth of half myself," he must pay his entire worth. When, however, he says: "I pledge half my worth," he [is obligated] to pay [only] half his worth.

הָאוֹמֵר מִשְׁקָלִי עָלַי אוֹ מִשְׁקַל פְּלוֹנִי עָלַי נוֹתֵן מִשְׁקָלוֹ אִם כֶּסֶף כֶּסֶף אִם זָהָב זָהָב כְּמוֹ שֶׁפֵּרֵשׁ. אָמַר מִשְׁקַל יָדִי אוֹ רַגְלִי עָלַי רוֹאִין כַּמָּה הִיא רְאוּיָה לִשְׁקל וְנוֹתֵן מָמוֹן שֶׁפֵּרֵשׁ. עַד הֵיכָן הִיא הַיָּד לְעִנְיָן זֶה עַד הֶאָצִיל וְהָרֶגֶל עַד הָאַרְכֻּבָּה לְפִי שֶׁבִּנְדָרִים הוֹלְכִין אַחַר לְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם: When one says: "I pledge my weight" or "I pledge the weight of so-and-so," he should pay his weight. [If] he specified "[his weight in] silver," [he should pay in] silver; if [in] gold, [he should pay] in gold.⁷The laws that apply if he did not specify in what his weight should be measured are stated in Halachah 7.
If he said: "I pledge the weight of my arm" or "...my leg," we see how much it would weigh and he must pay the money that he specified. What is the length of the arm in this context? Until the elbow.⁸The Rambam's opinion is shared by Tosafot 19a. Rashi and others, however, offer a different interpretation. And the leg is until the knee. [The rationale is that] with regard to vows, we follow [the meaning of] the terms as used by people at large.⁹In a halachic context, by contrast, the term yad can refer to the hand. See Hilchot Berachot 6:4; Hilchot Mikveot 11:4.

הָאוֹמֵר קוֹמָתִי עָלַי כֶּסֶף אוֹ זָהָב נוֹתֵן שַׁרְבִיט שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִכְפָּף מְלֹא קוֹמָתוֹ מִמִּין שֶׁפֵּרֵשׁ. אָמַר מְלֹא קוֹמָתִי עָלַי נוֹתֵן אֲפִלּוּ שַׁרְבִיט שֶׁנִּכְפָּף מִמִּין שֶׁפֵּרֵשׁ: When a person says: "I pledge my height in silver" or "...in gold," he must give a scepter of his height that will [stand straight] without bending from the type [of metal] he specified. If he said: "I pledge the extent of my height," he may give even a scepter that will bend from the type [of metal] he specified.¹⁰Adding the extra term "extension of" indicates that he is deviating from the ordinary manner in which the term would be explained (Arachin 19a).

הָאוֹמֵר מִשְׁקָלִי עָלַי וְלֹא פֵּרֵשׁ מֵאֵי זֶה מִין. אִם הָיָה עָשִׁיר בְּיוֹתֵר וְנִתְכַּוֵּן לְמַתָּנָה מְרֻבָּה נוֹתֵן מִשְׁקָלוֹ זָהָב. וְהוּא הַדִּין בְּאוֹמֵר מִשְׁקַל יָדִי אוֹ רַגְלִי אוֹ קוֹמָתִי וְלֹא פֵּרֵשׁ מֵאֵי זֶה מִין נוֹתֵן זָהָב. וְאִם אֵינוֹ מֻפְלָג בַּעֲשִׁירוּת נוֹתֵן מִשְׁקָלוֹ אוֹ מִשְׁקַל יָדוֹ מִדְּבָרִים שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לְהִשָּׁקֵל בְּאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם אֲפִלּוּ פֵּרוֹת. וְכֵן נוֹתֵן שַׁרְבִיט מְלֹא קוֹמָתוֹ אֲפִלּוּ שֶׁל עֵץ הַכּל לְפִי מָמוֹנוֹ וְדַעְתּוֹ: [The following laws apply when a person] says: "I pledge my weight" and does not specify from which substance. If he is very wealthy and [obviously] intended to give a substantial donation, he should give his weight in gold.¹¹Arachin, loc. cit., derives this from an instance which occurred in the Talmudic era. A very rich woman pledged her daughter's weight to the Temple. Our Sages obligated her to give her weight in gold. Similarly, if [such a person] says: "I pledge the weight of my arm," "...the weight of my leg," or "...my height" without specifying the substance from which he will give, he should give gold. If, however, [the donor] is not exceedingly wealthy, he should give his weight or the weight of his hand from any substance which is commonly weighed in that locale, even fruits. Similarly, he should give a scepter as tall as he is [from any substance], even from wood. Everything depends on his wealth and [our assessment of] his intent.

הָאוֹמֵר עָמְדִי עָלַי יְשִׁיבָתִי עָלַי אוֹ מְקוֹם יְשִׁיבָתִי עָלַי אוֹ רָחְבִּי עָלַי עָבְיִי עָלַי הֶקֵּפִי עָלַי כָּל אֵלּוּ סָפֵק וּמֵבִיא לְפִי מָמוֹנוֹ. עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר לֹא כָּךְ נִתְכַּוַּנְתִּי. וְאִם מֵת יִתְּנוּ הַיּוֹרְשִׁים פָּחוּת שֶׁבַּלְּשׁוֹנוֹת: When a person uses any [of the following] expressions - "I pledge my standing," "...my sitting," "...the place where I sit," "...my width," "...my thickness," or "...my circumference" - [his intent is a matter of question¹²For example, if he pledged: "My standing," we are unsure whether he meant a scepter that could stand on its own or one that would bend. If he pledged: "My sitting," we are unsure of whether he meant a scepter as tall as he is when he sits or one of his full height that is bent according to his position when he sits. See Rashi and Tosafot, Arachin, loc. cit., where the possible interpretations of each of the above terms are explained. and] there is doubt [regarding his obligation. Hence,] he should [be required to] give [generously] according to [what could be expected of a person of] his means until he says: "This was not my intent."¹³I.e., we compel him to give generously, because if he gives less than the amount he promised, he will be transgressing the prohibition against desecrating his vow. If, however, he says: "This was not my original intent," we are certain that he fulfilled his vow (Lechem Mishneh). If he died,¹⁴And thus his estate is obligated to fulfill his vow (Chapter 1, Halachah 21). his heirs are required to give the minimum that the expression could mean.¹⁵There is no question of the heirs desecrating a vow, because they did not take the vow. The only question is the lien against the estate. Accordingly, we follow the principle that money is not expropriated from a person unless it is certain that he is liable (Lechem Mishneh).

הָאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי עָלַי מַטְבֵּעַ כֶּסֶף לֹא יִפְחֹת מִדִּינָר כֶּסֶף. מַטְבֵּעַ נְחשֶׁת לֹא יִפְחֹת מִמָּעָה כֶּסֶף. הֲרֵי עָלַי בַּרְזֶל לֹא יִפְחוֹת מֵאַמָּה עַל אַמָּה לְכָלֶה עוֹרֵב שֶׁהָיָה לְמַעְלָה בְּגַג הַהֵיכָל כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בִּמְקוֹמוֹ: When a person says: "I pledge a silver coin," he should not give less than a silver dinar.¹⁶We assume that this was the intent, for this is the most commonly used silver coin. When he says: "I pledge a brass coin," he should not give less than [brass coins worth] a silver me'ah.¹⁷We assume that this was the intent, for anything less would not have significant value. "I pledge iron," he should not give less than [a piece of iron] one cubit by one cubit fit for the blade [of iron that protected against] ravens which stood at the top of the roof of the Temple, as explained in its place.¹⁸As related in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 4:3, there was a blade of iron position on top of the Temple building to prevent ravens from resting there and dirtying it with droppings. We assume that this was the intent, for there would be no other purpose to give iron to the Temple treasury.

הָאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי עָלַי כֶּסֶף אוֹ זָהָב וְלֹא הִזְכִּיר מַטְבֵּעַ יָבִיא לָשׁוֹן שֶׁל כֶּסֶף אוֹ שֶׁל זָהָב יִהְיֶה מִשְׁקָלָהּ עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר לֹא לְכָךְ נִתְכַּוַּנְתִּי. וְכֵן אִם פֵּרֵשׁ הַמִּשְׁקָל וְשָׁכַח כַּמָּה פֵּרֵשׁ יָבִיא עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר לֹא לְכָךְ נִתְכַּוַּנְתִּי: When he says: "I pledge silver" or "...gold" without mentioning the word "coin," he should [be required to] give a slab of silver or of gold of [significant] weight until he says: "This was not my intent." Similarly, if he explicitly mentioned a weight [of silver or gold], but forgot how much he specified, he should [be required to] give until he says: "This was not my intent."

אֶחָד הָאוֹמֵר דָּמַי עָלַי אוֹ דְּמֵי פְּלוֹנִי עָלַי. אוֹ הָאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי עָלַי מָנֶה אוֹ חֲמִשִּׁים אוֹ כֶּסֶף אוֹ זָהָב. הַכּל הֵן הַנִּקְרָאִים חַיָּבֵי דָּמִים. וְהַדָּמִים וְהָעֲרָכִין לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: Whether a person says: "I pledge my worth" or "I pledge the worth of so-and-so," or whether one says: "I pledge a manah,"¹⁹One hundred zuz. "...fifty zuz," "...silver," or "...gold," they are all called "monetary obligations." [Both] arechim and monetary obligations are given toward capital improvements for the Temple, as explained.²⁰Chapter 1, Halachah 10.

שְׁתֵּי לְשָׁכוֹת הָיוּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ. אַחַת לִשְׁכַּת חֲשָׁאִים. וְאַחַת לִשְׁכַּת הַכֵּלִים. לִשְׁכַּת חֲשָׁאִים יִרְאֵי חֵטְא נוֹתְנִין לְתוֹכָן בַּחֲשַׁאי וַעֲנִיִּים בְּנֵי טוֹבִים מִתְפַּרְנְסִים מִמֶּנָּה בַּחֲשַׁאי. לִשְׁכַּת הַכֵּלִים כָּל מִי שֶׁהִתְנַדֵּב כְּלִי זוֹרְקוֹ לְתוֹכָהּ וְאַחַת לִשְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם הַגִּזְבָּרִין פּוֹתְחִין אוֹתָהּ. כָּל כְּלִי שֶׁנִּמְצָא בּוֹ צֹרֶךְ לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת מַנִּיחִין אוֹתוֹ וְהַשְּׁאָר נִמְכָּרִין וּדְמֵיהֶן נוֹפְלִין לְלִשְׁכַּת בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת: There were two chambers in the Temple: one was called "the chamber of secret gifts," and the other "the chamber for vessels." "The chamber of secret gifts" was given that name because sin-fearing men make donations there furtively and poor people of distinguished lineage receive their sustenance from there in secret.²¹See Hilchot Matanot Aniyim 10:8 which explains that giving charity in this manner - i.e., where neither the donor nor the recipient know of each other's identity - is one of the highest forms of giving.
"The chamber for vessels" was given that name because anyone who donated a vessel [to the Temple] would cast it there. Once in thirty days, the treasurers would open [the chamber]. Any utensil that could be used for the improvement of the Temple was saved [for that purpose]. The remainder would be sold and the proceeds placed in the chamber for [funds] consecrated for physical improvements to the Temple.

הֻצְרְכוּ לְקָדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ וְלֹא הִסְפִּיקוּ לָהֶן תְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה מוֹצִיאִין אֶת הָרָאוּי לָהֶן מִקָּדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת. אֲבָל אִם הֻצְרְכוּ לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת וְלֹא מָצְאוּ בְּלִשְׁכַּת בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת דָּבָר הַמַּסְפִּיק לָהֶן אֵין מוֹצִיאִין הָרָאוּי לָהֶן מִקָּדְשֵׁי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ: If [funds] were needed [to purchase] sacrifices for the altar and the funds collected for that purpose were not sufficient, what is necessary can be taken from [the funds] consecrated for physical improvements to the Temple.²²We are permitted to use funds designated for one charitable purpose for a charitable purpose that is higher. And the offering of the communal sacrifices is considered the highest possible purpose. If, however, [funds] were required for physical improvements to the Temple and there were not sufficient resources in the chamber dedicated for that purpose, we do not take what is necessary from [the funds] consecrated for sacrifices for the altar.²³Because doing so would be considering lowering the level of holiness from that for which the funds were designated.
The Ra'avad questions the Rambam's ruling based on several sources. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh justify the Rambam's position.

הַמַּעֲרִיךְ אֶת הַפָּחוּת מִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים וְלֹא עָמַד בְּדִין עַד שֶׁהָיָה יֶתֶר עַל עֶשְׂרִים אֵינוֹ נוֹתֵן אֶלָּא עֵרֶךְ פָּחוּת מִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים. שֶׁאֵין הָעֵרֶךְ אֶלָּא בִּזְמַן הָעֵרֶךְ לֹא בִּזְמַן הַהַעֲמָדָה בַּדִּין: When a person pledges the airech of someone less than 20 years old and he does not stand before [a court for] appraisal until he exceeds that age, the donor is required to give only the airech of one less than 20.¹Which is a lesser amount, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 3. For the airech is defined only at the time that it is pledged and not at the time one stands before the court.²Arachin 18a derives this from the exegesis of Leviticus 27:17.

כָּל הָעֲרָכִין הַקְּצוּבִין בַּתּוֹרָה הֵן שֶׁנּוֹתֵן הַמַּעֲרִיךְ אִם הָיָה עָשִׁיר. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה עָנִי וְאֵין יָדוֹ מַשֶּׂגֶת נוֹתֵן כָּל הַנִּמְצָא בְּיָדוֹ אֲפִלּוּ סֶלַע אֶחָד וְנִפְטָר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כז ח) "וְאִם מָךְ הוּא מֵעֶרְכֶּךָ" (ויקרא כז ח) "עַל פִּי אֲשֶׁר תַּשִּׂיג יַד הַנֹּדֵר": All of the arechim that are explicitly mentioned in the Torah are to be given when the one who makes the pledge is wealthy.³I.e., he has the means to pay the pledge that he made. If, however, he was poor and he does not have the means, he is [required to] give everything that he possesses - even if it is only a sela⁴The laws that apply if he cannot pay even a sela are discussed in Halachah 4. - and he discharges his obligation, as [Leviticus 27:8] states: "If he is too poor [to pay] the airech... the priest should evaluate him⁵Thus the evaluation mentioned by the verse is twofold: a) the age of the person whose airech is pledged is considered and on that basis, we determine the sum the one who made the pledge must pay;
b) if the one who made the pledge is poor, we evaluate his capacity to pay (Radbaz).
Once the poor person pays the lesser amount, he is not obligated to pay any more even if later he becomes wealthy (Halachah 7). according to his capacity."

וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁהוּא נוֹתֵן אֲפִלּוּ סֶלַע אֶחָד אִם אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא סֶלַע אֶחָד שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כז כה) "וְכָל עֶרְכְּךָ יִהְיֶה בְּשֶׁקֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ" הָא לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁאֵין בַּעֲרָכִין פָּחוֹת מִסֶּלַע וְלֹא יוֹתֵר עַל חֲמִשִּׁים: Which source teaches that if he possesses only one sela, it is sufficient to give that sela? [Leviticus, ibid.,] states: "All of your arechim will be in holy shekalim."⁶Implied is that an airech must be at least a shekel. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Arachin 2:1), the Rambam states that if he paid less than a shekel, it is as if he did not pay anything at all. This teaches that there is no airech less than a sela, not more than 50.⁷For this is the highest airech mentioned in the Torah.

הֲרֵי שֶׁלֹּא נִמְצָא בְּיָדוֹ אֲפִלּוּ סֶלַע אֵין לוֹקְחִין מִמֶּנּוּ פָּחוֹת מִסֶּלַע. אֶלָּא יִשָּׁאֵר הַכּל עָלָיו חוֹב וְאִם מָצְאָה יָדוֹ וְהֶעֱשִׁיר יִתֵּן עֵרֶךְ שָׁלֵם הַקָּצוּב בַּתּוֹרָה: If the person does not possess even a sela, we do not take less than a sela from him. Instead, the entire amount is considered as a debt incumbent upon him. If he acquires property and becomes wealthy,⁸I.e., acquires the amount he pledged. he must pay a full airech as prescribed by the Torah.

עָשִׁיר שֶׁהֶעֱרִיךְ וְהֶעֱנִי. אוֹ שֶׁהֶעֱרִיךְ כְּשֶׁהוּא עָנִי וְהֶעֱשִׁיר. הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב בְּעֵרֶךְ עָשִׁיר. אֲבָל אִם הֶעֱרִיךְ כְּשֶׁהוּא עָנִי וְהֶעֱשִׁיר וְחָזַר וְהֶעֱנִי נוֹתֵן עֵרֶךְ עָנִי: When a rich person [pledged an airech] and then became poor, or when a poor person pledged an airech and became wealthy [before he was evaluated], he must give a full airech.⁹He is not given the option of paying a lesser amount. Instead, the full airech remains a debt incumbent upon him. If, however, he pledged an airech when he was poor, became wealthy, and then became poor again [before he was evaluated], he may give the airech required of a poor man.

עָשִׁיר שֶׁאָמַר עֶרְכִּי עָלַי אוֹ עֵרֶךְ פְּלוֹנִי וְשָׁמַע הֶעָנִי וְאָמַר מַה שֶּׁאָמַר זֶה עָלַי. הֲרֵי הֶעָנִי חַיָּב בְּעֵרֶךְ עָשִׁיר שֶׁהוּא עֵרֶךְ שָׁלֵם. אֲבָל עָנִי שֶׁהֶעֱרִיךְ אֶת הֶעָשִׁיר וְאָמַר עֵרֶךְ זֶה עָלַי אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא כְּעֵרֶךְ עָנִי שֶׁהוּא כְּפִי אֲשֶׁר תַּשִּׂיג יָדוֹ: When a rich man says: "I pledge my airech" or "I pledge the airech of so-and-so," and a poor person heard and says: "I pledge whatever he said," the poor person is obligated to pay the airech required of a wealthy man, i.e., a full airech.¹⁰For he was not pledging an airech, but instead, taking vow to pay the amount the wealthy person had pledged. The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that the poor man is judged according to his own financial capacity. The Ra'avad supports his view from Arachin 17a where there appears to be a difference of opinion among the Sages. Although the Rambam interprets that passage differently (see his Commentary to the Mishnah, Arachin 2:1), the Kessef Mishneh notes that the Ra'avad's view seems more appropriate to the text's simple meaning.
If, however, a poor person pledges the airech of a wealthy man, saying: "I pledge his airech," he is liable only for a poor man's airech, i.e., what he is capable of paying.

מַה בֵּין הַחַיָּב בְּעֵרֶךְ עָנִי לְהַחַיָּב בְּעֵרֶךְ עָשִׁיר שֶׁהוּא הָעֵרֶךְ הַקָּצוּב כֻּלּוֹ. שֶׁהַחַיָּב בְּעֵרֶךְ עָנִי שֶׁלָּקְחוּ מִמֶּנּוּ כָּל מַה שֶּׁיָּדוֹ מַשֶּׂגֶת אֲפִלּוּ סֶלַע אֶחָד וְאַחַר כָּךְ הֶעֱשִׁיר אֵינוֹ חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם. וְאִם הָיָה חַיָּב בְּעֵרֶךְ עָשִׁיר יִשָּׁאֵר שְׁאָר הָעֵרֶךְ חוֹב עָלָיו עַד שֶׁיַּעֲשִׁיר וְיַשְׁלִים הָעֵרֶךְ שֶׁעָלָיו: What is the difference between a person who is liable for a poor man's airech and one who is liable for the airech of a wealthy man which is the entire sum [mentioned in the Torah]? Once everything that he owns is expropriated from a poor man, even if it is only one sela, and then he becomes wealthy, he is not liable to pay the greater sum.¹¹We find a parallel concept with regard to sacrifices. There are certain offerings that are dependent on a person's financial status. If he is wealthy, he must bring one type of sacrifice and if he is poor another. If a poor person brings the sacrifice required of him, he is not liable to bring a second sacrifice if he becomes wealthy (Arachin 17b; Radbaz). If, however, he would have been liable for the airech of a wealthy man, the entire airech would remain a debt for which he is liable until he becomes wealthy and pays it [in total].

הַמְפָרֵשׁ אֶת הָעֵרֶךְ וְאָמַר עֶרְכִּי עָלַי חֲמִשִּׁים סְלָעִים. אוֹ עֵרֶךְ פְּלוֹנִי עָלַי שְׁלֹשִׁים סְלָעִים. אֵינוֹ נִדּוֹן בְּהֶשֵּׂג יָד. אֶלָּא לוֹקְחִין כָּל הַנִּמְצָא בְּיָדוֹ וְהַשְּׁאָר עָלָיו חוֹב עַד שֶׁיַּעֲשִׁיר וְיִתֵּן: When a person explicitly mentions the sum of the airech, saying: "I pledge my airech of 50 selaim" or "I pledge the airech of so-and-so, 30 selaim," his financial capacity is not evaluated.¹²I.e., even if he is poor, we do not evaluate his financial status as we ordinarily do if he pledged an airech. The rationale is that he mentioned a specific amount and hence, he is obligated for that amount (Radbaz). Instead, we expropriate everything that he possesses and the remainder remains a debt for which he is liable until he becomes wealthy and pays.

וְכֵן הָאוֹמֵר דָּמַי עָלַי אוֹ דְּמֵי פְּלוֹנִי עָלַי אֵינוֹ נִדּוֹן בְּהֶשֵּׂג יָד. שֶׁחַיָּבֵי דָּמִים הֲרֵי פֵּרְשׁוּ נִדְרָן וַהֲרֵי הֵן כְּמִי שֶׁאָמַר מָנֶה עָלַי הֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב לִתֵּן מָנֶה גָּמוּר: Similarly, if one says: "I pledge my worth" or "I pledge the worth of so-and-so," we do not evaluate his possessions.¹³I.e., and establish his liability only according to the possessions he owns. [The rationale is that] a pledge of worth is like an explicit vow.¹⁴The Ra'avad differs and offers a different explanation. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh favor the Rambam's view. It is like someone who said: "I pledge a maneh¹⁵100 zuz. to the Temple treasury." He is obligated to give an entire maneh.

הָאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי עָלַי עֵרֶךְ סְתָם וְלֹא פֵּרֵשׁ אֵינוֹ כִּמְפָרֵשׁ שְׁלֹשֶׁת שְׁקָלִים אֶלָּא נִדּוֹן בְּהֶשֵּׂג יָד כִּשְׁאָר הַמַּעֲרִיכִין: When a person says: "I pledge an airech" without explaining his words, he is not considered as having pledged three shekalim.¹⁶The smallest airech there is. I.e., he is liable to pay three shekalim if he possesses that sum (Chapter 1, Halachah 20). If, however, he does not possess that sum, we do not say that he has taken an explicit vow. Instead, his worth is evaluated, as above. Instead, he is judged according to his financial capacity, as is the law with regard to other arechim.

הָאוֹמֵר עֶרְכִּי עָלַי וְחָזַר וְאָמַר עֶרְכִּי עָלַי וְהָיוּ בְּיָדוֹ עֶשֶׂר סְלָעִים וְנָתַן תֵּשַׁע לַשְּׁנִיָּה וְסֶלַע לָרִאשׁוֹנָה יָצָא יְדֵי שְׁתֵּיהֶן. שֶׁהָעֲרָכִין לָאו כְּחוֹבוֹת הֵן. שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכָּל מַה שֶּׁבְּיָדוֹ מְשֻׁעְבָּד לָרִאשׁוֹנָה. הֶקְדֵּשׁ מְאֻחָר שֶׁגָּבָה גָּבָה. אֲבָל אִם נָתַן תֵּשַׁע לָרִאשׁוֹנָה וְאַחַת לַשְּׁנִיָּה יְדֵי שְׁנִיָּה יָצָא. שֶׁהֲרֵי כְּשֶׁנָּתַן הַסֶּלַע לֹא נִשְׁאַר בְּיָדוֹ כְּלוּם וַהֲרֵי אֵין יָדוֹ מַשֶּׂגֶת. יְדֵי רִאשׁוֹנָה לֹא יָצָא. שֶׁהֲרֵי כָּל מַה שֶּׁהָיָה בְּיָדוֹ מְשֻׁעְבָּד לָרִאשׁוֹנָה כְּשֶׁנָּתַן הַתֵּשַׁע נִשְׁאַר לוֹ סֶלַע וַהֲרֵי לֹא נָתַן כָּל מַה שֶּׁיָּדוֹ מַשֶּׂגֶת. לְפִיכָךְ יִשָּׁאֵר עָלָיו שְׁאָר עֵרֶךְ רִאשׁוֹן עַד שֶׁיַּעֲשִׁיר וְיַשְׁלִים: [The following laws apply when a person] states: "I pledge my airech" and then repeats: "I pledge my airech."¹⁷And thus he is obligated to pay two arechim. This halachah is speaking about an instance where the donor is poor and does not have the money to pay either - let alone both - of his pledges. If he possesses [only] ten selaim and gives nine for the second airech and one for the first, he fulfills the obligations of both of them.¹⁸I.e., the priest began evaluating the second airech first. The donor could not give the entire amount for the second airech, since he was already liable for the first. For arechim are not like debts.¹⁹In Hilchot Malveh ViLoveh 20:1, the Rambam writes that if a creditor whose lien begins later expropriates property from a debtor first, the court expropriates it from him and gives it to the creditor with the prior lien. This, however, applies only with regard to landed property and not to movable property (ibid.:2). Although everything he possesses is on lien to the first [airech],²⁰And thus he should have paid all ten selaim for that airech, if he did not do so and paid a lesser amount, he fulfills his obligation. once the Temple Sanctuary has collected its due, it has been collected.²¹The Rambam's ruling follows the logic of Rav Sherira Gaon, as quoted by Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi (Ketubot 94a), although the wording of Arachin 7b, 8a, does not imply such a conclusion.
The difference between the two situations is that the two debts are owed to two different people. Hence giving one is taking from the other. Thus the chronological sequence when the liens were established is important. Arechim, however, are always given to the Temple treasury. Thus they are both being given to the same place. Hence there is no point in having the money expropriated.
If, however, he gave nine [selaim] for the first [airech] and one for the second, he fulfilled his responsibility for the second airech, but not for the first. [The rationale is that] everything that he possesses is on lien to the first airech and when he gave nine, he retained a sela. Thus he did not give everything in his possession.²²For when giving the first airech, he should not consider the second airech at all. Therefore the remainder of the first airech should remain [a debt incumbent] upon him until he becomes wealthy and pays it.

הָאוֹמֵר שְׁנֵי עֲרָכַי עָלַי וְלֹא הָיָה בְּיָדוֹ אֶלָּא פָּחוֹת מִכְּדֵי שְׁנֵי עֲרָכִין. הֲרֵי הַדָּבָר סָפֵק אִם נִתְפַּס לִשְׁנֵיהֶן וְנוֹתֵן חֲצִי מַה שֶּׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ לְעֵרֶךְ אֶחָד וַחֲצִי לָעֵרֶךְ הַשֵּׁנִי וְיִפָּטֵר אוֹ יִתֵּן עֵרֶךְ אֶחָד מֵהֶן שָׁלֵם אוֹ כָּל הַנִּמְצָא בְּיָדוֹ בְּאֶחָד מֵהֶן וְיִשָּׁאֵר הָעֵרֶךְ הָאַחֵר עָלָיו חוֹב עַד שֶׁיִּתֵּן אוֹתוֹ בַּעֲנִיּוּת אוֹ בַּעֲשִׁירוּת כְּפִי הֶשֵּׂג יָדוֹ: When a person says: "I pledge two of my arechim,"²³In which case he is obligated to pay both of them, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 19. and he possesses only less than that sum, there is an unresolved question. Is [the money he possesses] on lien to them both? Hence he should give half of what he possesses for one airech and the other half, for the other and in this way fulfill his obligation.²⁴According to this view, even if he becomes wealthy afterwards, he is not obligated to give anything more. Or is he required to give one full airech - or everything that he possesses²⁵If he does not have enough for even one complete airech. - for one airech and the other airech should remain a debt [incumbent] upon him which he will pay - either as a wealthy man or as a poor man - according to his financial capacity.²⁶The Radbaz rules that, because of the doubt, all we obligate the person is to fulfill the first (more lenient) view. Nevertheless, if the Temple treasurer seizes the entire amount as payment for the first airech, the donor remains liable for the second.

הַמַּפְרִישׁ עֶרְכּוֹ אוֹ דָּמָיו וְנִגְנְבוּ אוֹ אָבְדוּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא אָמַר עָלַי חַיָּב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתָן עַד שֶׁיַּגִּיעוּ לְיַד הַגִּזְבָּר. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כז כג) "וְנָתַן אֶת הָעֶרְכְּךָ בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא קֹדֶשׁ לַה'" הֲרֵי הֵן חֻלִּין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִפְרִישָׁן עַד שֶׁיַּגִּיעוּ לִידֵי הַגִּזְבָּר: When a person sets aside his airech or his worth and [the funds] are stolen or lost, he is liable to replace them even if he did not accept responsibility for them until they reach the Temple treasurer,²⁷Our translation is based on authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. The standard published text has a somewhat different version. as [implied by Leviticus 27:23]: "You will give your airech on that day, sanctified unto God."²⁸The verse implies that the obligation is incumbent upon you until the funds are actually given. This is in contrast to some other financial commitments vowed to the Temple treasury, as stated in Hilchot Nedarim 1:2; Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 14:4-6. Even though he set them aside, they are nevertheless considered as ordinary property²⁹I.e., they are not consecrated and the prohibition against misusing property dedicating to the Temple treasury does not apply to them. until they reach the Temple treasurer.³⁰For the implication of the prooftext is that on the day you give the airech, it becomes consecrated.

חַיָּבֵי עֲרָכִין וְדָמִים מְמַשְׁכְּנִין אוֹתָן וְלוֹקְחִין מֵהֶן בַּעַל כָּרְחָן מַה שֶּׁנָּדְרוּ וְאֵינָן חַיָּבִין לְהַחְזִיר לָהֶם הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן בַּיּוֹם אוֹ בַּלַּיְלָה. וּמוֹכְרִין כָּל הַנִּמְצָא לָהֶם מִן הַקַּרְקַע וּמִן הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין מִכְּסוּת וּכְלֵי תַּשְׁמִישׁ הַבַּיִת וַעֲבָדִים וּבְהֵמָה וְנִפְרָעִין מִן הַכּל. וְאֵין מוֹכְרִין לֹא כְּסוּת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְלֹא כְּסוּת בָּנָיו וְלֹא בְּגָדִים שֶׁצְּבָעָן לִשְׁמָן וְלֹא סַנְדָּלִים חֳדָשִׁים שֶׁלְּקָחָן לִשְׁמָן. וְכֵן הַמַּקְדִּישׁ כָּל נְכָסָיו לֹא הִקְדִּישׁ אֶת אֵלּוּ: [The Temple treasurers are entitled to] seize collateral for airechim or pledges of worth. They take what they vowed [from the donors] against their will.³¹In contrast to an ordinary lender who must wait for collateral to be given to him. The donor must be evaluated by the court, however, before his property may be taken. They are not required to return the collateral by day or by night.³²I.e., in contrast to collateral taken from an ordinary lender which must be returned. See Deuteronomy 24:13. They sell all the landed property and movable property in their possession including their clothing, household articles, servants, and livestock, taking their payment from everything.
They may not, however, sell the clothing of the [donor's] wife, that of his sons, clothing that he had dyed for them,³³Even if they have not worn it already. nor new sandals that he purchased for them.³⁴For these articles are considered as owned by the person's wife or children and their property may not be expropriated to pay for the donor's debt. Compare to Hilchot Malveh V'Loveh 1:5. Similarly, when a person consecrates all of his property, he has not consecrated these [articles].

וְנוֹתְנִין לוֹ מִכָּל נְכָסָיו לָזֶה שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו עֲרָכִין אוֹ דָּמִים אוֹ שֶׁהִקְדִּישׁ מָנֶה לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת וְאֵין לוֹ. נוֹתְנִין לוֹ תְּפִלִּין שֶׁל רֹאשׁ וְשֶׁל יָד וְסַנְדָּלָיו וְכִסֵּא לֵישֵׁב עָלָיו וּמִטָּה וּמַצָּע הָרְאוּיִין לוֹ לִישֹׁן עֲלֵיהֶם. וְאִם הָיָה עָנִי נוֹתְנִין לוֹ מִטָּה וּמַפָּץ לִישֹׁן עָלָיו. וְנוֹתְנִין לוֹ מְזוֹן שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם וּכְסוּת שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ לוֹ לְבַדּוֹ אֲבָל לֹא לְאִשְׁתּוֹ וּבָנָיו אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב בִּמְזוֹנוֹתֵיהֶם וּבִכְסוּתָם. וְאֵין נוֹתְנִין לוֹ אֶלָּא כְּסוּת הָרְאוּיָה לוֹ: [When a person] pledges arechim, the worth of an entity, or he consecrates a maneh to the Temple treasury and does not possess [the immediate resources to meet his pledge, we expropriate] all the movable property he owns, leaving him only:³⁵I.e., he is left the basic necessities for his spiritual and material sustenance. If he consecrates all of his property, he is not left even these articles (Chapter 6, Halachah 3). his head and arm tefillin, his sandals, a chair to sit on, and a bed and a mattress appropriate³⁶Implied is that if he possesses an expensive mattress, we sell it and buy him an ordinary one. for him to sleep on. If he is poor, we give him a bed and a straw mat to sleep on. And we give him food for 30 days and clothing for twelve months for himself alone.³⁷If he does not possess the above, we leave him financial resources to purchase them (see Arachin 6:3 and commentaries). We do not [make these provisions] for his wife and children although he is obligated to provide for their livelihood and their clothing,³⁸These obligations are discussed in Hilchot Ishut 12, 2; 13:6. We leave him only garments that are fitting for his [social standing].³⁹Note the following halachah.

הָיוּ עָלָיו כְּלֵי מֶשִׁי וּבְגָדִים מֻזְהָבִין מַעֲבִירִין אוֹתָן מֵעָלָיו וְנוֹתְנִין לוֹ כְּסוּת הָרְאוּיָה לְאִישׁ כְּמוֹתוֹ לְחל אֲבָל לֹא לְשַׁבָּתוֹת וְיָמִים טוֹבִים: If he possesses silk garments and golden garments, we remove them from him and give him garments that are appropriate for a person of his social standing⁴⁰I.e., if he possesses clothing that is appropriate for someone of a higher social standing, that clothing is sold, the funds are used to purchase clothing appropriate for his social standing, and the remainder is given to the Temple treasury. Compare to Hilchot Malveh V'Loveh 1:7. for the weekdays, but not for Sabbaths and festivals.⁴¹I.e., weekday garments are less expensive than those worn on Sabbaths and festivals.

וְאִם הָיָה אֻמָּן נוֹתְנִין לוֹ שְׁנֵי כְּלֵי אֻמְּנוּת מִכָּל מִין וּמִין. כֵּיצַד. אִם הָיָה חָרָשׁ נוֹתְנִין לוֹ שְׁנֵי מַעְצָדִים וּשְׁתֵּי מְגֵרוֹת. הָיוּ לוֹ כֵּלִים מְרֻבִּין מִמִּין אֶחָד וּמוּעָטִין מִמִּין שֵׁנִי אֵין מוֹכְרִין מִן הַמְרֻבֶּה וְלוֹקְחִין לוֹ מִן הַמּוּעָט. אֶלָּא נוֹתְנִין לוֹ שְׁנֵי כֵּלִים מִן הַמְרֻבִּין וְכָל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מִן הַמּוֹעָט: If he was a craftsman, we leave him two of every type of the tools of his trade.⁴²So that he will be able to continue to earn his livelihood.
What is implied? If he was a carpenter, we leave him two planes and two saws. If he had many tools of one type and a few of another type, we do not sell many of those of which he possesses a lot and purchase some of those of which he possesses a little. Instead, we leave him two tools of those which he possesses a lot and all those he possesses of those which he possesses a little.

הָיָה חַמָּר אוֹ אִכָּר אֵין נוֹתְנִין לוֹ בְּהֶמְתּוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ מְזוֹנוֹת אֶלָּא מִמֶּנָּה. הָיָה סַפָּן אֵין נוֹתְנִין לוֹ סְפִינָתוֹ אֶלָּא יִמְכֹּר הַכּל: If he was a donkey driver or a farmer, we don't leave him his livestock even though he can only earn his livelihood with it. If he was a sailor, we do not leave him his boat.⁴³For these are considered as property, not as tools. Instead, everything must be sold.

הָיוּ בַּנְּכָסִים בְּהֵמָה וַעֲבָדִים וּמַרְגָּלִיּוֹת וְאָמְרוּ הַתַּגָּרִים אִם יִלָּקַח לְעֶבֶד זֶה כְּסוּת בִּשְׁלֹשִׁים מַשְׁבֵּחַ הוּא מֵאָה. וּפָרָה זֹאת אִם יַמְתִּינוּ בָּהּ לָאִטְלִס מַשְׁבַּחַת עֲשָׂרָה. וּמַרְגָּלִית זוֹ אִם מַעֲלִין אוֹתָהּ לְמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי תִּשְׁוֶה מָמוֹן רַב וְכָאן אֵינָהּ שָׁוָה אֶלָּא מְעַט. אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לָהֶן. אֶלָּא כֵּיצַד עוֹשִׂין. מוֹכְרִין הַכּל בִּמְקוֹמוֹ וּבִשְׁעָתוֹ כְּמַה שֶּׁהוּא שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כז כג) "וְנָתַן אֶת הָעֶרְכְּךָ בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא קֹדֶשׁ לַה'" לְרַבּוֹת כָּל דָּבָר שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁאֵין מְפַרְכְּסִין אוֹתוֹ וְאֵין מַמְתִּינִין בּוֹ לַשּׁוּק וְלֹא מוֹלִיכִין אוֹתוֹ מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם. אֵין לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ אֶלָּא מְקוֹמוֹ וּשְׁעָתוֹ: If there were livestock, servants, and pearls among his possessions and merchants said: "If clothing worth 30 [zuz] is purchased for this servant, his value will increase by 100"; "If we wait to sell this cow to a meat market, its price will increase by ten [zuz]; or "If this pearl is taken to this-and-this place, it will be worth much money, but here it will only be worth a small amount," we do not heed them. Instead, what is done? We sell everything in its place and at its time as it is, as [the above prooftext [implied by Leviticus 27:23]: "You will give your airech on that day, sanctified unto God." [This teaches that] every entity [that is] consecrated [to the Temple treasury] is not embellished, nor do we wait to take it to the market, nor do we bring it from place to place. Instead, consecrated articles are sold only in their place and at the time [they were consecrated].⁴⁴The rationale is that although expected, these profits are not certain and a loss may occur (Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Arachin 6:5).

בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּמִטַּלְטְלִין וַעֲבָדִים. אֲבָל הַקַּרְקָעוֹת מַכְרִיזִין עֲלֵיהֶם שִׁשִּׁים יוֹם רְצוּפִים בַּבֹּקֶר וּבָעֶרֶב וְאַחַר כָּךְ מוֹכְרִין אוֹתָם: When does the above apply? With regard to movable property and servants.⁴⁵We fear that the movable property can be lost or stolen or damaged in another way and that the servants may flee. See Hilchot Malveh V'Loveh 12:11. For landed property, by contrast, we announce the sale for 60 consecutive days, morning and evening⁴⁶See Chapter 4, Halachah 27, for details regarding these announcements. and [only] afterwards, are they sold.⁴⁷For announcing the sale of the property will attract buyers and increase the price and land cannot be stolen or lost.