3

Arachin (2:1):

אֵין בָּעֲרָכִין פָּחוּת מִסֶּלַע, וְלֹא יָתֵר עַל חֲמִשִּׁים סָלַע. כֵּיצַד, נָתַן סֶלַע וְהֶעֱשִׁיר, אֵינוֹ נוֹתֵן כְּלוּם. פָּחוֹת מִסֶּלַע וְהֶעֱשִׁיר, נוֹתֵן חֲמִשִּׁים סָלַע. הָיָה בְיָדָיו חָמֵשׁ סְלָעִים, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, אֵינוֹ נוֹתֵן אֶלָּא אֶחָת. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, נוֹתֵן אֶת כֻּלָּם. אֵין בָּעֲרָכִין פָּחוּת מִסֶּלַע, וְלֹא יָתֵר עַל חֲמִשִּׁים סֶלַע.

There is no (case in) Arachin (where one pays) less than one sela, nor more than 50 sela. How so (what is the Halacha in the following cases)? If he (promised 50 but only had enough to) give a sela, and then became rich, he is not obligated to give anything. If he had less than a sela and became rich, he must give 50 sela (because he wasn’t yotzei with less than a sela). If he had 5 sela (and promised 50) Rabbi Meir says he only gives one, and Chachamim say he must give all 5. There is no (case in) Arachin (where one pays) less than one sela, nor more than 50 sela.

Why is the ending (in italics) a repeat of the beginning?

  • Btw there's no such thing as "erchin". Your vowelized Mishnah shows as much – robev Jun 26 at 17:33
4

Arachin 8a tells us:

א קמשמע לן פחות מסלע הוא דליכא הא יתר על סלע איכא יתר על חמשים הוא דליכא הא פחות מחמשים איכא וסתמא כרבנן:‏

This additional statement teaches us that there is no payment of valuations less than a sela, but, by inference, there is a payment of valuations more than a sela. Similarly, there is no payment of valuations for a sum greater than fifty sela, but there is a payment that is less than fifty sela. And this unattributed statement of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who maintain that if one cannot pay the full amount of the valuation, he pays however much he can afford, even if it is more than a sela, rather than paying only one sela, as stated by Rabbi Meir.

(Translation and elucidation from sefaria.org)

  • 1
    +1 but can’t we learn this from the first statement? “Not less than a sela” so obviously yes more, “not more than 50” so obviously yes less. It seems understandable even without the second statement. – Lo ani Jun 26 at 10:56
  • I think that the point is to repeat it after the argument between R. Meir and the Chachamim, giving it the status of מחלוקת ואחר כך סתם – Joel K Jun 26 at 11:38
  • so why do we need the first one? – Lo ani Jun 26 at 12:44

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .