person dedicated. Hence, if someone uses the formula: Erek peloni ‘alay. i.e., the valuation of So-and-so be upon me (topay to the sanctuary). he must make payment in accord with the valuation fixed in Lev. XXVII, independent of theperson's physical or mental condition. Thus e.g., the valuation fixed there for a man of the age of between twenty andsixty, is fifty shekels.
But if he said: Deme peloni ‘alay, i.e., the equivalent of the market value of So-and-so be upon me (to pay to thesanctuary), he has made a vow and he must pay the amount which that person would fetch, if sold on the slave market. Inthis case the deciding factor would be not age, but physical and mental condition.
Tumtum; lit., ‘one hidden, stopped up’. i.e., a person whose genitalia are covered by a skin, hence one of unknownsex.
Scripture refers (ibid.) to ‘male’ and ‘female’, but persons whose sex cannot be determined are excluded from thevaluation.
A boy under the age of thirteen, a girl under the age of twelve years.
Mufla’ from the root meaning, to make clear, to examine, hence ‘one to be examined’ as to the purpose for which hemade the valuation. Above the age of thirteen such knowledge is taken for granted. Below the age of twelve it isassumed to be absent. During the period from twelve to thirteen the boy is to be subject to questioning. If theexamination establishes his knowledge of the purpose of the dedication, his dedication is considered valid, and renderspayment obligatory. Otherwise no significance is to be attached during that period to his utterance of the formula: Erek peloni ‘alay.
The first word of the Mishnah ALL is assumed to apply to the four cases enumerated. This word does not seemnecessary, the Mishnah might have stated e.g., Priests, Levites and Israelites are fit etc. The additional ALL hence isassumed by the questioner to have implied the inclusion of persons whom, without this inclusion, one might haveexcluded. Hence the series of questions establishing the identity of the persons included in each case. This discussionleads to the consideration of other passages throughout the Mishnah, in which the word ‘all’ occurs, and to anexplanation of who is included in each statement.
Lev. XXVII, 2.
A person disfigured, or afflicted with boils would fetch no price at all on the market place. In the expression A vowaccording to thy valuation, one might have inferred from this juxtaposition, that a certain fundamental agreementprevailed between cases of vow (of one's worth) and of valuation, and that therefore a person unfit to have his worthvowed (because a vow was redeemable by payment of the market value, which did not exist in the case of a disfiguredperson) would be unfit to be made the subject of a valuation. But this inference is cancelled by another Biblical phrase,which indicates that what is required is but ‘persons’, independent of their physical condition: When a man shall clearlyutter a vow of persons (ibid.).
V. infra 5a.
By the redundant ALL, which obviously includes some person or persons, which but for this all-inclusive term,would have been excluded. The particular reason why this case rather than any other of the four here dealt with isincluded here Rashi finds in the fact that it is the only one concerning which a controversy exists (infra 5a), whence thestatement here by implication is of importance in teaching that even the Rabbis who hold that one who is less than amonth cannot be subject to evaluation, nevertheless agree that he can have his worth vowed.
The Gemara proceeds now to discuss all other cases in which a redundant ‘all’ is to convey sone inclusion in theprinciple of other persons. The laying on of the hands on the head of the animal to be sacrificed conveyed the sense of ownership. It was a duty, hence a question arises in the case of several partners, or in the case of proxy.
R. Judah denied this obligation to an heir. Lev. I, 3 reads: If his be a burnt-offering . . . he shall lay his hand uponthe head. This, R. Judah argues, expressly limits the duty of laying the hand to the man who offered it, not to his heir,who is freed from his obligation.
Lev. XXVII, 10: He shall not alter it, nor change it, a good for a bad, or a bad for a good; and If he shall at allchange beast for beast, then both it and that for which it is changed shall be holy. The dispute concerns only the case of an heir in respect of an offering dedicated by his father but all agree that an exchange made by anyone besides theoriginal owner of the sacrifice would have no effect at all, the first animal remaining sacred, the second not beingaffected by the unauthorized attempt at exchange.
Lev. III ,2, 7 and 13 in connection with the laying on of hands in the case of peace-offerings. V. Rashi and Tosaf.a.l.