I have derived only that this halakha applies in a case of a man who valuated another, whether a man or a woman, as the section begins: “When a man shall clearly utter a vow” (Leviticus 27:2). From where is it derived that the halakha of valuations also applies to a woman who valuated a man, or a woman who valuated a woman? The Gemara answers: The same verse states: “Vow of persons to the Lord, according to your valuation,” to include women.

Alternatively, the word “persons” serves to add a repulsive man and one afflicted with boils. If one valuates such a person, he is obligated to give the set amount according to age and sex.

This derivation is necessary as one might have thought that since the verse states: “A vow of persons to the Lord, according to your valuation” (Leviticus 27:2), it is juxtaposing a person who is valuated and one who is the object of a vow. Therefore, anyone who is included in the category of assessments, i.e., one who is obligated to pay his assessment to the Temple if he takes such a vow, is also included in the category of valuations. If he vows to pay his valuation, he must pay. But anyone who is not included in the category of assessments is not included in the category of valuations. Having no market value, these people are not subject to assessment, and are consequently also not subject to valuation. The verse, therefore, states: “Persons [nefashot],” teaching that anyone who has any amount of life [nefesh] is subject to valuation.

A baraita teaches that the apparently superfluous phrase: “Then your valuation shall be” (Leviticus 27:3), serves to include a tumtum and a hermaphrodite in the halakha of assessments, despite the fact that they are not included in the halakha of valuations. If one assesses a tumtum or a hermaphrodite, he is obligated to give that assessment. The baraita explains that one might have thought that since the verse states: “A vow of persons to the Lord, according to your valuation,” anyone who is included in the category of valuations is also included in the category of assessments, but anyone who is not included in the category of valuations is also not included in the category of assessments. Therefore, the verse states: “Then your valuation shall be,” to include a tumtum and a hermaphrodite in the halakha of assessment.

The baraita continues: This halakha, that a tumtum and a hermaphrodite are not included in valuation, is derived from the term: “The male” (Leviticus 27:3). The definite article teaches that this halakha applies specifically to a male, and not to a tumtum or a hermaphrodite. One might have thought that a tumtum and a hermaphrodite should not be valuated by the valuation of a man, but they should be valuated by the valuation of a woman. Therefore, the verse states: “Then your valuation shall be for the male…and if it be a female” (Leviticus 27:3–4). This teaches that valuation applies only to a definite male or a definite female, but not to a tumtum or a hermaphrodite, who are categorized as neither male nor female.

§ The Master said above in the beginning of the baraita that the verse: “When a man shall clearly utter a vow of persons to the Lord, according to your valuation” (Leviticus 27:2), serves to include an unspecified valuation. The Gemara asks: What is an unspecified valuation?

The Gemara answers: As it is taught in a baraita: One who says: It is incumbent upon me to donate an unspecified valuation, without specifying any particular person, gives the amount of the smallest of the valuations. And how much is the smallest of the valuations? It is three shekels, which is the valuation of a female who is younger than five years old (Leviticus 27:6).

The baraita asks: And why not say that one who does not specify a person should give fifty shekels, which is the largest of the valuations, that of a male between the ages of twenty and sixty (Leviticus 27:3)? The baraita answers: This ruling is based on the principle that if you grasped a lot you did not grasp anything, but if you grasped a little, you grasped something. In other words, if one can derive two sums from the verses, one should choose the smaller number, as it is included within the larger number and is therefore considered certain.

The baraita asks: And why not say that smallest of the valuations is one shekel, as it is written: “And all your valuations shall be according to the shekel of the Sanctuary” (Leviticus 27:25)? The baraita answers: That verse is written with regard to affordability. If one vows to donate the valuation of a person to the Temple treasury but does not have sufficient funds to fulfill his vow, he must pay at least a shekel.

The Gemara asks: But since the payment of three shekels can be derived from the principle of grasping the lesser amount, why do I need the verse “according to your valuation”? Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: The verse is required to teach that unlike other valuations, where a person who cannot afford the set amount can fulfill his obligation with one shekel, in the case of an unspecified valuation even a poor person’s obligation is not determined by affordability, and he must give at least three shekels. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? The Gemara answers: It is because it is considered as though he explicitly vowed that he is obligated to pay three shekels. The principle of affordability applies only to the valuations fixed by the Torah.

There are those who say that Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says the opposite: The term “according to your valuation” actually teaches that even an unspecified valuation is determined based on affordability, and a poor person fulfills his obligation by giving one shekel. The Gemara asks: Isn’t that obvious? Why would one think that this case differs from any other valuation? The Gemara answers that the verse is necessary lest you say that one who obligates himself in an unspecified valuation is considered as though he articulated that he is obligated to pay three shekels, and may not pay less. Therefore, this verse teaches us that an unspecified valuation is also subject to affordability, like other valuations.

§ It is further stated in the baraita cited above: Alternatively, the term “according to your valuation” teaches that one gives the valuation of his entire self and does not give the valuation of the value of limbs. If one vows that he will give the valuation of a limb, he is not obligated to give anything. The Gemara asks: But you have already derived from this term: “According to your valuation,” the halakha of an unspecified valuation. How can you then derive another halakha from the same source? The Gemara answers: Read into this term two sources, as it could have merely written: “Valuation,” and instead it wrote: “According to your valuation.”

The baraita adds: One might have thought that I should exclude even the valuation of an item upon which the soul is dependent, without which one will die, e.g., the head. Therefore, the verse states: “Persons [nefashot],” which teaches that if one valuated a limb upon which the soul [nefesh] is dependent, he is obligated to give the valuation of his entire self. In addition, we derive from “persons” that one is obligated to pay only the valuation of a live person, and not the valuation of the dead.

The Gemara asks: But you have already derived from this term: “Persons [nefashot],” that one who valuates a limb upon which the soul [nefesh] is dependent is obligated to give the valuation of his entire self. The Gemara answers: Read into the verse two derivations, as it could have merely written: Person, and instead it wrote: Persons.

The baraita continues: Perhaps I should exclude only the dead from valuation, as they no longer possess life [nefesh], but I should not exclude a moribund person, as he is still alive. Therefore, the verse states: “Then he shall be set before the priest, and the priest shall value him” (Leviticus 27:8). This teaches that anyone included in the category of setting, i.e., who can stand, is included in the halakha of valuation. But one who is on his deathbed is not included in the halakha of valuation.

The Gemara asks: If so, let me also derive that the dead are not subject to valuation from the same verse: “Then he shall be set before the priest, and the priest shall value him,” as the dead cannot stand. Why do I need to derive this halakha from the fact that the verse wrote: “Persons,” instead of person? The Gemara answers that so too, this is correct, i.e., the halakha with regard to the dead is derived from that same verse. But if that is the case, why do I need the derivation based on the difference between person and “persons”? The Gemara answers that this teaches a different halakha, as we are about to state below, i.e., to add a repulsive man and one afflicted with boils.

The Gemara continues its review of the baraita: Alternatively, as the verse states: “Persons,” in the plural, it is expounded as follows. Were the verse to have written only: A person, I would have derived only that this applies to one person who valuated one person. From where is it derived that even if one person valuated a hundred people, this is also an effective evaluation? Thefore, the verse states: “Persons,” in the plural.

The baraita continues: Alternatively, one can expound the plural form of “persons” as follows: Were the verse to have written only: A person, one might have said that I can derive only that this halakha applies to a man who valuates anyone, whether a man or a woman, as the section begins: “When a man clearly utters a vow” (Leviticus 27:2). From where is it derived that the halakha of valuations also applies to a woman who valuated a man, or a woman who valuated a woman? The same verse states: “Vow of persons to the Lord, according to your valuation” (Leviticus 27:2), to include women.

The baraita continues: Alternatively, the word “persons” serves to add a repulsive man and one afflicted with boils. The Gemara asks: But you have already derived the halakha of these cases, i.e., one who valuated a hundred men or a woman who valuated, from “persons.” How, then, can you derive the halakha of a repulsive man and one afflicted with boils from this same word?

The Gemara answers: These do not require another verse. What is the reason? Each of these halakhot is equivalent to the others, i.e., each derivation from the word: Person, is equally valid. It teaches that one may valuate a limb that is vital to a person, that both men and women may take a vow of valuation, and that one may vow to give the valuation of multiple people. There is no reason to prefer one of these derivations over the others. And therefore, all of them are derived from the word: Person. When the verse, i.e., the plural term “persons,” is required, it is required only to include a repulsive man and one afflicted with boils.

§ The baraita also teaches that the phrase: “Then your valuation shall be” (Leviticus 27:2), serves to include a tumtum and a hermaphrodite in the halakha of assessments, despite the fact that they are not included in the halakha of valuations. The Gemara asks: Why do I need a verse to include them in the halakha of assessments? Even let this be considered only like the assessment of a tree; were one to say: The assessment of that tree is incumbent upon me, is he not obligated to give its assessment?

Rava said: The verse serves to say that a tumtum and a hermaphrodite are assessed by the significance of the body part that one specified. If one vowed to give a vital part of his body, he is not merely obligated to pay the value of that organ but must give the value of his entire body.

As it might enter your mind to say that since it is written in the verse: “A vow of persons to the Lord, according to your valuation,” a person who is valuated is juxtaposed to one who is the object of a vow of assessments. Therefore, anyone who is included in the category of valuations is also included in the halakha of being assessed by the significance of the body part that he specifies. But anyone who is not included in the category of valuations, such as a tumtum and a hermaphrodite, is not included in the halakha of being assessed by the significance of the body part that he specifies. Therefore, the verse teaches that although a tumtum and a hermaphrodite are not included in valuations, they are nevertheless included in the halakha of being assessed by the significance of the body part in question.

Abaye said to Rava: And is it true that one who is not included in valuations is nevertheless assessed by the significance of the body part that he specifies? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that if one says: The head of this slave is consecrated property, he and the Temple treasury are partners in the entire slave. Similarly, if one says to another: The head of this slave is sold to you, they appraise the slave and split the value between them. Likewise, if one says: The head of this donkey is consecrated property, he and the Temple treasury are partners in the donkey. And if one says to another: The head of this donkey is sold to you, they appraise the donkey and split the value between them.

But if one says to another: The head of this cow is sold to you, he has sold him only the head of the cow. Moreover, even if he says: The head of this cow is consecrated property, the Temple treasury has ownership only of the cow’s head. And Rav Pappa said: This difference between these cases is due to the fact that the head of an ox is sold independently in the butcher shop.

Abaye explains the difficulty that arises from this baraita: But isn’t it the halakha that a donkey and a cow are not included in valuations, and therefore are not assessed by the significance of the body part that is mentioned? If one consecrated their heads, their entire body is not consecrated. Rava said to Abaye: And according to your reasoning, that the halakha of assessment by the significance of the specified body part is contingent on inclusion in valuations, the case of a slave should pose a difficulty for you: A slave is included in the halakha of valuations, as stated in the mishna, and yet the baraita teaches that he is not assessed by the significance of the body part that is specified.

Rather, this is not difficult. This baraita, which states that in the case of a slave or donkey the head alone is consecrated, is referring to items consecrated in order to purchase offerings for the altar. On the other hand, that baraita, which rules that in the case of a tumtum one must pay his entire value, is referring to items consecrated for Temple maintenance. In such a case, it is assessed by the significance of the body part that is specified. Here we follow the paradigm of valuation, whose payment is also used for Temple maintenance.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: In what manner did you interpret the baraita that discusses consecrating the head of a slave? You interpreted it as dealing with a case of items consecrated in order to purchase offerings for the altar. But if so, say the latter clause: Moreover, even if he says: The head of this cow is consecrated property, the Temple treasury has ownership only of the cow’s head. According to this interpretation, that it is referring to items consecrated for the altar, why is the head alone consecrated? Let its sanctity spread throughout the entire cow. Isn’t it taught in a baraita: In a case where one says: