שבזכר ושבנקבה מיבעי ליה
Rather, the baraita should have stated: With regard to the male and with regard to the female, which are the terms the Torah uses with regard to valuations. The terms son and daughter are used in Yotze Dofen.
ומאי שנא נקבה דכי מיזקנא קיימא אתילתא ומאי שנא זכר דלא קאי אתילתא אמר חזקיה אמרי אינשי סבא בביתא פאחא בביתא סבתא בביתא סימא בביתא:
With regard to valuations, the Gemara asks: And what is different with regard to a female, that when she ages past sixty years she stands at a valuation of ten shekels, one-third of her previous valuation of thirty shekels, and what is different with regard to a male, that when he ages past sixty, at which point he has a valuation of fifteen shekels, he does not stand at even one-third of his previous valuation of fifty shekels? Ḥizkiya said that people say a popular saying: If there is an elderly man in the home, there is a burden [paḥa] in the home, as he does not help with anything; if there is an elderly woman in the home, there is a treasure in the home,as she assists with various domestic labors.
הדרן עלך השג יד
מתני׳ האומר משקלי עלי נותן משקלו אם כסף כסף ואם זהב זהב מעשה באמה של ירמטיא שאמרה משקל בתי עלי ועלתה לירושלים ושקלה משקלה זהב
MISHNA: One who says: It is incumbent upon me to donate my weight, gives his weight to the Temple treasury; if he specified silver he donates silver, and if he specified gold he donates gold. There was an incident involving the mother of Yirmatya, who said: It is incumbent upon me to donate the weight of my daughter, and she ascended to Jerusalem and paid her daughter’s weight in gold to the Temple treasury.
משקל ידי עלי רבי יהודה אומר ממלא חבית מים ומכניסה עד מרפיקו ושוקל מבשר חמור ועצמות וגידים ונותן לתוכה עד שתתמלא אמר ר' יוסי וכי היאך אפשר לכוין בשר כנגד בשר ועצמות כנגד עצמות אלא שמין את היד כמה היא ראויה לשקול:
In the case of one who says: It is incumbent upon me to donate the weight of my forearm, how does he ascertain the weight of his forearm? Rabbi Yehuda says: He fills a barrel with water and inserts his arm up to his elbow into the water. And in order to measure the displacement, he weighs donkey flesh, and bones, and sinews and places it into the barrel until it fills, and the water level reaches the top of the barrel. He then donates the weight of the meat and the bones to the Temple treasury. Rabbi Yosei said: Displacement is according to volume not according to weight, and how then is it possible to match the amount of the donkey flesh with the flesh of a person and the volume of the donkey’s bones with his bones? Rather, the court appraises how much the forearm is likely to weigh.
גמ׳ מאי אם כסף כסף אם זהב זהב אמר רב יהודה פירש כסף כסף פירש זהב זהב פשיטא הא קמ"ל טעמא דפירש הא לא פירש פטר נפשיה בכל דהו
GEMARA: What is the meaning of the mishna’s statement: If silver, silver, and if gold, gold? Rav Yehuda said: If one specified that he vows to donate his weight in silver he donates silver, and if he specified gold he donates gold. The Gemara asks: Isn’t that obvious? The Gemara answers: This is what the mishna is teaching us: The reason he donates silver or gold is that he specified silver or gold, from which it may be inferred that if he did not specify the means of payment, he may exempt himself with any material.
כרחבה דאמר רחבה באתרא דתקלי כופרא פטר נפשיה אפי' בכופרא פשיטא לא צריכא דאיכא דתקל ואיכא דכייל מהו דתימא כיון דכולהו לא תקלי לא קמ"ל
The Gemara adds: And this is in accordance with a statement of Raḥava, as Raḥava says: In a place where merchants weigh pitch when selling it, one who vows his weight may exempt himself by donating his weight even in pitch. The Gemara asks: Isn’t that obvious? The Gemara answers: No, the statement of Raḥava is necessary in a place where there are merchants who weigh pitch and there are others who measure its volume. Lest you say: Since not all merchants weigh pitch one may not fulfill his vow by donating his weight in pitch, Raḥava teaches us that as there are merchants there who sell pitch by weight, one can fulfill his vow in that manner.
אמר רב פפא באתרא דתקלי שמכי פטר נפשיה אפי' בשמכי פשיטא לא צריכא דבתר דשקלי שדו תרי תלתא מהו דתימא בטיל תורת משקל קמ"ל:
Rav Pappa says: In a place where merchants weigh onions when selling them, one who vowed his weight may exempt himself by donating his weight even in onions. The Gemara again asks: Isn’t that obvious? The Gemara answers: No, the statement of Rav Pappa is necessary in a place where after they weigh the onions the merchants throw in two or three extra onions to the buyer. Lest you say that its status as a place where onions are sold by weight is void due to the additional onions, Rav Pappa teaches us that it is still considered a place where onions are sold by weight.
מעשה באמה של ירמטיא וכו': מעשה לסתור
§ The mishna teaches: There was an incident involving the mother of Yirmatya, who said: It is incumbent upon me to donate the weight of my daughter, without specifying silver or gold, and she ascended to Jerusalem and paid her daughter’s weight in gold to the Temple treasury. The Gemara asks: Was an incident cited to contradict the previous ruling of the mishna? The mishna had stated: If silver, silver, and if gold, gold, which indicates that if one did not specify the means of payment he may exempt himself with any material that merchants sell by weight, whereas it can be inferred from the incident that one must pay the weight in gold.
חסורי מחסרא והכי קתני ואם אדם חשוב הוא אף ע"ג דלא פריש לפי כבודו אמרינן ומעשה באמה של ירמטיא שאמרה משקל בתי עלי ועלתה לירושלים ושקלוה ונתנה משקלה זהב
The Gemara answers: The mishna is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: And if the one who vowed is a distinguished person, even though he did not specify silver or gold we say he must fulfill his vow in keeping with his socioeconomic status. And likewise, there was an incident involving the mother of Yirmatya, a very wealthy woman, who said: It is incumbent upon me to donate the weight of my daughter, and she ascended to Jerusalem and gave her daughter’s weight in gold to the Temple treasury.
אמר רב יהודה האומר קומתי עלי נותן שרביט שאינו נכפף מלא קומתי עלי נותן שרביט הנכפף מיתיבי קומתי עלי מלא קומתי עלי נותן שרביט שאינו נכפף
§ Rav Yehuda says that one who says: It is incumbent upon me to donate my height, gives a thick rod that cannot be bent equivalent to his height. One who says: It is incumbent upon me to donate my full height, may give even a thin rod that can be bent, provided it is equivalent to his height. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita (Tosefta 3:1): With regard to one who says: It is incumbent upon me to donate my height, or: It is incumbent upon me to donate my full height, he gives a thick rod that cannot be bent and that is equivalent to his height.
הוא דאמר כר"ע דדייק לישנא יתירא דתנן לא את הבור ולא [את] הדות אף ע"פ שכתב עומקה ורומה וצריך ליקח לו דרך דברי ר"ע
The Gemara answers: Rav Yehuda says his statement in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who holds that one can draw an inference from superfluous language. As we learned in a mishna (Bava Batra 64a): If one sold his house without specification, he has sold neither the pit nor the cistern [dut] with it, even if he wrote in the document of sale: With its depth and its height. This is because anything that is ancillary to the house, e.g., pits and cisterns, must be mentioned explicitly in the contract. And the seller must purchase for himself a path through to the pit or cistern that he kept back, as he sold his rights to the area surrounding the house along with the house, and therefore he may no longer walk through that area. This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva.
וחכ"א אינו צריך ומודה רבי עקיבא בזמן שאמר לו חוץ מאלו שאין צריך ליקח לו דרך אלמא כיון דלא צריך וקאמר לטפויי מילתא קאתי הכא נמי כיון דלא צריך וקאמר לטפויי מילתא קאתי
And the Rabbis say: He need not purchase a path, as the seller clearly did not intend to keep the pit or cistern without maintaining access to it. And Rabbi Akiva concedes that when the seller states to the buyer in the document of sale: Excluding these, the pit and the cistern, that he need not purchase for himself a path through to the pit or cistern. Evidently, Rabbi Akiva’s reasoning is that since the seller need not specify that the pit and cistern are excluded from the sale, and yet he says that they were excluded, he is coming with this statement to add an element to the agreement, i.e., the right of access. Here too, when one says: It is incumbent upon me to donate my full height, since it is a case where he need not add the word full, and yet he says it, he is coming to add an element to his vow, i.e., the ability to exempt himself with a thin rod.
איבעיא להו עומדי מהו
A dilemma was raised before the Sages. If one says: It is incumbent upon me to donate my stature, what is the halakha?