הַכֹּל מַעֲרִיכִין וְנֶעֱרָכִין, נוֹדְרִים וְנִדָּרִים, כֹּהֲנִים וּלְוִיִּם וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִים, נָשִׁים וַעֲבָדִים. טֻמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס, נוֹדְרִים וְנִדָּרִים וּמַעֲרִיכִין, אֲבָל לֹא נֶעֱרָכִין, שֶׁאֵינוֹ נֶעֱרָךְ אֶלָּא זָכָר וַדַּאי וּנְקֵבָה וַדָּאִית. חֵרֵשׁ, שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן, נִדָּרִין וְנֶעֱרָכִין, אֲבָל לֹא נוֹדְרִין וְלֹא מַעֲרִיכִין, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶם דָּעַת. פָּחוּת מִבֶּן חֹדֶשׁ, נִדָּר אֲבָל לֹא נֶעֱרָךְ:
Everyone takes vows of valuation and is thereby obligated to donate to the Temple treasury the value fixed by the Torah (see Leviticus 27:3–7) for the age and sex of the person valuated. And similarly, everyone is valuated, and therefore one who vowed to donate his fixed value is obligated to pay. Likewise, everyone vows to donate to the Temple treasury the assessment of a person, based on his market value to be sold as a slave, and is thereby obligated to pay; and everyone is the object of a vow if others vowed to donate his assessment. This includes priests, Levites and Israelites, women, and Canaanite slaves. A tumtum, whose sexual organs are concealed, and a hermaphrodite [androginos], vow, and are the object of a vow, and take vows of valuation, but they are not valuated. Consequently, if one says, with regard to a tumtum: The valuation of so-and-so is incumbent upon me to donate to the Temple treasury, he is not obligated to pay anything, as only a definite male or a definite female are valuated. A deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor are the object of a vow and are valuated, but neither vow to donate the assessment of a person nor take a vow of valuation, because they lack the presumed mental competence to make a commitment. A child less than one month old is the object of a vow if others vowed to donate his assessment, but is not valuated if one vowed to donate his fixed value, as the Torah did not establish a value for anyone less than a month old.
הַנָּכְרִי, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר נֶעֱרָךְ אֲבָל לֹא מַעֲרִיךְ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, מַעֲרִיךְ אֲבָל לֹא נֶעֱרָךְ. זֶה וָזֶה מוֹדִים, שֶׁנּוֹדְרִין וְנִדָּרִין:
With regard to a gentile, Rabbi Meir says: He is valuated in a case where a Jew says: It is incumbent upon me to donate the fixed value of this gentile. But a gentile does not take a vow of valuation to donate his fixed value or the value of others. Rabbi Yehuda says: He takes a vow of valuation, but is not valuated. And both this tanna, Rabbi Meir, and that tanna, Rabbi Yehuda, agree that gentiles vow to donate the assessment of another and are the object of vows, whereby one donates the assessment of a gentile.
הַגּוֹסֵס, וְהַיּוֹצֵא לֵהָרֵג, לֹא נִדָּר וְלֹא נֶעֱרָךְ. רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן עֲקַבְיָא אוֹמֵר, נֶעֱרָךְ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁדָּמָיו קְצוּבִין, אֲבָל אֵינוֹ נִדָּר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין דָּמָיו קְצוּבִין. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, נוֹדֵר וּמַעֲרִיךְ וּמַקְדִּישׁ. וְאִם הִזִּיק, חַיָּב בַּתַּשְׁלוּמִין:
One who is moribund and one who is taken to be executed after being sentenced by the court is neither the object of a vow nor valuated. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Akavya says: He is not the object of a vow, because he has no market value; but he is valuated, due to the fact that one’s value is fixed by the Torah based on age and sex. Rabbi Yosei says: One with that status vows to donate the assessment of another person to the Temple treasury, and takes vows of valuation, and consecrates his property; and if he damages the property of others, he is liable to pay compensation.
הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהִיא יוֹצְאָה לֵהָרֵג, אֵין מַמְתִּינִין לָהּ עַד שֶׁתֵּלֵד. יָשְׁבָה עַל הַמַּשְׁבֵּר, מַמְתִּינִין לָהּ עַד שֶׁתֵּלֵד. הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁנֶּהֶרְגָה, נֶהֱנִין בִּשְׂעָרָהּ. בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנֶּהֶרְגָּה, אֲסוּרָה בַהֲנָיָה:
In the case of a pregnant woman who is taken by the court to be executed, the court does not wait to execute her until she gives birth. Rather, she is killed immediately. But with regard to a woman taken to be executed who sat on the travailing chair [hamashber] in the throes of labor, the court waits to execute her until she gives birth. In the case of a woman who was killed through court-imposed capital punishment, one may derive benefit from her hair. But in the case of an animal that was killed through court-imposed execution, e.g., for goring a person, deriving benefit from the animal is prohibited.