הֶשֵּׂג יָד, בַּנּוֹדֵר. וְהַשָּׁנִים, בַּנִּדָּר. וְהָעֲרָכִים, בַּנֶּעֱרָךְ, וְהָעֵרֶךְ, בִּזְמַן הָעֵרֶךְ. הֶשֵּׂג יָד בַּנּוֹדֵר, כֵּיצַד. עָנִי שֶׁהֶעֱרִיךְ אֶת הֶעָשִׁיר, נוֹתֵן עֵרֶךְ עָנִי. וְעָשִׁיר שֶׁהֶעֱרִיךְ אֶת הֶעָנִי, נוֹתֵן עֵרֶךְ עָשִׁיר: Affordability, which is written in the Torah: “According to the means of him who vowed shall the priest valuate him” (Leviticus 27:8), is determined in accordance with the means of the one taking the vow, and the sum fixed by the Torah based on the years of age is in accordance with the age of the subject of the vow. And the distinction based on sex that is written in the halakhot of valuations is stated with regard to the one valuated, and the different valuation based on the age of the one valuated is determined at the time one takes the vow of valuation. The mishna elaborates: Affordability is in accordance with the means of the one taking the vow; how so? A destitute person who valuated a wealthy person gives the valuation in accordance with the means of a destitute person, as determined by the priest. And a wealthy person who valuated a destitute person gives the valuation in accordance with the means of a wealthy person, the sum of which is fixed in the Torah.
אֲבָל בַּקָּרְבָּנוֹת אֵינוֹ כֵן. הֲרֵי שֶׁאָמַר, קָרְבָּנוֹ שֶׁל מְצֹרָע זֶה עָלָי. אִם הָיָה מְצֹרָע עָנִי, מֵבִיא קָרְבַּן עָנִי. עָשִׁיר, מֵבִיא קָרְבַּן עָשִׁיר. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר, אוֹמֵר אֲנִי אַף בָּעֲרָכִין כֵּן. וְכִי מִפְּנֵי מָה עָנִי שֶׁהֶעֱרִיךְ אֶת הֶעָשִׁיר נוֹתֵן עֵרֶךְ עָנִי, שֶׁאֵין הֶעָשִׁיר חַיָּב כְּלוּם. אֲבָל הֶעָשִׁיר שֶׁאָמַר עֶרְכִּי עָלָי, וְשָׁמַע הֶעָנִי וְאָמַר, מַה שֶּׁאָמַר זֶה עָלָי, נוֹתֵן עֵרֶךְ עָשִׁיר. הָיָה עָנִי וְהֶעֱשִׁיר אוֹ עָשִׁיר וְהֶעֱנִי, נוֹתֵן עֵרֶךְ עָשִׁיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אֲפִלּוּ עָנִי וְהֶעֱשִׁיר וְחָזַר וְהֶעֱנִי, נוֹתֵן עֵרֶךְ עָשִׁיר: But with regard to offerings that is not so, as one who took a vow and said: It is incumbent upon me to provide the offering of this leper, to a leper who requires it for his purification; if the one undergoing purification was a destitute leper, the one who took the vow brings the offering of a destitute leper, which is one male sheep, a tenth of an ephah of fine flour, and two doves or two pigeons (see Leviticus 14:21–22). If the one undergoing purification was a wealthy leper, the one who took the vow brings the offering of a wealthy leper, which is two male sheep, a ewe, and three-tenths of a ephah of fine flour (see Leviticus 14:10). Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: I say: Even with regard to valuations it is so. He explains: For what reason does a destitute person who valuated a wealthy person give the valuation in accordance with the means of a destitute person? It is due to the fact that the wealthy person is not obligated to pay anything, as the debt was generated by the destitute person who vowed to donate the valuation of a wealthy individual. But in a case similar to that of the offerings of a leper, in the case of a wealthy person who said: It is incumbent upon me to donate my valuation, and a destitute person heard him and said: It is incumbent upon me to donate that which he said, the destitute person gives the valuation of a wealthy person. If when one took a vow of valuation he was destitute and he became wealthy, or if he was wealthy and became destitute, he gives the valuation in accordance with the means of a wealthy person. Rabbi Yehuda says: This is the halakha not only in a case where one was wealthy either at the time he took the vow or at the time of payment; even if when one took a vow of valuation he was destitute and he became wealthy and again became destitute, he gives the valuation in accordance with the means of a wealthy person.
אֲבָל בַּקָּרְבָּנוֹת אֵינוֹ כֵן, אֲפִלּוּ אָבִיו מֵת וְהִנִּיחַ לוֹ רִבּוֹא, סְפִינָתוֹ בַיָּם וּבָאוּ בְרִבּוֹאוֹת, אֵין לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ בָּהֶן כְּלוּם: But with regard to the offerings of a leper that is not so, as the offerings that one brings are determined by his status at the time he brings them. Even if it is common knowledge that his father died and left him an inheritance of ten thousand dinars, or that his ship is at sea and merchandise valued at ten thousand dinars is coming into his possession, the Temple treasury has no share in it. His payment is determined solely by his present situation.
שָׁנִים בַּנִּדָּר כֵּיצַד, יֶלֶד שֶׁהֶעֱרִיךְ אֶת הַזָּקֵן, נוֹתֵן עֵרֶךְ זָקֵן. וְזָקֵן שֶׁהֶעֱרִיךְ אֶת הַיֶּלֶד, נוֹתֵן עֵרֶךְ יֶלֶד. וַעֲרָכִים בַּנֶּעֱרָךְ כֵּיצַד, אִישׁ שֶׁהֶעֱרִיךְ אֶת הָאִשָּׁה, נוֹתֵן עֵרֶךְ אִשָּׁה. וְאִשָּׁה שֶׁהֶעֱרִיכָה אֶת הָאִישׁ, נוֹתֶנֶת עֵרֶךְ אִישׁ. וְהָעֵרֶךְ בִּזְמַן הָעֵרֶךְ כֵּיצַד, הֶעֱרִיכוֹ פָּחוּת מִבֶּן חָמֵשׁ וְנַעֲשָׂה יוֹתֵר עַל בֶּן חָמֵשׁ, פָּחוּת מִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים וְנַעֲשָׂה יוֹתֵר עַל בֶּן עֶשְׂרִים, נוֹתֵן כִּזְמַן הָעֵרֶךְ. יוֹם שְׁלֹשִׁים, כִּלְמַטָּה מִמֶּנּוּ. שְׁנַת חָמֵשׁ וּשְׁנַת עֶשְׂרִים, כִּלְמַטָּה מִמֶּנּוּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כז), וְאִם מִבֶּן שִׁשִּׁים שָׁנָה וָמַעְלָה אִם זָכָר, הֲרֵי אָנוּ לְמֵדִים בְּכֻלָּם מִשְּׁנַת שִׁשִּׁים. מַה שְּׁנַת שִׁשִּׁים כִּלְמַטָּה מִמֶּנָּה, אַף שְׁנַת חָמֵשׁ וּשְׁנַת עֶשְׂרִים כִּלְמַטָּה מִמֶּנָּה. הֵן. אִם עָשָׂה שְׁנַת שִׁשִּׁים כִּלְמַטָּה מִמֶּנָּה לְהַחֲמִיר, נַעֲשֶׂה שְׁנַת חָמֵשׁ וּשְׁנַת עֶשְׂרִים כִּלְמַטָּה מִמֶּנָּה לְהָקֵל. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר, שָׁנָה שָׁנָה, לִגְזֵרָה שָׁוָה. מַה שָּׁנָה הָאֲמוּרָה בִשְׁנַת שִׁשִּׁים, כִּלְמַטָּה מִמֶּנָּה, אַף שָׁנָה הָאֲמוּרָה בִשְׁנַת חָמֵשׁ וּשְׁנַת עֶשְׂרִים, כִּלְמַטָּה מִמֶּנָּה, בֵּין לְהָקֵל בֵּין לְהַחֲמִיר. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר, עַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ יְתֵרוֹת עַל הַשָּׁנִים חֹדֶשׁ וְיוֹם אֶחָד: The sum fixed by the Torah based on the years of age is in accordance with the age of the subject of the vow; how so? A youth who valuated an elder gives the valuation of an elder, and an elder who valuated a youth gives the valuation of a youth. And the distinction based on sex that is written in the halakhot of valuations is stated with regard to the one valuated; how so? A man who valuated a woman gives the valuation of a woman, and a woman who valuated a man gives the valuation of a man. And the different valuation based on the age of the one valuated is determined at the time one takes the vow of valuation; how so? If one valuated another when he was less than five years old, when his valuation is five shekels, and before payment to the Temple treasury the subject of the vow became more than five years old, when his valuation is ten shekels; or if one valuated another when he was less than twenty years old, when his valuation is ten shekels, and before payment to the Temple treasury the subject of the vow became more than twenty years old, when his valuation is fifty shekels, in all these cases he gives payment according to the age of the subject of the valuation at the time of the valuation. The Torah provides three age categories that determine the amount of the valuation: From the age of one month until age five, from age five until age twenty, and from age twenty until age sixty. For anyone less than one month old there is no valuation. The halakhic status of the thirtieth day is like that of the period preceding thirty days, and therefore the one who took the vow is exempt. Likewise, the halakhic status of the fifth year and the twentieth year is like that of the period preceding them. As it is stated: “And if it is from sixty years old and upward” (Leviticus 27:7), and we derive all the other age categories from the sixtieth year: Just as the halakhic status of the sixtieth year, where upward is written, is like that of the period preceding it, so too, the halakhic status of the fifth year and the twentieth year is like that of the period preceding them. The mishna asks: Is that so? Can one derive a halakha in this manner? If the Torah rendered the halakhic status of the sixtieth year like that of the period preceding it in order to be stringent and require one who valuated a sixty-year-old person to pay his valuation to the Temple treasury, shall we render the halakhic status of the fifth year and the twentieth year like that of the period preceding them in order to be lenient and pay a lower sum? Therefore, the verse states “year” with regard to the fifth and twentieth years (see Leviticus 27:3–6), and “year” with regard to the sixtieth year (Leviticus 27:7), for a verbal analogy. Just as the halakhic status of the year stated with regard to the sixtieth year is like that of the period preceding it, so too, the halakhic status of the year stated with regard to the fifth year and the twentieth year is like that of the period preceding them, both in order to be lenient and in order to be stringent. Rabbi Eliezer says: Their halakhic status remains like that of the period preceding it, until they will be aged one month and one day beyond the fifth, twentieth, and sixtieth years.