Kommentar zu Wajikra 27:3

והיה ערכך THEN THY ערכך SHALL BE etc. — This word ערך used throughout this section has not the meaning of דמים, market-value (which varies according to the condition of the market or the condition of the person offered for sale, whilst ערך is a fixed value), but whether he be of high value or of low value, according to his age is the ערך fixed for him in this section.

ערכך; the two letters כ which are repeated here are similar in construction to the word אדמומית, “reddish, derived from אודם, “red,” or לבנונית, “whitish,” from לבן, “white.”

מבן עשרים שנה ועד בן ששים שנה, “from twenty years and up until sixty years of age, etc.” Actually, the order in which the ages are listed here should have read: “from one month to five years old; from five years old to twenty years; from twenty years old to sixty years; from sixty years old and older, in the case of a male, followed by the parallel rules about the ages of females donating their “valuation” to G’d.” However, seeing that the whole paragraph began with the word איש, i.e. an adult male, the Torah listed the ages in a different order. After all, it would hardly do to describe a month old baby, or even a five year old boy as איש. Furthermore, these minors would hardly put a valuation on themselves, “donating” themselves to G’d, or to the “Temple Treasury.” The only way such minors will be involved in this legislation at all is when an adult declares that the valuation of a boy (or girl) between 30 days and five years of age, or a boy between the ages of 5 years and 20 years will be the amount he (the adult) will give to the Temple Treasury. Seeing the Torah had commenced this paragraph by using the valuation of a twenty year old male as an example, it had to list the other age groups in the order it did (compare Nachmanides).

But rather, whether he is worth much or little. I.e., other items whose monetary value is dedicated to the Temple, where, if the donor said, “The money of so and so is on me,” we calculate according to the high or low value at that time. This dedication, however, is not so, but rather [it is calculated] according to his years written in this section.

ערכך is the same as ערך (i. e. the second כ''ף is not the suffix of the second person masc. sing.). I do not know what grammatical form the doubling of the כ''ף represents.

And as to the doubling of the kof, I do not know. Re’m writes: This is surprising as in Toras Kohanim, cited in the first chapter of Erchin (4a), it explicitly says that this is a kaf of kinui [a pronominal suffix, “your value”): “It was taught in a Beraisa, בערכך, ’according to your value.’ One gives the value of a person’s whole body and one does not give the value of his limbs. Since you might think I exclude the value of a limb that the soul depends on, the verse says, ’souls.’.” We see that the meaning of בערכך is the value of one’s whole body and from this [word] they derived [that one] cannot [dedicate] not the value of part of him, and they [also] said, ‘not the value of his limbs’. So far are his words. I do not understand his difficulty with Rashi, since Rashi is writing about the other appearance of ערכך in the section where the explanation of our Sages is not applicable at all [since they derive it from the first mention of this word]. You cannot say that since one is for an exposition, for this reason the Torah wrote the rest as ערכך because of this even where this exposition of the Sages is not relevant at all., as Rashi thinks it this is a strained explanation.