פירוש על ויקרא 27:8

ואם מך הוא BUT IF HE POOR so that his means are not sufficient to pay this valuation,

ואם מך הוא מערכך, “If he is too poor for the valuation, etc.;” on this verse our sages in Erchin 24 say that though the property of the person who vowed to pay this valuation is subject to seizure for the purpose of payment, the bailiff must allow him to retain sufficient chattels and tools, etc., to be able to sustain himself and earn his livelihood. By being deprived of the excess he is deemed to have discharged his vow. He does not have to make payments in the future to settle the part of his debt to the Temple Treasury he has not paid yet. This ruling applies even if in the interval he has become wealthy (Maimonides Hilchot Erchin 3,7).
The procedure here is similar to an ordinary debtor who claims that he is unable to pay his debts. A person deputised for this by the court enters the debtor’s home and assesses what there is that is sale-able leaving him the aforementioned items as his minimum subsistence level. According to the Talmud Baba Metzia 114 this is based on an allusion in the Torah i.e. that the word מך appears in connection with ordinary debts as well as here. Seeing that an ordinary debtor is allowed to retain the necessities of life if he cannot repay the whole debt, the same applies here. (compare Leviticus 25,35 where the Torah commands that we must assist the impoverished Jew). [The type of comparison is called a גזרה שוה, similar language in dissimilar subject matter so that there is not really a conceptual linkage. Ed.] The Talmudic expression for allowing the debtor to retain part of his belongings is known as מסדרין.
There is a difference between the ordinary debtor and the person whose economic circumstances are being assessed by a priest in our paragraph. When personal belongings of the ordinary debtor have been taken as collateral by the bailiff they have to be returned when the owner needs them, such as his pyamas at night. Such a consideration does not apply to the person whose ability to discharge his vow is being assessed by the priest in our paragraph. The reason for this difference is mentioned on the folio of Baba Metzia we quoted. In connection with the legislation concerning collateral the Torah writes that in recognition of returning his nightgown to him the impoverished debtor will bless the lender (Deut. 24,13 and Exodus 22,25). According to the Talmud, the legislation that the pawn must be returned for use by the debtor applies only to creditors in need of blessings. Seeing that the Temple Treasury is not in need of such blessings nothing is to be gained by the pawn going back and forth every night. In connection with this kind of reasoning the question is raised in the Talmud: “does not the Torah write explicitly that when we have eaten and been sated that we must “bless the Lord your G’d” (who has provided us with all this) (Deut. 8,10). Since when does G’d need our blessing? Surely this proves that even the Temple Treasury could use our blessing! The Talmud answers that it is not the blessing mentioned in that verse that determines this but the end of the verse which concludes by saying that the matter will be accounted as an act of righteousness for the party returning the pawn. This is certainly not the case with the Temple Treasury. People who are in need of the merit of having performed acts of righteousness are the subject of the legislation to return a pawn at the time the owner needs it; the Temple Treasury which has no such need does not return collateral for the use of the debtor. G’d the owner of the Temple Treasury dispenses righteousness as He has all that He needs. He does not need to acquire title to it.

והעמידו THEN THEY SHALL PRESENT HIM — the person made the subject of a valuation, לפני הכהן BEFORE THE PRIEST, and the priest shall set a value on him according to the means of him who promised the valuation (Sifra, Bechukotai, Section 3 14).

27,8-23: והעמידו לפני הכהן, והעריך אותו הכהן, יעריכנו הכהן. (יב) והעריך הכהן. כערכך הכהן. (יד) והעריכו הכהן, כאשר יערוך אותו הכהן. (יח) וחשב לו הכהן. (כא) לכהן תהיה אחוזתו. (כג) וחשב לו הכהן. The word הכהן, “the Priest,” occurs a total of ten times in the course of these verses. Our sages in Megillah 23 say that actually that just as when you redeem land you need a quorum of ten people to be present at that occasion, one of whom is a Priest, in order to make the valuation of that piece of land legally valid, so the same applies to the valuation of people (when they had donated the equivalent of their monetary value to the Temple Treasury, as opposed to ערכין where the Torah stipulated the same valuation for people of a certain age group). The Talmud arrives at that ruling by saying that out of the ten times the word הכהן appears here, the first time it is needed to establish the principle that a Priest has an indispensable function here. The other times are all meant to exclude something. We have a principle that if there is more than one exclusion, i.e. if the word which serves as an exclusion occurs more times than necessary this exclusion turns into an inclusion. This is why the Talmud concludes that the nine extra times the word הכהן appears here includes up to nine ordinary Israelites as admissible in that quorum of ten Jews one of whom must be a Priest.

על פי אשר תשיג ACCORDING TO HIS ABILITY — i. e. according to what he possesses shall he (the priest) assess him (the person who has promised the valuation), leaving him sufficient to live upon: a bed, mattress and cushion and tools necessary for his trade; thus, in respect to the latter, if he was an ass-driver (earning a living by carrying loads) he has to leave him his ass (Arakhin 23b).