Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

July 14, 2019 | 讬状讗 讘转诪讜讝 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Arakhin 28

What items can one dedicated as “cherem”? One can dedicate only part in each category but not all one owns in that category. There is a debate whether one can give more than 1/5 of one’s possessions to charity. Where does one’s cherem go – to the priests or to the Temple? One cannot redeem an item that one said is cherem. Can pirests and levites make an item cherem? Is there a difference regarding that question between land and moveable items. In a case where cherem goes to the priest, can one choose which priest or does it go to the priests working in the Temple that week?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讚讗诪讜专 讘注砖专讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讛讘注诇讬诐 拽讜讚诪讬谉 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讜诪专 诇讜 讛讙注转讬讱

What are the circumstances of such an offer? It is in a case where the owner initially said he would purchase the field for twenty-one sela. In such an instance, the additional one-fifth amounts to five sela and one dinar, which means that the total payment of the owner is twenty-six sela and one dinar, greater than the offer of the other person. Accordingly, the owner takes precedence, and when the one-fifth is added to the twenty-six sela offer of the other person, the total price paid by the owner is equal to thirty-one sela and one dinar. And if the payment of the owner does not exceed the offer of the other person even when accounting for the additional one-fifth, then the treasurer says to the other person: The field has come into your possession.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讞专讬诐 讗讚诐 诪爪讗谞讜 讜诪讘拽专讜 讜诪注讘讚讬讜 讜诪砖驻讞讜转讬讜 讛讻谞注谞讬诐 讜诪砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝转讜 讜讗诐 讛讞专讬诐 讗转 讻讜诇诐 讗讬谞诐 诪讜讞专诪讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 诪讛 讗诐 诇讙讘讜讛 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 专砖讗讬 诇讛讞专讬诐 讻诇 谞讻住讬讜 注诇 讗讞转 讻诪讛 讜讻诪讛 砖讬讛讗 讗讚诐 讞住 注诇 谞讻住讬讜

MISHNA: A person may dedicate, for sacred or priestly use, some of his flock and some of his cattle, and some of his Canaanite slaves and maidservants, and some of his ancestral field. But if he dedicated all that he has of any type of property, they are not dedicated, i.e., the dedication does not take effect; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said: If for the Most High a person may not dedicate all his property, it is all the more so the case that a person should spare his property and not give all of it to others.

讙诪壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪讻诇 讗砖专 诇讜 讜诇讗 讻诇 讗砖专 诇讜 诪讗讚诐 讜诇讗 讻诇 讗讚诐 诪讘讛诪讛 讜诇讗 讻诇 讘讛诪讛 诪砖讚讛 讗讞讝讛 讜诇讗 讻诇 砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where are these matters, stated in the mishna, derived? The Gemara explains that this is as the Sages taught in a baraita, with regard to the verse: 鈥淣otwithstanding, no dedicated thing that a man may dedicate to the Lord of all that he has, whether of man or animal, or of his ancestral field鈥 (Leviticus 27:28). The verse indicates that one may dedicate 鈥渙f all that he has鈥 but not all that he has; likewise 鈥渙f man鈥 but not every man, i.e., not every slave of his; 鈥渙f man or animal鈥 but not every animal of his; and finally one may dedicate 鈥渙f his ancestral field鈥 but not all of his ancestral field.

讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讞专讬诐 讜讗诐 讛讞专讬诐 讬讛讜 诪讜讞专诪讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讱 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 诪讛 讗诐 诇讙讘讜讛 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 专砖讗讬 诇讛讞专讬诐 讻诇 谞讻住讬讜 注诇 讗讞转 讻诪讛 讜讻诪讛 砖讬讛讗 讗讚诐 讞住 注诇 谞讻住讬讜

It might have been thought that one may not dedicate all his properties ab initio, but if he did dedicate all of them, they should be dedicated. Therefore the verse states: 鈥淣otwithstanding,鈥 to teach that they are not dedicated. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said: If for the Most High a person may not dedicate all his property, it is all the more so the case that a person should spare his property and not give it all to others.

讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诪讻诇 讗砖专 诇讜 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讻诇 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇讗 诇讞专讬诐 讗讘诇 诪讬谉 讗讞讚 诇讬讞专诪讬讛 讻讜诇讬讛 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诪讗讚诐 讜诇讗 讻诇 讗讚诐

The Gemara notes: And it is necessary to derive this halakha with regard to all the categories in the verse. As, if the Merciful One had written only: 鈥淥f all that he has,鈥 I would say that one may not dedicate all that he has, but let him dedicate all of one type of property. Therefore, the Merciful One writes 鈥渙f man,鈥 to teach that he may not dedicate every man.

讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诪讗讚诐 讚诇讗 住讙讬讗 诇讬讛 讘诇讗 注讘讜讚讛 讗讘诇 砖讚讛 住讙讬讗 诇讬讛 讘讚讬住转讜专谉 讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛谞讬 转专转讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讻讗 讞讬讜转讗 讜讛讻讗 讞讬讜转讗 讗讘诇 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 诇讬讞专诪讬谞讛讜 讻讜诇讛讜 爪专讬讻讬

And if the Merciful One had written only: 鈥渙f man,鈥 one might say that he may not dedicate all of his slaves, as it is not possible for him to be without a slave to perform his work; but with regard to a field, it is possible for him to maintain a livelihood by sharecropping [distoran]. And if the Torah had taught this halakha with regard to only these two types, i.e., ancestral fields and slaves, one might say these may not be dedicated in their entirety because here there is livelihood and here there is also livelihood. But in the case of movable property, on which maintaining a livelihood does not depend, let him dedicate all of them. Therefore, all of these derivations are necessary.

讘讛诪讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讬讻讜诇 讬讞专讬诐 讗讚诐 讘谞讜 讜讘转讜 注讘讚讜 讜砖驻讞转讜 讛注讘专讬讬诐 讜砖讚讛 诪拽谞转讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讛诪讛 诪讛 讘讛诪讛 讬砖 诇讜 专砖讜转 诇诪讜讻专讛 讗祝 讻诇 砖讬砖 诇讜 专砖讜转 诇诪讜讻专讛

The Gemara further asks: Why do I need for the verse to state 鈥渙r animal鈥? The Gemara explains it is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: One might have thought a person can dedicate his son or his daughter, his Hebrew slave or maidservant, or his purchased field. Therefore, the verse states 鈥渁nimal鈥 to teach that just as an animal is an item that he has permission to sell, so too, one can dedicate any item that he has permission to sell. He cannot dedicate an item that he does not have the ability to sell.

讜讛诇讗 讘转讜 拽讟谞讛 讬砖 诇讜 专砖讜转 诇诪讜讻专讛 讬讻讜诇 讬讞专讬诪谞讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讛诪讛 诪讛 讘讛诪讛 讬砖 诇讜 专砖讜转 诇诪讜讻专讛 诇注讜诇诐 讗祝 讻诇 砖讬砖 诇讜 专砖讜转 诇诪讜讻专讛 诇注讜诇诐

The baraita continues: But in the case of his minor daughter, he has permission to sell her as a Hebrew maidservant. If so, one might have thought he may dedicate her. Therefore, the verse states 鈥渁nimal,鈥 indicating that just as an animal is an item that he always has permission to sell, so too, one can dedicate any item that he always has permission to sell, whereas one may not sell his daughter once she reaches majority. A field as well can be sold only until the Jubilee Year.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讗诐 诇讙讘讜讛 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 专砖讗讬 讻讜壮 讛讬讬谞讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said: If for the Most High a person may not dedicate all his property, it is all the more so the case that one should spare his property and not give it all to others. The Gemara raises a difficulty: This is identical to the opinion of the first tanna, i.e., Rabbi Eliezer, who prohibits the dedication of all one鈥檚 property.

讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚专讘讬 讗讬诇讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇讗 讘讗讜砖讗 讛转拽讬谞讜 讛诪讘讝讘讝 讗诇 讬讘讝讘讝 讬讜转专 诪讞讜诪砖

The Gemara responds: There is a practical difference between them with regard to the statement of Rabbi Ila, as Rabbi Ila said: In Usha the Sages instituted that one who dispenses his money to charity should not dispense more than a fifth. Rabbi Eliezer, who did not state that one should spare his property, rules that one may give all his money to charity, provided he keeps a small portion for himself, whereas Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya maintains that one should not give more than a fifth.

诪注砖讛 讘讗讞讚 砖讘拽砖 诇讘讝讘讝 讬讜转专 诪讞讜诪砖 讜诇讗 讛谞讬讞讜 诇讜 讞讘专讬讜 讜诪谞讜 专讘讬 讬砖讘讘 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘讬 讬砖讘讘 讜诇讗 讛谞讬讞讜 诇讜 讞讘讬专讬讜 讜诪谞讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

The Gemara relates that there was an incident involving a certain individual who sought to dispense more than a fifth of his property as charity, and his friend did not let him act upon his wishes. And who was this friend? It was Rabbi Yeshevav. And some say it was Rabbi Yeshevav who wanted to give too much charity, and his friend did not let him do so. And who was the friend? It was Rabbi Akiva.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讞专讬诐 讘谞讜 讜讘转讜 讜注讘讚讜 讜砖驻讞转讜 讛注讘专讬诐 讜砖讚讛 诪拽谞转讜 讗讬谉 诪讜讞专诪讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪讞专讬诐 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 砖诇讜 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讜讛诇讜讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讞专讬诪讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讞专讬诪讬谉 砖讛讞专诪讬谉 砖诇讛谉 讜讛诇讜讬诐 诪讞专讬诪讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讛讞专诪讬谉 砖诇讛谉

MISHNA: In the case of one who dedicates his son or his daughter, or his Hebrew slave or maidservant, or his purchased field, those items are not considered dedicated, as a person may not dedicate an item that is not his. Priests and Levites may not dedicate their property; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says: Priests may not dedicate their property, as all dedicated property is theirs; it is one of the priestly gifts, as the verse states: 鈥淓verything dedicated in Israel shall be yours鈥 (Numbers 18:14). But Levites may dedicate their property, as dedicated property is not theirs.

讗诪专 专讘讬 谞专讗讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘拽专拽注讜转 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讗讞讝转 注讜诇诐 讛讬讗 诇讛诐 讜讚讘专讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讛讞专诪讬谉 砖诇讛谉

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The statement of Rabbi Yehuda appears to be correct with regard to land, as it is stated about the land of the Levites: 鈥淏ut the fields of the open land surrounding their cities may not be sold, as that is their perpetual possession鈥 (Leviticus 25:34), and they cannot renounce that land. And the statement of Rabbi Shimon appears to be correct with regard to movable property, which the Levites may dedicate, as dedicated property is not theirs. It is a gift for the priests, not the Levites.

讙诪壮 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘砖诇诪讗 讻讛谞讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讞专讬诪讬谉 砖讞专诪讬谉 砖诇讛谉 讗诇讗 诇讜讬诐 讘砖诇诪讗 诪拽专拽注讬 诇讗 诪讞专诪讬 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 讗讞讝转 注讜诇诐 讛讬讗 诇讛诐 讗诇讗 诪讟诇讟诇讬 诇讬讞专诪讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 诪讻诇 讗砖专 诇讜 讜诪砖讚讛 讗讞讝转讜 诪拽讬砖 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 诇拽专拽注讜转

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Yehuda, what is his reasoning? Granted, priests may not dedicate property, as dedicated property is theirs; it is one of the gifts of the priesthood. But why are Levites unable to dedicate their property? Granted, they may not dedicate land, as it is written: 鈥淎s that is their perpetual possession鈥 (Leviticus 25:34). But let them dedicate movable property. The Gemara explains that the verse states: 鈥淣otwithstanding, no dedicated thing, that a man may dedicate to the Lord of all that he has, whether of man or animal, or of his ancestral field鈥 (Leviticus 27:28). The verse juxtaposes the dedication of movable property to that of land. Accordingly, as Levites cannot dedicate land, they cannot dedicate movable property either.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘砖诇诪讗 讻讛谞讬诐 讻讚讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 诇讜讬诐 讘砖诇诪讗 诪讟诇讟诇讬诐 诇讞专讬诐 讚诇讗 诪拽讬砖 讗诇讗 诪拽专拽注讬 讗诪讗讬 讛讻转讬讘 讗讞讝转 注讜诇诐 讛讬讗 诇讛诐 诪讗讬 诪讞专讬诪讬谉 谞诪讬 讚拽讗诪专 诪讟诇讟诇讬

The Gemara asks: And with regard to Rabbi Shimon, what is his reasoning? Granted, priests may not dedicate their property, as we stated above, because dedicated property is theirs. But why may Levites dedicate their property? Granted, let them dedicate movable property, as Rabbi Shimon does not juxtapose movable property to land. But why may Levites dedicate land? Isn鈥檛 it written: That is their perpetual possession? The Gemara answers: What does Rabbi Shimon mean when he says Levites may dedicate property? He means they may dedicate only movable property.

讜讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 谞专讗讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘诪拽专拽注讬 讜讚讘专讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘诪讟诇讟诇讬 诪讻诇诇 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪拽专拽注讬 谞诪讬 拽讗诪专 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 专讘讬 谞专讗讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘拽专拽注讜转 砖讗祝 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讗 谞讞诇拽 讗诇讗 讘诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗讘诇 讘拽专拽注讜转 诪讜讚讛 诇讬讛

The Gemara objects: But from the fact that the latter clause of the mishna teaches: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said the statement of Rabbi Yehuda appears to be correct with regard to land, and the statement of Rabbi Shimon appears to be correct with regard to movable property; by inference one may conclude that Rabbi Shimon also says Levites can dedicate their land. The Gemara explains that this is what the mishna is saying: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said that the statement of Rabbi Yehuda appears to be correct even to Rabbi Shimon with regard to land belonging to Levites, as even Rabbi Shimon disagrees with Rabbi Yehuda about the ability of Levites to dedicate property only with regard to movable property. But with regard to land, Rabbi Shimon concedes to Rabbi Yehuda that the Levites cannot dedicate it.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讛讞专讬诐 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 谞讜转谞谉 诇讻诇 讻讛谉 砖讬专爪讛 砖谞讗诪专 讻诇 讞专诐 讘讬砖专讗诇

Rabbi 岣yya bar Avin says: One who dedicated movable property may give it to any priest that he wishes, as it is stated: 鈥淓verything dedicated in Israel

诇讱 讬讛讬讛 讛讞专讬诐 砖讚讜转讬讜 谞讜转谞谉 诇讻讛谉 砖讘讗讜转讜 诪砖诪专 砖谞讗诪专 讻砖讚讛 讛讞专诐 诇讻讛谉 转讛讬讛 讗讞讝转讜 讜讙诪专 诇讻讛谉 诇讻讛谉 诪讙讝诇 讛讙专

shall be yours鈥 (Numbers 18:14), i.e., for Aaron and any of his descendants. But if one dedicated his fields, he gives them to a priest of that priestly watch which is currently serving in the Temple, as it is stated: 鈥淎s a field dedicated; its possession shall be to the priest鈥 (Leviticus 27:21). And one derives a verbal analogy between 鈥渢o the priest鈥 here and 鈥渢o the priest鈥 from a verse (Numbers 5:8) discussing property robbed from a convert. The halakha in that case is that if one took an oath that he did not rob a convert, and then after the convert died and left no descendants he admitted to taking a false oath, he must give the stolen property to the priests of the priestly watch currently serving in the Temple.

讜讛转诐 诪谞诇谉 讚转谞讬讗 诇讛壮 诇讻讛谉 拽谞讗讜 讛砖诐 讜谞转谞讜 诇讻讛谉 砖讘讗讜转讜 诪砖诪专

The Gemara asks: And there, in the case of property robbed from a convert, from where do we derive that it is given to the priests of the current priestly watch? As it is taught in a baraita: In the verse: 鈥淏ut if the man has no kinsman to whom restitution may be made for the guilt, the restitution for guilt that is made shall be the Lord鈥檚, to the priest鈥 (Numbers 5:8), the phrase: 鈥淪hall be the Lord鈥檚, to the priest,鈥 indicates that God has acquired the restitution for the guilt and has given it to the priest of that priestly watch.

讗转讛 讗讜诪专 诇讻讛谉 砖讘讗讜转讜 诪砖诪专 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讻诇 讻讛谉 砖讬专爪讛 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诪诇讘讚 讗讬诇 讛讻讬驻专讬诐 讗砖专 讬讻驻专 讘讜 注诇讬讜 讛专讬 讘讻讛谉 砖讘讗讜转讜 诪砖诪专 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专

The Gemara objects: Do you say the restitution is given to the priest of that priestly watch; or perhaps is it necessary only for it to be given to any priest to whom the robber wishes to give it. The Gemara explains that when the same verse says: 鈥淏esides the ram of the atonement, whereby atonement shall be made for him,鈥 this indicates that the verse speaks of a priest of that priestly watch, i.e., the watch that is currently involved in sacrificing offerings.

砖讚讛 讛讬讜爪讗讛 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讘讬讜讘诇 谞讜转谞讛 诇诪砖诪专 砖驻讙注 讘讜 讬讜讘诇 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 驻讙注 讘讜 讘砖讘转 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗诪讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚讞讜诇驻谞讗 谞讜转谞讛 诇诪砖诪专 讛讬讜爪讗

搂 Rabbi 岣yya bar Avin states another halakha involving property that is given to the priests. With regard to a field that was consecrated by its owner and was not redeemed by him, which goes out of his possession and passes to the possession of the priests at the Jubilee Year, one gives it to the members of the priestly watch serving when the Jubilee Year occurred, i.e., the watch serving at the beginning of the Jubilee Year. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If the beginning of the Jubilee Year occurred on Shabbat, which is the day on which the priestly watches rotate, what is the halakha? Which priestly watch receives the property? Rav 岣yya bar Ami says in the name of 岣lfana: One gives it to the watch that leaves the service of the Temple on that Shabbat.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 转谞讬讗 谞诪爪讗转 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讗讞讚 讬讜讘诇 讜讗讞讚 砖讘讬注讬转 诪砖诪讟讬谉 讻讗讞讚 讗诇讗 砖讬讜讘诇 讘转讞讬诇转讜 讜讛砖诪讟讛 讘住讜驻讛

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k says: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with these statements: You are found to say that both the Jubilee Year, when fields that were sold are returned to their owners, and the Sabbatical Year, when debts are canceled, abrogate at once, i.e., at the same time, except that the Jubilee Year abrogates at its beginning and the Sabbatical Year abrogates at its end. In other words, the evening of Rosh HaShana at the conclusion of the Sabbatical Year, which is the forty-ninth year of the Jubilee cycle, is also the beginning of the Jubilee Year, which is the fiftieth year. At this time, all debts and land purchases are abrogated, and consecrated fields that were not redeemed become the property of the priests. Accordingly, if Rosh HaShana occurs on a Shabbat, the priestly watch that ends their service receives the fields, as the priestly watches rotate only in the morning.

讗讚专讘讛 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 讛讜讗讬 讗讬诪讗 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讬讜讘诇 讻讜壮

The Gemara questions the terminology of the baraita: Why does the baraita state: Except that? This statement indicates that the Sabbatical Year and the Jubilee Year abrogate simultaneously despite the fact that the Jubilee Year abrogates at its beginning. On the contrary, this halakha is due to that very reason, i.e., they abrogate simultaneously because the Jubilee Year abrogates at its beginning and the Sabbatical Year at its end. The Gemara explains that in fact one should say the baraita as follows: They abrogate at the same time, due to the fact that the Jubilee Year abrogates at its beginning and the Sabbatical Year at its end.

讘砖诇诪讗 砖讘讬注讬转 讘住讜驻讛 讚讻转讬讘 诪拽抓 砖讘注 砖谞讬诐 转注砖讛 砖诪讟讛 讗诇讗 讬讜讘诇 讘转讞讬诇转讜 讘讬讜诐 讛讻讬驻讜专讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻专讬诐 转注讘讬专讜 砖讜驻专 讘讻诇 讗专爪讻诐 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诪专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讛讜讗 讚讞讬讬诇 讬讜讘诇

The Gemara asks: Granted, it is clear that the Sabbatical Year abrogates at its end, as it is written: 鈥淎t the end of every seven years you shall make a release鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:1). But does the Jubilee Year abrogate at its very beginning? It abrogates only ten days later, on Yom Kippur, as it is written: 鈥淥n Yom Kippur shall you make proclamation with the shofar throughout all your land鈥nd you shall return every man to his possession鈥 (Leviticus 25:9鈥10). The Gemara explains: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, who says: It is from Rosh HaShana that the Jubilee Year takes effect.

砖诪注讛 讞讝拽讬讛 讘专 讘讬诇讜讟讜 讜讗讝诇 讗诪专 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讜诇讬拽讬砖 诪讟诇讟诇讬 诇拽专拽注讜转

The Gemara returns to the statement of Rabbi 岣yya bar Avin that one who dedicates his movable property may give it to a priest of his choosing, whereas one who dedicates his land gives it to members of the current priestly watch. The Gemara relates that 岣zkiyya bar Biluto heard this statement and went and said the following difficulty before Rabbi Abbahu: But let one juxtapose movable property to land, as the verse states: 鈥淭hat a man may dedicate to the Lord of all that he has, whether of man or animal, or of his ancestral field鈥 (Leviticus 27:28). If so, movable property must also be given to members of the current priestly watch.

诇讗讜 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讚诪拽讬砖 讜讗讬讻讗 讚诇讗 诪拽讬砖 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讗 诪拽砖讬谞谉

Rabbi Abbahu responded: Is it not a dispute between tanna鈥檌m? As there are those who juxtapose and there are those who do not juxtapose, in accordance with the earlier explanation of the Gemara that this is the basis for the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon with regard to whether or not Levites may dedicate movable property. Rabbi 岣yya bar Avin holds in accordance with the opinion of the one who says we do not juxtapose movable property and land.

诪转谞讬壮 讞专诪讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讛诐 驻讚讬讜谉 讗诇讗 谞讜转谞讬诐 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讻转专讜诪讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讗讜诪专 住转诐 讞专诪讬诐 诇讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 砖谞讗诪专 讻诇 讞专诐 拽讚砖 拽讚砖讬诐 讛讜讗 诇讛壮

MISHNA: Dedications of property for priests, unlike consecrations of property for Temple maintenance, have no redemption; rather, one gives it to the priests, and it is their property in every sense, like teruma. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: Dedications dedicated without specification of their purpose are designated for Temple maintenance, as it is stated: 鈥淓very dedicated item is most sacred to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 27:28).

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 住转诐 讞专诪讬诐 诇讻讛谞讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 讻砖讚讛 讛讞专诐 诇讻讛谉 转讛讬讛 讗讞讝转讜 讗诐 讻谉 诇诪讛 谞讗诪专 讻诇 讞专诐 拽讚砖 拽讚砖讬诐 讛讜讗 诇讛壮 砖讞诇 注诇 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讜注诇 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐

And the Rabbis say: Dedications dedicated without specification of their purpose are designated for priests, as it is stated with regard to one who consecrated a field and did not redeem it: 鈥淎s a field dedicated; its possession shall be to the priest鈥 (Leviticus 27:21), indicating that a non-specific dedication belongs to the priest. If so, why is it stated: 鈥淓very dedicated item is most sacred to the Lord鈥? This comes to teach that dedication takes effect on offerings of the most sacred order and offerings of lesser sanctity. If one consecrated an animal for sacrifice and then dedicated it, the dedication takes effect. Nevertheless, it does not take effect on the body of the animal; rather, it applies to the owner鈥檚 financial stake in the offering.

诪讞专讬诐 讗讚诐 讗转 拽讚砖讬讜 讘讬谉 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讘讬谉 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讗诐 谞讚专 谞讜转谉 讚诪讬讛谉

As the Sages delineated: A person may dedicate his sacrificial animals, both offerings of the most sacred order and offerings of lesser sanctity. If the offering he dedicated was the object of a vow, e.g., if he said: It is incumbent upon me to sacrifice a burnt offering, since he is obligated to replace such offerings they are considered his property, and therefore he gives their value to the priests.

讜讗诐 谞讚讘讛 谞讜转谉 讗转 讟讜讘转谉 砖讜专 讝讛 注讜诇讛 讗讜诪讚讬谉 讻诪讛 讗讚诐 专讜爪讛 诇讬转谉 讘砖讜专 讝讛 诇讛注诇讜转讜 注讜诇讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 专砖讗讬

And if the offering he dedicated was a gift offering, e.g., if he said: This animal is a burnt offering, in which case he is not obligated to replace the animal, he gives the monetary benefit that he has in them. For example, if he said: This bull is a burnt offering, one estimates how much money a person would be willing to give in order to sacrifice the animal as a voluntary burnt offering, even though he is not permitted to do so.

讛讘讻讜专 讘讬谉 转诐 讘讬谉 讘注诇 诪讜诐 诪讞专讬诪讬谉 讗讜转讜 讜讻讬爪讚 驻讜讚讬诐 讗讜转讜 讗讜诪讚讬谉 讻诪讛 讗讚诐 专讜爪讛 诇讬转谉 讘讘讻讜专 讝讛 诇讬转谞讜 诇讘谉 讘转讜 讗讜 诇讘谉 讗讞讜转讜

With regard to a firstborn animal, whether it is unblemished or whether it is blemished, its owner may dedicate it. And how does one assess the payment required to redeem it? One estimates how much an Israelite person would be willing to give in exchange for that firstborn in order to give it to a priest who is his daughter鈥檚 son or to a priest who is his sister鈥檚 son.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Arakhin 28

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Arakhin 28

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讚讗诪讜专 讘注砖专讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讛讘注诇讬诐 拽讜讚诪讬谉 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讜诪专 诇讜 讛讙注转讬讱

What are the circumstances of such an offer? It is in a case where the owner initially said he would purchase the field for twenty-one sela. In such an instance, the additional one-fifth amounts to five sela and one dinar, which means that the total payment of the owner is twenty-six sela and one dinar, greater than the offer of the other person. Accordingly, the owner takes precedence, and when the one-fifth is added to the twenty-six sela offer of the other person, the total price paid by the owner is equal to thirty-one sela and one dinar. And if the payment of the owner does not exceed the offer of the other person even when accounting for the additional one-fifth, then the treasurer says to the other person: The field has come into your possession.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讞专讬诐 讗讚诐 诪爪讗谞讜 讜诪讘拽专讜 讜诪注讘讚讬讜 讜诪砖驻讞讜转讬讜 讛讻谞注谞讬诐 讜诪砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝转讜 讜讗诐 讛讞专讬诐 讗转 讻讜诇诐 讗讬谞诐 诪讜讞专诪讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 诪讛 讗诐 诇讙讘讜讛 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 专砖讗讬 诇讛讞专讬诐 讻诇 谞讻住讬讜 注诇 讗讞转 讻诪讛 讜讻诪讛 砖讬讛讗 讗讚诐 讞住 注诇 谞讻住讬讜

MISHNA: A person may dedicate, for sacred or priestly use, some of his flock and some of his cattle, and some of his Canaanite slaves and maidservants, and some of his ancestral field. But if he dedicated all that he has of any type of property, they are not dedicated, i.e., the dedication does not take effect; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said: If for the Most High a person may not dedicate all his property, it is all the more so the case that a person should spare his property and not give all of it to others.

讙诪壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪讻诇 讗砖专 诇讜 讜诇讗 讻诇 讗砖专 诇讜 诪讗讚诐 讜诇讗 讻诇 讗讚诐 诪讘讛诪讛 讜诇讗 讻诇 讘讛诪讛 诪砖讚讛 讗讞讝讛 讜诇讗 讻诇 砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where are these matters, stated in the mishna, derived? The Gemara explains that this is as the Sages taught in a baraita, with regard to the verse: 鈥淣otwithstanding, no dedicated thing that a man may dedicate to the Lord of all that he has, whether of man or animal, or of his ancestral field鈥 (Leviticus 27:28). The verse indicates that one may dedicate 鈥渙f all that he has鈥 but not all that he has; likewise 鈥渙f man鈥 but not every man, i.e., not every slave of his; 鈥渙f man or animal鈥 but not every animal of his; and finally one may dedicate 鈥渙f his ancestral field鈥 but not all of his ancestral field.

讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讞专讬诐 讜讗诐 讛讞专讬诐 讬讛讜 诪讜讞专诪讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讱 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 诪讛 讗诐 诇讙讘讜讛 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 专砖讗讬 诇讛讞专讬诐 讻诇 谞讻住讬讜 注诇 讗讞转 讻诪讛 讜讻诪讛 砖讬讛讗 讗讚诐 讞住 注诇 谞讻住讬讜

It might have been thought that one may not dedicate all his properties ab initio, but if he did dedicate all of them, they should be dedicated. Therefore the verse states: 鈥淣otwithstanding,鈥 to teach that they are not dedicated. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said: If for the Most High a person may not dedicate all his property, it is all the more so the case that a person should spare his property and not give it all to others.

讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诪讻诇 讗砖专 诇讜 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讻诇 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇讗 诇讞专讬诐 讗讘诇 诪讬谉 讗讞讚 诇讬讞专诪讬讛 讻讜诇讬讛 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诪讗讚诐 讜诇讗 讻诇 讗讚诐

The Gemara notes: And it is necessary to derive this halakha with regard to all the categories in the verse. As, if the Merciful One had written only: 鈥淥f all that he has,鈥 I would say that one may not dedicate all that he has, but let him dedicate all of one type of property. Therefore, the Merciful One writes 鈥渙f man,鈥 to teach that he may not dedicate every man.

讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诪讗讚诐 讚诇讗 住讙讬讗 诇讬讛 讘诇讗 注讘讜讚讛 讗讘诇 砖讚讛 住讙讬讗 诇讬讛 讘讚讬住转讜专谉 讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛谞讬 转专转讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讻讗 讞讬讜转讗 讜讛讻讗 讞讬讜转讗 讗讘诇 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 诇讬讞专诪讬谞讛讜 讻讜诇讛讜 爪专讬讻讬

And if the Merciful One had written only: 鈥渙f man,鈥 one might say that he may not dedicate all of his slaves, as it is not possible for him to be without a slave to perform his work; but with regard to a field, it is possible for him to maintain a livelihood by sharecropping [distoran]. And if the Torah had taught this halakha with regard to only these two types, i.e., ancestral fields and slaves, one might say these may not be dedicated in their entirety because here there is livelihood and here there is also livelihood. But in the case of movable property, on which maintaining a livelihood does not depend, let him dedicate all of them. Therefore, all of these derivations are necessary.

讘讛诪讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讬讻讜诇 讬讞专讬诐 讗讚诐 讘谞讜 讜讘转讜 注讘讚讜 讜砖驻讞转讜 讛注讘专讬讬诐 讜砖讚讛 诪拽谞转讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讛诪讛 诪讛 讘讛诪讛 讬砖 诇讜 专砖讜转 诇诪讜讻专讛 讗祝 讻诇 砖讬砖 诇讜 专砖讜转 诇诪讜讻专讛

The Gemara further asks: Why do I need for the verse to state 鈥渙r animal鈥? The Gemara explains it is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: One might have thought a person can dedicate his son or his daughter, his Hebrew slave or maidservant, or his purchased field. Therefore, the verse states 鈥渁nimal鈥 to teach that just as an animal is an item that he has permission to sell, so too, one can dedicate any item that he has permission to sell. He cannot dedicate an item that he does not have the ability to sell.

讜讛诇讗 讘转讜 拽讟谞讛 讬砖 诇讜 专砖讜转 诇诪讜讻专讛 讬讻讜诇 讬讞专讬诪谞讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讛诪讛 诪讛 讘讛诪讛 讬砖 诇讜 专砖讜转 诇诪讜讻专讛 诇注讜诇诐 讗祝 讻诇 砖讬砖 诇讜 专砖讜转 诇诪讜讻专讛 诇注讜诇诐

The baraita continues: But in the case of his minor daughter, he has permission to sell her as a Hebrew maidservant. If so, one might have thought he may dedicate her. Therefore, the verse states 鈥渁nimal,鈥 indicating that just as an animal is an item that he always has permission to sell, so too, one can dedicate any item that he always has permission to sell, whereas one may not sell his daughter once she reaches majority. A field as well can be sold only until the Jubilee Year.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讗诐 诇讙讘讜讛 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 专砖讗讬 讻讜壮 讛讬讬谞讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said: If for the Most High a person may not dedicate all his property, it is all the more so the case that one should spare his property and not give it all to others. The Gemara raises a difficulty: This is identical to the opinion of the first tanna, i.e., Rabbi Eliezer, who prohibits the dedication of all one鈥檚 property.

讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚专讘讬 讗讬诇讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇讗 讘讗讜砖讗 讛转拽讬谞讜 讛诪讘讝讘讝 讗诇 讬讘讝讘讝 讬讜转专 诪讞讜诪砖

The Gemara responds: There is a practical difference between them with regard to the statement of Rabbi Ila, as Rabbi Ila said: In Usha the Sages instituted that one who dispenses his money to charity should not dispense more than a fifth. Rabbi Eliezer, who did not state that one should spare his property, rules that one may give all his money to charity, provided he keeps a small portion for himself, whereas Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya maintains that one should not give more than a fifth.

诪注砖讛 讘讗讞讚 砖讘拽砖 诇讘讝讘讝 讬讜转专 诪讞讜诪砖 讜诇讗 讛谞讬讞讜 诇讜 讞讘专讬讜 讜诪谞讜 专讘讬 讬砖讘讘 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘讬 讬砖讘讘 讜诇讗 讛谞讬讞讜 诇讜 讞讘讬专讬讜 讜诪谞讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

The Gemara relates that there was an incident involving a certain individual who sought to dispense more than a fifth of his property as charity, and his friend did not let him act upon his wishes. And who was this friend? It was Rabbi Yeshevav. And some say it was Rabbi Yeshevav who wanted to give too much charity, and his friend did not let him do so. And who was the friend? It was Rabbi Akiva.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讞专讬诐 讘谞讜 讜讘转讜 讜注讘讚讜 讜砖驻讞转讜 讛注讘专讬诐 讜砖讚讛 诪拽谞转讜 讗讬谉 诪讜讞专诪讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪讞专讬诐 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 砖诇讜 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讜讛诇讜讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讞专讬诪讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讞专讬诪讬谉 砖讛讞专诪讬谉 砖诇讛谉 讜讛诇讜讬诐 诪讞专讬诪讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讛讞专诪讬谉 砖诇讛谉

MISHNA: In the case of one who dedicates his son or his daughter, or his Hebrew slave or maidservant, or his purchased field, those items are not considered dedicated, as a person may not dedicate an item that is not his. Priests and Levites may not dedicate their property; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says: Priests may not dedicate their property, as all dedicated property is theirs; it is one of the priestly gifts, as the verse states: 鈥淓verything dedicated in Israel shall be yours鈥 (Numbers 18:14). But Levites may dedicate their property, as dedicated property is not theirs.

讗诪专 专讘讬 谞专讗讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘拽专拽注讜转 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讗讞讝转 注讜诇诐 讛讬讗 诇讛诐 讜讚讘专讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讛讞专诪讬谉 砖诇讛谉

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The statement of Rabbi Yehuda appears to be correct with regard to land, as it is stated about the land of the Levites: 鈥淏ut the fields of the open land surrounding their cities may not be sold, as that is their perpetual possession鈥 (Leviticus 25:34), and they cannot renounce that land. And the statement of Rabbi Shimon appears to be correct with regard to movable property, which the Levites may dedicate, as dedicated property is not theirs. It is a gift for the priests, not the Levites.

讙诪壮 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘砖诇诪讗 讻讛谞讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讞专讬诪讬谉 砖讞专诪讬谉 砖诇讛谉 讗诇讗 诇讜讬诐 讘砖诇诪讗 诪拽专拽注讬 诇讗 诪讞专诪讬 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 讗讞讝转 注讜诇诐 讛讬讗 诇讛诐 讗诇讗 诪讟诇讟诇讬 诇讬讞专诪讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 诪讻诇 讗砖专 诇讜 讜诪砖讚讛 讗讞讝转讜 诪拽讬砖 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 诇拽专拽注讜转

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Yehuda, what is his reasoning? Granted, priests may not dedicate property, as dedicated property is theirs; it is one of the gifts of the priesthood. But why are Levites unable to dedicate their property? Granted, they may not dedicate land, as it is written: 鈥淎s that is their perpetual possession鈥 (Leviticus 25:34). But let them dedicate movable property. The Gemara explains that the verse states: 鈥淣otwithstanding, no dedicated thing, that a man may dedicate to the Lord of all that he has, whether of man or animal, or of his ancestral field鈥 (Leviticus 27:28). The verse juxtaposes the dedication of movable property to that of land. Accordingly, as Levites cannot dedicate land, they cannot dedicate movable property either.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘砖诇诪讗 讻讛谞讬诐 讻讚讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 诇讜讬诐 讘砖诇诪讗 诪讟诇讟诇讬诐 诇讞专讬诐 讚诇讗 诪拽讬砖 讗诇讗 诪拽专拽注讬 讗诪讗讬 讛讻转讬讘 讗讞讝转 注讜诇诐 讛讬讗 诇讛诐 诪讗讬 诪讞专讬诪讬谉 谞诪讬 讚拽讗诪专 诪讟诇讟诇讬

The Gemara asks: And with regard to Rabbi Shimon, what is his reasoning? Granted, priests may not dedicate their property, as we stated above, because dedicated property is theirs. But why may Levites dedicate their property? Granted, let them dedicate movable property, as Rabbi Shimon does not juxtapose movable property to land. But why may Levites dedicate land? Isn鈥檛 it written: That is their perpetual possession? The Gemara answers: What does Rabbi Shimon mean when he says Levites may dedicate property? He means they may dedicate only movable property.

讜讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 谞专讗讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘诪拽专拽注讬 讜讚讘专讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘诪讟诇讟诇讬 诪讻诇诇 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪拽专拽注讬 谞诪讬 拽讗诪专 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 专讘讬 谞专讗讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘拽专拽注讜转 砖讗祝 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讗 谞讞诇拽 讗诇讗 讘诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗讘诇 讘拽专拽注讜转 诪讜讚讛 诇讬讛

The Gemara objects: But from the fact that the latter clause of the mishna teaches: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said the statement of Rabbi Yehuda appears to be correct with regard to land, and the statement of Rabbi Shimon appears to be correct with regard to movable property; by inference one may conclude that Rabbi Shimon also says Levites can dedicate their land. The Gemara explains that this is what the mishna is saying: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said that the statement of Rabbi Yehuda appears to be correct even to Rabbi Shimon with regard to land belonging to Levites, as even Rabbi Shimon disagrees with Rabbi Yehuda about the ability of Levites to dedicate property only with regard to movable property. But with regard to land, Rabbi Shimon concedes to Rabbi Yehuda that the Levites cannot dedicate it.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讛讞专讬诐 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 谞讜转谞谉 诇讻诇 讻讛谉 砖讬专爪讛 砖谞讗诪专 讻诇 讞专诐 讘讬砖专讗诇

Rabbi 岣yya bar Avin says: One who dedicated movable property may give it to any priest that he wishes, as it is stated: 鈥淓verything dedicated in Israel

诇讱 讬讛讬讛 讛讞专讬诐 砖讚讜转讬讜 谞讜转谞谉 诇讻讛谉 砖讘讗讜转讜 诪砖诪专 砖谞讗诪专 讻砖讚讛 讛讞专诐 诇讻讛谉 转讛讬讛 讗讞讝转讜 讜讙诪专 诇讻讛谉 诇讻讛谉 诪讙讝诇 讛讙专

shall be yours鈥 (Numbers 18:14), i.e., for Aaron and any of his descendants. But if one dedicated his fields, he gives them to a priest of that priestly watch which is currently serving in the Temple, as it is stated: 鈥淎s a field dedicated; its possession shall be to the priest鈥 (Leviticus 27:21). And one derives a verbal analogy between 鈥渢o the priest鈥 here and 鈥渢o the priest鈥 from a verse (Numbers 5:8) discussing property robbed from a convert. The halakha in that case is that if one took an oath that he did not rob a convert, and then after the convert died and left no descendants he admitted to taking a false oath, he must give the stolen property to the priests of the priestly watch currently serving in the Temple.

讜讛转诐 诪谞诇谉 讚转谞讬讗 诇讛壮 诇讻讛谉 拽谞讗讜 讛砖诐 讜谞转谞讜 诇讻讛谉 砖讘讗讜转讜 诪砖诪专

The Gemara asks: And there, in the case of property robbed from a convert, from where do we derive that it is given to the priests of the current priestly watch? As it is taught in a baraita: In the verse: 鈥淏ut if the man has no kinsman to whom restitution may be made for the guilt, the restitution for guilt that is made shall be the Lord鈥檚, to the priest鈥 (Numbers 5:8), the phrase: 鈥淪hall be the Lord鈥檚, to the priest,鈥 indicates that God has acquired the restitution for the guilt and has given it to the priest of that priestly watch.

讗转讛 讗讜诪专 诇讻讛谉 砖讘讗讜转讜 诪砖诪专 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讻诇 讻讛谉 砖讬专爪讛 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诪诇讘讚 讗讬诇 讛讻讬驻专讬诐 讗砖专 讬讻驻专 讘讜 注诇讬讜 讛专讬 讘讻讛谉 砖讘讗讜转讜 诪砖诪专 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专

The Gemara objects: Do you say the restitution is given to the priest of that priestly watch; or perhaps is it necessary only for it to be given to any priest to whom the robber wishes to give it. The Gemara explains that when the same verse says: 鈥淏esides the ram of the atonement, whereby atonement shall be made for him,鈥 this indicates that the verse speaks of a priest of that priestly watch, i.e., the watch that is currently involved in sacrificing offerings.

砖讚讛 讛讬讜爪讗讛 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讘讬讜讘诇 谞讜转谞讛 诇诪砖诪专 砖驻讙注 讘讜 讬讜讘诇 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 驻讙注 讘讜 讘砖讘转 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗诪讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚讞讜诇驻谞讗 谞讜转谞讛 诇诪砖诪专 讛讬讜爪讗

搂 Rabbi 岣yya bar Avin states another halakha involving property that is given to the priests. With regard to a field that was consecrated by its owner and was not redeemed by him, which goes out of his possession and passes to the possession of the priests at the Jubilee Year, one gives it to the members of the priestly watch serving when the Jubilee Year occurred, i.e., the watch serving at the beginning of the Jubilee Year. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If the beginning of the Jubilee Year occurred on Shabbat, which is the day on which the priestly watches rotate, what is the halakha? Which priestly watch receives the property? Rav 岣yya bar Ami says in the name of 岣lfana: One gives it to the watch that leaves the service of the Temple on that Shabbat.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 转谞讬讗 谞诪爪讗转 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讗讞讚 讬讜讘诇 讜讗讞讚 砖讘讬注讬转 诪砖诪讟讬谉 讻讗讞讚 讗诇讗 砖讬讜讘诇 讘转讞讬诇转讜 讜讛砖诪讟讛 讘住讜驻讛

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k says: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with these statements: You are found to say that both the Jubilee Year, when fields that were sold are returned to their owners, and the Sabbatical Year, when debts are canceled, abrogate at once, i.e., at the same time, except that the Jubilee Year abrogates at its beginning and the Sabbatical Year abrogates at its end. In other words, the evening of Rosh HaShana at the conclusion of the Sabbatical Year, which is the forty-ninth year of the Jubilee cycle, is also the beginning of the Jubilee Year, which is the fiftieth year. At this time, all debts and land purchases are abrogated, and consecrated fields that were not redeemed become the property of the priests. Accordingly, if Rosh HaShana occurs on a Shabbat, the priestly watch that ends their service receives the fields, as the priestly watches rotate only in the morning.

讗讚专讘讛 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 讛讜讗讬 讗讬诪讗 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讬讜讘诇 讻讜壮

The Gemara questions the terminology of the baraita: Why does the baraita state: Except that? This statement indicates that the Sabbatical Year and the Jubilee Year abrogate simultaneously despite the fact that the Jubilee Year abrogates at its beginning. On the contrary, this halakha is due to that very reason, i.e., they abrogate simultaneously because the Jubilee Year abrogates at its beginning and the Sabbatical Year at its end. The Gemara explains that in fact one should say the baraita as follows: They abrogate at the same time, due to the fact that the Jubilee Year abrogates at its beginning and the Sabbatical Year at its end.

讘砖诇诪讗 砖讘讬注讬转 讘住讜驻讛 讚讻转讬讘 诪拽抓 砖讘注 砖谞讬诐 转注砖讛 砖诪讟讛 讗诇讗 讬讜讘诇 讘转讞讬诇转讜 讘讬讜诐 讛讻讬驻讜专讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻专讬诐 转注讘讬专讜 砖讜驻专 讘讻诇 讗专爪讻诐 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诪专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讛讜讗 讚讞讬讬诇 讬讜讘诇

The Gemara asks: Granted, it is clear that the Sabbatical Year abrogates at its end, as it is written: 鈥淎t the end of every seven years you shall make a release鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:1). But does the Jubilee Year abrogate at its very beginning? It abrogates only ten days later, on Yom Kippur, as it is written: 鈥淥n Yom Kippur shall you make proclamation with the shofar throughout all your land鈥nd you shall return every man to his possession鈥 (Leviticus 25:9鈥10). The Gemara explains: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, who says: It is from Rosh HaShana that the Jubilee Year takes effect.

砖诪注讛 讞讝拽讬讛 讘专 讘讬诇讜讟讜 讜讗讝诇 讗诪专 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讜诇讬拽讬砖 诪讟诇讟诇讬 诇拽专拽注讜转

The Gemara returns to the statement of Rabbi 岣yya bar Avin that one who dedicates his movable property may give it to a priest of his choosing, whereas one who dedicates his land gives it to members of the current priestly watch. The Gemara relates that 岣zkiyya bar Biluto heard this statement and went and said the following difficulty before Rabbi Abbahu: But let one juxtapose movable property to land, as the verse states: 鈥淭hat a man may dedicate to the Lord of all that he has, whether of man or animal, or of his ancestral field鈥 (Leviticus 27:28). If so, movable property must also be given to members of the current priestly watch.

诇讗讜 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讚诪拽讬砖 讜讗讬讻讗 讚诇讗 诪拽讬砖 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讗 诪拽砖讬谞谉

Rabbi Abbahu responded: Is it not a dispute between tanna鈥檌m? As there are those who juxtapose and there are those who do not juxtapose, in accordance with the earlier explanation of the Gemara that this is the basis for the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon with regard to whether or not Levites may dedicate movable property. Rabbi 岣yya bar Avin holds in accordance with the opinion of the one who says we do not juxtapose movable property and land.

诪转谞讬壮 讞专诪讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讛诐 驻讚讬讜谉 讗诇讗 谞讜转谞讬诐 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讻转专讜诪讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讗讜诪专 住转诐 讞专诪讬诐 诇讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 砖谞讗诪专 讻诇 讞专诐 拽讚砖 拽讚砖讬诐 讛讜讗 诇讛壮

MISHNA: Dedications of property for priests, unlike consecrations of property for Temple maintenance, have no redemption; rather, one gives it to the priests, and it is their property in every sense, like teruma. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: Dedications dedicated without specification of their purpose are designated for Temple maintenance, as it is stated: 鈥淓very dedicated item is most sacred to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 27:28).

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 住转诐 讞专诪讬诐 诇讻讛谞讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 讻砖讚讛 讛讞专诐 诇讻讛谉 转讛讬讛 讗讞讝转讜 讗诐 讻谉 诇诪讛 谞讗诪专 讻诇 讞专诐 拽讚砖 拽讚砖讬诐 讛讜讗 诇讛壮 砖讞诇 注诇 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讜注诇 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐

And the Rabbis say: Dedications dedicated without specification of their purpose are designated for priests, as it is stated with regard to one who consecrated a field and did not redeem it: 鈥淎s a field dedicated; its possession shall be to the priest鈥 (Leviticus 27:21), indicating that a non-specific dedication belongs to the priest. If so, why is it stated: 鈥淓very dedicated item is most sacred to the Lord鈥? This comes to teach that dedication takes effect on offerings of the most sacred order and offerings of lesser sanctity. If one consecrated an animal for sacrifice and then dedicated it, the dedication takes effect. Nevertheless, it does not take effect on the body of the animal; rather, it applies to the owner鈥檚 financial stake in the offering.

诪讞专讬诐 讗讚诐 讗转 拽讚砖讬讜 讘讬谉 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讘讬谉 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讗诐 谞讚专 谞讜转谉 讚诪讬讛谉

As the Sages delineated: A person may dedicate his sacrificial animals, both offerings of the most sacred order and offerings of lesser sanctity. If the offering he dedicated was the object of a vow, e.g., if he said: It is incumbent upon me to sacrifice a burnt offering, since he is obligated to replace such offerings they are considered his property, and therefore he gives their value to the priests.

讜讗诐 谞讚讘讛 谞讜转谉 讗转 讟讜讘转谉 砖讜专 讝讛 注讜诇讛 讗讜诪讚讬谉 讻诪讛 讗讚诐 专讜爪讛 诇讬转谉 讘砖讜专 讝讛 诇讛注诇讜转讜 注讜诇讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 专砖讗讬

And if the offering he dedicated was a gift offering, e.g., if he said: This animal is a burnt offering, in which case he is not obligated to replace the animal, he gives the monetary benefit that he has in them. For example, if he said: This bull is a burnt offering, one estimates how much money a person would be willing to give in order to sacrifice the animal as a voluntary burnt offering, even though he is not permitted to do so.

讛讘讻讜专 讘讬谉 转诐 讘讬谉 讘注诇 诪讜诐 诪讞专讬诪讬谉 讗讜转讜 讜讻讬爪讚 驻讜讚讬诐 讗讜转讜 讗讜诪讚讬谉 讻诪讛 讗讚诐 专讜爪讛 诇讬转谉 讘讘讻讜专 讝讛 诇讬转谞讜 诇讘谉 讘转讜 讗讜 诇讘谉 讗讞讜转讜

With regard to a firstborn animal, whether it is unblemished or whether it is blemished, its owner may dedicate it. And how does one assess the payment required to redeem it? One estimates how much an Israelite person would be willing to give in exchange for that firstborn in order to give it to a priest who is his daughter鈥檚 son or to a priest who is his sister鈥檚 son.

Scroll To Top