Today's Daf Yomi
July 14, 2019 | י״א בתמוז תשע״ט
-
This month is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross z'l, on his 1st yahrzeit
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?
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Podcast (דף יומי לנשים - עברית): Play in new window | Download
If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"
היכי דמי דאמור בעשרים ואחד הבעלים קודמין ואם לאו אומר לו הגעתיך
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.
מתני׳ מחרים אדם מצאנו ומבקרו ומעבדיו ומשפחותיו הכנענים ומשדה אחוזתו ואם החרים את כולם אינם מוחרמים דברי רבי אליעזר אמר רבי אלעזר בן עזריה מה אם לגבוה אין אדם רשאי להחרים כל נכסיו על אחת כמה וכמה שיהא אדם חס על נכסיו
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.
גמ׳ מנא הני מילי דתנו רבנן מכל אשר לו ולא כל אשר לו מאדם ולא כל אדם מבהמה ולא כל בהמה משדה אחזה ולא כל שדה אחוזה
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: “Notwithstanding, 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” (Leviticus 27:28). The verse indicates that one may dedicate “of all that he has” but not all that he has; likewise “of man” but not every man, i.e., not every slave of his; “of man or animal” but not every animal of his; and finally one may dedicate “of his ancestral field” but not all of his ancestral field.
יכול לא יחרים ואם החרים יהו מוחרמין תלמוד לומר אך דברי רבי אליעזר אמר רבי אלעזר בן עזריה מה אם לגבוה אין אדם רשאי להחרים כל נכסיו על אחת כמה וכמה שיהא אדם חס על נכסיו
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: “Notwithstanding,” 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.
וצריכא דאי כתב רחמנא מכל אשר לו הוה אמינא כל דאית ליה לא לחרים אבל מין אחד ליחרמיה כוליה כתב רחמנא מאדם ולא כל אדם
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: “Of all that he has,” 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 “of man,” to teach that he may not dedicate every man.
ואי כתב רחמנא מאדם דלא סגיא ליה בלא עבודה אבל שדה סגיא ליה בדיסתורן ואי אשמעינן הני תרתי משום דהכא חיותא והכא חיותא אבל מטלטלין ליחרמינהו כולהו צריכי
And if the Merciful One had written only: “of man,” 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.
בהמה למה לי לכדתניא יכול יחרים אדם בנו ובתו עבדו ושפחתו העבריים ושדה מקנתו תלמוד לומר בהמה מה בהמה יש לו רשות למוכרה אף כל שיש לו רשות למוכרה
The Gemara further asks: Why do I need for the verse to state “or animal”? 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 “animal” 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.
והלא בתו קטנה יש לו רשות למוכרה יכול יחרימנה תלמוד לומר בהמה מה בהמה יש לו רשות למוכרה לעולם אף כל שיש לו רשות למוכרה לעולם
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 “animal,” 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.
אמר רבי אלעזר בן עזריה אם לגבוה אין אדם רשאי כו׳ היינו תנא קמא
§ 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’s property.
איכא בינייהו דרבי אילא דאמר רבי אילא באושא התקינו המבזבז אל יבזבז יותר מחומש
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.
מעשה באחד שבקש לבזבז יותר מחומש ולא הניחו לו חבריו ומנו רבי ישבב ואמרי לה רבי ישבב ולא הניחו לו חביריו ומנו רבי עקיבא
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.
מתני׳ המחרים בנו ובתו ועבדו ושפחתו העברים ושדה מקנתו אין מוחרמין שאין אדם מחרים דבר שאינו שלו הכהנים והלוים אין מחרימין דברי רבי יהודה רבי שמעון אומר הכהנים אין מחרימין שהחרמין שלהן והלוים מחרימין שאין החרמין שלהן
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: “Everything dedicated in Israel shall be yours” (Numbers 18:14). But Levites may dedicate their property, as dedicated property is not theirs.
אמר רבי נראין דברי רבי יהודה בקרקעות שנאמר כי אחזת עולם היא להם ודברי רבי שמעון במטלטלין שאין החרמין שלהן
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: “But the fields of the open land surrounding their cities may not be sold, as that is their perpetual possession” (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.
גמ׳ ורבי יהודה בשלמא כהנים אין מחרימין שחרמין שלהן אלא לוים בשלמא מקרקעי לא מחרמי דכתיב כי אחזת עולם היא להם אלא מטלטלי ליחרמי אמר קרא מכל אשר לו ומשדה אחזתו מקיש מטלטלין לקרקעות
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: “As that is their perpetual possession” (Leviticus 25:34). But let them dedicate movable property. The Gemara explains that the verse states: “Notwithstanding, 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” (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.
ורבי שמעון בשלמא כהנים כדאמרן אלא לוים בשלמא מטלטלים לחרים דלא מקיש אלא מקרקעי אמאי הכתיב אחזת עולם היא להם מאי מחרימין נמי דקאמר מטלטלי
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’t 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.
והא מדקתני סיפא אמר רבי נראין דברי רבי יהודה במקרקעי ודברי רבי שמעון במטלטלי מכלל דרבי שמעון מקרקעי נמי קאמר הכי קאמר אמר רבי נראין דברי רבי יהודה לרבי שמעון בקרקעות שאף רבי שמעון לא נחלק אלא במטלטלין אבל בקרקעות מודה ליה
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.
אמר רבי חייא בר אבין החרים מטלטלין נותנן לכל כהן שירצה שנאמר כל חרם בישראל
§ Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin says: One who dedicated movable property may give it to any priest that he wishes, as it is stated: “Everything dedicated in Israel
לך יהיה החרים שדותיו נותנן לכהן שבאותו משמר שנאמר כשדה החרם לכהן תהיה אחזתו וגמר לכהן לכהן מגזל הגר
shall be yours” (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: “As a field dedicated; its possession shall be to the priest” (Leviticus 27:21). And one derives a verbal analogy between “to the priest” here and “to the priest” 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.
והתם מנלן דתניא לה׳ לכהן קנאו השם ונתנו לכהן שבאותו משמר
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: “But 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’s, to the priest” (Numbers 5:8), the phrase: “Shall be the Lord’s, to the priest,” indicates that God has acquired the restitution for the guilt and has given it to the priest of that priestly watch.
אתה אומר לכהן שבאותו משמר או אינו אלא לכל כהן שירצה כשהוא אומר מלבד איל הכיפרים אשר יכפר בו עליו הרי בכהן שבאותו משמר הכתוב מדבר
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: “Besides the ram of the atonement, whereby atonement shall be made for him,” this indicates that the verse speaks of a priest of that priestly watch, i.e., the watch that is currently involved in sacrificing offerings.
שדה היוצאה לכהנים ביובל נותנה למשמר שפגע בו יובל איבעיא להו פגע בו בשבת מאי אמר רב חייא בר אמי משמיה דחולפנא נותנה למשמר היוצא
§ Rabbi Ḥiyya 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 Ḥiyya bar Ami says in the name of Ḥulfana: One gives it to the watch that leaves the service of the Temple on that Shabbat.
אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק תניא נמצאת אתה אומר אחד יובל ואחד שביעית משמטין כאחד אלא שיובל בתחילתו והשמטה בסופה
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak 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.
אדרבה משום הכי הואי אימא מפני שהיובל כו׳
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.
בשלמא שביעית בסופה דכתיב מקץ שבע שנים תעשה שמטה אלא יובל בתחילתו ביום הכיפורים הוא דכתיב ביום הכפרים תעבירו שופר בכל ארצכם הא מני רבי ישמעאל בנו של רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה היא דאמר מראש השנה הוא דחייל יובל
The Gemara asks: Granted, it is clear that the Sabbatical Year abrogates at its end, as it is written: “At the end of every seven years you shall make a release” (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: “On Yom Kippur shall you make proclamation with the shofar throughout all your land…and you shall return every man to his possession” (Leviticus 25:9–10). The Gemara explains: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, who says: It is from Rosh HaShana that the Jubilee Year takes effect.
שמעה חזקיה בר בילוטו ואזל אמר קמיה דרבי אבהו וליקיש מטלטלי לקרקעות
The Gemara returns to the statement of Rabbi Ḥiyya 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 Ḥizkiyya 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: “That a man may dedicate to the Lord of all that he has, whether of man or animal, or of his ancestral field” (Leviticus 27:28). If so, movable property must also be given to members of the current priestly watch.
לאו תנאי היא דאיכא דמקיש ואיכא דלא מקיש כמאן דאמר לא מקשינן
Rabbi Abbahu responded: Is it not a dispute between tanna’im? 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 Ḥiyya bar Avin holds in accordance with the opinion of the one who says we do not juxtapose movable property and land.
מתני׳ חרמי כהנים אין להם פדיון אלא נותנים לכהנים כתרומה רבי יהודה בן בתירא אומר סתם חרמים לבדק הבית שנאמר כל חרם קדש קדשים הוא לה׳
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: “Every dedicated item is most sacred to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:28).
וחכמים אומרים סתם חרמים לכהנים שנאמר כשדה החרם לכהן תהיה אחזתו אם כן למה נאמר כל חרם קדש קדשים הוא לה׳ שחל על קדשי קדשים ועל קדשים קלים
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: “As a field dedicated; its possession shall be to the priest” (Leviticus 27:21), indicating that a non-specific dedication belongs to the priest. If so, why is it stated: “Every dedicated item is most sacred to the Lord”? 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’s financial stake in the offering.
מחרים אדם את קדשיו בין קדשי קדשים בין קדשים קלים אם נדר נותן דמיהן
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.
ואם נדבה נותן את טובתן שור זה עולה אומדין כמה אדם רוצה ליתן בשור זה להעלותו עולה אף על פי שאינו רשאי
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.
הבכור בין תם בין בעל מום מחרימין אותו וכיצד פודים אותו אומדין כמה אדם רוצה ליתן בבכור זה ליתנו לבן בתו או לבן אחותו
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’s son or to a priest who is his sister’s son.
-
This month is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross z'l, on his 1st yahrzeit
Subscribe to Hadran's Daf Yomi
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
היכי דמי דאמור בעשרים ואחד הבעלים קודמין ואם לאו אומר לו הגעתיך
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.
מתני׳ מחרים אדם מצאנו ומבקרו ומעבדיו ומשפחותיו הכנענים ומשדה אחוזתו ואם החרים את כולם אינם מוחרמים דברי רבי אליעזר אמר רבי אלעזר בן עזריה מה אם לגבוה אין אדם רשאי להחרים כל נכסיו על אחת כמה וכמה שיהא אדם חס על נכסיו
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.
גמ׳ מנא הני מילי דתנו רבנן מכל אשר לו ולא כל אשר לו מאדם ולא כל אדם מבהמה ולא כל בהמה משדה אחזה ולא כל שדה אחוזה
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: “Notwithstanding, 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” (Leviticus 27:28). The verse indicates that one may dedicate “of all that he has” but not all that he has; likewise “of man” but not every man, i.e., not every slave of his; “of man or animal” but not every animal of his; and finally one may dedicate “of his ancestral field” but not all of his ancestral field.
יכול לא יחרים ואם החרים יהו מוחרמין תלמוד לומר אך דברי רבי אליעזר אמר רבי אלעזר בן עזריה מה אם לגבוה אין אדם רשאי להחרים כל נכסיו על אחת כמה וכמה שיהא אדם חס על נכסיו
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: “Notwithstanding,” 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.
וצריכא דאי כתב רחמנא מכל אשר לו הוה אמינא כל דאית ליה לא לחרים אבל מין אחד ליחרמיה כוליה כתב רחמנא מאדם ולא כל אדם
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: “Of all that he has,” 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 “of man,” to teach that he may not dedicate every man.
ואי כתב רחמנא מאדם דלא סגיא ליה בלא עבודה אבל שדה סגיא ליה בדיסתורן ואי אשמעינן הני תרתי משום דהכא חיותא והכא חיותא אבל מטלטלין ליחרמינהו כולהו צריכי
And if the Merciful One had written only: “of man,” 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.
בהמה למה לי לכדתניא יכול יחרים אדם בנו ובתו עבדו ושפחתו העבריים ושדה מקנתו תלמוד לומר בהמה מה בהמה יש לו רשות למוכרה אף כל שיש לו רשות למוכרה
The Gemara further asks: Why do I need for the verse to state “or animal”? 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 “animal” 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.
והלא בתו קטנה יש לו רשות למוכרה יכול יחרימנה תלמוד לומר בהמה מה בהמה יש לו רשות למוכרה לעולם אף כל שיש לו רשות למוכרה לעולם
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 “animal,” 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.
אמר רבי אלעזר בן עזריה אם לגבוה אין אדם רשאי כו׳ היינו תנא קמא
§ 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’s property.
איכא בינייהו דרבי אילא דאמר רבי אילא באושא התקינו המבזבז אל יבזבז יותר מחומש
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.
מעשה באחד שבקש לבזבז יותר מחומש ולא הניחו לו חבריו ומנו רבי ישבב ואמרי לה רבי ישבב ולא הניחו לו חביריו ומנו רבי עקיבא
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.
מתני׳ המחרים בנו ובתו ועבדו ושפחתו העברים ושדה מקנתו אין מוחרמין שאין אדם מחרים דבר שאינו שלו הכהנים והלוים אין מחרימין דברי רבי יהודה רבי שמעון אומר הכהנים אין מחרימין שהחרמין שלהן והלוים מחרימין שאין החרמין שלהן
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: “Everything dedicated in Israel shall be yours” (Numbers 18:14). But Levites may dedicate their property, as dedicated property is not theirs.
אמר רבי נראין דברי רבי יהודה בקרקעות שנאמר כי אחזת עולם היא להם ודברי רבי שמעון במטלטלין שאין החרמין שלהן
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: “But the fields of the open land surrounding their cities may not be sold, as that is their perpetual possession” (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.
גמ׳ ורבי יהודה בשלמא כהנים אין מחרימין שחרמין שלהן אלא לוים בשלמא מקרקעי לא מחרמי דכתיב כי אחזת עולם היא להם אלא מטלטלי ליחרמי אמר קרא מכל אשר לו ומשדה אחזתו מקיש מטלטלין לקרקעות
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: “As that is their perpetual possession” (Leviticus 25:34). But let them dedicate movable property. The Gemara explains that the verse states: “Notwithstanding, 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” (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.
ורבי שמעון בשלמא כהנים כדאמרן אלא לוים בשלמא מטלטלים לחרים דלא מקיש אלא מקרקעי אמאי הכתיב אחזת עולם היא להם מאי מחרימין נמי דקאמר מטלטלי
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’t 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.
והא מדקתני סיפא אמר רבי נראין דברי רבי יהודה במקרקעי ודברי רבי שמעון במטלטלי מכלל דרבי שמעון מקרקעי נמי קאמר הכי קאמר אמר רבי נראין דברי רבי יהודה לרבי שמעון בקרקעות שאף רבי שמעון לא נחלק אלא במטלטלין אבל בקרקעות מודה ליה
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.
אמר רבי חייא בר אבין החרים מטלטלין נותנן לכל כהן שירצה שנאמר כל חרם בישראל
§ Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin says: One who dedicated movable property may give it to any priest that he wishes, as it is stated: “Everything dedicated in Israel
לך יהיה החרים שדותיו נותנן לכהן שבאותו משמר שנאמר כשדה החרם לכהן תהיה אחזתו וגמר לכהן לכהן מגזל הגר
shall be yours” (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: “As a field dedicated; its possession shall be to the priest” (Leviticus 27:21). And one derives a verbal analogy between “to the priest” here and “to the priest” 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.
והתם מנלן דתניא לה׳ לכהן קנאו השם ונתנו לכהן שבאותו משמר
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: “But 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’s, to the priest” (Numbers 5:8), the phrase: “Shall be the Lord’s, to the priest,” indicates that God has acquired the restitution for the guilt and has given it to the priest of that priestly watch.
אתה אומר לכהן שבאותו משמר או אינו אלא לכל כהן שירצה כשהוא אומר מלבד איל הכיפרים אשר יכפר בו עליו הרי בכהן שבאותו משמר הכתוב מדבר
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: “Besides the ram of the atonement, whereby atonement shall be made for him,” this indicates that the verse speaks of a priest of that priestly watch, i.e., the watch that is currently involved in sacrificing offerings.
שדה היוצאה לכהנים ביובל נותנה למשמר שפגע בו יובל איבעיא להו פגע בו בשבת מאי אמר רב חייא בר אמי משמיה דחולפנא נותנה למשמר היוצא
§ Rabbi Ḥiyya 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 Ḥiyya bar Ami says in the name of Ḥulfana: One gives it to the watch that leaves the service of the Temple on that Shabbat.
אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק תניא נמצאת אתה אומר אחד יובל ואחד שביעית משמטין כאחד אלא שיובל בתחילתו והשמטה בסופה
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak 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.
אדרבה משום הכי הואי אימא מפני שהיובל כו׳
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.
בשלמא שביעית בסופה דכתיב מקץ שבע שנים תעשה שמטה אלא יובל בתחילתו ביום הכיפורים הוא דכתיב ביום הכפרים תעבירו שופר בכל ארצכם הא מני רבי ישמעאל בנו של רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה היא דאמר מראש השנה הוא דחייל יובל
The Gemara asks: Granted, it is clear that the Sabbatical Year abrogates at its end, as it is written: “At the end of every seven years you shall make a release” (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: “On Yom Kippur shall you make proclamation with the shofar throughout all your land…and you shall return every man to his possession” (Leviticus 25:9–10). The Gemara explains: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, who says: It is from Rosh HaShana that the Jubilee Year takes effect.
שמעה חזקיה בר בילוטו ואזל אמר קמיה דרבי אבהו וליקיש מטלטלי לקרקעות
The Gemara returns to the statement of Rabbi Ḥiyya 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 Ḥizkiyya 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: “That a man may dedicate to the Lord of all that he has, whether of man or animal, or of his ancestral field” (Leviticus 27:28). If so, movable property must also be given to members of the current priestly watch.
לאו תנאי היא דאיכא דמקיש ואיכא דלא מקיש כמאן דאמר לא מקשינן
Rabbi Abbahu responded: Is it not a dispute between tanna’im? 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 Ḥiyya bar Avin holds in accordance with the opinion of the one who says we do not juxtapose movable property and land.
מתני׳ חרמי כהנים אין להם פדיון אלא נותנים לכהנים כתרומה רבי יהודה בן בתירא אומר סתם חרמים לבדק הבית שנאמר כל חרם קדש קדשים הוא לה׳
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: “Every dedicated item is most sacred to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:28).
וחכמים אומרים סתם חרמים לכהנים שנאמר כשדה החרם לכהן תהיה אחזתו אם כן למה נאמר כל חרם קדש קדשים הוא לה׳ שחל על קדשי קדשים ועל קדשים קלים
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: “As a field dedicated; its possession shall be to the priest” (Leviticus 27:21), indicating that a non-specific dedication belongs to the priest. If so, why is it stated: “Every dedicated item is most sacred to the Lord”? 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’s financial stake in the offering.
מחרים אדם את קדשיו בין קדשי קדשים בין קדשים קלים אם נדר נותן דמיהן
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.
ואם נדבה נותן את טובתן שור זה עולה אומדין כמה אדם רוצה ליתן בשור זה להעלותו עולה אף על פי שאינו רשאי
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.
הבכור בין תם בין בעל מום מחרימין אותו וכיצד פודים אותו אומדין כמה אדם רוצה ליתן בבכור זה ליתנו לבן בתו או לבן אחותו
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’s son or to a priest who is his sister’s son.
