021a – האומר משקלי עלי – פרק חמישי – ערכין, דף כא ע”א

If the owner dedicated the house while someone was living in it, the one living in it causes the Temple a reward^[1].

הקדישו הדר בו וכו' - That is: the case where the tenant had been living there at the time the house was dedicated.

"Dedicated while he lives in it"? How can he dedicate it? (Vayikra 27) "When a man shall sanctify his house as holy" - the Merciful One said: just as his house is in his possession, so everything [he dedicates] is in his possession^[2]?

That is: if the lessor dedicated the house, the tenant who dwells in it causes the Temple a reward.

If the lessor dedicated it, how does he (the tenant) dwell in it? Is he standing in misuse (me'ilah)?

And further: "he causes the Temple a reward" - since by his misuse the reward goes out to chullin^[3]?

[נפיק ליה שכר לחולין] - I think the word "reward" (שכר) should not be read here, and the text reads "since by misuse it goes out to chullin." That is: he derives benefit from the use of the house, and by the misuse the house goes out to chullin. As taught in Me'ilah (19b): "One who misuses after another misuser of sacred property is liable only for an animal or sacred vessels; he pays the principal and a fifth, but not the reward to the Temple, since anything sacred, once misused, goes out to chullin." And as we say in Me'ilah (18b): "There is no me'ilah except by change"; as it says, "and the children of Israel misused (vayim'alu) the misuse of Hashem" - and this is the change that takes it from sacred to ordinary.

As he said: when its reward arrives, it becomes sacred.

לכשיבא שכרו יקדש - The reward, but not the house, he did not dedicate.

But surely a person cannot dedicate something that has not yet come into the world^[4]?

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: This is the view of R' Meir^[5].

For he said: a person may dedicate something that has not yet come into the world.

Some say: Rav Papa said to Abaye, and others say: Rav Mari bar Chama said to Rav Chisda^[6]:

Then according to R' Meir, who said a person may dedicate something that has not yet come into the world?

He said to him: "Then according to whom?"

Mishnah.

Those who owe erchin^[7] are pledged^[8].

Those who owe chatat and asham^[9] are not pledged.

Those who owe olah and shelamim are pledged.

ממשכנים אותן - [Refers to] olah and shelamim: although a shelamim atones (in a sense), since it is not an obligation on him it is not counted as atonement for him, and it comes to delay; therefore they are pledged.

Although he is not atoned for until he is willing, as it says "for his acceptance"^[10] (Vayikra 1:3) - they compel him until he says "I want to."

So too, regarding a woman's divorce document^[11]: they compel him until he says "I want to."

Gemara.

Rav Papa said: Sometimes those who owe chatat are pledged; those who owe olah are not pledged.

Those who owe chatat are pledged - in the case of a nazirite's chatat^[12].

Since the Master said: if he shaved over one of the three, he has fulfilled [his obligation] - [the three being] chatat, olah and shelamim.

משלשתן - "Of the three" - chatat, olah or shelamim: three offerings are written about it, and it is said in the Sifrei of the house of Rav: "And afterward the nazirite shall drink wine" (Bamidbar 6:20), after a single act.

If one of the bloods was sprinkled on him^[13], the nazirite is permitted to drink wine and to become impure for the dead^[14]; he was negligent in it and did not bring [them].

Those who owe olah are not pledged - in the case of a woman after childbirth^[15].

בעולת יולדת - Because she may not partake of sacred food until her time (of purification) comes.

What is it? - Because the verse placed it first^[16].

מאי ניהי דאקדמה קרא - That is: what is the reason that its olah holds it back? Because the verse placed the olah before the chatat, as written: "you shall bring a lamb of its first year for an olah."

But Rava said: the verse placed it first for reading^[17].

והאמר רבא למקראה הקדימה הכתוב - That it should be read first in the reading, and not be brought first - see the chapter "Kol Ha-tadir" in Zevachim (90b).

Rather, [the case is] the olah of a metzora^[18].

As it was taught: Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yehuda ben Brokah, says^[19]: just as his chatat and his asham hold it back, so his olah holds it back.

Although he is not atoned for until he is willing:

The Sages taught: "he shall bring it" (Vayikra 1:3) teaches that they compel him. One might think, against his will - the Torah says "for his acceptance". How then? They compel him until he says "I want to."^[20]

Shmuel said: an olah requires intent^[21].

As it says: "for his acceptance".

What is he teaching us? Was it not already taught?

Even though he is not atoned for until he is willing, as it says "for his acceptance"?

No, it is needed: where his fellow separated [an offering] for him.

דאפריש ליה חבירו - That this one was obligated to an olah, and his fellow came and separated it from his own [animal] for this one's atonement; and Shmuel says that we require that the one being atoned for be informed.

Lest one think that when we require intent, it means [an offering] from his own [animal].

מדידיה - For example, where the court compels him to pledge, he must say "I want to."

But not from his fellow's [property]. It teaches that sometimes he does not want to be atoned for by something that is not his own.

An objection was raised: "The chatat and asham of so-and-so are incumbent upon me."

הכי קאמר הקדישו משכיר הדר בו מעלה שכר להקדש - That is what it means: "if the lessor dedicated it, the one dwelling in it causes the Temple a reward." The difficulty: here it seems that a lessor may dedicate his house after renting it out, even though it is bound to the renter. In Ketubot (59b) it says: "That is not comparable; it is only like one who says, 'this field which I mortgaged to you, when I redeem it, let it be consecrated' - since it says 'when I redeem it', only then, but immediately he cannot dedicate it." Likewise here he cannot dedicate it. In Bava Metzia (73b): Rav Mari bar Rachel mortgaged a house to a gentile; the gentile went and rented it out and kept the rent for a year, then brought the rent to Rava. Rava said to him: why did you not bring the rent until now? Because it was a mortgage and the gentile did not vacate; now take the rent. It is said that the debtor may sell, so why can he not dedicate it immediately? Our answer: the surplus beyond the principal the debtor may dedicate and sell immediately; the 'when I redeem' in Ketubot means dedicating the whole; the case of Bava Metzia is where he sells the surplus, and here he may dedicate the surplus. The reason he 'causes a reward to the Temple' is that the Temple has a partnership with him, and one cannot separate his share; but a lessor, once the rental period ends and the house returns to him for nothing, may dedicate it. The case of Bava Metzia is not reconciled by this. One finds elsewhere that a debtor dedicated and sold; it seems he may dedicate and sell; however, a creditor removes it from the Temple and from the buyer when he wishes to collect, if he has no other means, as with a slave's mortgage that was sold or dedicated, since the creditor can take it back; as long as he has not collected it is sanctified and sold. Here it seems a lessor may dedicate, and so too may he forbid the renter; and so is the halakha. Here it seems the renter cannot dedicate, since the Gemara asks, 'how can he dedicate it?' - 'When a man shall sanctify his house' - the Merciful One said: just as his house is in his possession, so all is in his possession. The difficulty: a Tosefta teaches that if the renter dedicated it, it is sanctified, and one can say that here too the renter may dedicate it as long as it is in his possession, and similarly may forbid it to all during the whole rental. The question here, 'how can he dedicate it', is about 'causes a reward to the Temple': it is not in his possession, so it is difficult. Yet it is difficult that here the lessor may dedicate it, while a Tosefta teaches that it is not sanctified; and the Tosefta's words: if a renter of a field from another rented it to a third party, the owner may tell him, 'I have no account with anyone but you'; if the owner sold it, they reckon with the owner; if the owner dedicated it, it is not sanctified until it returns to his possession; and whatever he benefits from it is sanctified; if the renter dedicated it, it is sanctified until it leaves his possession, and 'causes a reward to the Temple' - end of the Tosefta's words. One can say that the Tosefta's ruling that the lessor cannot dedicate applies when he took his rent in advance, and here the case is where he did not take it in advance. So too in the Jerusalem Talmud: where it is customary for the lessor to rent a house to another, and he dedicated it, it is sanctified; when? When he did not take the rent in advance; but if he took it in advance, his words are void.

כי דייר ביה במעילה קאי - The meaning of "when he dwells in it, is he standing in misuse": even though he did not cause damage, as taught in Me'ilah (18b): one who benefits from hekdesh is a misuser even if he did not cause damage. Though a fixture attached to the ground is not subject to me'ilah (as in Me'ilah, chapter 'Ha-nehenah', 18b-19a), this passage follows Rav, who says: if it was uprooted and then reattached, it is considered uprooted, as in 'one who bows to a house, its prohibition'. And in chapter 'Ha-nehenah' (20b) too Rav's case is brought: 'and since he built it, he is liable for misuse.'

הכי גרסינן כיון דמעל נפיק ליה שכר לחולין - So the text reads in most editions: "since by misuse the reward goes out to chullin." The meaning: since the house's reward goes out to chullin, because his fellow dedicated (rented) the house and he did not know, and by misuse, by dwelling in it, the reward goes out to the renter as misuse. But one should not explain, as Rashi does, that by misuse the house goes out to chullin. This refers to the Tosefta in Me'ilah (ch. 2): one who broke [a piece] with a sacred axe and another came and broke with it and another came and broke with it - all are misusers. And at the end of the chapter 'Ha-nehenah' (Me'ilah 19b) we learned: one who misuses after another misuser of sacred property is liable only for an animal or sacred vessels; for the sanctity of the body is not desecrated by misuse, like the sanctity of money. An axe is not a sacred vessel but has sanctity of money; it is not reckoned as a sacred vessel, because it brings others to bodily sanctity; he himself, all the more so, does not bring bodily sanctity. For this reason we consider the other sacred vessels to be of bodily sanctity.

Notes

1. 1. Me'ilah: using sacred property for one's own benefit without permission. The one who misused it repays the principal plus a fifth and brings an asham (Vayikra 5:15-16). Here, the tenant living in the dedicated house is the one who misuses it.
2. 2. The Gemara derives from the verse (Vayikra 27:14) that a person can dedicate only what he owns: just as "his house" is in his possession, so all he dedicates must be in his possession.
3. 3. The objection: if by the misuse itself the house goes out of sanctity into chullin, how can the Temple have a reward from it?
4. 4. Something not yet in existence, such as rent not yet received. Rabbi Meir allows one to dedicate such a thing; the Sages disagree.
5. 5. Rabbi Meir, a Tanna of the Mishnaic period. The Gemara identifies the anonymous ruling with his view.
6. 6. Two versions of one exchange: Rav Papa asks Abaye, or Rav Mari bar Chama asks Rav Chisda. Both are Babylonian Amoraim (general knowledge, not on the page).
7. 7. Erchin: a vow to give the assessed value of a person, animal or property to the Temple (Vayikra 27). Those who owe erchin are pledged.
8. 8. Pledging (meshkhon): the Temple holds the debtor's property as security until he pays or brings his offering. The Mishnah below lists which offerings may and may not be pledged for.
9. 9. A chatat is brought for an inadvertent sin, and an asham for a doubtful sin or for misuse of sacred property (Vayikra 4-5). The Mishnah rules that one who owes these is not pledged.
10. 10. Vayikra 1:3, "for his acceptance". The Gemara learns from "lirtzono" that the owner must be willing. If he refuses, he is compelled until he says "I want to."
11. 11. A get is a divorce document. A husband who refuses to give a get is compelled until he says "I want to"; the Mishnah draws this as a parallel to compulsion regarding offerings.
12. 12. A nazirite (Bamidbar 6) vowed to abstain from wine, from contact with the dead and from cutting his hair. At the end of his term he brings a chatat, an olah and a shelamim (Bamidbar 6:13-14).
13. 13. Zerika: sprinkling of the blood on the altar, a central act of an offering. Here, sprinkling the blood of one of the nazirite's three offerings permits him to drink wine.
14. 14. A nazirite is forbidden wine and contact with the dead (Bamidbar 6:3-7). The Mishnah says that after the sprinkling of one offering both are permitted to him.
15. 15. A woman after childbirth brings an olah and a chatat (Vayikra 12:6). Her olah is not pledged, since she may not partake of sacred food until her purification (see Rashi below).
16. 16. The verse (Vayikra 12:6) mentions the olah before the chatat. The Gemara asks what the order means; the answer follows at once: it concerns only the order of reading.
17. 17. The olah is written first only for the order of reading. Zevachim 90 (to which Rashi refers) discusses the order in which offerings are brought.
18. 18. A metzora (one with a skin affliction, Vayikra 14) brings a chatat, an asham and an olah when he is purified (Vayikra 14:10-20). The beraisa compares his olah to his chatat and asham.
19. 19. A Tanna to whom the beraisa is attributed (general knowledge; the name as printed on the page).
20. 20. "Yachol" (one might think) raises a possibility that is then rejected. The beraisa reads "he shall bring it" as compulsion, asks whether it means against his will, and rejects that from "lirtzono".
21. 21. Da'at: the owner's intention and consent that the offering is for him. Shmuel says an olah requires da'at; the Gemara seeks its source in the next line.