028a – המקדיש שדהו – פרק שמיני – ערכין, דף כח ע”א

What is the case?

Namely, as they say: “with twenty-one.”

והיכי דמי כגון דאמרי בכ"א - This is when the value lies between the principal and the one-fifth: twenty-six and a dinar. This one adds five, that is, twenty-one and a dinar.

The owners take precedence.

הבעלים קודמין - For if we gave it to this one, the sanctified property would lose a dinar, based on what was said at the start; therefore it reverts to the owners against their will.

And if not, he says to him: “I have reached you” (the claim is closed).

ואם לאו אומר לו לזה הגעתיך - That the owners say: a man came …

Mishnah

A person may place under herem: [some of] his sheep (“מצאנו”), his cattle, his servants and his families, the Canaanite slaves, and a field of his holding.^[1]

מצאנו - Some of his sheep: he says, “These are herem,” and gives them to the Kohen.

And if he places all of them under herem

את כולם - That he left nothing for himself.

They are not placed under herem. The view of R. Eliezer.

R. Elazar ben Azarya said: If one may not dedicate all his property to the Most High, all the more so should a person guard his own property.^[2]

להיות חס על נכסיו - That he not squander them on an ordinary person.

Gemara

From where do these matters come?

As our Rabbis taught: (Leviticus 27:28) “from all that he has” — and not “all that he has.”

גמ' מכל אשר לו - I.e., movables, and not all movables.

From a person, and not every person.

מאדם - Canaanite slaves.^[3]

From an animal, and not every animal. From a field of holding, and not every field of holding.

“One might think he need not place under herem, and if he did, they are under herem: the verse teaches, ‘Ach’ (only).” The view of R. Eliezer.

אך כל חרם - The words “akh” (only), “akhin” and “rak” are exclusions.

R. Elazar ben Azarya said: If one may not dedicate all his property to the Most High, all the more so should one guard his own property.

And it is needed. For had the Merciful One written “from all that he has,” I would have said: he may not place under herem everything he has, but one kind, he may place all of it under herem. The Merciful One wrote “from a person, and not all persons.”

And had the Merciful One written “from a person” only, I would have said: a person cannot manage without work, but a field can manage through sharecropping.

בדיסתורן - That he become a tenant for others, taking fields on shares: half, a third or a quarter.

And had we been taught only these two — because here there is a living creature and here there is a living creature — but movables, let him place them all under herem.

אבל מטלטלין אימא ליחרמינהו כולהו - The Merciful One wrote “from all that he has, and not all that he has,” meaning movables.

They are needed (all these cases).

Why do I need “animal”?

As it was taught: “One might think a man may place under herem his son, his daughter, his Hebrew male and female servants, and a field of his acquisition — the verse says: animal.”

Just as with an animal he has the right to sell it, so with anything he has the right to sell it.

But a young daughter he has the right to sell — one might think he may place her under herem.^[4]

בתו יש לו רשות למוכרה - As a minor, not once she is grown.

— the verse says animal.

Just as with an animal he has the right to sell it forever, so with anything he has the right to sell forever.

R. Elazar ben Azarya said: If one may not dedicate all his property to the Most High, … Is this not the first Tanna?

The difference between them is R. Ila's view, for R. Ila said: In Usha they enacted: one who squanders should not squander more than a fifth.^[5]

המבזבז - To the poor.

חומש - Fifth — we learn it from Jacob, of whom it is written that he vowed two tithes.^[6] R. Elazar ben Azarya holds R. Ila's view, for he came to teach that a person should guard his property. R. Elazar does not hold R. Ila's view: if one squandered much, we do not mind — but if he kept some for himself, it is like herem.

There was a man who wanted to squander more than a fifth, and his fellows did not let him. Who was he? R. Yishav.

But some say: it was R. Yishav, and his fellows did not let him. Who was he? R. Akiva.

Mishnah

If one places under herem his son, his daughter, his Hebrew male and female servants, and a field of his acquisition — they are not under herem, because a person cannot place under herem what is not his.

Kohanim and Levites do not place under herem. The view of R. Yehuda.

R. Shimon says: Kohanim do not place under herem, because their herem is theirs.

מתני' שהחרמים שלהם - “As it is written, ‘every herem in Israel’, and since it is theirs, what benefit is there? If he placed it under herem, he himself would acquire it, and would not give it to another Kohen.”^[7]

And Levites do place under herem, because their herem is not theirs.

Rabbi said: the view of R. Yehuda seems correct regarding land.

נראין דברי ר' יהודה - That Levites do not place land under herem.

As it is said (Leviticus 25:34): “for it is an everlasting holding to them.”^[8]

And R. Shimon's view concerns movables — that their herem is not theirs.

ודברי ר' שמעון במטלטלין - Since their herem is not theirs; therefore, if they place movables under herem, the herem takes effect on them, and they give them to the Kohanim.

Gemara

R. Yehuda: granted, Kohanim do not place under herem, since their herem is theirs — but Levites? Granted, land they do not place under herem, as it is said, “for it is an everlasting holding to them.” But should they place movables under herem?

The verse says (Leviticus 27): “from all that he has and from the field of his holding” — it equates movables with land.

And R. Shimon: as for Kohanim, as we said. As for Levites: granted, movables can be placed under herem, since the verse does not equate them.

But land — why? Is it not written, “for it is an everlasting holding to them”?

What is the meaning of “they place under herem as well,” which he says? Movables.

But from the fact that the end teaches: R. said: the view of R. Yehuda seems correct regarding land, and the view of R. Shimon regarding movables — does it follow that R. Shimon speaks of land too?

גמ' מדאיצטריך ליה לרבי למימר במטלטלין - Why did R. need to say “regarding movables”? The view of R. Shimon seems correct, which implies that regarding land his view does not seem correct, so they also disagree about land.

This is what he says: R. said: the view of R. Yehuda seems correct against R. Shimon regarding land; for even R. Shimon does not dispute it except regarding movables, but regarding land he agrees with him.

שאף רבי שמעון לא נחלק עליו כו' - “Even R. Shimon does not dispute him…” — and this is what R.'s statement implies: the view of R. Yehuda seems correct against R. Shimon regarding land, since R. Shimon's view is about movables.

R. Chiya bar Avin said: One who places movables under herem gives them to any Kohen he wishes.

As it is said (Numbers 18:14): every herem in Israel.

Tosafot

דתנו רבנן מכל אשר לו ולא כל אשר לו - Asked: But this verse is written about herem given to the Kohanim; for at the end of the verse it says “shall not be sold or redeemed” (Leviticus 27:28), while the herem of the Temple repairs can be redeemed like hekdesh. How then does the Mishnah say “and if for the Most High etc.”? For it is not for the Most High, but for the Kohanim. Moreover, in Gittin 38b (“from a person” — these are his servants and maidservants, the Canaanites), they object to Rav, who said that one who sanctifies his slave goes free, because the verse means “a holy people”: what is the objection? For herem has no holiness of the body, and it is not like one who dedicates [a slave] so that the slave be “a holy people.” And one answers: even herem given to the Kohanim has holiness of the body, as taught below (Arachin 29a): herem while in the owner's house is like hekdesh; once given to a Kohen it is like chullin — so it has holiness of the body.

מה בהמה יש לו רשות למכור לעולם - Asked: then a field too — for if he sells it, it returns to the owner at the Jubilee. And one answers: he still has the right to take it out of his hand forever, as when he sanctifies it and redeems it after it has been divided to the Kohanim at the Jubilee. Or one can say the meaning is: just as with an animal he has the right to sell it, so with a field, as long as it is in his hand he can sell it; but with his daughter, once she grows up he has no right to sell her.

החרים מטלטלין נותנן לכל כהן שירצה שנאמר כל חרם בישראל לך יהיה - This is not the main exposition: for the verse is needed for what is expounded just below, that when given to a Kohen it is like chullin for all purposes, as it says “every herem in Israel shall be yours.” And the statement here that one gives them to any Kohen he wishes is a matter of reasoning, like terumah, which may be given to any Kohen and need not be given to a Kohen of the same watch. Moreover, if this were the main exposition, what is the question asked below: “let him equate movables to land” — for is it not a decree of the verse? So this proves that this is not the main exposition.

Notes

1. 1. A herem is property a person irrevocably dedicates to the Most High; it cannot be redeemed, and it goes to the Kohanim (Leviticus 27:28; Numbers 18:14).
2. 2. A kal vachomer (a fortiori): if a person may not dedicate all his property to the Most High, all the more should he guard his own property.
3. 3. Canaanite slaves: non-Jewish slaves who are owned permanently, and who do not go free after six years as a Hebrew slave does.
4. 4. A minor daughter: a daughter still under her father's authority until she grows up; the father may sell her while she is a minor.
5. 5. Usha, a town in the Galilee where the Sages made this enactment after the Bar Kokhba revolt.
6. 6. Jacob vowed to give a tenth of all that God would give him (Genesis 28:22); Rashi reads the verse as the source for the fifth-part rule.
7. 7. “Every herem in Israel shall be yours” (Numbers 18:14): herem property belongs to the priests.
8. 8. The fields of the Levites' cities may not be sold, for they are an everlasting holding (Leviticus 25:34).