ה׳
א׳הַמַּקְדִישׁ שְׂדֵה אֲחֻזָּתוֹ מִצְוָה עָלָיו לִפְדּוֹתָהּ הוּא שֶׁהָאָדוֹן קוֹדֵם. וְאִם לֹא רָצָה אֵין כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בִּזְמַן שֶׁמִּצְוַת יוֹבֵל נוֹהֶגֶת שֶׁאִם יַגִּיעַ יוֹבֵל וְלֹא יִגְאָלֶנָּה תֵּצֵא לַכֹּהֲנִים כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. אֲבָל בִּזְמַן שֶׁבָּטְלוּ הַיּוֹבְלוֹת שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵינָהּ יוֹצֵאת לַכֹּהֲנִים אֶלָּא סוֹפָהּ לְהִפָּדוֹת לְעוֹלָם כּוֹפִין אֶת הָאָדוֹן לִפְתֹּחַ בָּהּ תְּחִלָּה וְהִיא נִפְדֵית בְּשָׁוְיָהּ כִּשְׁאָר הַהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת. אִם נִמְצָא מִי שֶׁמּוֹסִיף עָלָיו וְגוֹאֵל אוֹתָהּ יִגְאַל וְאִם לָאו אוֹמְרִין לוֹ הִגִּיעָתְךָ וְיִתֵּן מַה שֶּׁאָמַר וְאֵינוֹ פּוֹתֵחַ בְּפָחוֹת מֵאַרְבַּע פְּרוּטוֹת כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא הַחֹמֶשׁ שֶׁמּוֹסִיף פְּרוּטָה:
1When a person consecrates his ancestral field, it is a mitzvah for him to redeem it, for the owner receives priority.1Arachin 27a derives this concept from the exegesis of Leviticus 27:27. If, however, he does not desire to, we do not compel him.When does the above apply? In the era that the Jubilee is observed.2See Hilchot Shemitah ViYoval 10:3, 8-10 which explains that the Jubilee years is observed only when the entire Jewish people live in the Holy Land. Hence when the tribes of Reuven and Gad were exiled - decades before the destruction of the First Temple - the observance of the Jubilee no longer had the status of Scriptural Law. For if the Jubilee arrives and he does not redeem it, it will be expropriated for the sake of the priests, as we explained.3Chapter 4, Halachot 19-20. Since either the person who redeems it or the priests will pay for it, the Temple treasury will ultimately receive its due. Hence, there is no need to compel the owner to redeem it. In the era when the Jubilee has been nullified4As evident from Chapter 8, Halachah 8, this refers to a time when the Temple is standing, but the Jubilee year is no longer observed. and it is not expropriated for the sake of the priests, but instead will ultimately be redeemed, we compel5Were the person not to be compelled, it is possible that the Temple treasury would not receive its due (Radbaz).The Ra'avad differs and states that the person is not compelled to redeem his field, but the Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh justify the Rambam's understanding. the owner to make an initial bid6The owner is compelled to make the initial bid, because he is required to add a fifth and thus the Temple treasury will be profiting more than if another person would offer the same price. Also, we assume that since it was his property, he is attached to it and will pay more to repossess it (Arachin 27a). and it is redeemed for its worth7I.e., for the price people are willing to pay, not for the standard value decreed by the Torah. Since the laws pertaining to arechim are taught as a single unit in the Torah and all the particulars do not apply, this fundamental factor is also not applied. like other consecrated articles. If someone who is willing to add to [the bid] to redeem it, he may redeem it. If not, we tell him: "It has come to you," and he must give what he bid. He may not make an opening bid for less than four p'rutot so that the fifth that he will add will not be less than a p'rutah.8For anything less than a p'rutah is not financially significant.
ב׳רָצָה הָאָדוֹן לִמְכֹּר שָׂדוֹת אֲחֵרוֹת מִשְּׂדוֹתָיו אוֹ לִלְווֹת כְּדֵי לִפְדּוֹת שָׂדֶה זוֹ שֶׁהִקְדִּישׁ הָרְשׁוּת בְּיָדוֹ. בֵּין בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַיּוֹבֵל נוֹהֵג בֵּין בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵין הַיּוֹבֵל נוֹהֵג. וְהוּא קוֹדֵם לְכָל אָדָם. וְכֵן אִם רָצָה לִגְאל חֶצְיָהּ גּוֹאֵל. מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בְּמוֹכֵר לְהֶדְיוֹט. זֶה חֹמֶר בְּהֶדְיוֹט מִבְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ:
2If the owner desired to sell other fields that he owned or to borrow to redeem this field that he consecrated, he has permission to do so.9Since a field that he consecrated will never return to him if he does not redeem it, he is given a greater opportunity to do so (Arachin 30a). This applies whether [he consecrated the field] during the time the Jubilee is observed or when it is not observed. He is given precedence over others. Similarly, if he desired to redeem half of it, he may. This contrasts with the laws that apply when one sells a field to an ordinary person.10In which instance, these restrictions do apply. See Hilchot Shemitah ViYoval 11:17-18; 12:2. This is the greater stringency that applies with regard to ordinary property [and not] to the Temple treasury.
ג׳הַמַּקְדִּישׁ אֶת בֵּיתוֹ אוֹ אֶת בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה שֶׁלּוֹ אוֹ שְׁאָר מִטַּלְטְלָיו הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ נֶעֱרָכִין בְּשָׁוְיֵיהֶן בֵּין טוֹב וּבֵין רַע. וְאִם פָּדָה אוֹתָן הַמַּקְדִּישׁ אוֹ אִשְׁתּוֹ אוֹ יוֹרְשׁוֹ מוֹסִיף חֹמֶשׁ. וְכוֹפִין אֶת הַבְּעָלִים לִפְתֹּחַ רִאשׁוֹן וְהַדָּמִים לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת. בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה הַבַּיִת מִבָּתֵּי עָרֵי חוֹמָה בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה מִבָּתֵּי הַחֲצֵרִים הֲרֵי זֶה נִגְאָל לְעוֹלָם:
3When a person consecrates his home,11Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 116) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 354) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. a non-kosher12The laws involving kosher animals are found in Halachot 5-7. animal,13Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 115) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 353) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. or other property, they are evaluated for their worth, whether it be high or low.14This - and not a standard value - is what the person must pay. The Torah established a standard value only for humans and fields. If the person who consecrated them, his wife, or his heirs15See Chapter 4, Halachah 5, and notes. redeem them, they must add a fifth. We compel the owner to make the first bid. The money is set aside for improvements to the Temple.[The above] applies whether the house was from a walled city or from an unwalled habitation, [the owner] may redeem it at all times.16I.e., as long as another person has not redeemed it first. As stated in Hilchot Shemitah V'Yoval, ch. 12, there is a difference in the relevant laws with regard to the sale of such dwellings to private individuals. A home in a walled city must be redeemed from a private purchaser within a year. Otherwise, it becomes his property forever. These restrictions do not apply with regard to a home in an unwalled habitation.
ד׳גְּאָלוֹ אַחֵר מִיַּד הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ אִם הָיָה בֵּית עָרֵי חוֹמָה וְקָם בְּיַד הַגּוֹאֵל שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ נֶחְלָט. וְאִם הָיָה בֵּית הַחֲצֵרִים וְהִגִּיעַ הַיּוֹבֵל וְהוּא בְּיַד הַגּוֹאֵל חוֹזֵר לִבְעָלָיו בַּיּוֹבֵל:
4[The following rules apply if] another person redeemed it from the Temple treasury. If the home was within a walled city and it remained in the possession of the redeemer for twelve months, it becomes his property forever.17I.e., it does not return to the original owner in the Jubilee. It is as if the purchaser acquired the field from the owner. If the home was located in an unwalled habitation and the Jubilee arrived while it was in the possession of the redeemer, it returns to its owner in the Jubilee.18As would be the law had he purchased it from him directly.
ה׳הַמַּקְדִּישׁ בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה תְּמִימָה לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעָבַר עַל עֲשֵׂה מַה שֶּׁעָשָׂה עָשׂוּי וְחָלָה קְדֻשָּׁה עָלֶיהָ וְנִפְדֵית כְּשֶׁהִיא תְּמִימָה. וּמַעֲרִיךְ אוֹתָהּ הַכֹּהֵן בְּדָמֶיהָ. וְהַדָּמִים יִפְּלוּ לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת. וְאֵין הַפּוֹדֶה אוֹתָהּ פּוֹדֶה אֶלָּא עַל מְנָת לְהַקְרִיבָהּ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ לְמַה שֶּׁהִיא רְאוּיָה. שֶׁכָּל דָּבָר הָרָאוּי לַמִּזְבֵּחַ אֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא מִידֵי מִזְבֵּחַ לְעוֹלָם:
5When a person consecrates an unblemished19I.e., were the animal to have a blemish that disqualifies it from being offered as a sacrifice, these laws would not apply. kosher animal for the sake of improvements to the Temple,20As obvious from Halachah 7, this applies when he explicitly states that he is consecrating it for this purpose. he has transgressed a positive commandment.21As stated in the following halachah. [Nevertheless,] the deed he performed is of consequence and sanctity is conveyed upon [the animal]. It is redeemed even though it is unblemished.22In contrast to an animal consecrated as a sacrifice which is redeemed only when it is blemished. See Halachah 11. The priest establishes its worth,23See Halachah 12. The commentaries have noted that in Chapter 8, Halachah 2, the Rambam mentions that a priest is required to participate in the evaluation of humans and fields, but not in that of movable property. He makes no mention of the evaluation of animals. There is a difference of opinion concerning this matter in Sanhedrin 15a. and the money is given for improvements to the Temple. The person who redeems it, redeems it only for the sake of offering it on the altar for the type of sacrifice for which it is fitting.24I.e., depending on the type and gender of the animal it is fitting for some sacrifices and not others. [This is required, because] any [consecrated entity] that is fit for the altar is never released from [the obligation to be sacrificed on] the altar.
ו׳וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁאָסוּר לְהַקְדִּישׁ תְּמִימִין לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כב כג) "וְשׁוֹר וָשֶׂה שָׂרוּעַ וְקָלוּט נְדָבָה תַּעֲשֶׂה אֹתוֹ". מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ נְדָבָה לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת. וְכֵן הַדְּבָרִים מַרְאִין שֶׁאֵינָהּ אֶלָּא קְדֻשַּׁת דָּמִים. שֶׁאֵין מַקְרִיבִין בַּעַל מוּם לַמִּזְבֵּחַ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר אֹתוֹ (ויקרא כב כג) "אוֹתוֹ" אַתָּה עוֹשֶׂה נְדָבָה לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת וְאֵין אַתָּה עוֹשֶׂה תְּמִימִים נְדָבָה לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת. וְלָאו הַבָּא מִכְּלַל עֲשֵׂה כַּעֲשֵׂה הוּא:
6What is the source that teaches that it is forbidden to consecrate unblemished animals for the improvement of the Temple? [Leviticus 22:23] states: "An ox or a sheep that has irregularly sized limbs or unsplit hoofs, it shall be [consecrated] as a donation." According to the Oral Tradition,25See temurah 7b. we have learned that [the term] "donation" implies that it is consecrated for improvements to the Temple. Similarly, the situation indicates that it was consecrated only for its worth, for a blemished animal is not offered on the altar. [This is denoted by the term] "it," i.e., it26A blemished animal like those mentioned in the verse. is consecrated for improvements to the Temple, but an unblemished animal should not be consecrated as a donation for improvements to the Temple. A prohibition derived from a positive commandment has the status of a positive commandment.27I.e., although the prohibition is of Scriptural origin, since the Torah did explicitly forbid it by saying: "Do not consecrate an unblemished animal for this purpose," it is not considered as the transgression of a negative commandment. Temurah 7b states that a negative commandment is also involved. Nevertheless, based on our Sages' statements in the Sifra, the Rambam considers that passage as merely an asmachta, the derivation of support for a concept by the Rabbis and not a Scriptural prohibition.
ז׳הַמַּקְדִּישׁ אֶת בְּהֶמְתּוֹ סְתָם אוֹ שֶׁהִקְדִּישׁ אֶת נְכָסָיו סְתָם רוֹאִין כָּל בְּהֵמָה תְּמִימָה הָרְאוּיָה לְהַקְרִיב עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ זְכָרִים יִמָּכְרוּ לְצָרְכֵי עוֹלוֹת וְיַקְרִיבוּ אוֹתָן עוֹלוֹת. וְהַנְּקֵבוֹת יִמָּכְרוּ לְצָרְכֵי שְׁלָמִים וְיַקְרִיבוּ אוֹתָן שְׁלָמִים. וְהַדָּמִים יִפְּלוּ לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת שֶׁסְּתָם הֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת. וְעַל זֶה נֶאֱמַר (ויקרא כז ט) "וְאִם בְּהֵמָה אֲשֶׁר יַקְרִיבוּ מִמֶּנָּה קָרְבָּן לַה' כּל אֲשֶׁר יִתֵּן מִמֶּנּוּ לַה' יִהְיֶה קֹּדֶשׁ" כְּלוֹמַר כָּל הָרָאוּי לְקָרְבָּן עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ יִקָּרֵב:
7[The following rules apply when a person] consecrates an animal without making any specifications or consecrates his property without making any specifications: We survey all the unblemished animals that are fit to be offered on the altar. The males should be sold for the purpose of burnt offerings28Although they could also be used for other types of sacrifices, it is preferable to offer them as burnt offerings. and offered as burnt offerings. The females29Which may not be brought as burnt offerings. are sold for the purpose of peace offerings and offered as peace offerings.The proceeds [of the sales] should be given for improvements to the Temple. For unless explicit specification is made, all consecrated articles are for the sake of the improvement of the Temple. Concerning this [Leviticus 27:9] states: "If it is an animal which can be offered as a sacrifice to God, all parts of it that you can give to God shall be holy." Implied is that every entity that is fit to be offered as a sacrifice on the altar should be offered [on the altar].
ח׳הִקְדִּישׁ נְכָסָיו סְתָם וְהָיוּ בָּהֶן יֵינוֹת וּשְׁמָנִים וּסְלָתוֹת וְעוֹפוֹת הָרְאוּיִין לִקָּרֵב עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ יִמָּכְרוּ לְצָרְכֵי אוֹתוֹ הַמִּין וְיַקְרִיבוּ אוֹתָן וְהַדָּמִים יִלָּקַח בָּהֶן זְכָרִים וְיַקְרִיבוּ עוֹלוֹת:
8When a person consecrates his possessions without making any specifications and among them were wine, oil, fine flour, and doves that are fit to be offered on the altar, they should be sold for the purpose of [offerings that employ them] and they should be offered. The money should be used to purchase male animals that should be brought as burnt offerings.30The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam on this issue, offering a different interpretation of the Rambam's source, Shekalim 4:7-8. The Radbaz explains the rationale behind the Rambam's ruling. Since animals can be redeemed, we assume that he consecrated them with the intent that they be redeemed and the money given for improvements to the Temple building. Since these other items cannot be redeemed, by contrast, we assume that from the outset, his intent was that they be consecrated for the sake of the altar alone. These concepts also apply with regard to Halachah 9.
ט׳וּמִפְּנֵי מָה יַקְרִיבוּ דְּמֵי אֵלּוּ עוֹלוֹת וּדְמֵי הַבְּהֵמָה הַתְּמִימָה יִפְּלוּ לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת. לְפִי שֶׁהַבְּהֵמָה הַקְּדוֹשָׁה לַמִּזְבֵּחַ אִם נָפַל בָּהּ מוּם יֵשׁ לָהּ פִּדְיוֹן כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר וְהַסּלֶת וְהַיַּיִן וְהַשֶּׁמֶן וְהָעוֹפוֹת שֶׁנִּפְסְלוּ אֵין לָהֶן פִּדְיוֹן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כז יא) "וְהֶעֱמִיד אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה" וְגוֹ' כָּל שֶׁיֶּשְׁנוֹ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה יֵשׁ לָהּ פִּדְיוֹן וְכָל שֶׁאֵינוֹ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה אֵין לָהּ פִּדְיוֹן:
9Why should the proceeds from these sales be used to bring burnt offerings and the proceeds from the sale of an unblemished animal be used for improvements to the Temple?31As stated in Halachah 7. [The rationale is that] when an animal is consecrated to the altar suffers a [disqualifying] blemish, there is a concept of it being redeemed, as will be explained.32See Halachah 11. When, by contrast, fine flour, wine, oil, and doves become unfit [for the altar], there is no concept of redeeming them.33The Ra'avad notes that fine flour, wine, and oil may be redeemed if they became impure before being placed in a consecrated vessel. The Kessef Mishneh explains that since they cannot be redeemed once they have been placed in a consecrated vessel, that is most significant. For until they have been placed in a consecrated vessel, they have not been sanctified in a complete sense. See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 6:4-5. [This is derived from Leviticus 27:11-12 which] states: "You shall have the animal stand [before the priest and the priest shall evaluate it]." [Implied is that] any entity that is stood [before a priest] and evaluated may be redeemed. If any entity is not to be stood [before a priest] and evaluated, it may not be redeemed.
י׳הִקְדִּישׁ נְכָסָיו סְתָם וְהָיְתָה בָּהֶן הַקְּטֹרֶת שֶׁנּוֹתְנִין לְאָמָּנִין בִּשְׂכָרָן עַד שֶׁיַּחְזְרוּ וְיִקְחוּ אוֹתָהּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בִּשְׁקָלִים. הֲרֵי זוֹ תִּנָּתֵן לְאָמָּנִין בִּשְׂכָרָן כְּמוֹ שֶׁעוֹשִׂין בְּמוֹתַר הַקְּטֹרֶת. וְכֵן עוֹשִׂין אִם יֵשׁ בִּנְכָסָיו אֶחָד מִסַּמָּנֵי הַקְּטֹרֶת:
10When a person consecrates his possessions without making any specifications and among them was incense which is given to the craftsmen for their wages until they return and purchase it, as we explained in [Hilchot] Shekalim,34As explained in Hilchot Shekalim 4:12, in every year that is not a leap year, there is a certain amount of incense left over. For 365 portions were prepared for daily offerings and there are either 353, 354, or 355 days in such a year. Thus there were extra portions left over. The holiness associated with these portions of incense was then transferred to money and that money used to purchase burnt offerings. Afterwards, the portions of incense would be given to the craftsmen who prepare the incense as their wages. They would then sell this incense back to the Temple treasury, so that it would be purchased back with the funds designated for communal sacrifices for the new year.This halachah is speaking about an instance where one of those craftsmen consecrated the incense in his possession to the Temple treasury. It should be given to other craftsmen as their wages and then purchased back as above. it should be given to the craftsmen for their wages as is done with the remainder of the incense. These guidelines are also followed when one of the spices used in the incense offering is found among his possessions.35I.e., it should be given to the craftsmen as part of their wages and then purchased with the money designated for the purchase of communal sacrifices.
י״אהַמַּקְדִּישׁ בְּהֵמָה תְּמִימָה לַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְנָפַל בָּהּ מוּם וְנִפְסְלָה הֲרֵי זוֹ נֶעֱרֶכֶת וְנִפְדֵית. וְעַל זֶה נֶאֱמַר (ויקרא כז יא) "וְאִם כָּל בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה אֲשֶׁר לֹא יַקְרִיבוּ מִמֶּנָּה קָרְבָּן לַה' וְהֶעֱמִיד אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה" וְגוֹ'. וְיָבִיא בְּדָמֶיהָ קָרְבָּן אַחֵר כְּמוֹתָהּ:
11When a person consecrates an unblemished animal [as a sacrifice to be offered on] the altar and it became blemished36I.e., a blemish that will not become healed (Radbaz). and was disqualified, it should be evaluated and redeemed. Concerning this, [Leviticus 27:11] states: "When any impure animal37Bechorot 37b explains that the intent is not an animal from an impure species, but rather an animal from a kosher species that became disqualified because of a blemish, for there is a second verse (27:27) that speaks about evaluating non-kosher animals. See also Hilchot Issurei Mizbeach 1:10. of which a sacrifice should not be brought as an offering to God, you shall have the animal stand [before the priest....]" He should bring another sacrifice equivalent to it with its money.
י״בכָּל הַמַּקְדִּישׁ בְּהֵמָה בְּחַיֶּיהָ בֵּין טְהוֹרָה בֵּין טְמֵאָה בֵּין קָדְשֵׁי הַבַּיִת בֵּין קָדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ שֶׁנָּפַל בָּהֶן מוּם אוֹ תְּמִימָה הָרְאוּיָה לִקָּרֵב כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר הֲרֵי זוֹ צְרִיכָה הַעֲמָדָה בְּבֵית דִּין שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כז יא) "וְהֶעֱמִיד אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה". לְפִיכָךְ אִם מֵתָה הַבְּהֵמָה קֹדֶם שֶׁתֵּעָרֵךְ וְתִפָּדֶה אֵין פּוֹדִין אוֹתָהּ אַחַר שֶׁמֵּתָה אֶלָּא תִּקָּבֵר. אֲבָל אִם הִקְדִּישׁ שְׁחוּטָה אוֹ נְבֵלָה לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת הֲרֵי זוֹ תִּפָּדֶה כִּשְׁאָר מִטַּלְטְלִין:
12Whenever a person consecrates an animal in its lifetime - whether a kosher animal or a non-kosher one, whether it was consecrated for the sake of the Temple treasury,38As explained in Halachah 5. it was consecrated to be offered on the altar and it became blemished,39After its consecration. The laws applying to the consecration of a blemished animal are the same as those applying to other movable property. See the gloss of the Ra'avad. or it is an unblemished animal which is fit to be offered as a sacrifice as will be explained,40Some commentaries suggest emending the wording of the text and having it read 'as was explained,' i.e., referring to Halachah 5. The Merkevet HaMishneh suggests that the text should be left as is and that the reference is to Chapter 6, Halachah 8, which refers to consecrating to the Temple treasury an animal that was already designated as a sacrifice. it must be stood [before the court] for evaluation, as implied by the phrase: "You shall have the animal stand [before the priest....]" Therefore, if the animal died before it is evaluated and redeemed, it should not be redeemed. Instead, it should be buried.41For the holiness that rested upon a consecrated animal cannot be transferred to money after its death. (See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Temurah 7:3). Instead, it must be buried so that no one will make use of it. If, however, a person consecrated a slaughtered animal or an animal carcass for the sake of improvements to the Temple, it should be redeemed like other movable property.
י״גשָׁחַט בָּהּ שְׁנַיִם אוֹ רֹב שְׁנַיִם וַעֲדַיִן הִיא מְפַרְכֶּסֶת הֲרֵי הִיא כְּחַיָּה לְכָל דְּבָרֶיהָ וְנֶעֱרֶכֶת וַהֲרֵי הִיא בִּכְלַל וְהֶעֱמִיד וְהֶעֱרִיךְ עַד שֶׁתָּמוּת:
13[In the above situation,] if one slaughtered [the animal, slitting] the two organs42The windpipe and the esophagus. These are referred to as 'the signs' of ritual slaughter. See Hilchot Shechitah 1:9. [necessary for the slaughter to be acceptable] or slit the majority of these organs43For that is sufficient for the slaughter to be acceptable (ibid.). but the animal is still making convulsive movements, it is considered as alive with regard to all matters.44Note a similar ruling in Hilchot Shaar Avot HaTumah 2:1. It may be evaluated and [the provisions implied by the phrases:] "You shall have.... stand and... shall evaluate" apply until it dies.45The commentaries note that according to the Rambam, this applies even if the animal is incapable of standing unsupported. There are, however, other authorities who differ; see Shitah Mekubetzet (Bava Kama 76a).
י״דהַמַּקְדִּישׁ בְּהֵמָה תְּמִימָה לְדָמֶיהָ הֲרֵי זוֹ נִתְקַדֵּשׁ גּוּפָהּ. כֵּיצַד. הָאוֹמֵר דְּמֵי בְּהֵמָה זוֹ הֶקְדֵּשׁ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ הִיא עַצְמָהּ תִּקָּרֵב. הִקְדִּישׁ אֶחָד מֵאֵיבָרֶיהָ לְדָמָיו וְאָמַר דְּמֵי רַגְלָהּ שֶׁל פָּרָה זוֹ הֶקְדֵּשׁ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ הֲרֵי זוֹ סָפֵק אִם פָּשְׁטָה קְדֻשָּׁה בְּכֻלָּהּ אוֹ לֹא פָּשְׁטָה. וּלְפִיכָךְ תִּקָּרֵב וְלֹא תִּפָּדֶה:
14When a person consecrates the worth of an unblemished animal,46I.e., the person desired that the animal be sold and the proceeds used to purchase an animal to be sacrificed. the body of the animal becomes consecrated.47Since the animal is fit to be sacrificed, it is dedicated to the altar and should be sacrificed itself (Temura 19b). What is implied? When a person says: 'The worth of this animal is consecrated to the altar,' the animal itself should be sacrificed.When one consecrates the worth of one of its limbs or organs, saying: 'The worth of the feet of this cow are consecrated to the altar,' there is an unresolved question: Does the sanctity spread throughout the animal or not?48Based on Temurah 11b, the Or Sameach explains that were a person to consecrate the limb itself, there is no question that the sanctity would spread throughout the entire animal. The question is since the person did not consecrate the limb itself, merely its worth, do we make two extensions: from the worth of the limb to the limb itself and from the limb to the entire body. There are, however, those who note that in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 15:2, the Rambam does not accept the principle that the sanctity spreads from a limb or organ throughout the entire animal unless the limb or organ is of vital importance. Therefore it should be sacrificed and not redeemed.
ט״ווכֵּיצַד עוֹשִׂין. מוֹכְרִין אוֹתָהּ כֻּלָּהּ לְמִי שֶׁיַּקְרִיב אוֹתָהּ. וְדָמֶיהָ חֻלִּין חוּץ מִדְּמֵי אוֹתוֹ אֵיבָר. וְאִם הָיָה אֵיבָר שֶׁהַנְּשָׁמָה תְּלוּיָה בּוֹ פָּשְׁטָה קְדֻשָּׁה בְּכֻלָּהּ:
15What should be done?49For we cannot require the donor to sacrifice the entire animal (for perhaps it did not become consecrated), nor may allow him to regard it as his personal property (for perhaps it did). We sell it in its entirety to a person who will offer it as a sacrifice.50As the commentaries to Temurah 11b explain, there is a difficulty when one limb of an animal was consecrated and another person purchases it to offer it as a sacrifice, for it is as if the person offering the sacrifice is offering an animal lacking a limb. For that limb was not consecrated by him, but by the original donor. They explain that this is referring to an instance where the purchaser pledged to purchase a burnt offering of a certain value and the animal is worth that amount, even without the limb in question. See Hilchot Maaseh HaKorbanot 15:2. The proceeds of the sale are not consecrated with the exception of those of that particular limb.51We follow the principle that when there is a question concerning ownership, one who desires to expropriate property (in this instance, the Temple treasury) from a colleague (the donor), must prove the validity of his claim. Since that is not possible (because the question is unresolved), the donor may retain the proceeds from the portion of the animal that was not consecrated. If the limb or organ [consecrated] was of vital importance [to the animal], the sanctity [is considered to] spread throughout the entire animal.52Since the animal could not live without that limb, consecrating it is equivalent to consecrating the entire animal.
ט״זהָיְתָה בְּהֵמָה בַּעֲלַת מוּם שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה לִקָּרֵב וְהִקְדִּישׁ אֵיבָר מֵאֵיבָרֶיהָ לְדָמָיו בֵּין שֶׁהַנְּשָׁמָה תְּלוּיָה בּוֹ בֵּין שֶׁהַנְּשָׁמָה אֵין תְּלוּיָה בּוֹ לֹא נִתְקַדֵּשׁ אֶלָּא דְּמֵי אוֹתוֹ אֵיבָר בִּלְבַד. כֵּיצַד. כְּגוֹן שֶׁאָמַר דְּמֵי רֶגֶל פָּרָה זוֹ אוֹ דְּמֵי לִבָּהּ הֶקְדֵּשׁ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ. הוּא וְהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֻׁתָּפִין בָּהּ:
16[Different rules apply if] the animal [consecrated] was blemished and unfit to be offered as a sacrifice. When one consecrates one of its limbs or organs - whether it is one of vital importance or not - only that limb becomes consecrated.53Since the animal is unfit to be sacrificed, we do not say that the sanctity spread throughout the entire animal.What is implied? A person said: 'The worth of the foot of this cow...' or 'The worth of its heart is consecrated to the altar,' he and the Temple treasury own it in partnership.54The animal should be sold and the proceeds from the sale of that limb or organ used to purchase a burnt offering.
י״זוְכֵן הָאוֹמֵר רֹאשׁ עֶבֶד זֶה אוֹ לֵב חֲמוֹר זֶה הֶקְדֵּשׁ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר רֹאשִׁי הֶקְדֵּשׁ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא בִּדְמֵי רֹאשׁוֹ וְרוֹאִין כַּמָּה יִשְׁוֶה אוֹתוֹ אֵיבָר אִלּוּ הָיָה נִמְכָּר וְיָבִיא בְּדָמָיו קָרְבָּן:
17Similarly, if a person says: 'The head of this servant...' or 'The heart of this donkey is consecrated to the altar,' [he is liable only for the worth of the limb or organ mentioned].55Since neither a donkey or a servant is fit to offer on the altar, the principles mentioned in the previous halachah apply. Similarly, if he says: 'My head is consecrated to the altar,' he is liable only for the worth of his head.56The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, stating that a person's severed head is of no monetary value whatsoever, for it is forbidden to benefit from any portion of a corpse. And seemingly, if we would evaluate his head separately, it would be considered as equivalent to his entire worth, for of what worth is a person without a head? Hence, the Temple treasury should be the sole owner without leaving any portion for the person himself. Therefore the Ra'avad suggests that the intent of saying that they are partners is that the consecrated entity's value is divided in half.The Kessef Mishneh notes that the Talmud clearly mentions evaluation in that passage and therefore, does not accept the Ra'avad's view. How is a head evaluated? The Kessef Mishneh explains that we consider the tasks the servant or the person performs. To the extent he is involved with those that require intellectual activity, his head is worth more. If, by contrast, his activity is primarily physical, his head is worth less.The Radbaz maintains that if a limb or organ is of vital importance to the animal or person, the value is divided in half as the Ra'avad states. The Rambam speaks of evaluating the worth of the organ only when it is not of vital importance. We see how much that limb or organ is worth and he must bring a sacrifice for that amount.
י״חבַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּקָדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ. אֲבָל בְּקָדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת הָאוֹמֵר דְּמֵי רֹאשׁ חֲמוֹר זֶה אוֹ כְּבֵדוֹ הֶקְדֵּשׁ אוֹ דְּמֵי רֹאשׁ עֶבֶד זֶה אוֹ כְּבֵדוֹ הֶקְדֵּשׁ הוֹאִיל וְהוּא דָּבָר שֶׁהַנְּשָׁמָה תְּלוּיָה בּוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב בִּדְמֵי כֻּלּוֹ. שֶׁכָּל הֶקְדֵּשׁ בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת קְדֻשַּׁת דָּמִים הוּא:
18When does the above apply? With regard to animals consecrated to the altar. If, however, a person says: 'The head of this donkey...' or 'Its liver is consecrated,' or 'The head of this servant' or 'His liver is consecrated,'57I.e., for improvements to the Temple, for as stated in Halachah 7, whenever a person consecrates an entity without explicitly stated the purpose for which it was consecrated, we assume that it was consecrated for improvements for the Temple. since his life is dependent on that organ, he is liable for its entire worth. For whenever an entity is consecrated for improvements to the Temple, the consecration involves the entity's worth.58Since the animal or person would not be worth anything without this organ, there is no difference between the worth of that organ and the worth of the entire entity.The difference between this instance and those mentioned in the previous halachot is that the previous halachot involve limbs or organs explicitly consecrated to be offered on the altar. Thus that is all that may be done with them. Even when an article itself may not be sacrificed on the altar and hence, we understand that the person is referring to the value of the article, since he is singling out that limb or organ, we consider his intent to be that its individual value be offered on the altar.In those instances, the holiness is focused on the physical substance of the limb or organ. Its value is only a substitute for that physical substance. Hence, we look it at as a particular and not part of the person or animal as a whole. In the instances referred to by this halachah, from the outset, we are concerned with value. Hence, we consider the value of the limb or organ in a more encompassing manner.
י״טהָאוֹמֵר עֶרְכִּי עָלַי לַמִּזְבֵּחַ מֵבִיא בְּעֶרְכּוֹ קָרְבָּן. וְאִם אֵין יָדוֹ מַשֶּׂגֶת לְעֵרֶךְ שָׁלֵם הֲרֵי זֶה דְּבַר סָפֵק אִם נִדּוֹן בְּהֶשֵּׂג יָד הוֹאִיל וְהוֹצִיאוֹ בִּלְשׁוֹן עֵרֶךְ. אוֹ אֵינוֹ נִדּוֹן בְּהֶשֵּׂג יָד הוֹאִיל וְלַמִּזְבֵּחַ נָדַר. וְכֵן הַמַּקְדִּישׁ שְׂדֵה אֲחֻזָּתוֹ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ הֲרֵי זוֹ נִפְדֵית וְהַדָּמִים יָבִיאוּ בָּהֶן עוֹלוֹת לַמִּזְבֵּחַ. וְיֵשׁ בַּדָּבָר סָפֵק אִם פּוֹדִין אוֹתָהּ בָּעֵרֶךְ הַקָּצוּב בָּהּ אוֹ פּוֹדִין אוֹתָהּ בְּשָׁוְיָן הוֹאִיל וְלַמִּזְבֵּחַ הִקְדִּישׁ וְדָנִין בְּכָל אֵלּוּ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן לְהַחְמִיר:
19When a person says: 'I pledge my airech to the altar,' he must bring sacrifices of the value of his airech.59I.e., the fixed amount required by Torah law, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 3. If he is not financially capable of giving his entire airech,60In which instance, were we speaking about a person who pledged his airech, he would be required to pay according to his financial capacity, as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 2. there is an unresolved question: Is his evaluation appraised according to his financial capacity for he made his pledge using the term airech or do we not appraise his financial capacity since he made his vow to the altar?61And there are no other instances where a pledge to the altar can be fulfilled by giving less that the article's worth (Arachin 5a).Similarly, when a person consecrates his ancestral field to the altar, it should be redeemed and the proceeds should be used to purchase burnt offerings for the altar. There is an unresolved question: Should it be redeemed according to the fixed airech established for it62A shekel and a pundiyon for each year until the Jubilee, as stated in Chapter 4, Halachot 2, 5. or should it be redeemed according to its value, since he made his vow to the altar?63And there are no other instances where a pledge to the altar can be fulfilled by giving less that the article's worth (Arachin 5a). In all these and similar instances, we rule stringently.64And the Temple treasury is always given the benefit of the doubt. If the airech is more, the donor must pay the airech. If the worth is more, he must pay the worth.
ו׳
א׳אֶחָד הָאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי זֶה הֶקְדֵּשׁ לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת אוֹ חֵרֶם לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת אוֹ חֵרֶם לַשָּׁמַיִם. וְכֵן בְּכָל נְכָסָיו אִם אָמַר כָּל נְכָסָיו הֶקְדֵּשׁ אוֹ חֵרֶם לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת אוֹ חֵרֶם לַשָּׁמָיִם הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יִפְּלוּ לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר חֵרֶם סְתָם הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ לַכֹּהֲנִים. שֶׁסְּתָם חֲרָמִים לַכֹּהֲנִים. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר יח יד) "כָּל חֵרֶם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל לְךָ יִהְיֶה":
1Whether a person says: 'This1Any specific entity. is consecrated for the sake of improvements to the Temple,' 'This is a dedication offering2This term is being used for the Hebrew term cherem. Cherem implies the removal of an entity from one framework of reference and its inclusion in another. Similarly, in this instance, the property is being taken from the realm of private, personal possessions and being sanctified (see the gloss of HaKtav VeHaKabalah to Leviticus 27:29 . It must, however, be emphasized that the term cherem has negative connotations, meaning 'a ban' and the root has the connotation 'absolute destruction.' In that context, in his Living Torah, Rav Aryeh Kaplan interprets the term is meaning 'declare taboo,' i.e., banned from ordinary mortal use and hence, designated for the Temple treasury or the priests. for the sake of improvements to the Temple,' or 'This is a dedication offering for the sake of Heaven,' or he [makes] similar [statements] with regard to his property as a whole,3As stated in Halachah 2, a person should not dedicate all of his possessions. Nevertheless, if he chooses to do so, his statements are of consequence. saying that it is all consecrated for the sake of improvements to the Temple, as a dedication offering for the sake of improvements to the Temple, or as a dedication offering for the sake of Heaven, [the property] should be given for improvements to the Temple. If, however, he said [that the property should be given] as a dedication offering without making any specifications, it should be given to the priests,4The differences between the two types of dedication offerings mentioned are described in Halachah 4. To which priests the property is given is described in Halachah 5. for unspecified dedication offerings are given to the priests,5The Kessef Mishneh questions the Rambam's ruling, noting that the matter is the subject of a difference of opinion among the Sages (Arachin 28b) and it appears that the conclusion of the Talmud is that if no specification is made, dedication offerings should be given for improvements to the Temple. Indeed, Rashi (Beitzah 36b) and others rule in this manner. The Or Sameach suggests that the Rambam's source is Ezekiel 44:29 which states: 'All the dedication offerings from the Jewish people shall be yours.' as [Numbers 18:14] states: 'All of the dedication offerings from the Jewish people will be yours.
ב׳מַחְרִים אָדָם מִן בְּקָרוֹ וּמִצֹּאנוֹ וּמֵעֲבָדָיו וּמִשִּׁפְחוֹתָיו הַכְּנַעֲנִים וּמִשְּׂדֵה אֲחֻזָּתוֹ. אֲבָל לֹא יַחֲרִים כָּל בְּהֶמְתּוֹ וְלֹא כָּל עֲבָדָיו וְלֹא כָּל שְׂדוֹתָיו וְלֹא כָּל מִין שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מִשְּׁאָר הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כז כח) "מִכָּל אֲשֶׁר לוֹ". וְאִם הֶחֱרִים אֶת הַכּל אֲפִלּוּ הֶחֱרִים כָּל נְכָסָיו הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻחְרָמִין בֵּין שֶׁהֶחְרִים לַכֹּהֲנִים בֵּין שֶׁהֶחֱרִים לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת:
2A person may make a dedication offering from his cattle, his sheep, his Canaanite servants6But not his Hebrew servants. See Halachah 21 and notes. and maid-servants, and his ancestral fields.7Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 145) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 357) include the laws governing dedication offerings among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. He should not, however, designate all of his cattle, all of his servants, all of his fields, nor all of any type of movable property that he owns as a dedication offering, as [implied by Leviticus 27:28]: 'From everything that he owns.'8I.e., the dedication offering must be 'from what he owns,' i.e., implying that he is giving a portion of what he owns, but not all that he owns. The rationale for this ruling is explained in Chapter 8, Halachah 13. If he gives all he owns from a particular type of property as a dedication offering, even if he gives everything he owns as a dedication offering, his gift is binding. [This applies] whether he designates the dedication offering for the priests or for the improvement of the Temple.
ג׳וְכָל מִי שֶׁהֶחֱרִים אוֹ הִקְדִּישׁ כָּל נְכָסָיו לוֹקְחִין כָּל מַה שֶּׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ וַאֲפִילוּ תְּפִלִּין שֶׁבְּרֹאשׁוֹ. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר כְּלֵי אֻמְּנוּתוֹ וּבְגָדָיו שֶׁהַכּל הֶקְדֵּשׁ אוֹ חֵרֶם:
3When a person gives all of his property as a dedication offering or consecrates it, we take everything that he owns, even the tefillin on his head. Needless to say, [this includes] his tools and his clothes,9I.e., in contrast to a person who pledges an airech who is allowed to retain ownership of his basic necessities, as stated in Chapter 3, Halachot 14-17. for he consecrated or gave as a dedication offering all of his possessions.
ד׳מַה בֵּין חֶרְמֵי כֹּהֲנִים לְחֶרְמֵי שָׁמַיִם. שֶׁחֶרְמֵי שָׁמַיִם הֶקְדֵּשׁ וְנִפְדִּין בְּשָׁוְיֵיהֶן וְיִפְּלוּ הַדָּמִים לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת וְיֵצְאוּ הַנְּכָסִים לְחֻלִּין. וְחֶרְמֵי כֹּהֲנִים אֵין לָהֶן פִּדְיוֹן לְעוֹלָם אֶלָּא נִתָּנִין לַכֹּהֲנִים כִּתְרוּמָה. וְעַל חֵרֶם כֹּהֲנִים הוּא אוֹמֵר (ויקרא כז כח) "לֹא יִמָּכֵר וְלֹא יִגָּאֵל". לֹא יִמָּכֵר לְאַחֵר וְלֹא יִגָּאֵל לַבְּעָלִים:
4What is the difference between dedication offerings designated for priests and those dedicated to Heaven? Dedication offerings to Heaven become consecrated property and must be redeemed for their worth.10I.e., until they are redeemed - by the owner or by another person - they are the property of the Temple treasury and it is forbidden to benefit from them or use them for mundane purposes. The payment is given for the sake of improvements to the Temple and then the possessions become ordinary property. Dedication offerings designated for the priests, by contrast, can never be redeemed.11I.e., the owner loses all rights to them. They become the property of the priests, able to be used for whatever purposes the priest who receives the property desires, as explained in the following halachah. Instead, they are given to the priests like terumah. Concerning dedication offerings designated for the priests, [Leviticus 27:28] states: 'It shall neither be sold,12I.e., before it is given to the priest. Once it is given to the priest, he may sell it if he so desires. nor redeemed,'13Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandments 110-111) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvot 358-359) include both the prohibitions against selling and redeeming property designated as a dedication offering among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. i.e., it shall neither be sold to another person,14The Rambam's apparent source is the Sifra, but the version of the standard text of the Sifra speaks of a prohibition against selling the property to the Temple treasurer. There are those who maintain that the Rambam followed a version of the Sifra with a different reading. Significantly, however, in his Sefer HaMitzvot (loc. cit.), the Rambam defines the prohibition as forbidding the sale to the Temple treasurer. nor redeemed by the owner.
ה׳וְאֶחָד הַמַּחֲרִים קַרְקַע אוֹ מִטַּלְטְלִין הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ נִתָּנִין לַכֹּהֵן שֶׁבְּאוֹתוֹ מִשְׁמָר. בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהֶחֱרִים חֶרְמֵי כֹּהֲנִים כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהֵן בְּבֵית הַבְּעָלִים הֲרֵי הֵן הֶקְדֵּשׁ לְכָל דִּבְרֵיהֶם. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כז כח) "כָּל חֵרֶם קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים הוּא לַה'". נְתָנוֹ לַכֹּהֵן הֲרֵי הֵן כְּחֻלִּין לְכָל דִּבְרֵיהֶם. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר יח יד) "כָּל חֵרֶם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל לְךָ יִהְיֶה":
5Whether a person designates land or movable property as a dedication offering, it is given to a priest15The implication appears to be that, like terumah, the donor has the right to give the dedication offering to the priest of his choice from the watch. It is not divided among all the priests of the watch. See Arachin 28a. in the watch16As stated in the notes to Chapter 4, Halachah 24, there were 24 priestly watches. Each one would serve in the Temple for a week at a time according to a rotating cycle. serving at the time that the dedication offering was designated.As long as a dedication offering for the priests is in the homes of the owner, it is like consecrated property in all regards,17They may not be used by the former owner for his own purposes and the prohibition of meilah, misappropriating consecrated property, applies. as [Leviticus 27:28] states: 'All dedication offerings are consecrated as holy unto God.' Once it is given to the priests, it is considered as ordinary property, as [Numbers 18:14] states: 'All of the dedication offerings from the Jewish people will be yours.'
ו׳כֹּהֵן שֶׁהָיְתָה לוֹ שְׂדֵה חֵרֶם שֶׁזָּכָה בָּהּ אַחַר הַיּוֹבֵל וְהֶחֱרִימָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻחְרֶמֶת וְיוֹצְאָה לְאֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כז כא) "לַכֹּהֵן תִּהְיֶה אֲחֻזָּתוֹ" מְלַמֵּד שֶׁשְּׂדֵה חֶרְמוֹ לוֹ כִּשְׂדֵה אֲחֻזָּה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאִם הֶחֱרִימָהּ הִיא מֻחְרֶמֶת מִיָּד:
6If a priest has a field that was a dedication offering [or an ancestral field]18Our translation follows the commentary of the Kiryat Sefer. The version of the standard published text (which reflects that of authentic manuscripts and early printings) would be literally translated as 'When a priest possesses a field that was designated as a dedication offering which he acquired after the Jubilee.' We prefer the version of the Kiryat Sefer, because there is no connection between the Jubilee year and a priest's acquisition of dedication offerings. that he acquired after the Jubilee19See Chapter 4, Halachot 19, 24. and he designates it as a dedication offering, it is considered as a dedication offering and should be given to his brethren, the priests, as [implied by Leviticus 27:21], 'It will become the priest's, [like his] ancestral property.' This teaches that a field [designated] as a dedication offering that [a priest acquires] is like an ancestral field owned by an Israelite.20I.e., just like an ancestral field belonging to an Israelite is given to the priests, so too, a field owned by a priest that is designated as a dedication offering is given to the priests. If he designates it as a dedication offering, it becomes sanctified immediately.
ז׳מָכַר הַכֹּהֵן שְׂדֵה חֶרְמוֹ וְהִקְדִּישָׁהּ לוֹקֵחַ אֲפִלּוּ הָיָה הַלּוֹקֵחַ הַבְּעָלִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים שֶׁהֶחֱרִימוּהָ הֲרֵי זוֹ כִּשְׂדֵה מִקְנָה וְחוֹזֶרֶת לַכֹּהֵן שֶׁמְּכָרָהּ בַּיּוֹבֵל. אֲבָל קַרְקַע אוֹ מִטַּלְטְלִין שֶׁל כֹּהֲנִים וּלְוִיִּם אֵינָם מַחְרִימִין אוֹתָן שֶׁהֲרֵי אוֹמֵר בְּשָׂדֶה (ויקרא כה לד) "כִּי אֲחֻזַּת עוֹלָם הוּא לָכֶם". וּמִטַּלְטְלִין הֻקְּשׁוּ לְקַרְקָעוֹת בַּחֲרָמִין שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (גמרא ערכין כח א) "מִכָּל אֲשֶׁר לוֹ וּמִשְּׂדֵה אֲחֻזָּתוֹ":
7When a priest sells a field that he [had acquired after it was designated as] a dedication offering and then the purchaser consecrates it - even if the purchaser was the original owner who designated it as a dedication offering21Since he was the original owner, one might think that the laws that apply when one consecrates an ancestral field would apply. This is not the case, because once he designated it as a dedication offering, it became the property of the priest. - it is like [the consecration of] acquired property22Which, as stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 26, returns to its original owner. In that instance, as in this halachah, the person who consecrated it did not have everlasting ownership of it. Hence, he cannot consecrate the field forever. and it returns to the priest who sold it in the Jubilee year.23For once it is given to him, the priest is considered its owner for all time.Land or movable property that belongs to the priests or the Levites,24This ruling was a matter of question for the Rambam. There is a difference of opinion concerning this point among the Sages. The standard published test of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Arachin 8:5) indicates that he favored the view that maintains that this only applies to priests. Rav Kapach maintains that this is an error and his ruling there is - as stated here - that it applies to both priests and Levites. by contrast, may not be designated as a dedication offering.25I.e., if they make such a dedication, it is of no consequence. [The rationale is that] with regard to the fields [granted to them, Leviticus 25:34] states: 'For it is an eternal inheritance for them,'26I.e., their landed property is theirs forever. It cannot be given as a dedication offering, because a dedication offering is given to a priest as his private property. Hence there would be no advantage in his making such an offering (Rashi, (Arachin 28a).Thus there is obviously a difference between land or movable property that belongs to a priest and property that he acquired because it was designated as a dedication offering, as stated in Halachah 6. The rationale is that property that a priest owns as an ancestral heritage is essentially his. On the other hand, property that he acquired because it was designated as a dedication offering is not essentially his. Hence, it can be given to other priests as a dedication offering. and an association is established between movable property and land with regard to dedication offerings, as [Leviticus 27:28] states: 'from anything he owns... and from his ancestral field."
ח׳הַמַּקְדִּישׁ קָדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת הֲרֵי הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ חָל עֲלֵיהֶן וְתֵעָרֵךְ הַבְּהֵמָה וְתִפָּדֶה וְיִפְּלוּ דָּמֶיהָ לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת וְהַבְּהֵמָה תִּקָּרֵב לְמַה שֶּׁהָיְתָה בַּתְּחִלָּה. אֲבָל הַמַּקְדִּישׁ קָדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת לַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְאָמַר הֲרֵי זֶה עוֹלָה אוֹ שְׁלָמִים אוֹ הֶחֱרִימָם לַכֹּהֲנִים לֹא עָשָׂה כְּלוּם וְאֵין הֶקְדֵּשׁ מִזְבֵּחַ וְלֹא הַחֵרֶם חָל עַל קָדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת שֶׁאֵין אָדָם מַקְדִּישׁ דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ:
8When a person consecrates [animals that] had been consecrated [to be offered] on the altar for the sake of improvements to the Temple, the [second] consecration is of consequence.27The rationale is that consecrating an animal for the sake of improvements to the Temple is like taking a vow to pay its value to the Temple treasury. Hence, such a vow can be taken even if the animal is already consecrated. The animal should be evaluated and redeemed and its worth given for the sake of improvements to the Temple. [Afterwards,] it should be offered for the purpose for which it was originally consecrated.28For the second consecration and the redemption do not effect its original status.When, however, a person consecrates [animals that] had been consecrated for the sake of improvements to the Temple [with the intent that they be offered] on the altar, saying: 'This is a burnt offering,' or '...a peace offering,' or he designates them as a dedication offering to the priests, his act is of no consequence.29Tosafot (Temurah 32a) explains the difference between the two instances as follows: The owner of an animal consecrated as a sacrifice still shares a connection to it. For if it is blemished, he must redeem it and replace it. In contrast, once an animal is consecrated to the Temple treasury, it leaves the owner's domain entirely. For [animals that] had been consecrated for the sake of improvements to the Temple cannot be consecrated [to be offered] on the altar or designated as dedication offerings, because a person cannot consecrate an entity that does not belong to him.30And once an animal has been consecrated to the Temple treasury, it is not the owner's unless he redeems it.
ט׳הָאוֹמֵר שׁוֹר זֶה הֶקְדֵּשׁ לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם וּשְׁחָטוֹ בְּתוֹךְ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה. הִקְדִּישׁוֹ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ הֲרֵי זֶה הֶקְדֵּשׁ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר הֲרֵי זֶה הֶקְדֵּשׁ מֵעַכְשָׁו לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם וּשְׁחָטוֹ בְּתוֹךְ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה. וְאִם הִקְדִּישׁוֹ בְּתוֹךְ הַשְּׁלֹשִׁים לַמִּזְבֵּחַ אֵינוֹ מֻקְדָּשׁ:
9When a person says: 'This ox will be consecrated31For the sake of improvements to the Temple. Whether he states this explicitly or not, it is consecrated for that purpose as stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 7, unless he explicitly states that he is consecrating it for another purpose. after 30 days' and slaughters it within the 30 days, it is permitted to benefit from it.32Because the consecration did not take effect yet. The Or Sameach notes that the Rambam's apparent source, the Tosefta (Temurah 3:1), states that it is permitted to partake of the animal that was slaughtered and questions why the Rambam does not rule accordingly. He explains that the Rambam considers the person who consecrated the animal equivalent to an apostate for by slaughtering the animal, he prevents his vow from being fulfilled. As stated in Hilchot Shechitah 4:14, there are certain conditions necessary for slaughter performed by such a person to be successful. If he consecrated it to the altar, it is consecrated to the altar.33Since the original consecration has not yet taken effect, he may still consecrate it for another purpose.If, by contrast, he says: "This animal is consecrated immediately after 30 days,"34I.e., if the animal does not die within 30 dies, retroactively, the consecration will take effect from the time of his statements. and he slaughters it within those 30 days, it is forbidden to benefit from it.35Since the consecration of the animal will ultimately take effect, it may not be used for mundane purposes unless it is evaluated by the court. That evaluation may not be performed when the animal is dead (Lechem Mishneh). If he consecrated it to the altar within the 30 days, the consecration does not take effect.36Since retroactively, the animal will become consecrated for the sake of improvements to the Temple, the consecration as a sacrifice is not of consequence, as stated in Halachah 8.
י׳הַמַּקְדִּישׁ עוֹלָה לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת אֵין בָּהּ אֶלָּא עִכּוּב גִּזְבָּרִין בִּלְבַד. וּמִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים שֶׁלֹּא תִּשָּׁחֵט עַד שֶׁתִּפָּדֶה. לְפִיכָךְ אִם עָבַר וּשְׁחָטָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה:
10When a person consecrates [an animal designated as] a burnt offering for the sake of improvements to the Temple, only [its evaluation by] the Temple treasurers holds back [its slaughter].37I.e., this evaluation is necessary to establish the extent of his obligation, but nothing more. We do not require him to wait until he actually redeems the animal. The Radbaz explains that there are commentaries that if the animal was not redeemed the Temple treasurers are required to be present at the offering of the animal, because the owner of a sacrifice must be present when it is offered. The Rambam does not, however, require the treasurers' presence. According to Rabbinic decree, however, it should not be slaughtered until it is redeemed.38For the Sages decreed that the animal be considered as if its body has become consecrated. Therefore,39I.e., because the requirement to wait until its redemption is Rabbinic in origin. if he transgressed and slaughtered it [before it was redeemed], it is acceptable.40Rashi (Temurah 32a,b) states that in such an instance, the person is not required to pay anything for the dedication offering, because the animal was never evaluated.
י״אמַחֲרִים אָדָם בֵּין קָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים בֵּין קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים בֵּין חֶרְמֵי כֹּהֲנִים בֵּין חֶרְמֵי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת. וְאִם הָיוּ קָדָשִׁים שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתָן נוֹתֵן אֶת דְּמֵיהֶן בֵּין לַכֹּהֲנִים בֵּין לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת וְיִקָּרְבוּ אוֹתָן הַקָּדָשִׁים אַחַר שֶׁיִּפָּדוּ לְמַה שֶּׁהֵן:
11A person may designate [animals consecrated as] sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity41Burnt offerings, sin offerings, or guilt offerings. or as sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity42All other sacrifices. as dedication offerings - both as those set aside for the priests or for improvements to the Temple. If he was liable to replace these sacrifices,43I.e., he pledged to bring an offering of a particular type. Afterwards, he designated an animal to be offered to fulfill his pledge. If the animal is lost or stolen, he is required to supply another animal. he must pay their value44Since he is obligated to replace his sacrifices, he is required to redeem the consecrated animal. whether to the priests or for the sake of improvements to the Temple. After they are redeemed, he should then offer the sacrifices for their original purposes.
י״בהָיוּ נְדָבָה וְהֶחֱרִימָן כֵּיצַד פּוֹדִין אוֹתָן. אוֹמְדִים כַּמָּה אָדָם רוֹצֶה לִתֵּן בִּבְהֵמָה זוֹ לְהַעֲלוֹתָהּ עוֹלָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּב בָּהּ. וְכָל הַנּוֹתֵן אוֹתוֹ שִׁעוּר יַקְרִיב בְּהֵמָה זוֹ נְדָבָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה:
12What is the redemption process [when a person] vowed [to bring a particular animal as a sacrifice]45E.g., he said: "I will bring this animal as a burnt offering." In this instance, if the animal dies or is stolen, he is not required to replace it with another animal. and then designated it as a dedication offering?46I.e., one might think that since the animal itself is already designated as a sacrifice and the person is not required to replace it if stolen, it is no longer his, and he does not have the right to consecrate it at all. We evaluate how much a person would be willing to give for the right of sacrificing this animal as a burnt offering even though he is not liable to do so.47I.e., since the person could in fact bring the sacrifice, we evaluate how much that right is worth to a person. Whoever gives this amount48Since the person who consecrated the animal is not obligated to replace it, we do not require him to redeem it and offer it. Instead, anyone who desires to pay the estimated amount has the right to do so. may offer this animal [for the sacrifice] for which it was originally pledged.
י״גיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהֶחְרִים אֶת בְּכוֹר בְּהֵמָה לַשָּׁמַיִם בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה תָמִים בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה בַּעַל מוּם הֲרֵי זֶה מֻחְרָם. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר שֶׁהֶחְרִימוֹ הַכֹּהֵן לַשָּׁמַיִם אַחַר שֶׁבָּא לְיָדוֹ:
13When an Israelite designates a firstborn animal - whether unblemished or blemished49An unblemished firstborn animal is offered as a sacrifice and a priest is given the right to partake of it, while a blemished one must be given to a priest to use as his private property. - as a dedication offering for the sake of heaven, the designation takes effect.50And the animal must be redeemed as stated in the previous halachah. Needless to say, if the priest designates it as a dedication offering for the sake of heaven after it enters his domain, [the designation takes effect].51This is speaking about a firstborn animal with a blemish. It becomes the priest's private property, as stated in Hilchot Bechorot 1:3. Hence, there is no question that he has the right to do as he pleases with it.
י״דוְכֵיצַד פּוֹדִין אוֹתָן. אוֹמְדִין כַּמָּה אָדָם רוֹצֶה לִתֵּן בִּבְכוֹר זֶה כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּהְיֶה לוֹ וְתִהְיֶה הָרְשׁוּת בְּיָדוֹ לִתְּנוֹ לְכָל כֹּהֵן שֶׁיִּרְצֶה לִקְרוֹבוֹ אוֹ לְרֵעוֹ. וְכָל הַנּוֹתֵן אוֹתוֹ שִׁעוּר יִקַּח הַבְּכוֹר וְיִתְּנֶנּוּ לְכָל כֹּהֵן שֶׁיִּרְצֶה וְיִפְּלוּ הַדָּמִים לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת:
14How is it to be redeemed? We evaluate how much a person would be willing to give for the right for this firstborn to be his so that he will have the right to give it to whichever priest he desires, to his relative or his friend. Whoever gives this amount52I.e., we do not require the person who consecrated the animal to redeem it. may take the firstborn and give it to whichever priest he desires. The money is given for the sake of improvements to the Temple.
ט״והַמַּחֲרִים אֶת הַמַּעֲשֵׂר הֲרֵי זֶה כְּמַחֲרִים שַׁלְמֵי נְדָבָה לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתוֹ:
15When a person designates an animal selected as a tithe offering53See Leviticus 27:32; Hilchot Bechorot, ch. 6, for a description of this offering. as a dedication offering, it is as if he designated an animal pledged to be sacrificed as a peace offering.54In which instance, we follow the principles stated in Halachah 12. A price to be paid to offer the sacrifice is established. Anyone willing to pay that price may redeem the animal. [The rationale is that] he is not liable to replace it.55I.e., if the animal selected to be sacrificed as a tithe offering dies or is stolen, he is not required to offer another animal in its place.
ט״זהַמַּקְדִּישׁ שִׁקְלוֹ לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת הֲרֵי זֶה קֹדֶשׁ. הִקְדִּישׁ בִּכּוּרִים לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת אֵינָן קֹדֶשׁ. אֲבָל אִם הִקְדִּישָׁן הַכֹּהֵן אַחַר שֶׁבָּאוּ לְיָדוֹ הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ קֹדֶשׁ:
16When a person consecrates his [half-]shekel56The Rambam is referring to the half-shekel every male is required to give to purchase his share of the communal offerings. See Hilchot Shekalim, chs. 1-3. for the sake of improvements to the Temple, the consecration is binding.57This is parallel to the law mentioned in Halachah 11, that a person may consecrate animals designated as sacrifices. If one consecrates bikkurim58The first fruits that were brought to the Temple and then given to the priests. See Exodus, ch. 23; Deuteronomy, ch. 26, Hilchot Bikkurim, chs. 1-4. for the sake of improvements to the Temple, the consecration does not take effect.59For the bikkurim are not his, but rather the property of the priest. If, however, the priest [to whom the bikkurim are given] consecrates them after they enter his domain, the consecration is binding.60The bikkurim become the priest's private property (ibid. 4:14). Hence he may do with them whatever he desires.
י״זהַמַּחֲרִים חֲצִי עַבְדּוֹ וְשִׁפְחָתוֹ הוּא וְהַכֹּהֲנִים שֻׁתָּפִין בּוֹ. אֲבָל אִם הִקְדִּישׁ אוֹ הֶחֱרִים לַשָּׁמַיִם חֲצִי עַבְדּוֹ כֻּלּוֹ קֹדֶשׁ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וְכָל הַמַּקְדִּישׁ עַבְדּוֹ וְשִׁפְחָתוֹ הַכְּנַעֲנִים אוֹ הַמַּקְדִּישׁ כָּל נְכָסָיו וְהָיוּ בָּהֶן עֲבָדִים הֲרֵי גּוּפָן קֹדֶשׁ לְפִיכָךְ אֲסוּרִים לֵהָנוֹת בָּהֶן עַד שֶׁיִּפָּדוּ:
17When a person designates half of his servant or half of his maid-servant as a dedication offering, he and the priests are joint owners.61I.e., for the portion given to the priest becomes his private property. If, however, he consecrates half his servant and designates half his servant as a dedication offering to Heaven, he is consecrated entirely, as we explained.62As stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 18, when a person consecrates a limb or an organ on which an animal's life depends, the entire animal becomes consecrated. Here, too, the servant cannot live with only half his body. Whenever one consecrates his Canaanite servant or maid-servant or consecrates all of his property and he owns servants, their physical person becomes consecrated Therefore it is forbidden to benefit from them63Nevertheless the prohibition against meilah, misappropriating sacred property, do not apply. See Hilchot Meilah 5:10. until they are redeemed.64I.e., they are sold to others and the proceeds of the sale are used for the sake of improvements to the Temple.
י״חוְאֵין הַגִּזְבָּרִין רַשָּׁאִין לִקַּח דְּמֵיהֶן מֵאֲחֵרִים וּלְהוֹצִיא אוֹתָן לְחֵרוּת אֶלָּא מוֹכְרִין אוֹתָן לַאֲחֵרִים וַאֲחֵרִים מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָן לְחֵרוּת אִם רָצוּ:
18The Temple treasurers may not take the worth [of the servants] from other people and free them.65For freeing them might create the impression that they were treating consecrated property with disdain and not seeking its full worth. Instead, they sell them to others66In which instance, they will receive the market value of the servant. and those others free them if they desire.
י״טהַמַּקְדִּישׁ יְדֵי עַבְדּוֹ כָּל הַיֶּתֶר עַל פַּרְנָסָתוֹ קֹדֶשׁ. וְכֵיצַד הוּא מִתְפַּרְנֵס עֶבֶד זֶה. לוֹוֶה וְאוֹכֵל וְעוֹשֶׂה וּפוֹרֵעַ. וְהוּא שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה פָּחוֹת פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁוֵה פְּרוּטָה וְיִפְרַע. שֶׁאִם עָשָׂה בִּפְרוּטָה רִאשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן קָנָה הֶקְדֵּשׁ:
19When one consecrates his servant's hands,67What the owner is attempting to do is to consecrate the servant's earnings. That, however, is not possible, for a person is unable to consecrate an entity that has not come into existence already (see Halachah 26). Therefore, he consecrates the servant's hands, for they do exist, and thus any earnings they produce become consecrated (Radbaz). Note the parallel in Halachah 28. anything he earns beyond what is required for his sustenance is consecrated.68A servant's master is not liable to provide for his sustenance (Hilchot Avadim 9:7). Hence that money must be taken from the servant's earnings. Nevertheless, since his earnings are consecrated, the process the Rambam continues to explain should be followed.How should this servant sustain himself? He should borrow the money [required for his sustenance], work, and repay the debt. [This is allowed] provided he always works for less than a p'rutah and pays it. For if he earned an entire p'rutah, it would be acquired by the Temple treasury as soon as he earned it.69Tosafot, Gittin 12b, explains that even a sum less than a p'rutah can be consecrated. (See Hilchot Meilah 7:8.) Nevertheless, the owner had the intent that this amount not be consecrated so that the servant would be able to sustain himself.
כ׳הַמַּקְדִּישׁ אֶת עַצְמוֹ לֹא הִקְדִּישׁ אֶלָּא דָּמָיו וַהֲרֵי הוּא חַיָּב בִּדְמֵי עַצְמוֹ. וּמֻתָּר לוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת וְלֶאֱכל שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא נִתְקַדֵּשׁ גּוּפוֹ כְּעֶבֶד:
20When a person consecrates himself, he consecrated only his worth.70The price that would be paid if he was sold as a servant in the marketplace. He is obligated to give [that amount to the Temple treasury]. He may earn money and [use it for] his sustenance, for his physical person did not become consecrated as that of a servant does.71A servant is considered as property and consecrating him makes him the property of the Temple treasury. Hence it is entitled to all of his earnings. This does not apply with regard to a free man.
כ״אאֵין אָדָם מַקְדִּישׁ דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ. כֵּיצַד. כְּגוֹן שֶׁהֶחְרִים בְּנוֹ וּבִתּוֹ וְעַבְדּוֹ וְשִׁפְחָתוֹ הָעִבְרִים אוֹ שְׂדֵה מִקְנָתוֹ הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אֵינָן מֻחְרָמִין. שֶׁאֵין אָדָם מַקְדִּישׁ דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין גּוּפוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ:
21A person cannot consecrate an entity that does not belong to him.72Bava Kama 69b derives this from the exegesis of Leviticus 27:14: "When a person will consecrate his house." Just as his house is his own, so too, everything he consecrates must be his own.What is implied? If he designates his son, his daughter, his Hebrew servant, or Hebrew maid-servant, or a field he acquired as a dedication offering, they do not become dedication offerings. For a person cannot consecrate an entity when its physical person or substance is not his.73All of the four types of people mentioned above are considered as independent personalities. Although a father and owner possess certain rights with regard to the earnings of these individuals, he does not own their physical persons. This applies even to his children who are beneath the age of majority (Arachin 28a). Similarly, a field that one acquires is never totally his, for he must return it to its original owners in the Jubilee.
כ״באֵין אָדָם מַקְדִּישׁ דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ. כֵּיצַד. הָיָה לוֹ פִּקָּדוֹן בְּיַד אַחֵר וְכָפַר בּוֹ זֶה שֶׁהוּא אֶצְלוֹ אֵין הַבְּעָלִים יְכוֹלִין לְהַקְדִּישׁוֹ. אֲבָל אִם לֹא כָּפַר בּוֹ הֲרֵי הוּא בִּרְשׁוּת בְּעָלָיו בְּכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁהוּא:
22A person may not consecrate an entity that is not in his domain.What is implied? A person entrusted an article to a colleague and the latter denied possession of it, the owners cannot consecrate it.74For there is no way that they could regain possession of it immediately. Nor may the watchman consecrate it, because it does not belong to him. If, however, [the watchman] did not deny possession of it, it is considered in its owner's domain, no matter where it is located.75I.e., although it is in the physical possession of the watchman, it is still considered as belonging to - and able to be secured by - the owner. See Halachah 25 and notes.
כ״גבַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּמִטַּלְטְלִין. אֲבָל קַרְקַע שֶׁגְּזָלָהּ אַחֵר וְכָפַר בָּהּ אִם יָכוֹל לְהוֹצִיאָהּ בְּדַיָּנִין הֲרֵי זֶה יָכוֹל לְהַקְדִּישָׁהּ וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא הוֹצִיאָהּ שֶׁהַקַּרְקַע עַצְמָהּ הֲרֵי הִיא בִּרְשׁוּת בְּעָלֶיהָ:
23When does the above apply? With regard to movable property. [Different rules apply] to landed property that was stolen and [the thief] denied [having taken it].76And instead, claimed to be the legitimate owner. If [the original owner] could have the land expropriated through legal process,77Proving his ownership through the testimony of witnesses or through a valid deed of title. he has the right to consecrate it even though he has not yet expropriated it. For the land itself is always considered in the domain of its [legitimate] owners.78This is a principle applicable in many aspects of Jewish business law. Land can never be stolen and is always considered as being in the possession of the person who has title to it. See Bava Metzia 7a.
כ״דהַגּוֹזֵל אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ וְלֹא נִתְיָאֲשׁוּ הַבְּעָלִים שְׁנֵיהֶם אֵינָן יְכוֹלִין לְהַקְדִּישׁ. זֶה לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ וְזֶה לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה:
24When a person steals from his colleague and the [original] owner does not despair [of recovery],79Even if the owner despairs of the recovery of the article, it is not desirable for the thief to consecrate it. See Hilchot Issurei Mizbeach 5:7. neither of them can consecrate it. [The robber cannot,] because the article does not belong to him and [the owner cannot,] because it is not in his possession. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
כ״המִי שֶׁהָיָה מוֹכֵר דְּלוּעִין אוֹ בֵּיצִים וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן וּבָא לוֹקֵחַ וְנָטַל אַחַת וְהָלַךְ לוֹ. אִם הָיוּ דְּמֵי כָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת קְצוּבִין הֲרֵי זֶה כְּמִי שֶׁפָּסַק. וְאֵין הַמּוֹכֵר יָכוֹל לְהַקְדִּישׁ דְּלַעַת זוֹ שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵינָהּ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ. וְאִם אֵין הַדָּמִים קְצוּבִין וְהִקְדִּישָׁהּ מְקֻדֶּשֶׁת שֶׁעֲדַיִן בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ הִיא שֶׁזֶּה שֶׁלְּקָחָהּ לֹא לְקָחָהּ דֶּרֶךְ גְּזֵלָה. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה:
25[The following laws apply when] a person was selling squash, eggs, or the like and a [prospective] purchaser comes, takes one, and then departs. If the price of each particular article is fixed, it is as if a price was established,80Since a standard price for each article was established and the articles were left for sale, we assume that as soon as the person took the article, he committed himself to the purchase and hence, the sale is completed. and the seller cannot consecrate this squash, for it is not in his domain.81For it is as if it was already sold. If the price is not fixed and he consecrated it, it is consecrated, because it is still in his domain,82Since the price has to be established, until it is established, the sale is not complete. And until the sale is complete, the article is considered as belonging to the seller. Hence, the prospective purchaser is considered as the watchman of an entrusted article and the law stated in the final clause of Halachah 22 applies. Indeed, Bava Batra 88a mentions this instance and from it, the law stated in Halachah 22 is derived. for [the prospective purchaser] did not take it with the intent to steal it.
כ״ואֵין אָדָם מַקְדִּישׁ דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בָּא לָעוֹלָם. כֵּיצַד. מַה שֶּׁתַּעֲלֶה מְצוּדָתִי מִן הַיָּם קֹדֶשׁ. מַה שֶּׁתּוֹצִיא שָׂדֶה זוֹ מִן הַפֵּרוֹת חֵרֶם. לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם:
26A person cannot consecrate an article that has not yet come into existence.83Kiryat Sefer explains the rationale for this ruling: Since the object has not come into existence as of yet, it is not in his domain. And, as stated in Halachah 22, a person cannot consecrate an article that is not in his domain.What is implied? [If a person says:] "What my net will bring up from the sea is consecrated" or "The fruit my field will produce is designated as a dedication offering," his words are of no consequence.
כ״זהָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵרוֹ שָׂדֶה זוֹ שֶׁמָּכַרְתִּי לְךָ לִכְשֶׁאֶקָּחֶנָּה מִמְּךָ מְקֻדֶּשֶׁת וּלְקָחָהּ אֵינָהּ מְקֻדֶּשֶׁת. לְפִי שֶׁכְּשֶׁהִקְדִּישָׁהּ לֹא בָּאָה בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ:
27When a person tells a colleague: "When I repurchase this field which I sold you,84Needless to say, this applies when the person never owned the field he seeks to consecrate. By mentioning this instance, the Rambam (and his source, Ketubot 58b) emphasize that even though the person originally and ultimately owned the field, since he did not own it at the time he consecrated it, the consecration is not effective. it is consecrated," [although] he repurchases it, it is not consecrated. [The rationale is] that it was not in his possession when he consecrated it. 85The Siftei Cohen, Yoreh De'ah 258:15 emphasizes that his statement is not even considered a vow, because the wording used does not have the implication of a vow. See Halachah 31 which speaks of this issue. Note, however, the Rambam's statements in Hilchot Mechirah 22:15.
כ״חוְכֵן הַמַּקְדִּישׁ מַעֲשֵׂה יְדֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ הֲרֵי זוֹ עוֹשָׂה וְאוֹכֶלֶת וְהַמּוֹתָר חֻלִּין. אָמַר לָהּ יִקְדְּשׁוּ יָדַיִךְ לְעוֹשֵׂיהֶן הוֹאִיל וְהֵן מְשֻׁעְבָּדִין לוֹ הֲרֵי כָּל מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ קֹדֶשׁ. הָא לְמָה זֶה דּוֹמֶה לְאוֹמֵר אִילָן זֶה קֹדֶשׁ שֶׁכָּל פֵּרוֹת שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה לְהַבָּא קֹדֶשׁ. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה:
28Similarly, when a person consecrates the work to be produced by his wife's hands, she may work and partake [of her earnings]. The remainder is not consecrated.86I.e., the consecration is not effective, because the fruits of the woman's labor did not exist at the time her husband sought to consecrate them. If he tells her: "May your hands be consecrated to their Maker," since they are under lien to him,87As stated in Hilchot Ishut 12:3, all of the proceeds of the work a woman performs belong to her husband. [the profits of] all of the work that she produces are consecrated. To what can this be compared? To one who says: "This tree is consecrated," in which instance all the fruit it produces is consecrated.88For although the fruit did not exist at the time of the original consecration, the tree did. And once the tree is consecrated all the fruit it produces is consecrated. Similarly, the woman's hands exist at the time the consecration was made, and as a result, all the products of her work are consecrated.Rabbenu Nissim does not accept the Rambam's ruling. He explains that although our Sages ordained that the profits from a woman's labor should be given to her husband, those profits are given in exchange for his support of her. If she desires, she has the right to withdraw from the arrangement, decline his support, and keep her earnings. Since she has this right, her hands are not on lien to her husband, and he cannot consecrate them. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 81:1) follows the Rambam's view, while the Rama quotes that of Rabbenu Nissim. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
כ״טהָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵרוֹ שָׂדֶה זוֹ שֶׁאֲנִי מוֹכֵר לְךָ לִכְשֶׁאֶקָּחֶנָּה מִמְּךָ תִּתְקַדֵּשׁ הֲרֵי זוֹ מְקֻדֶּשֶׁת כְּשֶׁיִּקָּחֶנָּה שֶׁהֲרֵי עַתָּה (בָּא) בְּיָדוֹ לְהַקְדִּישָׁהּ. שָׂדֶה זוֹ שֶׁמִּשְׁכַּנְתִּי לְךָ לִכְשֶׁאֶפְדֶּנָּה מִמְּךָ תְּהִי קֹדֶשׁ. מִשֶּׁיִּפְדֶּה אוֹתָהּ תִּתְקַדֵּשׁ שֶׁהֲרֵי בְּיָדוֹ לִפְדּוֹתָהּ. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיְתָה מְמֻשְׁכֶּנֶת לִזְמַן קָצוּב שֶׁהֲרֵי בְּיָדוֹ לִפְדּוֹתָהּ אַחַר הַזְּמַן:
29When a person tells a colleague: "The field that I will sell you89I.e., at the time he makes this statement it is in his possession. will be consecrated when I buy it back from you," the consecration takes effect when he buys it back.90Even though he does not make a second statement, it becomes consecrated if and when he repurchases it. [The rationale is that] it is in his possession [originally] and he has the possibility of consecrating it.91Thus the fact that he sells it to another person in the interim does not detract from the consecration.[If one tells a colleague:] "The field that I entrusted to you as security92For a loan. will be consecrated when I redeem it from you," the field becomes consecrated when he redeems it. [The rationale is that] he has the potential to redeem it.93Even though the field was not in his possession at the time he made his statement, since he had the right to redeem it, it is considered as if it were. [The consecration is effective] even if it was given as a security for a fixed time,94And during that time, he did not have the right to redeem it. because he has the potential to redeem it after that time.
ל׳הַמַּשְׂכִּיר בַּיִת לַחֲבֵרוֹ וְחָזַר וְהִקְדִּישׁוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה קֹדֶשׁ וּפָקְעָה הַשְּׂכִירוּת. וְאִם דָּר בּוֹ הַשּׂוֹכֵר מָעַל:
30[Although a person] rents out a house to a colleague, if he retracts and consecrates it, the consecration is effective and the rental arrangement is terminated.95Although the house is the tenant's for the duration of the rental period, since ultimately it belongs to the owner, his consecration takes precedence over the rental agreement. For as stated in Chapter 7, Halachah 14, consecration takes precedence over other obligations.Although as implied by the previous halachah, the owner could not consecrate a field given as security while it was in the possession of the lender, he has a greater right to the land in this instance. In the previous case, the field will not return to him unless he pays the loan, while in this instance, the home will return to him at the end of the rental period without payment. Hence he is considered to have greater rights over it and is given the right to consecrate it (Radbaz). If the tenant dwells there, he violates the prohibition against misappropriating sacred property.96He may, however, avoid the prohibition by paying his rent to the Temple treasury (Arachin 21a).
ל״איֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין אָדָם מַקְדִּישׁ דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בָּא לָעוֹלָם אִם אָמַר הֲרֵי עָלַי לְהַקְדִּישׁוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב לְהַקְדִּישׁוֹ כְּשֶׁיָּבוֹא לָעוֹלָם מִשּׁוּם נִדְרוֹ. וְאִם לֹא הִקְדִּישׁ הֲרֵי זֶה עוֹבֵר מִשּׁוּם (דברים כג כב) "בַּל תְּאַחֵר" וְ(במדבר ל ג) "לֹא יַחֵל דְּבָרוֹ" וּמִשּׁוּם (במדבר ל ג) "כְּכָל הַיֹּצֵא מִפִּיו יַעֲשֶׂה" כִּשְׁאָר הַנְּדָרִים:
31It appears to me97This phrase indicates a law that the Rambam derived through the process of deduction without an explicit prior Rabbinic source. that even though a person cannot consecrate an entity that has not come into being, if he says: "I pledge to consecrate it," he is obligated to consecrate it when it will come into being to [fulfill] his vow. If he does not consecrate it, he transgresses [the prohibitions]: "Do not delay in paying it" and "He shall not desecrate his word" and [fails to fulfill the positive commandment:] "He shall act in accordance with all that he uttered with his mouth" as is true with regard to all other vows.98See Chapter 1, Halachah 1; Hilchot Nedarim 1:4-5, Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 14:13.
ל״בכֵּיצַד. הָאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי עָלַי לְהַקְדִּישׁ כָּל שֶׁתַּעֲלֶה מְצוּדָתִי מִן הַיָּם. הֲרֵי עָלַי לִתֵּן לַעֲנִיִּים פֵּרוֹת שֶׁתּוֹצִיא שָׂדֶה זוֹ. הֲרֵי עָלַי לְהַחֲרִים אוֹ לִתֵּן לִשְׁבוּיִם כָּל שֶׁאֶשְׂתַּכֵּר בְּשָׁנָה זוֹ. וְכָל כַּיּוֹצֵא בְּמַאֲמָרִים אֵלּוּ הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב לִתֵּן וְלַעֲשׂוֹת בָּהֶן מַה שֶּׁאָמַר כְּשֶׁיָּבוֹאוּ לְיָדוֹ. וְזֶה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ בִּכְלַל נְדָרִים הוּא לֹא בִּכְלַל הֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת:
32What is implied? [When a person] says: "I pledge to consecrate everything that my net will bring up from the sea," "I pledge to give the fruit produced by this field to the poor," "I pledge to designate as a dedication offering - or give for the sake of captives - all of my earnings of this year," or makes any statement of this like, he is obligated to give and/or perform what he pledged when the article comes into his possession. For these and all similar statements are vows, not acts of consecration.99I.e., were the person to have the intent to consecrate the article with this statement, the consecration would not be effective, because the article does not yet exist. He is not, however, consecrating the article, merely pledging to do so in the future. See also Hilchot Mechirah 22:15. On his notes to that source, the Ra'avad differs and maintains that for the statement to be considered a pledge, it must be worded in that matter. See Shulchan Aruch and Rama (Choshen Mishpat 212:7).
ל״גרְאָיָה לְדָבָר זֶה מַה שֶּׁאָמַר יַעֲקֹב אָבִינוּ (בראשית כח כב) "וְכל אֲשֶׁר תִּתֶּן לִי עַשֵּׂר אֲעַשְּׂרֶנּוּ לָךְ" וְנֶאֱמַר (בראשית לא יג) "אֲשֶׁר נָדַרְתָּ לִּי שָׁם נֶדֶר". וַהֲרֵי הָאוֹמֵר לֹא אֶפָּטֵר מִן הָעוֹלָם עַד שֶׁאֶהֱיֶה נָזִיר חַיָּב לִנְהֹג בִּנְזִירוּת וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא נָדַר בְּנָזִיר. הוֹאִיל וְאָמַר שֶׁיִּדֹּר בְּנָזִיר חַיָּב לְהִנָּזֵר. וְזֶה כַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ וְכָזֶה רָאוּי לָדוּן:
33Support for this can be drawn from the statements of Jacob our Patriarch [Genesis 28:22]:100After his vision of the ladder extending to heaven. He was speaking of "what You will give me," i.e., possessions that he would acquire in the future. "And everything that You will give me, I will tithe." And [later, ibid. 31:13]101When Jacob tells his wives of the message the angel gave him to return to Eretz Yisrael. states: "Where you took a vow."102I.e., the pledge he made is considered as a vow. And103The Radbaz explains that the second proof is necessary, because one might say that Jacob's reference to his vow refers to his statement: "And the Lord will be my God." when a person says: "I will not depart from this world until I become a nazirite," he is obligated to observe a nazirite vow104See Hilchot Nazir 1:4 which states that he must observe the nazirite restrictions immediately, because he does not know how long he will live and he is required to fulfill his pledge before he dies.The Ra'avad accepts the support from Jacob's statement, but not that from the nazirite's pledge, bringing two objections:a) at present, it is within his potential to carry out the nazirite vow. Hence, the comparison to an entity that has not yet come into existence is not appropriate.b) Since the person does not know when he will die, it is as if he has committed himself to observe the vow immediately. The Radbaz brings support for the Rambam's position. although he did not actually take such a vow. Since he said that he would take a nazirite vow, he is obligated to observe those restrictions. This law parallels that. It is appropriate to rule in this manner.
ל״דהֶקְדֵּשׁ טָעוּת אֵינוֹ הֶקְדֵּשׁ. כֵּיצַד. הָאוֹמֵר שׁוֹר שָׁחוֹר שֶׁיֵּצֵא מִבַּיִת רִאשׁוֹן הֲרֵי הוּא הֶקְדֵּשׁ וְיָצָא לָבָן אֵינוֹ הֶקְדֵּשׁ. דִּינָר זָהָב שֶׁיַּעֲלֶה בְּיָדִי רִאשׁוֹן הֲרֵי הוּא הֶקְדֵּשׁ וְעָלָה שֶׁל כֶּסֶף אֵינוֹ הֶקְדֵּשׁ. חָבִית שֶׁל יַיִן שֶׁתַּעֲלֶה בְּיָדִי רִאשׁוֹנָה הֶקְדֵּשׁ וְעָלָה שֶׁל שֶׁמֶן בֵּין שֶׁהַיַּיִן יָקָר מִן הַשֶּׁמֶן בְּאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם אוֹ הַשֶּׁמֶן יָקָר מִן הַיַּיִן אֵינוֹ הֶקְדֵּשׁ. הִתְפִּיס בָּהּ אַחֶרֶת וְאָמַר זוֹ כָּזוֹ הֲרֵי הַשְּׁנִיָּה הֶקְדֵּשׁ. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה:
34A consecration that is made in error is not binding.105Just like a vow made in error is not binding (Hilchot Nedarim 8:3).What is implied? If one says: "When a black ox will go out of the building first, it will be consecrated," should a white ox go out [first], it is not consecrated.106I.e., we assume that his mention of a black ox was deliberate and intended to be a stipulation, not merely a statement of his supposition of what would happen. [If he says:] "When a gold dinar comes into my hand first, it is consecrated," should a silver [dinar] come up, it is not consecrated. [If he says:] "When a barrel of wine comes into my hand first, it is consecrated," should a barrel of oil come up, it is not consecrated. [This applies] whether wine is more expensive than oil107In which case, we might say that he would accept the change, because he will be saving money. in that place or oil is more expensive than wine.108In which case, we might say that he would accept the change, because he will be bringing a more attractive offering.If he attempts to extend the consecration to a second entity, saying: "[The status of] this is the same as [that of] the other," the second is consecrated.109This ruling has amazed the commentaries, because if the first entity does not become consecrated, how can the second? Seemingly, its consecration is dependent on that of the first.The Radbaz seeks to explain that the second consecration is dependent not on the status of the initial article, but the intent of the donor who sought to consecrate it. He admits, however, that the interpretation is forced. The Kessef Mishneh explains that this clause is referring to a different concept entirely. If he had an article that was consecrated and extended its holiness to another article unintentionally, that article is consecrated. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
ז׳
א׳הַהֶקְדֵשׁוֹת אֵין פּוֹדִין אוֹתָן לֹא בְּקַרְקַע. וְלֹא בַּעֲבָדִים שֶׁהֲרֵי הֻקְּשׁוּ לְקַרְקָעוֹת. וְלֹא בִּשְׁטָרוֹת (מִפְּנֵי) שֶׁאֵין גּוּפָן מָמוֹן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְנָתַן אֶת הַכֶּסֶף. אֶחָד הַכֶּסֶף וְאֶחָד שְׁאָר הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין שֶׁשָּׁוִין כֶּסֶף. וַאֲפִילוּ סֻבִּין:
1Consecrated articles1Articles which a person consecrated for the sake of improvements to the Temple. may not be redeemed with land, nor with servants, for an equation was created between servants and land,2This applies not only in this context, but also in many other areas of Jewish business law. See Hilchot Sh'vuot 7:4; Hilchot Geneivah 2:2, et al. nor with promissory notes for their physical substance is not of financial worth.3A promissory note itself is not worth money. It is valuable because of the debt that it records. [This is derived from the expression:]4There is no such verse in the Tanach. The Rambam is referring to wording used by our Sages in Kiddushin 5a. They are also referring to a verse, but have shortened and edited Leviticus 27:19. "And he shall give the silver." [This includes] silver and other movable property that is worth silver,5This principle also applies in many aspects of Jewish business law. Objects that are worth silver may be used for the same purposes as silver (Hilchot Nizkei Mammon 8:10). even bran.6I.e., an object of minimal value.
ב׳כָּל הַפּוֹדֶה קָדָשָׁיו מוֹסִיף חֹמֶשׁ. וְאֶחָד הַמַּקְדִּישׁ עַצְמוֹ אוֹ אִשְׁתּוֹ אוֹ הַיּוֹרֵשׁ מוֹסִיפִים חֹמֶשׁ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וְאַף הַחֹמֶשׁ לֹא יִהְיֶה אֶלָּא מִן הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין. וְהַחֹמֶשׁ שֶׁמּוֹסִיף הֲרֵי הוּא כְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ עַצְמוֹ וְדִין אֶחָד לָהֶם:
2Whenever a person redeems his consecrated property, he must add an additional fifth. The person who consecrated the property himself, his wife, or his heirs must all add a fifth, as we explained.7See Chapter 4, Halachah 5; Chapter 5, Halachah 3, and notes. As explained there, we are speaking of a fifth of the new total, a fourth of the original amount. This fifth must also only be movable property. The fifth itself becomes like the consecrated property and the same laws apply to them both.
ג׳הַפּוֹדֶה קָדָשָׁיו אֵין הַחֹמֶשׁ מְעַכֵּב. אֶלָּא מֵאַחַר שֶׁנָּתַן אֶת הַקֶּרֶן יָצָא הַקֹּדֶשׁ לְחֻלִּין וּמֻתָּר לֵהָנוֹת בּוֹ. וּמִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים שֶׁאָסוּר לוֹ לֵהָנוֹת עַד שֶׁיִּתֵּן הַחֹמֶשׁ שֶׁמָּא יִפְשַׁע וְלֹא יִתֵּן. אֲבָל בְּשַׁבָּת מִפְּנֵי עֹנֶג שַׁבָּת הִתִּירוּ לוֹ לֶאֱכל וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא נָתַן אֶת הַחֹמֶשׁ וַהֲרֵי הַגִּזְבָּרִין תּוֹבְעִין אוֹתוֹ:
3When a person redeems his consecrated articles, [failure to pay] the additional fifth does not hold back [the redemption]. Once the person paid the principal, the consecrated article is considered as an ordinary article and it is permitted to benefit from it [according to Scriptural Law]. According to Rabbinic Law, it is forbidden to benefit from it until one pays the additional fifth, lest one be negligent and fail to pay it. Nevertheless, on the Sabbath, [our Sages] gave one permission to partake [of a consecrated article that was redeemed] although the fifth was not paid for the sake of the enjoyment of the Sabbath.8Our Sages did not desire that his failure to pay the fifth prevent him from partaking of the entity, for this would reduce his Sabbath pleasure. [Another reason for leniency is that] it is being demanded by the Temple treasurers.9Since the treasurers demand payment of the fifth the person is not likely to forget. Nevertheless, this rationale itself is not sufficient reason for leniency. Hence, during the week, when the mitzvah of delighting in the Sabbath does not apply, the treasurers' reminder is not sufficient reason to permit use of the entity (see Bava Metzia 54a).
ד׳קָדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ שֶׁנָּפַל בָּהֶם מוּם וְנִפְדּוּ. אִם פָּדָה הַמַּקְדִּישׁ עַצְמוֹ מוֹסִיף חֹמֶשׁ כִּשְׁאָר הַהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת. וְהַמַּקְדִּישׁ שֶׁפָּדָה לְעַצְמוֹ הוּא שֶׁמּוֹסִיף חֹמֶשׁ לֹא הַמִּתְכַּפֵּר בָּהּ שֶׁפְּדָאָהּ. וְהֶקְדֵּשׁ רִאשׁוֹן הוּא שֶׁחַיָּב בְּתוֹסֶפֶת חֹמֶשׁ. אֲבָל הֶקְדֵּשׁ שֵׁנִי אֵינוֹ מוֹסִיף עָלָיו חֹמֶשׁ. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כז טו) "וְאִם הַמַּקְדִּישׁ יִגְאַל אֶת בֵּיתוֹ וְיָסַף חֲמִישִׁית". הַמַּקְדִּישׁ וְלֹא הַמַּתְפִּיס:
4[The following laws apply with regard to animals] consecrated for the sake of [sacrifice on] the altar which were [disqualified by] a blemish:10See Chapter 5, Halachah 11, which speaks of the redemption of such animals. If the person who consecrated it redeems it, he must add an additional fifth11This is reflected by Leviticus 27:13. as is the rule with regard to other consecrated articles.12See Halachah 2. The person who consecrated it for his own purposes is the one obligated to add a fifth, not the one who derives atonement through the [sacrifice after] it was redeemed.13I.e., if a person was obligated to bring a sacrifice and a colleague set aside an animal from his own resources for him to offer, that person required to bring the sacrifice is not required to pay an additional fifth if he redeems the animal.[One is] obligated to add a fifth [when redeeming the article that was] consecrated originally, but one [need] not add a fifth [when redeeming an article] whose consecration was a derivative,14I.e., it was consecrated in the process of redeeming another article, as the Rambam proceeds to explain in the following halachah. See Halachah 11 for details regarding the redemption of an article by transferring its holiness to a second article. as [implied by Leviticus 27:15]: "If the one who consecrated [it] will redeem his home, he must add a fifth." [The verse mentions] "one who consecrated," and not one who extends that holiness.
ה׳לְפִיכָךְ אִם חִלֵּל בְּהֵמָה עַל בְּהֵמָה שְׁנִיָּה בֵּין בְּקָדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת בֵּין בְּקָדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ שֶׁנָּפַל בָּהֶם מוּם. אוֹ שֶׁהֵמִיר בְּקָדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ. כְּשֶׁהוּא פּוֹדֶה אֶת הַשְּׁנִיָּה שֶׁחִלֵּל עָלֶיהָ אוֹ אֶת הַתְּמוּרָה לְעַצְמוֹ אֵינוֹ מוֹסִיף חֹמֶשׁ:
5Accordingly, if one transferred the holiness of a [consecrated] animal - whether one consecrated for the sake of improvements to the Temple15In which instance, it must be redeemed whether blemished or unblemished. See Chapter 5, Halachot 5 and 12; see also Hilchot Temurah 1:12. or one consecrated for [sacrifice on] the altar that became blemished16Since it is blemished, it is necessary to redeem it, as stated in Chapter 5, Halachot 11-12. - to another animal or exchanged an animal consecrated for [sacrifice on] the altar,17The Rambam is speaking about a practice, temurah, that involves transferring the holiness of an animal consecrated as a sacrifice to another animal. Leviticus 27:10 states that it is forbidden to make such an exchange, but if one does so both the animal originally consecrated and the one exchanged for it remain consecrated (ibid.:33; see Hilchot Temurah 1:1). When he redeems the second animal to which he transferred the holiness or which he exchanged for the sacrificial animal, he is not required to add a fifth.
ו׳הַמַּפְרִישׁ אָשָׁם לְהִתְכַּפֵּר בּוֹ וְנָפַל בּוֹ מוּם וְהוֹסִיף עָלָיו חֹמֶשׁ וְחִלְּלוֹ עַל בְּהֵמָה אַחֶרֶת וְנִתְכַּפֵּר בְּאָשָׁם אַחֵר וְנִתְּקָה הַבְּהֵמָה שֶׁחִלֵּל עָלֶיהָ לִרְעִיָּה כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בִּמְקוֹמוֹ. הֲרֵי הוּא סָפֵק אִם מוֹסִיף עָלֶיהָ חֹמֶשׁ הוֹאִיל וְהוּא קָרְבַּן עוֹלָה וַהֲרֵי הוּא גּוּף אֶחָד וּקְדֻשָּׁה אַחֶרֶת. אוֹ אֵינוֹ מוֹסִיף עָלֶיהָ חֹמֶשׁ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא בָּאָה מִכֹּחַ הֶקְדֵּשׁ רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁכְּבָר הוֹסִיף עָלָיו חֹמֶשׁ:
6There is an unresolved doubt [in the following situation]: A person set aside a guilt offering for the sake of his atonement and it became blemished. He added a fifth to its value and transferred its holiness to another animal and received atonement by [sacrificing] another guilt offering.18Because the animal to which the holiness was transferred was lost or unable to be used for a sacrifice for other reasons. As explained in the appropriate place,19Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 4:14-15. [the animal to which the holiness was transferred] is left to pasture [until it becomes blemished and then its holiness transferred to a third animal which is sacrificed as a burnt offering.20For he is no longer obligated to bring a guilt offering, but must offer the worth of the animal as a sacrifice. The question is:] Are we required to add a fifth [when redeeming that animal], because it is a burnt offering, it involves another body21I.e., it is not the same animal that was originally consecrated. Our translation represents a slight variation from the standard published text of the Mishneh Torah that was made based on authentic manuscripts and early printings. and is consecrated for a different purpose? Or are we not so required because its [holiness] stems from the initial consecration for which a fifth was already added.22Hence although the person is not obligated to pay the additional fifth, if the Temple treasurer seizes it, he cannot be required to relinquish it.
ז׳קָדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת אֵין עוֹשִׂין תְּמוּרָה שֶׁלֹּא דָּנָה תּוֹרָה בִּתְמוּרָה אֶלָּא בְּקָדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ. כֵּיצַד. הָיוּ לְפָנָיו בֶּהֱמַת חֻלִּין וּבֶהֱמַת קָדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת וְאָמַר זוֹ חֲלוּפַת זוֹ אוֹ זוֹ תְּמוּרַת זוֹ לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר הֲרֵי זוֹ תַּחַת זוֹ הֲרֵי זוֹ מְחֻלֶּלֶת עַל זוֹ דְּבָרָיו קַיָּמִין וְיָצְאתָה הַבְּהֵמָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה לְחֻלִּין וְנִתְפְּסָה הַשְּׁנִיָּה:
7The concept of exchanging an animal23The Rambam is speaking about a practice, temurah, that involves transferring the holiness of an animal consecrated as a sacrifice to another animal. Leviticus 27:10 states that it is forbidden to make such an exchange, but if one does so both the animal originally consecrated and the one exchanged for it remain consecrated (ibid.:33; see Hilchot Temurah 1:1). does not apply with regard to animals consecrated for the sake of improvements to the Temple. For the Torah dealt with the concept of exchanging holiness only with regard to [animals] consecrated for [sacrifice on] the altar.24Temurah 13a relates that the concept of temurah, exchange, applies only with regard to sacrifices and an animal consecrated for the sake of improvements to the Temple is not considered a sacrifice.What is implied? If a person had an ordinary animal and an animal consecrated for the sake of improvements to the Temple before him. If he said: "Let this one be substituted for this one" or "Let this one be exchanged for this one," his statements are of no consequence.25For these expressions imply temurah, exchange. If, however, he says: "This one is in place of this one" or "The holiness of this one is transferred to this one,"26I.e., using statements that indicate that he desires to redeem the animal and not exchange it. his statements are binding. The first animal returns to ordinary status and [its holiness] becomes attached to the second.
ח׳אֶחָד קָדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת וְאֶחָד קָדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ שֶׁנָּפַל בָּהֶן מוּם אֵין פּוֹדִין אוֹתָן לְכַתְּחִלָּה אֶלָּא בְּשָׁוְיֵיהֶן. וְאִם עָבַר וְחִלְּלָן עַל פָּחוֹת מִשָּׁוְיֵיהֶן אֲפִלּוּ הֶקְדֵּשׁ שָׁוֶה מֵאָה דִּינָר שֶׁחִלְּלוֹ עַל שְׁוֵה פְּרוּטָה הֲרֵי זֶה פָּדוּי וְיָצָא לְחֻלִּין וּמֻתָּר לֵהָנוֹת בּוֹ. וּמִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים שֶׁהוּא צָרִיךְ חֲקִירַת דָּמִים וְחַיָּב לְהַשְׁלִים אֶת דָּמָיו:
8The initial and preferred manner is that both [animals] consecrated for the sake of the improvement of the Temple and entities consecrated for the sake of the altar that became blemished should be redeemed only for their worth. If one transgressed and redeemed them for less than their worth, even if one redeemed consecrated property worth 100 dinarim with an article worth a p'rutah,27A coin of minimal worth. the article is redeemed.28With regard to transactions between men, the laws of ona'ah (unfair gain) apply and a transaction can be nullified if it is sold for more or less than a sixth of its value (Hilchot Mechirah 12:4). These principles do not apply, however, with regard to consecrated property. It is considered as ordinary property and one is permitted to benefit from it. According to Rabbinic Law, it is necessary to evaluate its worth29I.e., to carefully evaluate its worth. See Halachah 11. and the person redeeming it is obligated to make up the monetary difference.
ט׳כֵּיצַד. הָיְתָה לוֹ בֶּהֱמַת קָדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ שֶׁנָּפַל בָּהּ מוּם וַהֲרֵי הִיא שָׁוָה עֲשָׂרָה וּבֶהֱמַת חֻלִּין שֶׁשָּׁוָה חֲמִשָּׁה וְאָמַר הֲרֵי זוֹ מְחֻלֶּלֶת עַל זוֹ הֲרֵי זוֹ נִפְדֵית וְיָצָאת לְחֻלִּין אֲבָל צָרִיךְ לְהַשְׁלִים הַחֲמִשָּׁה. וְכֵן אִם הָיְתָה הַבְּהֵמָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה קָדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת הֲרֵי זוֹ יָצָאת לְחֻלִּין לְהִגָּזֵז וּלְהֵעָבֵד וְתִכָּנֵס הַשְּׁנִיָּה תַּחְתֶּיהָ דִּין תּוֹרָה. אֲבָל מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם צָרִיךְ חֲקִירַת דָּמִים אִם הָיְתָה זוֹ שֶׁחִלֵּל עָלֶיהָ שָׁוָה אוֹ יַשְׁלִים דָּמֶיהָ:
9What is implied? A person had an animal consecrated [to be offered on] the altar and it became blemished. If it is worth ten [zuz] and there is an ordinary animal worth five and he says: "The holiness of this one is transferred to this," it is redeemed and its status becomes that of an ordinary animal. He must, however, pay the additional five [to the Temple treasury]. In the same way, [if a similar transfer was made] when the first animal was consecrated to the Temple treasury, its status becomes that of an ordinary animal. It may be shorn and put to work30While it is consecrated, both of these activities are forbidden according to Rabbinic Law (Hilchot Meilah 1:12). and the second animal assumes its [consecrated status] according to Scriptural Law. Nevertheless, according to Rabbinic Law, it is necessary to evaluate its worth to see whether the one to which its holiness was transferred was of equivalent value. If not, he must make up the monetary difference.
י׳שָׁמוּ אוֹתָהּ שְׁלֹשָׁה וְאָמְרוּ שֶׁזּוֹ בְּדָמֶיהָ אֲפִלּוּ בָּאוּ אַחַר כֵּן מֵאָה וְאָמְרוּ שֶׁל קֹדֶשׁ הָיְתָה יָפָה אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר. הוֹאִיל וַחֲקִירַת הַדָּמִים מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם לֹא הֶחְמִירוּ בָּהּ. אֲבָל אִם שָׁמוּ אוֹתָהּ שְׁנַיִם וּבָאוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה וְאָמְרוּ שֶׁהוֹנָה הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ בְּכָל שֶׁהוּא חוֹזֵר:
10If three people evaluated [the two animals involved] and said they were of equivalent value, the evaluation is not nullified even if 100 come afterwards and say that the animal that was consecrated was more valuable. Since the evaluation [of the animal's] worth is a Rabbinic requirement, our Sages were not strict with regard to it. If, however, two people made the original evaluation and then three people came and say that even the slightest advantage was taken of the Temple treasury,31With regard to transactions between private individuals, by contrast, as long as the difference between the article's value and the price for which it is sold is less than a sixth, the transaction is allowed to stand (Hilchot Mechirah 12:3). [the animal] is reevaluated.
י״אאֵין פּוֹדִין אֶת הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ אַכְסָרָה אֶלָּא בַּחֲקִירַת דָּמִים כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וְאִם פָּדָה יַד הֶקְדֵּשׁ עַל הָעֶלְיוֹנָה. כֵּיצַד. פָּרָה זוֹ תַּחַת פָּרָה זוֹ שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ טַלִּית זוֹ תַּחַת טַלִּית זוֹ שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ. הֶקְדֵּשׁוֹ פָּדוּי וְיַד הֶקְדֵּשׁ עַל הָעֶלְיוֹנָה. אִם הָיְתָה הַשְּׁנִיָּה יָפָה מִן הָרִאשׁוֹנָה בְּיוֹתֵר לוֹקְחִין אוֹתָהּ הַגִּזְבָּרִין וְשׁוֹתְקִין. וְאִם אֵינָהּ יָפָה מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַדָּמִים כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ וּמוֹסִיף חֹמֶשׁ. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר טַלִּית זוֹ בְּעֶשֶׂר סְלָעִים תַּחַת טַלִּית שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ וּפָרָה זוֹ בְּעֶשֶׂר סְלָעִים תַּחַת פָּרָה זוֹ שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ. אֲפִלּוּ הָיְתָה שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ שָׁוָה חָמֵשׁ וְשֶׁלּוֹ עֶשֶׂר הֲרֵי זֶה מוֹסִיף חֹמֶשׁ וְנוֹתֵן שְׁתֵּי סְלָעִים וּמֶחֱצָה שֶׁהֲרֵי בְּדָמִים קְצוּבִים פָּדָה. וּשְׁנִיָּה אֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה חֹמֶשׁ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ:
11We do not redeem consecrated articles with a rough estimation instead, their worth is carefully evaluated, as we explained.32See Halachah 8. If one redeemed a consecrated article [after making merely a rough estimation], the Temple treasury is given the upper hand.What is implied? One says: "May the holiness of this cow that is consecrated33We are speaking about a cow consecrated for the sake of improvements to the Temple. If it were consecrated for sacrifice on the altar, even after its holiness were transferred to another animal, it would remain consecrated itself (Radbaz). be transferred to this cow" or "May the holiness of this garment that is consecrated be transferred to this garment," the consecrated article is redeemed and the Temple treasury is given the upper hand. If the second article is worth more than the first, the Temple treasurers take it and remain silent. If it is not worth the value of the first, [the redeemer] must pay the difference as we explained34See Halachah 8. and he must add a fifth.If, however, he said: May the holiness of this garment that is consecrated be transferred to this garment that is worth ten selaim" or "May the holiness of this cow that is consecrated be transferred to this cow that is worth ten selaim," he is required to add a fifth and must give two and a half selaim.35As mentioned above, the fifth is one fifth of the new total including the fifth and the amount for which the article is redeemed. Since he stated the value of the article he was giving as ten selaim, the value of the fifth is calculated accordingly even though he is paying more than would actually have been required. [The rationale is that] he redeemed it at a fixed price. It is not necessary to add a fifth when redeeming the second animal, as we explained.36Halachah 4.
י״בהַפּוֹדֶה מִיַּד הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ מָשַׁךְ בְּמָנֶה וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק לִתֵּן הַדָּמִים עַד שֶׁעָמַד בְּמָאתַיִם נוֹתֵן מָאתַיִם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְנָתַן אֶת הַכֶּסֶף וְקָם לוֹ. בִּנְתִינַת הַכֶּסֶף הוּא שֶׁלּוֹ. מְשָׁכוֹ בְּמָאתַיִם וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק לִתֵּן אֶת הַדָּמִים עַד שֶׁעָמַד בְּמָנֶה נוֹתֵן מָאתַיִם. לֹא יְהֵא כֹּחַ הֶדְיוֹט חָמוּר מִכֹּחַ הֶקְדֵּשׁ. וַהֲרֵי קָנָה בִּמְשִׁיכָה וְנִתְחַיֵּב בַּדָּמִים:
12[The following rules apply when a person] redeems an article from the Temple treasury. If he drew the article into his possession37Performing meshichah, an act that would complete the kinyan (formal act of acquisition) of the article. when it was worth a maneh,38100 zuz. but did not pay the money until it appreciated to 200, he must pay 200. [This is indicated by the expression:]39As mentioned in the notes to Halachah 1, the Rambam is not referring to an explicit verse in the Torah, but rather our Sages' restatement of the relevant verses in Kiddushin 28b. "And he will pay the money and it will become his." It becomes his when he pays the money.40And not when it enters his possession. Hence, he must pay the value at the time he redeems it.If he drew it into his possession when it was worth 200, but did not pay the money until it depreciated to a maneh, he must pay 200. For the legal power of the Temple treasury should not be less than that of an ordinary person.41See Hilchot Mechirah 9:2. As mentioned above, when an ordinary person completes meshichah, the transaction is completed and he must pay its price then. When it lost value, it was already in his possession. He acquired it through drawing it into his possession and became liable for its value then.
י״גפָּדָה בְּמָאתַיִם וְנָתַן הַדָּמִים וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק לְמָשְׁכוֹ עַד שֶׁעָמַד בְּמָנֶה כְּבָר קָנָה בִּנְתִינַת הַכֶּסֶף וּמוֹשֵׁךְ אֶת שֶׁלּוֹ וְזָכָה הֶקְדֵּשׁ בְּמָאתַיִם. פָּדָהוּ בְּמָנֶה וְנָתַן הַדָּמִים וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק לְמָשְׁכוֹ עַד שֶׁעָמַד בְּמָאתַיִם מַה שֶּׁפָּדָה פָּדוּי וְאֵינוֹ נוֹתֵן אֶלָּא הַמָּנֶה שֶׁכְּבָר נָתַן. וְאֵין אוֹמְרִין כָּאן לֹא יְהֵא כֹּחַ הֶדְיוֹט חָמוּר מִכֹּחַ הֶקְדֵּשׁ. שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ הֶדְיוֹט אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַחְזֹר בּוֹ עַד שֶׁיְּקַבֵּל מִי שֶׁפָּרַע כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בִּמְקוֹמוֹ וְאֵין הֶקְדֵּשׁ רָאוּי לְקַבֵּל מִי שֶׁפָּרַע:
13If he redeemed it at 200 and paid the money42One might ask: Why must he actually pay the money? Seemingly the very fact that he pledged to redeem it from the Temple treasury at 200 should be sufficient to make him liable in accordance with the principle (Kiddushin 28b, et al): "A person's statements to the Temple treasury are equivalent to an ordinary person drawing the article into his possession." The Radbaz explains that in this instance, that principle is not applied, because it is possible to say that the pledge was made in error. He did not expect that the article would depreciate in value. Hence, unless he paid the money, he is not liable for the higher sum. and did not draw into his possession until it depreciated to a maneh, he is considered to have acquired it when he paid the money.43And the depreciation is considered to have taken place in his possession as above. He should draw his article into his possession and the Temple treasury acquires the 200.If he redeemed it at a maneh and paid the money, but did not draw it into his possession until it appreciated to 200, the redemption is allowed to stand. He is only required to pay the maneh that he paid already. In this instance, we do not say: The legal power of the Temple treasury should not be less than that of an ordinary person.44Since the transaction is not completed until the purchaser draws it into his possession, with regard to ordinary transactions, the purchaser would have the right to nullify the transaction. Nevertheless, were he to do so, he is liable to have the admonition mi shepara administered to him by the court (Hilchot Mechirah 7:1). As the Rambam continues to explain, it is not appropriate to have this admonition administered to the Temple treasurers. [The rationale is that] even an ordinary person would not be able to retract unless he receives the admonition mi shepara, as will be explained in the appropriate place.45With regard to this admonition, ibid.:2 states: "He is cursed in court and told: 'May He who exacted retribution from the generation of the Flood, the generation of the Dispersion, the inhabitants of Sodom and Amorah, and the Egyptians who drowned in the sea, exact retribution from a person who does not keep his word.' And it is not proper to administer the admonition mi shepara to the Temple treasury.
י״דהַמַּקְדִּישׁ כָּל נְכָסָיו וְהָיְתָה עָלָיו כְּתֻבַּת אִשָּׁה אוֹ שִׁטְרֵי בַּעֲלֵי חוֹבוֹת. אֵין הָאִשָּׁה יְכוֹלָה לִגְבּוֹת כְּתֻבָּתָהּ מִן הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ וְלֹא בַּעַל חוֹב אֶת חוֹבוֹ. שֶׁהַהֶקְדֵּשׁ מַפְקִיעַ הַשִּׁעְבּוּד שֶׁקָּדַם. אֲבָל כְּשֶׁיִּמְכֹּר הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ הַקַּרְקַע שֶׁלּוֹ וְתֵצֵא הַשָּׂדֶה לְחֻלִּין יֵשׁ לְבַעַל חוֹב וּלְאִשָּׁה לִגְבּוֹת מִן הַפּוֹדֶה שֶׁהֲרֵי שִׁעְבּוּדָהּ עוֹמֵד עַל קַרְקַע זוֹ:
14When a person consecrates all of his possessions and he is liable to [pay the money due his] wife [by virtue of her] ketubah or promissory notes [owed to] creditors, the woman may not collect [the money due her by virtue of her] ketubah from the Temple treasury, nor may a creditor collect the debt due him. The rationale is that consecration absolves prior liens.46I.e., were the person to sell all his possessions to a private person, his wife and his creditors would be able to collect their due from the landed property in his domain. Since the property becomes the possession of the Temple treasury, those obligations temporarily need not be met.The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that the liens are in effect even when the property is in the possession of the Temple treasury. Our Sages' statement (Ketubot 59b) that consecration absolves prior liens applies only with regard to the consecration of articles that themselves will be used for the Temple or its sacrifices, not articles to be sold and the proceeds used.One of the practical differences between the Rambam's position and that of the Ra'avad is whether a person will be liable for me'ilah, misappropriating consecrating property, for benefiting from this property. In Hilchot Malveh ViLoveh 18:7, the Rambam states similar ideas as in this halachah. In his gloss to that halachah, the Maggid Mishneh takes issue with the Rambam. Although, here, in his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro defends the Rambam's position in his Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 117:7), it appears that he accepts the other view. The Tur and the Rama explicitly state that the Ra'avad's position should be followed. [Nevertheless,] when the Temple treasury sells his property and the field loses its consecrated status, the creditor and his wife may collect it from the redeemer, for the lien remains on this landed property.47I.e., the property is redeemed with the awareness that it is under lien and that lien will ultimately be collected. Its price is calculated accordingly, as stated in Halachah 16.
ט״והָא לְמָה זֶה דּוֹמֶה לִשְׁנֵי לָקוֹחוֹת שֶׁכָּתְבָה לָרִאשׁוֹן דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי עִמְּךָ וּמָכַר לַשֵּׁנִי שֶׁהִיא טוֹרֶפֶת מִן הַשֵּׁנִי:
15To what can this be compared? To two purchasers. [One bought the property from a woman's husband and the other from the first purchaser. The woman] wrote to the first [purchaser] "I have no claim against you."48She had the right to collect the money due her by virtue of her ketubah from this property, but she agreed not to press her claim against this individual. [After] he sells it to the second person, she may expropriate the money due her from him.49For the field remains on lien to her. The promise she gave the first purchaser is not binding with regard to the second.The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam on this point as well, maintaining that the woman does not have the right to expropriate the property from the second purchaser. For by purchasing the field, he purchased every right that the first purchaser had. Moreover, if forced to pay the woman, he could seek reimbursement from the first purchaser or nullify the sale. In his gloss to Hilchot Malveh ViLoveh 19:8, the Maggid Mishneh supports the Ra'avad's view. The Kessef Mishneh, however, defends the Rambam's position.
ט״זוְכֵיצַד פּוֹדִין קַרְקַע זֶה. מַשְׁבִּיעִין אֶת הָאִשָּׁה אוֹ בַּעַל חוֹב תְּחִלָּה כְּדֶרֶךְ כָּל הַבָּא לִפָּרַע מִנְּכָסִים מְשֻׁעְבָּדִים וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַכְרִיזִין עֲלֵיהֶם שִׁשִּׁים יוֹם בַּבֹּקֶר וּבָעֶרֶב כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וְאוֹמְדִין כַּמָּה אָדָם רוֹצֶה לִתֵּן בַּשָּׂדֶה עַל מְנָת לִתֵּן לְאִשָּׁה כְּתֻבָּתָהּ וּלְבַעַל חוֹב אֶת חוֹבוֹ. וְאַחַר שֶׁפּוֹדִין אוֹתָהּ וְלוֹקֵחַ אוֹתָהּ הַלּוֹקֵחַ אֲפִלּוּ בְּדִינָר כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמְרוּ הֶקְדֵּשׁ יוֹצֵא בְּלֹא פִּדְיוֹן. חוֹזֵר הַפּוֹדֶה וּמַגְבֶּה לָאִשָּׁה כְּתֻבָּתָהּ אוֹ לַבַּעַל חוֹב אֶת חוֹבוֹ. אֲפִלּוּ הָיָה הַחוֹב מֵאָה וְהַשָּׂדֶה שָׁוָה תִּשְׁעִים עַל מְנָת כָּךְ פּוֹדֶה אוֹתָהּ הָרוֹצֶה לִפְדּוֹתָהּ. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה הַחוֹב שְׁנַיִם בִּדְמֵי הַשָּׂדֶה כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיְתָה שָׁוָה מֵאָה וְיֵשׁ עָלָיו חוֹב וּכְתֻבַּת אִשָּׁה מָאתַיִם אֵין פּוֹדִין אוֹתָהּ עַל מְנָת לִתֵּן הַחוֹב אוֹ הַכְּתֻבָּה אֶלָּא פּוֹדִין אוֹתָהּ סְתָם שֶׁאִם הִתְנוּ לִתֵּן אֵינָהּ נִפְדֵית כְּלָל:
16How is this land redeemed?50Since it is on lien, obviously, no one will desire to pay its actual worth. We administer an oath to the woman or the creditor first as is the process whenever one seeks to expropriate property that is on lien.51As stated in Hilchot Ishut 16:10,20 and Hilchot Malveh ViLoveh 22:10, we do not expropriate the field for the wife or the creditor until he or she takes an oath while holding a sacred object that the debt was not collected, waived, or sold to another person. Afterwards, we publicly announce its sale for 60 days in the morning and in the evening, as we explained.52Chapter 3, Halachah 20; Chapter 4, Halachah 27. We say:53Our translation is based on manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. The standard printed text follows a slightly different version. How much a person will desire to give for this field in order to pay the woman [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah or the creditor his debt? A purchaser redeems it and acquires it even for a dinar,54Although the initial preference is that consecrated property be redeemed for its full value (Halachah 8), that is not feasible in the present instance. Instead, the person is allowed to pay any sum he desires, for his profit may be small after paying the debt. Indeed, as the Rambam continues, he may even suffer a loss. so that it is not said that consecrated property was released without being redeemed. Then the redeemer comes and gives the woman [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah or the creditor his debt. [This applies] even if the debt was 100 [zuz] and the field worth only 90, [for] the person who redeems it does so for this sake.If, however, the debt was twice the value of the field, e.g., the field was worth 100 and it was on lien to a debt or a woman's ketubah for 200, we do not redeem it with the intent of paying the debt or [the money due the woman by virtue of] her ketubah. Instead, it is redeemed unconditionally,55And the lien on the field is ignored. for if such a stipulation was required to be made, it would not be redeemed at all.
י״זהַמַּקְדִּישׁ כָּל נְכָסָיו וְאַחַר כָּךְ גֵּרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְגָבְתָה כְּתֻבָּתָהּ מִן הַפּוֹדֶה מִן הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ אֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה עַד שֶׁיַּדִּירֶנָּה הֲנָאָה. שֶׁמָּא קְנוּנְיָא עָשׂוּ עַל הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ. וְאֵין אוֹמְרִין אִלּוּ רָצָה הָיָה אוֹמֵר בְּטָעוּת הִקְדַּשְׁתִּי וְיִשָּׁאֵל עַל הֶקְדֵּשׁוֹ לְחָכָם וְיַחְזֹר לוֹ:
17When a person consecrates all of his property, divorces his wife, and [leaves her to] collect [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah from the one who redeems [his landed property] from the Temple treasury, she cannot collect [the debt] until he takes a vow,56This vow must be taken conditional to the consent of people at large. In this way, it can never be nullified. Note a parallel in Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 6:9. forbidding her to benefit from him. [This is a safeguard instituted,] lest an attempt be made to deceive the Temple treasury.57I.e., he would remarry her and retake possession of a portion of his property in this way. See Hilchot Ishut 17:9-10. Arachin 23a emphasizes that we are speaking about a healthy man. If a person on his death bed divorces his wife so that she will not have to undergo yibbum, he is not required to take such an oath, for we do not suspect that a person on his death bed will try to deceive the Temple treasury. See Halachah 19. We do not say that were he to desire [to nullify the consecration of his property], he should say: "I consecrated it in error," and ask a sage [to nullify] his consecration [in which instance, his property] would return to him.58For a consecration made in error can be nullified, as stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 34.
י״חוְכֵן אֵין נֶאֱמָן לוֹמַר אַחַר שֶׁהִקְדִּישׁ מָנֶה לִפְלוֹנִי חוֹב עָלַי אוֹ כְּלִי זֶה שֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי הוּא. שֶׁמָּא יַעֲשׂוּ קְנוּנְיָא עַל הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה שְׁטָר בְּיַד בַּעַל חוֹב אֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה עַל פִּי זֶה אֶלָּא כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁגּוֹבִין כָּל בַּעֲלֵי חוֹבוֹת כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ:
18Similarly, after59If, however, he made such statements before consecrating his property, his word is accepted (Radbaz).See the Siftei Cohen (Choshen Mishpat 255:5) who elaborates on the concept that even if he makes this statement directly after consecrating his property, it is not accepted. As support, he cites Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 15:1 where the Rambam writes that after a person consecrates an animal, even if he seeks to retract his consecration immediately, he cannot. The Radbaz (see his gloss to the following halachah) supports this view. The Kessef Mishneh, however, maintains that a healthy person can also retract his statement directly after making it. consecrating his property, a person's word is not accepted if he says: "I owe a maneh to so-and-so" or "This utensil belongs to so-and-so."60I.e., the person claims to be holding it as an entrusted article. [In this instance, we fear that] he is attempting to deceive the Temple treasury.61And prevent a certain portion of his property from having to be redeemed. Even if the creditor has a promissory note, he cannot use it to expropriate [the property from the Temple treasury].62For as stated in Halachah 14, consecration lifts liens on property. Instead, he must collect his due like the other creditors due, as explained.63See Halachah 16.
י״טבַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּבָרִיא. אֲבָל חוֹלֶה שֶׁהִקְדִּישׁ כָּל נְכָסָיו וְאָמַר בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהִקְדִּישׁ מָנֶה לִפְלוֹנִי בְּיָדִי נֶאֱמָן. שֶׁאֵין אָדָם עוֹשֶׂה עָרְמָה עַל הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ בִּשְׁעַת מִיתָתוֹ וְחוֹטֵא לַאֲחֵרִים שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא הוֹלֵךְ לָמוּת. לְפִיכָךְ אִם אָמַר תְּנוּ אוֹתָהּ לוֹ נוֹטֵל בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה. וְאִם לֹא אָמַר תְּנוּ אֵין נוֹתְנִין אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיָה בְּיָדוֹ שְׁטָר מְקֻיָּם. הֲרֵי זֶה נוֹטֵל מִן הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ מִפְּנֵי הַצַּוָּאָה. וְאִם אַחַר שֶׁהִקְדִּישׁ אָמַר תְּנוּ אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ אֶלָּא הֲרֵי הוּא כִּשְׁאָר בַּעֲלֵי חוֹבוֹת. אִם נִתְקַיֵּם שְׁטָרוֹ נִשְׁבָּע וְגוֹבֶה מִן הַפּוֹדֶה וְלֹא מִן הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ:
19When does the above apply? With regard to a healthy person. If, by contrast a mortally ill person consecrates all of his property and at the time he consecrates it says: "I owe a maneh to so-and-so," his word is accepted. [The rationale is that] a person will not try to deceive the Temple treasury at the time of his death and sin for the sake of others, for he is going to die.64At such a time, when he will not derive any worldly benefit from sinning and is conscious of the retribution he will receive in the world to come, he will certainly not seek to deceive the Temple treasury. Therefore if he says: "Give [the creditor his debt]," [the creditor] may collect it without having to take an oath.If he did not say: "Give [the creditor...]," we do not give him this money unless he has a promissory note whose authenticity has been verified. [In that instance,] he may collect [his debt] from the Temple treasury, because of the statements [the debtor made] on his deathbed.65I.e., his acknowledgement of the debt. If, however, the creditor does not have a promissory note whose authenticity has been verified, he cannot collect the debt, even though the debtor acknowledged it on his deathbed. The rationale is that (as stated in Hilchot To'ain ViNitan 6:7), a person is wont to state that he owes money even if he in fact does not so that his sons do not think of themselves as rich. His estate is not bound by these statements unless, as stated above, he explicitly instructed that the debt be paid or the creditor has a promissory note that has been verified. Even though in this instance, the money will be going to the Temple treasury and not to his sons, a similar rationale can still be applied. We say that he is admitting the debt so that people will not think of him as a person who hoarded money throughout his life (Sefer Meirat Einayim 255:12). If he said to give [the money to the creditor] after he consecrated [his property],66The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's decision, stating that the word of a person on his deathbed is accepted even he makes his statements after consecrating the article. For at the time he consecrates an article, the statements of a healthy person are also accepted.In view of this objection, the Radbaz explains that there are three different time frameworks:a) before the consecration is made - in which instance the statements of both a healthy man and one on his deathbed are accepted;b) immediately after (toch k'dei dibbur) the consecration is made - in which instance the statements of a healthy man are not accepted and those of one on his deathbed are;c) some time after the consecration is made - in which instance neither the statements of a healthy man nor those of one on his deathbed are accepted.The Kessef Mishneh follows the same basic thrust in interpreting the Rambam, but differs regarding one point, maintaining that a healthy person can also retract his statement directly after making it. The difference between a healthy person and one on his deathbed is that when a person is on his deathbed, his word is accepted as long as he is still speaking of the deposition of his property even though it is not directly after he consecrated it. we do not heed his statements. Instead, this person is considered like other creditors. If the authenticity of his promissory note is verified, he must take an oath.67That he has not received payment for the debt. He may then expropriate [the property] from the one who redeems it, but not from the Temple treasury.68As stated, in Halachot 14, 16. The Ra'avad adds that if we are speaking about an entrusted article which the dying man acknowledged having received for safekeeping, it is returned to its owner without being redeemed. The Radbaz states that the Rambam would not necessarily differ on this point.
כ׳מִי שֶׁיָּצָא עָלָיו קוֹל שֶׁהִפְקִיר אֶת נְכָסָיו אוֹ הִקְדִּישָׁן אוֹ הֶחֱרִימָן אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לוֹ עַד שֶׁתִּהְיֶה שָׁם רְאָיָה בְּרוּרָה:
20We do not take heed of a rumor that says that a certain person declared all of his property ownerless, consecrated it, or made it a dedication offering unless there is clear proof69Through the testimony of witnesses or a contract that has been verified. [of its validity].