Talmud - Arachin 29a ערכין כ״ט א׳

GEMARA: The Sages taught: Dedications of property for priests have no redemption, and one gives the property to the priest. With regard to these dedications, as long as they remain in the house of the owner they are considered like consecrated property in every sense, as it is stated: “Every dedicated item is most sacred to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:28). Once the owner has given them to the priest they are in every sense like non-sacred property, as it is stated: “Everything dedicated in Israel shall be yours” (Numbers 18:14), i.e., it shall be like all other regular property belonging to a priest, which is non-sacred.

§ The mishna teaches: Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says dedications donated without specification are designated for Temple maintenance, as it is stated: “Every dedicated item is most sacred to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:28). And the Rabbis say they are designated for priests, as it is stated: “As a field dedicated; its possession shall be to the priest” (Leviticus 27:21), whereas the verse cited by Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira teaches that dedication takes effect on offerings of the most sacred order and offerings of lesser sanctity. The Gemara asks: Granted, the opinion of the Rabbis is clear, as they explain their reason and the reason of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, i.e., they interpret the verse he cited as his proof. But as for Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, this verse: “As a field dedicated; its possession shall be to the priest,” what does he do with it, i.e., what does he derive from it?

The Gemara responds: The verse is necessary for him for that which is taught in a baraita that discusses the case of one who consecrated his ancestral field and failed to redeem it. This field becomes the possession of the priests at the Jubilee Year. The baraita teaches: Why must the verse state at its end: “As a field dedicated; its possession shall be to the priest”? The baraita explains: From where is it derived with regard to a priest who consecrated his dedicated field, i.e., a field that was dedicated by an Israelite and was given to him and he then consecrated it, and then the Jubilee Year arrived, that he may not say: Since a field that was consecrated by its owners and was not redeemed goes out of the owner’s possession and passes to the possession of the priests at the Jubilee Year, and this field that I consecrated is already in my possession, it is therefore mine.

The baraita adds: And this claim of the priest is based on logical inference: If I acquire the fields of others that were consecrated and not redeemed at the Jubilee Year, then with regard to my own property, all the more so is it not clear that I should acquire it? Therefore, the verse states, with regard to an ancestral field that one consecrated: “As a field dedicated; its possession shall be to the priest,” which teaches that this priest does not acquire the field.

The baraita explains the derivation: But what have we now learned about a consecrated ancestral field from a dedicated field? In other words, the verse, which is dealing with an ancestral field, says an ancestral field is like a dedicated field, but it does not explicitly state the halakha of dedicated fields. Rather, this case of a dedicated field comes to teach a halakha about an ancestral field but is found to derive a halakha from that case, i.e., the verse juxtaposes a dedicated field of a priest to the ancestral field of an Israelite.

The baraita clarifies how the halakha is derived from the juxtaposition: Just as the ancestral field of an Israelite, which was redeemed by a priest from the Temple treasury, goes out of his possession at the arrival of the Jubilee Year and is divided among all the priests of the watch serving at the beginning of the Jubilee Year (see 25b), so too, the dedicated field of a priest that remained in his possession goes out of his possession and is divided among his brothers, the priests of the watch serving at the beginning of the Jubilee Year.

The Gemara asks: And the other, i.e., the Rabbis, from where do they derive this halakha? The Gemara responds: They derive it from a superfluous term in the verse, as it could have stated merely: Dedicated [ḥerem], from which one would have derived that unspecified dedications are designated for the priests. Yet the verse actually states: “Haḥerem,” with the definite article, and therefore both halakhot are derived from this verse. The Gemara notes: And as for the other, Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, he does not learn anything from the difference between ḥerem and haḥerem. Accordingly, he derives from here only that if a priest consecrated his dedicated field it is removed from his possession.

The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, from where does he derive that a dedication takes effect on offerings of the most sacred order and offerings of lesser sanctity, which, according to the Rabbis, is learned from the verse: “Every dedicated item is most sacred to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:28)? The Gemara answers: He holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who derives this halakha from another source, as explained in the mishna below.

§ Rav says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira that unspecified dedications of property are designated for Temple maintenance. The Gemara asks: And would Rav leave aside the majority opinion of the Rabbis and act in accordance with the individual opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira? The Gemara answers: This dispute is taught in a baraita in the opposite manner, i.e., it is the Rabbis who hold that unspecified dedications are designated for Temple maintenance. The Gemara further asks: Would Rav leave aside a mishna and act in accordance with a baraita? The Gemara responds: Rav teaches the mishna as well in the opposite manner, in accordance with the baraita.

The Gemara asks: What did you see that you chose to reverse the opinions in the mishna due to the baraita? Let us reverse the opinions in the baraita due to the mishna. The Gemara answers: Rav learned by tradition from his teachers that the opinions cited in the mishna should be reversed. The Gemara asks: If so, why does Rav state that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira? He should have said it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. The Gemara explains that this is what Rav is saying: In accordance with the manner in which you reversed the opinions and taught them in the mishna, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira.

§ The Gemara relates that there was a certain man who dedicated his property in Pumbedita. He came before Rav Yehuda to ask him what to do. Rav Yehuda said to him: Take four dinars and desacralize the dedicated property by transferring its sanctity onto them. And then throw the dinars into the river, because one may not derive benefit from them. And then the property will be permitted to you, as it will have been redeemed. The Gemara notes: Evidently, Rav Yehuda holds that unspecified dedications of property are designated for Temple maintenance, which is why the man could redeem his property. Had the property been designated for the priests there could be no redemption, as taught in the mishna.

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion does Rav Yehuda hold, when he told the man to desacralize the dedicated property by transferring its sanctity onto money worth less than the dedicated property? The Gemara responds: He holds in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, who said: Consecrated property worth one hundred dinars that one desacralized onto an item worth one peruta is desacralized. The Gemara asks: One can say that Shmuel said this is the halakha only in a case where one already desacralized the property, i.e., after the fact. Did he say one may do so ab initio?

The Gemara responds: This matter, that one must desacralize consecrated property onto an item worth the value of the property ab initio, applies only during a period when the Temple is standing, as there is a loss caused to the Temple treasury by desacralizing its property onto an item worth less than its value. But in the present time, when the Temple is not standing and there is no Temple treasury, one may desacralize with an item worth less than the consecrated property even ab initio. The Gemara asks: If so, then one may even desacralize with one peruta as well. Why, then, did Rav Yehuda require the man to use four dinars? The Gemara responds: He required four dinars in order to publicize the matter, so that the community will know the property is permitted for use only because it was redeemed.

Ulla says: If I had been there when this man asked what to do, I would have given all of the property to the priests. The Gemara notes: Evidently, Ulla holds that unspecified dedications of property are designated for the priests, and therefore they cannot be redeemed.

It can be inferred from the previous discussion that the halakhot of dedications are in effect even today. The Gemara raises an objection to this opinion from a baraita: The sale of a Hebrew slave is practiced only during a period when the Jubilee Year is observed, as it is stated: “And if your brother be waxen poor with you, and sell himself to you…he shall serve with you until the year of Jubilee” (Leviticus 25:39–40).

And likewise the halakhot pertaining to a dedicated, i.e., ancestral, field apply only during a period that the Jubilee Year is observed, as it is stated: “Then that which he has sold shall remain in the hand of him that has bought…and in the Jubilee it shall go out, and he shall return to his possession” (Leviticus 25:28). Finally, the halakhot pertaining to houses of walled cities apply only during a period when the Jubilee Year is observed, as it is stated: “Then the house that is in the walled city shall be made sure in perpetuity to him that bought it, throughout his generations; it shall not go out in the Jubilee” (Leviticus 25:30).

Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: The halakhot pertaining to a dedicated field apply only during a period when the Jubilee Year is observed, as it is stated: “But the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee, shall be sacred to the Lord, as a field dedicated; its possession shall be to the priest” (Leviticus 27:21). Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: The halakhot pertaining to a gentile who resides in Eretz Yisrael and observes the seven Noahide mitzvot [ger toshav] apply only during a period when the Jubilee Year is observed.

Rav Beivai said: What is the reason? It is derived from a verbal analogy between “well” and “well.” It is written here, with regard to a Hebrew slave, who can be sold only when the Jubilee Year is observed: “Because he fares well with you” (Deuteronomy 15:16). And it is written there, with regard to a ger toshav: “Where it is well for him; you shall not wrong him” (Deuteronomy 23:17). The Gemara’s objection is that it is evident from the baraita that the halakhot pertaining to dedicated fields apply only when the Jubilee Year is observed.

The Gemara explains that it is not difficult. This baraita is discussing the halakha with regard to land, whereas that incident, in Pumbedita, in which a dedication was effected, occurred with movable property. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But that incident that occurred in Pumbedita involved land as well, and Rav Yehuda nevertheless required the man to redeem them. The Gemara responds: Land outside of Eretz Yisrael is considered like movable property in Eretz Yisrael.

MISHNA: Rabbi Yishmael says: One verse states: “All the firstborn males that are born of your herd and of your flock you shall consecrate to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 15:19), and one verse states: “However, the firstborn among animals that is born first to the Lord, a man shall not consecrate it” (Leviticus 27:26). It is impossible to say: “You shall consecrate,” as it is already stated: “A man shall not consecrate.” It is likewise impossible to say: “A man shall not consecrate,” as it is already stated: “You shall consecrate.”

How, then, can these verses be reconciled? You can consecrate the firstborn animal by a consecration of value, i.e., an individual can donate to the Temple treasury the amount he would be willing to pay for the right to give the firstborn to a specific priest; and you cannot consecrate it by a consecration for the altar, as a firstborn may not be sacrificed for the sake of any other offering.

GEMARA: The Gemara comments: And the Rabbis, who derive the halakha that a dedication takes effect on all offerings of sanctity from the verse: “Every dedicated item is most sacred to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:28), would explain that the verse “A man shall not consecrate” is necessary to teach that there is a Torah prohibition against consecrating a firstborn animal for the sake of another offering. As for the other verse discussed in the mishna: “You shall consecrate,” it is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: From where is it derived with regard to a firstborn animal that was born in one’s flock that it is a mitzva to consecrate it verbally as a firstborn? As it is stated: “The firstborn males that are born of your herd and of your flock you shall consecrate.”

And Rabbi Yishmael, who maintains there is no such mitzva, would argue: If one does not consecrate it verbally, is the animal not consecrated? It certainly is consecrated, as its sanctity is from the womb. And since when one does not consecrate it the animal is nevertheless sanctified automatically, he does not need to consecrate it verbally.

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Arachin 29a explores unspecified property dedications, debating whether they belong to priests or fund Temple upkeep, based on differing biblical interpretations.