Arakhin 55

היכי דמי

And how is this to be imagined?

דאמור בעשרים ואחד הבעלים קודמין ואם לאו אומר לו

If he offered twenty-one;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which with the extra fifth amounts to twenty-six sela's and one denar (approximately) .');">¹</span>

הגעתיך:

then the owner has the preference.

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> מחרים אדם מצאנו ומבקרו ומעבדיו ומשפחותיו הכנענים ומשדה אחוזתו ואם החרים את כולם אינם מוחרמים דברי ר"א

If not [the treasurer] says to him [the bidder]: 'It is yours'.

א"ר אלעזר בן עזריה

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>A MAN MAY DEVOTE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. XXVII, 28. Whatever was devoted was considered most holy, whilst still in the owner's house, but became profane as soon as it reached the priests. Anything devoted could be neither redeemed nor sold. Ibid. 29.');">²</span>

מה אם לגבוה אין אדם רשאי להחרים כל נכסיו על אחת כמה וכמה שיהא אדם חס על נכסיו:

[PART] OF HIS FLOCK OR OF HIS HERD, OF HIS CANAANITE MANSERVANTS OR MAID SERVANTS OR OF HIS FIELD OF POSSESSION.

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מנא הני מילי

BUT IF HE DEVOTED THE WHOLE OF THEM, THEY ARE NOT CONSIDERED [VALIDLY] DEVOTED.

דתנו רבנן

THIS IS THE VIEW OF R'ELIEZER'R'ELEAZAR B. AZARYAH SAID: IF, EVEN TO THE HIGHEST, NO ONE IS PERMITTED TO DEVOTE ALL HIS POSSESSIONS, HOW MUCH MORE SHOULD ONE BE [CAREFUL ABOUT] SPARING IN REGARD TO ONE'S POSSESSIONS.

(ויקרא כז, כח) מכל אשר לו ולא כל אשר לו מאדם ולא כל אדם מבהמה ולא כל בהמה משדה אחוזה ולא כל שדה אחוזה

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Whence do we know these things? - Because our Rabbis taught: Of all that he hath,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 165, n. 5.');">³</span>

יכול לא יחרים ואם החרים יהו מוחרמין

i.e., but not 'all that he has'; of man,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 165, n. 5.');">³</span>

ת"ל

but not 'all man'; or [of] beast,' but not 'all beast'; of the field of his possession,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 165, n. 5.');">³</span>

אך דברי רבי אליעזר

but not 'all the field of his possession'.

אמר ר"א בן עזריה

One might have assumed that he may not at the outset devote [the whole], but if he had done so, it should be [considered validly] devoted, therefore it is said: Notwithstanding.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 165, n. 5.');">³</span>

מה אם לגבוה אין אדם רשאי להחרים כל נכסיו על אחת כמה וכמה שיהא אדם חס על נכסיו

These are the words of R'Eliezer.

וצריכא דאי כתב רחמנא

R'Eleazar B'Azaryah said: If, even to the highest, no one is permitted to devote all his possessions, how much more should one be sparing in regard to his possessions! And all [the details] are necessary.

מכל אשר לו הוה אמינא

For if the Divine Law had but written: 'Of all that he hath', might have said: He may not devote all that he has but of one kind he may devote all [objects].

כל דאית ליה לא לחרים אבל מין אחד ליחרמיה כוליה כתב רחמנא

Therefore the Divine Law said: 'Of man', i.e., but not 'all man'.

מאדם ולא כל אדם

And if the Divine Law had but written: 'of man', [I would have said]: Because without labour none can manage,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without servants, who do one's work, one cannot live. But one may rent out fields for labour, with part of the crop belonging to the tiller thereof.');">⁴</span>

ואי כתב רחמנא מאדם דלא סגיא ליה בלא עבודה אבל שדה סגיא ליה בדיסתורן

but [in the case of] a field he can still make a livin by working as a serf, [therefore it stated: 'of the field of his possession'].

ואי אשמעינן הני תרתי משום דהכא חיותא והכא חיותא אבל מטלטלין ליחרמינהו כולהו צריכי

And if [the Divine Law] had taugh us about these two, [I would have said: The reason in both these cases] is that each is vitally necessary, but as for movable property, let him be allowed to devote it all,' therefore it was necessary [to teach about that as well].

בהמה למה לי

Why was 'or beast' necessary? - In accordance with what was taught: One might have assumed that a man may devote his son or daughter, his Hebrew manservant or his field or purchase, therefore it is said: 'or beast', i.e., just as the beast is something he may sell, so [may he devote] only such things as he is permitted to sell.

לכדתניא

But as he is permitted to sell his minor daughter, I might therefore think that he can devote her as well, therefore it is said: 'or beast', i.e., just as a beast is something which he may sell for ever, [s he devote only such objects] as he is permitted to sell for ever.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Excluding his daughter, whom he may sell only whilst she is a minor.');">⁵</span>

יכול יחרים אדם בנו ובתו עבדו ושפחתו העבריים ושדה מקנתו

R'ELEAZAR B. AZARYAH SAID: IF EVEN TO THE HIGHEST NO ONE IS PERMITTED etc. But that is exactly what the first Tanna has said? - The difference between them is implied in what R'Ela said; for R'Ela said: In Usha they ordained that one who would distribute [his possessions] must not go beyond one fifth [of them].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Keth. 50a.');">⁶</span>

תלמוד לומר

It happened that one wanted to distribute more than one fifth, and his colleagues would not permit him to do so.

בהמה מה בהמה יש לו רשות למוכרה אף כל שיש לו רשות למוכרה

Who was that?

והלא בתו קטנה יש לו רשות למוכרה יכול יחרימנה

R'Yeshebab.

תלמוד לומר

Some say, it was R'Yeshebab who [wanted to distribute it] and his colleagues would not let him do so.

בהמה מה בהמה יש לו רשות למוכרה לעולם אף כל שיש לו רשות למוכרה לעולם:

Who was [chief among them]? - R'Akiba.

אמר רבי אלעזר בן עזריה

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF ONE DEVOTES HIS SON OR HIS DAUGHTER,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The minor children could be sold by their father only whilst they are minors. The Hebrew slave, manservant or maidservant, are the property of their owner only during a limited number of years. The field acquired by purchase, too, can be held only for a limited time, reverting, as it does to its original owner, in the year of Jubilee. Hence all these things or persons cannot be devoted, devotion implying in perpetuity.');">⁷</span>

אם לגבוה אין אדם רשאי כו':

OR HIS HEBREW MANSERVANT OR MAIDSERVANT, OR THE FIELD WHICH HE ACQUIRED BY PURCHASE, THEY ARE NOT CONSIDERED [VALIDLY] DEVOTED, FOR NONE CAN DEVOTE A THING WHICH DOES NOT BELONG TO HIM.

היינו ת"ק

PRIESTS AND LEVITES CANNOT DEVOTE [THEIR BELONGINGS].

איכא בינייהו דרבי אילא דאמר רבי אילא

THESE ARE THE WORDS OF R'JUDAH.

באושא התקינו המבזבז אל יבזבז יותר מחומש

R'SIMEON SAYS: THE PRIESTS CANNOT DEVOTE, BECAUSE THINGS DEVOTED BELONG TO THEM.

מעשה באחד שבקש לבזבז יותר מחומש ולא הניחו לו חבריו ומנו

BUT LEVITES CAN DEVOTE, BECAUSE THINGS DEVOTED DO NOT FALL TO THEM.

רבי ישבב

RABBI SAYS: THE WORDS OF R'JUDAH ARE ACCEPTABLE IN CASES OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AS IT IS SAID: FOR THAT IS THEIR PERPETUAL POSSESSION,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXV, 34.');">⁸</span>

ואמרי לה

AND THE WORDS OF R'SIMEON IN CASES OF MOVABLE PROPERTY, SINCE THINGS DEVOTED DO NOT FALL TO THEM.

רבי ישבב ולא הניחו לו חביריו ומנו

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>According to R'Judah, it is quite right that priests cannot devote, because all objects devoted fall to them.

רבי עקיבא:

But, touching Levites, granted they cannot devote immovable property, because it is written: 'For that is their perpetual possession but let them devote movable property? - Scripture said: 'Of all that he hath.

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> המחרים בנו ובתו ועבדו ושפחתו העברים ושדה מקנתו אין מוחרמין שאין אדם מחרים דבר שאינו שלו

or of the field of his possession', thus comparing movable property on the same level with immovable property.

הכהנים והלוים אין מחרימין דברי רבי יהודה

Now according to R'Simeon it is quite right [what he rules] about the priests, as we have [just] said.

ר"ש אומר

But touching the Levites, granted they can devote movable property, because he does not draw the [above] analogy; but why should they be able to devote immovable property; Surely it is written: 'For that is their perpetual possession'?

הכהנים אין מחרימין שהחרמין שלהן והלוים מחרימין שאין החרמין שלהן

What he means when he says LEVITES CAN DEVOTE is [that they can devote] movables.

אמר רבי

But surely the last part [of this Mishnah] reads: RABBI SAYS: THE WORDS OF R'JUDAH ARE ACCEPTABLE IN CASES OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY, AND THE WORDS OF R'SIMEON IN CASES OF MOVABLE PROPERTY; it follows that R'Simeon refers to immovable property too? - This is what he means: Rabbi said, The words of R'Judah are acceptable to R'Simeon in cases of immovable property, for R'Simeon disputes his view only in cases of movable property, but in cases of immovable property he consents.

נראין דברי רבי יהודה בקרקעות שנאמר

R'Hiyya B'Abin said: If one had devoted movable property he may give it to any priest he pleases, as it is said: Everything devoted in Israel

כי אחוזת עולם היא להם ודברי ר"ש במטלטלין שאין החרמין שלהן:

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ור' יהודה בשלמא כהנים אין מחרימין שחרמין שלהן אלא לוים בשלמא מקרקעי לא מחרמי דכתיב

כי אחוזת עולם היא להם אלא מטלטלי ליחרמי

אמר קרא

מכל אשר לו ומשדה אחוזתו מקיש מטלטלין לקרקעות

ורבי שמעון בשלמא כהנים כדאמרן

אלא לוים בשלמא מטלטלים לחרים דלא מקיש אלא מקרקעי אמאי

הכתיב

אחוזת עולם היא להם

מאי מחרימין נמי דקאמר מטלטלי

והא מדקתני סיפא אמר רבי

נראין דברי רבי יהודה במקרקעי ודברי רבי שמעון במטלטלי מכלל דרבי שמעון מקרקעי נמי קאמר

הכי קאמר אמר רבי

נראין דברי רבי יהודה לרבי שמעון בקרקעות שאף ר"ש לא נחלק [עליו] אלא במטלטלין אבל בקרקעות מודה ליה:

א"ר חייא בר אבין

החרים מטלטלין נותנן לכל כהן שירצה שנאמר

כל חרם בישראל