Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

Note that the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 258:13) and the Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 199:4) apply several of these principles with regard to pledges made to charity.

If such a sale were conducted between two private individuals, it would be nullified, because of the laws of ona’ah, taking unfair gain. For, as explained in Chapter 12, whenever an article is sold for less than five sixths of its worth, the sale is nullified.

Despite the fact that his commitment was not formalized with a kinyan or any act of contract.
The Kessef Mishneh explains that there are two dimensions to this concept:
a) that delineated by the Rambam in this halachah. In this instance, we can say that the person was giving a gift to the Temple treasury by selling the article for less than its worth;
b) an instance where the price of the article fluctuated, as delineated by the Rambam in the following halachah. In such an instance, even though the person did not desire to make a gift to the Temple treasury, he is bound by his commitment.

I.e., God. For an article consecrated to the Temple treasury is ultimately dedicated to God.

I.e., just as ownership of an object is transferred by its physical transfer to another colleague’s domain, so too, ownership is transferred to the Temple treasury by making a verbal statement alone.

The Maggid Mishneh asks the following question: Since a promise to the Temple treasury finalizes the sale of an article, why is it necessary for money to have changed hands?
He quotes the opinion of the Ramban and Tosafot (Kiddushin 28b) that in such a situation, a promise is not sufficient, and indeed, if money has not changed hands, if the price fluctuates the seller may retract. [See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 258:13).]
He states that the Rambam would not necessarily accept such a distinction and explains that according to the Rambam, the difference is that when a promise is made, the commitment is binding merely according to Rabbinic Law. When money changes hands, by contrast, it is binding according to Scriptural Law.

An ordinary person would have to receive the adjuration mi shepara in such a situation. Since that adjuration is not applied to the Temple treasury, the treasurer can thus retract without difficulty.
The Maggid Mishneh questions why the Temple treasurer is allowed to retract, citing Kiddushin 29a, which states that if a person gave money to the Temple treasury for an article, and then the value of the article increased, the Temple treasurer may not retract. The rationale is that in such an instance it would be appropriate for the adjuration mi shepara to be administered, and this is not appropriate for the Temple treasury. [Significantly, the Rambam himself quotes that law in Hilchot Arachin 7:12.] Seemingly, similar principles would apply in this instance, and since an ordinary person would be required to receive the adjuration mi shepara, the Temple treasurer should not be allowed to retract.
The Kessef Mishneh explains the Rambam’s decision, stating that the adjuration mi shepara is appropriate only when the sale of an article is completed by the transfer of money according to Scriptural Law. This does not apply when an article is purchased by the Temple treasury. In such an instance, the article must be physically transferred for the change in ownership to take effect. Therefore, if the treasurer retracts, the adjuration mi shepara is not appropriate.

Even according to Rabbinic Law, the sale of a consecrated article is finalized only through the transfer of money. Nevertheless, in this instance the person is obligated to carry out the transaction for the reason stated by the Rambam.

If the transaction involved an ordinary person, it would be finalized through meshichah, and it would be impossible to retract. Therefore, that same rule is applied to a transaction involving the Temple treasury.

There is no exact verse using the wording the Rambam cites. Commentaries have cited Leviticus 27:19: “And he shall add... the money and it will be established as his.” [Significantly, the Rambam’s words are a direct quote from Kiddushin 29a.]

An ordinary person would also not be required to receive the adjuration mi shepara under such circumstances. For meshichah finalizes a transaction, but never obligates the adjuration mi shepara. There are commentaries that suggest that placing this phrase here is a printing error, and its true position is at the end of the first clause of this halachah.
Further details with regard to the sale and purchase of property by the Temple treasury are found in Hilchot Arachin, Chapter 7.

This refers to orphans below the age of majority. Indeed, the Maggid Mishneh and several authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah include this concept in the Rambam’s words.

This is the only situation in which the laws applying to orphans differ from those applying to other individuals.

Hence, just as in a transaction conducted with an ordinary person, the purchaser may not retract because the transaction is finalized through meshichah, so too, he may not retract in a transaction involving orphans. The principle “property belonging to orphans can be acquired only through the transfer of money” was instituted for the orphans’ benefit, not for their harm (Tur, Choshen Mishpat 199).

In this situation, in contrast to others, however, the orphans are not required to receive the adjuration mi shepara for retracting. See Chapter 29, Halachah 8 and the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh.

The bracketed additions are made on the basis of the Tur (loc. cit.).

For it was finalized through meshichah.

One might say that they should be given this privilege, because according to Scriptural Law the transaction was not finalized. Nevertheless, they are not granted this privilege for the reasons the Rambam explains.

The orphans are not, however, required to receive the adjuration mi shepara for retracting, as others would.

I.e., we fear that the seller will lie and say the property was destroyed rather than take the loss.

Rashi (Gittin 52b) asks: Let us say that with regard to this factor, the produce will be considered to be remaining in the domain of the seller. Thus, if the seller claims that the object was destroyed, the orphans will not suffer a loss. He explains that since with regard to the profit, the transaction is considered to be completed, it cannot be considered to be unfinished with regard to the possibility of loss.
This principle does not apply with regard to the sale of consecrated property. For the responsibility for the article is always the seller’s. Thus, he is not given the potential to retract even if the price rises (Lechem Mishneh).

And thus, it is the transfer of money and not the transfer of the meat that completes the purchase.

The Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 199:3) states that similar principles apply with regard to a person who seeks to purchase wine on Friday. For at that time, wine is required by all.

The commentaries on Chulin 83b (the source for this halachah) explain that the meat is not as important a commodity on the first day of Sukkot, since the people are busy preparing their lulavim and sukkot, and they are therefore unable to be occupied with procuring and preparing meat. And the last day of Pesach is not considered to be as important a holiday as the others, as reflected in the fact that there was not a separate sacrificial offering designated for it.

It was rare that a single client would purchase an entire steer for meat. Instead, a butcher would divide an animal among several clients. In this instance, there were several clients who had purchased meat, but not enough to warrant the slaughter of an entire steer.
In that era there was no refrigeration, and meat would spoil if left unused. Therefore, the butcher would stand to suffer a substantial loss in such a situation. Nevertheless, because of the need for meat, our Sages required that he adhere to the requirements of Scriptural Law and deliver the meat he promised.

I.e., because the transaction is considered to be completed, and the animal is considered as being the property of the purchaser(s).

I.e., the butcher is allowed to keep the money that was given him.