ב"ה

Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 5

Show content in:

Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 5

1

When a person consecrates his ancestral field, it is a mitzvah for him to redeem it, for the owner receives priority.1 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.2 For if the Jubilee arrives and he does not redeem it, it will be expropriated for the sake of the priests, as we explained.3 In the era when the Jubilee has been nullified4 and it is not expropriated for the sake of the priests, but instead will ultimately be redeemed, we compel5 the owner to make an initial bid6 and it is redeemed for its worth7 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.8

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:

2

If 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.9 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.10 This is the greater stringency that applies with regard to ordinary property [and not] to the Temple treasury.

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:

3

When a person consecrates his home,11 a non-kosher12 animal,13 or other property, they are evaluated for their worth, whether it be high or low.14 If the person who consecrated them, his wife, or his heirs15 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.16

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:

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.17 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.18

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:

5

When a person consecrates an unblemished19 kosher animal for the sake of improvements to the Temple,20 he has transgressed a positive commandment.21 [Nevertheless,] the deed he performed is of consequence and sanctity is conveyed upon [the animal]. It is redeemed even though it is unblemished.22 The priest establishes its worth,23 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.24 [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.

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:

6

What 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,25 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., it26 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.27

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:

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 offerings28 and offered as burnt offerings. The females29 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].

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:

8

When 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.30

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:

9

Why 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?31 [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.32 When, by contrast, fine flour, wine, oil, and doves become unfit [for the altar], there is no concept of redeeming them.33 [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.

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:

10

When 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,34 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.35

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:

11

When a person consecrates an unblemished animal [as a sacrifice to be offered on] the altar and it became blemished36 and was disqualified, it should be evaluated and redeemed. Concerning this, [Leviticus 27:11] states: "When any impure animal37 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.

יא

הַמַּקְדִּישׁ 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:

12

Whenever 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,38 it was consecrated to be offered on the altar and it became blemished,39 or it is an unblemished animal which is fit to be offered as a sacrifice as will be explained,40 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.41 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.

יב

כָּל 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:

13

[In the above situation,] if one slaughtered [the animal, slitting] the two organs42 [necessary for the slaughter to be acceptable] or slit the majority of these organs43 but the animal is still making convulsive movements, it is considered as alive with regard to all matters.44 It may be evaluated and [the provisions implied by the phrases:] "You shall have.... stand and... shall evaluate" apply until it dies.45

יג

שָׁחַט בָּהּ שְׁנַיִם אוֹ רֹב שְׁנַיִם וַעֲדַיִן הִיא מְפַרְכֶּסֶת הֲרֵי הִיא כְּחַיָּה לְכָל דְּבָרֶיהָ וְנֶעֱרֶכֶת וַהֲרֵי הִיא בִּכְלַל וְהֶעֱמִיד וְהֶעֱרִיךְ עַד שֶׁתָּמוּת:

14

When a person consecrates the worth of an unblemished animal,46 the body of the animal becomes consecrated.47 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?48 Therefore it should be sacrificed and not redeemed.

יד

הַמַּקְדִּישׁ 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:

15

What should be done?49 We sell it in its entirety to a person who will offer it as a sacrifice.50 The proceeds of the sale are not consecrated with the exception of those of that particular limb.51 If the limb or organ [consecrated] was of vital importance [to the animal], the sanctity [is considered to] spread throughout the entire animal.52

טו

וכֵּיצַד עוֹשִׂין. מוֹכְרִין אוֹתָהּ כֻּלָּהּ לְמִי שֶׁיַּקְרִיב אוֹתָהּ. וְדָמֶיהָ חֻלִּין חוּץ מִדְּמֵי אוֹתוֹ אֵיבָר. וְאִם הָיָה אֵיבָר שֶׁהַנְּשָׁמָה תְּלוּיָה בּוֹ פָּשְׁטָה קְדֻשָּׁה בְּכֻלָּהּ:

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.53

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.54

טז

הָיְתָה 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:

17

Similarly, 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].55 Similarly, if he says: 'My head is consecrated to the altar,' he is liable only for the worth of his head.56 We see how much that limb or organ is worth and he must bring a sacrifice for that amount.

יז

וְכֵן 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:

18

When 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,'57 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.58

יח

בַּמֶּה 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:

19

When a person says: 'I pledge my airech to the altar,' he must bring sacrifices of the value of his airech.59 If he is not financially capable of giving his entire airech,60 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?61

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 it62 or should it be redeemed according to its value, since he made his vow to the altar?63 In all these and similar instances, we rule stringently.64

יט

הָאוֹמֵר 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:

Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved.
To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.
The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard.
Vowelized Hebrew text courtesy Torat Emet under CC 2.5 license.

Footnotes
1.

Arachin 27a derives this concept from the exegesis of Leviticus 27:27.

2.

See 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.

3.

Chapter 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.

4.

As evident from Chapter 8, Halachah 8, this refers to a time when the Temple is standing, but the Jubilee year is no longer observed.

5.

Were 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.

6.

The 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).

7.

I.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.

8.

For anything less than a p'rutah is not financially significant.

9.

Since 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).

10.

In which instance, these restrictions do apply. See Hilchot Shemitah ViYoval 11:17-18; 12:2.

11.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 116) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 354) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

12.

The laws involving kosher animals are found in Halachot 5-7.

13.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 115) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 353) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

14.

This - and not a standard value - is what the person must pay. The Torah established a standard value only for humans and fields.

15.

See Chapter 4, Halachah 5, and notes.

16.

I.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.

17.

I.e., it does not return to the original owner in the Jubilee. It is as if the purchaser acquired the field from the owner.

18.

As would be the law had he purchased it from him directly.

19.

I.e., were the animal to have a blemish that disqualifies it from being offered as a sacrifice, these laws would not apply.

20.

As obvious from Halachah 7, this applies when he explicitly states that he is consecrating it for this purpose.

21.

As stated in the following halachah.

22.

In contrast to an animal consecrated as a sacrifice which is redeemed only when it is blemished. See Halachah 11.

23.

See 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.

24.

I.e., depending on the type and gender of the animal it is fitting for some sacrifices and not others.

25.

See temurah 7b.

26.

A blemished animal like those mentioned in the verse.

27.

I.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.

28.

Although they could also be used for other types of sacrifices, it is preferable to offer them as burnt offerings.

29.

Which may not be brought as burnt offerings.

30.

The 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.

31.

As stated in Halachah 7.

32.

See Halachah 11.

33.

The 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.

34.

As 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.

35.

I.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.

36.

I.e., a blemish that will not become healed (Radbaz).

37.

Bechorot 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.

38.

As explained in Halachah 5.

39.

After 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.

40.

Some 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.

41.

For 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.

42.

The windpipe and the esophagus. These are referred to as 'the signs' of ritual slaughter. See Hilchot Shechitah 1:9.

43.

For that is sufficient for the slaughter to be acceptable (ibid.).

44.

Note a similar ruling in Hilchot Shaar Avot HaTumah 2:1.

45.

The 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).

46.

I.e., the person desired that the animal be sold and the proceeds used to purchase an animal to be sacrificed.

47.

Since the animal is fit to be sacrificed, it is dedicated to the altar and should be sacrificed itself (Temura 19b).

48.

Based 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.

49.

For 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).

50.

As 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.

51.

We 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.

52.

Since the animal could not live without that limb, consecrating it is equivalent to consecrating the entire animal.

53.

Since the animal is unfit to be sacrificed, we do not say that the sanctity spread throughout the entire animal.

54.

The animal should be sold and the proceeds from the sale of that limb or organ used to purchase a burnt offering.

55.

Since neither a donkey or a servant is fit to offer on the altar, the principles mentioned in the previous halachah apply.

56.

The 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.

57.

I.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.

58.

Since 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.

59.

I.e., the fixed amount required by Torah law, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 3.

60.

In 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.

61.

And there are no other instances where a pledge to the altar can be fulfilled by giving less that the article's worth (Arachin 5a).

62.

A shekel and a pundiyon for each year until the Jubilee, as stated in Chapter 4, Halachot 2, 5.

63.

And there are no other instances where a pledge to the altar can be fulfilled by giving less that the article's worth (Arachin 5a).

64.

And 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.

Test Yourself on This Chapter

Footnotes
1.

Arachin 27a derives this concept from the exegesis of Leviticus 27:27.

2.

See 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.

3.

Chapter 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.

4.

As evident from Chapter 8, Halachah 8, this refers to a time when the Temple is standing, but the Jubilee year is no longer observed.

5.

Were 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.

6.

The 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).

7.

I.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.

8.

For anything less than a p'rutah is not financially significant.

9.

Since 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).

10.

In which instance, these restrictions do apply. See Hilchot Shemitah ViYoval 11:17-18; 12:2.

11.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 116) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 354) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

12.

The laws involving kosher animals are found in Halachot 5-7.

13.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 115) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 353) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

14.

This - and not a standard value - is what the person must pay. The Torah established a standard value only for humans and fields.

15.

See Chapter 4, Halachah 5, and notes.

16.

I.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.

17.

I.e., it does not return to the original owner in the Jubilee. It is as if the purchaser acquired the field from the owner.

18.

As would be the law had he purchased it from him directly.

19.

I.e., were the animal to have a blemish that disqualifies it from being offered as a sacrifice, these laws would not apply.

20.

As obvious from Halachah 7, this applies when he explicitly states that he is consecrating it for this purpose.

21.

As stated in the following halachah.

22.

In contrast to an animal consecrated as a sacrifice which is redeemed only when it is blemished. See Halachah 11.

23.

See 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.

24.

I.e., depending on the type and gender of the animal it is fitting for some sacrifices and not others.

25.

See temurah 7b.

26.

A blemished animal like those mentioned in the verse.

27.

I.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.

28.

Although they could also be used for other types of sacrifices, it is preferable to offer them as burnt offerings.

29.

Which may not be brought as burnt offerings.

30.

The 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.

31.

As stated in Halachah 7.

32.

See Halachah 11.

33.

The 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.

34.

As 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.

35.

I.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.

36.

I.e., a blemish that will not become healed (Radbaz).

37.

Bechorot 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.

38.

As explained in Halachah 5.

39.

After 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.

40.

Some 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.

41.

For 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.

42.

The windpipe and the esophagus. These are referred to as 'the signs' of ritual slaughter. See Hilchot Shechitah 1:9.

43.

For that is sufficient for the slaughter to be acceptable (ibid.).

44.

Note a similar ruling in Hilchot Shaar Avot HaTumah 2:1.

45.

The 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).

46.

I.e., the person desired that the animal be sold and the proceeds used to purchase an animal to be sacrificed.

47.

Since the animal is fit to be sacrificed, it is dedicated to the altar and should be sacrificed itself (Temura 19b).

48.

Based 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.

49.

For 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).

50.

As 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.

51.

We 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.

52.

Since the animal could not live without that limb, consecrating it is equivalent to consecrating the entire animal.

53.

Since the animal is unfit to be sacrificed, we do not say that the sanctity spread throughout the entire animal.

54.

The animal should be sold and the proceeds from the sale of that limb or organ used to purchase a burnt offering.

55.

Since neither a donkey or a servant is fit to offer on the altar, the principles mentioned in the previous halachah apply.

56.

The 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.

57.

I.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.

58.

Since 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.

59.

I.e., the fixed amount required by Torah law, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 3.

60.

In 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.

61.

And there are no other instances where a pledge to the altar can be fulfilled by giving less that the article's worth (Arachin 5a).

62.

A shekel and a pundiyon for each year until the Jubilee, as stated in Chapter 4, Halachot 2, 5.

63.

And there are no other instances where a pledge to the altar can be fulfilled by giving less that the article's worth (Arachin 5a).

64.

And 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.

The Mishneh Torah was the Rambam's (Rabbi Moses ben Maimon) magnum opus, a work spanning hundreds of chapters and describing all of the laws mentioned in the Torah. To this day it is the only work that details all of Jewish observance, including those laws which are only applicable when the Holy Temple is in place. Participating in one of the annual study cycles of these laws (3 chapters/day, 1 chapter/day, or Sefer Hamitzvot) is a way we can play a small but essential part in rebuilding the final Temple.
Download Rambam Study Schedules: 3 Chapters | 1 Chapter | Daily Mitzvah
Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved.
To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.
The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard.
Vowelized Hebrew text courtesy Torat Emet under CC 2.5 license.
The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard.