Arakhin 28a (כח.) — the Talmud in English

And we explain:

What are the circumstances? That they said

initially

twenty-one

so that the amount of the additional fifth comes to five sela and one dinar [as a sela is four dinars], and when this is added to the twenty-six that he raised, it comes to thirty-one sela and one dinar. In such a case,

the owners have precedence

and are compelled to redeem it for thirty-one sela and one dinar, since the value of the principal together with the additional fifth that they initially bid comes to twenty-six sela and one dinar—which is more than the twenty-six bid by the second person. In such a case, the owners are always obligated to redeem it. Therefore, the principal is raised to the amount bid by the second person, and an additional fifth is added to the amount of their initial bid, and they redeem it.

But if not

that they did not begin with twenty-one, but with twenty, as in the other case in the Mishna,

he says to him: It is yours.

Mishna:

A person may declare as herem

by saying, “This is herem” [and giving it to the kohanim] part of

what we find

and inspect,

and part

of his slaves and his Canaanite maidservants, and

part

of his ancestral field. But if he declared all of them herem,

all that he possessed, whether people, animals, or an ancestral field,

they are not

declared herem

17 , this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said: If

herem offerings that are

for the Most High [as they are sanctified with intrinsic sanctity until they are given to a kohen, Tosafot]

[for they are sacred with bodily sanctity until they are given to a priest, Tosafot]

a person is not permitted to declare all his property herem,

all the more so a person must be concerned for his property

and not give away for ordinary purposes—even to the poor—more than a fifth of his property.

Gemara:

From where are these matters

that he may not declare all of it herem

derived?

As the Sages taught:

It is written: “But any herem that a person declares as herem to the Lord, from all that is his, whether from people, animals, or from the field of his ancestral property, etc.; every herem is most holy to the Lord.” And they expound:

“From all that is his” -

but not all that is his; “from people”

and this indicates that he may declare part of his people herem—

but not every person; “from animals”

he may declare

but not every animal [some versions do not have the exclusion “from animals”].

“From the field” of his ancestral property—

but not every ancestral field. One might have thought that he may not declare it herem, but if he did declare it, it would be herem. Therefore, the verse states: “But any herem,”

to exclude: there is a herem that does not take effect, as “but” and “only” are restrictive terms.

This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said: If, for the Most High, a person is not permitted to declare all his property herem, all the more so a person must be concerned for his property.

And we explain:

And it is necessary

to state all the exclusions indicating that he cannot declare everything herem.

For had the Merciful One written

only

“from all that is his,”

which indicates but not all that is his,

I would have said: Whatever he possesses

from all the different categories, he may not declare all of them together

but one species

such as people, animals, or fields, would not have been excluded; and if so,

let him declare it all herem.

Therefore

the Merciful One wrote: “from people,”

to exclude:

but not every person. And had the Merciful One written “from people”

alone, we would have said that specifically all his slaves may not be declared herem, because

he cannot manage

without the labor

of his slaves,

and therefore he may not declare them all herem;

but a field

we would have said he may declare all of them herem, and as for the fact that he needs a field for his livelihood,

it is sufficient for him

to receive a field

as a tenant farmer

[under a sharecropping arrangement] and receive half, a third, or a quarter of its produce. Therefore the Torah wrote: “from the field,” to exclude: but not every ancestral field.

And had it informed us

only about

a field,

that he may not declare all of it herem, we would have said: Specifically a field may he not declare entirely herem

because of its produce

[which it produces],

but a person

he may declare entirely herem; and as for the fact that he needs someone for his work,

a mere servant is sufficient for him

[a personal attendant]

in general.

Therefore the Torah wrote: “from people,” but not every person.

And had it informed us

only about

these two

[people and a field], that he may not declare all of them herem, and “from all that is his” had not been written, we would have said:

Because

he may not declare them herem

here

with regard to a person:

his livelihood, and here

with regard to a field:

his livelihood,

for a person derives his livelihood from both of them [and if he declared them all herem, other good slaves would not always be available to purchase—Rabbeinu Gershom];

but movable property

which makes it possible to purchase others in place of those he declared herem—Rabbeinu Gershom],

let him declare all of it herem.

Therefore the Torah wrote: “from all that is his” -

but not all that is his movable property, and all of these teachings

are necessary.

And we challenge:

Why do I need “animal”?

And we answer:

For that which was taught: One might have thought that a person may declare his son

21 , his daughter, his Hebrew slave or maidservant, and a field that he acquired

which he purchased from the owner of the ancestral property and which returns to the owner of the ancestral property at the Jubilee?

The verse states: “animal,”

and they expound:

Just as with an animal he has permission to sell it, so too, anything that he has permission to sell.

This excludes his son and his Hebrew slave, whom he cannot sell, [and it excludes an acquired field, which he cannot sell in perpetuity, since it returns to the owners of the ancestral property at the Jubilee—Rabbeinu Gershom].

And

what of his minor daughter, whom he has permission to sell

as a Hebrew maidservant—

might he be able to declare her herem? The verse states: “animal”: Just as with an animal he has permission to sell it forever, so too, anything that he has permission to sell forever

to exclude his daughter, whom he may sell only while she is a minor, but not once she has matured—Rabbeinu Gershom.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said: If, for the Most High, a person is not permitted

to declare all his property herem, all the more so a person must be concerned for his property.

And we wonder: The statement of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya

is identical to

the statement of

the first tanna,

as the first tanna also said that if he declared everything herem, it is not declared herem [Rabbeinu Gershom]. In what do they disagree?!

And we answer:

There is a difference between them:

the matter of

Rabbi Ila, for Rabbi Ila said: In Usha the Sages instituted

when the Sanhedrin were exiled there:

One who distributes

to the poor

may not distribute more than a fifth

of his property, lest he become dependent upon others [Rabbeinu Gershom]. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya agrees with Rabbi Ila, but the first tanna, who did not say “a person must be concerned for his property” [Rabbeinu Gershom], disagrees with Rabbi Ila. According to him, one may distribute even a large amount, provided that he leaves himself a small amount, as with a herem.

There was an incident involving one who wished to distribute more than a fifth, but his colleagues did not allow him, and who were

[these colleagues]?

Rabbi Yishavav!

And some say

[that there are those who say] that

Rabbi Yishavav

wished to distribute,

but his colleagues did not allow him. And who was he? Rabbi Akiva!

Mishna:

One who declares his son, his daughter, his Hebrew slave or maidservant, or his acquired field herem

24 , they are not declared herem, for a person cannot declare as herem something that is not

his,

and his son and daughter are not his, while his slave and maidservant and his acquired field are not considered his, since they leave him at the Jubilee—Rabbeinu Gershom.

The kohanim and the Levites may not declare property herem; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Shimon says: The kohanim may not declare property herem

because

the herem offerings belong to them,

as the herem is given to the kohanim, and even if they declare property herem, they themselves will acquire it; consequently, there is no benefit in their herem.

But the Levites may declare property herem,

because

the herem offerings do not belong to them,

as they are given to the kohanim.

Rabbi says: The statement of Rabbi Yehuda appears correct—

that even the Levites may not declare property herem—

with regard to land, as it is stated

concerning the cities of the Levites that they received in the Land:

“For it is an inheritance

of perpetuity for them,”

and they may not declare them herem.

And the statement of Rabbi Shimon—

that the Levites may declare property herem—appears correct

with regard to movable property,

because

the herem offerings do not belong to them,

unlike the kohanim.

Gemara:

And we wonder:

And Rabbi Yehuda,

who maintains that the Levites may not declare anything herem—what is his reason?

Granted, the kohanim may not declare property herem

because

the herem offerings belong to them. But the Levites,

what is the reason?

Granted, they may not declare land herem, as it is written: “For it is an inheritance of perpetuity for them.” But movable property—may they not declare it herem?!

And we answer:

The verse states:

“Yet any herem that is declared herem, etc.,

from all that is his

that is, movable property, etc.,

and from the field of his ancestral property.” “It juxtaposes movable property with land:

just as the Levites may not declare land herem, so too they may not declare movable property herem.

We further wonder:

And Rabbi Shimon,

who maintains that the kohanim may not declare property herem but the Levites may declare everything herem—

granted, the kohanim

may not declare property herem

as we said,

because the herem offerings belong to them.

But the Levites,

why may they declare everything herem?

Granted, movable property may be declared herem

[it is understandable that he may declare it herem],

because he does not juxtapose

movable property with land, and there is no source that he may not declare it herem.

But

land,

this is difficult:

why

may he declare it herem?

Is it not written: “For it is an inheritance of perpetuity for them”?!

And we answer:

What does

“and the Levites

may declare property herem” mean?

Also

as Rabbi Shimon says in our Mishna—

movable property

is what they may declare herem, but not land.

And we wonder:

But since it teaches

in the

conclusion

of the Mishna:

“Rabbi says: The statement of Rabbi Yehuda appears correct with regard to land, and the statement of Rabbi Shimon with regard to movable property”—

and since it was necessary to add the word “with regard to movable property,” this indicates that he intended to say that Rabbi Shimon’s statement does not appear correct with regard to land;

by inference, Rabbi Shimon

himself

actually said it even with regard to land?!

And we answer:

This is what

Rabbi

said: The statement of Rabbi Yehuda

that the Levites may declare property herem

appears correct to Rabbi Shimon with regard to land, for Rabbi Shimon disagreed with him only with regard to movable property, but with regard to land Rabbi Shimon agrees with him.

And what we said, “and the statement of Rabbi Shimon with regard to movable property,” means that Rabbi Shimon’s statement applies only to movable property.

Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin said: One who declares movable property herem gives it

the person declaring it herem

to any kohen he wishes,

like teruma, which is given to any kohen whom the owners wish, and not like offerings, which are given to the priestly watch serving in the Temple at that time,