Arakhin 28a — the Talmud in English

And we explain:

What are the circumstances? For they said

at the outset

twenty-one

—so that the measure of the fifth comes to five sela and one dinar [for the sela is four dinars], and when you add it to the twenty-six at which this one raised it, it comes to thirty-one and one dinar. In this manner

the owners take precedence

and are compelled to redeem it for thirty-one and one dinar, for the measure of the principal together with the fifth which they initially proposed comes to twenty-six and one dinar—which is more than the twenty-six stated by the second—and in such a manner the owners are always obligated to redeem. Therefore, they raise the principal to the amount raised by the second, add a fifth of what they initially proposed, and redeem it.

But if not

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

he says to him: You have reached my offer.

Mishna:

A person may declare as herem

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

what we have found

and inspected,

and part of

his Canaanite slaves and maidservants, and

part of

the field of his ancestral holding. But if he declares all of them as herem

that he had, whether a person, or an animal, or a field of an ancestral holding,

they are not

declared herem

17, these are the words of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said: If, with regard to what is devoted to the Most High

the heramim that are

for the Most High

[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 as herem,

how much more so must a person be obligated to have concern for his property,

so that he will not spend for an ordinary purpose—even for the poor—more than a fifth of his property.

Gemara:

From where are these words

that he should not declare all of them as herem?

And we answer:

For the Sages taught:

It is written: “However, every herem that a person declares as herem to the Lord, from all that is his, from a person, an animal, and from the field of his ancestral holding, etc.; every herem is most holy to the Lord,” and they expound:

“from all that is his” -

but not all that is his; “from a person”

—which indicates that he may declare part of a person as herem—

but not every person; “from an animal”

—he may declare

but not every animal, [and there are those who do not read the exclusion “from an animal”].

“From the field” of an ancestral holding

—but not every field of an ancestral holding. One might have thought that he may not declare it, but if he declared it, it would be declared as herem. The verse states: “However, every herem,”

to exclude: there is a herem that does not take effect, for “however” and “every” are exclusions—

the words of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said: If, with regard to the Most High, a person is not permitted to declare all his property as herem, how much more so must a person be obligated to have concern for his property.

And we explain:

And it is necessary

to state all the expositions that he cannot declare everything as herem:

For if the Torah had written

only

“from all that is his,”

which implies but not all that is his,

I would have said: Whatever he possesses

of all the species, all of them together,

he may not declare as herem, but one species

such as people, or animals, or a field, was not excluded; and if so,

let him declare all of it as herem.

Therefore

the Torah wrote: “from a person,”

to exclude:

but not every person. And if the Torah had written “from a person”

alone, we would have said: Specifically, he may not declare all his slaves as herem, because

he cannot manage without it

[it is not sufficient for him]

without the labor

of his slaves, and therefore he may not declare all of them as herem.

But a field,

we would have said that he may declare all of them as herem, and if it is because he needs a field for his livelihood,

it is sufficient for him

to receive a field

through a sharecropper

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

And if it had informed us

only about

a field

that he may not declare all of it as herem, we would have said: Specifically, he may not declare an entire field as herem

because of its produce

[the produce that it produces],

but a person

he may declare entirely as herem; and if it is because he needs him for his work,

a servant is sufficient for him

[a household servant]

alone,

therefore the Torah wrote: “from a person,” but not every person.

And if it had informed us

only about

these two

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

Because

of this he may not declare them as herem,

for here,

with regard to a person, there is

life, and here,

with regard to a field, there is

life,

for a person lives from both of them, [and if he declares them all as herem, good alternative slaves are not constantly available to buy—Rabbeinu Gershom];

but movable property

—for it is readily possible to buy others in place of those he declared as herem—

let him declare all of them as herem.

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

but not all that is his, from movable property; and all of them 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 as herem his son

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

which he bought from the owner of the ancestral holding and which returns to the owner of the ancestral holding at the Jubilee?

The verse states: “animal,”

and they expound:

Just as an animal, he has permission to sell it, so too everything that he has permission to sell,

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

And

is it not the case that his minor daughter, whom he has permission to sell

as a Hebrew maidservant,

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

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

We learned in the Mishna:

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

to declare all his property as herem, how much more so must a person be obligated to have concern for his property.

And we wonder: But the words of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya

are

the words of

the first tanna

as well, for the first tanna also said that if he declared all of them as herem, they are not declared as herem [Rabbeinu Gershom]; and in what do they disagree?!

And we answer:

There is a difference between them:

the words of

Rabbi Ila, for Rabbi Ila said: In Usha they instituted

the Sanhedrin, when they were exiled there:

One who spends

for the poor

should not spend more than a fifth

of his property, so that he will not need to depend on people [Rabbeinu Gershom]. And Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya holds like Rabbi Ila, but the first tanna, who did not say, “a person should have concern for his property” [Rabbeinu Gershom], disagrees with Rabbi Ila, and even a great amount he may spend, provided that he leaves a little for himself, as with herem.

An incident occurred involving one who sought to spend more than a fifth, but his colleagues did not allow him, and who were they?

[Who were they?]

Rabbi Yishvav!

And some say

[and there are those who say] that

Rabbi Yishvav

sought to spend,

but his colleagues did not allow him; and who were they? Rabbi Akiva!

Mishna:

One who declares as herem his son, his daughter, his Hebrew slave and maidservant, and the field that he acquired

24, they are not declared as herem! For a person does not declare as herem something that is not

Коэны и левиты не посвящают имущество в качестве херема — таково мнение рабби Йеуды. Рабби Шимон говорит: коэны не посвящают имущество в качестве херема, поскольку херемы принадлежат им : херем передается коэнам, и даже если коэн посвятит имущество в качестве херема, он сам получит его. Поэтому в его хереме нет пользы.

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 priests and Levites do not declare as herem, the words of Rabbi Judah.

Rabbi Shimon says: The priests do not declare as herem

since

the heramim are theirs,

for the herem is given to the priests, and even if they declare something as herem, they themselves acquire it; it follows that there is no benefit in their herem.

And the Levites do declare as herem

since

the heramim are not theirs,

for it is given to the priests.

Rabbi said: The words of Rabbi Judah appear—

that even the Levites do not declare as herem—

with regard to land, as it is stated

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

“For a holding

forever it is for them,”

and they should not declare them as herem.

And the words of Rabbi Shimon

—who says that the Levites do declare as herem—appear

with regard to movable property,

since

the heramim are not theirs,

unlike the priests.

Gemara:

And we wonder:

And Rabbi Judah,

who holds that the Levites do not declare anything as herem—what is his reason?

Granted, the priests do not declare as herem

since

the heramim are theirs. But the Levites,

what is the reason?

Granted, they do not declare land as herem, for it is written: “For a holding forever it is for them.” But movable property—let them declare it as herem!

And we answer:

The verse says:

“However, every herem that is declared as herem, etc.,

from all that is his,

that is, movable property, etc.,

and from the field of his ancestral holding”; it compares movable property to land.

Just as the Levites do not declare land as herem, so too they do not declare movable property as herem.

We further wonder:

And Rabbi Shimon,

who holds that the priests do not declare as herem while the Levites declare everything as herem,

granted, the priests

do not declare as herem

as we said,

because the heramim are theirs;

but the Levites,

why do they declare everything as herem?

Granted, movable property—to declare it as herem

[it is understandable that he can declare it as herem],

for he does not compare

Rabbi Shimon movable property to land, and there is no source that he may not declare it as herem.

But

with regard to

land,

it is difficult:

why

does he declare it as herem?

Is it not written: “For a holding forever it is for them”?!

And we answer:

What is the meaning of “‘And the Levites

“and the Levites

do declare as herem”?

Also

—that Rabbi Shimon said in our Mishna—

movable property

is what they declare as herem, but not land.

And we wonder:

But since it teaches

in the

last clause

of the Mishna:

“Rabbi said: The words of Rabbi Judah appear with regard to land, and the words of Rabbi Shimon with regard to movable property,”

and from the fact that it needed to add the word “with regard to movable property,” it implies that it came to say that Rabbi Shimon’s words do not appear with regard to land;

by inference, Rabbi Shimon

himself

also speaks of land?!

And we answer:

This is what Rabbi said:

Rabbi

the words of Rabbi Judah appear

that the Levites declare as herem

to Rabbi Shimon with regard to land, for even Rabbi Shimon disagreed with him only with regard to movable property, but with regard to land he concedes to him

Rabbi Shimon concedes to Rabbi Judah; and what we said, “and the words of Rabbi Shimon with regard to movable property,” means: Rabbi Shimon’s words were stated only with regard to movable property.

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

the one who declares it as herem

to any priest he wishes,

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