Arakhin 28b (כח:) — the Talmud in English

as it is stated: “Every herem in Israel

shall be yours [

to Aaron]

.”

This indicates Aaron and all his descendants—not specifically the priests of that particular watch. However,

one who declares his fields herem gives them to a priest—

that is, to all the priests—

who are in that watch

serving in the Temple at that time,

as it is stated

with regard to an ancestral field consecrated property that goes to the priests at the Jubilee:

“As a field declared herem, so shall its ancestral property be for a priest,” and the term “for a priest”

stated here, concerning the person to whom the herem field and the ancestral field are given, is derived by means of a gzera shava

from “for a priest” in the case of a convert’s stolen property [

who died without heirs to whom the money he had denied to the convert through a false oath could be returned. And the Torah states that the principal and the additional one-fifth— which anyone who denied owing money through a false oath and then admitted must give to the person from whom he denied it or to his heirs—are to be given to the priests, as it is written: “The guilt offering returned to the Lord, to the priest.”] Just as a convert’s stolen property is given to the priest of that watch, so too, in the case of a field declared herem, the priests of that watch acquire it.

And we raise the following question:

there

in the case of a convert’s stolen property,

from where do we know

that it is given to the priests of that watch?

And we explain:

as it was taught:

It is written: “And if a man has no redeemer [this is a convert who has no relatives who can redeem], to restore the guilt offering [this is the money he owes] to him, the guilt offering [this is the principal] that is returned [this is the additional one-fifth

to the Lord, to the priest]]

apart from the ram of the atonement, with which atonement is made for him.” And the beraita interprets it:

“The Lord has acquired it and given it to the priest of that watch.” You say that it is given to the priest of that watch, or perhaps it is given to any priest whom the one who denied the debt wishes

to give it to?

When it says: “Apart from the ram of the atonement, with which atonement is made for him,”

which indicates that he gives the money to that same priest to whom the guilt offering is given,

it is

necessarily established that

the verse is speaking of the priest of that watch,

just as the guilt offering is given to him.

Rav Hiyya bar Avin further said:

a field

of ancestral property that was consecrated [

and its owners did not redeem it],

which goes to the priests at the Jubilee is given to the watch of the priests serving in the Temple

that the Day of Atonement

encountered of the

Jubilee.

a. It is written [Leviticus 25:8–10]: “And you shall count for yourself seven sabbatical periods of years, seven years seven times; and the days of the seven sabbatical periods of years shall be for you forty-nine years.”

“Then you shall sound the blast of the shofar, and so on; on the Day of Atonement you shall sound the shofar throughout your land.”

“And you shall sanctify the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants [this is the mitzva of freeing Hebrew slaves at the Jubilee]. It shall be a Jubilee for you, and you shall return each man to his ancestral property [this is the mitzva of returning a sold ancestral field at the Jubilee], and each man shall return to his family.”

And we learned in Rosh HaShana 8b: “It was taught: ‘And you shall sanctify the fiftieth year’—what does this teach? Since it is stated: ‘[Then you shall sound the blast of the shofar, and so on,] on the Day of Atonement,’ one might have thought that the Jubilee year is sanctified only from the Day of Atonement onward. Therefore, the verse states: ‘And you shall sanctify the fiftieth year.’ This teaches that it is sanctified progressively from its beginning.”

From here Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka, said: “From Rosh HaShana until the Day of Atonement, slaves did not return to their homes, nor did they serve their masters, and so on. Once the Day of Atonement arrived, the court sounded the shofar; the slaves returned to their homes and the fields returned to their owners.” But the Sages disagree and hold that the Jubilee takes effect only on the Day of Atonement, and that slaves serve their masters until the Day of Atonement!

b. It is written [Deuteronomy 15:1]: “At the end of seven years you shall institute a release. And this is the matter of the release: Every creditor shall remit his authority over what he has lent his fellow; he shall not press his fellow or his brother, for he has proclaimed a release for the Lord.” This is the mitzva of the release of debts at the end of the Sabbatical year.

c. The priestly watches serving in the Temple would change every week—during the day, after the outgoing watch had offered the regular morning offering. [Sukka 56b].

They raised a dilemma before them: If the Day of Atonement

of the Jubilee

encountered

the priestly watch

on Shabbat

when the priestly watches change,

what

is to be done with the ancestral field that is divided among the priests? Should it be given to the outgoing watch, under whose authority the Jubilee began the previous night, or to the incoming watch?

And we resolve it:

Rabbi Hiyya bar Ami said in the name of Hulfana [

the name of a sage]:

It is given to the outgoing watch,

since the Jubilee began the previous night under its authority.

And we support this:

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: It was taught likewise:

Since the forty-ninth year of the Jubilee cycle is a Sabbatical year, at whose end the release of debts applies, and the following year is the Jubilee, in which the release of sold land applies immediately, and the land returns to its owners,

you consequently find that both the Jubilee and the Sabbatical year release

at the end of the forty-ninth year of the Jubilee cycle

simultaneously

on the same day,

except that the Jubilee releases at its beginning

and

the Sabbatical year at its end

releases.

We first question the interpretation of the beraita: How could you say, “Except that the Jubilee releases at its beginning and the Sabbatical year at its end,” which implies that this comes to contradict what was initially stated, that they release literally simultaneously?

On the contrary, precisely for that reason

that the Sabbatical year releases at its end and the Jubilee at its beginning,

it

is that they “release simultaneously”?!

And we answer: Yes, that is indeed so;

say

the following instead: Both the Jubilee and the Sabbatical year release simultaneously,

“because” the Jubilee

is at its beginning and the Sabbatical year at its end.

We further question:

Granted,

what is written in the beraita,

that the Sabbatical year releases at its end,

is understandable!

For

this is

what is written: “At the end of seven years you shall institute a release,”

which indicates that the release of debts takes place at the end of the seventh year.

But

what is written in the beraita,

that the Jubilee releases at its beginning,

is difficult, for

it is on the Day of Atonement

that the Jubilee takes effect,

as it is written: “On the Day of Atonement you shall sound the shofar throughout your land,”

and on the Day of Atonement the Jubilee releases the land?!

And we answer:

This is in accordance with whom?

This beraita, which states that the Jubilee releases at its beginning, on Rosh HaShana,

is the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka, who says: The Jubilee takes effect from Rosh HaShana.

He holds that the statement “And you shall sanctify the fiftieth year” refers to Rosh HaShana. Just as Rabbi Yishmael holds that slaves do not serve their masters from Rosh HaShana of the Jubilee and return to their homes on the Day of Atonement, so too the release of land begins on Rosh HaShana and is completed on the Day of Atonement .

He heard it—

the statement of Rav Hiyya bar Avin, who said: “One who declares movable property herem gives it to any priest he wishes,” whereas “one who declares his fields herem gives them to the priest of that watch.”

Ḥizkiyya bar Biluti, and he went and said [

he went and raised the following difficulty]

before Rabbi Abbahu: Let movable property be derived by comparison from land,

so that just as in the case of land he gives it to the priests of the watch, the same should apply to movable property, since they are juxtaposed, as it is written: “Whatever he declares herem of all that is his [that is, movable property] and of his ancestral field”?!

And we answer: Is this

not a dispute among tannaim

who disagree concerning this juxtaposition in our Mishna?

There is

Rabbi Yehuda,

who derives by comparison

movable property from land: just as the Levites do not declare their land herem, as it is written, “For it is an everlasting possession for them,” so too the same applies to movable property.

And there is

Rabbi Shimon,

who does not derive by comparison,

and therefore holds that the Levites may declare movable property herem, but not land. Rav Hiyya’s statement, which does not derive movable property from land [with regard to giving it to the priests of the watch], is

in accordance with the one who says [

Rabbi Shimon]

that he does not derive by comparison!

Mishna:

A herem for the priests

declared herem in order to give it to the priests [excluding a herem declared in order to give it to the Temple treasury]

cannot be redeemed

by giving money in its place,

but it is given to the priests, like teruma,

which is given to a priest.

Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: An unspecified herem—

one who said, “This is herem”—is given

to the Temple treasury, [

and one who wishes to declare it herem in order to give it to the priests must explicitly say so],

as it is stated: “Every herem is most holy to the Lord.”

And the Sages say: An unspecified herem

is for the priests, as it is stated

with regard to a consecrated ancestral field: “

Like a field

declared herem”—

which implies an unspecified herem—

“its ancestral property shall be for a priest.” If so,

since unspecified heramim are for the priests,

why is it stated, “Every herem is most holy to the Lord,”

which implies that heramim are consecrated property?! To teach

that a herem

—the herem given to a priest—

takes effect on

offerings that are

most holy and on

offerings that are

of lesser sanctity,

but not that an actual herem takes effect upon them and they themselves are given to the priest, since they do not belong to him. Rather:

A person may declare his consecrated offerings herem, whether offerings of most holy sanctity or offerings of lesser sanctity,

and their law is as follows:

a.

If

the consecrated animal that he declared herem had been designated for a

vow,

when he said, “It is incumbent upon me” to bring an offering [whether an offering of most holy sanctity or one of lesser sanctity],

he gives their value

to the priestly herem. Since he is responsible for the offering—if it dies or is stolen, he must bring another in its place to fulfill his vow—the animal is considered as though it belonged entirely to him. Therefore, the herem takes effect on the animal’s value.

b.

But if

the consecrated animal that he declared herem had been designated as a

freewill offering,

when he said, “This is” an offering [and he is not responsible for it, so that if it dies or is stolen he is not obligated to bring another], since if it dies or is stolen he loses the benefit he derives from it—for while it exists, he offers through it a gift to his Creator—he is considered to own the offering to the extent of the value of this benefit. Therefore:

he gives the

value of

his benefit

to the priestly herem.

And how is the value of this benefit assessed?

If he said—for example—

“This ox is an olah,” they assess how much

money

a person would wish to give for this ox

in order to be able

to offer it as an olah, although he is not obligated to bring it

[as the owner of an offering who is not obligated to bring this offering]—in his own name.

A firstborn animal—

whether unblemished,

which is given to a priest so that he may offer it,

or blemished,

which is the priests’ property—

may be declared herem.

This does not mean that the animal itself becomes the priest’s as a herem, since it does not belong to the person declaring it herem. Rather, he “redeems” it by making a payment to the priestly herem, according to the value of the benefit he currently possesses in the firstborn animal.

And how does one “redeem” it?

They assess how much

a

person

of Israel

would wish to give

to the Israelite owner of the firstborn

for this firstborn animal,

so that he would have the right

to give it—

as a firstborn animal—

to his daughter’s son,

a priest, who would offer it or acquire it.

Or

to give it

to his sister’s son,

a priest. This is the value of the benefit possessed by the Israelite owner of the firstborn, since it depends on his will to whom he will give it .