Arakhin 28b — the Talmud in English

as it is stated: “Every herem in Israel ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

shall be yours [to Aaron]

to Aaron]

”:

which implies Aaron and all his descendants—and not specifically the kohanim of that mishmar. But

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

that is, to all the kohanim—

who are in that mishmar

who are serving in the Temple at that time,

as it is stated

with regard to a consecrated ancestral field that goes out to the kohanim at the Jubilee:

“As a field of herem, its ancestral holding shall be for a kohen,” and the term “for a kohen”

stated here, that the field of herem and the ancestral field are given to him, is derived by a gzera shava

“for a kohen” from the robbery of a convert [who died and had no heirs to return to them the money that he had denied the convert under a false oath. And the Torah said that the principal and the fifth—which every person who denied monetary possession under a false oath and then admitted must give to the one from whom he denied it or to his heirs—shall be given to the kohanim, as it is written: “The guilt-offering restored to the Lord, to the kohen”]. And just as the robbery of a convert is given to the kohen of that mishmar, so too, in the case of a field of herem, the kohanim of that mishmar acquire it.

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 it was necessary for us to ask:

there

with regard to the robbery of a convert,

from where do we know

that they are given to the kohanim of that mishmar?

And we explain:

for it was taught:

It is written: “And if a man has no redeemer [this is a convert who has no relatives who redeem], to restore the guilt-offering [this is the money for which he became liable] to him, the guilt-offering [this is the principal] restored [this is the fifth

to the Lord, to the kohen

apart from the ram of the atonement-offering [this is the guilt-offering sacrifice to which everyone who denied money under an oath becomes liable], with which he shall make atonement for him.” And the beraita explains:

“The Name acquired it and gave it to the kohen of that mishmar. You say, to the kohen of that mishmar; or is it rather to any kohen whom the denier wishes

to give it?

When it says: ‘Apart from the ram of the atonement-offering, with which he shall make atonement for him,’

which implies that he gives the money to that same kohen to whom the guilt-offering was given,

it is

compelled that

the verse is speaking of the kohen of that mishmar,

just as the guilt-offering is given to him.

And Rav Hiyya bar Avin further said:

A field

of ancestral holding that was consecrated [and its owners did not redeem it],

which goes out to the kohanim at the Jubilee, he gives to the mishmar

of the kohanim serving in the Temple

that encountered it

at the time of its service, on the Day of Atonement of

the Jubilee.

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

“And you shall sound the horn of a terua, and so on; on the Day of Atonement you shall sound the horn throughout all your land.”

“And you shall sanctify the fiftieth year and proclaim liberty in the land for all its inhabitants [this is the mitzva of releasing Hebrew slaves at the Jubilee]; it shall be a Jubilee for you, and you shall return, each man to his ancestral holding [this is the mitzva of returning an ancestral field that was sold, at the Jubilee], and each man shall return to his family.”

And we learned in tractate Rosh Hashanah 8a: “It was taught: ‘And you shall sanctify the fiftieth year’—what does this teach? Since it is stated: ‘[And you shall sound the horn of a terua, and so on,] on the Day of Atonement,’ one might have thought that it is not sanctified [the Jubilee year] except from the Day of Atonement onward. Therefore the verse says: ‘And you shall sanctify the fiftieth year’; it teaches that it is becoming sanctified and proceeding from its beginning.”

From here Rabbi Ishmael, son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka, said: “From the New Year until the Day of Atonement, the slaves were not released to their homes, nor were they subjugated to their masters, and so on. Once the Day of Atonement arrived, the court sounded the horn; the slaves were released to their homes, and the fields returned to their owners.” But the Rabbis disagree and hold that the Jubilee took effect only on the Day of Atonement, and slaves remained subjugated to their masters until the Day of Atonement!

B. It is written [Deuteronomy 15:1]: “At the end of seven years you shall make a release. And this is the matter of the release: every creditor shall release his hand from what he lent his fellow; he shall not press his fellow or his brother, for he has proclaimed a release for the Lord,” and this is the mitzva of the release of debts at the end of the sabbatical year.

C. The service divisions of the kohanim changed every Shabbat—during the day, after the outgoing division had offered the daily morning offering. [Sukkah 56b].

They raised a dilemma: If

the Day of Atonement of the Jubilee

encountered

the mishmar

on Shabbat

when the priestly divisions change,

what

is to be done with the ancestral field divided among the kohanim: should it be given to the outgoing mishmar, under whose authority the Jubilee began last night, or to the incoming mishmar?

And we resolve it:

Rabbi Hiyya bar Ami said in the name of Hulefna

[the name of a sage]:

He gives it to the outgoing mishmar

since the Jubilee began last night under its authority.

And we support this:

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said: It was taught likewise

Since the forty-ninth year of the Jubilee cycles is a seventh year, and the “release of debts” applies at its end, while the year after it is the Jubilee, in which the “release of lands” that were sold applies, immediately from the purchaser, and they return to their owners,

you therefore find yourself saying: both the Jubilee and the seventh year release—

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

at the same time

on that day,

except that the Jubilee releases at its beginning

and the release

releases at its end

.

We first raise an objection in order to explain the beraita: How did you say, “except that the Jubilee is at its beginning and the sabbatical year at its end,” implying that this comes to contradict what he said at first, that they are literally at the same time?

On the contrary, precisely because

the sabbatical year is at its end and the Jubilee is at its beginning,

it

is that they “release at the same time”?!

And we answer: Indeed, that is so, and

say

this instead: Both the Jubilee and the seventh year release at the same time,

“because” the Jubilee

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

We raise another objection:

Granted

that what is written in the beraita,

that the seventh year is at its end

and releases, is understandable!

For

so

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

which implies that at the end of the seventh year one performs the release of debts.

But

what is written in the beraita,

that the Jubilee is at its beginning

and releases—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 horn throughout all your land,”

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

And we answer:

Who is the author of this

beraita, in which it is written that the Jubilee releases at its beginning, on the New Year?

It is Rabbi Ishmael, son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka, who says: It is from the New Year that the Jubilee takes effect,

for he holds that what is written, “And you shall sanctify the fiftieth year,” means from the New Year; and just as Rabbi Ishmael holds that slaves are not subjugated to their masters from the New Year of the Jubilee and are released to their homes on the Day of Atonement, so too the release of lands begins on the New Year 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 kohen he wishes,” but “one who declares his fields herem gives them to the kohen of that mishmar”—

Hezekiah bar Biluti, and he went and said

[he went and raised the difficulty]

before Rabbi Abbahu: Then let movable property be derived by analogy to land,

and just as with land he gives it to the kohanim of the mishmar, so too with movable property, since they were juxtaposed, as it is written: “That which he declares herem, from all that is his [that is, movable property], and from his ancestral field”?!

And we answer: Is it not

a dispute between tannaim

that they disagree about this analogy in our Mishna, and

there is

Rabbi Judah

who makes an analogy

between movable property and land, so that just as the Levites do not declare their lands herem, as it is written, “For it is an everlasting ancestral holding for them,” so too movable property?

And there is

Rabbi Shimon

who does not make an analogy,

and for that reason he holds that the Levites declare movable property herem but not land?! And Rav Hiyya’s statement, which does not make an analogy between movable property and land [with regard to giving it to the kohanim of the mishmar],

is according to the one who says

[Rabbi Shimon]

that he does not make an analogy!

Mishna:

The heramim of the kohanim

that were declared herem in order to give them to the kohanim [excluding: heramim declared in order to give them for the maintenance of the Temple]

have no redemption

to give money in their place,

but they are given to the kohanim, like teruma,

which is given to a kohen.

Rabbi Judah ben Beteira says: Unspecified heramim—

where he said, “This is herem”—are given

for the maintenance of the Temple, [and one who wishes to declare property herem in order to give it to the kohanim must say so explicitly],

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 holy of holies to the Lord.”

And the Sages say: Unspecified heramim—

are for the kohanim, as it is stated

with regard to the consecration of an ancestral field: “

As a field

of herem”—

which implies an unspecified herem—

“its ancestral holding shall be for a kohen.” If so,

that unspecified heramim are for the kohanim,

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

which implies that heramim are consecration?! To teach

that it takes effect—

a herem given to a kohen—

upon

sacrifices that are

holy of holies and upon

sacrifices that are

lesser sanctities, and not that the herem itself takes effect upon them and they themselves are given to the kohen, for they are not his—but rather:

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 sacred objects herem, whether objects of holy of holies or objects of lesser sanctity,

and this is their law:

A.

If

the sacred animal that he declared herem had been set apart for

a vow,

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

he gives their monetary value

to the heramim of the kohanim. Since he bears responsibility for the offering, so that if it dies or is stolen he must bring another in its place to fulfill his vow, the animal is considered as though it were entirely his; therefore the herem takes effect upon the animal’s value.

B.

And if

the sacred animal that he declared herem had been set apart as

a freewill offering,

when he said, “This is” for an offering [for which he is not responsible to bring another offering if it dies or is stolen], since if it dies or is stolen he loses the benefit of the pleasure that he has in it—for while it exists he offers through it a gift to his Creator—he is considered an owner of the offering to the extent of that monetary value of the benefit of pleasure, and therefore:

he gives the

value of

his benefit

to the heramim of the kohanim.

And how is that benefit of pleasure assessed?

If he said—for example—

“This ox is a burnt-offering,” they assess: how much

money

would a person wish to give for this ox

in order that he be able

to offer it as a burnt-offering for which he is not obligated

[like the owner of an offering who is not obligated in this offering] in his name.

The firstborn—

whether unblemished

which is given to a kohen in order that he offer it,

or whether blemished

which is the property of the kohanim—

one may declare it herem.

It is not that the animal itself becomes the kohen’s as a herem, for it is not his and he cannot declare it herem; rather, he “redeems” it by paying to the heramim of the kohanim according to the value of the benefit of pleasure that he presently has in the firstborn.

And how does one “redeem” it?

They assess: how much

would

a person

of Israel

wish to give

to the Israelite owner of the firstborn

for this firstborn

so that he would have the right

to give it—

as a firstborn—

to his daughter’s son

a kohen, who would offer it or acquire it.

Or

to give it

to his sister’s son

a kohen, for this is the value of the benefit of pleasure that the Israelite owner of the firstborn has, since it depends on his will to whom he will give it .