Arakhin 29a — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

The Sages taught: The dedications to the priests have no redemption

to give their value in their place,

but they give

the dedications themselves

to the priest.

The dedications

that are given to the priests:

as long as they are in the owners’ possession

that he has not yet given them to the priest:

they are like consecrated property in every respect

and there is misuse of consecrated property if he uses them or derives benefit from them,

as it is stated: “Every dedicated thing in Israel shall be most holy to the Lord.”

If he gave them to the priest, they are like non-sacred property in every respect

and like the rest of the priest’s property,

as it is stated: “Every dedicated thing in Israel shall be yours.”

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Judah ben Beteira says: Unspecified dedications are for the repair of the Temple

and so on; and the Sages say: Unspecified dedications are for the priests, and so on.

And we raise an objection:

Granted

the view of

the Sages

is understood,

as they explain their reason

from the verse: “Like the field of the dedication, to the priest shall be his possession”;

but the reason of Rabbi Judah ben Beteira

that is, they also address the reason of Rabbi Judah, who learned from the verse “Every dedicated thing is most holy to the Lord” that unspecified dedications are not for the priests but for the repair of the Temple, and the Sages rejected this: that verse comes to teach that a dedication takes effect upon sacrificial animals.

But Rabbi Judah ben Beteira—this “like the field of the dedication”

“to the priest shall be his possession,” from which the Sages learned that unspecified dedications are for the priests—

what does he do with it?!

For Rabbi Judah ben Beteira, according to his view, did not explain what this verse comes to teach us.

And we answer:

He requires it

Rabbi Judah ben Beteira requires this verse

as it was taught:

It is stated concerning an ancestral field that an Israelite consecrated and did not redeem from the consecrated property [or that another redeemed from the consecrated property]: “And the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee, shall be holy to the Lord,

like the field of the dedication

that is given to the priests, and this too

shall belong to the priest,

and to whichever priest it belongs, it shall be considered for him as though it were

his possession.” What does the verse teach by saying

“like the field of the dedication”?

To teach:

From where is it derived concerning a priest who consecrated his dedicated field

from the dedications of priests, which an Israelite dedicated and this priest received, and since it became for him like an ancestral field of an Israelite, if he consecrated it and did not redeem it, it is subject to the law that it goes out to the priests in the Jubilee,

that he should not say: Since it goes out to the priests, and it is

now in the Jubilee

under my hand,

that I possess it [for the treasurer did not take possession of it, Shita Mekubetzet], and if so,

let it be mine

alone, since I am a priest!

And it is logical

by a kal va-chomer that it should be mine: If

with regard to another’s

an Israelite’s, who consecrated his ancestral field,

I acquire

it in the Jubilee together with the other priests,

with regard to my own, is it not all the more so

that I should acquire it, and it should be mine alone?!

The verse teaches: “Like the field of the dedication, to the priest shall be his possession”,

and why did the Torah write “like the field of the dedication,”

and what have we learned from the field of dedication?! From now on! This is

the priest’s dedicated field—

it comes to teach

about an ancestral field,

and it is found to be learned

from the ancestral field, and this is what he learns:

He compares his dedicated field

that came to the priest from a dedication

to an ancestral field of an Israelite

that he consecrated, and a priest redeemed from the consecrated property.

Just as an ancestral field of an Israelite,

which an Israelite consecrated and the priest redeemed,

goes out from his hand

the priest’s hand, in the Jubilee,

and is divided among the priests,

[and this is learned from the above verse:]

so too, his dedicated field

of a priest, which he acquired from the dedication of an Israelite when it went out to the priests, and he consecrated it,

goes out from his hand

in the Jubilee

and is divided among his fellow priests!

And he takes his portion like the other priests of the division whose turn the Jubilee encountered.

[This beraita is also taught at the end of the tractate, and there the Gemara discusses it.]

And we raise an objection:

But the other one,

the Sages, who expound “like the field of the dedication” to teach that unspecified dedications are for the priest—from where do they know that a priest who consecrated his dedicated field that he received from an Israelite goes out “to all” the priests in the Jubilee?

And we answer: They derive this

from “dedication,” “the dedication”!

The additional letter he in the verse “like the field of the dedication” comes to teach concerning a dedicated field that a priest consecrated, that it goes out to all the priests.

And we raise an objection:

But the other one,

Rabbi Judah ben Beteira, who does not need the additional he to teach that it goes out to all the priests, since he learns this from the substance of the verse—what does he expound from the he?

And we answer:

“Dedication,” “the dedication,” is not meaningful to him

for any exposition.

We raise another objection:

And Rabbi Judah ben Beteira,

who learned from “Every dedicated thing is most holy to the Lord” that unspecified dedications are for the repair of the Temple,

that it takes effect

the dedication

upon most holy offerings and upon lesser holiness offerings—from where does he derive it,

for it is impossible to learn this from the verse “Every dedicated thing, etc.” as the Sages learn it, since he needs this verse to teach that unspecified dedications are for the repair of the Temple?

And we answer:

He holds

Rabbi Judah ben Beteira holds

like Rabbi Ishmael,

who expounds that a dedication takes effect upon sacrificial animals from another verse—in the following Mishna.

Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Judah ben Beteira

that unspecified dedications are for the repair of the Temple.

And we are astonished:

And Rav,

how did he

abandon the Sages

who hold that unspecified dedications are for the priests,

and act in accordance with Rabbi Judah ben Beteira?!

For we have an established principle: When there is an individual and a majority, the halakha is in accordance with the majority.

And we answer: In a

beraita the opposite was taught:

Rabbi Judah ben Beteira says: Unspecified dedications are for the priests; and the Sages say: Unspecified dedications are for the repair of the Temple. And Rav, who ruled that their unspecified status is for the repair of the Temple, follows the Sages in the beraita.

And we are astonished: In the end, it is still difficult concerning Rav: how did he

abandon the Mishna

in which we learned that the Sages hold that unspecified dedications are for the priests,

and act in accordance with the beraita?!

And we answer:

Rav, in the

Mishna too

teaches the opposite,

and Rav’s words accord with the Sages in the Mishna.

And we are astonished: And from where did Rav have the authority to reverse the Mishna? And if it is because this is how it is explained in the beraita,

what did you see

Rav

that you reversed the Mishna because of

[on account of] the

beraita,

on the contrary—

reverse the beraita because of the Mishna!

And we answer: The fact that Rav taught the Mishna in reverse was not because of the beraita, but rather:

Rav had learned his tradition

from his teacher to teach the Mishna in reverse!

And we are astonished:

If so,

that the view of the Sages is that unspecified dedications are for the repair of the Temple, and Rabbi Judah ben Beteira holds that they are for the priests, how did Rav say: The halakha is

in accordance with Rabbi Judah ben Beteira

to teach that unspecified dedications are for the repair of the Temple? The halakha

should have been stated as in accordance with the Sages

by Rav?!

And we answer:

This is what he said

Rav:

According to what you have reversed and taught

[according to what you reverse the Mishna and teach]:

Rabbi Judah ben Beteira,

who, according to your view, says that unspecified dedications are for the repair of the Temple:

the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Judah ben Beteira!

There was a certain man who dedicated his property

unspecified [who said: Behold, my property is dedicated]

in Pumbedita. He came

the one who made the dedication

before Rav Judah, who said to him: Take four zuz

for the redemption of “the consecrated property” that took effect upon your property,

and remove its sanctity from them

the sanctity in your property,

and throw them into the river

[and throw the four zuz into the river], since it is forbidden to use them, and in the present time there is no consecrated property for the repair of the Temple to which to give them,

and let them be permitted

[and let the property be permitted]

to you!

And we explain:

It follows that he holds

Rav Judah holds

that unspecified dedications are for the repair of the Temple!

For if they were for the priests, it would be impossible to redeem them.

And we are astonished:

In accordance with whom

does Rav Judah hold, who instructed that all the property be redeemed for only four zuz? It must be

in accordance with Samuel

that he holds,

who said,

Samuel said:

Consecrated property worth one hundred maneh that one redeemed for the value of one peruta is redeemed!

But

I would say that when Samuel said

as

“that one redeemed”,

it was after the fact, but

did he say this initially,

and how did Rav Judah instruct him to do so initially?!

And we answer:

This matter applies

that one does not redeem consecrated property worth one hundred maneh for one peruta initially

when the Temple is standing

because of the loss to the consecrated property; but in the present time,

when there is no Temple whose repair requires support,

even initially

one redeems!

And we are still astonished:

If so,

that in the present time it is not necessary to redeem it at its value, why did Rav Judah say to redeem it for four zuz?

Even one peruta also

would suffice?

And we answer:

To publicize the matter

that he is a redeemer; therefore he required redemption with four zuz, which are something significant—Rabbeinu Gershom.

Ulla said: If I had been there

[had I been there] in that incident in Pumbedita, in which he dedicated all his property without specification,

I would have given all of them

the property

to the priests.

And we explain:

It follows that Ulla holds: Unspecified dedications are for the priests.

And we raise an objection to Rav Judah and Ulla:

It was objected:

a.

The acquisition

of

a Hebrew slave applies only when the Jubilee applies, as it is stated

in the section of the Hebrew slave:

“Until the year of the Jubilee he shall serve with you,”

from here, that the section speaks of a time when the Jubilee applies.

b.

And

the sale of

an ancestral field does not apply

with regard to the possibility that the purchaser can redeem it from the seller through deduction of money [where the entire sum of the sale is calculated and divided by the number of years from the sale until the Jubilee, and the seller deducts from the sale price that he returns for the years that passed from the sale until the redemption, and returns for each year remaining until the Jubilee according to the sum resulting from this division], against the will of the purchaser,

except when the Jubilee applies, as it is stated

in the section concerning the sale of an ancestral field:

“And it shall go out in the Jubilee and return to his possession.”

[Likewise, the law of the consecration of an ancestral field does not apply even while the Temple is standing—in the laws particular to the consecration of an ancestral field—except when the Jubilee applies. And if all its inhabitants are not upon the Land of Israel, such as when Sennacherib exiled two tribes and half a tribe, the Jubilee does not apply, and the consecration of an ancestral field does not apply.]

c.

Houses of walled cities do not apply

with regard to the possibility that the seller of a house in a city surrounded by a wall from the days of Joshua son of Nun can redeem the house from the purchaser—even against his will—within one year of the sale,

except when the Jubilee applies, as it is stated

in the section concerning the sale of houses in walled cities:

“It shall not go out in the Jubilee,”

and it implies that the Jubilee applies.

Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai says

[and no one disputed him]:

d.

Dedicated fields—

for the priests or for the repair of the Temple—

do not apply except when the Jubilee applies, as it is stated: “And the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee, shall be holy to the Lord, like the field of the dedication,”

and they expound: The field of the dedication applies only at a time when “when it goes out in the Jubilee” is relevant.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says

[and no one disputed him]:

e.

A resident alien

[a gentile who accepted upon himself not to worship idolatry, but eats unslaughtered carcasses and the like]

does not apply

with regard to the mitzva to sustain him

except when the Jubilee applies. Rabbi Bibi said: What is the reason

that a resident alien applies only when the Jubilee applies?

It comes

through a gzera shava

“good”,

which is written in the section “You shall not hand over a slave [who is a resident alien] to his master.” From

“good”

written in the section of a Hebrew slave,

it is written here

in the section of a Hebrew slave:

“For it is good for him with you,” and it is written there

concerning the slave who is a resident alien: “You shall not hand him over, etc.; with you he shall dwell in your midst

in what is good for him, you shall not wrong him,”

and just as a Hebrew slave applies only when the Jubilee applies, so too a resident alien. [And Rashi explains that the derivation is: “with you,” which is written concerning a Hebrew slave, and “with you he shall dwell in your midst,” etc., which is written concerning a resident alien.]

And from this beraita—that the law of a dedicated field does not apply when the Jubilee does not apply—they raise a difficulty against Rav Judah and Ulla in the incident in Pumbedita, for they applied the law of dedication in their time, when the Jubilee did not apply.

And we answer:

It is not difficult

for Rav Judah and Ulla!

This

that we said, that dedication does not apply when the Jubilee does not apply, concerns

land

about which it is written, “when it goes out in the Jubilee, etc., like the field of the dedication, etc.”

This

that Rav Judah and Ulla hold, that dedication applies in the present time, concerns

movable property.

And we are astonished:

But the incident in Pumbedita also involved land,

for land too was included in his property, and concerning all of it they instructed that the dedication took effect; but surely dedication does not apply to land in the present time?!

And we answer:

Land outside the Land of Israel

that was dedicated—and this was the incident in Pumbedita, which is in Babylonia—

is considered like movable property of the Land of Israel,

upon which the dedication takes effect even when the Jubilee does not apply.

Mishna:

Rabbi Ishmael says: One verse says:

“Every firstborn that is born, etc.,”

“you shall consecrate”

to the Lord your God,

and one verse says: “He shall not consecrate”

[“But the firstborn that is born to the Lord among animals, no man shall consecrate it”].

It is impossible to say “you shall consecrate,” for it has already been stated, “he shall not consecrate.” It is impossible to say “he shall not consecrate,” for it has already been stated, “you shall consecrate.” How so? You may consecrate it as a “consecration

of value”

if he dedicated the firstborn, the dedication takes effect in the sense that he must “raise” [appraise] the firstborn at a monetary value and give it to the priest, [in the manner that the Sages said in the preceding Mishna, from the verse “Every dedicated thing is most holy to the Lord.”]

But you may not consecrate it as altar consecration,

for its consecration for the altar is not effective to impose upon it the designation of another sacrifice.

Gemara:

And we raise an objection:

And the Sages,

who learned the law of “consecration of value” from another verse in the preceding Mishna, what will they expound from the verses “you shall consecrate” and “you shall not consecrate” that are stated concerning the firstborn? And we answer: a.

“Do not consecrate” is required by him for a prohibition,

that one who designates a firstborn for the name of another sacrifice transgresses this prohibition of “do not consecrate.”

b.

“You shall dedicate” is needed for what was taught: From where [do we know] concerning one born a firstborn in his flock that it is a mitzva to dedicate it

as a firstborn?

As it is said: “

Every firstborn that is born among your cattle and among your flock

the male you shall dedicate

to Hashem your God”!

And we challenge this:

And Rabbi Ishmael

from where does he know that one must dedicate it as a firstborn, since he expounds the verse “You shall dedicate” for a dedication of superior sanctity?

And we answer: Rabbi Ishmael can say to you:

If he does not dedicate it

and is it the case that

it is not holy?! Its sanctity is from the womb! And since when he does not dedicate it—

it is holy, he does not need to dedicate it!

We have returned to you, chapter “He Who Dedicates His Field.”