Arakhin

. And how is this to be imagined? If he offered twenty-one;1 then the owner has the preference. If not [the treasurer] says to him [the bidder]: ‘It is yours’. MISHNAH. A MAN MAY DEVOTE2 [PART] OF HIS FLOCK OR OF HIS HERD, OF HIS CANAANITE MANSERVANTS OR MAID SERVANTS OR OF HIS FIELD OF POSSESSION. BUT IF HE DEVOTED THE WHOLE OF THEM, THEY ARE NOT CONSIDERED [VALIDLY] DEVOTED. THIS IS THE VIEW OF R. ELIEZER. R. ELEAZAR B. AZARYAH SAID: IF, EVEN TO THE HIGHEST, NO ONE IS PERMITTED TO DEVOTE ALL HIS POSSESSIONS, HOW MUCH MORE SHOULD ONE BE [CAREFUL ABOUT] SPARING IN REGARD TO ONE'S POSSESSIONS. GEMARA. Whence do we know these things? — Because our Rabbis taught: Of all that he hath,3 i.e., but not ‘all that he has’; of man,3 but not ‘all man’; or [of] beast,’ but not ‘all beast’; of the field of his possession,3 but not ‘all the field of his possession’. One might have assumed that he may not at the outset devote [the whole], but if he had done so, it should be [considered validly] devoted, therefore it is said: Notwithstanding.3 These are the words of R. Eliezer. R. Eleazar b. Azaryah said: If, even to the highest, no one is permitted to devote all his possessions, how much more should one be sparing in regard to his possessions! And all [the details] are necessary. For if the Divine Law had but written: ‘Of all that he hath’, I might have said: He may not devote all that he has but of one kind he may devote all [objects]. Therefore the Divine Law said: ‘Of man’, i.e., but not ‘all man’. And if the Divine Law had but written: ‘of man’, [I would have said]: Because without labour none can manage,4 but [in the case of] a field he can still make a living by working as a serf, [therefore it stated: ‘of the field of his possession’]. And if [the Divine Law] had taught us about these two, [I would have said: The reason in both these cases] is that each is vitally necessary, but as for movable property, let him be allowed to devote it all,’ therefore it was necessary [to teach about that as well]. Why was ‘or beast’ necessary? — In accordance with what was taught: One might have assumed that a man may devote his son or daughter, his Hebrew manservant or his field or purchase, therefore it is said: ‘or beast’, i.e., just as the beast is something he may sell, so [may he devote] only such things as he is permitted to sell. But as he is permitted to sell his minor daughter, I might therefore think that he can devote her as well, therefore it is said: ‘or beast’, i.e., just as a beast is something which he may sell for ever, [so can he devote only such objects] as he is permitted to sell for ever. 5 R. ELEAZAR B. AZARYAH SAID: IF EVEN TO THE HIGHEST NO ONE IS PERMITTED etc. But that is exactly what the first Tanna has said? — The difference between them is implied in what R. Ela said; for R. Ela said: In Usha they ordained that one who would distribute [his possessions] must not go beyond one fifth [of them].6 It happened that one wanted to distribute more than one fifth, and his colleagues would not permit him to do so. Who was that? R. Yeshebab. Some say, it was R. Yeshebab who [wanted to distribute it] and his colleagues would not let him do so. Who was [chief among them]? — R. Akiba. MISHNAH. IF ONE DEVOTES HIS SON OR HIS DAUGHTER,7 OR HIS HEBREW MANSERVANT OR MAIDSERVANT, OR THE FIELD WHICH HE ACQUIRED BY PURCHASE, THEY ARE NOT CONSIDERED [VALIDLY] DEVOTED, FOR NONE CAN DEVOTE A THING WHICH DOES NOT BELONG TO HIM. PRIESTS AND LEVITES CANNOT DEVOTE [THEIR BELONGINGS]. THESE ARE THE WORDS OF R. JUDAH. R. SIMEON SAYS: THE PRIESTS CANNOT DEVOTE, BECAUSE THINGS DEVOTED BELONG TO THEM. BUT LEVITES CAN DEVOTE, BECAUSE THINGS DEVOTED DO NOT FALL TO THEM. RABBI SAYS: THE WORDS OF R. JUDAH ARE ACCEPTABLE IN CASES OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AS IT IS SAID: FOR THAT IS THEIR PERPETUAL POSSESSION,8 AND THE WORDS OF R. SIMEON IN CASES OF MOVABLE PROPERTY, SINCE THINGS DEVOTED DO NOT FALL TO THEM. GEMARA. According to R. Judah, it is quite right that priests cannot devote, because all objects devoted fall to them. But, touching Levites, granted they cannot devote immovable property, because it is written: ‘For that is their perpetual possession but let them devote movable property? — Scripture said: ‘Of all that he hath . . . or of the field of his possession’, thus comparing movable property on the same level with immovable property. Now according to R. Simeon it is quite right [what he rules] about the priests, as we have [just] said. But touching the Levites, granted they can devote movable property, because he does not draw the [above] analogy; but why should they be able to devote immovable property; Surely it is written: ‘For that is their perpetual possession’? What he means when he says LEVITES CAN DEVOTE is [that they can devote] movables. But surely the last part [of this Mishnah] reads: RABBI SAYS: THE WORDS OF R. JUDAH ARE ACCEPTABLE IN CASES OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY, AND THE WORDS OF R. SIMEON IN CASES OF MOVABLE PROPERTY; it follows that R. Simeon refers to immovable property too? — This is what he means: Rabbi said, The words of R. Judah are acceptable to R. Simeon in cases of immovable property, for R. Simeon disputes his view only in cases of movable property, but in cases of immovable property he consents. R. Hiyya b. Abin said: If one had devoted movable property he may give it to any priest he pleases, as it is said: Everything devoted in Israel profane as soon as it reached the priests. Anything devoted could be neither redeemed nor sold. Ibid. 29. belonging to the tiller thereof. maidservant, are the property of their owner only during a limited number of years. The field acquired by purchase, too, can be held only for a limited time, reverting, as it does to its original owner, in the year of Jubilee. Hence all these things or persons cannot be devoted, devotion implying in perpetuity.