Arakhin

shall be thine.1 If he devoted his field he must give it to a priest of the then officiating guard,2 as it is said: As a field devoted,’ the possession thereof shall be the priest's,3 making the inference from the analogy of [the term] ‘the priest's, sin case of robbery of a stranger. And whence do we know it for that case? For it was taught: The Lord's, even the priest's,4 i.e., the Lord acquired it and gave it to the priest in that guard. You say, To the priest in that [particular] guard; but perhaps it means to any priest it pleases him [to give it to]? When it says, Besides the ram of the atonement, whereby atonement shall be made for him,4 hence Scripture speaks of the priests in that guard.5 The field which goes out to the priests in the year of Jubilee is [also] given to the priests of that [particular] guard. The following question was raised: How if it6 fell on a Sabbath? — R. Hiyya b. Ammi in the name of Hulfana said: It is to be given to the departing guard.7 R. Nahman b. Isaac said: Thus was it also taught: It is to be found,8 then, that both the year of Jubilee and the seventh year effect [respectively] the release [of debts and land] at the same time, except that the year of Jubilee [effects it] in its beginning and the seventh year at its end.9 On the contrary! It was just because of this! — Say: Because the year of Jubilee, etc. Granted that the seventh year [effects release] at the end, as it is written: At the end of every seven years, thou shalt make a release,10 but how does the year of Jubilee [effect release] at the beginning? That takes place on the Day of Atonement, as it is written: In the day of atonement shall ye make proclamation with the horn throughout all your land.11 This is the view of R. Ishmael, the son of R. Johanan b. Beroka, who said that the year of Jubilee commenced from the New Year already. Hezekiah son of Biloti heard it,12 and he went and reported it to R. Abbahu. [The latter asked:] But let him compare movable property to immovable property? — But is it not a matter of dispute among Tannaim, there being some who compare the one to the other,13 whilst some there are who do not?14 And he [R. Hiyya b. Abin] holds with the view that we do not make that comparison. MISHNAH. THINGS DEVOTED FOR [THE USE OF] THE PRIESTS CANNOT BE REDEEMED BUT ARE TO BE GIVEN TO THE PRIESTS. EVEN AS TERUMAH.15 R. JUDAH B. BATHYRA SAYS: THINGS DEVOTED GENERALLY16 FALL TO [THE FUND FOR] TEMPLE REPAIRS, AS IT WAS SAID: EVERY DEVOTED THING IS MOST HOLY UNTO THE LORD.17 BUT THE SAGES SAY: THINGS DEVOTED GENERALLY FALL TO THE PRIESTS, AS IT IS SAID: AS A FIELD DEVOTED: THE POSSESSION THEREOF SHALL BE THE PRIEST'S.18 IF SO, WHY IS IT SAID: ‘EVERY DEVOTED THING IS MOST HOLY UNTO THE LORD’? [THAT IS TO TEACH] THAT IS APPLIES TO THE MOST HOLY AND THE LESS HOLY THINGS. A MAN MAY DEVOTE WHAT HE HAS ALREADY CONSECRATED, WHETHER THEY BE MOST HOLY THINGS OR LESS HOLY THINGS. IF [THEY HAD BEEN] CONSECRATED AS A VOW, HE MUST GIVE THEIR VALUE,19 IF AS A FREEWILL-OFFERING, HE MUST GIVE WHAT IT IS WORTH TO HIM.20 [IF, E.G., HE SAID:] LET THIS OX BE A BURNT-OFFERING, ONE ESTIMATES HOW MUCH A MAN WOULD PAY FOR THE OX TO OFFER IT AS A BURNT-OFFERING, WHICH HE WAS NOT OBLIGED [TO OFFER]. A FIRSTLING, WHETHER UNBLEMISHED OR BLEMISHED, MAY BE DEVOTED. AND HOW CAN IT BE REDEEMED? THEY [WHO REDEEM IT] ESTIMATE WHAT A MAN WOULD GIVE FOR THIS FIRSTLING IN ORDER TO GIVE IT TO THE SON OF HIS DAUGHTER OR TO THE SON OF HIS SISTER.21 XXVII, 21 the words ‘The possession thereof shall be the priest's’ occur here. Hence the inference from analogy of expression. fifth. outgoing guard, shall the field etc. be given? both effect the release at the same time. What meaning is there then to the ‘except that’. died or was stolen he would be liable to replace it, the animal is still regarded as being in his possession and the animal is devoted. As, however, an animal once designated as an offering may never be used for any other purpose, the devoter must pay its full value to the priest, whilst the animal itself is to be sacrificed for the purpose to which it originally had been designated by its owner. The same would apply if the sacrifice in question had not been vowed but obligatory. which he valued his satisfaction with the fact that he was able to bring this offering. the owner, before bringing this animal to the priest had devoted it, he can redeem it by estimating how much a man would give to him to have that firstling given to his relatives, who are priests. A priest must not pay to an Israelite with the view of being favoured as to the latter's priestly gifts. V. Bek. 27a.