We begin our study of the Mishnah, starting from the second line. The Mishnah discusses the concept of "herem." What is herem? It refers to a person dedicating his assets as consecrated property, which then belongs to a Kohen. There is also a form of herem where one dedicates property to the treasury of the Temple, used for the maintenance of the Temple.
The Mishnah details various types of items a person can dedicate as herem. "From his sheep," Rashi explains, means a portion of his sheep, which he declares "herein herem" and gives to a Kohen. Similarly, he can dedicate "from his flock," "from his slaves," "from his maidservants," "from Canaanite slaves," and "from his ancestral properties." However, the Mishnah states that if he dedicates all his property, leaving nothing for himself, the dedication is not valid. This is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.
Rabbi Eliezer states that if a person is not allowed to dedicate all his money to the Temple treasury, he is certainly not allowed to waste his money on mundane things. The Gemara asks, how do we know this? The verse states "from everything he has," implying not all of it. "From a person," but not all people (referring to slaves). "From an animal," but not all animals. "From ancestral properties," but not all ancestral properties. One might think that if he cannot dedicate all of it, then he cannot dedicate any of it. But perhaps, if he did dedicate all of it, it would be valid after the fact?
The Torah uses the word "ach" (only), which comes to minimize, teaching us that even after the fact, if he dedicated all his assets as herem, it is not valid. These are the words of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah adds, "Regarding dedication to the Most High, a person is not permitted to dedicate all his assets; how much more so should a person not waste his assets."
The Gemara asks, "And it is necessary?" Meaning, why does the Torah need to specify "person," "animal," and "field"? If it had merely stated "from all that he has," and we understood "from all" but not "all of it," I might have thought that while one cannot dedicate all of his possessions across different categories, he might be able to dedicate an entire species of items. For example, he might dedicate all his slaves, even if he still has other assets. Therefore, the Torah specifies "from a person," to teach that even within a single category like slaves, one cannot dedicate all of them. I might think this is because slaves are necessary for work. But what about a field? Perhaps one could dedicate all his fields, relying on sharecropping or working others' fields. Thus, the Torah specifies "from ancestral properties" to teach that even fields cannot all be dedicated. These items are tied to sustenance, and a person cannot live without them entirely.
However, what about movable items, which are not as essential for livelihood? The verse "from all that he has" comes to teach us that even movable items are included in this restriction. The Gemara then asks, if we already know that one cannot dedicate an entire category of assets, and we know about fields, what does the verse "from an animal" teach us?
The Gemara answers that it teaches us a different law: "Could a person dedicate his son as herem? Or his daughter? Or his Jewish slaves or maidservants? Or a field he bought that returns to its original owner during the Jubilee year?" The Torah states "from an animal." Just as an animal can be sold, only things that a person has the right to sell can be dedicated as herem. One cannot sell his son, nor a purchased field that reverts in the Jubilee. However, one can sell his minor daughter, but not indefinitely. So, only items that can be sold indefinitely can be dedicated as herem.
Rabbi Elazar states that if one cannot dedicate all his assets to the Kohen, he certainly should not waste his money on trivial things. Both Rabbi Elazar and the first Tanna agree that a person cannot dedicate all his assets. The Gemara explains their disagreement: when a person wishes to give charity, he is not allowed to give more than twenty percent. The first Tanna would hold that giving more is not considered "wasting" money; one can give as much as he wants. According to Rabbi Elazar, however, giving more than twenty percent is considered wasting money. This is the dispute between them regarding the maximum amount one can give to charity. Rashi explains that we learn the limit of twenty percent from Jacob our Patriarch, who said, "from all that You give me, I will surely give a tenth to You," implying he left some for himself.
There was an incident where someone wished to give more than twenty percent to charity, but his colleagues did not permit him. Who was this person? Some say it was Rabbi Yeshevav who wanted to give more than twenty percent, and his colleagues did not let him.
We move to the next Mishnah. It states that fields that revert to their original owners during the Jubilee year cannot be dedicated as herem. These items are not truly his to dedicate. The Mishnah continues: "Kohanim and Levites cannot dedicate their properties as herem." This is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. We will see why. Rabbi Shimon says, "Kohanim cannot dedicate their properties as herem for the simple reason that the dedications would return to them." If they dedicate it, and it belongs to them, it defeats the purpose. "However, Levites can dedicate their properties as herem, because the dedicated property can go to a Kohen." So, Rabbi Shimon makes a compromise: Levites cannot dedicate ancestral land as herem, because their ancestral land is theirs forever, but they can dedicate movable items.
The Gemara begins by asking, "I understand why Kohanim cannot dedicate anything as herem, because the herem goes back to them. And I understand why they cannot dedicate land as herem, because it is an eternal possession. But why can't Kohanim dedicate movable items as herem?" The Gemara answers that it makes an analogy: "From all his wealth he built his house; from all his movable items he made movable items for the Levites." We draw a comparison between movable items and ancestral land. Just as they cannot dedicate ancestral land, they cannot dedicate movable items.
Rabbi Shimon, however, does not make this analogy. He says, "Kohanim cannot dedicate because it goes back to them." But Levites can dedicate, because he does not make the analogy. The Gemara asks, "I understand why he says they can dedicate movable items, because he doesn't make the analogy. But regarding land, why does he explicitly state in the verse, 'it is an eternal possession for them?'" The Gemara says that when Rabbi Shimon said Levites can dedicate, he was referring to movable items. And Rabbi Yehuda, when he said Levites cannot dedicate, was referring to land. So, Rabbi Abahu says, "The words of Rabbi Yehuda appear to be correct to Rabbi Shimon regarding land, for even Rabbi Shimon did not dispute him except regarding movable items. Regarding land, Rabbi Shimon would agree that Levites cannot dedicate it as herem, because the verse states 'it is an eternal possession for them.' But I argue with him regarding movable items, where Levites can dedicate them."
Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba says, "If one dedicates movable items as herem, he can give it to any Kohen he chooses." As it says, "Every herem in Israel shall be yours," meaning it belongs to Aaron and his family. However, if one dedicates his fields as herem, he must give it to the Kohanim of the Mishmar (the priestly division) serving in the Temple that week. This is referring to ancestral land. We learn this through a "gezerah shavah" (a verbal analogy) from the case of "gezel ha'ger" (stolen property of a convert). If someone stole from a convert, denied it under oath, and the convert died without heirs, the thief must return the stolen money to the Kohanim and bring a guilt offering. Just as the money from "gezel ha'ger" goes to the Kohanim of the Mishmar serving that week, so too, ancestral land dedicated as herem goes to the Kohanim of the Mishmar serving that week. The verse states, "to the Lord, to the Kohen." How do we know it goes to the Kohen of that Mishmar? Just as the guilt offering is brought by the Kohen of that Mishmar, so too, the money goes to the Kohen of that Mishmar. And we make a gezerah shavah between the Kohen of "gezel ha'ger" and the Kohen of ancestral land dedicated as herem.
The Gemara then discusses a different case: a field that goes to the Kohanim in the Jubilee year. This is a case of ancestral land where a person consecrated his field, and someone else redeemed it. In the Jubilee year, it does not revert to the original owner but goes to the Kohanim of the Mishmar serving during the entry of the Jubilee week. For example, if the Jubilee year begins on Yom Kippur, and Yom Kippur falls on Shabbat, there are two Mishmarot: the one serving and the one coming in. Which Mishmar receives the land? Rav Hiyya bar Abin, in the name of Ulla, who had a tradition from his master, says it is given to the Mishmar that is already there, which is about to leave at the end of the day.
How do we know this? Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak says, "It is taught in a Baraita: 'You find that both the Jubilee and the Sabbatical year (the 49th year) release simultaneously. However, the Jubilee's release of land is at its beginning, and the Sabbatical year's release of debts is at its end.'" The end of the 49th year and the beginning of the 50th year happen simultaneously. The Gemara questions the language, saying "Ela" (however) implies a reversal, but here it's a proof of simultaneity. The Gemara concedes the point about the language. But what do we learn from here? That the Jubilee takes place at the beginning, meaning the first Mishmar. The Gemara asks, "It makes sense that the Sabbatical year's release of debts is at its end, as it is written, 'at the end of seven years you shall make a release.' But the Jubilee at its beginning? The Jubilee begins on Yom Kippur, as it is written, 'on the Day of Atonement you shall sound the shofar throughout your land.' The Jubilee starts ten days after Rosh Hashanah, on Yom Kippur, when the fields return. So it's not simultaneous!"
There is a dispute among the Sages. Everyone agrees that the fields themselves do not actually transfer until Yom Kippur. But the question is, when is ownership lost? Rabbi Yishmael, in the name of Rabbi Nachman bar Rokeach, says that already on Rosh Hashanah, the fields are considered ownerless. So, the end of the 49th Sabbatical year (release of debts) and the beginning of the Jubilee year (release of land) are back-to-back. Therefore, the Mishmar that is coming in, the first Mishmar that is there, gets the fields.
We heard this halakha in the name of Rabbi Hiyya bar Abin: that herem goes to the Kohen, and land goes to the Mishmar. Rabbi Abahu questioned why Rabbi Hiyya distinguished between movable items and land. There is a verse: "Every herem that a man dedicates to the Lord, from all that he has, whether from ancestral land." "From all that he has" refers to movable items, and "from ancestral land" refers to fields. Just as ancestral land goes to the Kohanim of the Mishmar, so too, movable items should go to the Kohanim of the Mishmar. The Gemara answers that this is a dispute between Tannaim. Some make the analogy, and some do not. Rabbi Hiyya holds with those who do not make the analogy.
Next Mishnah: These are dedications that a person makes, which he is not allowed to give to the Kohanim. It means it's done, it's done. You can't make a redemption on Terumah; you have to give it to the Kohanim. It's unconditional. Rabbi Yehuda in the name of Beit Tera says, "Undesignated herem goes to the Temple treasury." When a person says "herem" but does not specify where he wants to give it, it goes to the treasury of the Temple, as it says, "Every herem is holy of holies to the Lord." The Sages say, "Undesignated herem goes to the Kohanim," as it says, "The herem shall be his possession, to the Kohen."
Why is it stated, "Every herem is holy of holies to the Lord"? The novelty is that a herem can also apply to animals that were already consecrated as "holy of holies," like a sin-offering or a burnt-offering, or a peace-offering. This means adding another layer of sanctity on top of existing sanctity. How does this work? Rashi explains that when a person makes a vow concerning an animal that is already consecrated, he has a liability for that animal. If it dies or is lost, he must replace it. So, when he dedicates it as herem, he brings the value of that offering to the Kohen, and the offering itself he brings to the Kohanim. He cannot dedicate the animal itself as herem, but since he would have to replace it, he brings this animal and other money for the herem. Rashi explains that he has a "share" in the animal in the sense that he has a liability to replace it. Since he has some liability, his herem is valid, but he cannot place the herem on the animal itself. So he brings the animal as an offering, takes the money, and gives it to the Kohanim. There is a redemption in the sense that you can redeem it. You cannot make the animal holy because it is already holy, but instead of giving the animal, you give its value. The verse teaches that even animals that were already consecrated can have herem fall upon them, obligating you to give their value to the Temple treasury.
What if it was a "holy of holies" or a "lesser holy offering"? For example, if he set aside a burnt offering, and then dedicated it as herem. As Rashi explained, he gives the value to the Kohen, and the animal itself is brought as an offering. If it dies or is lost, he is obligated to replace it. So, the Gemara says we calculate how much he would be willing to pay for an offering, even if he is not obligated to bring one, but simply as a gift. For example, if you tell a person, "I can give you a cheap ox for a hundred dollars to bring as an offering," he might say, "That's worth it to me." But if you say six hundred dollars, he might not spend that money. So, what is the benefit he receives here? If it dies, he is not obligated to replace it. He benefits from the hundred dollars he would have spent anyway, because that's a cheap price. He would definitely spend a hundred dollars to buy an ox. So that's the price he has to give for the herem. He doesn't have any value to this because he's not obligated to replace it, so the animal is worthless to him. But there is a certain liability that you would always pay, what would I always pay? A hundred dollars. So therefore he has to pay a hundred dollars for the herem if it died. He's not obligated, but still he would have paid a hundred dollars to take another one if it was cheap enough. He doesn't own it, but something here is his in the sense that he would pay something. He has no liability, but to bring a gift to God, he would be willing to pay a certain minimum. That certain minimum is the amount. That's what Rashi says. If the animal got lost, what did he really lose? He just lost that he's not going to give this gift. Okay, fine, that's it.
The Mishnah continues: "A firstborn animal, whether perfect or blemished, can be dedicated as herem." How much must one give to the Kohen for this herem? How much would a person be willing to pay to give the firstborn to his nephew or his sister's son? That is how you calculate it. For example, you would be willing to pay a few dollars to get your friend or family member this firstborn. That's the amount of the herem. Rashi explains that he wants to give this person, his cousin or sister, the firstborn. Why did he pick these cases? Because the one giving the benefit is an Israelite. If his grandson is a Kohen, or he himself is a Kohen, and the person who is supposed to pay is also a Kohen, then you cannot pay him for that. It's like you're paying to get a service. We had to pick a case where an Israelite is willing to pay money to a householder to get it to a relative who is a Kohen, but not that the householder himself is a Kohen. Because if he is a Kohen, and he tries to get it to another Kohen relative, it looks like he is bribing the Kohen. But an Israelite can pay money to tell him to give it to such and such a Kohen. That's why the Mishnah picked the case where it was a nephew or a grandson from the daughter, where the one buying or paying the money is a non-Kohen. Blessed be the Lord forever, Amen.