הלכות ערכים וחרמין

When a person consecrates his ancestral field, it is a mitzvah for him to redeem it, for the owner receives priority. 27a derives this concept from the exegesis of Leviticus 27:27. If, however, he does not desire to, we do not compel him.
When does the above apply? In the era that the Jubilee is observed. 10:3, 8-10 which explains that the Jubilee years is observed only when the entire Jewish people live in the Holy Land. Hence when the tribes of Reuven and Gad were exiled - decades before the destruction of the First Temple - the observance of the Jubilee no longer had the status of Scriptural Law. For if the Jubilee arrives and he does not redeem it, it will be expropriated for the sake of the priests, as we explained. In the era when the Jubilee has been nullified and it is not expropriated for the sake of the priests, but instead will ultimately be redeemed, we compel justify the Rambam's understanding. the owner to make an initial bid 27a). and it is redeemed for its worth are taught as a single unit in the Torah and all the particulars do not apply, this fundamental factor is also not applied. like other consecrated articles. If someone who is willing to add to [the bid] to redeem it, he may redeem it. If not, we tell him: "It has come to you," and he must give what he bid. He may not make an opening bid for less than four p'rutot so that the fifth that he will add will not be less than a p'rutah. is not financially significant.

If the owner desired to sell other fields that he owned or to borrow to redeem this field that he consecrated, he has permission to do so. 30a). This applies whether [he consecrated the field] during the time the Jubilee is observed or when it is not observed. He is given precedence over others. Similarly, if he desired to redeem half of it, he may. This contrasts with the laws that apply when one sells a field to an ordinary person. 11:17-18; 12:2. This is the greater stringency that applies with regard to ordinary property [and not] to the Temple treasury.

When a person consecrates his home, (positive commandment 116) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 354) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. a non-kosher animal, (positive commandment 115) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 353) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. or other property, they are evaluated for their worth, whether it be high or low. If the person who consecrated them, his wife, or his heirs redeem them, they must add a fifth. We compel the owner to make the first bid. The money is set aside for improvements to the Temple.
[The above] applies whether the house was from a walled city or from an unwalled habitation, [the owner] may redeem it at all times., ch. 12, there is a difference in the relevant laws with regard to the sale of such dwellings to private individuals. A home in a walled city must be redeemed from a private purchaser within a year. Otherwise, it becomes his property forever. These restrictions do not apply with regard to a home in an unwalled habitation.

[The following rules apply if] another person redeemed it from the Temple treasury. If the home was within a walled city and it remained in the possession of the redeemer for twelve months, it becomes his property forever. If the home was located in an unwalled habitation and the Jubilee arrived while it was in the possession of the redeemer, it returns to its owner in the Jubilee.

When a person consecrates an unblemished kosher animal for the sake of improvements to the Temple, he has transgressed a positive commandment. [Nevertheless,] the deed he performed is of consequence and sanctity is conveyed upon [the animal]. It is redeemed even though it is unblemished. The priest establishes its worth, 15a. and the money is given for improvements to the Temple. The person who redeems it, redeems it only for the sake of offering it on the altar for the type of sacrifice for which it is fitting. [This is required, because] any [consecrated entity] that is fit for the altar is never released from [the obligation to be sacrificed on] the altar.

What is the source that teaches that it is forbidden to consecrate unblemished animals for the improvement of the Temple? [Leviticus 22:23] states: "An ox or a sheep that has irregularly sized limbs or unsplit hoofs, it shall be [consecrated] as a donation." According to the Oral Tradition, 7b. we have learned that [the term] "donation" implies that it is consecrated for improvements to the Temple. Similarly, the situation indicates that it was consecrated only for its worth, for a blemished animal is not offered on the altar. [This is denoted by the term] "it," i.e., it is consecrated for improvements to the Temple, but an unblemished animal should not be consecrated as a donation for improvements to the Temple. A prohibition derived from a positive commandment has the status of a positive commandment. 7b states that a negative commandment is also involved. Nevertheless, based on our Sages' statements in the Sifra, the Rambam considers that passage as merely an asmachta, the derivation of support for a concept by the Rabbis and not a Scriptural prohibition.

[The following rules apply when a person] consecrates an animal without making any specifications or consecrates his property without making any specifications: We survey all the unblemished animals that are fit to be offered on the altar. The males should be sold for the purpose of burnt offerings and offered as burnt offerings. The females are sold for the purpose of peace offerings and offered as peace offerings.
The proceeds [of the sales] should be given for improvements to the Temple. For unless explicit specification is made, all consecrated articles are for the sake of the improvement of the Temple. Concerning this [Leviticus 27:9] states: "If it is an animal which can be offered as a sacrifice to God, all parts of it that you can give to God shall be holy." Implied is that every entity that is fit to be offered as a sacrifice on the altar should be offered [on the altar].

When a person consecrates his possessions without making any specifications and among them were wine, oil, fine flour, and doves that are fit to be offered on the altar, they should be sold for the purpose of [offerings that employ them] and they should be offered. The money should be used to purchase male animals that should be brought as burnt offerings. 4:7-8. The Radbaz explains the rationale behind the Rambam's ruling. Since animals can be redeemed, we assume that he consecrated them with the intent that they be redeemed and the money given for improvements to the Temple building. Since these other items cannot be redeemed, by contrast, we assume that from the outset, his intent was that they be consecrated for the sake of the altar alone. These concepts also apply with regard to Halachah 9.

Why should the proceeds from these sales be used to bring burnt offerings and the proceeds from the sale of an unblemished animal be used for improvements to the Temple? [The rationale is that] when an animal is consecrated to the altar suffers a [disqualifying] blemish, there is a concept of it being redeemed, as will be explained. When, by contrast, fine flour, wine, oil, and doves become unfit [for the altar], there is no concept of redeeming them. explains that since they cannot be redeemed once they have been placed in a consecrated vessel, that is most significant. For until they have been placed in a consecrated vessel, they have not been sanctified in a complete sense. See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 6:4-5. [This is derived from Leviticus 27:11-12 which] states: "You shall have the animal stand [before the priest and the priest shall evaluate it]." [Implied is that] any entity that is stood [before a priest] and evaluated may be redeemed. If any entity is not to be stood [before a priest] and evaluated, it may not be redeemed.

When a person consecrates his possessions without making any specifications and among them was incense which is given to the craftsmen for their wages until they return and purchase it, as we explained in [Hilchot] Shekalim, 4:12, in every year that is not a leap year, there is a certain amount of incense left over. For 365 portions were prepared for daily offerings and there are either 353, 354, or 355 days in such a year. Thus there were extra portions left over. The holiness associated with these portions of incense was then transferred to money and that money used to purchase burnt offerings. Afterwards, the portions of incense would be given to the craftsmen who prepare the incense as their wages. They would then sell this incense back to the Temple treasury, so that it would be purchased back with the funds designated for communal sacrifices for the new year.
This halachah is speaking about an instance where one of those craftsmen consecrated the incense in his possession to the Temple treasury. It should be given to other craftsmen as their wages and then purchased back as above. it should be given to the craftsmen for their wages as is done with the remainder of the incense. These guidelines are also followed when one of the spices used in the incense offering is found among his possessions.

When a person consecrates an unblemished animal [as a sacrifice to be offered on] the altar and it became blemished and was disqualified, it should be evaluated and redeemed. Concerning this, [Leviticus 27:11] states: "When any impure animal 37b explains that the intent is not an animal from an impure species, but rather an animal from a kosher species that became disqualified because of a blemish, for there is a second verse (27:27) that speaks about evaluating non-kosher animals. See also Hilchot Issurei Mizbeach 1:10. of which a sacrifice should not be brought as an offering to God, you shall have the animal stand [before the priest....]" He should bring another sacrifice equivalent to it with its money.

Whenever a person consecrates an animal in its lifetime - whether a kosher animal or a non-kosher one, whether it was consecrated for the sake of the Temple treasury, it was consecrated to be offered on the altar and it became blemished, or it is an unblemished animal which is fit to be offered as a sacrifice as will be explained, suggests that the text should be left as is and that the reference is to Chapter 6, Halachah 8, which refers to consecrating to the Temple treasury an animal that was already designated as a sacrifice. it must be stood [before the court] for evaluation, as implied by the phrase: "You shall have the animal stand [before the priest....]" Therefore, if the animal died before it is evaluated and redeemed, it should not be redeemed. Instead, it should be buried. 7:3). Instead, it must be buried so that no one will make use of it. If, however, a person consecrated a slaughtered animal or an animal carcass for the sake of improvements to the Temple, it should be redeemed like other movable property.

[In the above situation,] if one slaughtered [the animal, slitting] the two organs 1:9. [necessary for the slaughter to be acceptable] or slit the majority of these organs). but the animal is still making convulsive movements, it is considered as alive with regard to all matters. 2:1. It may be evaluated and [the provisions implied by the phrases:] "You shall have.... stand and... shall evaluate" apply until it dies. (Bava Kama 76a).

When a person consecrates the worth of an unblemished animal, the body of the animal becomes consecrated. 19b). What is implied? When a person says: 'The worth of this animal is consecrated to the altar,' the animal itself should be sacrificed.
When one consecrates the worth of one of its limbs or organs, saying: 'The worth of the feet of this cow are consecrated to the altar,' there is an unresolved question: Does the sanctity spread throughout the animal or not? 11b, the Or Sameach explains that were a person to consecrate the limb itself, there is no question that the sanctity would spread throughout the entire animal. The question is since the person did not consecrate the limb itself, merely its worth, do we make two extensions: from the worth of the limb to the limb itself and from the limb to the entire body. There are, however, those who note that in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 15:2, the Rambam does not accept the principle that the sanctity spreads from a limb or organ throughout the entire animal unless the limb or organ is of vital importance. Therefore it should be sacrificed and not redeemed.

What should be done? We sell it in its entirety to a person who will offer it as a sacrifice. 11b explain, there is a difficulty when one limb of an animal was consecrated and another person purchases it to offer it as a sacrifice, for it is as if the person offering the sacrifice is offering an animal lacking a limb. For that limb was not consecrated by him, but by the original donor. They explain that this is referring to an instance where the purchaser pledged to purchase a burnt offering of a certain value and the animal is worth that amount, even without the limb in question. See Hilchot Maaseh HaKorbanot 15:2. The proceeds of the sale are not consecrated with the exception of those of that particular limb. If the limb or organ [consecrated] was of vital importance [to the animal], the sanctity [is considered to] spread throughout the entire animal.

[Different rules apply if] the animal [consecrated] was blemished and unfit to be offered as a sacrifice. When one consecrates one of its limbs or organs - whether it is one of vital importance or not - only that limb becomes consecrated.
What is implied? A person said: 'The worth of the foot of this cow...' or 'The worth of its heart is consecrated to the altar,' he and the Temple treasury own it in partnership.

Similarly, if a person says: 'The head of this servant...' or 'The heart of this donkey is consecrated to the altar,' [he is liable only for the worth of the limb or organ mentioned]. Similarly, if he says: 'My head is consecrated to the altar,' he is liable only for the worth of his head. notes that the Talmud clearly mentions evaluation in that passage and therefore, does not accept the Ra'avad's view. How is a head evaluated? The Kessef Mishneh explains that we consider the tasks the servant or the person performs. To the extent he is involved with those that require intellectual activity, his head is worth more. If, by contrast, his activity is primarily physical, his head is worth less.
The Radbaz maintains that if a limb or organ is of vital importance to the animal or person, the value is divided in half as the Ra'avad states. The Rambam speaks of evaluating the worth of the organ only when it is not of vital importance. We see how much that limb or organ is worth and he must bring a sacrifice for that amount.

When does the above apply? With regard to animals consecrated to the altar. If, however, a person says: 'The head of this donkey...' or 'Its liver is consecrated,' or 'The head of this servant' or 'His liver is consecrated,' since his life is dependent on that organ, he is liable for its entire worth. For whenever an entity is consecrated for improvements to the Temple, the consecration involves the entity's worth.

When a person says: 'I pledge my airech to the altar,' he must bring sacrifices of the value of his airech. If he is not financially capable of giving his entire airech,, he would be required to pay according to his financial capacity, as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 2. there is an unresolved question: Is his evaluation appraised according to his financial capacity for he made his pledge using the term airech or do we not appraise his financial capacity since he made his vow to the altar? 5a).
Similarly, when a person consecrates his ancestral field to the altar, it should be redeemed and the proceeds should be used to purchase burnt offerings for the altar. There is an unresolved question: Should it be redeemed according to the fixed airech established for it and a pundiyon for each year until the Jubilee, as stated in Chapter 4, Halachot 2, 5. or should it be redeemed according to its value, since he made his vow to the altar? 5a). In all these and similar instances, we rule stringently. is more, the donor must pay the airech. If the worth is more, he must pay the worth.