הלכות ערכים וחרמין

On the fifthteenth of Adar, the court, Israel's highest court. diverts their attention [from other concerns] and examines and investigates matters involving the needs of the community and consecrated property. They check the matter and research the [cases involved], so that consecrated property and dedication offerings will be redeemed and arachim and pledges of worth are collected from all those who are liable for them so that the entire nation will be prepared to give the gift of shekalim to maintain the House of our God. that was announced and collected in the month of Adar was for the sake of the communal offerings (Hilchot Shekalim 4:10).

Consecrated articles are redeemed only on the basis of [evaluation by] three experts. Similarly, when movable property is being taken as security when one is liable for arachim, it should be evaluated by three people. And when an animal or the like is designated as an airech, it should be evaluated by three people.
When, however, land is designated as an airech or if arachin for humans must be collected from landed property, it is evaluated only by ten people 23b derives this from the fact that Leviticus, ch. 27, mentions the word "priest" ten times when speaking of all of these types of evaluations. and one of them must be a priest. For the passage [that speaks about redemption] mentions a priest.). Similarly, if a person says: "I pledge my worth," "...the worth of so-and-so," "...the worth of my hand," or "...the worth of my foot," when an evaluation of his worth, that of his hand, or that of his foot is made, it is made by ten people and one of them is a priest.).

When consecrated property - whether landed property or movable property - is redeemed from the Temple treasury, an announcement is made before all those who might seek to redeem it. [The following rule applies if] one says: "I will [redeem] them for ten selaim," another says: "...for twenty," a third "...for thirty," a fourth "...for forty," and a fifth "...for fifty," and then the one who pledged fifty alone retracts. We expropriate ten [selaim] from the property [of the latter] 28b, et al): "A pledge to the Temple treasury is like transferring the article to an ordinary person." Nevertheless, he is only required to pay ten, since the Temple treasury can collect the forty from the other person. and give the consecrated article to the one [who pledged to] give forty. Thus the Temple treasury receives fifty: Ten from one and forty from the other.
If the one who pledged forty also retracts, we expropriate ten [selaim] from his property and give the consecrated article to the one who pledged thirty. [If he and the others also retract,] we follow the same process until [the option is given to] the first. If the first who pledged ten also retracts, we announce the redemption of the consecrated article a second time and sell it. If it is redeemed for less than ten, we collect the difference from the person who [originally] pledged ten.

When does the above apply? When they retracted one after the other. If, however, they all retracted at the same time, we divide the sum among them.
What is implied? The first one says: "I will [redeem] it for ten selaim," the second: "...for twenty," and a third "...for 24," and the second and third retract at the same time, we enable the first to redeem it for ten and we expropriate seven from the property of both the second and the third. 27b) offer a different interpretation of how the sum is divided between the two. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh, however, justify the Rambam's view. Thus the Temple treasury collects 24. Similarly, if all three of them retract and the consecrated article is [ultimately] sold for three, we expropriate seven selaim from the property of all of them. These principles are followed in all instances.

The [original] owners [of the consecrated article] are [given the opportunity to redeem the consecrated article] before all others, because they [are required to] add a fifth. They are not, however, required to add a fifth to the sum that they bid above other [potential] redeemers, only to what they initially pledged.
What is implied? The owners said: "We will [redeem] it for 20 [selaim]," and another person says: "I will redeem it for 20," the owners are given the option, because they add a fifth and pay 25." If another person comes and says: "I will redeem it for 21," and the [original] owners remain silent and do not add anything, we sell it to them for 25.
If the owners increased [the bid of] 21, adding even a p'rutah, 27b) maintain that even if the original owners do not raise the bid, they are liable for 26 selaim for they are liable for the sela added by the other bidder. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh justify the Rambam's approach. they are required to pay 26 [selaim] and a p'rutah: the 21 and a p'rutah which they pledged on their own initiative and the five which are the fifth from their original bid.
Similarly, if the second person said: "I will redeem it for 22," a third said, "...for 23," a fourth said, "...for 24," a fifth said, "...for 25," and [the original owner] added even a p'rutah to the sum of 25, they are compelled to give 30 and a p'rutah: the 25 and a p'rutah which they pledged on their own initiative and the five which are the fifth that they are obligated. For the owner is not required to add a fifth to the additions of the others. Instead, they must add the fifth from their original pledge to the final sum that they pledged.

When does the above apply? When the consecrated property was not evaluated by three experts. If, however, three experts evaluated the consecrated property and said that it was worth what the last [bidder] pledged and the original owners then increased his bid by even a p'rutah, the additional fifth they must give [is calculated based on] the latter bid. They must, therefore, give 31 [selaim], a dinar, is six selaim and a dinar. This is the additional fifth that the original owner is required to pay. and a p'rutah.

[The following rules apply when] the consecrated property was not evaluated, the owner pledged 20, someone else came and pledged 25, and the owner remained silent and did not add anything. The owner is still given priority, for he is also required to pay 25 because of the additional fifth. If another person came and pledged 26, he is given priority. If the owner desires to add even a p'rutah he must give 31 [selaim] and a p'rutah as we explained. This pattern is followed in all instances.

In the present era, we do not consecrate property, nor make evaluation offerings or dedication offerings, for there is no Temple to make improvements upon. [The following laws apply] if one did consecrate property or make an evaluation offering or a dedication offering: states that the Rambam would not differ with this concept. See also the Rama (Yoreh De'ah 258:1) who suggests that if a person consecrates an article in the present age, he should ask a sage to repeal his vow. If it was an animal, he should lock it in [a closed room] until it dies naturally. If it was produce, a garment, or a utensil, it should be set aside until it rots. If it was coins or metal utensils, they should be taken to the Dead Sea or the Mediterranean Sea to be destroyed.

If a person consecrated a servant who accepted the mitzvot and then required to observe all the mitzvot incumbent upon women. See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 13:11. [incumbent on servants] or designates him as a dedication offering, he should redeem him and bring the money to the Dead Sea as is the law with regard to other pledges of the worth of an article or arachim in the present age. If the servant was a gentile, 14:9, after being purchased by a Jew, a gentile servant is given a year in which to decide whether he wishes to observe the mitzvot. The Rambam is speaking about the laws that apply in the midst of that year. he may not be cast into a pit, nor may he be raised up from one. 10:1; Hilchot Rotzeach 4:11. The Radbaz interprets the Rambam's intent in citing these concepts here as implying that the owner should not redeem the servant. Since he remains consecrated, it is forbidden to benefit from his labor.

It is permissible to redeem consecrated property for a p'rutah in the present age even as an initial and preferable option. 258:1) who rules that consecrated property cannot be redeemed in the present age. The Siftei Cohen 258:3, however, cites the Rambam's view. Our Sages, however, ruled that it be redeemed for four zuzim or close to that sum to publicize the matter. In the era of the Temple, as an initial preference, it should be redeemed for its worth, as we explained.

In the present age, if a person made a dedication offering of movable property without specifying his intent, it should be given to the priests in that locale. If, however, he designated a field in Eretz Yisrael as a dedication offering without specifying his intent or designated it as a dedication offering to the priests, it is not a dedication offering. For [the laws of] a dedication offering of a field apply in the era that the Jubilee year is observed. 10:9.
If one designated landed property as a dedication offering for the priests in the Diaspora even in the present era, it is considered like movable property in Eretz Yisrael (Choshen Mishpat 95) and commentaries which debate whether this principle applies in all matters or only in this limited context. and should be given to the priests.

It is a mitzvah to consecrate property and designate dedication and evaluation offerings and it is appropriate for a person to observe these practices to subjugate his natural inclination so that he will not be parsimonious and to fulfill the charge of the prophets [Proverbs 3:9]: "Honor God with your wealth." Nevertheless, if a person never consecrated property nor designated a dedication or evaluation offering, it is of no consequence.. For the Torah has given testimony, saying [Deuteronomy 23:23]: "If you will refrain from [uttering] a vow, you will not have sinned."

A person should never consecrate all of his property or designate it as a dedication offering. A person who does so violates the Torah's guidance, for [Leviticus 27:28] speaks [of a person designating a dedication offering] "from all that is his." [Implied is that he should not give] "all that is his," as our Sages explained. 28a. This is not piety, but foolishness, for he will lose all his money and become dependent on others. 10:18 which states:
Even a dignified sage who becomes poor should work in a profession, even a degrading profession, rather than seek public assistance. It is better to skin the hides of dead animals rather than tell people: "I am a sage, support me."
We should not show mercy to such a person. In a similar vein, our Sages said: 20a. "A man of foolish piety is among those who destroy the world." Instead, a person who distributes his money for mitzvot should not distribute more than a fifth, 50a derives this concept from Jacob's vow to tithe (Genesis 28:22 . There the verb which conveys the promise to tithe is repeated, allowing for the concept of giving two tithes. See also Hilchot Matanot Aniyim 7:5.
Yayin Malchut notes that in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pe'ah 1:1), the Rambam writes that as an act of piety, a person may give more than a fifth. Nevertheless, there is not necessarily a contradiction between the two. In his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam is speaking about giving to a needy who asks for alms. In response to that acute need, one may give more that a fifth. Here the Rambam is speaking about giving to charity when there is no acute need. Hence the limit should be adhered to.
In Iggeret HaTeshuvah, Rav Shneur Zalman of Liadi states that one may give more than a fifth of his resources to charity to atone for his sins, for just as one is not concerned with the amount one gives when it comes to healing a physical wound or blemish, so too, one should not be worried about cost when healing a spiritual blemish. and he should conduct himself as our Prophets advised [cf. Psalms 112:5]: "He arranges his affairs with judgment," both with regard to matters involving Torah and worldly concerns. 5:10. Even with regard to the sacrifices for which a person is liable, the Torah showed compassion for [a person's] resources and dictated that the type of sacrifice be offered according to a person's financial capacity. How much more so should this approach be followed with regard to matters which a person is obligated only because of his vows. He should take such vows only in a manner appropriate for him, as [implied by Deuteronomy 16:17]: "Each man according to his generosity, according to the blessings of God, your Lord, which He has granted you." 1:2), but in an expanded sense, it applies to all offerings to the Temple.