Kommentar zu Wajikra 27:29

'כל חרם אשר יחרם וגו‎ NONE DOOMED WHO SHALL BE DOOMED OF MAN, [SHALL BE RELEASED] — This means, if a person is going to be executed and someone says, “I take upon myself to pay his ערך” he has said nothing (his vow is of none effect) (Arakhin 6b).

NONE DOOMED WHO SHALL BE DOOMED OF MAN, SHALL BE REDEEMED. “[This means that] if a person is about to be executed [by the court], and someone else says, ‘I take upon myself to pay his valuation [to the Temple treasury],’ his vow is of no effect.” HE SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH. “For you see he is going to die. Therefore he is not to be redeemed; he has neither a market-price nor a fixed valuation” [as fixed by the Torah on the basis of his age]. This is Rashi’s language. But our Rabbis have differed on this matter, some saying¹⁹⁸Arakhin 6 b. The name of the Sage holding this opinion is Rabbi Yishmael. that it constitutes an admonition in connection with those who are liable to the death-penalty, that one must not take a ransom from them in order to free them. It is possible that He mentions this admonition here in order to state that he [the condemned] cannot give money to [the Temple of] G-d as other devoted things [are given], and thereby go free of punishment.
By way of the plain meaning of Scripture, the verse is stating that whatever a man devotes of his belongings, whether man or animal or field of his possession, it is holy unto the Eternal, meaning that they become devoted things of the priests, and there is no redemption for them. But if he devotes people who are not his, such as those who go to war against their enemies and utter a vow, If Thou wilt indeed deliver this people into my hand, then will I utterly destroy their cities,¹⁹⁹Numbers 21:2. then all the people found in them are to die. The reason for this is that the intention of those making such a vow is not that [the captives] be given to the priests, but rather that it be forbidden to derive any benefit from them, since their purpose is to utterly destroy the enemies. Thus we find in the case of the men of Jabesh-gilead who transgressed the oath of the assembly by not coming to Mitzpah [to take part in the battle against Gibeah for the outrage they had committed],²⁰⁰See Judges Chapter 19. that it is written, And the congregation sent thither ten thousand men of the valiantest, and commanded them saying: ‘Go and smite the inhabitants with the edge of the sword’.²⁰¹Ibid., 21:10. And common sense does not allow [us to say] that the whole congregation perpetrated such an evil deed, killing many people of Israel who were not guilty of death! And Phinehas was there,²⁰²Ibid., 20:28. and by word of his mouth the whole affair was done! I have further found in the Agadah, in the [Midrash] Yelamdeinu:²⁰³I have found this in the Yalkut Shimoni, Shoftim 76. On “Yelamdeinu” see in Seder Bo (Vol. II, p. 131, Note 196). “We have been taught: Rabbi Akiba says, Cheirem (‘doomed to destruction’) is an oath, and an oath is cheirem. The men of Jabesh transgressed the cheirem, and thus they became liable to the death penalty.”
Therefore I say that it was from this verse [before us] that they deduced this law — that if any king of Israel, or the Great Sanhedrin [of seventy-one judges] in the presence of all Israel, who have the authority to institute ordinances [for the good of the people], if they declare a certain city cheirem, to be warred on, and likewise if they declare a certain matter cheirem, he who violates it is liable to the death-penalty. This indeed was the guilt of the men of Jabesh-gilead [as mentioned above], and of Jonathan, to whom his father [Saul] had said, ‘G-d do so and more also, thou shalt surely die, Jonathan.’²⁰⁴I Samuel 14:44. Now on the basis of what legal authority did these people deserve death, if not because of this source [in Scripture]?
And this was the mistake that Jephthah made with his daughter.²⁰⁵See Judges 11:30-34, where it is related that Jephthah vowed that whosoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, it shall be the Eternal’s, and I will offer it up as a burnt-offering, and it was his daughter who came out to meet him first. For he thought that just as a cheirem [“doomed” object] of the chief of Israel is valid and takes effect to put [certain] people to death, and [also] anyone who transgresses it is liable to the death-penalty, so [Jephthah thought] that if he uttered a vow at a time of war, to make an offering of a certain person or persons, the vow is valid; but he did not know that a cheirem declared by the king and Sanhedrin is valid [only] regarding the destruction of rebels, or against one who transgresses their decrees and ordinances. But that a vow should take effect to make a burnt-offering of something not appropriate for G-d, [as Jephthah thought] — Heaven forbid! Therefore the Rabbis have said in Bereshith Rabbah²⁰⁶Bereshith Rabbah 60:3. that [Jephthah] was not even obliged to pay the price of her market-value to the Temple treasury [as his vow was totally invalid], and he was punished for her [innocent] blood!
Now do not let yourself be misled by Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra’s²⁰⁷The source is unknown to me since we have no commentary of Ibn Ezra on the Book of Judges. This interpretation, however, is found in the commentary of Ralbag. empty words, when he says that the meaning of the expression and I will offer it up for a burnt-offering²⁰⁸Judges 11:31. is “or I will offer it up,” as if to say: “if that which comes forth of the doors of my house be a man or woman, that person shall be holy to G-d, inasmuch as he will abstain from the ways of the world, to stand to minister in the Name of the Eternal²⁰⁹Deuteronomy 18:5. in prayer and thanksgiving to G-d; but if it be something fit for an offering, I will make it a burnt-offering.” Accordingly [Ibn Ezra’s interpretation continues, since Jephthah’s daughter was the first to come out to meet her father], he built her a house outside the city where she resided in seclusion, and he provided her with sustenance all her days, and no man knew her,²¹⁰Genesis 24:16. so that his daughter remained shut away [from the world all her life].
All this are words of emptiness. For if he vowed that [whatsoever comes forth of the door of his house] shall be the Eternal’s,²⁰⁸Judges 11:31. this does not mean that he should be a recluse [from the world], but instead he is to be like Samuel, of whom his mother said, and I shall give him unto the Eternal,²¹¹I Samuel 1:11. and he was a servant in the House of G-d, not a recluse. And according to the ordinances of the Torah, no man can utter a vow which will bind the persons who come out of the door of his house to live thereafter in seclusion, just as he cannot bring them as an offering. And if the matter be so [as Ibn Ezra put it] then Jephthah’s daughter would be bewailing her virginity with her companions with her,²¹²Judges 11:38. like harlots enhancing their hire!²¹³See Ezekiel 16:31. Heaven forbid that this be a custom in Israel, to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year²¹⁴Judges 11:39-40. Ramban’s comment here is typical of Jewish teaching which abhors celibacy. because she did not marry and she worshipped G-d in purity! Rather, this whole subject is to be understood in its plain meaning [that Jephthah actually brought her as an offering], and his mistake was as I have explained.
And according to the opinion of our Rabbis, of blessed memory, it is possible that this verse [before us] includes many [different] subjects, similar to the verse, Ye shall not eat with the blood;²¹⁵Above, 19:26. See Ramban there. and like the verse, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children²¹⁶Deuteronomy 24:16. which the Rabbis interpret²¹⁷Sanhedrin 27 b. The meaning of the verse is thus: a parent cannot be condemned on the evidence of his children. as invalidating the testimony of relatives, and Scripture further states concerning it: But the children of the murderers he [King Amaziah of Judah] put not to death, according to that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, as the Eternal commanded, saying, ‘The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers.’²¹⁸II Kings 14:6. Here it is obvious that the Rabbis also understood the verse in its literal sense — that children are not to be put to death for the sins of their parents, and vice versa. Similarly this verse [before us] includes the law of one who vows to give to the Temple treasury the valuation of a person who is liable to the death-penalty [as explained above], the law of those against whom a cheirem is declared at a time of conquest, as we have said, and the law of one who transgresses the cheirem of the Great Court or of the king of Israel, as was the case in the incident of Saul [and Jonathan mentioned above]. It is with reference to that that it is said there, So the people rescued Jonathan, that he die not,²¹⁹I Samuel 14:45. for since the Torah states, he shall not be ransomed; he shall surely be put to death,²²⁰In Verse 29 before us. it says there, So the people rescued Jonathan, that he die not;²¹⁹I Samuel 14:45. [meaning] that since a miracle happened through him [i.e., that the Philistines suffered a great defeat on that day], they knew that it was in error that Jonathan had acted [contrary to the cheirem of his father]. And this is the sense of the expression [of the people in speaking on behalf of Jonathan], who hath wrought this great salvation in Israel.²¹⁹I Samuel 14:45. And so likewise did Yonathan ben Uziel translate this expression: “For before the Eternal it is revealed that he [Jonathan] acted in error on that day, and so the people rescued Jonathan.”

יחרם מן האדם, a person who has been convicted of the death penalty is not subject to redemption if he had been declared as sanctified.

כל חרם אשר יחרם מן האדם לא יפדה מות יומת, “Any condemned person who has been banned from mankind shall not be redeemed but shall be put to death.” Rashi understands the scenario of which our verse speaks as being the following: A man has been convicted of the death penalty. While he is en route to his execution, someone vows to give to the Temple treasury an amount equal to the value of this person, i.e. considering his age, etc., such a vow is meaningless in terms of Jewish law, and the person making such a vow does not have to give anything to the Temple treasury. (Based on Erchin 6) Nachmanides adds that according to the plain meaning of the text our sages are of divergent opinions concerning the above. The Torah had previously stated that anyone consecrating man or beast or chattels and land which he himself owns forfeits the right to redeem such as it automatically becomes the property of the priests and has already lost the status of being something consecrated. However, if someone consecrates something, i.e. the equivalent monetary value of something or someone whom he does not own, such property or people would not become the property of the priests. The classic example is that when the Israelites would go to war and vow to G’d that if He would grant them victory they would apply the law of חרם to such property, none of it would revert to the priests, seeing that the party or parties having made such a vow did not have in mind that the objects in question would become the priests’ henceforth, but they vowed not to personally benefit from that part of the loot. The warriors’ whole intent was to destroy. We find in Judges 21 that when the men of Yavesh Gilead had failed to honour [or even to be present during the taking of that oath, I am not clear about this. Ed.] the collective oath by all the tribes not to give any of their daughters to a member of the tribe of Binyamin as a wife, that 12000 men were dispatched as a punitive expedition against the inhabitants of that town and that only 400 virgins were spared, the ones who were then given to an equivalent number of young men from the tribe of Binyamin who had survived the civil war. Surely, if it had been legally possible to redeem the inhabitants of Yavesh Gilead, the people would have done so in preference of having to honour their oath, especially considering that their High Priest Pinchas was with the people at that time. Yonathan, son of King Shaul, had unwittingly become guilty of not honouring an oath by his father so that his father felt legally obligated to execute him. (Samuel I 14,27) Surely, if not for our verse here, there would not have been a need to proceed with the harsh measures envisaged by the utterance of a careless oath if redemption had been a legally acceptable option. I found further in Yalkut Shimoni chapter 76 on the Book of Judges that Rabbi Akiva is quoted as equating the word חרם in our portion with the word שבועה, oath. He derives from our verse that any High Court or legally appointed king, is entitled, especially, when all the tribes are represented when he declares such a decree, to impose the death penalty for violating an oath that bound the entire Jewish people to perform or to refrain from performing a certain task as the case may be. When we read in the above quoted chapter concerning Yonathan son of king Sha-ul that the people did redeem him, this was because Yonathan had been instrumental in performing a miracle and it became evident that Yonathan had not violated the oath knowingly. [Some suggest that the King asked the High Court to release him from an oath that had been ill conceived. Ed.] If so, we can understand Yiphtach’s cardinal error, due to arrogance, when he had failed to seek “redemption” from his vow, seeing he had never meant to sacrifice his only daughter if G’d were to grant him victory. He had mistakenly been under the impression that his vow (oath) was valid and could not be annulled. He was not unaware of the legislation enabling such annulment, but assumed that a leader of the nation could not avail himself of an option like this. It had not occurred to him that a vow to offer someone as a burnt offering, when that someone is essentially disqualified as an offering on the altar, has no legal validity at all. [Even if instead of his daughter being the first to welcome him, a cockerel had done so, he would not have had to kill that cockerel, as it is essentially not fit as an offering on the altar. Ed.] According to the opinion of our sages it is likely that our verse here contains a number of legal points, some relating to a person who is already guilty of execution by the Court, others governing how the Israelites were to conduct themselves during the forthcoming campaign to conquer the land of Canaan, as well as the rules governing someone who becomes guilty of acting in defiance of an oath by the King or an ordinance by the country’s highest court.

If a person is going to be executed. But if his death verdict was not finalized, even if he was plagued with boils, one gives according to the rate of years. Rashi explains the verses out of order, first explaining “Everything that is dedicated is most holy,” and then going back and explaining “be it people (slave), or animal,” and then [moving forward again to verse 29 and] explaining “Any dedication that a man will dedicate.” This is because he wants to explain all the laws of dedication in order. [That is, he first explains the verse in general, “However, any dedication that a man will dedicate to Hashem from any of his belongings ... Everything that is dedicated is most holy, unto Hashem.” Afterwards, he explains the specifics of the verse, “Be it people, etc.] Because he explained “However, any dedication...,” saying that dedications to kohanim cannot be sold to someone else or redeemed by the owner himself [who dedicated it], but must [first] be given to the kohein, he concludes that this [dedication also] works for sacrifices that are most holy and for sacrifices of lesser degree, and he gives the money of the vow and the worth of its benefit of a voluntary offering to a kohein. And if something is dedicated to Hheaven [the Temple], one redeems it and gives its worth to the Temple upkeep, and it is not like a dedication to kohanim that one cannot redeem until it has reached the hand of a kohein. This is the explanation of “Everything that is dedicated is most holy.” Afterwards, Rashi goes back and explains the laws of [specific] dedicated items and explains מאדם (lit. from a man) but not every man; thus only one’s Canaanite slaves. “’Any dedication that a man will dedicate,’ If a person is going to be executed... behold, he is going to die... [and] he has no worth.”

כל חרם אשר יחרם מן האדם, “and any condemned person who has been banned from mankind; The Torah speaks of a person who has been sentenced to death by a Jewish court. The somewhat awkward wording of this verse is due to the four different types of death penalty that a Jewish court can impose for different types of capital offences. Our verse applies to any of these kinds of death sentences.

מות יומת, you see, he is going to be put to death, and he therefore cannot be redeemed, — he has neither a market-value (דמים) nor an ‎ערך.‎

Thus is completed the Book of the Law of the Priests [i.e., the Book of Leviticus], their offerings and their commandments.
May G-d the Most High restore matters to their [former] condition, the Levites to their song, the priests to their ministry, and Israel to their mighty habitation.
And may our eyes behold Jerusalem, the garden of the Palace;²²¹The Sanctuary is “the Palace” and Jerusalem “the garden of the Palace.” The expression is taken from Esther 1:5. See, however, at end of his Sermon on the New Year (Kithvei Haramban, Vol. I, p. 289) where Ramban refers to the whole Land of Israel as “the Palace of the King.”
And the Palace upon its wonted place,²²²Jeremiah 30:18.
The Temple and the Innermost Sanctuary upon their firm foundation, and the daughters of Judah²²³Psalms 97:8. This is a reference to the cities of Judah surrounding Jerusalem. in their security.
Then will the offering of Judah be pleasant unto the Eternal as in the days of old,²²⁴Malachi 3:4. and as in their ancient years.
And acceptable upon His altar will be the Daily Whole-offerings in their order and the Additional Offerings according to their law.

Finished and completed is the Book of Leviticus with the help of G-d.