<span class="x" onmousemove="Show('perush','Este es el <b>145to Precepto Positivo</b> enumerado por el Rambam en el Prefacio a Mishné Torá, su “Compendio de la Ley Hebrea” para todo el Pueblo de Israel.',event);" onmouseout="Close();">Pero ninguna cosa consagrada</span>, que alguno hubiere santificado al Señor de todo lo que tuviere, de hombres y animales, y de las tierras de su posesión, <span class="x" onmousemove="Show('perush','Este es el <b>110mo Precepto Negativo</b> enumerado por el Rambam en el Prefacio a Mishné Torá, su “Compendio de la Ley Hebrea” para todo el Pueblo de Israel.',event);" onmouseout="Close();">no se venderá</span>, ni <span class="x" onmousemove="Show('perush','Este es el <b>111mo Precepto Negativo</b> enumerado por el Rambam en el Prefacio a Mishné Torá, su “Compendio de la Ley Hebrea” para todo el Pueblo de Israel.',event);" onmouseout="Close();">se redimirá</span>: todo lo consagrado será cosa santísima ante el Señor.
Sifra
3) (Vayikra 27:28) ("But every 'devotion' (cherem) which a man shall devote to the L–rd, of all that he has, of man and beast, and of field of his holding, shall not be sold and shall not be redeemed; every devotion, holy of holies is it to the L–rd.") "of all that he has": and not all that he has. "of man": to include his Canaanite man-servant and maid-servant. — But perhaps, to include his Hebrew man-servant and maid-servant! It is, therefore, written "of" man" and not "every man." "of beast," and not "every beast." "and of field of his holding," and not a field of acquisition. I might think that if a man devoted all of them (to the Temple) they would remain devoted; it is, therefore, written "But" (to exclude this). R. Elazar b. Azaryah said: If a man is not permitted to devote (all) of his possessions (to the Temple), how much, then, must he be solicitous of his possessions!
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Sifra
4) "shall not be sold": to others. "and shall not be redeemed": by the owner. What shall he do with it? (Vayikra 27:21) "To the Cohein (of that watch) shall be his holding." I might think (that this is so) even if he stipulated "to the L–rd." It is, therefore, written "every devotion, holy of holies is it to the L–rd" (i.e., if he stipulates "to the L–rd" it reverts not to the Cohein but to Temple maintenance).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Sifra
5) R. Yehudah b. Betheirah says: Whence is it derived that unspecified "devotions" go to Temple maintenance? From "every devotion, holy of holies is it to the L–rd." I might think, even if he specified "to the Cohein"; it is, therefore, written "it ([i.e., unspecified] to the L–rd").
