וְאִ֥ישׁ אֶת־קֳדָשָׁ֖יו ל֣וֹ יִהְי֑וּ אִ֛ישׁ אֲשֶׁר־יִתֵּ֥ן לַכֹּהֵ֖ן ל֥וֹ יִהְיֶֽה׃ (פ)
Possesseur d’une chose sainte, on peut en disposer; dès qu’on l’a donnée au pontife, elle est à lui."
Sifrei Bamidbar
(Bamidbar 5:10) "And a man, his holy things, to him shall they be": All kodshim ("holies") were included in "And a man, his holy things, to him shall they be." Scripture "pulled out" all the kodshim and gave them to the Cohanim, leaving over (to the owners) only ("portions") of thank-offerings, peace-offerings, the Pesach offering, beast-tithe, second-tithe, and neta revai (plantings of the fourth year). Variantly: And a man, his holy things, to him shall they be": From here you derive that to the Cohein who performs the sacrifice (even in a different watch), its service (i.e., its flesh) and its skin belong "to him" (the Cohein). Variantly: "And a man, his holy things, to him shall they be": What is the intent of this? From (Vayikra 19:24) "And in the fourth year all of its fruit shall be holy in praise of the L-rd," (I would not know) "holy" to the owners or "holy" to the Cohanim? It is, therefore, written "And a man, his holy things, to him shall they be." Scripture here speaks of neta revai, that it belongs to the owners. These are the words of R. Meir. R. Shimon says: "holy" to the owners. You say "holy" to the owners, but perhaps it is "holy" to the Cohanim! — You derive it thus: second-tithe is called "holy" (viz. Devarim 26:13) "and neta revai is called "holy." Just as second-tithe is "holy" to the owners, so, neta revai should belong to the owners. — (No,) this is refuted by terumah, which is called "holy" (viz. Vayikra 22:14) and yet belongs to the Cohanim. — Would you say that? There is a difference. Second-tithe requires bringing to the place (Jerusalem) and neta revai requires bringing to the place. If I learned that second-tithe belongs to the owners, neta revai should belong to the owners. — (No,) this is refuted by bikkurim, which, even though they require bringing to the place, belong to the Cohanim. — Would you say that? There is a difference. Second-tithe is called "holy," and requires bringing to the place, and redemption. And neta revai is called "holy," and requires bringing to the place, and redemption. And this is not to be refuted by terumah, which, even though it is called "holy," does not require bringing to the place, nor by bikkurim, which, even though they require bringing to the place, do not require redemption. I will learn a thing from a thing, and I will reason out a thing from a thing. I will learn a thing of three facets from a thing that is similar in (these) three facets, and I will not learn a thing of three facets from a thing which is not similar in (these) three facets, but only in one or two. If I have learned, then, that second-tithe belongs to the owners, then neta revai, too, should belong to the owners. R. Yossi says "holy" to the owners. You say "holy" to the owners, but perhaps it is "holy" to the Cohanim! — It is, therefore, written (of neta revai, Vayikra 19:25) "And in the fifth year you may eat its fruit to increase for you its produce." For whom is it increased? For him to whom it has already been given (in the fourth year, i.e., the owner.)
Sifrei Bamidbar
(Bamidbar 5:10) "And every man, his holy things, to him shall they be": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Ibid. 18:19) "All the terumoth of the holy things which the children of Israel will separate for the L-rd have I given to you (Aaron) and to your sons, etc.", I might think that he (a Cohein) could forcibly seize them (the priestly gifts). It is, therefore, written "And every man, his holy things, to him shall they be" — He has the option of giving them to any Cohein he wishes. "And a man, his holy things, to him shall they be": If one measured out (terumah) for them (certain Cohanim) on the ground and others (later) joined them, I might think that I pronounce over him "Whatever a man gives to the Cohein, (in this instance the Cohein for whom he measured it out), to him (that Cohein) shall it be"; it is, therefore, written "And every man, his holy things, to him (the man) shall they be" (i.e., he retains the option of giving it to those who came later). I might then think that if he measured it out (for him) in a basket and others joined later, I still pronounce over him "And every man, his holy things, to him (the man) shall they be" (and he can give it to the later ones); it is, therefore, (for such a circumstance) written "Whatever a man gives to the Cohein, (in this instance, the first Cohein), to him (that Cohein) shall it be." R. Yossi says if one redeemed his (first-born) son within thirty days, and he (the son) died, I might think that I pronounce over him (the father) "Whatever a man gives to the Cohein to him (the Cohein) shall it be"; it is, therefore, written "And every man, his holy things, to him (the man) shall they be." (If he died) after thirty days, the money is not taken back from the Cohein, it being pronounced over the father "Whatever a man gives to the Cohein, to him (the Cohein) shall it be."
Bamidbar Rabbah
“A man’s sacred items shall be his; a man who gives to the priest, it shall be his” (Numbers 5:10).
“A man’s sacred items shall be his” – why is it stated? Because it says: “All the gifts of the sacred items that the children of Israel separate [for the Lord, I have given you and your sons and your daughters with you, as an eternal portion]” (Numbers 18:19). Do I hear that they may take it by force? The verse states: “A man’s sacred items shall be his.” This tells that the allotment of sacred items is at the discretion of their owners.
“A man’s sacred items shall be his” – the sacred items of the Israelite shall be for the Israelite: the money of his tithe, the tithe of his animal, peace offerings, fourth-year saplings, a thanks offering, and his paschal offering. The sacred items of the priest shall be for the priest: his sin offering, his guilt offering, his tithe,45The teruma of the tithe that the Levite gives to the priest from the first tithe. and his firstborn.
“A man who gives to the priest, it shall be his” – because they said: The priestly watch that acquired the money acquires the ram; one who gave money to the priest but did not manage to bring the ram before he died, will we take the money from the priest and return it to the man’s heirs? The verse states: “A man who gives to the priest, it shall be his.” Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon said: This was the mishna of Rabbi Akiva until he came from Zeifirin. When he came from Zeifirin, he said: What is it to me whether Yehoyariv takes the money or Yedaya takes the money. If he gave the money to Yehoyariv but did not manage to bring the ram before Yedaya entered,46The week of the priestly watch of Yehoyariv concluded and the week of Yedaya’s watch began. may he, perhaps, take the money from Yehoyariv and give it to Yedaya? He said: “A man who gives to the priest, it shall be his.”
It says: The gift of an adult man is a gift, but the gift on a minor is not a gift. I have derived only the gift of a man. From where is it derived to include the gift of a woman and the heirs of a minor? It says: “A man who gives to the priest, it shall be his.”47The gift in this passage is referring to teruma.
“A man’s sacred items shall be his” – if one measured for a priest on the ground48The midrash is referring to a case in which anything that is placed on the ground belongs to the priest. and other priests joined them, do I perhaps read in their regard: “A man’s sacred items shall be his”?49In which case, all of them would share in the teruma. The verse states: “A man who gives to the priest, it shall be his.” Or perhaps even if he measured for him in a basket50A basket belonging to the owner of the field. and others joined them, do I perhaps read in their regard: “A man who gives to the priest, it shall be his”? The verse states: “A man’s sacred items shall be his.”
Rabbi Yosei says: If one redeemed his son within thirty days and he [the son] died, do I perhaps read in his regard: “A man who gives to the priest, it shall be his”? The verse states: “A man’s sacred items shall be his.” After thirty days, one does not remove it from the possession of the priest, and I read in his regard: “A man who gives to the priest, it shall be his.”
“A man’s sacred items shall be his” – why is it stated? Because it says: “All the gifts of the sacred items that the children of Israel separate [for the Lord, I have given you and your sons and your daughters with you, as an eternal portion]” (Numbers 18:19). Do I hear that they may take it by force? The verse states: “A man’s sacred items shall be his.” This tells that the allotment of sacred items is at the discretion of their owners.
“A man’s sacred items shall be his” – the sacred items of the Israelite shall be for the Israelite: the money of his tithe, the tithe of his animal, peace offerings, fourth-year saplings, a thanks offering, and his paschal offering. The sacred items of the priest shall be for the priest: his sin offering, his guilt offering, his tithe,45The teruma of the tithe that the Levite gives to the priest from the first tithe. and his firstborn.
“A man who gives to the priest, it shall be his” – because they said: The priestly watch that acquired the money acquires the ram; one who gave money to the priest but did not manage to bring the ram before he died, will we take the money from the priest and return it to the man’s heirs? The verse states: “A man who gives to the priest, it shall be his.” Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon said: This was the mishna of Rabbi Akiva until he came from Zeifirin. When he came from Zeifirin, he said: What is it to me whether Yehoyariv takes the money or Yedaya takes the money. If he gave the money to Yehoyariv but did not manage to bring the ram before Yedaya entered,46The week of the priestly watch of Yehoyariv concluded and the week of Yedaya’s watch began. may he, perhaps, take the money from Yehoyariv and give it to Yedaya? He said: “A man who gives to the priest, it shall be his.”
It says: The gift of an adult man is a gift, but the gift on a minor is not a gift. I have derived only the gift of a man. From where is it derived to include the gift of a woman and the heirs of a minor? It says: “A man who gives to the priest, it shall be his.”47The gift in this passage is referring to teruma.
“A man’s sacred items shall be his” – if one measured for a priest on the ground48The midrash is referring to a case in which anything that is placed on the ground belongs to the priest. and other priests joined them, do I perhaps read in their regard: “A man’s sacred items shall be his”?49In which case, all of them would share in the teruma. The verse states: “A man who gives to the priest, it shall be his.” Or perhaps even if he measured for him in a basket50A basket belonging to the owner of the field. and others joined them, do I perhaps read in their regard: “A man who gives to the priest, it shall be his”? The verse states: “A man’s sacred items shall be his.”
Rabbi Yosei says: If one redeemed his son within thirty days and he [the son] died, do I perhaps read in his regard: “A man who gives to the priest, it shall be his”? The verse states: “A man’s sacred items shall be his.” After thirty days, one does not remove it from the possession of the priest, and I read in his regard: “A man who gives to the priest, it shall be his.”