פירוש על ויקרא 27:35

AND THE ETERNAL SPOKE UNTO MOSES, SAYING … WHEN A MAN SHALL CLEARLY UTTER A VOW. This section also is joined [to Chapter 25 above] as having been declared on Mount Sinai;¹⁸⁹See Ramban above, 25:1. and it is attached to the exhortations [in the preceding section] because it is concerned with the ordinances of the Jubilee, [and the exhortations speak also of the failure to keep the Jubilee], as He mentions in the case of a person who dedicates a field he has bought¹⁹⁰Verses 22-24. or a field of his inheritance;¹⁹¹Verses 16-21. but He included here in one section the ordinances of all who vow [donations of any sort to the Sanctuary]. It is for this reason that He stated at the end, These are the commandments, which the Eternal commanded Moses for the children of Israel in Mount Sinai,¹⁹²Verse 34. [which refers to] all that has been said above, for from then on [i.e., in the Book of Numbers] He speaks of the commandments that were declared in the Tent of Meeting.

כי יפלא means, if he expressly states by an utterance of his mouth (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 22:21).

כי יפלא, he will set aside. The word means something similar to the word מפרש, in the sense of spelling out details. Anyone making a vow has to clearly define what he is vowing to do.

איש כי יפלא נדר, “if a man articulates a vow, etc.” According to Nachmanides this paragraph is also conceptually linked to the admonitions we have read in chapter 26. It was told to Moses already at Mount Sinai [see commentary at the beginning of chapter 25. Ed.] Seeing that part of this chapter deals also with the Jubilee year legislation inasmuch as it is relevant to redeeming matters declared sacred as a result of vows made, the thread has not been broken ever since the beginning of chapter 25, and the additional aspects of the legislations dealing with vows in which man declares someone or his equivalent sacred in terms of that person or object’s valuation only rounds out that section of legislation. To confirm this, the Torah, at the end of our chapter writes once more that all the aforementioned commandments were commanded by G’d to Moses to the Children of Israel at Mount Sinai [already. Ed.] What follows from now on was told Moses in the Tabernacle.

איש כי יפליא נדר, “a man who articulates a vow, etc.” The Torah deliberately did not write כי ידר נדר “who vows a vow,” but כי יפליא. That word is an allusion to the attribute (emanation) חכמה; it is generally understood that though נדר is a derivative of the emanation חכמה, it ranks below “mature” חכמה of a fully adult person. Our sages who have ranked certain people in order of their outstanding attributes and claim to greatness (Horiot 13) have listed the attribute of wisdom as greater than the authority wielded by a king of Israel, so that when there is not enough money to buy the freedom from captivity of both, the sage has to be redeemed with the first available funds. The נדר, “vow,” ranks higher than the oath, as the former overrides other commandments (in certain circumstances, or at least needs to be annulled seeing it is theoretically effective) whereas the oath not to observe a Torah commandment has no legal meaning at all. The expression יפליא in connection with נדר as opposed to שבועה oath, is alluded to by the word יפליא.

On which the soul depends. [This comes] to exclude a hand or a leg upon which the soul does not depend, [e.g.,] if he said, “the worth of [his] hand or leg [is incumbent upon me],” it is as if he said nothing and he is absolved from making payment.

איש, “a man;” (adult) by the Torah’s use of the word איש, I might have been misled into thinking that what follows applies only to male adults, and not to female adults; in order to prevent such an error being made, the Torah adds the word: נפשות, ”persons,” regardless of which gender. (Sifra) יפליא, similar to the word יפריש, “he will set aside;” this is one of the words that have different meanings depending on in which context they appear. In fact, sometimes the same word may mean the opposite in one place from what it means in another place. For instance: in Deuteronomy 17,8 the line: כי יפלא ממך דבר למשפט, means “if a matter involving legal litigation is too difficult for you to decide,” in other words, the meaning of the root of the word is “something that is hidden;” on the other hand, here, it refers to something over and beyond your normal powers of perception. Other examples of words appearing as having a meaning opposite what they do elsewhere is the word דשן, which may mean: surfeit, abundance and it may mean useless leftovers of material that has been burnt. (Exodus 27,3, or being full of sap, (Psalms 92,15.) The author cites three or four more examples, making the same point.

בערכך נפשות — he expressly states that he will give to the Sanctuary the valuation attached to a life by saying, “the payment of the valuation of such and such a thing — that, however, being something upon which its life depends — is incumbent upon me” (Sifra, Bechukotai, Section 3 6; Arakhin 4a).

נדר בערכך, the Torah compares vows to the subject of ערכין in our chapter, seeing that both types of free willed undertakings must be honoured without undue delay. (Sifra)

והיה ערכך THEN THY ערכך SHALL BE etc. — This word ערך used throughout this section has not the meaning of דמים, market-value (which varies according to the condition of the market or the condition of the person offered for sale, whilst ערך is a fixed value), but whether he be of high value or of low value, according to his age is the ערך fixed for him in this section.

ערכך; the two letters כ which are repeated here are similar in construction to the word אדמומית, “reddish, derived from אודם, “red,” or לבנונית, “whitish,” from לבן, “white.”

מבן עשרים שנה ועד בן ששים שנה, “from twenty years and up until sixty years of age, etc.” Actually, the order in which the ages are listed here should have read: “from one month to five years old; from five years old to twenty years; from twenty years old to sixty years; from sixty years old and older, in the case of a male, followed by the parallel rules about the ages of females donating their “valuation” to G’d.” However, seeing that the whole paragraph began with the word איש, i.e. an adult male, the Torah listed the ages in a different order. After all, it would hardly do to describe a month old baby, or even a five year old boy as איש. Furthermore, these minors would hardly put a valuation on themselves, “donating” themselves to G’d, or to the “Temple Treasury.” The only way such minors will be involved in this legislation at all is when an adult declares that the valuation of a boy (or girl) between 30 days and five years of age, or a boy between the ages of 5 years and 20 years will be the amount he (the adult) will give to the Temple Treasury. Seeing the Torah had commenced this paragraph by using the valuation of a twenty year old male as an example, it had to list the other age groups in the order it did (compare Nachmanides).

But rather, whether he is worth much or little. I.e., other items whose monetary value is dedicated to the Temple, where, if the donor said, “The money of so and so is on me,” we calculate according to the high or low value at that time. This dedication, however, is not so, but rather [it is calculated] according to his years written in this section.

ערכך is the same as ערך (i. e. the second כ''ף is not the suffix of the second person masc. sing.). I do not know what grammatical form the doubling of the כ''ף represents.

And as to the doubling of the kof, I do not know. Re’m writes: This is surprising as in Toras Kohanim, cited in the first chapter of Erchin (4a), it explicitly says that this is a kaf of kinui [a pronominal suffix, “your value”): “It was taught in a Beraisa, בערכך, ’according to your value.’ One gives the value of a person’s whole body and one does not give the value of his limbs. Since you might think I exclude the value of a limb that the soul depends on, the verse says, ’souls.’.” We see that the meaning of בערכך is the value of one’s whole body and from this [word] they derived [that one] cannot [dedicate] not the value of part of him, and they [also] said, ‘not the value of his limbs’. So far are his words. I do not understand his difficulty with Rashi, since Rashi is writing about the other appearance of ערכך in the section where the explanation of our Sages is not applicable at all [since they derive it from the first mention of this word]. You cannot say that since one is for an exposition, for this reason the Torah wrote the rest as ערכך because of this even where this exposition of the Sages is not relevant at all., as Rashi thinks it this is a strained explanation.

ואם נקבה הוא, “and if she (the subject of the valuation) is a female person;” ולנקבה שלשים שקלים, “and the valuation of a female during the same age group is thirty shekel.” Basically, the monetary value of a female person is roughly half of that of a male. This reflects the fact that the first woman, Eve, had been taken from the body of the first man, so that G-d’s work was only half that of what it had been when He created Adam, the first human being.

ואם מבן חמש שנים AND IF IT BE FROM FIVE YEARS OLD — Not that the person making the vow is a minor (from five to twenty years old), for there is no validity in the words of a minor, but it is speaking of an adult who said, “The payment of the valuation of this child” — who is five years old — “shall be incumbent upon me”.

ואם מבן ששים שנה AND IF IT BE FROM SIXTY YEARS OLD [AND ABOVE; IF IT BE A MALE THEN THE VALUATION SHALL BE FIFTEEN SHEKELS, AND FOR THE FEMALE TEN SHEKELS] — When one approaches old age a woman is more likely to be of the same importance as a man therefore a man decreases to beyond a third of his valuation when he becomes old (his ערך being fifty shekels and after sixty only fifteen, which is less then 17, the approximate third of 50), whilst a woman decreases only to exactly a third of her valuation (which was previously thirty shekels, and after sixty becomes ten), because people say (i. e. there is a familiar saying): “An old man in the house is a snare (a nuisance) in the house, an old woman in the house is a treasure in the house and a good omen in the house” (Arakhin 19a).

An old man in the houseùa snare (פחא) in the house. Like the expression “a net (פח) that snares” (Tehillim 91:3). I.e., it is bad to have him in the house.

ואם מבן ששים שנה ומעלה, “and if the person whose valuation is being “donated to the Temple treasury is above the age of sixty at the time;” whence do we know that if that person at the time of the valuation is exactly sixty years old it is valued as if between twenty and sixty years of age? We derive this from the wording of “sixty or above.” [That word is unnecessary unless it was meant to teach us something new. Ed.] I might think that this rule applies only to the sixtieth year, and not to the fifth, twentieth, etc; we derive the rule for those years by the use of logic when comparing it to the valuation of the five year old. As to the reason why the females’ valuation is so much less that that of males of the same age, this is based on the fact that, generally, males perform heavier physical labor than women. When men age, their ability to perform heavy labor declines at a more rapid pace than that of females of comparable age who do lighter domestic tasks.

An old woman in the houseùa treasure (סימא) in the house. A good treasure. The Targum translates ומטמוני מסתרים, “secret hidden things” (Yeshayahu 45:3) as סימא דמטמרן.

ואם מך הוא BUT IF HE POOR so that his means are not sufficient to pay this valuation,

ואם מך הוא מערכך, “If he is too poor for the valuation, etc.;” on this verse our sages in Erchin 24 say that though the property of the person who vowed to pay this valuation is subject to seizure for the purpose of payment, the bailiff must allow him to retain sufficient chattels and tools, etc., to be able to sustain himself and earn his livelihood. By being deprived of the excess he is deemed to have discharged his vow. He does not have to make payments in the future to settle the part of his debt to the Temple Treasury he has not paid yet. This ruling applies even if in the interval he has become wealthy (Maimonides Hilchot Erchin 3,7).
The procedure here is similar to an ordinary debtor who claims that he is unable to pay his debts. A person deputised for this by the court enters the debtor’s home and assesses what there is that is sale-able leaving him the aforementioned items as his minimum subsistence level. According to the Talmud Baba Metzia 114 this is based on an allusion in the Torah i.e. that the word מך appears in connection with ordinary debts as well as here. Seeing that an ordinary debtor is allowed to retain the necessities of life if he cannot repay the whole debt, the same applies here. (compare Leviticus 25,35 where the Torah commands that we must assist the impoverished Jew). [The type of comparison is called a גזרה שוה, similar language in dissimilar subject matter so that there is not really a conceptual linkage. Ed.] The Talmudic expression for allowing the debtor to retain part of his belongings is known as מסדרין.
There is a difference between the ordinary debtor and the person whose economic circumstances are being assessed by a priest in our paragraph. When personal belongings of the ordinary debtor have been taken as collateral by the bailiff they have to be returned when the owner needs them, such as his pyamas at night. Such a consideration does not apply to the person whose ability to discharge his vow is being assessed by the priest in our paragraph. The reason for this difference is mentioned on the folio of Baba Metzia we quoted. In connection with the legislation concerning collateral the Torah writes that in recognition of returning his nightgown to him the impoverished debtor will bless the lender (Deut. 24,13 and Exodus 22,25). According to the Talmud, the legislation that the pawn must be returned for use by the debtor applies only to creditors in need of blessings. Seeing that the Temple Treasury is not in need of such blessings nothing is to be gained by the pawn going back and forth every night. In connection with this kind of reasoning the question is raised in the Talmud: “does not the Torah write explicitly that when we have eaten and been sated that we must “bless the Lord your G’d” (who has provided us with all this) (Deut. 8,10). Since when does G’d need our blessing? Surely this proves that even the Temple Treasury could use our blessing! The Talmud answers that it is not the blessing mentioned in that verse that determines this but the end of the verse which concludes by saying that the matter will be accounted as an act of righteousness for the party returning the pawn. This is certainly not the case with the Temple Treasury. People who are in need of the merit of having performed acts of righteousness are the subject of the legislation to return a pawn at the time the owner needs it; the Temple Treasury which has no such need does not return collateral for the use of the debtor. G’d the owner of the Temple Treasury dispenses righteousness as He has all that He needs. He does not need to acquire title to it.

והעמידו THEN THEY SHALL PRESENT HIM — the person made the subject of a valuation, לפני הכהן BEFORE THE PRIEST, and the priest shall set a value on him according to the means of him who promised the valuation (Sifra, Bechukotai, Section 3 14).

27,8-23: והעמידו לפני הכהן, והעריך אותו הכהן, יעריכנו הכהן. (יב) והעריך הכהן. כערכך הכהן. (יד) והעריכו הכהן, כאשר יערוך אותו הכהן. (יח) וחשב לו הכהן. (כא) לכהן תהיה אחוזתו. (כג) וחשב לו הכהן. The word הכהן, “the Priest,” occurs a total of ten times in the course of these verses. Our sages in Megillah 23 say that actually that just as when you redeem land you need a quorum of ten people to be present at that occasion, one of whom is a Priest, in order to make the valuation of that piece of land legally valid, so the same applies to the valuation of people (when they had donated the equivalent of their monetary value to the Temple Treasury, as opposed to ערכין where the Torah stipulated the same valuation for people of a certain age group). The Talmud arrives at that ruling by saying that out of the ten times the word הכהן appears here, the first time it is needed to establish the principle that a Priest has an indispensable function here. The other times are all meant to exclude something. We have a principle that if there is more than one exclusion, i.e. if the word which serves as an exclusion occurs more times than necessary this exclusion turns into an inclusion. This is why the Talmud concludes that the nine extra times the word הכהן appears here includes up to nine ordinary Israelites as admissible in that quorum of ten Jews one of whom must be a Priest.

על פי אשר תשיג ACCORDING TO HIS ABILITY — i. e. according to what he possesses shall he (the priest) assess him (the person who has promised the valuation), leaving him sufficient to live upon: a bed, mattress and cushion and tools necessary for his trade; thus, in respect to the latter, if he was an ass-driver (earning a living by carrying loads) he has to leave him his ass (Arakhin 23b).

כל אשר יתן ממנו EVERYTHING THAT A MAN GIVE implies even the case when he said, “the foot of this animal shall be a burnt offering” his words have binding force). It (the animal) is therefore sold for the purpose of a burnt-offering to one who has to bring such an offering and the monies realized by its sale are חולין (non-holy) and are returned to the owner with the exception of the value of that limb (Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 9 1; Arakhin 5a; Temurah 11b; Chullin 69b).

'כל אשר יתן ממנו לה, if he had declared it sanctified, without specifying beyond this,

“The foot of this [animal] is a burnt-offering,” his statement is binding. But not so regarding the evaluation of a person since we require something on which life depends, because it is written “souls” regarding a person. But here it is written “any of it that he will give,” to include whatever he dedicates as becomes dedicated.

כל אשר יתן ממנו, “all that he gives of it, etc.” the Torah employs the masculine mode here although the word בהמה, the subject here, is a beast in the feminine mode. This is not a unique occurrence, as other such examples are to be found in Leviticus 6,8, where the pronoun ממנו, which is masculine, is used in reference to the noun מנחה, which is feminine; two more such anomalies occur in Numbers 32,5 and Genesis 13,6.

יהיה קודש, it is presumed to be intended as a sacrifice for the altar and not as a financial contribution of the maintenance of the Temple.

טוב ברע [HE SHALL NEITHER CHANGE IT NOR EXCHANGE IT] A GOOD FOR A BAD — i. e. he shall not give in exchange a perfect animal of a non-sacred character for one devoted to the Sanctuary but having some blemish (cf. Rashi on Temurah 9a on ‎‎‎מתני' טוב ברע),

He shall not substitute it, nor exchange it: This is the generalization. And then it explained [its] details - that he should not exchange it good with bad, nor bad with good. But according to the author of the cantillation marks, it appears that exchange (temurah) [means] of good with bad, and substitution (chiluf) is of bad with good. And there is support for this: "We shall substitute cedars" (Isaiah 9:9); "Those that fear the Lord shall substitute (renew) strength" (Isaiah 40:31); "And they exchanged their glory for the edifice of a bull"...

לא יחליפנו ולא ימיר אותו טוב ברע או רע בטוב, “he shall not exchange it or substitute it, good for bad or bad for good.” According to Maimonides Hilchot Temurah 4,13 the reason for this legislation is that the Torah explored the psyche of the donor down to its ultimate depth. At the core of a human being, even the finest, there may still be lying in wait for him the evil urge. Even though the person in question made these vows entirely voluntarily, not in response to any pressure, he may yet at some time or other rue having made such a vow. His first attempt at getting out of his obligation would be to exchange the animal designated for the altar with an inferior one. Seeing that the animal he sanctified was suitable as an offering, the sanctity becomes part of its body and it cannot be exchanged. This is why the Torah stated flat out that such an animal as described in our verse לא יחליפנו, cannot be traded at all. If the Torah were to permit the donor to upgrade the animal in question, it would not be long before people would abuse such a rule and they would start downgrading it for an inferior beast. If the donor violated this legislation by substituting, not only would he not gain thereby but he is punished by the Torah which states that the substitute will also become sanctified thus depriving the donor of both animals.
והיה הוא ותמורתו קדש, “and both it (the original) and its substitute will remain sacred.” Keeping in mind the reason Maimonides advanced for this legislation, we can now understand why the Torah demanded that if someone who had sanctified his house for the Temple Treasury [a lesser degree of sanctity as the house could not be offered as an offering on the altar, Ed.] and he wants to redeem it from the Temple treasurer offering to pay for it, must add 25% as a premium to its value. The Torah’s reading of our minds allows for the fact that we may change our minds. In order to remind us that such a change of mind is not appreciated, the Torah imposes a price on that privilege of a person to change his mind (compare Nachmanides).

... 37... And it appears to require more explanation: The word, substitution (chalifin), is different than the word, exchange (temurah), in that substitution is a change in the body of the thing, such that another comes in its place, as in "and change your clothes" (Genesis 35:1); whereas exchange is only an emotional change, as in "And they exchanged their glory with the edifice of a bull" (Isaiah 40:31). And the matter is understood.

An unblemished one for one which has a blemish. I.e., he may not give an undedicated unblemished animal in place of an already dedicated one which has a blemish. You might ask: How does Rashi know this? Perhaps the verse means according to its plain meaning, a fat one for a thin one? The answer is: We find elsewhere regarding sanctified animals that it is written רעand “blemish” is written next to it, indicating that wherever it says ‘bad’ regarding sanctified animals, it means a blemish. Because it is written in parshas Re’ey (Devarim 15:21), “And if it has a blemish, if it is crippled or blind, or has any severe (רע) blemish.”

טוב ברע או רע בטוב, “(substituting) good for inferior, or inferior for superior. The reason why the Torah had to write both alternatives is because the owner does so as he is not sure which is superior and which is inferior. In the case of the animals proving to be diseased and therefore at least one of them being disqualified as an offering, the donor did not know which of the sicknesses is the more serious one. (B’chor shor)

He shall not exchange it. Usually חליפה connotes exchange from poor quality to high, as in (Yeshayahu 9:9): “Sycamores have been cut down, and we will exchange them with cedars,” and (ibid. 40:31): “But those who put their hope in Adonoy shall renew strength.” However, the matter of exchanging a sacrifice is the opposite, because one usually exchanges the fine one for one of poor quality, as it says (Hoshea 4:7): “I will exchange their honor for shame”.

‎‎‎או רע בטוב‎ OR A BAD FOR A GOOD — It follows à fortiori that he must not give in exchange a perfect animal for another perfect one, or one with a blemish for another with a blemish (Temurah 9a).

And certainly (כל שכן) [the exchange of] good for good or bad for bad. You might ask: Why is this a כל שכן?” Perhaps one may only not change a bad undedicated [animal] for a good dedicated one, but if they are both good, this כל שכן does not indicate that it is forbidden? Also, why does the Torah need to write “a good one for a worse one”? This would be a כל שכן as even a bad one for a good one is forbidden? Also, why does Rashi explain “certainly good for good” when discussing “a bad one for a good one”? He should have explained this while discussing “a good one for a bad one”! The answer is: He means as follows. The verse certainly has to write “or a bad one for a good one” because of the end of the verse where it says, “If he did exchange, etc., then both it and its replacement shall be sacred.” This indicates that after the act they are both sacred. Therefore the Torah needs to write “a bad one for a better one” to include that even if one gives a bad one in exchange for something better that was dedicated, where one may have thought it does not become sanctified at all, the verse lets us know that if one made such an exchange it is holy, since the end of the verse refers to both cases. And now that even a blemished one exchanged for an unblemished one, the blemished one becomes sacred, so then exchanging an unblemished one for an unblemished one, will certainly become sacred since both are good. You might ask: Why does Rashi [also] mention “bad for bad”? The answer is that you might have said this only works if one exchanges good for good because the sanctity of the good one has the power to fall on its exchange. However, if one exchanged bad for bad you might have thought that the sanctity of the blemished animal does not have the power to fall [on its exchange]. So Rashi tells us [that it does], because it is also written “a good one for a bad one.” Analyze this. See Re’m who discusses this at length, asking many questions.

ואם כל בהמה טמאה AND IF IT BE ANY בהמה טמאה — Scripture is really speaking here not of an “unclean" but of a blemished animal which ,is just on this account, unclean (i. e. unfit) for sacrificing, and Scripture is telling you that sacred animals which have no blemish cannot again become non-holy (more lit., go forth from the category of holy animals to that of non-holy animals) through redemption except if they become blemished (Temurah 32b; Sifra, Bechukotai, Section 4 1).

ואם כל בהמה, an animal already sanctified as a sacrifice which had in the meantime become ritually unclean so that it no longer qualified for the altar because it had developed a physical blemish;

A blemished [animal]. Rashi’s proof of this is from the end of the section (verse 27) where it is written, “If it is of an unclean animal...” There one is has to say that it is speaking of an actual unclean animal, and it is connected to this verse [which speaks of exchanging animals for animals], as Rashi explains there. If so, this indicates that [here] it is speaking of a blemished animal (Re’m). Alternatively, Rashi derives this since it is written, “Which cannot be offered to Hashem.” This is superfluous as it is obvious that one cannot offer unclean animals to Hashem. Thus it teaches that the verse is speaking of a blemished animal.

ואם כל בהמה טמאה, “he places a ritually impure animal before the priest (as a sacrifice) Rashi explains that this cannot be understood literally, as it is too obvious. He therefore understands the word טמאה here as referring to a blemished animal, the owner not knowing if that blemish was serious enough to disqualify said animal. The Torah teaches that such a decision must be left to the officiating priest. If it is a temporary blemish, said animal is fit as a sacrifice as soon as its blemish has disappeared.

והעמיד את הבהמה לפני הכהן, he will offer another animal which is its monetary equivalent as a sacrifice on the altar.

כערכך הכהן כן יהיה AS THE PRIEST VALUES IT, SO SHALL IT BE for any other person who comes to buy it from the Temple treasury (in contrast to the owner himself who, if he redeems it, must add a fifth to the valuation, as stated in the next verse).

For other people who come to buy it from Temple property. Rashi is answering the question: Initially it is written “As the kohein determines its value for you, so shall it be,” but then [in the next verse] it is written “If he will indeed redeem it he shall add on one fifth to its valuation”? Rashi answers: Here it is speaking of another person who comes to buy it, and there [in the next verse it is speaking] of owners who want to redeem it. Gur Aryeh explains: But [here it is not speaking of] the owners, because the owners [who redeem it] have to add a fifth. You might ask: Just because it belonged to him before [why does] he haves to add a fifth? The explanation is that because it was his before, he is more satisfied [when he purchases it back], as it states everywhere (e.g., Bava Metzia 93b), “The difference [between keeping one’s own animals or having to buy new ones] is that his animals are accustomed to work for their owner, [i.e., it is easier for the owner to work with such animals].” Explanation:, a person prefers his first animal. Therefore, he has to add, because it is worth more to him. And the same applies to one who sanctifies his house. However, we still need to understand, why a fifth. According to teachings of wisdom, a second is not considered an addition to one, and a third is not considered an addition to two, and a fourth is not considered an addition to three. This is because [only] a plane is considered a complete [entity] as it has four corners. Therefore, a fourth portion is not considered an addition. But a fifth portion is considered an addition because a complete item is four. Therefore, one has to add a fifth portion.

Whether it is good or bad. He should appraise it specifically according to its worth, and not add to its value for the benefit of the Temple treasury.

As the kohein determines its value for you so shall it be. Nevertheless, if the kohein erred and did not appraise it according to its real worth — as he determined the value, so shall it be.

ואם גאל יגאלנה BUT IF HE WILL AT ALL REDEEM IT [THEN HE SHALL ADD A FIFTH …] — In respect to the owner Scripture is more stringent by requiring him to pay an additional fifth. And similarly in the case of one who dedicates a house to the Sanctuary (vv. 14, 15) and so, too, in the case of one who dedicates his field (v. 19), and similarly in the case of redeeming מעשר שני, “the Second Tithe”, the owner must add a fifth to their real value when redeeming them; but no other person has to do this (Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 10 7; Arakhin 25a).

ויסף חמישתו, “he shall add a fifth part thereof;” actually 25%, so that when combined, the addition is a fifth of the total. (Talmud tractate Baba Metzia folio 57) The same ratio for penalties applies to houses that are ancestral properties or to ancestrally owned fields. The same ratio applies also when the second tithe has to be redeemed, as the owner cannot transport the original all the way to Jerusalem. The background to this legislation which applies only to the original owner, not someone who has acquired it, is that an original owner may use sanctifying this property by arguing that seeing it is all his anyway, he may thereby avoid leaving those parts of the harvest which the Torah wanted him to leave for the poor and the orphaned. If, however, the owner sanctified something, no part of which was intended by the Torah as a tithe (tax) that he had to give away anyway, Shmuel in the Talmud ruled that he can redeem the whole for an addition of the smallest coin of the realm.(Baba Metzia 57)

והיה ערכך לפי זרעו [AND IF A MAN SHALL SANCTIFY SOME OF THE FIELD OF HIS POSSESSION] THEN THE VALUATION SHALL BE ACCORDING TO THE SEED THEREOF (i. e., according to the quantity of seed that can be grown in it) — not according to its value; but whether it is a good field or a bad field the money for redeeming it from its holy state is the same: an area requiring a Khor of barley seed (the equivalent of a חמר שערים mentioned in the text) is redeemable by fifty shekels (in the case of other seed the area redeemable by this sum is different) (cf. Arakhin 14a). Such is the enactment of Scripture (God). But this is only in the case that he comes to redeem it at the beginning of the Jubilee-period, but if he comes to redeem it in the middle of it he has only to pay according to the reckoning of one Selah (shekel) and a pundion (one forty-eighth of a shekel) for each year remaining in that Jubilee-period (cf. Rashi on v. 18); because, after all, it is the property of the Temple treasury only for the number of years contained in the Jubilee-period from the time when he sold it, so that if it was redeemed by the owner at any time during this period, well and good (the Temple treasury suffered no loss), and if not, the treasurer can sell it for the very same price to another person, when it remains in the hands of the purchaser till the Jubilee just like any other field sold right out (cf. vv. 20, 21). When it leaves his possession in the Jubilee year, it does not return to the Treasury, but it passes into the possession of the priests of that “Mishmar” (shift officiating) during whose turn the Jubilee happens to fall and is divided amongst them. This, in brief, is the law concerning one who dedicates a field to the Temple Treasury; and now I shall explain it, following the order of the verses.

Not according to its worth. Explanation: “According to the measure of its seed” means according to the amount of seed he can sow in it. I.e., according to its size and not according to its worth, since if it is big enough to sow in it a chomer of seed, even if it is inferior, he has to give the amount written in the parsha.

אם משנת היבל יקדיש IF HE SANCTIFY [HIS FIELD] FROM THE YEAR OF JUBILEE — i. e. if as soon as the Jubilee-period was past he immediately dedicates it to the Temple treasury (so that the field could remain in the possession of the Sanctuary for a complete Jubilee-period), and he comes to redeem it immediately (so that the Treasury had no usufruct of the field at all).

According to this assessment mentioned shall it be. Explanation: Rashi substitutes the word יקום (established) with יהיה (it will be), because the verse is referring to the giving [of money], and not saying that the field should be established in the hand of the person who presently has it. And [because] the word יקום [generally] cannot be explained as “giving something,” Rashi explains that יקום means יהיה. Because this word (יהיה) can either be translated as meaning that it shall “it shall be established where it is” [i.e., יהיה can have the same meaning as יקום], or [it can mean] that “it shall be according to the amount he gives,” which is connected to giving.

כערכך יקום ACCORDING TO THE VALUATION IT SHALL STAND — i. e. according to that valuation above mentioned shall it be — 50 shekel shall he give [for each area requiring a Khor of barley seed].

ואם אחר היבל יקדיש BUT IF HE SANCTIFY [HIS FIELD] AFTER (i. e. some years after) THE JUBILEE, — and similarly, of course, if he dedicated it from the year of (i. e. immediately after) the Jubilee, — and in either case it remained for a time in the possession of the treasurer and then this man comes to redeem it some years after the Jubilee,

And it remains in the possession of the [Temple] treasurer. Explanation: When the verse says, “The kohein shall calculate the money,” and that he does not give the whole fifty shekels, this is not only when the dedication was after the jubilee year. It also applies when the dedication was immediately after the jubilee year in a case where the redeemer only came to redeem it a few years after his dedication. The verse wrote one case and the same applies to someone who came a few years after his dedication.

וחשב לו הכהן את הכסף על פי השנים הנותרת THEN THE PRIEST SHALL RECKON FOR HIM THE MONEY ACCORDING TO THE YEARS THAT ARE LEFT — it must be according to a reckoning. How is it to be done? You see, it (Scripture) has fixed the value of forty-nine years at fifty shekels, that is, one shekel for each year and one additional shekel for all of them (for all the years together). Now a shekel is forty-eight pundion; that gives one selah (shekel) and one pundion for each year, except that there is one pundion short for all the years (reckoning the price per year as the Torah prescribes, he pays forty-nine shekels and forty-nine pundion, equal to fifty shekels and one pundion whereas really he should pay fifty shekels, which is one pundion less than the calculation based upon the yearly rate. Our Rabbis said that that pundion is the commission for the money-changing (Bekhorot 50a), and therefore if he comes to redeem the field some years after the Jubilee, he must give a selah and a pundion for each year of those years that remain until the Jubilee year (Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 10 10; Arakhin 24b).

A kalbon (small sum). I.e., an additional amount for each sela [acquired in exchange for smaller coins, because small coins are more valuable]. פרוטרוט is similar to the word פרוטה (the small perutah coin), i.e., small coins [lit. little by little].

ונגרע מערכך AND THERE SHALL BE ABATED FROM THE VALUATION the number of years that have elapsed from the Jubilee year until the year when the redemption takes place.

That are from the jubilee year. Because it was in the hands of the Temple during those years, we count from [after] those years. Because the amount the redeemer must give is only according to number [of years] from the year of redemption until the jubilee year, when the redeemer eats its fruits. But not according to the number of years from the jubilee year until the year of redemption when he does not eat its fruits.

ואם גאל יגאל AND IF HE WILL IN ANY WAY REDEEM IT “he” means, the man who dedicated it; then he shall add a fifth part to this fixed price (not a fifth of the fifty shekels, but a fifth of the value determined by this calculation is to be added to that value).

ואם לא יגאל את השדה AND IF HE WILL NOT REDEEM THE FIELD— “he” means, the man who dedicated it,

ואם מכר..לאיש אחר, “if the Temple treasurer had sold the field to someone else in the meantime;” its original owner can no longer redeem it but it is shared out (the proceeds received by the treasurer) among the priests at the next Jubilee year. It goes to the priests who are performing the duties assigned to them on that date.

The Temple treasurer. Explanation: He is the seller and not the ‘one who dedicated’ mentioned above.

ואם מכר את השדה לאיש אחר, “but if he had sold the field to someone else;” the prefix ו in the word ואם is to be understood as if the Torah had written: או, “or.” This is one of many such places where the letter ו is to be understood as: “or.”

ואם מכר OR IF HE HATH SOLD — “he”: the treasurer of the Temple property has sold (Arakhin 25b),

To return to. In the jubilee year.

את השדה לאיש אחר לא יגאל עוד THE FIELD TO ANOTHER MAN, IT SHALL NOT BE REDEEMED ANY MORE so as to return into the possession of him who dedicated it.

והיה השדה בצאתו ביבל BUT THE FIELD, WHEN IT GOETH OUT IN THE JUBILEE from the possession of him who purchased it from the treasurer, just as is the way with other fields in the Jubilee which also go out from the possession of those who purchase them, SHALL BE

תהיה אחוזתו, of the one who had declared it sanctified originally.

From the possession of the one who bought it from the Temple treasury. Explanation: But not from possession of the Temple treasury, because we do not find anywhere that the Torah commands that the field leaves the possession of the Temple treasury at in the jubilee year, so how could it say, “When the field is then released...”?

והיה השדה בצאתו ביובל, “but the field when it goes out in the Jubilee year, etc.” there is a comment in the Torat Kohanim, reminding us that the word שדה is of the masculine gender. Seeing that everyone is aware of that, we must examine why the author of Torat Kohanim found it necessary to remind us of this. We must understand it as follows: how do we know that the word שדה is a masculine gender? We know it from where the Torah writes at the end of our verse: לכהן תהיה אחוזתו, “the possession thereof shall be the priest’s.” [I have not followed the explanations of what happens to that field before it ends up belonging to a priest or several priests. As far as this editor is concerned, the word: בצאתו, “when it goes out” (“it” in the masculine ending) is clear proof that the word השדה immediately before it must be of the masculine gender. Ed.]

והיה השדה בצאתו ביובל, “but when the field goes out in the yovel year;” this verse teaches that the word: שדה in Hebrew is of the masculine gender.

קדש לה׳ HOLY UNTO THE LORD; — not that it shall return to the Temple treasury that provides for the Temple repair, into the treasurer’s hand, but, כשדה החרם it shall be AS A FIELD DOOMED, which has to be given to the preists, as it is said, (Numbers 18:14) “Every thing doomed (חרם) in Israel shall be thine” (i. e. Aaron’s to whom this was spoken); this field, too, shall be divided amongst the priests of that “Mishmar” during whose turn the Day of Atonement of the Jubilee-year happens to fall (Arakhin 28b).

Which is given to the kohanim. Because the expression “It becomes sacred to Hashem” is said in reference to the Temple upkeep and also in reference to the kohanim, Rashi now explains, “’Just as a field that was consecrated,’ which is given to the kohanim.”

ואם את שדה ‎'מקנתו וגו‎‎ BUT IF [HE SANCTIFY…] A FIELD OF HIS PURCHASE [WHICH IS NOT THE FIELD OF HIS POSSESSION, THEN etc.] — There is a difference between a “field of one’s purchase” and “a field of one’s possession” inasmuch as a “field of purchase” is not divided amongst the priests in the Jubilee (if it was sold by the treasurer and the purchaser has to return it at the Jubilee), because one has the right to dedicate it only until the Jubilee, for under any circumstances it was to go out from his possession and return to the original owner in the Jubilee; therefore if he comes to redeem it, he redeems it at the price stipulated for a “field of possession” (cf. משנה למלך on Maimonides הל' ערכין פ"ד הלכה כ"ו who explains where Rashi derives it from that he has to pay the price fixed for a שדה אחוזה). And whether he does not redeem it and the treasurer sells it to another person, or whether he does redeem it, (some editions have: ואם לא יגאל; cf. Arakhin 28b) בשנת היבל ישוב השדה לאשר קנהו מאתו IN THE YEAR OF THE JUBILEE THE FIELD SHALL RETURN UNTO HIM FROM WHOM HE HATH BOUGHT IT — i. e. unto him from whom he that has dedicated it has bought it. And in order that you should not think that the words: the field shall return לאשר קנהו, mean, it shall return unto him from whom this last purchaser has bought it, — and that would be the treasurer (since he is the person from whom it was last acquired), Scripture was compelled to state לאשר לו אחזת הארץ EVEN TO HIM TO WHOM THE POSSESSION OF THE FIELD BELONGS from that which his ancestors have bequeathed to him, and this can only be the original owner who had sold it to him who sanctified it (Arakhin 26a, Arakhin 26b).

לאשר קנהו מאתו for the one who has bought it cannot in turn sanctify it except for the crops grown on it between then and the advent of the next Jubilee year.

לאשר קנהו אתו, “to the one of whom it had been purchased.” This purchaser had never been in a legal position that enabled him to sanctify the soil of that field. He could only sanctify the fruit that it produced while it had been in his possession. (B’chor shor)

וכל ערכך יהיה בשקל הקדש Every valuation shall be made according to the holy shekel: i.e., every valuation regarding which shekels are written, will be made according to the holy shekel.

Must be in holy shekolim. Rashi is answering the question: The verse implies that no valuation is less than a shekel, but this is not true since we assess him according to his means and leave him enough to live on, as said earlier (verse 8).

עשרים גרה TWENTY GERAH — twenty meahs. This was what it was originally, but later on they increased it by one sixth. Our Rabbis stated: six silver meahs make a silver denar; thus twenty-four meahs make a selah (a shekel) (cf. Rashi on Exodus 30:13), a shekel being four denars (Bekhorot 26b).

Twenty-four mo’oh to the sela. Because the sela is four dinar, and the dinar is six mo’oh. Thus there are twenty-four mo’oh to the sela.

לא יקדיש איש אתו [ONLY THE FIRSTBORN OF BEASTS…] NO MAN SHALL SANCTIFY IT for the purpose of (to become) a sacrifice of any other description, for it is not his, [being already holy to the Lord from birth] (cf. Arakhin 29a).

ONLY THE FIRSTBORN OF THE BEASTS … NO MAN SHALL SANCTIFY IT — “as a different offering, because it is not his.” Thus the language of Rashi. The correct interpretation is that He is saying: “there is no need to sanctify it [the firstling], for whether it be ox or sheep, it is the Eternal’s automatically.” The verse is thus [to be understood] as a negation.¹⁹³See in Exodus. Vol. II, p. 350, Note 71. And in the Book of Deuteronomy He stated, All the firstling males that are born of thy herd and of thy flock thou shalt sanctify unto the Eternal thy G-d,¹⁹⁴Deuteronomy 15:19. This verse does not mean that the owner is to declare it “holy,” since it is automatically holy by virtue of being the firstborn, but, as Ramban continues, that we are to regard it as holy, etc. meaning that it is holy and that you are to treat it with holiness, so that you are not to do work with it, nor shear it,¹⁹⁴Deuteronomy 15:19. This verse does not mean that the owner is to declare it “holy,” since it is automatically holy by virtue of being the firstborn, but, as Ramban continues, that we are to regard it as holy, etc. and that you are to eat it before the Eternal,¹⁹⁵Ibid., Verse 20. as He will explain.

לא יקדיש איש אותו, no one can declare it as sanctified to be a different category of sacrifice. Seeing it had been born sanctified, the owner cannot change its status.

אך בכור אשר יבוכר לה' בבהמה לא יקדיש אותו, “However, a firstborn that will become a firstling for Hashem among livestock, one must not consecrate;” Rashi understands this to mean that such a firstling as is mentioned in our verse must not be consecrated to be an offering of a different category. [Based on Torat Kohanim, seeing that such a firstling does not belong to the “owner” in the first place.] Nachmanides does not view this verse as a prohibition, but as a reminder that there is no need to consecrate such an animal as the Torah had already conferred the status of “a consecrated” animal on that beast.

אך בכור אשר יבכר לה' בבהמה לא יקדיש איש אותו, “However, a firstborn that will become a firstling for Hashem among livestock, a man shall not sanctify it.” This verse teaches that one must not change the status of animals which have become designated as a specific offering for the altar. For instance, if an animal had been designated to be offered as a burnt-offering, one must not change its status and offer it as a peace-offering. Neither must one (upgrade) an animal designated as a peace-offering to be offered as a sin-offering. This rule applies across the board. Sifra Bechukotai 8,3 adds that from our text I have proof for this rule only if the animal in question had been a frstling, i.e. consecrated from birth. How do we know that this rule also applies to animals which had not been consecrated by birth? We derive this from the extra words לא יקדיש אותו, בבהמה which the Torah wrote in our verse. The word בבהמה in that sequence is not needed and serves as the lesson that no beast which had once been sanctified for the altar may be reclassified.

אם שור אם שה, לה' הוא, “be it ox or sheep, it is the Lord’s.” The original firstborn male animal must be offered, no substitute under any circumstances. (Sifra)

ואם בבהמה טמאה AND IF IT BE OF AN UNCLEAN ANIMAL — This verse does not refer to the firstborn mentioned above (when the translation would be: and if it — the firstborn just mentioned — be בבהמה טמאה, in the category of unclean animals), because one cannot state about the firstborn of an unclean animal: ופדה בערכך “it shall be redeemed by valuation”, since of all unclean animals it is only the firstborn of the ass that has to be redeemed (see Exodus 13:13 and Rashi thereon); and an ass this firstborn spoken of here cannot be, because, you see, the redemption price of the firstborn of an ass is a lamb only, whilst here the animal in question has to be redeemed כערכך, according to a certain valuation; and besides, it (the lamb) is a gift to the priest and is not given to the Sanctuary. But the verse refers to something dedicated to the Temple treasury, being a continuation of v. 11, for that verso above spoke about the redemption of a clean animal which became blemished, and here it speaks about one who dedicates an unclean animal, the proceeds to be used for the Temple repair (Menachot 101a).

AND IF IT BE AN ANIMAL FORBIDDEN TO BE EATEN [dedicated to the Temple], THEN HE SHALL RANSOM IT ACCORDING TO THY VALUATION. “This verse does not refer to the firstling [mentioned in the preceding verse], because one cannot state about the firstling of a forbidden animal, then he shall ransom it according to thy valuation [since among all forbidden animals, only the firstborn of an ass has to be redeemed]. It cannot refer to [the firstling of] an ass, since the [animal given in] redemption of an ass is only a lamb¹⁹⁶Exodus 13:13. [while here the animal is to be redeemed according to thy valuation, i.e., as you wish], and [moreover the lamb given in redemption of a firstling ass is a] gift to the priest, and is not given to the Temple treasury [as is stated here]. Rather, the verse refers to something dedicated to the Temple treasury [and is a continuation of Verse 11], for above [in Verse 11] He spoke about redeeming a [dedicated] animal which is fit to be eaten and which became blemished [thus disqualifying it as an offering], and here [in the verse before us] He speaks of a case where one dedicated for Temple repairs an animal which is not permitted to be eaten, [or offered up].” Thus far the language of Rashi.
It is possible that we answer [Rashi’s argument as to why this verse cannot be referring to the redemption of this firstling of an ass, and that we do interpret it as referring to such a case, by saying] that because He stated [in the preceding verse], Only the firstborn of the beasts, which is born as a firstling to the Eternal, no man shall sanctify it, therefore He reverted [to this subject] and stated [in the verse before us] that if the firstling that he sanctified be of an animal that is forbidden to be eaten, then he shall ransom it according to thy valuation, explaining that [the law of] the firstling does not apply to forbidden animals, except for the firstling of an ass, the law of which has already been explained.¹⁹⁶Exodus 13:13. Thus He taught [here] that even if a person did dedicate it, its sanctity is not like that of the law of a [permitted] firstling [which can never be redeemed], but it is like anything else which is dedicated to the Temple treasury, and it may be redeemed. Therefore He stated [here] that he who dedicated it redeems it by adding one-fifth [to its actual value], whereas another person may redeem it according to thy valuation [without the additional one-fifth]. And the verse above [11] stating, And if it be any unclean beast, of which they may not bring an offering, refers, according to the plain meaning of Scripture, to an animal that may not be eaten [not to the firstling of an ass, which has been dedicated to the Temple treasury]. According to the interpretation of our Rabbis,¹⁹⁷Temurah 32 b. there is a redundant expression in that verse [11 above], since He repeated an unclean beast, of which they may not bring an offering to the Eternal [it being self-understood that an offering may not be brought from an animal that may not be eaten]. Therefore the Rabbis interpreted it as follows: “and if it be any unclean beast, or [if it be] of which they may not bring an offering unto the Eternal,” thus including [permitted] animals which have become permanently blemished, of which offerings may not be brought [and thus if they were dedicated to the Temple treasury, the law stated in the verse is to be applied].

ואם בבהמה הטמאה, a truly ritually unclean species of animal, [such as pig, for instance, Ed.] which had been declared as holy; such an animal is subject to the redemption legislation. Our sages stipulate, however, that the unfit animal under discussion which is unblemished is treated the same as if it had been blemished. (Temurah 32/33)

ואם בבהמה הטמאה ופדה בערכך , “and if among the ritually unclean animals, (he had mistakenly consecrated such a firstling), etc.” Rashi claims that this verse is not relevant to the legislation involving firstlings at all, but refers to someone consecrating a ritually unclean beast as an offering to the Temple treasury. [Consecrating it as an offering for the altar would be without legal value, as it is a non-starter. Ed.] Nachmanides, attempting to circumvent the need to explain the verse as referring to a subject that was discussed in a different context, tries to paint a scenario in which our verse would be relevant to the sequence in which it appears. He writes that it is possible that seeing that another kind of ritually unclean beast, namely the donkey, is exempt from what appears to be stated here, the Torah repeats that any other ritually unclean beast cannot legally be consecrated even if one had in mind to redeem it, as in the case of the donkey. (Compare Exodus 34,20) Such an animal which had been “consecrated” through ignorance of its owner may be redeemed without financial premium by anyone other than the owner who had “consecrated” it, seeing that it had never attained the holy status of a firstling.

This verse does not refer to ... Rather, the verse refers to... Gur Aryeh asks: Why does it interrupt between them, writing the parshah of dedication of a house and inherited field between them? Why does it not juxtapose [the exchanging of an] animal to [the exchanging of an] animal? The answer is that it is juxtaposed to the firstling as they are similar. There are things whose sanctity cannot be transferred such as the firstling of a clean animal, which cannot be sanctified for something else because it was born with the sanctity [of a firstling], and likewise, there are things born without the ability of attaining sanctity, such as an unclean animal, which is in itself unclean and cannot attain sanctity [i.e., it cannot be sanctified].

If it is of an unclean animal he shall redeem it. This is speaking about one who consecrates a first-born ritually unclean animal, which is not a first-born donkey, because their custom was to consecrate the firstling to Heaven so they would have success with the future offspring. As a matter of course we learn that the same law applies for someone who consecrates a ritually unclean animal that is not a first-born. It needs to be understood why the verse uses the language ופדה (he shall redeem) and not וגאל like the rest of the parshah, and in this very verse it says, “If it is not redeemed (יגאל).” It seems that the answer is because the implication of ופדה is for its worth, and וגאל connotes any amount.

ופדה בערכך THEN HE SHALL REDEEM IT ACCORDING TO THE VALUATION — i. e. according as the priest will estimate its value.

“He shall redeem it based on the valuation.” [Furthermore,] this [cannot] be a donkey. Because no unclean animals, except for the donkey, have a firstling law.

ואם לא יגאל OR IF IT BE NOT REDEEMED by the owners,

ונמכר בערכך THEN IT SHALL BE SOLD ACCORDING TO THE VALUATION to others (Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 12 2).

אך כל חרם NOTWITHSTANDING NO DOOMED THING… [SHALL BE SOLD OR REDEEMED] — Our Rabbis are of different opinions regarding this matter (i. e. regarding the explanation of the word חרם used in this section). Some say: “All things declared doomed without any statement as to their purpose”, go to the Temple treasury. And if you ask, “But how then can I explain the text addressed to Aaron (Numbers 18:14) “every חרם in Israel shall be thine” (i. e. the priest’s)? Then I reply that I explain it to refer to חרמים expressly made for priests, i. e. that the donor expressly said, “this shall be a doomed thing for the priests” (so that it is not a סתם חרם). Others, however, say, that all things declared doomed without any statement as to their purpose go to the priests (in accordance with Numbers 18:14) (Arakhin 28b).

Unspecified consecrations belong to the Temple treasury. Meaning, to the Temple upkeep.

אך כל חרם, “however no segregated matter that had been presented to the Temple treasury without any further specification;” Rashi quotes a disagreement between the sages as to who is the recipient of items sanctified without a specific address. According to one opinion such monies or goods become the property of the Temple treasury, meaning that they are to be used for repairs to the Temple, etc.; the other opinion is that such monies, etc. described here as cherem, segregated property, are to be distributed amongst the priests whose property they become. He also interprets the line at the end of our verse כל חרם קדש קדשים הוא, “every segregated matter is most holy,” in that sense.

לא ימכר ולא יגאל IT SHALL NOT BE SOLD NOR REDEEMED but shall be given to the priest. Now, according to him who holds that “doomed things not specially assigned” go to the priests, this verse must be explained as referring to such “unassigned doomed things”. He, however, who holds that “unassigned doomed things” go for the Temple repair, explains this verse as referring to such “doomed things” that were expressly declared to be for the priests, since all agree that such doomed things intended for the priests cannot be redeemed before they came into the possession of the priest (when the priest may do whatever he likes with them, because they are חולין; Scripture is thus right in stating 'לא ימכר וכו‎), whilst doomed things intended for the Most High (i. e. for the Sanctuary) are redeemable (Arakhin 29b).

To the hand of the kohein. Explanation: After they reach the hand of the kohein they are completely unconsecrated in every way, and if one wants, one may buy them from the kohein and they are like absolutely unconsecrated items.

לא ימכר ולא יגאל, “it must not be sold (for secular use) nor is it subject to being redeemed,” In other words, the monetary value of such segregated items must be given to the priests. According to Rashi, this line also applies to segregated property without a specific address. Verse 29, according to the dissenting opinion the Torah speaks of items segregated by the priests without a specific address. If someone were to say “the value of this animal which had been destined for a sacrifice on the altar, shall be segregated for me,” he meant that instead it should be given to one or more of the other priests. If, however, he had said the same of segregated property of a non priest, he would have to give the value of the item he referred to the Temple treasury. [Rabbi Chavell, in his annotations, questions the premise that if you declare something banned that is not yours has any legal meaning at all, as it is an accepted rule that no one can declare someone else’s property as holy, segregated or changing its status at all. Ed.] According to the Talmud in tractate Erchin, folio 28, if someone, looking at an ox, were to say: “this ox shall become a burnt offering,” the treasury will decide on the market value of such an ox, and the person having made this vow would have to pay for a burnt offering of an ox in accordance with the amount of money the priest judges that he would have been willing to spend. He will have to give that amount to the treasury, although the animal is not being offered as a burnt offering, seeing it had not belonged to the person who made the vow.

כל חרם קדש קדשים הוא EVERY DOOMED THING IS MOST HOLY — He who holds that “unassigned doomed things” go to the Temple repair produces evidence from here that his assertion is correct, whilst he who holds that “unassigned doomed things” go to the priests explains the words: 'כל חרם קדש קדשים הוא לה as meaning: every doomed thing of that which is most holy (חרם is construct!) shall be the Lord’s and as intended to teach that חרמים made for the priests are applicable to objects holy in the highest degree (e. g. if one says, "This burnt-offering shall be doomed to the priests”) and to subjects holy in a minor degree (e. g. a firstborn animal) and he gives its value to the priest, as we learn in Treatise Arakhin 28b: If it is a נדר (cf. for this term Leviticus 22:18) he pays the full value of it, and if it is a נדבה (Leviticus 22:18) he only pays the value of the gratification he might have of it.

Dedications [dedicated] to the Highest may be redeemed. Explanation: Dedications to the Temple upkeep while still in his hand. The money goes to the Temple upkeep and the property becomes unconsecrated.

מאדם [NO DOOMED THING…] OF MAN […SHALL BE SOLD OR REDEEMED] — for instance, in the case that he has declared as חרם his Canaanite man-servants or maid-servants (Arakhin 28a).

If a vow he gives their worth. Explanation: That he said “I am obligated (to bring an offering).” He is therefore liable for responsibility [to pay if the animal] is lost, and thus the dedication obligates him [to give its full value]. He has to give money equal to its value to a kohein, because dedicated items go to kohanim, and the animal is sacrificed on the altar because of his prior vow.

If a voluntary offering, he gives the worth of its benefit. That is, if he says, “This burnt-offering is dedicated.” He is thus not liable for responsibility [i.e., he is not liable to pay] if the animal got lost, and the dedication is only effective regarding the benefit he derives. That is, what another kohein would want to give this owner in order to delay this sacrifice and not sacrifice it until his watch arrives so that he can have its skin and the other items [a kohein can may take]. There used to be twenty-four watches. Each one took one week during which it sacrificed all the sacrifices and the watch of that each week took whatever the kohanim had a right to. [The person who dedicated a voluntary sacrifice gives] what another kohein would give the owner [of the sacrifice] to delay sacrificing this sacrifice until his watch arrives so that he can have the sacrifice’s skin and the other items. This is a small amount [of money] as the sacrifice might get lost and the kohein will get nothing. Because the owner is not liable for responsibility [if it gets lost], the owner who dedicated a voluntary offering only has to give this [small] amount to a kohein.

His [Canaanite] slaves or his Canaanite maidservants. Gur Aryeh explains: Because it says מאדם (lit. of a person), this implies only his Canaanite slaves and maidservants, but not his Hebrew slaves and maidservants.

'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.

‎ ‎וכל מעשר הארץ AND ANY TITHE OF THE LAND… [BELONGETH TO THE LORD] — Scripture is speaking here of the “second tithe”.

מעשר הארץ, a reference to the second tithe,מעשר שני.

Second tithe. Because here it is written is written “sacred to Hashem,” and regarding second tithe it is written (Devarim 26:13) “I have divested my estate of sacred material.” Thus we derive one from the other [through the common words] “sacred,” “sacred.” This excludes first tithe which is completely non-sacred as it is written (Bamidbar 18:27), “Your terumah-gift will be considered the same as grain from the granary.”

מזרע הארץ, “from the seed of the land;” this formulation includes garlic, mandrill, and berries. Rabbi Yehudah hachassid was able to answer a query raised by many people concerning a statement in the Mishnah challah, chapter 2 mishnah 5, according to which if one separates flour (before it has become dough) as his priest’s share of the dough it is not the priest’s or priests’ share of the dough, i.e. challah, and it would be as robbery in the hand of the priest; the reason cited there is that the Torah had written (Numbers 15,20) ראשית עריסותיכם, “of the first of your dough you shall set apart a cake for a gift;” (not the first part of your flour) the question raised on the basis of this verse is: “why do we not interpret the line in Deuteronomy 18,4: ראשית דגנך....תתן לו, “the first fruits of your corn....you shall give to him (the priest) in a similar manner?” [The basic problem is how soon after the grain has been cut, can one declare part of it as intended for a specific priest. According to some opinions, this would be effective only after all stages of harvesting and storing have been completed. Ed.] The disagreement between the scholars centers around the meaning of the word מעשר מזרע הארץ, “a tithe from anything that has been planted in the earth,” and the more restrictive expression דגנך, “your corn,” i.e. something fully developed and harvested.

מזרע הארץ, “whether of the seed of the earth;” this wording is intended to include garlic, green mustard, and cress. (Sifra)

מזרע הארץ OF THE SEED OF THE EARTH — i. e. of grain,

Grain. Since the verse is speaking of the second tithe, and pertaining to the second tithe it is written “grain,wine” so surely here “of the seed of the land “ [refers to] grain, wine and oil which are “of the seed of the land.”

מזרע הארץ, “seed that is normally planted in the earth.”

מפרי העץ OF THE FRUIT OF THE TREE — i. e. wine and oil,

And eat in Jerusalem. Not that it actually belongs to Hashem and would therefore be forbidden to benefit from.

לה' הוא BELONGETH TO THE LORD — the Lord has acquired it (it is His possession) and it is from His table that He bids you to carry up (להעלות = לעלות) and to eat in Jerusalem (Kiddushin 53b), as it is said, (Deuteronomy 14:23) “And thou shalt eat before the Lord, thy God,… the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine, etc.”.

ממעשרו [AND IF A MAN WILL REDEEM] OUGHT OF HIS TITHES [HE SHALL ADD THERETO ITS FIFTH] — of his tithes, but not of the tithes of his fellow: if he redeems the tithe of his fellow he need not add its fifth (Kiddushin 24a). Wherein consists the redemption of the “second tithe” (since it is permitted as food to the owner)? He redeems it in so far as he makes it permissible for food at any place (which is not the case if he does not redeem it) and the redemption-money he brings up to Jerusalem, buys eatables and eats them there as it is said, (Deuteronomy 14:25, 26) “Then thou shalt put into money… [and thou shalt lay out that money… for cattle, for sheep etc.]”.

תחת השבט [WHATEVER PASSES] UNDER THE ROD — When he is about to tithe them (the cattle), he passes them through a door one after the other and the tenth he strikes with a rod smeared with red dye so that it should afterwards be recognised as being one of the tithe. Thus he does to the young sheep and to the calves of each separate year (Bekhorot 58b).

תחת השבט, “beneath the rod.” The legislation to tithe the tenth animal born in one’s flock applies only to animals which were not purchased by the owner of the flock but were born of his flock. The legislation does not apply to flocks owned in partnership either (Bechorot 56). The same halachah applies to the requirement to give the firstborn male animals in one’s flock to the priest. At least this is the opinion of Rabbi Ilai who says that if the mother animal is owned jointly there is no need to give the firstborn male animal to the priest. These opinions are based on the expressions בקרך, “your cattle,” (sing.) and בצאנך, “your flock,” (sing) in Deut. 15,19. If someone had purchased sheep in the market he is not obligatd to either tithe them or give the firstlings to the priest. Our sages in Sotah 27, commenting on Leviticus 22,27, use the various examples named in that verse as the basis for ruling that animals born of animals which crossbred such as a billy-goat with a sheep, or which were not born but came into this world through cesarean section are not subject to this legislation. Such expressions as שור או כשב או עז כי יולד, “ox or sheep or goat which are born,” are all dissected to yield these halachot. Expressions such as “it has to remain with its mother for seven days,” (ibid.) are interpreted to mean that animals orphaned at birth are not subject to the legislation discussed here, all because both here and in chapter 22 the decisive consideration is the animal’s being suitable as a sacrifice at that time. Seeing that an animal whose mother died at birth can never fulfill the condition of spending seven days on earth during the lifetime of its mother and can therefore not qualify as a potential sacrifice, its owner is also not subject to the legislation described by the Torah in our paragraph.

And calves. Because this mitzvah only applies to cattle and the flock as it says, “tithes of cattle and the flock.”

העשירי יהיה קדש, every tenth (animal) shall be declared holy.” If someone while counting, erroneously called the ninth “tenth,” or called the eleventh “tenth,” he is taken by his word and that animal also becomes holy, and the animal is offered as a peace offering. (Sifra)

יהיה קדש [THE TENTH] SHALL BE HOLY [UNTO THE LORD] — inasmuch as its blood and its fat portions have to be burnt on the altar; the flesh, however, may be eaten by the owner, for we do not find it enumerated among “the gifts of the priests” (Numbers ch. 18), nor do we find in the Torah elsewhere that its flesh should be given to the priests.

לא ‎'יבקר וגו‎ HE SHALL NOT SEEK OUT, [WHETHER IT BE GOOD OR BAD — Since it is stated, (.Deut 12:11) “[thither shall ye bring…] all your choice vows” I might think he shall select and take out the choicest! Scripture therefore states here, “he shall not seek out whether it be good or bad” —whether it be perfect in limb or whether it have a blemish the sanctity attached to the tithe applies to it; not, however, in the sense that being blemished it may be offered, but it must be eaten under the observance of the regulations relating to the tithe, and must neither be shorn of its wool nor be employed in work (cf. Bekhorot 14b).

compare what we quoted on this verse at the end of the previous chapter of the author’s commentary.

אלה המצות אשר צוה ה' את משה אל בני ישראל בהר סיני, “These are the commandments which the Lord commanded Moses for the Children of Israel at Mount Sinai.” In the Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 13,3 Rabbi Ilah comments on the words אלה המצות in our verse that if the Israelites will perform these commandments in accordance with the rules applying to them, i.e. “as commandments,” then they are מצות, if not they are not accounted as מצות.
Our sages in Sifra Bechukotai 13,7 use these words as the basis for the principle that no prophet is allowed to add (permanently) another commandment to the Torah over and above the ones that have been recorded. They understand the words אשר צוה ה' את משה as a hint that G’d did not need any messenger beyond Moses to communicate His laws to the people. [In other words seeing that no prophet will attain the stature of Moses no other prophet would be entrusted with new and additional legislation. I suspect these are interpretations aimed at the Christians who see Jesus as superseding Moses and updating the Torah. Ed.] The words אל בני ישראל are understood as “as an opportunity for the Israelites to acquire merits by performing the commandments.” The words בהר סיני, are a reminder that all of these commandments were promulgated at Mount Sinai. Thus far Sifra. The point of that Midrash is that the headline אלה המצות was intended by the Torah to tell us that these commandments are of a permanent nature, effective throughout the generations. The word אלה has a connotation of pointing at something enduring indefinitely. One such example is the verse (Genesis 2,4) אלה תולדות השמים הארץ, “these are the developments of heaven and earth,” both phenomena which endure indefinitely. We find the word אלה applied also to the Jewish people in Numbers 2,32, indicating that they, just as heaven and earth, will endure indefinitely.
Basically, our verse tells us who commanded all these laws and who was the man who conveyed them to the Jewish people, to whom he conveyed them and where G’d had spoken to Moses “face to face.” First the Torah speaks about the commandments themselves to indicate that they rank highest in the matters discussed here, a reminder that the people had had a visual and aural revelation of an attribute of the Lord while they were at Mount Sinai. They saw manifestations which resulted from G’d’s descending on the mountain, the fire, the smoke, etc., and they heard G’d’s voice out of the fire. The purpose of these manifestations was primarily to make G’d’s messenger, Moses, believable beyond question when he related all these commandments. G’d did not want to rely only on the various miracles which Moses had performed and would still perform but He wanted the people to be eye witnesses to the source of all this legislation. The Torah added the words את משה to testify that the people had accepted the Torah, a Book which had preceded the existence of the universe, i.e. as Bereshit Rabbah 1,5 phrased it: “before any of the mountains had been born.” Both the concept of Torah and the concept of the Jewish people had preceded the creation of the universe. The words בהר סיני are a reminder of all the overpowering experiences the people had been privy to as mentioned again in Deut. 33,2 and Psalms 68,18.

These are the commandments. “No prophet is permitted to add anything new” (Shabbos 104a). However, he is able to bring back a law that was forgotten using the rules of derivation. Similarly, when we say that Eliyahu will clarify it is also by means of the way of the Torah and its foundations. We rely on a prophet for clarifying the reality, just not for the ruling in halachah.

אשר צוה ה' את משה בהר סיני, “which Hashem had commanded Moses at Mount Sinai. It was sufficient for G–d to entrust His messenger Moses with the task of instructing the Jewish people, seeing that the merits of the people of Israel were instrumental in his becoming such an outstanding intermediary

אלה המצות, “these are the commandments;” no future prophet has the authority to either add to them or to cancel any of them. (Sifra)

אל בני ישראל, “to the Children of Israel.” The word אל is to be understood as in Exodus 6,13: ויצום אל בני ישראל, “He commanded them to the Children of Israel.”Our author explains as a postscript that the reason that this Book is generally called: “Torat Kohanim,” the Torah for the priests, is that it deals mainly with the different laws that apply only to the priests and Levites. He points out that even the Christians called it: Leviticus, “Book of the Levites.’

That is that He commanded us to extract a tenth of the animals that are born to us each year, to offer their fat and blood and to eat the rest in Jerusalem. And that is His saying, "And all tithes of the herd or flock" (Leviticus 27:32). And that is the animal tithe. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the last chapter of Bekhorot. And there it is explained that this commandment is practiced also outside of the Land and also not in the presence of the Temple. However the Rabbis decreed - lest [people] eat it without a blemish because we have no Temple (which prevents the eating of such an animal) - and said that it is only practiced in the presence of the Temple. But when the Temple was built, it was practiced both in the Land and outside the Land. (See Parashat Bechukotai; Mishneh Torah, Firstlings 6.)

That is that He commanded us that the substitute [of a consecrated item] be consecrated. And in the explanation in Tractate Temurah (Temurah 4b), they said that His saying, "he shall not substitute for it," is a negative commandment that is rectified by a positive commandment. And it is also said there - in order to give a reason for the one who substitutes to get lashes, even though it is a negative commandment that is rectified by a positive commandment - and they said, "A positive commandment should not come and uproot two negative commandments." That is to say, this prohibition of substitution has been repeated twice - "He may not exchange or substitute it" (Leviticus 27:10) - but [only] one positive commandment appears; and that is, "it and its substitute shall both be holy" (Leviticus 27:33). Behold what we have wanted to explain has been explained. And the laws of this commandment have already been explained in Temurah - meaning when it stands and when it does not stand and what its law is. (See Bechukotai; Mishneh Torah, Substitution 1.)