Bibbia Ebraica
Bibbia Ebraica

Halakhah su Levitico 27:78

Sefer HaChinukh

However, regarding the matter of lashes, there is a difference between [the examples]. As all those [simply] specified in one negative commandment only receive one [set of] lashes - for example, "the wage of a harlot and the price of a dog"(Deuteronomy 23:19); and "leaven and [...] honey" (Leviticus 2:11); "the case of a stranger [or] an orphan" (Deuteronomy 24:17), and all that is similar to them. But the negative commandments that [also] have a general category and are specified at the beginning or end [of the category] - for example, this negative commandment that specified "uncooked and boiled" and is [then] generalized, "Do not eat [...] but only roasted with fire"; and so [too], with a nazerite (Numbers 6:4), "from anything that is obtained from the grapevine [...] may he not eat," and afterwards it specifies, "seeds [...] or skin," ('and grapes wet and dry,' Numbers 6:3) - with these and those similar to them, we give lashes for each and every one. [This is] because the inclusion of the specification that was not needed, indicates lashes for each one [of them], as we have said. And the teacher was prolific in his proofs about this in the ninth shoresh in his Book of the Commandments - that the calculation of commandments is not the same as the calculation of [which commandments require] lashes [independently]. And that which I have said that Ramban, may his memory be blessed, will count each of the ones specified by their names individually - each one by itself - only when they are separate in their content, as we have written; [it] is, for example, [in the case of] 'leaven and honey,' [and] 'the wage and the price.' But in a case where it is the same content - even if they are specified by different names - they are only counted as one commandment. For example, "All male first-borns that are born in your herd and in your flock" (Deuteronomy 15:19) is only one commandment to sanctify all of the first-borns; and the specification is [also] only one commandment. And so [too], "All tithes of the herd or flock" (Leviticus 27:32) is only one commandment to separate to give the tithes of these animals. And so [too], "Judges and officers" (Deuteronomy 16:18) is only that we should establish justice through these people and it is one commandment. And so [too], "An honest balance, honest weights, an honest ephah, and an honest hin" (Leviticus 19:36) is all one commandment, that we should not lie about measures.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Sefer HaMitzvot

And also included in these negative statements that are negations is His saying (Leviticus 27:29), "Any human being who has been proscribed is not ransomed." Indeed, once you know what the content of this statement is, it is clear to you that this is a negation and not a prohibition. And that is that Scripture here has already discussed the set values of appraisals according to the amount of years of the one appraised and whether they are male or female. And there is no difference whether one said, "My appraisal is upon me"; or "the appraisal of x is upon me" - as we see who this person is and how old he is, and he gives according to that. But if the one appraised was someone who was liable for a death penalty of the court and his judgment has been completed - and after that someone said, "The appraisal of that one is upon me" - he is not obligated to give anything, since that one is considered as if he is dead, for there is no value to him once his judgment has been completed. And this is the content He wanted [to express] by saying, "is not ransomed" - meaning to say, he has no value, such that the appraiser should give it. So this is one of the laws of appraisals and their regulations mentioned by Scripture, and not a prohibition. And the language of the mishnah (Arakhin 1:3) is, "One who is moribund and one who is taken to be executed is not vowed about nor appraised." And the Talmud (Arakhin 6b) explains that this is on condition that he has come out of a Jewish court with a guilty verdict. And the words of the Mekhilta are, "Those who are liable for the death penalty do not have redemption, as it is stated, 'Any human being who has been proscribed is not ransomed.'" And reflect upon the language of the statement and be precise in your study of it - how they explained that this negative statement is a negation and not a prohibition, by their saying, "do not have redemption"; and they did not say, "we may not redeem them." And they explained this very matter in the Sifra in the section about appraisals (Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 12:7) and said, "From where is it derived that if one liable for the death penalty of the court said, 'My value is upon me," he has said nothing? We learn to say, 'is not redeemed.'" That is to say [that the question was,] from where is it that [we know that] he is not liable [for any] value. And we have already explained this matter with complete clarity, such that no question is left about it, even for one whose intellect is the most dense among all people. And since we have spoken about this matter, you should know that the words that can connote a prohibition in the Torah are four. And anything that is prohibited by one of these four is called a negative commandment. And they are guard, lest, do not and no (hishamer, pen, al, lo). And in explanation, they said (Makkot 13b:5), "Wherever it is stated, guard, lest, or do not, it is nothing other than a negative commandment." But there is one thing that remains for us to explain in order to complete the intent of the section. And that is that when the Torah tells and commands us to cleanse ourselves by negating actions x and y, behold that action is included in the negative commandments. And even though the negative statement through which it comes is a negation and not a prohibition - since it commands us to negate it from ourselves, and say, "I have not done such and such," we perforce know that such and such an action is prohibited to us. And this is like when Scripture commands us to say, "I have not eaten of it while in mourning, I have not cleared out any of it while I was unclean and I have not deposited any of it with the dead" (Deuteronomy 26:14) - it is indicating that all of these actions are prohibited to us. And behold that this explanation will come in its place, when we speak about these commandments.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Contemporary Halakhic Problems, Vol II

The monarch is empowered to punish malefactors in a manner more severe than is provided by biblical law.10Teshuvot Ḥatam Sofer, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, no. 208, states that this authority is derived from Leviticus 27:29. Ramban understands this verse as conferring upon the community the power of declaring a ḥerem and prescribes the death penalty for its violation. Ḥatam Sofer suggests that the power is vested in the monarch by virtue of the acceptance of his authority and the concomitant duty of obedience owed him by the populace. Cf., Me’iri cited in Shitah Mekubeẓet, Baba Kamma 84b, and R. Saul Israeli, Ha-Torah ve-ha-Medinah, II (Iyar 5710), 77, 85-88. Thus, he may, for example, decree the execution of an individual who has taken the life of another even though the culprit's act does not, for various reasons, constitute capital homicide under biblical law.11It should be noted that Rambam, Hilkhot Melakhim 3:8 and 3:10, in describing the royal prerogatives, speaks only of the crimes of lèse majesté and homicide. In Hilkhot Roẓeaḥ 2:4, Rambam speaks of “murderers and the like.” Avnei Nezer, Yoreh De‘ah, II, no. 312 and R. Saul Israeli, Ha-Torah ve-ha-Medinah, II, 81, opine that the king’s jurisdiction is limited to these crimes. R. Benjamin Rabinowitz-Teumim, Ha-Torah ve-ha-Medinah, IV (Elul 5712), 74, understands Rambam in this manner as well. See also Or Sameaḥ, Hilkhot Melakhim 3:10. This interpretation of Rambam is difficult to sustain in light of Rambam’s own statement, Hilkhot Sanhedrin 18:6, to the effect that Achan—who was not guilty of homicide—was executed by virtue of application of the “king’s justice.” However, Ritva, cited in Shitah Mekubeẓet, Baba Meẓi‘a, 83b, explains that R. Elazar ben Shimon’s action in turning over thieves to government authorities, although sharply censured by R. Joshua ben Karchah, was deemed appropriate in R. Eleazar’s opinion because those individuals were lawfully liable to punishment by virtue of exercise of the royal prerogative. Ritva apparently maintains that the king’s authority extends to punishment of theft as well. Ran, Sanhedrin 46a, offers a similar explanation and is obviously in agreement with Ritva. Rashba, in a responsum published by D. Kaufmann, The Jewish Quarterly Review, o.s. VIII (1896), 236, explains R. Eleazar ben Shimon’s action in the same manner and further states that R. Joshua ben Karchah does not forbid such execution but states only that as an act of piety one should refrain from delivering the wrong-doers into the hands of government officials. It is presumably this responsum which is alluded to by Bet Yosef, Ḥoshen Mishpat 388. Bet Yosef’s citation appears only in early editions of Tur Shulḥan Arukh and was deleted by the censor in later editions; see Shmuel Shilo, Dina de-Malkhuta Dina, p. 67, note 28. Or Sameaḥ, Hilkhot Melakhim 3:10, also understands Baba Meẓi‘a 83b in this manner. R. Benjamin Rabinowitz-Teumim, Ha-Torah ve-ha-Medinah, IV, 80, adds that R. Eleazar ben Shimon acted in an official capacity and even according to his view, as opposed to that of R. Joshua ben Karchah, only a person specifically delegated by the non-Jewish king to perform such functions may deliver a criminal into the hands of civil authorities. See also Malbim’s commentary on II Samuel 12:5 in which that commentator assumes as a matter of course that the king is empowered to impose the death penalty for theft. Moreover, the king, in administering justice, is not bound by the strict laws of evidence.12The Bet Din may also impose extraordinary punishment and ignore usual judicial procedure, but only as an emergency measure; see Rambam, Hilkhot Sanhedrin 18:6 and 24:4 as well as Hilkhot Roẓeaḥ 2:4; cf., Rambam, Hilkhot Mamrim 2:4. As formulated by Rambam, Hilkhot Melakhim 3:10.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Sefer HaChinukh

And this matter is similar to consecration (hekdesh). As we have found in the Torah that a person has the power to consecrate what is his, with the words of his mouth; and they will immediately be forbidden to him and to the whole world, as it is written (Leviticus 27:14), "And if a man consecrates his home to be holy." And so [too], does he have power over himself to forbid things upon his body. This is their, may their memory be blessed, always saying in the expressions of vows (Nedarim 15a), "Behold, it is upon me" - or (Nedarim 13b), "my mouth" for speech - meaning to say that he distances that thing from him. And he has the power to bind himself with a prohibition of that thing, [just] like he has the power to forbid his possessions. And that is itself the law and the reason why [only] an oath can rest upon something of substance [as well as] something that is not of substance (Nedarim 15b), since the oath lodges upon the body of the person, meaning to say that his body is obligated to do that thing - and behold, the body has substance. However a vow only rests upon something that has substance, as it is like him placing something into the category of other things that are forbidden; meaning to say that thing x will be forbidden to him like the category of the sacrifice that is forbidden to him. And if there is no substance to that which he is [literally] placing in the category, he has not done anything and it is nothing.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Contemporary Halakhic Problems, Vol IV

Hatam Sofer finds a source for the exercise of such power in Ramban's comments on Leviticus 27:29, "Kol ḥerem asher yeḥeram min ha-adam lo yipadeh, mot yamut." The standard translation of the verse, "None devoted, that may be devoted of men, shall be ransomed; he shall surely be put to death," renders its meaning utterly incomprehensible. Little wonder, then, that medieval rabbinic exegetes and commentaries struggled to arrive at a proper interpretation of the verse. Ramban understands the term "ḥerem" as used in this context as connoting societal proscription of certain acts upon pain of death. Understood in this manner, the verse, by inference, serves to confer legislative power upon society for the purpose of achieving socially desirable goals and also to confer penal authority to enforce such decrees. According to Ramban, the verse must be understood as an elliptical reference to the violation of a ḥerem pronounced by society and serves to forbid substitution of a financial penalty for capital punishment incurred in violation of a communal edict. The verse then should be rendered as "No [violation] of a ḥerem, pronounced as a ḥerem by man, shall be ransomed; he [the violator of the ḥerem] shall surely be put to death." The biblical narrative, I Samuel 14:24–45, recounting the actions of Jonathan and his incurrence of capital liability is explained by Ramban as predicated upon this scriptural provision. In eating honey Jonathan violated the communal edict pronounced by King Saul against partaking of food on the day of battle against the Philistines; hence Jonathan was subject to the death penalty. The verse "So the people rescued Jonathan, that he died not" (I Samuel 14:45) is understood by Ramban as meaning that the community retroactively nullified its edict and, pursuant to that nullification, Jonathan was exonerated. Such edicts may be promulgated, asserts Hatam Sofer, either by the community as a whole or by the sovereign as the executive authority of the community. It is quite apparently Hatam Sofer's opinion that such authority is vested only in the Jewish community and hence only in a Jewish monarch. To be sure, the Jewish community in any country, utilizing its power of ḥerem, could promulgate an edict making lèse majesté against the gentile sovereign a culpable offense as a violation of Jewish law. However, no such edict was ever promulgated. Accordingly, only the sovereign of a Jewish state may legitimately impose penal sanctions upon violators of his decrees.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Contemporary Halakhic Problems, Vol IV

Acceptance of Hatam Sofer's thesis provides a basis for resolving the apparent contradiction in Rambam's codification. As earlier noted, I Samuel 8:5 does not contain any reference to either capital or corporal punishment. Rambam may well agree with Hatam Sofer in regarding that power as being derived from Leviticus 27:29. In any event, since it is not derived from I Samuel it is not among the royal prerogatives enjoyed by "all the nations that surround us" and hence Rambam, Hilkhot Rozeaḥ 2:4, maintains that such power is limited to the ruler of a Jewish commonwealth. In adopting that view Rambam is nevertheless at variance with Hatam Sofer in maintaining that gentile kings are not authorized to impose capital punishment in administrating "the King's justice." Presumably, Rambam understood the talmudic declaration exonerating a king who causes the death of one-sixth of the population as limited to casualties inflicted in the course of licitly undertaken warfare. Such a position is entirely compatible with a literal reading of Tosafot's analysis of that dictum.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Sefer HaMitzvot

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.)
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Sefer HaMitzvot

He prohibited us from redeeming unspecified dedications of land. And that is His saying, "it shall not be sold and it shall not be redeemed" (Leviticus 27:28). And the language of the [Sifra] (Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 12:4) is, "'And it shall not be redeemed' - by the owner. What shall he do with it? 'To the priest shall be his holding' (Leviticus 27:21). Or this is perhaps [the law] even if he stipulated, 'to the Lord.' [Hence] we learn to say, 'it.'" And the laws of this commandment - meaning, the fields dedicated to the priests - have already been explained in Tractate Arakhin. And there (Arakhin 28b), it is said, "Dedications to the priests do not have redemption, but must be given to the priests, like the priestly tithe (terumah)." (See Parashat Bechukotai; Mishneh Torah, Appraisals and Devoted Property 6.)
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Sefer HaMitzvot

That is that He commanded us about field appraisals. And that is His saying, "If anyone consecrates any field that he holds [...] And if a field that is not of his holdings" (Leviticus 27:16-22). And likewise with a field of his holdings, "its appraisal shall be in accordance with its seed requirement" (Leviticus 27:16); and with a purchased field, "The priest shall compute for him the proportionate appraisal" (Leviticus 27:23). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Arakhin. And one should not think that these four types of appraisals have a commonality, such that it would be necessary to count them as one commandment. Rather they are four commandments. Each one has a law that is separate from the law of the other. However what is common to them is [only] the name, appraisal; such that they share one name. And with [careful] observation, this is clear. (See Parashat Bechukotai; Mishneh Torah, Appraisals and Devoted Property 4.)
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Sefer HaMitzvot

That is that He commanded us to extract the tithe from agricultural produce. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, "All tithes from the land [...] are the Lord's" (Leviticus 27:30). And the verse already explains that this tithe is for the Levites; and the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Maaserot. And it is what is called the first tithe. But by Torah law, it is only practiced in the Land [of Israel]. (See Parashat Bechukotai; Mishneh Torah, Tithes 1.)
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Sefer HaMitzvot

That is that He commanded us to extract the second tithe. And that is His saying, "You shall surely set aside [a tithe of all the yield of your sowing that is brought from the field every year" (Deuteronomy 14:22). And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 105:1-2) is, "'You shall surely set aside' - teaches that the tithe is not to be taken from one year for another. This tells me only of the second tithe, of which Scripture speaks [here]. From where [do we know] to include other tithes? [Hence] we learn to say, 'You shall surely set aside.'" And the language of the Torah is that this tithe be brought up to Jerusalem and that its owners eat it there; and this was already [discussed] earlier (Sefer HaMitzvot, Positive Commandments 119). And Scripture already specified about this commandment, that if it is impossible for him to bring it - due to the far distance - he redeems it, brings up its money to the Chosen [Temple] and spends it there exclusively for food. And that is His saying, "should the place be too far from you, etc." (Deuteronomy 14:24). And the language of the Torah also already appeared about the law of this commandment - that if he redeemed it for himself, he adds a fifth. And that is His saying, "And if a man will at all redeem of his tithes, [he shall add to it the fifth part of it]" (Leviticus 27:31). And the regulations of this commandment have all already been explained in Tractate Masser Sheni. And it too is only an obligation with the produce of the Land of Israel by Torah law. And this tithe is only eaten in the presence of the Temple; and the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 106:4) compares the eating of the firstborn animals to the second tithe, "Just as firstborn animals are eaten only in the presence of the Temple, so too is [the second] tithe eaten only in the presence of the Temple." (See Parashat Reeh; Mishneh Torah, Second Tithes and Fourth Year's Fruit 1.)
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Sefer HaMitzvot

That is that He commanded us to administer the laws of dedications. And that is that when anyone dedicates something of his and says, "This is dedicated," that thing is given to a priest - though if he specified that it would be for Temple upeep, it will be for Temple upkeep - since undifferentiated dedications are for the priests. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "However, any dedication that a man will dedicate, etc." (Leviticus 27:28). And the hint to us about undifferentiated dedications being for the priests, is its being stated (Leviticus 27:21), "like a field that was dedicated, it shall belong to the priest." And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the eighth chapter of Arakhin and the first chapter of Nedarim. (See Parashat Bechukotai; Mishneh Torah, Appraisals and Devoted Property 6.)
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Sefer HaChinukh

From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Berakhot 35a) that one who wants to redeem the fourth year plant, redeems it like the second tithe, which [can be] redeemed - meaning to say, that he redeems it with money and brings [that] up to Jerusalem. And if he redeems it himself, he adds a fifth. As so is the law with the second tithe, from that which it is written about it (Leviticus 27:31), "And if a man surely redeems his tithes." But one who redeems the second tithe for others, does not add a fifth. And he does not redeem [the fourth year plant] until it reaches the season of the tithe; as it is stated about it (Leviticus 19:25), "to increase its produce for yourselves" - and they, may their memory be blessed, expounded (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 3:10), "Until it becomes produce" - meaning to say that it reaches the season of the tithe, and that is a third of its ripeness. And according to Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Second Tithes and Fourth Year's Fruit 9:2), may his memory be blessed, we do not redeem it when it is attached [to the tree], like the tithe. But others explain (Rash on Orlah 5:5) that we redeem it even attached. And it is called money of the Higher Realm, like the tithe. And therefore it cannot be acquired as a gift - unless he gave it when it is still unripe fruit, as the obligation has not yet rested upon it, as we said. And its law in the other things - such as eating, drinking and anointment - is like the tithe. And on the commandment of the second tithe in Parshat Reeh Anochi (Sefer HaChinukh 473), we will write more about it at length with God's help.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Sefer HaChinukh

And from the content of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, also said (Bava Metzia 108a) that if one purchased a field of holding and planted trees on it and thereby enhanced [the field]; when it returns, we evaluate the enhancement that is in it for the buyer. As it is stated (Leviticus 25:33), "the sale of the house shall go out," - and the traditional received explanation comes about it [that] the house goes back, but the enhancement does not go back. And that which they, may their memory be blessed, also said (Arakhin 29b) that if one sells his field - whether it is a field of holding or another field - he is not permitted to redeem it in less than two years, even with the permission of the buyer. As Scripture commands that the sale stay intact for two years regardless, from that which it is written (Leviticus 25:15), "for the number of years of harvests shall he sell it to you" - that is the warning to the seller; the warning to the buyer is from that which it is written, "In the number of years shall you buy"; and the minimum of [what can be referred to as] "years" is two. It seems that the matter is so that no one will sell his land without difficulty, and he should not think that he will return and buy it from the hand of the buyer tomorrow. Rather he should know that he will not be able to eat from its produce in any way for two full years from the time of the sale. And they, may their memory be blessed, also said (Arakhin 29b) that the buyer must consume two harvests during those two years, as it is stated, "years of harvests." Therefore, if one of these two years is a year of blight or plant-disease, or a [sabbatical year], it does not count in the tally. [But they, may their memory be blessed, said that a fallow year is counted.] If he sold it in the Jubilee year itself, the sale is not a sale, and the money is returned to its owner. If he sold just the trees, they may [also] not be redeemed in less than two years. But if they are not redeemed during the Jubilee [cycle], they do not return in the Jubilee - as it is stated (Leviticus 27:25), "and return to his holding," but not to the trees. If he sold it to the first one and the first one [sold it] to the second one and the second one to the third one - and even if there were one hundred or more [buyers] - the field returns to the [original] owner at the Jubilee, as it is stated (Leviticus 27:24), "to he who has a holding of the land." And the rest of its details are at the end of Arakhin (see Mishneh Torah, Laws of Sabbatical Year and the Jubilee 10).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Sefer HaChinukh

And from the content of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, also said (Bava Metzia 108a) that if one purchased a field of holding and planted trees on it and thereby enhanced [the field]; when it returns, we evaluate the enhancement that is in it for the buyer. As it is stated (Leviticus 25:33), "the sale of the house shall go out," - and the traditional received explanation comes about it [that] the house goes back, but the enhancement does not go back. And that which they, may their memory be blessed, also said (Arakhin 29b) that if one sells his field - whether it is a field of holding or another field - he is not permitted to redeem it in less than two years, even with the permission of the buyer. As Scripture commands that the sale stay intact for two years regardless, from that which it is written (Leviticus 25:15), "for the number of years of harvests shall he sell it to you" - that is the warning to the seller; the warning to the buyer is from that which it is written, "In the number of years shall you buy"; and the minimum of [what can be referred to as] "years" is two. It seems that the matter is so that no one will sell his land without difficulty, and he should not think that he will return and buy it from the hand of the buyer tomorrow. Rather he should know that he will not be able to eat from its produce in any way for two full years from the time of the sale. And they, may their memory be blessed, also said (Arakhin 29b) that the buyer must consume two harvests during those two years, as it is stated, "years of harvests." Therefore, if one of these two years is a year of blight or plant-disease, or a [sabbatical year], it does not count in the tally. [But they, may their memory be blessed, said that a fallow year is counted.] If he sold it in the Jubilee year itself, the sale is not a sale, and the money is returned to its owner. If he sold just the trees, they may [also] not be redeemed in less than two years. But if they are not redeemed during the Jubilee [cycle], they do not return in the Jubilee - as it is stated (Leviticus 27:25), "and return to his holding," but not to the trees. If he sold it to the first one and the first one [sold it] to the second one and the second one to the third one - and even if there were one hundred or more [buyers] - the field returns to the [original] owner at the Jubilee, as it is stated (Leviticus 27:24), "to he who has a holding of the land." And the rest of its details are at the end of Arakhin (see Mishneh Torah, Laws of Sabbatical Year and the Jubilee 10).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Sefer HaChinukh

The commandment that one who appraises a man give the value delineated in the Torah: To rule on appraisals of people; that is, one who says, "My appraisal is upon me" or "The appraisal of x is upon me," must give to the priest according to the amount that he said, and not less - as appears explicitly in Scripture about a male and female and according to the tally of [their] years - as it is stated (Leviticus 27:2), "If a man proclaims an oath of the appraisal of souls to the Lord." And the matter of appraisals is included in vows of consecration and we are therefore obligated to keep them on account of "he shall not profane his words" (Numbers 30:3), "you shall not delay" (Deuteronomy 23:22) and "he shall do like everything that comes out of his mouth" (Numbers 30:3).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Sefer HaChinukh

And that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Arakhin 23a) that we ask about appraisals and values [in order to annul them] in the [same] way that we ask about other vows and consecrations. And they also said (Arakhin 24a) that if there were animals or slaves or jewels among the possessions of the appraiser and the traders say, "If he buys clothing of thirty dinar for this slave, he will increase his value by more than sixty"; or "If you wait on this animal for a month, its value will increase by double"; or "If they bring this jewel to place x, it will be worth much money" - we do not listen to them at all. Rather we sell everything in their place and in their time, as it is stated (Leviticus 27:23), "and he shall give the appraisal on that day, holy to the Lord." And the understanding came about this that this verse teaches about all consecrated things that we do not sustain them, we do not wait with them for the market day and we do not take them from one place to [another]. And this is the principle - that they only have their place and time alone. And what are these words speaking about? About movable items. But we proclaim [the intention to sell] lands sixty consecutive days - morning and evening - and afterwards, we sell them.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Sefer HaChinukh

And since the matter of arranging [this debt] has come to our hand, we shall write here that which they, may their memory be blessed, said about a [general] debtor in the chapter [entitled] HaMekabel Sadeh Mechavero in Bava Metzia 113b: That there we say, "A teacher taught in front of Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, 'In the [same] way that we arrange things with appraisals, so do we arrange things with a debtor.'" And they brought many challenges and solutions and the end of the matter is that which the Gemara brings, "A story of Eliyahu, who Rabbah bar Avoua found standing in a graveyard of gentiles. He said to him, 'What is [the law] about their arranging things for a debtor?'" And Rashi, may his memory be blessed, and others had a textual variant [instead], "From where [do we know] about their arranging things for a debtor?" [This is] meaning to say, it was obvious to Rabbah bar Avoua that we arrange [things for a debtor], but he was asking Eliyahu, from which verse we learn it. "And Eliyahu answered him, 'That this is how we learn it, "destitution, destitution," from appraisals.'" [This is] meaning to say that it is written about a loan (Leviticus 25:35), "And if your brother becomes destitute and his hand falters with you, you shall strengthen him" - which is a loan, as it is written at its end (Leviticus 25:35), "Do not take from him interest or increase, etc."; and it is written about appraisals (Leviticus 27:8), "And if he is destitute from [paying] the appraisal" - and the received tradition (Arakhin 24a) comes [that its understanding is], revive him from his appraisal.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Sefer HaChinukh

To not exchange consecrated things: To not exchange consecrated things - meaning to say one should not exchange a beast that has been consecrated for another beast afterwards, but it should rather be offered itself. And about this is it stated (Leviticus 27:10), "He shall not substitute nor exchange for it." And from when they exchanged it - meaning, that they said, "This instead of that"; "This in exchange for that"; or what is similar to these expressions, which is the essence of exchange (Temurah 26b) - there is liability for lashes in the thing, even though there is no act [involved] with it. [This is the case] even if there was somewhat of an error in the case. How is this? One who intends to say, "Behold this is in exchange for the burnt-offering that I have," but he says, "in exchange for the peace-offering that I have" - behold, this is an exchange and he is lashed; as nonetheless regarding the exchange it was volitional. But if his thought was that it was permissible to exchange, he is certainly not lashed. For one, it was inadvertent. And also, we only administer lashes with witnesses and a warning - and behold there is no warning [in such a case].
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Sefer HaChinukh

The commandment of the one who exchanges the beast of a sacrifice with another beast, such that both of them be consecrated: That the exchange be consecrated - meaning to say, that both will be consecrated if one exchanges the beast of a sacrifice with another beast, such that he said, "This one will be for a sacrifice in exchange for that one," as it is stated (Leviticus 27:10), "and it and its exchange will be consecrated." And this passage is a positive commandment - meaning that the Torah commanded us that the exchange be holy and that we practice holiness with both of them. And the proof that this is a positive commandment is their, may their memory be blessed, saying in Tractate Temurah 4b regarding the one who exchanges, "A positive commandment does not come and uproot two negative commandments." [This is] meaning to say that the prevention of exchange is repeated twice - as it is stated, "He shall not exchange nor substitute for it" - and the positive commandment of "and it and its exchange shall be" does not come and uproot these two negative commandments. Behold, what we wanted is elucidated, that it is a positive commandment.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Sefer HaChinukh

The commandment of the appraisal of a beast, such that one give according to what the priest appraises: To rule in the case of appraisals of beasts according to that which the Torah commanded us about it - as it is stated (Leviticus 27:11-12), "and he shall place the beast in front of the priest. And the priest shall appraise it" - and to give according to the appraisal that the priest appraises, and not less. As a man should not decrease and lie about that which he opens his mouth for the Heavens; and it is even forbidden to lie with common things, as I explained above (Sefer HaChinukh 350).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Sefer HaChinukh

From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Temurah 32b) that one who consecrates an unblemished beast for the altar and a blemish develops on it and it becomes disqualified, behold it is appraised and redeemed and he brings another beast instead of it. And about this is it stated (Leviticus 27:11), "And if it is any impure animal from which shall not be sacrificed to the Lord, he shall appraise the beast, etc." - as so did it come in the received traditional understanding, that Scripture expressed [this] with the expression of "impure." And whether a man consecrated a pure animal for the altar and a blemish developed upon it, as we said - or an impure [one] for the [Temple] upkeep - it requires being placed in front of the priest, as it is stated, "and he shall place the beast in front of the priest," and he appraises it. And if it died before it is appraised and redeemed, we do not appraise it and we do not redeem it after it died. But if he slaughtered two (the esophagus and the trachea) or the majority of two - even though it is like dead regarding slaughter, as it is established for us (Chullin 28a), as so was Moshe commanded about the majority of one with fowl and the majority of two with a beast - behold, it is living regrading appraisals. And [so] he brings it in front of the priest, and he appraises it. And the rest of its details are in [various] places in Temurah and Meilah (see Mishneh Torah, Laws of Substitution 4).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Sefer HaChinukh

The commandment of appraising houses, such that he give the appraisal that the priest appraises and the addition of a fifth: To rule about the appraisals of homes; meaning [that] the priest appraise the house of one who consecrated it and wants to redeem it from that which is consecrated - he or his wife or his inheritors - and that [the redeemer] gives him according to the appraisal that he says to him, and also a fifth [of that sum]; as it is stated (Leviticus 27:14), "And if a man consecrates his house, holy, etc."
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Sefer HaChinukh

The commandment of appraising a field, that he give the appraisal specified in the section of the Torah: To rule in the laws of appraisal of fields - meaning to say that one who consecrates his field and wants to redeem it, that he should give the appraisal fixed in the section of the Torah - "the seed of a chomer of barley for fifty shekel-coins of silver" (Leviticus 27:16), for all of the years of the Jubilee [cycle], which are forty-nine years. And according to the exact calculation, the appraisal of the field that is fitting to plant a chomer of barley is a sela and a pundyon a year. As the shekel-coin stated in the Torah is called an undifferentiated sela in the language of the Sages; and the gerah that is stated in the Torah is the maah in the words of the Sages - and the Sages added a sixth upon the shekel-coin, that is called a sela, as we have said. And that sela is equal to four dinar, and a dinar is four maah, and a maah is two pundyon. It comes out [to] a sela and a pundyon for each year. As even though the sela is forty-eight pundyon according to this calculation of ours - nonetheless, one who wants to take a sela from a money changer, needs to give forty-nine pundyon so that the money changer will earn one pundyon. And since he has to give forty-nine pundyon [in this case], we calculate it according to the calculation of what the consecrator would pay the money changer - as the hand of (terms for) the consecrated is always upon the higher. And we appraise it the same if he consecrates a field so good that there is none like it in the land or a field so bad that there is none as bad as it. As Scripture did not want to distinguish in this matter and made [the same] appraisal for all lands (Arakhin 14a).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Sefer HaChinukh

To not change the consecrated from a sacrifice to a sacrifice: To not change the consecrated from a sacrifice to a sacrifice, such that we turn a peace-offering back into a guilt-offering, or a guilt-offering we turn back into a sin-offering - there is a negative commandment in this and that which is similar to it. And about this thing is it stated (Leviticus 27:26), "a man may not consecrate it" - meaning that he not make the first-born a burnt-offering nor a peace-offering nor any other sacrifice. And the received tradition comes that it is not specifically with a first-born that the verse is concerned - that the law is the same for all that is consecrated [for] the altar. As so did they say in Sifra, Bechukotai, Section 8:3, "I only have the first born. From where [do we know] about all the consecrated that we do not change it from [one] holiness to [another] holiness? [Hence] we learn to say, 'with a beast, a man may not consecrate it.'" It hints that with every consecrated animal - whether the consecration of the consecrated for the altar or even for the upkeep of the [Temple] - we do not change it from its holiness, but it is [to be] left like it is; and "a man may not consecrate it" is stated about everything.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Sefer HaChinukh

The commandment of the law of one who dedicates from his properties, that it is of the priests: To rule in matters of dedications (cherem, something that is put off limits) - that is, if anyone dedicated something of his possessions undifferentiatedly - for example, [if] he said, "Thing x of mine will become dedicated" - that thing must be given to the priest; as it is stated (Leviticus 27:28), "But any dedication that a man dedicates, etc." [That is,] unless he explicitly said that the dedication be to the Lord, or to the upkeep of the [Temple]. As so did the they, may their memory be blessed, say (Arakhin 28b), "Undifferentiated dedications are for the priest." And their proof is from that which is written explicitly in the section, "like the dedicated field, his holding shall be of the priest."
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Sefer HaChinukh

And that is [the sense of that] which Scripture (Leviticus 27:29) states nearby, "Any dedication that is dedicated of a man you shall not redeem, he shall surely die"; as its content in the way of the simple meaning is that [in the case of] one who dedicates of a man that is not his - for example, those fighting against their enemies who make a vow, "If this nation is surely given into my hands, I will dedicate their cities" (Numbers 21:2) - [the objects of the vow] should die. As other nations are not included in the wellspring of blessings, as we have said; and [so] the expression of 'dedication' clings to them. And so did Ramban (Rambam) explain this verse in the way of its simple understanding (Ramban on Leviticus 27:29). And even though there are many midrashic explanations about this verse, there are seventy faces to the Torah and 'they are all straight for the one who understands.' And from this root they, may their memory be blessed, said (Arakhin 28a) that all that belongs to the Levites and the priests - whether land or whether movable items - cannot be dedicated. That is, even if the priest or the Levite said about his field that it be dedicated, it does not hold. As he is like one who dwells in his Master's house - the place of blessing and kindness and good - and all that he has is God's. And amidst blessing there is no place for 'dedication.'
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Sefer HaChinukh

From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Arakhin 28b), "What [is the difference] between dedications of the priests and dedications of the Heavens? That dedications of the Heavens are consecrated and are redeemed with their worth, their value goes to the [Temple] upkeep and the properties go out to the non-sacred. But the dedications of the priests" - meaning to say, an undifferentiated dedication, that [goes] to the priests - "never have redemption, but are rather given to the priests like priestly tithe." And it is concerning the dedications of the priests that it is stated, "it shall not be sold and it shall not be redeemed" (Leviticus 27:28) - "it shall not be sold" to another, "and it shall not be redeemed" for its [original] owners. It is one whether he dedicates land or movable items - they are given to the priests of that shift, [serving] at the time that he dedicates. And during the whole time that the dedications of the priests are in the house of the owners, they are consecrated for all of their purposes - as it is stated (Leviticus 27:28), "every dedication is holy of holies to the Lord." [Once] they are given to the priest, behold they are like the non-sacred for all of their purposes - as it is stated (Numbers 18:14), "Every dedication in Israel shall be for you." And a field that is dedicated to a priest never returns to the original owners. And the rest of its details are in the eight chapter of Arakhin and the first of Nedarim (see Mishneh Torah, Laws of Appraisals and Devoted Property 6).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Sefer HaChinukh

That owners that dedicated land not sell it, but that it rather be given to the priests: That one should not sell a dedicated field, and so [too,] all other lands. And the law is the same for movable items that have been dedicated by their owners. Rather, they should be given to the priests of that watch, as we wrote in this Order, positive commandment 6 (Sefer HaChinukh 357). And it is even forbidden for the owners to sell it to the treasurer of the consecrated, but rather [the latter] should attain the rights to it with nothing. As God gave the rights of dedications to the priests. And this is with undifferentiated dedications, as we said above. Since it established for us [that the law is] like the [opinion] that says, undifferentiated dedications - meaning to say that one who dedicated but did not specify to whom - are for the priests. As if he dedicates explicitly for the upkeep of the [Temple], the priests do not get rights to [it]. And about the dedications of the priests is it stated here (Leviticus 27:28), "any dedication [...] shall not be sold." But the priests can certainly sell them according to their will. As [with] the dedications of the priests - after they have gone out from the hand of their owners who dedicated them and have reached the hand of the priests - behold they are like the non-sacred for all of their purposes, as it is stated (Numbers 18:14), "Every dedication in Israel shall be for you." But so long as they are still under the hand of the owners, it is stated about them (Leviticus 27:28), "every dedication is holy of holies to the Lord."
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Sefer HaChinukh

That a dedicated field not be redeemed: That a dedicated field not be redeemed; and the law is the same for all other lands and movable items that are dedicated - they do not have redemption but are rather given to the priests; and [the priests] do with them according to their will. And about this is it stated (Leviticus 27:28), "any dedication [...] shall not be redeemed." And they said in Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 12:4, "'It shall not be sold' to another, 'and it shall not be redeemed' for its [original] owners."
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Sefer HaChinukh

From the laws of the commandment is that which our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, said (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Appraisals and Devoted Property 6:4) that one who dedicates to the Heavens consecrates [the property], but he [may] redeem it for its worth, such that the value goes to upkeep of the [Temple] and the property goes out to the non-sacred. But dedications of the priests never have a redemption. Rather behold they belong to the priests and their children forever. And [in the case of] a priest who got the rights for a field of dedication and sold it, it goes back to him or his seed in the Jubilee; as is is stated (Leviticus 27:21), "for the priest shall it be a holding" - this teaches that his field of dedication is like a field of holding for an Israelite. And the rest of its details and of its content - all of it is like I wrote above (Sefer HaChinukh 357) and it is all elucidated in Tractate Arakhin. And there is no doubt that these two negative commandments - which are "it shall not be sold" and "it shall not be redeemed" - are practiced today according to the opinion of Rambam, may his memory be blessed, as I wrote above: [In the case of] one who dedicates land or movable objects outside the Land at this time, it is given to the priests. [This is so] even though the field of dedication is not practiced in the Land [of Israel] today, but only at the time that the Jubilee is practiced. So did Rambam, may his memory be blessed, write in the Book of Separation (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Appraisals and Devoted Property 8:11-12).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Sefer HaChinukh

The commandment of the tithe of pure beasts every year: To tithe all the pure beasts - which are cattle, sheep and goats (Bekhorot 53a) - that are born in our flocks each and every year, and to take that tithe and eat it in Jerusalem after the fat and blood have been offered on the altar (Zevchim 56b), as it is written (Leviticus 27:32), "And all the tithe of your cattle and sheep, all that passes beneath the rod, the tenth shall be holy to the Lord." And they, may their memory be blessed, said in Bekhorot 58b, "How do we tithe? He brings them to a pen and makes for them a small opening, so that two cannot go out at the same time. He places their mothers outside, and they would moan, so that the lambs would hear their voices and exit the pen to meet them on their own and not from the effort of another. And he counts them with a rod, 'One, two, three, four' and so on, until ten. And the one that comes out tenth he marks with red chalk and he says, 'Behold, this is tithe.'"
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Sefer HaChinukh

To not sell the tithe of beasts, but rather that it be eaten in Jerusalem: To not sell the tithe of beasts in any way, but rather its owners - or whoever they want - eat it in Jerusalem. And regarding this is it stated here about the tithe of beasts (Leviticus 27:33), "it shall not be redeemed." And they said in Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 13:4, "With the tithe, it states, 'it shall not be redeemed' - it is not sold, neither alive nor slaughtered; neither unblemished nor blemished." And the expression of redemption is used here as an expression of sale, because redemption is similar to sale, since [redemption is when] a man gives value (money) and he purchases land.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Sefer HaChinukh

The commandment of the first tithe: That the Children of Israel were obligated to give one tenth part of the seed of the land to the Levites, as is is stated (Numbers 18:24), "For it is the tithes of the Children of Israel that they will give to the Lord that I give to the Levites as a gift." And it is stated in the Order of Eem Bechukotai (Leviticus 27:30), "And all of the tithe of the land, etc. it is for the Lord." And that is what is called the first tithe (maaser rishon).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Sefer HaChinukh

From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Yevamot 85b), that this tithe that is of the Levites is completely non-sacred (chullin) and [so] permissible for any man to eat - whether a Levite or whether an Israelite - and even in impurity, as it is stated (Numbers 18:27), "This shall be accounted to you as your gift." [That is] to say that the tithe which is given as the tithe of Israel is for you "as the grain from the threshing floor or the flow from the vat." And they, may their memory be blessed, expounded [that] just like the threshing floor and the vat are non-sacred for all purposes, so too is the first tithe that had its tithe taken non-sacred for all purposes. [And] the explanation of 'that had its tithe taken' is meaning to say after the Levites skimmed a tithe from their tithe and gave it to the priests. That is what is called 'its tithe.' And every place that it is stated about the tithe, "holy" or "redemption" is only about the second tithe. And they said in Sifrei that all that is food for people and guarded and its growth is from the earth is liable for the tithe and the priestly tithe (terumah). And they [derive] it from that it is written about the priestly tithe (Deuteronomy 18:4), "The beginning of your grain, etc." As they, may their memory be blessed, expounded [that] just like grain, grapes and oil are food of people and its growth is from the earth and has owners, as it is stated, "your grain"; so too all that is similar to them are liable for the tithe and the priestly tithe. But even though vegetables are food of people, they are not liable for the tithe except rabbinically; as about the tithe it states (Deuteronomy 14:22), "all the produce of your seed," and vegetables are not called 'produce.' But from the words of the Gemara that we rely upon more, it appears that also in all [other] fruits besides grain, grapes and oil, is there no liability for the tithe, except rabbinically. And [according to this,] the verse that was brought [as a prooftext] in the Sifrei was only a memory device (asmakhta). This is the conclusion in the beginning of the chapter [entitled] Hasokher et HaPoalim (Bava Metzia 88a) concerning that which Rav Pappa answered that the fig tree stood in the garden, but its branches leaned into the courtyard. However, Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote the opposite of this, and like he found [it] in the Sifrei. And so [too] from the topic of the commandment is that which they said that we do not separate the tithe of the new crop for the old crop, and not from the old for the new, not from that which is liable for that which is exempt and not from that which is exempt for that which is liable. And if one separated the tithe [like this], it is not [considered] a tithe. But we do take the tithe from that which is not encircled (close to the produce for which one is liable), even though it is not like this with the priestly tithe, as we only separate the priestly tithe from what is encircled. And nonetheless, with other things the tithe and the priestly tithe are the same; such that anything about which we say regarding the priestly tithe, "we do not take the priestly tithe, but if one [took it], his priestly tithe is a [valid] priestly tithe - so [too,] with the tithe, if he separated it, his tithe is a [valid] tithe. And everything that is exempt from the priestly tithe is exempt for the tithe. And in the Order of Shoftim, we will write at greater length, with God's help, and you can see it there. And so [too] from the topic of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said that a person is only obligated to separate the tithe from Torah writ if he finished [the work] on his fruit to eat them for himself, but one who finished them to sell them in the marketplace is exempted, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 14:22), "You shall surely tithe, etc. and you shall eat." And so [too,] one who buys [the produce] after its work has been completed - meaning to say it was put in the threshing floor by the seller - is exempt from Torah writ, but obligated from the words [of the Rabbis], as it is stated, "the produce of your seed," meaning to say that the work was finished in your domain. And the obligation of the tithe does not rest on the fruits until they reach the time of the tithe, as it is stated (Leviticus 27:30), "from the seed of the land, from the fruit of the tree"; meaning to say until it becomes a fruit. And from here, they, may their memory be blessed, learned that the time of the tithe is from when the fruits reach [when they could] be seeded and grow. Everything is according to what [the specific] fruit is. How is this? Figs, from when they become soft such that they are ready to eat; apples and citrons from when they turn round. And so [too,] with each and every fruit, they established its time for the tithe. That is to say until this time that is established for them, we can eat as much as we need, as they are not in the category of the tithe at all. But after this time, it can only be eaten casually, until their threshing floor designates them for the tithe. And after their threshing floor has designated them for the tithe, it is forbidden to eat from them, even casually. And what is their threshing floor with regard to the tithe? Produce from when it is flattened, meaning to say that he flattens its top with a shovel, in the way that people do when they make it into a heap. And in the Talmud Yerushalmi Ma'asrot 1:4, we have found further that if his intention is not to flatten [it], it is a threshing floor for [the designation of] the tithe from when he sets up a pile from his produce. As the verse made it dependent on the threshing floor, and even without flattening, when his intention is not to flatten [it]. And even if he makes a threshing floor of it inside his house; even there, the threshing floor creates the designation for the tithe. And that which Rav Oshaya said, "A man may be crafty about his produce and bring it in with its chaff," so as to exempt it from the tithe - and it is a set law, as we say in Tractate Berakhot 31a - that is speaking when he did not set up a pile inside his house, and so [too,] that he did not flatten it, but rather that he pounded it and winnowed it, little by little without flattening, and put it into the storehouse, little by little. This is what appears in this matter; and in this way, all of the discussions go up in one 'stalk, healthy and well' (are all in agreement). And they, may their memory be blessed, said that the season of squash and watermelon and pumpkin is from when they are rubbed, meaning from when the thin hair that is upon them is removed; and the season of a basket of fruit is from when he covers the fruit inside of it with leaves and fronds. And so [too,] with each and every fruit, they established the time of its threshing floor, according to what it is - everything like it comes in Tractate Maasrot (Mishna Maasrot 1:5). And I have also seen about the topic of designating the tithe by Torah writ that the opinion of some of the commentators is that there is never designation for the tithe from any angle until there is seeing the face of the house (that the produce enter the home), and also that the house be fit for it, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 26:13), "I have cleared out the consecrated from the house." And that is when he brought it in through the gate, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 26:12), "and they shall eat in your gates and they shall be satiated." But if he brought them in through the roofs or the enclosures, they are exempt from the tithe and the priestly tithe. And so did Rambam, may his memory be blessed, write (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Tithes 4:2), "It appears to me that we do not administer lashes from Torah writ for the eating of unseparated produce until they are designated by his bringing them into his house. But if it is designated with the other things that designate for the tithe, we do not administer lashes, besides [rabbinic] lashes of rebellion." [This] and the rest of its details are elucidated in Tractate Maasrot (see Tur, Yoreh Deah 338).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Sefer HaChinukh

The commandment of the second tithe: To remove the second tithe from the produce in four years of the sabbatical cycle, meaning to say, after we separate the first tithe that is given to the Levites, that we separate yet another tithe. And hence it is called the second tithe. And the law of this tithe is that it be eaten in Jerusalem. And about it is it stated (Deuteronomy 14:22), "You shall surely tithe the produce of your seed." And Scripture elucidates that if the place is far from us and we cannot carry it there except with great burden and much expense, that we can redeem it and bring up its value [to] Jerusalem and spend it there only for the needs of eating and drinking. And Scripture likewise elucidates that the one who redeems his tithe needs to add a fifth to the value - which is to say that if it was worth four dinar, that he eat instead of it [that which costs him] five dinar in Jerusalem. And about this is it stated (Leviticus 27:31), "And if a man surely redeems from his tithe, he shall add its fifth to it." And they, may their memory be blessed, made a precise inference (Kiddushin 24a): "'From his tithe - but not from the tithe of his fellow; 'a man from his tithe' - but not a woman."
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim

Early rabbinic authorities decreed, coupled with “חרם29Ḥerem, חרם, is the status of that which is separated from common use or contact, either because it is proscribed as an abomination to God or because it is consecrated to Him.
There are different categories of ḥerem. The Torah considers the following to be ḥerem: Israelites who worship other gods and idols. People who commit this idolatry were to be put to the sword and the objects burned. These people and objects contaminated those they came in contact with; The seven nations inhabiting the land promised to Israel - the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites (Deuteronomy 7:1-2; cf. 20:17). These people were to be totally destroyed; Whatever one privately devoted to the Lord as ḥerem is the most sacred, Kodesh Kodashim, and these objects were never to be sold nor was their status revokable (Leviticus 27:28). Cases of ḥerem in the rest of the Bible follow from these Torah laws. The term later came to mean total destruction.
The term ḥerem began to take on different meanings from the Biblical ones as time passed. Even the term ḥerem in the Bible changed its meaning. In Deuteronomy declaring an enemy as ḥerem was done to gain God’s favor by totally devoting to Him, one’s own nation and the total nation of the enemy.
After Saul the rise of the enemy ḥerem seems to have disappeared. Ḥerem came to mean, when referred to a nation that the other nation’s religion practiced evil ways that would badly influence the Israelites and therefore these people were to be separated from Israel to preserve their true belief in God (Exodus 34:11ff; Numbers 33:51ff; Deuteronomy 7:1-5; 20:16ff).
In later Jewish law the concept of ḥerem changed radically. The ḥerem of Ezra is the first indication that meant banishment and persecution. The term niddui was used in tannaitic literature to mean the punishment of an offender by his isolation from and his being held in contempt by the community at large. The term niddui was used in the Bible (Numbers 12:14) as an isolation punishment. The Pharisees employed niddui if a person did not follow their prescribed standards. A scholar was isolated for his non-compliance with the majority and no one was permitted to contact him lest they too became defiled. Niddui was a Punishment employed by the courts on the heads of the academies.
Later in the talmudic laws the term ḥerem was used again as an aggravated form of niddui. A niddui could last for two 30 day periods. After 60 days passed and the person did not satisfy the courts or the academies by changing his ways, a ḥerem was declared which was a total banishment and isolation. Another type of punishment was also established. That was a nezifah, a “reprimand”, which lasted for seven days. It was intended for shame and remorse and automatically expired while a niddui and a ḥerem had to be lifted by the courts.
A niddui differed from a ḥerem in that one who was declared niddui could have social intercourse for purposes of study or business, but one placed in ḥerem had to study alone and earn money from the small shop he was permitted to maintain. One punished by niddui or ḥerem was considered in a state of mourning and was therefore not permitted to cut his hair, do laundry, or wear shoes, except for out-of-town walks. He was forbidden to wash himself except for his face, hands, and feet but he did not have to rend his clothes. He had to live in confinement with his family only, no outsider was permitted to come near him, eat or drink with him, greet him, or give him any enjoyment (Shulḥan Arukh, Yoreh De’ah 334:2). He could not be counted as part of the three for grace after the meals nor as one of the ten for a prayer minyan. After his death, his coffin would be stoned, (one stone could be symbolically placed on the coffin). The niddui was actually considered a rather light penalty for minor offenses since it could be so easily lifted. Niddui was during talmudic times put on people by laymen and individual scholars for various reasons, not only by the courts, for reasons such as debt. Only a court designated niddui would necessitate the whole community from disassociating with the isolated person. A non-judicial niddui did not require this. A person had to be warned about a possible niddui for a non-religious offense, but for a religious one no warning was necessary. The niddui had to be publically announced but no evidence was required. The court was considered fair. A niddui by a court could be lifted by any court. A personal niddui had to be lifted by the person who imposed it and, if he was unavailable, by the nasi or leader of the community. The courts tended not to pronounce a niddui against a judge or a scholar. Flogging (see footnote 31) was considered a more appropriate punishment.
In post-talmudic times the threat of a niddui or a ḥerem was considered a way of future law enforcement. As time went on the conditions put on one who was excommunicated in the Talmud became the minimum. They became more and more severe. One who was banned could not have his sons circumcised or their children married, their children and wives were expelled from the synagogue, and they were not to be buried with any honor. He was considered as a non-Jew; his ẓiẓit fringes, were cut off, his mezuzah removed from his door, his food proclaimed unfit for Jews, and his books considered trash. The ḥerem became actually, a civil death. The man was dead to the community.
Ḥerem became more and more frequent as the punishment of excommunication by the Church increased. Jewish courts were influenced by civil courts of the land to impose ḥerem on Jews for monetary reasons, but the Jewish courts remained independent in religious matters. Rabbis became more and more reluctant to impose a ḥerem on an individual especially without the consent of the entire congregation due to the extreme hardship it imposed on the family of the isolated man. This caused the development of partial ḥerem which was less severe and only isolated the person in synagogue worship but not in daily life, for example. Niddui was then imposed for major offenses such as a man refusing to divorce his wife when it was felt that he should, a bridegroom refusing to marry his bride, or offenses such as theft or fraud.
Minor forms of ḥerem, niddui or nezifah were pronounced by the head of the rabbinical court, but a severe ḥerem was pronounced in the synagogue either before the open ark or while holding the Torah scroll. The proclaimation was made with the sounding of the shofar, the ram’s horn (see footnote 221). The people held candles and put them out symbolically when the excommunication was declared. Several Biblical verses were recited against the one excommunicated and people were warned against associating with the person put in ḥerem. The ceremony concluded with a prayer for the faithful of the congregation.
In later times the niddui and ḥerem became so frequent and common that it lost almost all of its significance and force. It became the standard rabbinic reaction to all forms of deviation from the norm of Orthodoxy. Although still pronounced they are no longer binding on the person involved or the community, nor do they carry the terror they once did.
Haim Hermann Cohn, E. J., v. 8, pp. 344-55.
”, ban, that the living should not slander the dead.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Versetto precedenteCapitolo completoVersetto successivo