dedications

Terumah given by a non-Jew or a Samaritan is terumah and their tithes are tithes and their dedications [to the Temple] are dedications. Rabbi Judah says: the law of the vineyard in the fourth year is not applicable to a non-Jew. But the sages say: it is. The terumah of a non-Jew renders [produce into which it falls] medumma and [one who eats it unwittingly] is obligated [to pay back an extra] fifth. But Rabbi Shimon exempts it.

Terumah given by a non-Jew or a Samaritan is terumah and their tithes are tithes and their dedications [to the Temple] are dedications. Rabbi Judah says: the law of the vineyard in the fourth year is not applicable to a non-Jew. But the sages say: it is. The terumah of a non-Jew renders [produce into which it falls] medumma and [one who eats it unwittingly] is obligated [to pay back an extra] fifth. But Rabbi Shimon exempts it.

In some ways [the laws relating to] dedications are more stringent than [that those relating to] a substitute, and in some ways [those relating to] a substitute are more stringent than [those relating to] dedications. In some ways [the laws relating to] dedications are more stringent than [those relating to] a substitute, For dedicated animals can make a substitute whereas a substitute cannot make another substitute. A congregation or partners can dedicate but cannot make a substitute. One can dedicate embryos and limbs, but one cannot make a substitute with them. [The laws relating to] a substitute are more stringent than [those relating to] dedications, since a substitute applies to a permanently blemished animal and it does not become hullin to be sheared or worked. Rabbi Yose son of Rabbi Judah says: they made an error to be the same as intent when it comes to a substitute, but they did not make an error to be the same as intent when it comes to dedication. Rabbi Elazar says: kilayim, terefah, a fetus extracted by means of a cesarean section, a tumtum and a hermaphrodite, cannot become sacred nor can they make sacred.

In some ways [the laws relating to] dedications are more stringent than [that those relating to] a substitute, and in some ways [those relating to] a substitute are more stringent than [those relating to] dedications. In some ways [the laws relating to] dedications are more stringent than [those relating to] a substitute, For dedicated animals can make a substitute whereas a substitute cannot make another substitute. A congregation or partners can dedicate but cannot make a substitute. One can dedicate embryos and limbs, but one cannot make a substitute with them. [The laws relating to] a substitute are more stringent than [those relating to] dedications, since a substitute applies to a permanently blemished animal and it does not become hullin to be sheared or worked. Rabbi Yose son of Rabbi Judah says: they made an error to be the same as intent when it comes to a substitute, but they did not make an error to be the same as intent when it comes to dedication. Rabbi Elazar says: kilayim, terefah, a fetus extracted by means of a cesarean section, a tumtum and a hermaphrodite, cannot become sacred nor can they make sacred.

In some ways [the laws relating to] dedications are more stringent than [that those relating to] a substitute, and in some ways [those relating to] a substitute are more stringent than [those relating to] dedications. In some ways [the laws relating to] dedications are more stringent than [those relating to] a substitute, For dedicated animals can make a substitute whereas a substitute cannot make another substitute. A congregation or partners can dedicate but cannot make a substitute. One can dedicate embryos and limbs, but one cannot make a substitute with them. [The laws relating to] a substitute are more stringent than [those relating to] dedications, since a substitute applies to a permanently blemished animal and it does not become hullin to be sheared or worked. Rabbi Yose son of Rabbi Judah says: they made an error to be the same as intent when it comes to a substitute, but they did not make an error to be the same as intent when it comes to dedication. Rabbi Elazar says: kilayim, terefah, a fetus extracted by means of a cesarean section, a tumtum and a hermaphrodite, cannot become sacred nor can they make sacred.

In some ways [the laws relating to] dedications are more stringent than [that those relating to] a substitute, and in some ways [those relating to] a substitute are more stringent than [those relating to] dedications. In some ways [the laws relating to] dedications are more stringent than [those relating to] a substitute, For dedicated animals can make a substitute whereas a substitute cannot make another substitute. A congregation or partners can dedicate but cannot make a substitute. One can dedicate embryos and limbs, but one cannot make a substitute with them. [The laws relating to] a substitute are more stringent than [those relating to] dedications, since a substitute applies to a permanently blemished animal and it does not become hullin to be sheared or worked. Rabbi Yose son of Rabbi Judah says: they made an error to be the same as intent when it comes to a substitute, but they did not make an error to be the same as intent when it comes to dedication. Rabbi Elazar says: kilayim, terefah, a fetus extracted by means of a cesarean section, a tumtum and a hermaphrodite, cannot become sacred nor can they make sacred.

The substitute of a first-born and an animal tithed, their young and the young of their young until the end of time, they are all treated like a first-born and an animal tithed, and are eaten by the owners when blemished. What is the difference between a first-born and an animal tithed [on the one hand] and other dedications [on the other]? All [blemished] dedications are sold in the market, killed in the market, and weighed by the pound, but not a first-born and an animal tithed. They [other dedications] and their substitutes are redeemed, but not a first-born and an animal tithed. They [other dedications] come from outside the land [to the land], but not a first-born and an animal tithed. [If] they however came from [outside the holy land] unblemished, they are offered, if blemished they are eaten by their owners with their blemishes. Rabbi Shimon: what is the reason? Because a first-born and an animal tithed have a remedy wherever they are, whereas all other dedications, although a blemish has occurred in them, remain holy.

The substitute of a first-born and an animal tithed, their young and the young of their young until the end of time, they are all treated like a first-born and an animal tithed, and are eaten by the owners when blemished. What is the difference between a first-born and an animal tithed [on the one hand] and other dedications [on the other]? All [blemished] dedications are sold in the market, killed in the market, and weighed by the pound, but not a first-born and an animal tithed. They [other dedications] and their substitutes are redeemed, but not a first-born and an animal tithed. They [other dedications] come from outside the land [to the land], but not a first-born and an animal tithed. [If] they however came from [outside the holy land] unblemished, they are offered, if blemished they are eaten by their owners with their blemishes. Rabbi Shimon: what is the reason? Because a first-born and an animal tithed have a remedy wherever they are, whereas all other dedications, although a blemish has occurred in them, remain holy.

The substitute of a first-born and an animal tithed, their young and the young of their young until the end of time, they are all treated like a first-born and an animal tithed, and are eaten by the owners when blemished. What is the difference between a first-born and an animal tithed [on the one hand] and other dedications [on the other]? All [blemished] dedications are sold in the market, killed in the market, and weighed by the pound, but not a first-born and an animal tithed. They [other dedications] and their substitutes are redeemed, but not a first-born and an animal tithed. They [other dedications] come from outside the land [to the land], but not a first-born and an animal tithed. [If] they however came from [outside the holy land] unblemished, they are offered, if blemished they are eaten by their owners with their blemishes. Rabbi Shimon: what is the reason? Because a first-born and an animal tithed have a remedy wherever they are, whereas all other dedications, although a blemish has occurred in them, remain holy.

The substitute of a first-born and an animal tithed, their young and the young of their young until the end of time, they are all treated like a first-born and an animal tithed, and are eaten by the owners when blemished. What is the difference between a first-born and an animal tithed [on the one hand] and other dedications [on the other]? All [blemished] dedications are sold in the market, killed in the market, and weighed by the pound, but not a first-born and an animal tithed. They [other dedications] and their substitutes are redeemed, but not a first-born and an animal tithed. They [other dedications] come from outside the land [to the land], but not a first-born and an animal tithed. [If] they however came from [outside the holy land] unblemished, they are offered, if blemished they are eaten by their owners with their blemishes. Rabbi Shimon: what is the reason? Because a first-born and an animal tithed have a remedy wherever they are, whereas all other dedications, although a blemish has occurred in them, remain holy.

The substitute of a first-born and an animal tithed, their young and the young of their young until the end of time, they are all treated like a first-born and an animal tithed, and are eaten by the owners when blemished. What is the difference between a first-born and an animal tithed [on the one hand] and other dedications [on the other]? All [blemished] dedications are sold in the market, killed in the market, and weighed by the pound, but not a first-born and an animal tithed. They [other dedications] and their substitutes are redeemed, but not a first-born and an animal tithed. They [other dedications] come from outside the land [to the land], but not a first-born and an animal tithed. [If] they however came from [outside the holy land] unblemished, they are offered, if blemished they are eaten by their owners with their blemishes. Rabbi Shimon: what is the reason? Because a first-born and an animal tithed have a remedy wherever they are, whereas all other dedications, although a blemish has occurred in them, remain holy.

There are [laws] which apply to dedications for the altar which do not apply to dedications for repairs of the Temple, and there are [laws] which apply to dedications for the repairs of the Temple which do not apply to dedications for the altar. Dedications for the altar effect a substitute; They are subject to the laws of piggul, remnant and ritual uncleanness; Their offspring and milk are forbidden [even] after their redemption; If one kills them outside [the Temple] he is guilty; And wages are not paid from them to artisans, Which is not the case with dedications for temple repairs.

There are [laws] which apply to dedications for the altar which do not apply to dedications for repairs of the Temple, and there are [laws] which apply to dedications for the repairs of the Temple which do not apply to dedications for the altar. Dedications for the altar effect a substitute; They are subject to the laws of piggul, remnant and ritual uncleanness; Their offspring and milk are forbidden [even] after their redemption; If one kills them outside [the Temple] he is guilty; And wages are not paid from them to artisans, Which is not the case with dedications for temple repairs.

There are [laws] which apply to dedications for the altar which do not apply to dedications for repairs of the Temple, and there are [laws] which apply to dedications for the repairs of the Temple which do not apply to dedications for the altar. Dedications for the altar effect a substitute; They are subject to the laws of piggul, remnant and ritual uncleanness; Their offspring and milk are forbidden [even] after their redemption; If one kills them outside [the Temple] he is guilty; And wages are not paid from them to artisans, Which is not the case with dedications for temple repairs.

There are [laws] which apply to dedications for the altar which do not apply to dedications for repairs of the Temple, and there are [laws] which apply to dedications for the repairs of the Temple which do not apply to dedications for the altar. Dedications for the altar effect a substitute; They are subject to the laws of piggul, remnant and ritual uncleanness; Their offspring and milk are forbidden [even] after their redemption; If one kills them outside [the Temple] he is guilty; And wages are not paid from them to artisans, Which is not the case with dedications for temple repairs.

There are [laws] which apply to dedications for the altar which do not apply to dedications for repairs of the Temple, and there are [laws] which apply to dedications for the repairs of the Temple which do not apply to dedications for the altar. Dedications for the altar effect a substitute; They are subject to the laws of piggul, remnant and ritual uncleanness; Their offspring and milk are forbidden [even] after their redemption; If one kills them outside [the Temple] he is guilty; And wages are not paid from them to artisans, Which is not the case with dedications for temple repairs.

There are [laws] which apply to dedications for the altar which do not apply to dedications for repairs of the Temple, and there are [laws] which apply to dedications for the repairs of the Temple which do not apply to dedications for the altar. Dedications for the altar effect a substitute; They are subject to the laws of piggul, remnant and ritual uncleanness; Their offspring and milk are forbidden [even] after their redemption; If one kills them outside [the Temple] he is guilty; And wages are not paid from them to artisans, Which is not the case with dedications for temple repairs.

There are [laws] which apply to dedications for the repairs of the Temple which don’t apply to dedications to the altar. Unspecified dedications go to the repairs of the Temple. Dedication for the repairs of the temple can have an effect on all things, The law of sacrilege applies to things that grow from them. And there is no benefit to be derived from them for the priest.

There are [laws] which apply to dedications for the repairs of the Temple which don’t apply to dedications to the altar. Unspecified dedications go to the repairs of the Temple. Dedication for the repairs of the temple can have an effect on all things, The law of sacrilege applies to things that grow from them. And there is no benefit to be derived from them for the priest.

There are [laws] which apply to dedications for the repairs of the Temple which don’t apply to dedications to the altar. Unspecified dedications go to the repairs of the Temple. Dedication for the repairs of the temple can have an effect on all things, The law of sacrilege applies to things that grow from them. And there is no benefit to be derived from them for the priest.

Both dedications for the altar and dedications for the repairs of the Temple may not be changed from one holiness to another. One may dedicate them with a value-dedication, and one may conscribe them. If they die, they are buried. Rabbi Shimon says: dedications for the repairs of the temple, if they died, they are redeemed.

Both dedications for the altar and dedications for the repairs of the Temple may not be changed from one holiness to another. One may dedicate them with a value-dedication, and one may conscribe them. If they die, they are buried. Rabbi Shimon says: dedications for the repairs of the temple, if they died, they are redeemed.

Both dedications for the altar and dedications for the repairs of the Temple may not be changed from one holiness to another. One may dedicate them with a value-dedication, and one may conscribe them. If they die, they are buried. Rabbi Shimon says: dedications for the repairs of the temple, if they died, they are redeemed.

They asked before Rebbi Zeïra, in that situation, a Cohen to an Israel, what is the rule? At Rebbi Yose’s they said that he did not answer. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa said, so he said to them: In the opinion of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina, why is a Cohen to an Israel forbidden, not because it looks badly? Also Rebbi Joḥanan holds that from an Israel to an Israel it is forbidden because it looks badly. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there is desecration of sacrifices and you said because it looks badly? Because of the following, as it was stated: “Cohanim and Levites who help at the threshing floor have no right either to heave or to tithe, and if the farmer gave, it is desecrated, as it is said (Lev. 22:15): ‘They should not desecrate the sanctified things of the Children of Israel,’ but they desecrate them! In addition, they said that their heave is no heave, their tithes are no tithes, their dedications are no dedications, and about them the verse says (Micha 3:11): ‘Their heads judge for bribes and their priests come for a price.’ The Omnipresent brings over them three catastrophies; that is what is written (Micha 3:12): ‘Therefore, because of you Zion will be ploughed over as a field, etc.’”

They asked before Rebbi Zeïra, in that situation, a Cohen to an Israel, what is the rule? At Rebbi Yose’s they said that he did not answer. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa said, so he said to them: In the opinion of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina, why is a Cohen to an Israel forbidden, not because it looks badly? Also Rebbi Joḥanan holds that from an Israel to an Israel it is forbidden because it looks badly. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there is desecration of sacrifices and you said because it looks badly? Because of the following, as it was stated: “Cohanim and Levites who help at the threshing floor have no right either to heave or to tithe, and if the farmer gave, it is desecrated, as it is said (Lev. 22:15): ‘They should not desecrate the sanctified things of the Children of Israel,’ but they desecrate them! In addition, they said that their heave is no heave, their tithes are no tithes, their dedications are no dedications, and about them the verse says (Micha 3:11): ‘Their heads judge for bribes and their priests come for a price.’ The Omnipresent brings over them three catastrophies; that is what is written (Micha 3:12): ‘Therefore, because of you Zion will be ploughed over as a field, etc.’”

MISHNAH: The heave of the Gentile and the Samaritan is heave, their tithes are tithes, and their dedications are dedications. Rebbi Jehudah says, a Gentile cannot have a fourth year vineyard but the Sages say, he may have. The Gentile’s heave creates dema‘ and one is obliged to a fifth for it, but Rebbi Simeon frees from the obligation.

MISHNAH: The heave of the Gentile and the Samaritan is heave, their tithes are tithes, and their dedications are dedications. Rebbi Jehudah says, a Gentile cannot have a fourth year vineyard but the Sages say, he may have. The Gentile’s heave creates dema‘ and one is obliged to a fifth for it, but Rebbi Simeon frees from the obligation.

Rav Ḥisda said, if somebody declared his standing grain ownerless, came back and retook possession, and illegally gave heave, that is heave. What is the difference between standing grain and ears of grain? Standing grain, if he illegally gave heave before he declared it ownerless, that is not heave. Ears, if he illegally gave heave before he declared them ownerless, that is heave. Rav Ḥinena in the name of Rav Ḥisda, the same applies to a dedicated crop. The words of the rabbis disagree, since Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: (Deut. 14:29) “The Levite shall come, because he has neither part nor inheritance with you.” You are obliged to give him from what you have but he has not. This excludes gleanings for which your and his hands are equal. Gleanings, forgotten sheaves, peah, and abandoned property are all equal. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the company did ask: But dedications, where your and his hands are not equal, are treated as if your and his hands were equal. Said Rebbi Ila, what are we talking about? If the heap was made when it was ownerless or dedicated, the Torah said (Deut. 18:4) “the first of your grain”, not the ownerless, “the first of your grain”, not Temple property. But we must be talking about ears that he declared ownerless and of which he retook possession. If they were ownerless, he would be free, if dedicated, he would be obligated. If they were ownerless, he would be free, since Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: (Deut. 14:29) “The Levite shall come, because he has neither part nor inheritance with you.” You are obligated to give him from what you have but he has not. This excludes gleanings for which your and his hands are equal. If dedicated, he would be obligated, from the following: “If somebody dedicated standing produce and redeemed it standing, it is obligated.” What is the difference between ownerless and dedicated? Ownerless [property] is outside the power of everybody, dedicated [property] is not outside the power of the Temple treasurer. Rebbi Abin said, it did not even go outside the power of its owners since he must say to him you redeem first.

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They treated deer like dedications for the upkeep of the Temple to require standing and appraisal.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra: Does an unclean animal need standing and appraisal? He said to him, if Rebbi Yose had said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan that a pure wild animal does not need standing and appraisal, an unclean animal would not need it. Rebbi Hila said, we have stated thus (Lev. 27:21): “If an unclean animal, he should redeem it as appraised.” Just as an unclean animal is particular in that it is the same at the time of its redemption as at the time of its dedication, so I am adding the dead animal which is the same at the time of its redemption as at the time of its dedication, and I exclude the one for which he said, this is dedicated, and then it died, which is not the same at the time of its redemption as at the time of its dedication. Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah said so: “One commits larceny with a donkey and its milk.” Is not milk comparable to its being dead? With all that needs redemption one can commit larceny. You cannot explain it as giving the rules of dead [animals] since we stated “a donkey”. Rebbi Ḥanina said before Rebbi Mana, explain it following Rebbi Simeon since Rebbi Simeon said, dedications for the upkeep of the Temple do not need standing and appraisal. He said to him, if it is following Rebbi Simeon, why a donkey and not any animal?

Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody redeemed dedications for more than their worth, [the Temple] grabs everything. If somebody redeemed Second Tithe for more than its worth, it does not grab everything. What is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rebbi Immi said, because a person usually adds to his dedications. Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Immi: If the person was checked and he said, that was not what I intended? He said to him, when he will be checked.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody redeemed dedications for more than their worth, [the Temple] grabs everything. If somebody redeemed Second Tithe for more than its worth, it does not grab everything. What is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rebbi Immi said, because a person usually adds to his dedications. Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Immi: If the person was checked and he said, that was not what I intended? He said to him, when he will be checked.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody redeemed dedications for more than their worth, [the Temple] grabs everything. If somebody redeemed Second Tithe for more than its worth, it does not grab everything. What is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rebbi Immi said, because a person usually adds to his dedications. Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Immi: If the person was checked and he said, that was not what I intended? He said to him, when he will be checked.

Rebbi Jonah asked, that is following him who said that it is not his property. But for him who says that it is his property, what is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rebbi Yose said, the reason has already been explained, because a person usually adds to his dedications.

Rebbi Jonah asked, that is following him who said that it is not his property. But for him who says that it is his property, what is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rebbi Yose said, the reason has already been explained, because a person usually adds to his dedications.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody redeemed his dedication without adding a fifth, it is redeemed. If somebody redeemed his Second Tithe without adding a fifth, it is not redeemed. What is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rebbi Hila said, dedications have claimants, Second Tithe has no claimants. Rebbi Jonah asked, that is following him who said, it is not his property. But for him, who says it is his property, what is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rebbi Yose said, the reason has already been explained, dedications have claimants, Second Tithe has no claimants.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody redeemed his dedication without adding a fifth, it is redeemed. If somebody redeemed his Second Tithe without adding a fifth, it is not redeemed. What is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rebbi Hila said, dedications have claimants, Second Tithe has no claimants. Rebbi Jonah asked, that is following him who said, it is not his property. But for him, who says it is his property, what is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rebbi Yose said, the reason has already been explained, dedications have claimants, Second Tithe has no claimants.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody redeemed his dedication without adding a fifth, it is redeemed. If somebody redeemed his Second Tithe without adding a fifth, it is not redeemed. What is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rebbi Hila said, dedications have claimants, Second Tithe has no claimants. Rebbi Jonah asked, that is following him who said, it is not his property. But for him, who says it is his property, what is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rebbi Yose said, the reason has already been explained, dedications have claimants, Second Tithe has no claimants.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody redeemed his dedication without adding a fifth, it is redeemed. If somebody redeemed his Second Tithe without adding a fifth, it is not redeemed. What is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rebbi Hila said, dedications have claimants, Second Tithe has no claimants. Rebbi Jonah asked, that is following him who said, it is not his property. But for him, who says it is his property, what is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rebbi Yose said, the reason has already been explained, dedications have claimants, Second Tithe has no claimants.

MISHNAH: Jews were sharecroppers for Gentiles in Syria; Rebbi Eliezer obligates their produce for tithes and the Sabbatical but Rabban Gamliel exempts them. Rabban Gamliel says there are two ḥallot in Syria but Rebbi Eliezer says one ḥallah. They took the leniency of Rabban Gamliel and the leniency of Rebbi Eliezer but then returned to follow Rabban Gamliel in both cases. Rabban Gamliel says: There are three domains for ḥallah. The Land of Israel up to Akhzib, one ḥallah. From Akhzib to the Euphrates or Amanus, two ḥallot, one for the fire and one for the Cohen. The one for the fire has a measure, the one for the Cohen has no measure. From Euphrates or Amanus inside, two ḥallot, one for the fire and one for the Cohen. The one for the fire has no measure, the one for the Cohen has a measure but a ṭevul yom may eat it. Rebbi Yose says one does not need immersion. But it is forbidden to people suffering from genital flux, and to women during menstruation or after childbirth. It may be eaten at one table with a layman and may be given to any Cohen. The following may be given to any Cohen: ḥērem-dedications, firstlings, the redemption money for a [firstborn] son, the redemption value of a firstling donkey, foreleg, jawbone, and first stomach, the first shearing, oil to burn, Temple sacrifices, and First Fruits. Rebbi Jehudah forbids First Fruits. Heave vetch Rebbi Aqiba permits but the Sages forbid.

Some of them are given to the people of the watch; some of them are given to any Cohen. Firstlings and First Fruits to the people of the watch; all others to any Cohen. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra, from where that ḥērem-dedications are for the people of the watch? He said to him: (Lev. 27:21) “Like the ḥērem-dedicated field it shall become the property of the Cohen.” From where that the property itself should be given to the people of the watch? Because it is written “it shall become the property of the Cohen.” (From where that ḥērem-dedications are for the people of the watch?) But is it not written: (Deut. 18:3) “He shall give to the Cohen foreleg, jawbone, and first stomach,” should it not be for the people of the watch? Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: (Lev. 27:28) “Every ḥērem-dedication shall be most holy to the Eternal.” Just as most holy sacrifices are for the people of the watch, so ḥērem-dedications are for the people of the watch!

Some of them are given to the people of the watch; some of them are given to any Cohen. Firstlings and First Fruits to the people of the watch; all others to any Cohen. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra, from where that ḥērem-dedications are for the people of the watch? He said to him: (Lev. 27:21) “Like the ḥērem-dedicated field it shall become the property of the Cohen.” From where that the property itself should be given to the people of the watch? Because it is written “it shall become the property of the Cohen.” (From where that ḥērem-dedications are for the people of the watch?) But is it not written: (Deut. 18:3) “He shall give to the Cohen foreleg, jawbone, and first stomach,” should it not be for the people of the watch? Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: (Lev. 27:28) “Every ḥērem-dedication shall be most holy to the Eternal.” Just as most holy sacrifices are for the people of the watch, so ḥērem-dedications are for the people of the watch!

Some of them are given to the people of the watch; some of them are given to any Cohen. Firstlings and First Fruits to the people of the watch; all others to any Cohen. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra, from where that ḥērem-dedications are for the people of the watch? He said to him: (Lev. 27:21) “Like the ḥērem-dedicated field it shall become the property of the Cohen.” From where that the property itself should be given to the people of the watch? Because it is written “it shall become the property of the Cohen.” (From where that ḥērem-dedications are for the people of the watch?) But is it not written: (Deut. 18:3) “He shall give to the Cohen foreleg, jawbone, and first stomach,” should it not be for the people of the watch? Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: (Lev. 27:28) “Every ḥērem-dedication shall be most holy to the Eternal.” Just as most holy sacrifices are for the people of the watch, so ḥērem-dedications are for the people of the watch!

24 gifts were given to Aaron and his sons, ten in the Temple, four in Jerusalem, and ten in the countryside. These are the ten in the Temple: Purification offering, reparation offering, public well-being offerings, purification offering of a bird, the reparation offering for suspected guilt, the log of oil of the skin-diseased, the two breads, the shew-bread, the remainders of cereal offerings, and the ‘omer. These are in Jerusalem: Firstlings, First Fruits, what was lifted from thanksgiving sacrifices and from the nazir’s ram, and the skins of sacrifices. These are in the countryside: Heave, Heave of the Tithe, ḥallah, foreleg, jawbone, and first stomach, the first shearing, robbery of the proselyte, redemption of the firstborn, redemption of the firstborn donkey, ḥērem-dedications, and fields of inheritance.

Rebbi Jonah said, one did not say “simply holy sacrifices.” Are piggul and leftovers not after sprinkling as before sprinkling? It mentions only piggul and leftovers, things which sprinkling does not permit, together with most holy sacrifices. Therefore, for simply holy sacrifices, which are permitted after sprinkling, one never can whip because of laity. Rebbi Yose said, did one not say “simply holy sacrifices?” Are piggul and leftovers not after sprinkling as before sprinkling? Why were piggul and leftovers mentioned, not to exclude simply holy sacrifices after sprinkling? Therefore, before sprinkling when simply holy sacrifices are forbidden, lay persons will be whipped for [eating] them. Rebbi Avun said, a baraita supports Rebbi Yose: “(Deut. 12”17) ‘Your dedications’, thanksgiving and well-being sacrifices, if one ate of them before sprinkling he is whipped.”

So far about a robbery when the owners did not give up hope. Even about a robbery when the owners did give up hope? They thought to say that we can hear it from the following: “This applies to heave and tithe but not to First Fruits.” For what is this needed? Not for a robbery when the owners did not give up hope, but for a robbery when the owners did give up hope? Even for heave he did not do anything, as we stated: “A strongman, a thief, or a robber, as long as the owners pursue them, their heave is no heave, his tithes no tithes, and their dedications no dedications. If the owners do not pursue them, their heave is heave, their tithes are tithes, and their dedications dedications.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Neither of them can give heave. Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even if the owners declare heave, it is no heave. Rebbi Yose said, so far we deal with a robbery when the owners did not give up hope. Then why did we state: “This applies to heave and tithe but not to First Fruits”? It is possible for fruits to be usable without First Fruits. It is impossible for fruits to be usable without heave and tithes! But a robbery when the owners did give up hope remains a question.

So far about a robbery when the owners did not give up hope. Even about a robbery when the owners did give up hope? They thought to say that we can hear it from the following: “This applies to heave and tithe but not to First Fruits.” For what is this needed? Not for a robbery when the owners did not give up hope, but for a robbery when the owners did give up hope? Even for heave he did not do anything, as we stated: “A strongman, a thief, or a robber, as long as the owners pursue them, their heave is no heave, his tithes no tithes, and their dedications no dedications. If the owners do not pursue them, their heave is heave, their tithes are tithes, and their dedications dedications.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Neither of them can give heave. Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even if the owners declare heave, it is no heave. Rebbi Yose said, so far we deal with a robbery when the owners did not give up hope. Then why did we state: “This applies to heave and tithe but not to First Fruits”? It is possible for fruits to be usable without First Fruits. It is impossible for fruits to be usable without heave and tithes! But a robbery when the owners did give up hope remains a question.

So far about a robbery when the owners did not give up hope. Even about a robbery when the owners did give up hope? They thought to say that we can hear it from the following: “This applies to heave and tithe but not to First Fruits.” For what is this needed? Not for a robbery when the owners did not give up hope, but for a robbery when the owners did give up hope? Even for heave he did not do anything, as we stated: “A strongman, a thief, or a robber, as long as the owners pursue them, their heave is no heave, his tithes no tithes, and their dedications no dedications. If the owners do not pursue them, their heave is heave, their tithes are tithes, and their dedications dedications.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Neither of them can give heave. Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even if the owners declare heave, it is no heave. Rebbi Yose said, so far we deal with a robbery when the owners did not give up hope. Then why did we state: “This applies to heave and tithe but not to First Fruits”? It is possible for fruits to be usable without First Fruits. It is impossible for fruits to be usable without heave and tithes! But a robbery when the owners did give up hope remains a question.

So far about a robbery when the owners did not give up hope. Even about a robbery when the owners did give up hope? They thought to say that we can hear it from the following: “This applies to heave and tithe but not to First Fruits.” For what is this needed? Not for a robbery when the owners did not give up hope, but for a robbery when the owners did give up hope? Even for heave he did not do anything, as we stated: “A strongman, a thief, or a robber, as long as the owners pursue them, their heave is no heave, his tithes no tithes, and their dedications no dedications. If the owners do not pursue them, their heave is heave, their tithes are tithes, and their dedications dedications.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Neither of them can give heave. Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even if the owners declare heave, it is no heave. Rebbi Yose said, so far we deal with a robbery when the owners did not give up hope. Then why did we state: “This applies to heave and tithe but not to First Fruits”? It is possible for fruits to be usable without First Fruits. It is impossible for fruits to be usable without heave and tithes! But a robbery when the owners did give up hope remains a question.

“One repairs the roads, and the streets, and water pools, and one looks after all public needs.” “ The following are the public needs: One judges civil suits, and capital crimes, and cases of flogging, and one redeems valuations, and bans, and dedications, one lets the suspected adulteress drink, and burns the Cow, and one breaks the neck of the calf whose neck was to be broken, and one pierces the ear of a Hebrew slave, and one purifies the sufferer from skin disease, and removes the shoe from the block but one may not return it.”

There we have stated: “There is about gifts for the upkeep of the Temple that unspecified gifts to the Temple are for the upkeep of the Temple. Sanctification for the upkeep of the Temple falls on everything, and me`ilah applies to what grows from it, and priests have no usufruct from it.” Rebbi Ḥanania said, this is Rebbi Eliezer’s, as we have stated: “If somebody gives his property to the Temple and in it there was an animal fit for the altar, males or females. Rebbi Eliezer says, males should be sold to those who need an elevation offering, and females be sold to those who need well-being offerings, and the revenue together with the remainder be for upkeep of the Temple.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of Rebbi Eliezer : If a man dedicate his house holy to the Eternal. How do we hold? If for a dwelling, it already is written, if the dedicator redeem his house. Therefore we hold that he dedicates his property. From here that unspecified dedications to the Temple are for the upkeep of the Temple.

Did sheqalim therefore become holy? Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah in the name of Rebbi Simeon: Both these and those did not become holy. It was stated: A proselyte today has to bring for his nest a quarter of a silver {denar}. Rebbi Simeon said, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai already disestablished this because of the mishap. What is “because of the mishap”? As was stated, today one does neither dedicate as sacrifice, nor dedicate one’s value, nor dedicate as ḥerem, nor does one collect [heave and tithes]. If somebody dedicates as sacrifice, or dedicated one’s value, or dedicated as ḥerem, or collected, cloth must be burned, an animal castrated. [How? One locks it in and it dies by itself.] Monies shall go to the Dead Sea. If he transgressed and dedicated, since Rebbi Simeon said, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai already disestablished this because of the mishap, this implies if he transgressed and dedicated, it became sanctified. Rebbi Yudan from Antodria asked before Rebbi Yose: here you are saying it became sanctified, and there you are saying, it did not become sanctified. He said to him, there [because of the following one may not dedicate from the start because it is an obligation to bring from the new contribution, and this would be from the old one. Here, what can you say? That one is old. But in respect to other dedications, the proselyte’s nest does not have to be from new money; if he dedicated it is holy;] maybe the Temple will be built like earlier and the heave of the lodge will be lifted on time on the first of Nisan. But here, what do you have? Rav Ada and Rav Hamnuna, Rav Ada bar Aḥawa in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Simeon.

“And one looks after all public needs.” “The following are the public needs: One judges civil suits, and capital crimes, and cases of flogging, and one redeems kidnap victims, and valuations, and bans, and dedications, and one lets the suspected adulteress drink, and burns the Cow, and one breaks the neck of the calf whose neck was to be broken, and one pierces the ear of a Hebrew slave, and one purifies the sufferer from skin disease, and removes the shoe from the block but one may not return it.”

Rebbi Yoḥanan had a difficulty with the words of Rebbi Joshua. Is her marriage valid by biblical standards? The dissolution of her vows must be by biblical standards! And you say so! Rebbi Ze‘ira said, there is no dissolution of vows here, because of what Rebbi Joḥanan had against the words of Rebbi Joshua. Rebbi Nissa asked: Would it be the same for prohibitions? Rebbi Joḥanan said, one does not whip for prohibitions. Would that be as we stated there: “Before that time, even though they said, we know for Whom we made a vow or to Whom we dedicated, their vows are no vows and their dedications no dedications. After that time, even though they said, we do not know for Whom we made a vow or to Whom we dedicated, their vows are vows and their dedications dedications.” What is the status of that Mishnah? For Cahana it is in dispute, for Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish it is everybody’s opinion.

Rebbi Yoḥanan had a difficulty with the words of Rebbi Joshua. Is her marriage valid by biblical standards? The dissolution of her vows must be by biblical standards! And you say so! Rebbi Ze‘ira said, there is no dissolution of vows here, because of what Rebbi Joḥanan had against the words of Rebbi Joshua. Rebbi Nissa asked: Would it be the same for prohibitions? Rebbi Joḥanan said, one does not whip for prohibitions. Would that be as we stated there: “Before that time, even though they said, we know for Whom we made a vow or to Whom we dedicated, their vows are no vows and their dedications no dedications. After that time, even though they said, we do not know for Whom we made a vow or to Whom we dedicated, their vows are vows and their dedications dedications.” What is the status of that Mishnah? For Cahana it is in dispute, for Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish it is everybody’s opinion.

Rebbi Yoḥanan had a difficulty with the words of Rebbi Joshua. Is her marriage valid by biblical standards? The dissolution of her vows must be by biblical standards! And you say so! Rebbi Ze‘ira said, there is no dissolution of vows here, because of what Rebbi Joḥanan had against the words of Rebbi Joshua. Rebbi Nissa asked: Would it be the same for prohibitions? Rebbi Joḥanan said, one does not whip for prohibitions. Would that be as we stated there: “Before that time, even though they said, we know for Whom we made a vow or to Whom we dedicated, their vows are no vows and their dedications no dedications. After that time, even though they said, we do not know for Whom we made a vow or to Whom we dedicated, their vows are vows and their dedications dedications.” What is the status of that Mishnah? For Cahana it is in dispute, for Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish it is everybody’s opinion.

Rebbi Yoḥanan had a difficulty with the words of Rebbi Joshua. Is her marriage valid by biblical standards? The dissolution of her vows must be by biblical standards! And you say so! Rebbi Ze‘ira said, there is no dissolution of vows here, because of what Rebbi Joḥanan had against the words of Rebbi Joshua. Rebbi Nissa asked: Would it be the same for prohibitions? Rebbi Joḥanan said, one does not whip for prohibitions. Would that be as we stated there: “Before that time, even though they said, we know for Whom we made a vow or to Whom we dedicated, their vows are no vows and their dedications no dedications. After that time, even though they said, we do not know for Whom we made a vow or to Whom we dedicated, their vows are vows and their dedications dedications.” What is the status of that Mishnah? For Cahana it is in dispute, for Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish it is everybody’s opinion.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not say “his” but [ ]. In which respect? In case the heir took it, one removes it from his hand. Does one have the same rule for the creditor? Was it not stated: If either the heir or the creditor took it, one takes it from their hands? Rebbi Aḥa bar Ulla said, let us hear from the following: “If he dedicated 90 minas but his debt was 100 minas, [the creditor] adds another denar and redeems these properties.” Not necessarily a denar, but anything, that a dedication should not be seen to be profanated without redemption. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One would be guilty of complete larceny. That is difficult. If one would be guilty of complete larceny, should if not be redeemed for its full value? If it can be redeemed for less than its full value, one should not be guilty of complete larceny! What are we talking about? If it is connected to the ground, can there be larceny about real estate? But we talk about standing grain. Since if the administrator misbehaved and took it, one does not take it from his hand; the administrator and the heir follow the same rule. Also if the heir misbehaved and took it, one does not take it from his hand. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The same rule holds for an ox. Can you say that an ox is real estate? Rebbi Tanḥum bar Mari in the name of Rebbi Yose: They made the rules for an ox parallel those of dedications that lost their value. Here, you say one takes it from his hand, but there you say, one does not take it from his hand. Since you diminished the woman’s power in that her ketubah is a lien only on the properties of her first husband, you strengthened her power in this matter that if the heir came and took it, one removes it from his hand. It was stated thus: Trees and cutting, old or young, one removes from their hands.

Now estimates, bans, exchanges, and dedications were in the same paragraph, but we did not state ‘substitute names of estimates, substitute names of exchanges and dedications.’ But if these were stated, what would we state? ‘Araphin, ‘araṣin, ‘araqin? Temupha, temuna, temuqa? Hegder, hegzer, hegres. It is understandable following him who says, unspecified bans are for the support of the Temple. But according to him who says, unspecified bans are for the priests? Why did we not state ‘substitute names for heave’? But if it were stated, what would we state? Terupha, teruṣa, teruqa?

Now estimates, bans, exchanges, and dedications were in the same paragraph, but we did not state ‘substitute names of estimates, substitute names of exchanges and dedications.’ But if these were stated, what would we state? ‘Araphin, ‘araṣin, ‘araqin? Temupha, temuna, temuqa? Hegder, hegzer, hegres. It is understandable following him who says, unspecified bans are for the support of the Temple. But according to him who says, unspecified bans are for the priests? Why did we not state ‘substitute names for heave’? But if it were stated, what would we state? Terupha, teruṣa, teruqa?

HALAKHAH: Does Rebbi Aqiba think “I found, I did not find”? Then one who forbids meat to himself should be forbidden fish and grasshopper meat since, if a man says to another, buy meat for us, he will return and say, I found only fish! But Rebbi Aqiba must think that squash are vegetables, but the rabbis think that squash are not vegetables. That applies to legal situations. “The vegetables of this garden are sold;” if squash were there, they would be sold in the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba, not sold in the opinion of the rabbis. The same applies to declarations of abandonment or dedications.

They asked before Rebbi Zeїra: a Cohen to an Israel, Rebbi forbids. What does Rebbi Yose say? Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa said, so he responded to them: In the opinion of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina, why is a Cohen to an Israel forbidden, not because it looks badly? Also Rebbi Joḥanan holds that from an Israel to an Israel it is forbidden because it looks badly. In addition, because of the following, as it was stated: “Cohanim and Levites who help at the threshing floor have no right either to heave or to tithe, and if the farmer gave, it is desecrated, as it is said (Lev. 22:15): ‘They should not desecrate the sanctified things of the Children of Israel,’ but they desecrate them! In addition, they said that their heave is no heave, their tithes are no tithes, their dedications are no dedications, and about them the verse says (Micha 3:11): ‘Their heads judge for bribes, [their priests are for hire].’ The Omnipresent brings over them three catastrophies; that is what is written (Micha 3:12): ‘Therefore, because of you Zion will be ploughed over as a field, Jerusalem will be desolate, and the Temple Mount a wooded hill.’

They asked before Rebbi Zeїra: a Cohen to an Israel, Rebbi forbids. What does Rebbi Yose say? Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa said, so he responded to them: In the opinion of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina, why is a Cohen to an Israel forbidden, not because it looks badly? Also Rebbi Joḥanan holds that from an Israel to an Israel it is forbidden because it looks badly. In addition, because of the following, as it was stated: “Cohanim and Levites who help at the threshing floor have no right either to heave or to tithe, and if the farmer gave, it is desecrated, as it is said (Lev. 22:15): ‘They should not desecrate the sanctified things of the Children of Israel,’ but they desecrate them! In addition, they said that their heave is no heave, their tithes are no tithes, their dedications are no dedications, and about them the verse says (Micha 3:11): ‘Their heads judge for bribes, [their priests are for hire].’ The Omnipresent brings over them three catastrophies; that is what is written (Micha 3:12): ‘Therefore, because of you Zion will be ploughed over as a field, Jerusalem will be desolate, and the Temple Mount a wooded hill.’

Any expressions can be used for redemption except the expression “exchange”. Any expressions can be used for exchange except the expression “redemption.” If he said about dedications to the altar: “this one is for that one, exchange for that one, barter for that one,” it is an exchange. “This is redeemed for that one,” it is no exchange. If he said about dedications for the upkeep of the Temple: “this one is for that one, barter for that one,” its money’s worth is engaged. “Exchange for that one,” he did not say anything. The other [expressions] serve for redemption and exchange. Dedications to the altar are subject both to redemption and to exchange. [Animals] dedicated for the upkeep of the Temple who were dedicated before developing a defect, “this one is for that one,” if he wants to sacrifice a perfect animal, one tells him that its sanctity is for its money’s worth. If he wants to eat it after it developed a blemish, one tells him that it is holy as exchange: “Itself and its exchange shall be holy.” Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar said, since he knows that anybody who exchanges is whipped, it never occured to him to exchange.

Any expressions can be used for redemption except the expression “exchange”. Any expressions can be used for exchange except the expression “redemption.” If he said about dedications to the altar: “this one is for that one, exchange for that one, barter for that one,” it is an exchange. “This is redeemed for that one,” it is no exchange. If he said about dedications for the upkeep of the Temple: “this one is for that one, barter for that one,” its money’s worth is engaged. “Exchange for that one,” he did not say anything. The other [expressions] serve for redemption and exchange. Dedications to the altar are subject both to redemption and to exchange. [Animals] dedicated for the upkeep of the Temple who were dedicated before developing a defect, “this one is for that one,” if he wants to sacrifice a perfect animal, one tells him that its sanctity is for its money’s worth. If he wants to eat it after it developed a blemish, one tells him that it is holy as exchange: “Itself and its exchange shall be holy.” Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar said, since he knows that anybody who exchanges is whipped, it never occured to him to exchange.

Any expressions can be used for redemption except the expression “exchange”. Any expressions can be used for exchange except the expression “redemption.” If he said about dedications to the altar: “this one is for that one, exchange for that one, barter for that one,” it is an exchange. “This is redeemed for that one,” it is no exchange. If he said about dedications for the upkeep of the Temple: “this one is for that one, barter for that one,” its money’s worth is engaged. “Exchange for that one,” he did not say anything. The other [expressions] serve for redemption and exchange. Dedications to the altar are subject both to redemption and to exchange. [Animals] dedicated for the upkeep of the Temple who were dedicated before developing a defect, “this one is for that one,” if he wants to sacrifice a perfect animal, one tells him that its sanctity is for its money’s worth. If he wants to eat it after it developed a blemish, one tells him that it is holy as exchange: “Itself and its exchange shall be holy.” Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar said, since he knows that anybody who exchanges is whipped, it never occured to him to exchange.

The same situation obtains for bills of manumission. “This is your bill of manumission valid after 30 days from now.” In Rebbi’s opinion, it is a bill; in the rabbi’s opinion, it is no bill. The same situation obtains for abandoning. “My field shall be abandoned after 30 days from now.” In Rebbi’s opinion, it is abandoned; in the rabbi’s opinion, it is not abandoned. Is it the same for dedications? Everybody agrees that “my speaking to Heaven is equivalent to my delivering to a person.” Is it the same for preliminary marriage? It was found stated: Rebbi says, she is completely preliminarily married.

They asked before Rebbi Zeïra: a Cohen to an Israel, Rebbi forbids. What does Rebbi Yose say? He did not respond. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa said, so he said to them: In the opinion of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina, why is a Cohen to an Israel forbidden, not because it looks badly? Also Rebbi Joḥanan holds that from an Israel to an Israel it is forbidden because it looks badly. In addition, because of the following, as it was stated: “Cohanim and Levites who help at the threshing floor have no right either to heave or to tithe, and if the farmer gave, it is desecrated, as it is said (Lev. 22:15): ‘They should not desecrate the sanctified things of the Children of Israel,’ but they do desecrate them! In addition, they said that their heave is no heave, their tithes are no tithes, their dedications are no dedications, and about them the verse says (Micha 3:11): ‘Their heads judge for bribes, their priests instruct for hire, etc.’ The Omnipresent brings over them three catastrophes; that is what is written (Micha 3:12): ‘Therefore, because of you Zion will be ploughed over as a field, Jerusalem will be desolate, and the Temple Mount a wooded hill.’

They asked before Rebbi Zeïra: a Cohen to an Israel, Rebbi forbids. What does Rebbi Yose say? He did not respond. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa said, so he said to them: In the opinion of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina, why is a Cohen to an Israel forbidden, not because it looks badly? Also Rebbi Joḥanan holds that from an Israel to an Israel it is forbidden because it looks badly. In addition, because of the following, as it was stated: “Cohanim and Levites who help at the threshing floor have no right either to heave or to tithe, and if the farmer gave, it is desecrated, as it is said (Lev. 22:15): ‘They should not desecrate the sanctified things of the Children of Israel,’ but they do desecrate them! In addition, they said that their heave is no heave, their tithes are no tithes, their dedications are no dedications, and about them the verse says (Micha 3:11): ‘Their heads judge for bribes, their priests instruct for hire, etc.’ The Omnipresent brings over them three catastrophes; that is what is written (Micha 3:12): ‘Therefore, because of you Zion will be ploughed over as a field, Jerusalem will be desolate, and the Temple Mount a wooded hill.’

MISHNAH: Whipping by three [judges]; in the name of Rebbi Ismael they said, by 23. The lengthening of a month by three [judges], the intercalation of a year by three [judges], the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, one starts with three, one discusses with five, and one votes with seven. But if they voted with three, it is intercalated. The leaning of Elders and the breaking of the calf’s neck by three [judges], the words of Rebbi Simeon, but Rebbi Jehudah says, by five. Ḥalîṣah and repudiations by three [judges], [redemption of] the growth of the fourth year and Second Tithe whose value is not known by three [appraisers], also of Temple dedications by three. Estimations of movables by three [appraisers], Rebbi Jehudah says that one of them must be a Cohen; of real estate nine and a Cohen. The same holds for humans. Capital crimes [are judged] by 23. The participants in active or passive bestiality [is judged] by 23, as it is said, you shall slay the woman and the animal, and it says, and you shall slay the animal. The bull to be stoned [is judged] by 23, as it is said, the bull shall be stoned, also its owner shall die; like the owner’s death sentence so is the ox’s death sentence. The wolf and the lion, the bear, and the tiger, and the panther, and the snake are sentenced to death by 23. Rebbi Eliezer says, anyone quick to kill them is meritorious; Rebbi Aqiba says, they are sentenced by 23.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody redeemed Temple dedications for more than their worth, it is redeemed. But if somebody redeemed Second Tithe for more than its worth, it is not redeemed. What is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rebbi La said, dedications have claimants, Second Tithe has no claimant. Rebbi Jonah asked, that is following him who says that it is not his property. But for him who says it is his property, what is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rebbi Yose said, the reason has already been explained: dedications have claimants, Second Tithe has no claimant.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody redeemed Temple dedications for more than their worth, it is redeemed. But if somebody redeemed Second Tithe for more than its worth, it is not redeemed. What is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rebbi La said, dedications have claimants, Second Tithe has no claimant. Rebbi Jonah asked, that is following him who says that it is not his property. But for him who says it is his property, what is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rebbi Yose said, the reason has already been explained: dedications have claimants, Second Tithe has no claimant.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody redeemed Temple dedications for more than their worth, it is redeemed. But if somebody redeemed Second Tithe for more than its worth, it is not redeemed. What is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rebbi La said, dedications have claimants, Second Tithe has no claimant. Rebbi Jonah asked, that is following him who says that it is not his property. But for him who says it is his property, what is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rebbi Yose said, the reason has already been explained: dedications have claimants, Second Tithe has no claimant.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody redeemed Temple dedications for more than their worth, it is redeemed. But if somebody redeemed Second Tithe for more than its worth, it is not redeemed. What is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rebbi La said, dedications have claimants, Second Tithe has no claimant. Rebbi Jonah asked, that is following him who says that it is not his property. But for him who says it is his property, what is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rebbi Yose said, the reason has already been explained: dedications have claimants, Second Tithe has no claimant.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody redeemed Temple dedications for more than their worth, it is redeemed. But if somebody redeemed Second Tithe for more than its worth, it is not redeemed. What is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rebbi La said, dedications have claimants, Second Tithe has no claimant. Rebbi Jonah asked, that is following him who says that it is not his property. But for him who says it is his property, what is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rebbi Yose said, the reason has already been explained: dedications have claimants, Second Tithe has no claimant.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody redeemed Temple dedications without adding its fifth it is redeemed. But if somebody redeemed Second Tithe dedications without adding its fifth, it is not redeemed. What is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rebbi La said, because a person usually adds to his dedications. Rebbi Jonah asked, that is following him who says that it is not his property. But for him who says it is his property, what is the difference between Second Tithe and dedications? Rebbi Yose said, did you not already give the reason? Because a person usually adds to his dedications.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody redeemed Temple dedications without adding its fifth it is redeemed. But if somebody redeemed Second Tithe dedications without adding its fifth, it is not redeemed. What is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rebbi La said, because a person usually adds to his dedications. Rebbi Jonah asked, that is following him who says that it is not his property. But for him who says it is his property, what is the difference between Second Tithe and dedications? Rebbi Yose said, did you not already give the reason? Because a person usually adds to his dedications.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody redeemed Temple dedications without adding its fifth it is redeemed. But if somebody redeemed Second Tithe dedications without adding its fifth, it is not redeemed. What is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rebbi La said, because a person usually adds to his dedications. Rebbi Jonah asked, that is following him who says that it is not his property. But for him who says it is his property, what is the difference between Second Tithe and dedications? Rebbi Yose said, did you not already give the reason? Because a person usually adds to his dedications.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody redeemed Temple dedications without adding its fifth it is redeemed. But if somebody redeemed Second Tithe dedications without adding its fifth, it is not redeemed. What is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rebbi La said, because a person usually adds to his dedications. Rebbi Jonah asked, that is following him who says that it is not his property. But for him who says it is his property, what is the difference between Second Tithe and dedications? Rebbi Yose said, did you not already give the reason? Because a person usually adds to his dedications.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody redeemed Temple dedications without adding its fifth it is redeemed. But if somebody redeemed Second Tithe dedications without adding its fifth, it is not redeemed. What is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rebbi La said, because a person usually adds to his dedications. Rebbi Jonah asked, that is following him who says that it is not his property. But for him who says it is his property, what is the difference between Second Tithe and dedications? Rebbi Yose said, did you not already give the reason? Because a person usually adds to his dedications.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody redeemed Temple dedications without adding its fifth it is redeemed. But if somebody redeemed Second Tithe dedications without adding its fifth, it is not redeemed. What is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rebbi La said, because a person usually adds to his dedications. Rebbi Jonah asked, that is following him who says that it is not his property. But for him who says it is his property, what is the difference between Second Tithe and dedications? Rebbi Yose said, did you not already give the reason? Because a person usually adds to his dedications.

It was stated: “Temple dedications by three [appraisers].” That is, if one dedicated the body of a field. But if he said, I am vowing a mina for the Temple, let us hear from the following: “Appraisal of movables by three [appraisers].” Do there exist appraisals not of movables? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: If somebody says, I am vowing my appraisal, and comes to settle his debt by real estate, one appraises it by ten [people], by movables by three. Is one who says, I am vowing my appraisal not like one who says, I am vowing my field’s value? But if he said, I am vowing a mina for the Temple, one appraises him by three [people]. Should he become rich, he will be judged by what he can afford.

HALAKHAH: “The Elder who rebels,” etc. Halakhah 4: “If he returned to his town, repeated and taught as was his custom,” etc. It is written: If something is being distinguished for you in law, this shows that the verse speaks about the distinguished member of the court. For you, this is counsel. Something is sermonizing. Whether blood and blood, whether menstrual blood or blood of virginity; whether menstrual blood, blood of flux, or blood of skin disease. Whether case or case, between those who are stoned, or burned, or decapitated, or strangled. Whether defect or defect, between a quarantined sufferer from skin disease or an absolute one; whether defect or defect, between defects of humans or of garments or of houses. Words, that is the drinking of the suspected adulteress, breaking the neck of the calf, and the purification of the sufferer from skin disease. Quarrels, these are estimations, bans, and dedications. You shall get up, from the court, and rise, this is the ascent.