Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Arakhin

Arakhin 28 for kids: How Much Can You Dedicate?

ערכין כ״ח

🌾 This daf asks what a person may dedicate and how much he may give away. It also asks whether an unspecified dedication goes to priests or to the Temple.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Arakhin 28a in Daf QuestOpen Arakhin 28b in Daf Quest

In the app: the Gemara with Rashi and Tosafot, the printed page, games made from this daf, play coins and treasure chests.

Stories from Arakhin 28

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Arakhin 28 in simple English

Rashi on Arakhin 28a, in English Tab translation (19)
  1. How so? When the owners offer twenty-one sela, their offer plus one-fifth is twenty-six sela and one dinar. The other bidder then adds five sela, bringing the price to thirty-one sela and one dinar.
  2. The owners take precedence — If the field were given to the other bidder, the Temple treasury would receive one dinar less than the owners’ original offer, including the added one-fifth. Therefore the field goes back to the owners, even against their wishes.
  3. If not, the treasurer says to the other bidder, ‘The field is yours’ — The owners say, ‘Someone else has taken our place.’
  4. Mishnah: From his flock — He declares part of his flock dedicated property and gives it to a priest.
  5. All of them — He kept none for himself.
  6. To spare his property — He should not give it all away to other people.
  7. Gemara: ‘Of all that he has’ — This refers to movable property: he may dedicate some, but not all, of it.
  8. ‘Of man’ — This refers to Canaanite slaves.
  9. ‘Notwithstanding, no dedicated thing’ — The restrictive words in the verse teach an exclusion.
  10. By sharecropping — He can work other people’s fields in return for half, a third, or a quarter of the produce.
  11. But perhaps he may dedicate all his movable property — Therefore the Torah says ‘of all that he has,’ meaning some of his movable property, not all of it.
  12. His daughter — He may sell her while she is a minor, but not after she reaches adolescence.
  13. One who dispenses — This means giving to the poor.
  14. One-fifth — This is learned from Jacob, of whom Scripture speaks of giving two tenths. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya accepts Rabbi Ila’s teaching, for he teaches that a person should spare his property. Rabbi Eliezer does not: he does not object to someone giving away a great deal, as long as he keeps a little for himself, as with dedicated property.
  15. Mishnah: Because dedicated property belongs to them — Scripture says, ‘Every dedicated thing in Israel…’ Since it belongs to the priests, what would a priest gain by dedicating it? He himself would acquire it and would not give it to another priest.
  16. Rabbi Yehuda’s words appear correct — Levites cannot dedicate land.
  17. And Rabbi Shimon’s words concerning movable property — Dedicated property does not belong to Levites. Therefore, if they dedicate movable property, the dedication takes effect and they give it to the priests.
  18. Gemara: Since Rabbi found it necessary to say that Rabbi Shimon’s words appear correct concerning movable property — This implies that his words do not appear correct concerning land. It follows that they also disagree about land.
  19. For even Rabbi Shimon did not disagree with him — This is the meaning of Rabbi’s statement: Rabbi Yehuda’s view appears correct even to Rabbi Shimon concerning land; Rabbi Shimon’s view concerns movable property.
Tosafot on Arakhin 28a, in English Tab translation (3)
  1. The Sages taught: “Of all that he has,” but not all that he has — This verse concerns property devoted to priests: it ends, “It shall not be sold or redeemed,” whereas property devoted to Temple upkeep can be redeemed like other consecrated property. How, then, can the mishna call this a dedication to the Most High rather than to priests? Also, the Gemara elsewhere uses the verse’s words “of man” to challenge Rav’s ruling that one who consecrates his slave frees him, because he intends the slave to join a holy people. Why would a verse about devoted property support that challenge if such property has no inherent sanctity? The answer is that even property devoted to priests has inherent sanctity while still with its owner. As a later teaching says, it is then like consecrated property in every respect; once given to a priest, it is ordinary property.
  2. Scripture says “animal”: just as an animal can always be sold — But an ancestral field can also be sold again, since a sale returns to the owner at the Jubilee. The answer is that the owner can permanently part with the field: if he consecrates it and someone else redeems it, it goes to the priests at the Jubilee. Alternatively, the comparison means that an animal may be sold while its owner has it; likewise, an ancestral field may be sold while its owner has it. A daughter, by contrast, cannot be sold once she grows up.
  3. One who devotes movable property may give it to any priest he wishes, as it says, “Every devoted thing in Israel shall be yours” — This is not the verse’s primary teaching. It is needed later to teach that property given to a priest becomes ordinary property. The right to choose any priest follows by analogy to terumah, which need not be given to a priest of the division then serving. Moreover, if the verse expressly established this rule, why would the Gemara later ask whether movable property should be compared to land?
Rashi on Arakhin 28b, in English Tab translation (23)
  1. “Shall be yours” — God says this to Aaron, and it includes all his descendants.
  2. “The restitution for guilt shall be the Lord’s, to the priest” — The verse concerns property robbed from a convert, since an Israelite has heirs. If the robber swore falsely, then admitted it after the convert died, he pays the principal and an additional fifth to a priest and brings a guilt offering to the altar. Here “restitution for guilt” means the principal, “restitution” includes the fifth, and “besides the ram of atonement” refers to the guilt offering for his false oath.
  3. “To the priest of that watch” — The verse means that the principal and the additional fifth go to the priest who offers the ram of atonement.
  4. “A field that passes out…” — Rav Chiyya bar Avin said this.
  5. “If it occurred” — If the Jubilee began on a Shabbat, when the priestly watches change, and Yom Kippur fell that day, which watch receives the field?
  6. “To the departing watch” — The Jubilee began the previous evening, while that watch was still serving.
  7. “Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said: This is also taught” — The teaching likewise follows the time when the Jubilee begins.
  8. “You are found to say” — Because the forty-ninth year is a Sabbatical Year, and the following year is the Jubilee.
  9. “Both the Jubilee and the Sabbatical Year abrogate at once” — On the same day, the Sabbatical Year cancels monetary debts and the Jubilee reverses land sales. But the Jubilee does so at its beginning…
  10. “On the contrary” — The reason they both abrogate on the same day is precisely that the Sabbatical Year does so at its end and the Jubilee at its beginning: at twilight, as the Jubilee begins, both take effect.
  11. “Rather” — Teach it this way: They abrogate at once because the Jubilee does so at its beginning and the Sabbatical Year at its end.
  12. “Of Rabbi Yishmael” — This is Rabbi Yishmael’s teaching in the first chapter of tractate Rosh HaShana.
  13. “Chizkiyya bar Biluto heard it” — He heard this teaching of Rav Chiyya bar Avin.
  14. “Let movable property be compared” — That is, movable property that has been dedicated.
  15. “To land” — That is, dedicated land. Scripture links them in the phrase “of all that he has…or of his ancestral field”; perhaps movable property, too, must be given to a priest of the current watch.
  16. “Is this not a dispute between tanna’im?” — Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon disagreed about this earlier: Rabbi Yehuda draws the comparison, while Rabbi Shimon does not.
  17. “Mishna: Property dedicated to priests” — Property dedicated for a priest cannot be redeemed, as it says, “It shall not be sold or redeemed.” But property dedicated for Temple maintenance can be redeemed, since it was dedicated with that intent: the Temple maintenance fund needs money, not the property itself.
  18. “The dedication takes effect on offerings of the highest sanctity…” — As the mishna explains, a person may dedicate his offerings. How can he, when they are no longer his? If he vowed, “I undertake to bring a burnt offering,” designated an animal, and then dedicated it, he remains responsible if it dies or is stolen. In that respect it is his: he gives its full value to a priest and offers the animal to fulfill his vow. The animal itself was not dedicated as property, since it is not his.
  19. “But if it was a voluntary offering” — He is not responsible if it dies, so dedicating the animal itself has no effect: it is not his.
  20. “Only according to its benefit to him” — He gives a priest the value of the choice still available to him. If he designated an ox as a voluntary burnt offering and then dedicated it, they estimate what someone would pay to offer that ox as a gift to God, without being obligated to bring an offering. That is the value he gives, since he has already fulfilled his obligation by designating the ox and is not responsible if it is lost. What he would lose is only the chance to offer that gift. Some texts say “an offering he is not liable to bring”; the meaning is the same.
  21. “Liable” — The Aramaic word here means “obligated,” like the Targum’s rendering of “creditor” in Exodus 22.
  22. “And how is it redeemed?” — The firstborn animal itself was not dedicated, since it belongs to a priest, not to its Israelite owner.
  23. “Rather, they estimate what a person…” — They estimate what an Israelite would pay this owner for the choice of giving his firstborn animal to that person’s grandson or sister’s son, if he is a priest. The owner gives a priest that amount for his dedication. These relatives are specified because the person paying for the choice is an Israelite. He may not take payment to give it to a priestly grandson or brother’s son: since that relative would himself be eligible to receive the firstborn, it would look like a priest being paid for helping at the threshing floor so that people give him their priestly gifts. He would then be receiving them as wages rather than as gifts. This is explained in tractate Bekhorot.
Tosafot on Arakhin 28b, in English Tab translation (5)
  1. A field that passes to the priests at the Jubilee Year is given to the watch serving when the Jubilee begins — This statement is not from the baraita. It comes from Rabbi Chiyya bar Avin’s statement in the name of Rav Chisda.
  2. Like one who does not compare them — You might ask: Earlier we said that priests cannot dedicate property because dedications belong to them. But a dedicated field must go to the priestly watch then serving. If a priest dedicates his field while another watch is serving, why need he not give it to that watch? That earlier answer was only for the sake of the argument: a priest’s dedication of his field does not take effect, for Scripture calls it “a perpetual holding for them.” Although this is written about Levites, it presumably applies to priests too. If a priest dedicates movable property, he clearly cannot do so according to the view that compares it to land. Even according to the view that does not, dedications belong to priests, and he may give it to any priest he chooses. This also explains the earlier statement, “And Rabbi Shimon—granted, priests are as we said”: it refers to movable property. Although Rabbi Shimon does not compare it to land, dedications still belong to priests; as for land, the verse about a perpetual holding applies to priests as well as Levites.
  3. Dedications for priests — Property dedicated to priests cannot be redeemed, as it says, “It shall not be sold or redeemed” (Leviticus 27:28). Although the verse does not specify, it must concern dedications for priests. Dedications for Temple upkeep can plainly be redeemed, so the proceeds can be used for that upkeep.
  4. We assess how much someone would pay for this ox to offer it as a burnt offering, although he is not permitted — “Not permitted” means “not obligated,” as Rashi explains from an Aramaic translation of “creditor.” Accordingly, Rabbi Yaakov bar Shimshon says that the statement in Kiddushin 33a, “Craftsmen are not permitted to stand before Torah scholars while working,” applies even when they are doing their own work: “not permitted” means “not obligated.” If they are working for someone else, it can mean literally “not permitted.”
  5. To his daughter’s son or his sister’s son who is a priest — It cannot say “his son’s son” or “his brother’s son”: in those cases he himself would be a priest and eligible to receive the gift, so giving it to his relative would be like a priest helping at the threshing floor to obtain priestly gifts, as explained in Bekhorot 26b. Rashi explains it the same way.

Sources

Kid summary and story cards written by Tab from the William Davidson Edition English (Sefaria, CC BY-NC 4.0).

Tab translation (machine-assisted) of Rashi and Tosafot, from the Vilna Edition Hebrew (public domain) on Sefaria. May contain mistakes.

In the app, the Gemara text comes from Sefaria (William Davidson Edition, CC BY-NC 4.0; Hebrew/Aramaic Vilna Edition). Rashi and Tosafot Hebrew: Vilna Edition (public domain) via Sefaria.

Also spelled: Arachin, Erchin 28.