## Arakhin Daf 21a

###### Arakhin 21a:1
[Arakhin 21a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/21a:1)

הִקְדִּישׁוֹ הַדָּר בּוֹ — מַעֲלֶה שָׂכָר לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ. הִקְדִּישׁוֹ הַדָּר בּוֹ? הֵיכִי מָצֵי מַקְדֵּישׁ לֵהּ? ״אִישׁ כִּי יַקְדִּישׁ בֵּיתוֹ קֹדֶשׁ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, מָה בֵּיתוֹ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ — אַף כֹּל בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ! הָכִי קָאָמַר: הִקְדִּישׁוֹ מַשְׂכִּיר — הַדָּר בּוֹ מַעֲלֶה שָׂכָר לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If **the one living in it,** i.e., the renter, **consecrates** the house, **he pays the rent to the Temple** treasury. The Gemara express surprise at this last statement of the *baraita*: If **the one living in** the house **consecrates** it? **How can** the renter **consecrate it? The Merciful One states: “When a man shall sanctify his house to be sacred”** (Leviticus 27:14), from which it is derived that **just as one’s house is in his possession, so too, anything** that one consecrates must be **in his possession.** If so, the renter cannot consecrate the house, as he is not its owner. The Gemara answers that **this** is what the *baraita* **is saying:** If **the one renting out the house consecrates it, the one living in it pays the rent to the Temple** treasury.


###### Arakhin 21a:2
[Arakhin 21a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/21a:2)

הִקְדִּישׁוֹ מַשְׂכִּיר, הֵיכִי דָּיַיר בֵּיהּ? בִּמְעִילָה קָאֵי! וְתוּ מַעֲלֶה שָׂכָר לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ? כֵּיוָן דִּמְעַל בֵּיהּ, נָפֵיק לֵיהּ שָׂכָר לְחוּלִּין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If **the one renting out the house consecrates it, how** is it possible for the renter to **live in it?** Since the house is consecrated property **he is standing** liable **for** the prohibition of **misuse of consecrated property** by living there. **And furthermore,** why must **he pay the rent to the Temple** treasury? **Since he misused consecrated property the payment** of the rent immediately **leaves** the state of consecration and becomes **non-sacred.**


###### Arakhin 21a:3
[Arakhin 21a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/21a:3)

דְּאָמַר: ״לִכְשֶׁיָּבֹא שְׂכָרוֹ יִקְדַּשׁ״, וְהָא אֵין אָדָם מַקְדִּישׁ דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בָּא לָעוֹלָם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The *baraita* is discussing a case **where** the one renting out the house **says: When the payment** of the rent **will come** to me, the money **shall be consecrated.** The Gemara asks: **But** how is it possible for the one renting out the house to consecrate money he will receive in the future? After all, **a person cannot consecrate an entity that has not** yet **come into the world.**


###### Arakhin 21a:4
[Arakhin 21a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/21a:4)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: הָא מַנִּי? רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, דְּאָמַר: אָדָם מַקְדִּישׁ דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בָּא לָעוֹלָם. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רַב מָרִי בַּר חָמָא לְרַב חִסְדָּא: כְּמַאן? כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּאָמַר: אָדָם מַקְדִּישׁ דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בָּא לָעוֹלָם? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְאֶלָּא כְּמַאן?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yehuda says** that **Rav says:** In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** *baraita*? **It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Meir, who says: A person can consecrate an entity that has not** yet **come into the world. Some say** that **Rav Pappa said to Abaye, and some say** that **Rav Mari bar Ḥama** said **to Rav Ḥisda: In accordance with whose** opinion is this *baraita*? Is it **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir, who says** that **a person can consecrate an entity that has not** yet **come into the world? He said to him: Rather, in accordance with who** else’s opinion could this *baraita* be? Certainly it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.


###### Arakhin 21a:5
[Arakhin 21a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/21a:5)

**מַתְנִי׳** חַיָּיבֵי עֲרָכִין — מְמַשְׁכְּנִין אוֹתָן, חַיָּיבֵי חַטָּאוֹת וַאֲשָׁמוֹת — אֵין מְמַשְׁכְּנִין אוֹתָן, חַיָּיבֵי עוֹלוֹת וּשְׁלָמִים — מְמַשְׁכְּנִין אוֹתָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to those **obligated** to pay **valuations,** the court **repossesses their** property to pay their debt to the Temple treasury. With regard to those **obligated** to bring **sin offerings and guilt offerings,** the court **does not repossess their** property; since one is obligated to bring them for atonement he would not delay bringing them. But with regard to those **obligated** to bring **burnt offerings and peace offerings,** the court **repossesses their** property;since these offerings are not obligatory for atonement, one might delay bringing them.


###### Arakhin 21a:6
[Arakhin 21a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/21a:6)

אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּתְרַצֶּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לִרְצוֹנוֹ״, כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר: ״רוֹצֶה אֲנִי״. וְכֵן אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בְּגִיטֵּי נָשִׁים, כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר: ״רוֹצֶה אֲנִי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Although** one obligated to bring burnt offerings and peace offerings **does not achieve atonement until he** brings the offering **of his own volition, as it is stated:** “He shall bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting **of his volition”** (Leviticus 1:3), nevertheless the court **coerces him until he says: I want** to do so. **And likewise, you say** the same **with regard to women’s bills of divorce.** Although one divorces his wife only of his own volition, in any case where the Sages obligated a husband to divorce his wife the court **coerces him until he says: I want** to do so.


###### Arakhin 21a:7
[Arakhin 21a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/21a:7)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: פְּעָמִים שֶׁחַיָּיבֵי חַטָּאוֹת מְמַשְׁכְּנִין אוֹתָן, חַיָּיבֵי עוֹלוֹת אֵין מְמַשְׁכְּנִין אוֹתָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Rav Pappa says: Sometimes** with regard to **those obligated** to bring **sin offerings** the court **does repossess their** property, and likewise there are occasions involving those **obligated** to bring **burnt offerings** where the court **does not repossess their** property.


###### Arakhin 21a:8
[Arakhin 21a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/21a:8)

חַיָּיבֵי חַטָּאוֹת מְמַשְׁכְּנִין אוֹתָן בְּחַטַּאת נָזִיר, דְּכֵיוָן דְּאָמַר מָר: ״אִם גִּילַּח עַל אֶחָד מִשְּׁלׇשְׁתָּן יָצָא, וְאִם נִזְרַק עָלָיו אֶחָד מִן הַדָּמִים הוּתַּר הַנָּזִיר לִשְׁתּוֹת יַיִן וְלִיטַמֵּא לְמֵתִים״ — פָּשַׁע בַּהּ וְלָא מַיְיתֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Pappa elaborates: With regard to those **obligated** to bring **sin offerings,** the court **repossesses their** property **in** the case of **the sin offering of a nazirite, since the Master says** (*Nazir* 45a): **If** a nazirite **shaved** after the sacrifice **of one of the three** nazirite offerings, either the burnt offering, the peace offering, or the sin offering, **he has fulfilled** his obligation of shaving. **And if the blood of one** of these offerings **was sprinkled on his behalf, the nazirite is permitted to drink wine and to become ritually impure from a corpse.** Therefore, there is a concern that a nazirite who has already sacrificed his burnt offering or peace offering might be **negligent with regard to** his sin offering **and not bring** it, and therefore the court repossesses his property in this particular case.


###### Arakhin 21a:9
[Arakhin 21a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/21a:9)

חַיָּיבֵי עוֹלוֹת — אֵין מְמַשְׁכְּנִין אוֹתָן בְּעוֹלַת יוֹלֶדֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to those **obligated** to bring **burnt offerings,** the court **does not repossess their** property **in** the case of **a burnt offering of a woman after childbirth.** There is no concern that she might delay bringing her burnt offering, as she is required to bring this offering before partaking of sacrificial food.


###### Arakhin 21a:10
[Arakhin 21a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/21a:10)

מַאי נִיהוּ דְּאַקְדְּמַיהּ קְרָא, וְהָאָמַר רָבָא: לְמִקְרָאָהּ הִקְדִּימָהּ הַכָּתוּב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is** the reason for the ruling that a woman after childbirth is required to bring her burnt offering before she can sacrifice her sin offering? Is it **that the verse** mentions her burnt offering **before** it mentions her sin offering, as it is written: “And when the days of her purification are fulfilled…she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtle-dove, for a sin offering” (Leviticus 12:6)? **But doesn’t Rava say: The verse** mentions her burnt offering **before** her sin offering only with regard **to** the **reading** of the verse, but not with regard to the order of the offerings? If so, there should be a concern that she might first sacrifice her sin offering and delay bringing her burnt offering.


###### Arakhin 21a:11
[Arakhin 21a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/21a:11)

אֶלָּא בְּעוֹלַת מְצוֹרָע, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אוֹמֵר: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁחַטָּאתוֹ וַאֲשָׁמוֹ עֹיכַבְתּוֹ, כָּךְ עוֹלָתוֹ עֹיכַבְתּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the court does not repossess the property of those obligated to bring burnt offerings **in** the case of the **burnt offering of a leper, as it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beroka, says: Just as** failure to sacrifice **his sin offering and his guilt offering prevents** the leper from achieving full ritual purity, **so too,** failure to sacrifice **his burnt offering** has the same effect and **prevents him** from achieving full ritual purity. Therefore, the court does not repossess his property, as there is no concern he might delay bringing his burnt offering.


###### Arakhin 21a:12
[Arakhin 21a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/21a:12)

וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּתְרַצֶּה, תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״יַקְרִיב אוֹתוֹ״ — מְלַמֵּד שֶׁכּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ, יָכוֹל בְּעַל כׇּרְחוֹ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לִרְצוֹנוֹ״, הָא כֵּיצַד? כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר ״רוֹצֶה אֲנִי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **Although** one obligated to bring burnt offerings and peace offerings **does not achieve atonement until he** brings the offering **of his own volition,** as it is stated: “He shall bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting of his volition” (Leviticus 1:3), nevertheless, one coerces him until he says: I want to do so. Similarly, **the Sages taught** in a *baraita*: It is written with regard to a burnt offering: **“He shall sacrifice it”** (Leviticus 1:3), which **teaches that one coerces him** to bring his burnt offering. One **might** have thought he brings the offering **against his will;** therefore, **the verse states: “Of his volition”** (Leviticus 1:3). **How** can **these** texts be reconciled? The court **coerces him until he says: I want to** do so.


###### Arakhin 21a:13
[Arakhin 21a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/21a:13)

אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: עוֹלָה צְרִיכָה דַּעַת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לִרְצוֹנוֹ״. מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? תְּנֵינָא: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּתְרַצֶּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לִרְצוֹנוֹ״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Shmuel says: A burnt offering requires** the **consent** of the one receiving atonement, **as it is stated: “Of his volition.”** The Gemara asks: **What is** Shmuel **teaching us?** Didn’t **we** already **learn** in the mishna: **Although he does not achieve atonement until he** brings the offering **of his own volition, as it is stated:** “He shall bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting **of his volition”?**


###### Arakhin 21a:14
[Arakhin 21a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/21a:14)

לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּפָרֵישׁ לֵיהּ חַבְרֵיהּ. מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: כִּי בָּעֵינַן דַּעַת מִדִּידֵיהּ, אֲבָל מִדְּחַבְרֵיהּ לָא? קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, זִימְנִין דְּלָא נִיחָא לֵיהּ דְּלִיכַּפַּר בְּמִידֵּי דְּלָא דִּידֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **No,** the statement of Shmuel is **necessary** with regard to a case **where another** person **separated,** i.e., designated, a burnt offering **on his behalf. Lest you say: When we require** the **consent** of the one receiving atonement, that is only in a case where an animal **from his** property is separated as his burnt offering, e.g., the court repossesses his property for the sake of his burnt offering. **But** we do **not** need his consent if an animal **from** the property **of another** is separated as his burnt offering. Therefore, Shmuel **teaches us** that the consent of the one receiving atonement is required even in a case where an animal from the property of another was separated as an offering. The reason is that **sometimes he is not amenable to achieving atonement with an item that does not belong to him,** and in such a case he will not achieve atonement.


###### Arakhin 21a:15
[Arakhin 21a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/21a:15)

מֵיתִיבִי: ״חַטָּאתוֹ וַאֲשָׁמוֹ שֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי עָלַי״

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** from a *baraita*: With regard to one who says: It is incumbent **upon me** to bring **the sin offering or the guilt offering of so-and-so,**