## Arakhin Daf 28a

###### Arakhin 28a:1
[Arakhin 28a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/28a:1)

הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? דַּאֲמוּר בְּעֶשְׂרִים וְאֶחָד — הַבְּעָלִים קוֹדְמִין, וְאִם לָאו — אוֹמֵר לוֹ: הִגַּעְתִּיךָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What are the circumstances** of such an offer? It is in a case **where** the owner initially **said** he would purchase the field **for twenty-one** *sela*. In such an instance, the additional one-fifth amounts to five *sela* and one dinar, which means that the total payment of the owner is twenty-six *sela* and one dinar, greater than the offer of the other person. Accordingly, **the owner takes precedence,** and when the one-fifth is added to the twenty-six *sela* offer of the other person, the total price paid by the owner is equal to thirty-one *sela* and one dinar. **And if** the payment of the owner does **not** exceed the offer of the other person even when accounting for the additional one-fifth, then the treasurer **says to** the other person: The field **has come into your** possession.


###### Arakhin 28a:2
[Arakhin 28a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/28a:2)

**מַתְנִי׳** מַחֲרִים אָדָם מִצֹּאנוֹ וּמִבְּקָרוֹ, וּמֵעֲבָדָיו וּמִשִּׁפְחוֹתָיו הַכְּנַעֲנִים, וּמִשְּׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּתוֹ, וְאִם הֶחְרִים אֶת כּוּלָּם אֵינָם מוּחְרָמִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה: מָה אִם לַגָּבוֹהַּ אֵין אָדָם רַשַּׁאי לְהַחְרִים כׇּל נְכָסָיו, עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה שֶׁיְּהֵא אָדָם חָס עַל נְכָסָיו!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **A person** may **dedicate,** for sacred or priestly use, some **of his flock and** some **of his cattle, and** some **of his Canaanite slaves and maidservants, and some of his ancestral field. But if he dedicated all** that he has **of** any type of property, **they are not dedicated,** i.e., the dedication does not take effect; this is **the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said: If for the Most High a person may not dedicate all his property,** it is **all the more so** the case **that a person should spare his property** and not give all of it to others.


###### Arakhin 28a:3
[Arakhin 28a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/28a:3)

**גְּמָ׳** מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״מִכׇּל אֲשֶׁר לוֹ״ — וְלֹא כׇּל אֲשֶׁר לוֹ, ״מֵאָדָם״ — וְלֹא כׇּל אָדָם, ״מִבְּהֵמָה״ — וְלֹא כׇּל בְּהֵמָה, ״מִשְּׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה״ — וְלֹא כׇּל שְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **From where are these matters,** stated in the mishna, derived? The Gemara explains that this is **as the Sages taught** in a *baraita*, with regard to the verse: “Notwithstanding, no dedicated thing that a man may dedicate to the Lord of all that he has, whether of man or animal, or of his ancestral field” (Leviticus 27:28). The verse indicates that one may dedicate **“of all that he has” but not all that he has;** likewise **“of man” but not every man,** i.e., not every slave of his; “of man **or animal” but not every animal** of his; and finally one may dedicate **“of** his **ancestral field” but not all of** his **ancestral field.**


###### Arakhin 28a:4
[Arakhin 28a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/28a:4)

יָכוֹל לֹא יַחְרִים, וְאִם הֶחְרִים יְהוּ מוּחְרָמִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אַךְ״, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה: מָה אִם לַגָּבוֹהַּ אֵין אָדָם רַשַּׁאי לְהַחְרִים כׇּל נְכָסָיו, עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה שֶׁיְּהֵא אָדָם חָס עַל נְכָסָיו!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It **might** have been thought that **one may not dedicate** all his properties *ab initio*, **but if he did dedicate** all of them, **they should be dedicated.** Therefore **the verse states: “Notwithstanding,”** to teach that they are not dedicated. This is **the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said: If for the Most High a person may not dedicate all his property,** it is **all the more so** the case **that a person should spare his property** and not give it all to others.


###### Arakhin 28a:5
[Arakhin 28a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/28a:5)

וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״מִכׇּל אֲשֶׁר לוֹ״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: כֹּל דְּאִית לֵיהּ לָא לַחְרֵים, אֲבָל מִין אֶחָד לַיחְרְמֵיהּ כּוּלֵּיהּ, כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״מֵאָדָם״ — וְלֹא כׇּל אָדָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **And** it is **necessary** to derive this *halakha* with regard to all the categories in the verse. **As, if the Merciful One had written** only: **“Of all that he has,” I would say** that **one may not dedicate all that he has, but let him dedicate all of one type** of property. Therefore, **the Merciful One writes “of man,”** to teach that he may **not** dedicate **every man.**


###### Arakhin 28a:6
[Arakhin 28a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/28a:6)

וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״מֵאָדָם״, דְּלָא סַגִּיא לֵיהּ בְּלָא עֲבוֹדָה, אֲבָל שָׂדֶה — סַגִּיא לֵיהּ בְּדִיסְתּוּרָן. וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן הָנֵי תַּרְתֵּי, מִשּׁוּם דְּהָכָא חִיּוּתָא וְהָכָא חִיּוּתָא, אֲבָל מְטַלְטְלִין — לַיחְרְמִינְהוּ כּוּלְּהוּ, צְרִיכִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if the Merciful One had written** only: **“of man,”** one might say that he may not dedicate all of his slaves, **as it is not possible for him** to be **without** a slave to perform his **work; but** with regard to **a field, it is possible for him** to maintain a livelihood **by sharecropping [*distoran*]. And if** the Torah **had taught** this *halakha* with regard to only **these two** types, i.e., ancestral fields and slaves, one might say these may not be dedicated in their entirety **because here** there is **livelihood and here** there is also **livelihood. But** in the case of **movable property,** on which maintaining a livelihood does not depend, **let him dedicate all of them.** Therefore, all of these derivations **are necessary.**


###### Arakhin 28a:7
[Arakhin 28a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/28a:7)

״בְּהֵמָה״ לְמָה לִי? לְכִדְתַנְיָא: יָכוֹל יַחְרִים אָדָם בְּנוֹ וּבִתּוֹ, עַבְדּוֹ וְשִׁפְחָתוֹ הָעִבְרִיִּים, וּשְׂדֵה מִקְנָתוֹ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בְּהֵמָה״, מָה בְּהֵמָה יֵשׁ לוֹ רְשׁוּת לְמוֹכְרָהּ, אַף כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ רְשׁוּת לְמוֹכְרָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further asks: **Why do I** need for the verse to state “or **animal”?** The Gemara explains it is necessary **for that which is taught** in a *baraita*: One **might** have thought **a person can dedicate his son or his daughter, his Hebrew slave or maidservant, or his purchased field.** Therefore, **the verse states “animal”** to teach that **just as an animal** is an item **that he has permission to sell, so too,** one can dedicate **any** item **that he has permission to sell.** He cannot dedicate an item that he does not have the ability to sell.


###### Arakhin 28a:8
[Arakhin 28a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/28a:8)

וַהֲלֹא בִּתּוֹ קְטַנָּה יֵשׁ לוֹ רְשׁוּת לְמוֹכְרָהּ, יָכוֹל יַחְרִימֶנָּה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בְּהֵמָה״, מָה בְּהֵמָה יֵשׁ לוֹ רְשׁוּת לְמוֹכְרָהּ לְעוֹלָם, אַף כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ רְשׁוּת לְמוֹכְרָהּ לְעוֹלָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **But** in the case of **his minor daughter, he has permission to sell her** as a Hebrew maidservant. If so, one **might** have thought **he may dedicate her.** Therefore, **the verse states “animal,”** indicating that **just as an animal** is an item **that he always has permission to sell, so too,** one can dedicate **any** item **that he always has permission to sell,** whereas one may not sell his daughter once she reaches majority. A field as well can be sold only until the Jubilee Year.


###### Arakhin 28a:9
[Arakhin 28a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/28a:9)

אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה: אִם לַגָּבוֹהַּ אֵין אָדָם רַשַּׁאי כּוּ׳. הַיְינוּ תַּנָּא קַמָּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that **Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said: If for the Most High a person** may **not** dedicate all his property, it is all the more so the case that one should spare his property and not give it all to others. The Gemara raises a difficulty: **This is** identical to the opinion of **the first *tanna*,** i.e., Rabbi Eliezer, who prohibits the dedication of all one’s property.


###### Arakhin 28a:10
[Arakhin 28a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/28a:10)

אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ דְּרַבִּי אִילָא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אִילָא: בְּאוּשָׁא הִתְקִינוּ, הַמְבַזְבֵּז אַל יְבַזְבֵּז יוֹתֵר מֵחוֹמֶשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **There is** a practical difference **between them** with regard to the statement **of Rabbi Ila, as Rabbi Ila said: In Usha** the Sages **instituted** that **one who dispenses** his money to charity **should not dispense more than a fifth.** Rabbi Eliezer, who did not state that one should spare his property, rules that one may give all his money to charity, provided he keeps a small portion for himself, whereas Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya maintains that one should not give more than a fifth.


###### Arakhin 28a:11
[Arakhin 28a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/28a:11)

מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁבִּקֵּשׁ לְבַזְבֵּז יוֹתֵר מֵחוֹמֶשׁ, וְלֹא הִנִּיחוּ לוֹ חֲבֵרָיו. וּמַנּוּ? רַבִּי יְשֵׁבָב, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: רַבִּי יְשֵׁבָב, וְלֹא הִנִּיחוּ לוֹ חֲבֵירָיו. וּמַנּוּ? רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates that there was **an incident involving a certain** individual **who sought to dispense more than a fifth** of his property as charity, **and his friend did not let him** act upon his wishes. **And who** was this friend? It was **Rabbi Yeshevav. And some say** it was **Rabbi Yeshevav** who wanted to give too much charity, **and his friend did not let him** do so. **And who was** the friend? It was **Rabbi Akiva.**


###### Arakhin 28a:12
[Arakhin 28a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/28a:12)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַמַּחְרִים בְּנוֹ וּבִתּוֹ, וְעַבְדּוֹ וְשִׁפְחָתוֹ הָעִבְרִים, וּשְׂדֵה מִקְנָתוֹ — אֵין מוּחְרָמִין, שֶׁאֵין אָדָם מַחְרִים דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ. הַכֹּהֲנִים וְהַלְוִיִּם אֵין מַחְרִימִין, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: הַכֹּהֲנִים אֵין מַחְרִימִין — שֶׁהַחֲרָמִין שֶׁלָּהֶן, וְהַלְוִיִּם מַחְרִימִין — שֶׁאֵין הַחֲרָמִין שֶׁלָּהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** In the case of **one who dedicates his son or his daughter, or his Hebrew slave or maidservant, or his purchased field,** those items **are not** considered **dedicated, as a person** may **not dedicate an item that is not his. Priests and Levites may not dedicate** their property; this is **the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says: Priests may not dedicate** their property, **as** all **dedicated** property **is theirs;** it is one of the priestly gifts, as the verse states: “Everything dedicated in Israel shall be yours” (Numbers 18:14). **But Levites may dedicate** their property, **as dedicated** property **is not theirs.**


###### Arakhin 28a:13
[Arakhin 28a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/28a:13)

אָמַר רַבִּי: נִרְאִין דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּקַרְקָעוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי אֲחֻזַּת עוֹלָם הִיא לָהֶם״, וְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּמִטַּלְטְלִין, שֶׁאֵין הַחֲרָמִין שֶׁלָּהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **said: The statement of Rabbi Yehuda appears** to be correct **with regard to land, as it is stated** about the land of the Levites: “But the fields of the open land surrounding their cities may not be sold, **as that is their perpetual possession”** (Leviticus 25:34), and they cannot renounce that land. **And the statement of Rabbi Shimon appears** to be correct **with regard to movable property,** which the Levites may dedicate, **as dedicated** property **is not theirs.** It is a gift for the priests, not the Levites.


###### Arakhin 28a:14
[Arakhin 28a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/28a:14)

**גְּמָ׳** וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, בִּשְׁלָמָא כֹּהֲנִים אֵין מַחְרִימִין — שֶׁחֲרָמִין שֶׁלָּהֶן, אֶלָּא לְוִיִּם, בִּשְׁלָמָא מְקַרְקְעֵי לָא מַחְרְמִי — דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי אֲחוּזַּת עוֹלָם הִיא לָהֶם״, אֶלָּא מִטַּלְטְלֵי לַיחְרְמֻי! אָמַר קְרָא: ״מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר לוֹ... וּמִשְּׂדֵה אֲחֻזָּתוֹ״ — מַקִּישׁ מִטַּלְטְלִין לְקַרְקָעוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **And** as for **Rabbi Yehuda,** what is his reasoning? **Granted, priests may not dedicate** property, **as dedicated** property **is theirs;** it is one of the gifts of the priesthood. **But** why are **Levites** unable to dedicate their property? **Granted,** they may **not dedicate land, as it is written: “As that is their perpetual possession”** (Leviticus 25:34). **But let them dedicate movable property.** The Gemara explains that **the verse states:** “Notwithstanding, no dedicated thing, that a man may dedicate to the Lord **of all that he has,** whether of man or animal, **or of his ancestral field”** (Leviticus 27:28). The verse **juxtaposes** the dedication of **movable property to** that of **land.** Accordingly, as Levites cannot dedicate land, they cannot dedicate movable property either.


###### Arakhin 28a:15
[Arakhin 28a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/28a:15)

וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, בִּשְׁלָמָא כֹּהֲנִים — כְּדַאֲמַרַן, אֶלָּא לְוִיִּם, בִּשְׁלָמָא מְטַלְטְלִים לַחְרֵים — דְּלָא מַקֵּישׁ, אֶלָּא מְקַרְקְעֵי אַמַּאי? הָכְתִיב ״אֲחֻזַּת עוֹלָם הִיא לָהֶם״! מַאי ״מַחְרִימִין״ נָמֵי דְּקָאָמַר? מִטַּלְטְלֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** with regard to **Rabbi Shimon,** what is his reasoning? **Granted, priests** may not dedicate their property, **as we stated** above, because dedicated property is theirs. **But** why may **Levites** dedicate their property? **Granted, let them dedicate movable property, as** Rabbi Shimon **does not juxtapose** movable property to land. **But why** may Levites dedicate **land? Isn’t it written: That is their perpetual possession?** The Gemara answers: **What** does Rabbi Shimon mean **when he says** Levites may dedicate property? He means they may dedicate only **movable property.**


###### Arakhin 28a:16
[Arakhin 28a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/28a:16)

וְהָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: אָמַר רַבִּי: נִרְאִין דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בִּמְקַרְקְעֵי וְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּמִטַּלְטְלֵי, מִכְּלָל דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מְקַרְקְעֵי נָמֵי קָאָמַר? הָכִי קָאָמַר: אָמַר רַבִּי: נִרְאִין דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּקַרְקָעוֹת, שֶׁאַף רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לֹא נֶחְלַק אֶלָּא בְּמִטַּלְטְלִין, אֲבָל בְּקַרְקָעוֹת מוֹדֵה לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **But from** the fact **that the latter clause** of the mishna **teaches: Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **said the statement of Rabbi Yehuda appears** to be correct **with regard to land, and the statement of Rabbi Shimon** appears to be correct **with regard to movable property; by inference** one may conclude **that Rabbi Shimon also says** Levites can dedicate their **land.** The Gemara explains that **this** is what the mishna **is saying: Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **said** that **the statement of Rabbi Yehuda appears** to be correct even **to Rabbi Shimon with regard to land** belonging to Levites, **as even Rabbi Shimon disagrees** with Rabbi Yehuda about the ability of Levites to dedicate property **only with regard to movable property. But with regard to land,** Rabbi Shimon **concedes to** Rabbi Yehuda that the Levites cannot dedicate it.


###### Arakhin 28a:17
[Arakhin 28a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/28a:17)

אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין: הֶחְרִים מְטַלְטְלִין — נוֹתְנָן לְכׇל כֹּהֵן שֶׁיִּרְצֶה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כׇּל חֵרֶם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin says:** One who **dedicated movable property may give it to any priest that he wishes, as it is stated: “Everything dedicated in Israel**