## Arakhin Daf 29a

###### Arakhin 29a:1
[Arakhin 29a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/29a:1)

**גְּמָ׳** תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: חֶרְמֵי כֹהֲנִים אֵין לָהֶן פִּדְיוֹן וְנִותָּנִין לַכֹּהֵן. חֲרָמִים כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁהֵן בְּבֵית בְּעָלִים הֲרֵי הֵן כְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ לְכׇל דִּבְרֵיהֶן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כׇּל חֵרֶם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים הוּא לַה׳״. נְתָנָן לְכֹהֵן — הֲרֵי הֵן לְכׇל דִּבְרֵיהֶן כְּחוּלִּין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כׇּל חֵרֶם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל לְךָ יִהְיֶה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **The Sages taught: Dedications** of property for **priests have no redemption, and one gives** the property **to the priest.** With regard to these **dedications, as long as they** remain **in the house of the owner they are** considered **like consecrated** property **in every sense, as it is stated: “Every dedicated item is most sacred to the Lord”** (Leviticus 27:28). Once the owner **has given them to the priest they are in every sense like non-sacred** property, **as it is stated: “Everything dedicated in Israel shall be yours”** (Numbers 18:14), i.e., it shall be like all other regular property belonging to a priest, which is non-sacred.


###### Arakhin 29a:2
[Arakhin 29a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/29a:2)

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתִירָא אוֹמֵר: סְתַם חֲרָמִים לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת כּוּ׳. בִּשְׁלָמָא רַבָּנַן כִּדְקָא מְפָרְשִׁי טַעְמַיְיהוּ וְטַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתִירָא, אֶלָּא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתִירָא הַאי ״כִּשְׂדֵה הַחֵרֶם״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says dedications** donated **without specification** are designated **for Temple maintenance,** as it is stated: “Every dedicated item is most sacred to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:28). And the Rabbis say they are designated for priests, as it is stated: “As a field dedicated; its possession shall be to the priest” (Leviticus 27:21), whereas the verse cited by Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira teaches that dedication takes effect on offerings of the most sacred order and offerings of lesser sanctity. The Gemara asks: **Granted,** the opinion of **the Rabbis** is clear, **as they explain their reason and the reason of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira,** i.e., they interpret the verse he cited as his proof. **But** as for **Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, this** verse: **“As a field dedicated;** its possession shall be to the priest,” **what does he do with it,** i.e., what does he derive from it?


###### Arakhin 29a:3
[Arakhin 29a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/29a:3)

מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: ״כִּשְׂדֵה הַחֵרֶם לַכֹּהֵן תִּהְיֶה אֲחֻזָּתוֹ״, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? מִנַּיִן לְכֹהֵן שֶׁהִקְדִּישׁ שְׂדֵה חֶרְמוֹ, שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמַר: הוֹאִיל וְיוֹצְאָה לַכֹּהֲנִים, וַהֲרֵי הִיא תַּחַת יָדִי — תְּהֵא שֶׁלִּי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: The verse **is necessary for him for that which is taught** in a *baraita* that discusses the case of one who consecrated his ancestral field and failed to redeem it. This field becomes the possession of the priests at the Jubilee Year. The *baraita* teaches: **Why** must **the verse state** at its end: **“As a field dedicated; its possession shall be to the priest”?** The *baraita* explains: **From where** is it derived **with regard to a priest who consecrated his dedicated field,** i.e., a field that was dedicated by an Israelite and was given to him and he then consecrated it, and then the Jubilee Year arrived, **that he may not say: Since** a field that was consecrated by its owners and was not redeemed **goes out** of the owner’s possession and passes **to** the possession of **the priests at the Jubilee** Year, **and** this field that I consecrated **is** already **in my possession, it is** therefore **mine.**


###### Arakhin 29a:4
[Arakhin 29a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/29a:4)

וְדִין הוּא: בְּשֶׁל אֲחֵרִים אֲנִי זוֹכֶה, בְּשֶׁל עַצְמִי לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כִּשְׂדֵה הַחֵרֶם לַכֹּהֵן תִּהְיֶה אֲחֻזָּתוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* adds: **And** this claim of the priest **is** based on **logical inference:** If **I acquire** the fields **of others** that were consecrated and not redeemed at the Jubilee Year, then with regard to **my own** property, **all the more so** is it **not** clear that I should acquire it? Therefore, **the verse states,** with regard to an ancestral field that one consecrated: **“As a field dedicated; its possession shall be to the priest,”** which teaches that this priest does not acquire the field.


###### Arakhin 29a:5
[Arakhin 29a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/29a:5)

וְכִי מָה לָמַדְנוּ מִשְּׂדֵה חֵרֶם מֵעַתָּה? הֲרֵי זֶה בָּא לְלַמֵּד וְנִמְצָא לָמֵד: מַקִּישׁ שְׂדֵה חֶרְמוֹ לִשְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* explains the derivation: **But what** have **we now learned** about a consecrated ancestral field **from a dedicated field?** In other words, the verse, which is dealing with an ancestral field, says an ancestral field is like a dedicated field, but it does not explicitly state the *halakha* of dedicated fields. Rather, **this** case of a dedicated field **comes to teach** a *halakha* about an ancestral field **but is found to derive** a *halakha* from that case, i.e., the verse **juxtaposes a dedicated field** of a priest **to the ancestral field of an Israelite.**


###### Arakhin 29a:6
[Arakhin 29a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/29a:6)

מָה שְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל, יוֹצְאָה מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ, וּמִתְחַלֶּקֶת לַכֹּהֲנִים, אַף שָׂדֶה חֶרְמוֹ, יוֹצְאָה מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ, וּמִתְחַלֶּקֶת לְאֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* clarifies how the *halakha* is derived from the juxtaposition: **Just as the ancestral field of an Israelite,** which was redeemed by a priest from the Temple treasury, **goes out** of **his possession** at the arrival of the Jubilee Year **and is divided among** all **the priests** of the watch serving at the beginning of the Jubilee Year (see 25b), **so too, the dedicated field** of a priest that remained in his possession **goes out** of **his possession and is divided among his brothers, the priests** of the watch serving at the beginning of the Jubilee Year.


###### Arakhin 29a:7
[Arakhin 29a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/29a:7)

וְאִידָּךְ? מֵ״חֵרֶם״ ״הַחֵרֶם״. וְאִידַּךְ, ״חֵרֶם״ ״הַחֵרֶם״ לָא מַשְׁמַע לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And the other,** i.e., the Rabbis, from where do they derive this *halakha*? The Gemara responds: They derive it **from** a superfluous term in the verse, as it could have stated merely: **Dedicated [*ḥerem*],** from which one would have derived that unspecified dedications are designated for the priests. Yet the verse actually states: **“*Haḥerem*,”** with the definite article, and therefore both *halakhot* are derived from this verse. The Gemara notes: **And** as for **the other,** Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, **he does not learn** anything from the difference between ***ḥerem*** and ***haḥerem*.** Accordingly, he derives from here only that if a priest consecrated his dedicated field it is removed from his possession.


###### Arakhin 29a:8
[Arakhin 29a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/29a:8)

וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתִירָא, דְּחָל עַל קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים וְעַל קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים, מְנָא לֵיהּ? סָבַר לֵיהּ כְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** as for **Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, from where does he** derive **that** a dedication **takes effect on offerings of the most sacred order and offerings of lesser sanctity,** which, according to the Rabbis, is learned from the verse: “Every dedicated item is most sacred to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:28)? The Gemara answers: **He holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yishmael,** who derives this *halakha* from another source, as explained in the mishna below.


###### Arakhin 29a:9
[Arakhin 29a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/29a:9)

אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתִירָא, וְרַב שָׁבֵיק רַבָּנַן וְעָבֵיד כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתִירָא? בָּרַיְיתָא אִיפְּכָא תַּנְיָא, שָׁבֵיק מַתְנִיתִין וְעָבֵיד כְּבָרַיְיתָא? רַב מַתְנִיתִין נָמֵי אִיפְּכָא תָּנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav says:** The ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira** that unspecified dedications of property are designated for Temple maintenance. The Gemara asks: **And** would **Rav leave** aside the majority opinion of **the Rabbis and act in accordance with** the individual opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira?** The Gemara answers: This dispute **is taught** in **a *baraita*** in the **opposite** manner, i.e., it is the Rabbis who hold that unspecified dedications are designated for Temple maintenance. The Gemara further asks: Would Rav **leave** aside **a mishna and act in accordance with a *baraita*?** The Gemara responds: **Rav teaches the mishna as well** in the **opposite** manner, in accordance with the *baraita*.


###### Arakhin 29a:10
[Arakhin 29a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/29a:10)

מַאי חֲזֵית דְּאָפְכַתְּ מַתְנִיתִין מִקַּמֵּי בָּרַיְיתָא? נֵפֵיךְ בָּרַיְיתָא מִקַּמֵּי מַתְנִיתִין! רַב גְּמָרֵיהּ גְּמִיר. אִי הָכִי, כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתִירָא? כְּרַבָּנַן מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! הָכִי קָאָמַר: לְמַאי דְּאָפְכִיתוּ וְתָנֵיתוּ, הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתִירָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What did you see that you** chose **to reverse** the opinions in **the mishna due to the *baraita*? Let us reverse** the opinions in **the *baraita* due to the mishna.** The Gemara answers: **Rav learned by tradition** from his teachers that the opinions cited in the mishna should be reversed. The Gemara asks: **If so,** why does Rav state that the *halakha* is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira?** He **should have** said it is **in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis.** The Gemara explains that **this** is what Rav **is saying: In accordance** with the manner in **which you reversed** the opinions **and taught** them in the mishna, the ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira.**


###### Arakhin 29a:11
[Arakhin 29a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/29a:11)

הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּאַחְרְמִינְהוּ לְנִכְסֵיהּ בְּפוּמְבְּדִיתָא, אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שְׁקוֹל אַרְבְּעָה זוּזֵי וְאַחֵיל עֲלַיְיהוּ, וּשְׁדִינְהוּ בְּנַהֲרָא, וְלִישְׁתְּרוֹ לָךְ. אַלְמָא קָסָבַר: סְתַם חֲרָמִים לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara relates that there was **a certain man who dedicated his property in Pumbedita. He came before Rav Yehuda** to ask him what to do. Rav Yehuda **said to him: Take four dinars and desacralize** the dedicated property by transferring its sanctity **onto them. And** then **throw** the dinars **into the river,** because one may not derive benefit from them. **And** then the property **will be permitted to you,** as it will have been redeemed. The Gemara notes: **Evidently,** Rav Yehuda **holds** that **unspecified dedications** of property are designated **for Temple maintenance,** which is why the man could redeem his property. Had the property been designated for the priests there could be no redemption, as taught in the mishna.


###### Arakhin 29a:12
[Arakhin 29a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/29a:12)

כְּמַאן? כִּשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר: הֶקְדֵּשׁ שָׁוֶה מָנֶה שֶׁחִילְּלוֹ עַל שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה מְחוּלָּל. אֵימַר דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל שֶׁחִילְּלוֹ, לְכַתְּחִלָּה מִי אָמַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **In accordance with whose** opinion does Rav Yehuda hold, when he told the man to desacralize the dedicated property by transferring its sanctity onto money worth less than the dedicated property? The Gemara responds: He holds **in accordance with** the opinion of **Shmuel, who said: Consecrated** property **worth one hundred** dinars **that one desacralized onto** an item **worth one *peruta* is desacralized.** The Gemara asks: One can **say that Shmuel said** this is the *halakha* only in a case **where** one already **desacralized** the property, i.e., after the fact. **Did he say** one may do so ***ab initio*?**


###### Arakhin 29a:13
[Arakhin 29a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/29a:13)

הָנֵי מִילֵּי בִּזְמַן שֶׁבֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּים, דְּאִיכָּא פְּסֵידָא, אֲבָל בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה אֲפִילּוּ לְכַתְּחִלָּה. אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ פְּרוּטָה נָמֵי? פַּרְסוֹמֵי מִלְּתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **This matter,** that one must desacralize consecrated property onto an item worth the value of the property *ab initio*, applies only **during a period when the Temple is standing, as there is a loss** caused to the Temple treasury by desacralizing its property onto an item worth less than its value. **But in the present** time, when the Temple is not standing and there is no Temple treasury, one may desacralize with an item worth less than the consecrated property **even *ab initio*.** The Gemara asks: **If so,** then one may **even** desacralize with **one *peruta* as well.** Why, then, did Rav Yehuda require the man to use four dinars? The Gemara responds: He required four dinars in order to **publicize the matter,** so that the community will know the property is permitted for use only because it was redeemed.


###### Arakhin 29a:14
[Arakhin 29a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/29a:14)

אָמַר עוּלָּא: אִי הֲוַאי הָתָם, הֲוָה יָהֵיבְנָא כּוּלְּהוּ לְכֹהֲנִים. אַלְמָא קָסָבַר עוּלָּא: סְתַם חֲרָמִים לַכֹּהֲנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ulla says: If I had been there** when this man asked what to do, **I would have given all of** the property **to the priests.** The Gemara notes: **Evidently, Ulla holds** that **unspecified dedications** of property are designated **for the priests,** and therefore they cannot be redeemed.


###### Arakhin 29a:15
[Arakhin 29a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/29a:15)

מֵיתִיבִי: אֵין עֶבֶד עִבְרִי נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַיּוֹבֵל נוֹהֵג, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״עַד שְׁנַת הַיּוֹבֵל יַעֲבֹד עִמָּךְ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It can be inferred from the previous discussion that the *halakhot* of dedications are in effect even today. The Gemara **raises an objection** to this opinion from a *baraita*: The sale of **a Hebrew slave is practiced only during a period when the Jubilee** Year **is observed, as it is stated:** “And if your brother be waxen poor with you, and sell himself to you…**he shall serve with you until the year of Jubilee”** (Leviticus 25:39–40).


###### Arakhin 29a:16
[Arakhin 29a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/29a:16)

וְאֵין שְׂדֵה הַחֵרֶם נוֹהֶגֶת אֶלָּא בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַיּוֹבֵל נוֹהֵג, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְיָצָא בַּיּוֹבֵל וְשָׁב לַאֲחֻזָּתוֹ״. אֵין בָּתֵּי עָרֵי חוֹמָה נוֹהֲגִין אֶלָּא בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַיּוֹבֵל נוֹהֵג, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא יֵצֵא בַּיּוֹבֵל״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** likewise the *halakhot* pertaining to **a dedicated,** i.e., ancestral, **field apply only during a period that the Jubilee** Year **is observed, as it is stated:** “Then that which he has sold shall remain in the hand of him that has bought…**and in the Jubilee it shall go out, and he shall return to his possession”** (Leviticus 25:28). Finally, the *halakhot* pertaining to **houses of walled cities apply only during a period when the Jubilee** Year **is observed, as it is stated:** “Then the house that is in the walled city shall be made sure in perpetuity to him that bought it, throughout his generations; **it shall not go out in the Jubilee”** (Leviticus 25:30).


###### Arakhin 29a:17
[Arakhin 29a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/29a:17)

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי אוֹמֵר: אֵין שְׂדֵה חֲרָמִין נוֹהֲגִין אֶלָּא בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַיּוֹבֵל נוֹהֵג, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהָיָה הַשָּׂדֶה בְּצֵאתוֹ בַיּוֹבֵל קֹדֶשׁ לַה׳ כִּשְׂדֵה הַחֵרֶם״. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: אֵין גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַיּוֹבֵל נוֹהֵג.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says:** The *halakhot* pertaining to **a dedicated field apply only during a period when the Jubilee** Year **is observed, as it is stated: “But the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee, shall be sacred to the Lord, as a field dedicated;** its possession shall be to the priest” (Leviticus 27:21). **Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says:** The *halakhot* pertaining to **a gentile who resides in Eretz Yisrael and observes the seven Noahide mitzvot [*ger toshav*] apply only during a period when the Jubilee** Year **is observed.**


###### Arakhin 29a:18
[Arakhin 29a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/29a:18)

אָמַר רַב בִּיבִי: מַאי טַעְמָא? אַתְיָא ״טוֹב״ ״טוֹב״, כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״כִּי טוֹב לוֹ עִמָּךְ״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״בַּטּוֹב לוֹ לֹא תּוֹנֶנּוּ״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Beivai said: What is the reason?** It is **derived** from a verbal analogy between **“well”** and **“well.”** It is **written here,** with regard to a Hebrew slave, who can be sold only when the Jubilee Year is observed: **“Because he fares well with you”** (Deuteronomy 15:16). **And** it is **written there,** with regard to a *ger toshav*: **“Where it is well for him; you shall not wrong him”** (Deuteronomy 23:17). The Gemara’s objection is that it is evident from the *baraita* that the *halakhot* pertaining to dedicated fields apply only when the Jubilee Year is observed.


###### Arakhin 29a:19
[Arakhin 29a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/29a:19)

לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בִּמְקַרְקְעֵי, הָא בְּמִטַּלְטְלֵי. וְהָא מַעֲשֶׂה דְּפוּמְבְּדִיתָא בִּמְקַרְקְעֵי נָמֵי הֲוָה! מְקַרְקְעֵי דְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ כְּמִטַּלְטְלֵי דְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains that it is **not difficult. This** *baraita* is discussing the *halakha* **with regard to land,** whereas **that** incident, in Pumbedita, in which a dedication was effected, occurred **with movable property.** The Gemara raises a difficulty: **But that incident** that occurred **in Pumbedita involved land as well,** and Rav Yehuda nevertheless required the man to redeem them. The Gemara responds: **Land outside of Eretz** Yisrael **is considered like movable property in Eretz Yisrael.**


###### Arakhin 29a:20
[Arakhin 29a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/29a:20)

**מַתְנִי׳** רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: כָּתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״תַּקְדִּישׁ״, וְכָתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״לֹא יַקְדִּישׁ״. אִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹמַר ״תַּקְדִּישׁ״ — שֶׁהֲרֵי כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר ״לֹא יַקְדִּישׁ״, אִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹמַר ״לֹא יַקְדִּישׁ״ — שֶׁהֲרֵי כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר ״תַּקְדִּישׁ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **Rabbi Yishmael says: One verse states:** “All the firstborn males that are born of your herd and of your flock **you shall consecrate** to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 15:19), **and one verse states:** “However, the firstborn among animals that is born first to the Lord, a man **shall not consecrate** it” (Leviticus 27:26). It is **impossible to say: “You shall consecrate,” as it is already stated:** “A man **shall not consecrate.”** It is likewise **impossible to say:** “A man **shall not consecrate,” as it is already stated: “You shall consecrate.”**


###### Arakhin 29a:21
[Arakhin 29a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/29a:21)

הָא כֵּיצַד? מַקְדִּישׁוֹ אַתָּה הֶקְדֵּשׁ עִלּוּי, וְאִי אַתָּה מַקְדִּישׁוֹ הֶקְדֵּשׁ מִזְבֵּחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**How,** then, can **these** verses be reconciled? **You can consecrate** the firstborn animal by **a consecration of value,** i.e., an individual can donate to the Temple treasury the amount he would be willing to pay for the right to give the firstborn to a specific priest; **and you cannot consecrate it** by **a consecration for the altar,** as a firstborn may not be sacrificed for the sake of any other offering.


###### Arakhin 29a:22
[Arakhin 29a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/29a:22)

גּמ׳, וְרַבָּנַן: ״אַל תַּקְדִּישׁ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְלָאו, ״תַּקְדִּישׁ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: מִנַּיִן לְנוֹלַד בְּכוֹר בְּעֶדְרוֹ שֶׁמִּצְוָה לְהַקְדִּישׁוֹ? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הַזָּכָר תַּקְדִּישׁ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara comments: **And the Rabbis,** who derive the *halakha* that a dedication takes effect on all offerings of sanctity from the verse: “Every dedicated item is most sacred to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:28), would explain that the verse “A man **shall not consecrate” is necessary to** teach that there is a Torah **prohibition** against consecrating a firstborn animal for the sake of another offering. As for the other verse discussed in the mishna: **“You shall consecrate,”** it **is necessary for that which is taught** in a *baraita*: **From where** is it derived **with regard to a firstborn** animal that **was born in** one’s **flock that** it is **a mitzva to consecrate it** verbally as a firstborn? **As it is stated: “The** firstborn **males** that are born of your herd and of your flock **you shall consecrate.”**


###### Arakhin 29a:23
[Arakhin 29a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/29a:23)

וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, אִי לָא מַקְדֵּישׁ לֵיהּ, לָא קָדֵישׁ? קְדוּשָּׁתוֹ מֵרֶחֶם הוּא, וְכֵיוָן דְּכִי לָא מַקְדֵּישׁ לֵיהּ קָדוֹשׁ, לָא צְרִיךְ לְאַקְדּוֹשֵׁיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yishmael,** who maintains there is no such mitzva, would argue: **If one does not consecrate it** verbally, is the animal **not consecrated?** It certainly is consecrated, as **its sanctity is from the womb. And since when one does not consecrate it** the animal is nevertheless **sanctified** automatically, **he does not need to consecrate it** verbally.


###### Arakhin 29a:24
[Arakhin 29a:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/29a:24)

**הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ הַמַּקְדִּישׁ שָׂדֵהוּ.**