## Bekhorot Daf 32a

###### Bekhorot 32a:1
[Bekhorot 32a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/32a:1)

דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִישּׁוֹם מֵחַיִּים — לָא גְּזוּר רַבָּנַן, וּבְיַתְמֵי אוֹקְמוּהָ רַבָּנַן אַדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
But with regard to **an item that is not appraised** when an animal is sold **when alive,** e.g., the hide and sinews, as these are not primary contributing factors to the animal’s value, **the Sages did not decree** that one may not sell such items after the animal’s slaughter. Consequently, the meat of an animal tithe offering may be sold by means of inclusion in the animal’s hide, fat, sinews, and horns. **And with regard to** a case of young **orphans, the Sages established** the *halakha* **as** if **by Torah law,** and therefore the meat may be sold in its usual manner.


###### Bekhorot 32a:2
[Bekhorot 32a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/32a:2)

וְאַף רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק סָבַר לַהּ לְהָא דְּרָבָא, דְּאָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק: מִנַּיִן לְמַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה שֶׁל יְתוֹמִים שֶׁמּוֹכְרִים אוֹתוֹ כְּדַרְכּוֹ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **And even Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak holds** in accordance with **that** opinion **of Rava,** that by Torah law, the meat of a blemished animal-tithe offering may be sold in the normal manner. **As Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak says: From where** is it derived **that one may sell** the meat of a blemished **animal-tithe** offering **of** young **orphans in its** usual **manner,** without having to resort to the method of inclusion?


###### Bekhorot 32a:3
[Bekhorot 32a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/32a:3)

שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״רַק בְּכׇל אַוַּת נַפְשְׁךָ תִּזְבַּח וְאָכַלְתָּ בָשָׂר״, אֵיזֶהוּ דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ בְּרָכָה מֵחַיִּים אֶלָּא לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: זֶה מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It is derived from a verse, **as it is stated** in a verse discussing consecrated animals that became blemished: **“Notwithstanding, after all the desire of your soul, you may slaughter and eat flesh,** according to the blessing of the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 12:15). Now **which is the item that has no blessing when** it is **alive,** i.e., it is prohibited to derive benefit from it, **but** it does have a blessing **after** its **slaughter,** as indicated by the verse “You may slaughter…according to the blessing of the Lord your God”? **You must say** that **this is** the meat of the **animal tithe** offering.


###### Bekhorot 32a:4
[Bekhorot 32a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/32a:4)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: מַהוּ לְהַבְלִיעוֹ בַּעֲצָמוֹת? רַבִּי חִיָּיא וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּרַבִּי, חַד אָמַר: מַבְלִיעוֹ, וְחַד אָמַר: אֵין מַבְלִיעוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The *baraita* cited earlier teaches that the Sages permitted the inclusion of the value of a blemished animal-tithe offering’s meat in the cost of its hide, fat, sinews, and horns. In this regard, **a dilemma was raised before** the Sages: **What is** the *halakha* **with regard to including** the value of the meat **in** the cost of **the** animal’s **bones? Rabbi Ḥiyya and Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, disputed this matter. **One says** that one may **include** the value in the cost of the bones, **and one says** one may **not include** it.


###### Bekhorot 32a:5
[Bekhorot 32a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/32a:5)

וְלָא פְּלִיגִי — הָא בְּדַקָּה, הָא בְּגַסָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **And they do not disagree. This** one, who maintains that one may not include the value in the cost of the bones, is referring **to a small, domesticated animal,** whose bones are incapable of being fashioned into utensils and are therefore never sold. **That** one, who holds that one may include the value in the cost of the bones, is referring **to a large, domesticated animal,** whose bones can be used and are therefore sold.


###### Bekhorot 32a:6
[Bekhorot 32a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/32a:6)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי בְּגַסָּה, וְלָא פְּלִיגִי — מָר כִּי אַתְרֵיהּ, וּמָר כִּי אַתְרֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** instead that both **this** one **and that** one are referring even **to a large, domesticated animal, and** still they **do not disagree.** This **Sage** rules **in accordance with** the custom of **his locale, and** that **Sage** rules **in accordance with** the custom of **his locale.** In other words, in certain places the custom is to use the bones and sell them, while elsewhere they do not.


###### Bekhorot 32a:7
[Bekhorot 32a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/32a:7)

גּוּפָא: בִּבְכוֹר הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״לֹא יִפְדֶּה״, וְנִמְכָּר; בְּמַעֲשֵׂר נֶאֱמַר: ״לֹא יִגָּאֵל״, וְאֵינוֹ נִמְכָּר, לֹא חַי וְלֹא שָׁחוּט, וְלֹא תָּם וְלֹא בַּעַל מוּם. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara returns to **the** matter **itself,** stated in the *baraita*: **With regard to a firstborn** male animal offering the verse **states: “You shall not redeem”** (Numbers 18:17), **but it may be sold** while alive, by the priest to whom it belongs. By contrast, **with regard to** the animal **tithe** offering, **it is stated: “It shall not be redeemed”** (Leviticus 27:33), indicating that its sanctity can never be removed from it, **and it cannot be sold, not** when **alive and not** when **slaughtered, not** when **unblemished and not** when **blemished.** The Gemara asks: **From where is this matter** derived, that the phrase “it shall not be redeemed” is referring to the prohibition against selling the animal tithe offering?


###### Bekhorot 32a:8
[Bekhorot 32a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/32a:8)

אָמַר רַב חִינָּנָא אָמַר רַב, וְכֵן אָמַר רַב דִּימִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: נֶאֱמַר ״לֹא יִגָּאֵל״ בְּמַעֲשֵׂר, וְנֶאֱמַר ״וְלֹא יִגָּאֵל״ בַּחֲרָמִים, מָה לְהַלָּן מְכִירָה עִמּוֹ, אַף כָּאן מְכִירָה עִמּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ḥinnana says** that **Rav says, and similarly, Rav Dimi says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is stated: “It shall not be redeemed,” with regard to** the animal **tithe** offering, **and it is stated: “And it shall not be redeemed,” with regard to dedications [*baḥaramim*],** i.e., property that one consecrated by means of the expression: *Ḥerem*. With regard to dedications, the verse states: “Notwithstanding, any dedicated item…may neither be sold nor redeemed” (Leviticus 27:28). This is a verbal analogy: **Just as there,** with regard to dedications, the prohibition against **selling is** mentioned together **with** the prohibition against redeeming, **so too here,** with regard to the animal tithe offering, the prohibition against **selling is** mentioned together **with** the prohibition against redeeming.


###### Bekhorot 32a:9
[Bekhorot 32a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/32a:9)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק לְרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: מַפְנֵי, דְּאִי לָא מַפְנֵי, אִיכָּא לְמִפְרַךְ: מָה לַחֲרָמִים, שֶׁכֵּן חָלִים עַל הַכֹּל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua:** It must be that at least one of the phrases “It shall not be redeemed” is **free,** i.e., at least one of these terms is superfluous in its context, which means that it is included for the specific purpose of the verbal analogy. In such a case the verbal analogy cannot be refuted by logic, whereas if neither phrase is free one can refute the analogy if there is a significant difference between the two cases. **As, if** these terms are **not free,** the verbal analogy **can be refuted: What** is notable **about dedications,** in contrast to the animal tithe offering? They are notable in **that** they **apply to all** items one wishes to dedicate, whereas an animal tithe offering applies only to kosher animals.


###### Bekhorot 32a:10
[Bekhorot 32a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/32a:10)

לָאיֵי אַפְנוֹיֵי מַפְנֵי, לֹא יֵאָמֵר ״וְלֹא יִגָּאֵל״ בַּחֲרָמִים, וְיִגְמַר מִמַּעֲשֵׂר: מָה מַעֲשֵׂר קָדוֹשׁ וְאֵינוֹ נִגְאָל, אַף חֲרָמִים קְדוֹשִׁים וְאֵינָם נִגְאָלִין. ״וְלֹא יִגָּאֵל״ דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא לְמָה לִי? לְאַפְנוֹיֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: This is **not so [*la’ai*], as** at least one of the phrases: “It shall not be redeemed,” is certainly **free.** How so? **Let** the verse **not state: “It shall not be redeemed,” with regard to dedications, and** instead one could **derive** the prohibition **from** an animal **tithe** offering: **Just as** an animal **tithe** offering **is sacred and may not be redeemed, so too, dedications are** also **sacred and may not be redeemed. Why** then **do I** need the phrase **“It shall not be redeemed” that the Merciful One writes,** in the case of dedications? It is evidently **to** be considered **free** to enable the verbal analogy.


###### Bekhorot 32a:11
[Bekhorot 32a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/32a:11)

אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְמַעֲשֵׂר, שֶׁכֵּן קָדוֹשׁ לְפָנָיו וּלְאַחֲרָיו!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this suggestion. It is still possible that the phrase “It shall not be redeemed,” written with regard to dedications, is not free, as the suggested derivation stated above **can be refuted: What is** notable **about** the animal **tithe** offering? It is notable **in that** there is **sanctity before it and after it.** If, instead of proclaiming as the tithe the tenth animal that one counted, one inadvertently proclaimed either the ninth animal or the eleventh animal as the tithe, the mistakenly proclaimed animal assumes the sacred status of the animal tithe offering. By contrast, one cannot inadvertently dedicate property to the Temple. Since the case of the animal tithe offering includes a stringency not shared by dedications, the phrase “It shall not be redeemed” is required to teach that dedications may not be redeemed, and is therefore not free for the verbal analogy.


###### Bekhorot 32a:12
[Bekhorot 32a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/32a:12)

אֶלָּא, לֹא יֵאָמֵר ״לֹא יִגָּאֵל״ בַּחֲרָמִים, וְיִגְמַר מִבְּכוֹר: מָה בְּכוֹר קָדוֹשׁ וְאֵינוֹ נִגְאָל, אַף חֲרָמִים קְדוֹשִׁין וְאֵינָן נִגְאָלִין. ״לֹא יִגָּאֵל״ דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא לְמָה לִי? לְאַפְנוֹיֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites an alternative suggestion. **Rather, let** the verse **not state: “It shall not be redeemed,” with regard to dedications, and** instead one can **derive** the prohibition **from** the **firstborn** offering: **Just as** the **firstborn** offering **is sacred and may not be redeemed,** as the verse states: “You shall not redeem it” (Numbers 18:17), **so too, dedications are** also **sacred and may not be redeemed. Why do I** need the phrase **“It shall not be redeemed” that the Merciful One writes** in the case of dedications? It is evidently **to** be considered **free** to enable the verbal analogy to the animal tithe.


###### Bekhorot 32a:13
[Bekhorot 32a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/32a:13)

אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לִבְכוֹר, שֶׁכֵּן קְדוּשָּׁתוֹ מֵרֶחֶם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this suggestion as well: It is possible that the phrase “It shall not be redeemed” is not free, as the above derivation **can be refuted: What** is notable **about** the **firstborn** offering? It is notable **in that its sanctity is from the womb,** whereas dedications require an act of consecration.


###### Bekhorot 32a:14
[Bekhorot 32a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/32a:14)

אֶלָּא לֹא יֵאָמֵר ״לֹא יִגָּאֵל״ בְּמַעֲשֵׂר, וְיִגְמַר הַעֲבָרָה הַעֲבָרָה מִבְּכוֹר, מָה בְּכוֹר קָדוֹשׁ וְאֵינוֹ נִגְאָל, אַף מַעֲשֵׂר קָדוֹשׁ וְאֵינוֹ נִגְאָל. ״לֹא יִגָּאֵל״ דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא בְּמַעֲשֵׂר לְמָה לִי? לְאַפְנוֹיֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, let** the verse **not say: “It shall not be redeemed,” with regard to** the animal **tithe** offering, **and** instead one can **derive** the prohibition **from a verbal analogy** from the term of **passing stated there** and the term of **passing** stated in the case of a firstborn. With regard to an animal tithe offering the verse states: “Whatsoever passes under the rod” (Leviticus 27:32), and in the case of the firstborn offering it is stated: “And you shall cause to pass all that opens the womb, to the Lord” (Exodus 13:12). **Just as** the **firstborn** offering **is sacred and may not be redeemed, so too,** an animal **tithe** offering **is** also **sacred and may not be redeemed. Why do I** need the phrase **“It shall not be redeemed” that the Merciful One writes** with regard to animal tithe offerings? It is evidently **to** be considered **free** to enable the verbal analogy to dedications.


###### Bekhorot 32a:15
[Bekhorot 32a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/32a:15)

וְאַכַּתִּי, בְּמַעֲשֵׂר נָמֵי לָא, מַפְנֵי דְּאִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ כִּדְפָרְכִינַן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But still,** the phrase “It shall not be redeemed,” written **with regard to** the animal **tithe** offering, is itself **not free, as** the analogy between the animal tithe offering and the firstborn offering **can be refuted as we refuted** the analogy between the firstborn offering and dedications, since the firstborn offering is notable in that it is sanctified from the womb.


###### Bekhorot 32a:16
[Bekhorot 32a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/32a:16)

״וְהַעֲבַרְתָּ״ קְרָא יַתִּירָא הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The term **“And you shall cause to pass,”** written in the context of the firstborn, **is a superfluous verse,** as it could have simply stated: All that opens the womb is to be for the Lord. Consequently, it is free to enable the verbal analogy. In sum, the Gemara is suggesting that due to the term “And you shall cause to pass,” there is a verbal analogy between the animal tithe offering and the firstborn offering, from which it is derived that the animal tithe offering may not be redeemed. This means that the phrase “It shall not be redeemed,” written with regard to the animal tithe offering, is free to enable the verbal analogy with dedications, from which the prohibition against selling the meat of the animal tithe offering is derived.


###### Bekhorot 32a:17
[Bekhorot 32a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/32a:17)

בְּכוֹר נָמֵי נֵילַף ״גְּאוּלָּה״ ״גְּאוּלָּה״ מֵחֲרָמִים! דְּמַעֲשֵׂר מַפְנֵי, דִּבְכוֹר לָא מַפְנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: With regard to **a firstborn** offering **as well, let us derive** that one may not sell its meat from a verbal analogy between the expression of **redemption** written there and the expression of **redemption** written in the context **of dedications.** This would contradict the ruling of the *baraita* that a firstborn offering can be sold after it enters the possession of the priest. The Gemara answers: The expression of redemption in the context **of** the animal **tithe** offering is **free** to enable the verbal analogy to dedications, but the expression of redemption in the context **of a firstborn** offering **is not free,** as it is required in its own context to teach that the firstborn offering may not be redeemed and as the source for the *halakha* of the animal tithe offering.


###### Bekhorot 32a:18
[Bekhorot 32a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/32a:18)

וּמַאי חָזֵית דְּלֹא תִפְדֶּה דִּבְכוֹר — לְגוּפֵיהּ, וּדְמַעֲשֵׂר — לְאַפְנוֹיֵי? וְאֵימָא: דְּמַעֲשֵׂר — לְגוּפֵיהּ, דִּבְכוֹר — לְאַפְנוֹיֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And what did you see that** you said that the phrase **“you shall not redeem”** written in the context **of a firstborn** offering is not free, but is necessary **for itself,** i.e., to teach that it may not be redeemed, **and** yet the expression of redemption written **with regard to** the animal **tithe** offering **is free** to enable the verbal analogy, as the *halakha* of its redemption is derived from the firstborn? **But** one can **say** the reverse, **that** the expression of redemption written in the context **of** the animal **tithe** offering is **for itself,** whereas **that** written **with regard to a firstborn** offering is **free.**


###### Bekhorot 32a:19
[Bekhorot 32a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/32a:19)

דָּנִין גְּאוּלָּה מִגְּאוּלָּה, וְאֵין דָּנִין פְּדִיָּיה מִגְּאוּלָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **We derive** the expression of **redemption [*geula*]** written in the context of the animal tithe offering **from** the expression of **redemption [*geula*]** written in the context of dedications, **but we do not derive** the expression of **redemption [*pediya*]** written in the context of a firstborn offering **from** the different expression of **redemption [*geula*]** written in the context of the dedications.


###### Bekhorot 32a:20
[Bekhorot 32a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/32a:20)

מַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? הָא תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״וְשָׁב הַכֹּהֵן״ ״וּבָא הַכֹּהֵן״ — זוֹ הִיא שִׁיבָה זוֹ הִיא בִּיאָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What difference** is there whether or not an identical expression is used for a verbal analogy? **Didn’t the school of Rabbi Yishmael teach** a verbal analogy with regard to leprosy of houses? The verse states: **“And the priest shall return [*veshav*]** on the seventh day” (Leviticus 14:39), and another verse with regard to the priest’s visit seven days later states: **“And the priest shall come [*uva*]** and look” (Leviticus 14:44). **This returning** and **this coming** have the same meaning and one can therefore derive by verbal analogy that the same *halakha* that applies if the leprosy had spread at the conclusion of the first week also applies if it had spread again by the end of the following week. Here too, the different terms of *pediya* and *geula* should not prevent the application of a verbal analogy.


###### Bekhorot 32a:21
[Bekhorot 32a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/32a:21)

הָנֵי מִילֵּי, הֵיכָא דְּלֵיכָּא דְּדָמֵי לֵיהּ, אֲבָל אִיכָּא דְּדָמֵי לֵיהּ — מִדְּדָמֵי לֵיהּ יָלְפִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **This statement,** that the phrases used for a verbal analogy do not have to be identical, applies only **where there are no terms** that are **equivalent to it. But where there are terms that** are **equivalent to it, we derive** the verbal analogy **from** the terms **that** are **equivalent to it,** rather than from the terms that are not equivalent.


###### Bekhorot 32a:22
[Bekhorot 32a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/32a:22)

וְלֵילַף בְּכוֹר ״הַעֲבָרָה״ ״הַעֲבָרָה״ מִמַּעֲשֵׂר, דְּהָא מַעֲשֵׂר נָמֵי גָּמַר ״גְּאוּלָּה״ ״גְּאוּלָּה״ מֵחֲרָמִים!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **But let one derive** that it is prohibited to sell the meat of a blemished **firstborn** offering from the verbal analogy between the expression of **passing** and the expression of **passing, from** the case of the animal **tithe** offering. This should be possible, **as** the sale of the meat of a blemished animal-**tithe** offering is **also** prohibited, as **derived** by a verbal analogy between the expression of **redemption** written in its context and the expression of **redemption** written **with regard to dedications,** as explained earlier.


###### Bekhorot 32a:23
[Bekhorot 32a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/32a:23)

מִיעֵט רַחֲמָנָא גַּבֵּי חֲרָמִים, ״הוּא״ — ״הוּא״ וְלֹא בְּכוֹר. וְאֵימָא ״הוּא״ וְלֹא מַעֲשֵׂר! מַעֲשֵׂר גְּאוּלָּה כְּמוֹתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **The Merciful One limits** the extension of the prohibition against selling **with regard to dedications** by adding the term **“it”** in the verse: “It is most holy to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:28). The term **“it”** teaches that the prohibition against selling applies only to it, i.e., dedications, **but not** to **a firstborn** offering. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But one can **say** instead that the term **“it”** teaches that the prohibition against selling applies to dedications, **but not** to the animal **tithe** offering. The Gemara answers: The prohibition against selling applies to the animal **tithe** offering, with regard to which the expression of **redemption** is written, **just like** dedications, while the term “it” limits the prohibition to the firstborn offering.


###### Bekhorot 32a:24
[Bekhorot 32a:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/32a:24)

רָבָא אָמַר, ״לֹא יִגָּאֵל״ דַּחֲרָמִים לָא צְרִיךְ, דְּאִיתַנְהוּ הֵיכָא? אִי בֵּי בְעָלִים — הֶקְדֵּשׁ נִינְהוּ, אִי בֵּי כֹהֵן — חוּלִּין נִינְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rava says** that there is an alternative explanation for the prohibition against selling the animal tithe. The phrase **“It may not be redeemed,”** written **with regard to dedications, is unnecessary** and is therefore free to enable a verbal analogy with the animal tithe offering. Rava explains: **As where are** the items of dedication, designated for the priests, located? **If** they are **in the owner’s possession, they are** considered **consecrated** and may not be redeemed. **And if they are in the priest’s possession, they are** considered **non-sacred** and the priest may sell them.


###### Bekhorot 32a:25
[Bekhorot 32a:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/32a:25)

דְּתַנְיָא: חֲרָמִים, כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁהֵן בְּבֵית בְּעָלִים — הֲרֵי הֵן כְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ לְכׇל דִּבְרֵיהֶם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כׇּל חֵרֶם קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים הוּא לַה׳״. נְתָנָן לְכֹהֵן — הֲרֵי הֵן כְּחוּלִּין לְכׇל דִּבְרֵיהֶם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כׇּל חֵרֶם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל לְךָ יִהְיֶה״. ״לֹא

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **Dedications, as long as they are in the owner’s possession, are like consecrated** property **in all respects, as it is stated: “Every dedicated item is most holy to the Lord”** (Leviticus 27:28). Once the owner **gave them to the priest, they are like non-sacred property in all respects, as it is stated: “Every dedicated item in Israel shall be for You”** (Numbers 18:14). Rava continues: Accordingly, concerning the phrase **“It may not**