## Chullin Daf 139a

###### Chullin 139a:1
[Chullin 139a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/139a:1)

בַּר קְטָלָא הוּא, אֶלָּא דְּלָא גְּמַר דִּינֵיהּ, וּבָעֵי לְאֵתוֹיֵיהּ לְבֵי דִינָא וְקַיּוֹמֵי בֵּיהּ ״וּבִעַרְתָּ הָרַע מִקִּרְבֶּךָ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
how could it be free to rest on its eggs? **It is subject** to being **killed** and should have been executed. **Rather,** it must be a case **where its verdict was not** yet **issued, and** one is **required to bring it to the court to fulfill through it** the verse: **“And you shall eradicate the evil from your midst”** (Deuteronomy 13:6).


###### Chullin 139a:2
[Chullin 139a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/139a:2)

הָנֵי מוּקְדָּשִׁין הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ קֵן בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ וְאַקְדְּשֵׁיהּ – מִי מִיחַיַּיב? ״כִּי יִקָּרֵא קַן צִפּוֹר״ – פְּרָט לִמְזוּמָּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ With regard to the statement of the mishna that sacrificial birds are not included in the mitzva of sending away the mother bird from the nest, the Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances of these sacrificial** birds discussed in the mishna? **If we say that** the mishna is referring to a case where one **had a nest in his house and consecrated it, is one obligated** to send away even a non-sacred bird in such a case? The verse states: **“If a bird’s nest happens** before you on the way” (Deuteronomy 22:6), which **excludes** a nest readily **available** in one’s home.


###### Chullin 139a:3
[Chullin 139a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/139a:3)

אֶלָּא דַּחֲזָא קֵן בְּעָלְמָא וְאַקְדְּשֵׁיהּ, וּמִי קָדוֹשׁ? ״אִישׁ כִּי יַקְדִּשׁ אֶת בֵּיתוֹ קֹדֶשׁ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, מָה בֵּיתוֹ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ, אַף כֹּל בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** perhaps the mishna is referring to a case **where** one **merely saw a nest** that did not belong to him, **and he consecrated it. But** this, too, is problematic: **Is** the nest **consecrated** in such a case? But **the Merciful One states: “When a man shall sanctify his house to be holy”** (Leviticus 27:14), indicating that **just as his house** is **in his possession** when he consecrates it, **so too, any** item that one wishes to consecrate must be **in his possession** when consecrating it. If so, one cannot consecrate a nest that does not belong to him.


###### Chullin 139a:4
[Chullin 139a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/139a:4)

אֶלָּא דְּאַגְבְּהִינְהוּ לְאֶפְרוֹחִים, וְאַקְדְּשִׁינְהוּ, וַהֲדַר אַהְדְּרִינְהוּ – הַאי אֲפִילּוּ בְּחוּלִּין נָמֵי לָא מִיחַיַּיב, דִּתְנָא: נָטַל אֶת הַבָּנִים וְהֶחְזִירָן לַקֵּן, וְאַחַר כָּךְ חָזְרָה הָאֵם עֲלֵיהֶן – פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** say that the mishna is referring to a case **where** one **lifted** the **chicks,** taking possession of them, **and** then **consecrated them, and then returned them** to the nest. But **this** too cannot be, as **even with regard to non-sacred** birds one **is not obligated** to send the mother away in such a case, **as is taught** in a mishna (141a): If one sent the mother away and **took the offspring and** then **returned them to the nest, and thereafter, the mother returned** and rested **upon them,** one is **exempt from sending** the mother bird away, because he has acquired the offspring and they are now considered readily available.


###### Chullin 139a:5
[Chullin 139a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/139a:5)

אֶלָּא, דְּאַגְבְּהַהּ לְאֵם, וְאַקְדְּשַׁהּ, וַהֲדַרָה. מֵעִיקָּרָא אִיחַיַּיב לֵיהּ בְּשִׁילּוּחַ מִקַּמֵּי דְּאַקְדְּשַׁהּ, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן יוֹסֵף אוֹמֵר: הִקְדִּישׁ חַיָּה וְאַחַר כָּךְ שְׁחָטָהּ – פָּטוּר מִלְּכַסּוֹת, שְׁחָטָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִקְדִּישָׁהּ – חַיָּיב לְכַסּוֹת, שֶׁכְּבָר נִתְחַיֵּיב בְּכִסּוּי קוֹדֶם שֶׁיָּבֹא לִידֵי הֶקְדֵּשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Rather,** say that the mishna is referring to a case **where** one **lifted the mother,** taking possession of her, **and** then **consecrated her, and** thereafter **returned her** to the nest. The Gemara responds that this too cannot be, because **he was initially obligated in** the **sending** away of the mother bird **before he consecrated her.** Consequently, the consecration of the bird afterward cannot abrogate the requirement to send it away, **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Yosef says:** If one **consecrated an undomesticated animal and then slaughtered it,** he is **exempt from covering** its blood, because a consecrated animal is not subject to the obligation of covering the blood. But if he **slaughtered it and then consecrated it,** he is **obligated to cover** its blood, **as he was already obligated in** the mitzva of **covering** of the blood **before it came into the possession of the Temple** treasury.


###### Chullin 139a:6
[Chullin 139a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/139a:6)

רַב אָמַר: בְּמַקְדִּישׁ פֵּירוֹת שׁוֹבָכוֹ וּמָרְדוּ, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: בְּמַקְדִּישׁ תַּרְנְגוֹלְתּוֹ לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rather, **Rav says:** The mishna is referring **to** a case of one who **consecrates the fruit,** i.e., the chicks, **of his dovecote** for sacrifice on the altar, **and they** later **rebelled** and fled from the dovecote and nested elsewhere. The mishna teaches that although such birds are not considered readily available, one is exempt from sending away the mother because they are sacrificial birds. If they were non-sacred, one who finds them would be obligated to do so. **And Shmuel says:** The mishna is referring **to** a case of one who **consecrates his chicken for Temple maintenance,** and the chicken later rebelled and fled its owner’s home and established a nest elsewhere.


###### Chullin 139a:7
[Chullin 139a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/139a:7)

בִּשְׁלָמָא שְׁמוּאֵל לֹא אָמַר כְּרַב, דְּקָא מוֹקֵים לַהּ בְּקׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת, אֶלָּא רַב מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר כִּשְׁמוּאֵל?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **Granted, Shmuel did not state** his explanation of the mishna **in accordance with** that of **Rav, since he interprets it** as referring even **to** birds **consecrated for Temple maintenance,** which do not have inherent sanctity. Accordingly, the mishna teaches that all consecrated birds are not included in the mitzva of sending away the mother bird. **But what is the reason** that **Rav did not state** his explanation **in accordance with** that of **Shmuel?**


###### Chullin 139a:8
[Chullin 139a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/139a:8)

אָמַר לְךָ רַב: דַּוְקָא קָפָטְרִי מִשִּׁילּוּחַ, כְּגוֹן פֵּירוֹת שׁוֹבָכוֹ דְּקׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ נִינְהוּ, דְּכֵיוָן דְּקָדְשִׁי קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף – לָא פָּקְעָה קְדוּשְׁתַּיְיהוּ מִינַּיְיהוּ, אֲבָל בְּמַקְדִּישׁ תַּרְנְגוֹלְתּוֹ לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת, דְּלָאו קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ, דִּקְדוּשַּׁת דָּמִים בְּעָלְמָא הוּא – כֵּיוָן דִּמְרַדָה פְּקַעָה קְדוּשְׁתַּיְיהוּ, וְחַיֶּיבֶת בְּשִׁילּוּחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **Rav** could have **said to you: I specifically exempted** one **from sending** the mother bird away in a case **where** the birds are the **fruit of his dovecote, as they are consecrated for** the **altar. Since they are consecrated** with **inherent sanctity, their sanctity is not abrogated from them** even when they flee from the dovecote. **But in** a case where one **consecrates his chicken for Temple maintenance, where** the chicken is **not consecrated for** the **altar but merely** has **sanctity** that inheres in its **value, once it rebels its sanctity is abrogated, and it is obligated in,** i.e., subject to, the mitzva of **sending** away the mother bird.


###### Chullin 139a:9
[Chullin 139a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/139a:9)

וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּאִיתֵיהּ – בְּבֵי גַזָּא דְּרַחֲמָנָא אִיתֵיהּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״לַה׳ הָאָרֶץ וּמְלוֹאָהּ״. וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּמַקְדִּישׁ תַּרְנְגוֹלְתּוֹ לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת וּמָרְדָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: וְכֵיוָן שֶׁמָּרְדָה פְּקַעָה לַיהּ קְדוּשְׁתַּהּ! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בְּבֵי גַזָּא דְּרַחֲמָנָא אִיתַאּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״לַה׳ הָאָרֶץ וּמְלוֹאָהּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Shmuel** could have **said:** Though it has rebelled, the chicken retains its sanctity, since **wherever it is, it is in the treasury [*bei gazza*] of the Merciful One, as it is written: “The earth is the Lord’s, and its fullness thereof”** (Psalms 24:1). **And so Rabbi Yoḥanan says** that the mishna is referring **to** a case where one **consecrated his chicken for Temple maintenance, and** the chicken then **rebelled. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said to him: But once it rebels, its sanctity is abrogated.** Rabbi Yoḥanan **said to him:** Wherever it is, **it is in the treasury of the Merciful One, as it is written: “The earth is the Lord’s, and its fullness thereof.”**


###### Chullin 139a:10
[Chullin 139a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/139a:10)

וּרְמִי דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אַדְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וּרְמִי דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אַדְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** the Gemara **raises a contradiction** between the statement **of Rabbi Yoḥanan** here **and that of Rabbi Yoḥanan** elsewhere, **and** the Gemara **raises a contradiction** between the statement **of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish** here **and that of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish** elsewhere.


###### Chullin 139a:11
[Chullin 139a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/139a:11)

דְּאִיתְּמַר: מָנֶה זֶה לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת, וְנִגְנְבוּ אוֹ נֶאֶבְדוּ – רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָן עַד שֶׁיָּבוֹאוּ לִידֵי גִזְבָּר, וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּאִיתֵיהּ בְּבֵי גַזָּא דְּרַחֲמָנָא אִיתֵיהּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״לַה׳ הָאָרֶץ וּמְלוֹאָהּ״. קַשְׁיָא דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אַדְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, קַשְׁיָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אַדְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As** it **was stated:** If one declares that **these one hundred dinars** are consecrated **for Temple maintenance, and they were stolen or lost, Rabbi Yoḥanan says: He bears responsibility for them until they come into the** physical **possession of the** Temple **treasurer [*gizbar*].** Consequently, he must pay one hundred dinars to the treasury. **And Reish Lakish says:** One is not required to replace the lost money, since **wherever it is, it is in the treasury of the Merciful One, as it is written: “The earth is the Lord’s, and its fullness.”** Accordingly, the money is considered to have entered the possession of the treasury. If so, this statement **of Reish Lakish** poses **a difficulty for** the other statement **of Reish Lakish,** and this statement **of Rabbi Yoḥanan** poses **a difficulty for** the other statement **of Rabbi Yoḥanan.**


###### Chullin 139a:12
[Chullin 139a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/139a:12)

דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אַדְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא מִקַּמֵּי דְּשַׁמְעֵיהּ מֵרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן רַבֵּיהּ, הָא לְבָתַר דְּשַׁמְעֵיהּ מֵרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן רַבֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: The apparent contradiction between this statement **of Reish Lakish** and that statement **of Reish Lakish** is **not difficult. This** statement, that the sanctity of a consecrated chicken that rebelled is abrogated, was made **before he heard** the statement **from Rabbi Yoḥanan, his teacher,** that wherever it is, it is in God’s treasury. **That** statement, that one is not liable to replace the missing consecrated funds, was made **after he heard** that statement **from Rabbi Yoḥanan his teacher.**


###### Chullin 139a:13
[Chullin 139a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/139a:13)

אֶלָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אַדְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן קַשְׁיָא! דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אַדְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן נָמֵי לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא דְּאָמַר ״עָלַי״, הָא דְּאָמַר ״הֲרֵי זוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **But** still, this statement **of Rabbi Yoḥanan** poses **a difficulty** for that statement **of Rabbi Yoḥanan.** The Gemara responds: The apparent contradiction between this statement **of Rabbi Yoḥanan** and that statement **of Rabbi Yoḥanan** is **also not difficult. This** statement, that one bears responsibility for the missing consecrated funds, is referring to a case **where** the consecrator **said:** It is incumbent **upon me** to bring one hundred dinars to the Temple treasury. In such a case, one bears responsibility for the money until it reaches the Temple treasurer. **That** statement, that a consecrated chicken that rebelled remains consecrated, is referring to a case **where** the consecrator **said: This** chicken **is** consecrated for Temple maintenance. In such a case, the sanctity is not abrogated even after the chicken flees, because wherever it is, it is in God’s treasury.


###### Chullin 139a:14
[Chullin 139a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/139a:14)

מִכְּלָל דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ, אַף עַל גַּב דְּאָמַר ״עָלַי״, לָא מְחַיֵּיב?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: If it is so that when Rabbi Yoḥanan says that one bears financial responsibility for the missing consecrated funds, he is referring to a case where one said: It is incumbent upon me, **by inference** one may conclude **that** according to **Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish,** who says that one does not bear responsibility for the money, one **does not bear** financial responsibility **even though** one **said:** It is incumbent **upon me.**


###### Chullin 139a:15
[Chullin 139a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/139a:15)

וְהָתַנְיָא: אֵיזֶהוּ נֶדֶר וְאֵיזוֹ הִיא נְדָבָה? נֶדֶר – הָאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלָה״, נְדָבָה – הָאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי זוֹ עוֹלָה״. וּמָה בֵּין נֶדֶר לִנְדָבָה? נֶדֶר – מֵתָה אוֹ נִגְנְבָה אוֹ שֶׁאָבְדָה, חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָהּ; נְדָבָה – מֵתָה אוֹ נִגְנְבָה אוֹ שֶׁאָבְדָה, אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But isn’t it taught** in a mishna (*Kinnim* 1:1): **Which is** the case of **a vow** offering, **and which is** the case of **a gift** offering? **A vow** offering is where **one says: It is** incumbent **upon me** to bring **a burnt offering. A gift** offering is where **one says: This** animal is **a burnt offering. And what is** the difference **between a vow** offering **and a gift** offering? With regard to **a vow** offering, if **it died or was stolen or lost,** one **bears** financial **responsibility for it.** With regard to **a gift** offering, if **it died or was stolen or lost,** one **does not bear** financial **responsibility for it.**


###### Chullin 139a:16
[Chullin 139a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/139a:16)

אָמַר לָךְ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: הָנֵי מִילֵּי קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ, דִּמְחוּסַּר הַקְרָבָה, אֲבָל קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת, דְּלָאו מְחוּסַּר הַקְרָבָה – אַף עַל גַּב דְּאָמַר ״עָלַי״ – לָא מְחַיֵּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds that **Reish Lakish** could have **said to you: This statement,** that one who says: It is incumbent upon me, bears financial responsibility, applies only to an item **consecrated for the altar, since** one vowed to sacrifice it as an offering and **it has not yet been sacrificed. But** with regard to an item **consecrated for Temple maintenance, which is not lacking sacrifice** on the altar, **even though** one **said:** It is incumbent **upon me,** one **does not bear** financial responsibility for it.


###### Chullin 139a:17
[Chullin 139a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/139a:17)

וְהָתְנַן: הָאוֹמֵר ״שׁוֹר זֶה עוֹלָה״, ״בַּיִת זֶה קׇרְבָּן״ – מֵת הַשּׁוֹר, נָפַל הַבַּיִת – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָן; ״שׁוֹר זֶה עָלַי עוֹלָה״, ״בַּיִת זֶה עָלַי קׇרְבָּן״ – מֵת הַשּׁוֹר וְנָפַל הַבַּיִת – חַיָּיב לְשַׁלֵּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **But didn’t we learn** in a mishna (*Arakhin* 20b) that in the case of **one who says: This bull** is consecrated as **a burnt offering, or: This house** is consecrated as **an offering,** and **the bull died** or **the house collapsed, he does not bear** financial **responsibility for them;** but in the case of one who says: It is incumbent **upon me** to give **this bull** as **a burnt offering, or:** It is incumbent **upon me** to give **this house** as **an offering,** if **the bull died** or **the house collapsed,** he is **obligated to pay** its value? Evidently, even with regard to items consecrated for Temple maintenance, if one says: It is incumbent upon me, one bears financial responsibility for them.


###### Chullin 139a:18
[Chullin 139a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/139a:18)

הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּמֵת הַשּׁוֹר וְנָפַל הַבַּיִת, חַיָּיב לְשַׁלֵּם, דְּלֵיתַנְהוּ, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּאִיתַנְהוּ, כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּאִיתֵיהּ בְּבֵי גַזָּא דְּרַחֲמָנָא אִיתֵיהּ, דִּכְתִיב ״לַה׳ הָאָרֶץ וּמְלוֹאָהּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: With regard to **this statement,** that if one says: It is incumbent upon me to give an item for Temple maintenance, he bears financial responsibility, that applies only **where the bull died or the house collapsed.** In such a case **he is obligated to pay, since they no** longer **exist. But where they** still **exist,** e.g., in the case of an item or sum of money that was lost or stolen, one applies the principle: **Wherever it is, it is in the treasury of the Merciful One, as it is written: “The earth is the Lord’s, and its fullness thereof.”**


###### Chullin 139a:19
[Chullin 139a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/139a:19)

אָמַר רַב הַמְנוּנָא: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים בַּעֲרָכִין, אַף עַל גַּב דְּאָמַר ״עָלַי״ – לָא מִיחַיַּיב. מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּלָא מִיתְּמַר לֵיהּ בְּלָא ״עָלַי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara above cited a dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish as to the *halakha* about one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring an item for Temple maintenance. With regard to this dispute, **Rav Hamnuna says: Everyone concedes with regard to valuations** that **even if one said:** It is incumbent **upon me** to donate my own valuation, and one set aside money that was then lost or stolen, one **does not bear** financial responsibility for it. **What is the reason** for this? It is **because it cannot be stated by him without** stating: **Upon me.** In other words, one cannot say: This is my valuation, since he has yet to accept upon himself any such obligation.


###### Chullin 139a:20
[Chullin 139a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/139a:20)

הֵיכִי לֵימָא? לֵימָא ״עֶרְכִּי״ – אַמַּאן? לֵימָא ״עֵרֶךְ פְּלוֹנִי״ – אַמַּאן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Therefore, although one says: It is incumbent upon me to donate my valuation, this is not considered an acceptance of financial responsibility. After all, **how shall he say** it without stating: It is incumbent upon me? **Shall he say** only: **My own valuation,** without: Is incumbent upon me? If so, **upon whom** is the obligation placed to pay the money? Or **shall he say** only: **The valuation of so-and-so?** Still, **upon whom** is the obligation placed to pay the money?


###### Chullin 139a:21
[Chullin 139a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/139a:21)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רָבָא: לֵימָא ״הֲרֵינִי בְּעֶרְכִּי״, ״הֲרֵינִי בְּעֵרֶךְ פְּלוֹנִי״! וְעוֹד, תַּנְיָא רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: ״וְנָתַן אֶת הָעֶרְכְּךָ בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא קֹדֶשׁ לַה׳״ – מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? לְפִי שֶׁמָּצִינוּ בְּהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת וּמַעַשְׂרוֹת שֶׁמִּתְחַלְּלִין עַל מָעוֹת שֶׁבַּחוּלִּין, נִגְנְבוּ אוֹ שֶׁאָבְדוּ – אֵינָן חַיָּיבִין בְּאַחְרָיוּתָן,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava objects to this: Let him say: I am** encumbered **with my own valuation,** or: **I am** encumbered **with the valuation of so-and-so.** One need not say: Is incumbent upon me. **Additionally, it is taught** in a *baraita* with regard to the redemption of a purchased field that was consecrated that **Rabbi Natan says** about the verse: “Then the priest shall reckon for him the worth of your valuation until the Jubilee Year, **and he shall give your valuation on that day, as a consecrated thing to the Lord”** (Leviticus 27:23): **Why** must **the verse state:** “And he shall give your valuation”? It could have stated simply: And he shall give it. It is necessary **because we have found with regard to consecrated** property **and tithes that they can be desacralized** by transferring their sanctity **onto non-sacred money,** and that if that money **was stolen or lost,** the owners **do not bear** financial **responsibility for it.**