המקדיש. בשעה שאינה יובל – at the time when the Jubilee [year] is not in force/being observed.

פתח אתה ראשון – with how much [money] do you want to redeem it. And because of ample provision/ gain [for redemption of the field when Jubilee is not in force] for something dedicated/sanctified to the Temple, they ask him first and the owners add an additional fifth. And for this reason, it (i.e., the Mishnah) took the language of: “when the Jubilee is not in force,” for at the time when the Jubilee is in force, there is no need to ask him for how much he will redeem it, for its monetary values are determined: a Bet Kor (i.e., an area requiring a Kor of seed) for fifty shekel. But at the time when the Jubilee is not in force, such as after the tribe(s) of Reuven and Gad were exiled, they eliminated the Jubilee years as it is written (Leviticus 25:10): “you shall proclaim release throughout the land for all of its inhabitants,” at a time when all of its inhabitants are upon it (i.e., the land), but not at a time when they were exiled from its midst, for then it is redeemed at its worth.

שהבעלים נותנים את החומש – all the monies of its worth and one-fourth more. And Similarly, every “added fifth” that is mentioned in the Torah, it would be the principal and its added fifth part. But because of three things, we state to the owners: “You open/declare first,” one of them is that the owners add the fifth, as is taught in our Mishnah. And the second is that the commandment of redemption is with the master, as it is written (Leviticus 27:27): “if it is not redeemed, [it shall be sold at its assessment],” so we see that the commandment of redemption precedes that of selling (see Tractate Arakhin 27a). And the third is that he adds and gives for its redemption more than other people, for a person desires his measure of capacity, one sixth of a Se’ah.

איסר – eight pennies.

לא אמר זה אלא כביצה – that is to say, this was not what actually happened, for he didn’t say, “for an Issar,” but rather, “with an egg.” And the treasurer said to him: “It’s yours; it is yours for an egg.” But there is a dispute of the first Tanna/teacher and Rabbi Yossi, as the Rabbis hold that we don’t redeem something dedicated [to the Temple] for less than four pennies, in order that the added fifth will [also] be a penny. But Rabbi Yossi holds, we redeem something dedicated [to the Temple] for anything, and even though its added fifth is not worth the equivalent of a penny. But the Halakha is according to the first Tanna/teacher.

ממשכנין מנכסיו עד עשר וכו' (they exact a surety from his property for ten) – and these words are when they retracted one after the other. But if they retracted all of them together, they divide in thirds between them equally. How so. If the first said: “This is mine for ten,” and the second said: “[this is mine] for twenty” and the third said:” [this is mine] for twenty-four, and the second and third [individuals] retracted as one, they give it to the first [individual] for ten, and exact a surety from the property of the second for seven and from the property of the third for seven, and it is found, that what is given in dedication to the Temple collects twenty four. And similarly, if all three of them retracted as one (i.e., at the same time), and the object was sold from that which was dedicated to the Temple to all three, they exact a surety from the properties of each one of the three [individuals] seven Sela. And such is the manner forever.

אמר אחד הרי היא שלי בעשרים ואחת – after the owners stated: “for twenty.”

הבעלים נותנים – against their will twenty six, that to that one, they don’t give it to him, for since the owners said, “for twenty”, and the praise rose with the added fifth to twenty-five, but if they give it to him to this one “for twenty-one,” and it is found that it is dedicated to the Temple, he loses [money]. But the owners, against their will give that Selah that this one added to the principle and their twenty five, but on the Selah that this one adds, they do not add the added fifth.

אמר אחד בחמשה ועשרים הבעלים נותנים שלשים – against their will. But in the Gemara (Tractate Arakhin 27b) an objection is raised: Why do they force the owners? It is all right that until now, we obligate them for we are not able to give to this, for their principal is not like the principal and added fifth that the owners stated in the first clause [of the Mishnah], therefore, by force, we return it to the owners, and since we return it to them, we need to give the principal the way others estimated it and their added fifth. But now that one person said: “for twenty-five,” it should be given to that one, for their principal is like the principal plus the added fifth that the owners stated in the first clause, and let the owners say: “another comes in our place that wants to give twenty-five like us.” And he responds, as for example, that in the first clause, the owners say: “one penny more on the twenty-five Sela,” that their calculation of twenty-five and an added fifth arrives at the twenty-fiv and an penny, but if we give it to this one, there is a loss to the Sanctuary. Therefore, we return it to the owners against their will. But that it is not taught [in the Mishnah’s] first clause: “the owners say for twenty and a penny,” for regarding the pennies the Tanna/teacher [of the Mishnah] was not exact and he did not consider to teach it to them.

אם רצו הבעלים ליתן שלשים ואחד ודינר – as for example, that from the outset when the owners opened first [in bidding], they said: ‘for twenty-one Sela,” which is between the principal and the added fifth of twenty-six Sela and a Denar, for the Sela is four Denarim and the added fifth is one-quarter of the money as we have stated, and the valuation of this are five, which is thirty-one and a Denar.

הבעלים קודמין – for if we would give him this, he would cause a loss to the Sanctuary of a Denar from was stated by the owners in the first clause [of the Mishnah], therefore, we return them to the owners against their will.

ואם לאו – if the owners did not open first other than with twenty and, and this one (i.e., the potential buyer) states: “twenty-five.”

אומרים לזה הגיעתך – this is surely yours, and we don’t return it to the owners. Because the owners state: “Another came in our place that gives twenty five like us.” But it is taught in our Mishnah that the owners do not add a fifth other than if they opened first, and not on the valuation of that [other] person, these words apply where people did not make an estimation of he land like this other person stated, but if three people make an estimated it according to the words of that of, the owners add an increased fifth of valuation against their will. But all of our Mishnah does not speak other than with ancestral field when the Jubilee is no longer in force, as it is taught at the beginning of the chapter (Mishnah 1).

מחרים אדם מצאנו – from part of his sheep. He says: Behold, they are property set apart for the priest’s use,” and he gives them to the Kohen.

ואם החרים את כולן – that he did not leave for himself anything.

אינן מוחרמין – as it states in Scripture (Leviticus 27:28): “But of all that anyone owns, [be it man or beast or land of his holding, nothing that he has proscribed for the LORD may be sold or redeemed],” and from his ancestral land. "מכל אשר לו"/"but of all [that anyone] owns", these are the movable properties, but not all the movables." "מאדם/anyone – these are the his slaves and Canaanite maidservants, but not all of them. "משדה אחוזתו"/”from land of his holding” – but not all of it. But the Halakah is not according to Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah, but rather, ab initio, one should not dedicate all of it for priest’s or sacred use, but if he did dedicate it, the are considered dedicated for priestly and/or sacred use.

להיות חס על מכסיו – that he will not squander/give them away to a non-Kohen.

שאין אדם מחרים דבר שאינו שלו – for his daughter, assuming that he can sell her while she is a minor, he is not able to sell her when she is a young woman.

שהחרמים שלהם – as it is written (Numbers 18:14): “ Everything that has been proscribed in Israel shall be yours (see Leviticus 27:28 as well),” and since it is his (i.e., the Kohen’s) what benefit would there with this if he would devote it to priestly or sacred use, he himself has possession of it and he does not give it to another Kohen.

נראין דברי ר' יהודה (it appears that the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda is correct) – this is what he said: the words of Rabbi Yehuda appear correct to Rabbi Shimon, for Rabbi Shimon agrees with Rabbi Yehuda and holds like him regarding land/real estate. But Rabbi Shimon did not speak other than about movables, because the Levites do not have things that are devoted to priestly or sacred use. But Rabbi Yehuda holds that an analogy was made between movable things to an ancestral field, as it is written (Leviticus 27:28): “but of all that anyone owns, be it man or beast of land of his holding,” just as ancestral land the Levities do not devote to the Kohen or to sacred use, as it is written (Leviticus 25:34): “[But the unenclosed land about their cities cannot be sold,] for that is their holding for all time,” even movable properties, the Levities cannot devote to priestly or sacred use. But Rabbi Shimon does not make this analogy and since Rabbi [Judah the Prince] goes down to explain the matter of Rabbi Shimon in what he agrees with Rabbi Yehuda and in what he disputes him. We learn from it the Halakha is according to Rabbi Shimon.

חרמי כהנים – property set aside for priestly use that was dedicated to the priests in order to give it to the Kohanim.

אין להם פדיון – as it is written (Leviticus 27:28): “[nothing that he has proscribed to the LORD] may be sold or redeemed.” But that which is set aside for the repair of the Temple does have redemption, for it is with this intention that it was set aside, but this is not appropriate for the repair of the Temple other than money.

וחכמים אומרים סתם חרמים לכהנים (without further explanation) – and the Halakha is according to the Sages. But those who set aside movables at this time, and similarly those who set aside for priestly use land outside of the Land of Israel that their law is like that of movables in this matter, they give to the Priests. Ut he who sets aside things for the repair of the Temple in this time when there is no Temple redeems them ab initio for a small amount. And ab initio, he should not give less than four Zuzim or something near to this, but not the equivalent to a penny alone or something like this, for there is no publicity to the matter.

שהוא חל על קדשי קדשים – as will be explained further on (see Mishnah 7), “a person dedicates to the priest or to sacred purposes the things he declares holy.”

ואם נדר – if he said: “this burnt-offering will be upon me,” and he separated an animal for his vow and afterwards dedicated it to sacred purposes, but since he is liable for its guarantee/surety (i.e., property which may be resorted to in the event of non-payment) if it (i.e., the animal) died or was stolen, and it is found that it is, and he gives all of its monetary value to the Kohen, but he will offer the animal up as a sacrifice in fulfillment of his vow, for this certainly has redemption.

ואם נקבה היא – that he is not liable for its surety if it died, property set apart for the priest or sacred use do not take effect, for it is not his, but rather incidentally, its worth. And the worth that it has for him he gives to the Kohen. How so? “This bull will be a burnt-offering,” and he dedicated it to the priests or for sacred purposes, they estimate how much a person who is not liable for a burnt-offering wants to give if he would find a burnt-offering cheaply in order to offer a sacrificial gift to his Creator, and equivalent to those monies, he gives that, for this is the satisfaction that he feels in obligating someone with it. For if it had died or was stolen, he is not liable for the surety, and when he separated it [for this purpose], he had fulfilled its obligation, but from now, he does not destroy nor lose anything other than the fact that he did not offer a sacrificial gift to His creator.

שאין רשאי – that he is not obligated for [a burnt-offering]. The Aramaic translation of נושה/ (see Psalms 109: 11: “May his creditor/נושה seize all his possessions”) is רשיא /pressing creditor.

כיצד פודין אותו – that regarding the firstling, its body is not dedicated to the priest or to sacred purposes, for it is not his but rather belongs to the Kohen. But rather, they estimate, how much a person would wish to give to the owner when he gives his first-born animal to the son of his daughter who is a Kohen or to the son of his sister. And that worth is what he gives, that this owner will give It to the Kohen for the property set apart for the use by the Kohen or for Temple use. And especially, it (i.e., the Mishnah) took the words, “the son of his daughter or the son of his sister, who is a Kohen,” for whereas it was the Kohen himself, he would not be able to give the satisfaction one feels in obligating someone to the owner in order that he should give the firstling to him or to another Kohen, for since the firstling is fit for him, he appears like a Kohen who is assisting in the granary to thresh and to winnow in order that they will give him heave-offerings as his salary, and it is found that he does not take it according to the law of heave-offerings, but rather according to law of salary [as payment for labor performed].

כתוב אחד אומר תקדיש – regarding the firstling, it is written (Deuteronomy 15:19): “You shall consecrate [to the LORD your God] all male firstlings that are born [in your herd and in our flock: you must not work your firstling ox or shear your firstling sheep].”

וכתוב אחד אומר אל תקדיש –(Leviticus 27:26): “A firstling of animals, however, -which -as a firstling – is the LORD’s, cannot be consecrated by anybody; [whether ox or sheep, it is the LORD’s].”

הקדש עילוי (consecration by valuation: a pledge made to consecrate an article that is already sacred; a person is obligated to pay the amount one would be willing to pay to sacrifice that offering – but not necessarily the full value of the offering) – to offer up in money that he would give for the satisfaction one feels in obligating someone how much [money] that a person wishes to give to offer up a burnt-offering that he is not obligated for but rather in order to make a gift to his Creator.

ואי אתה מקדישו הקדש מזבח – that there will be there another [sacrifice] that will rest upon him. But the Rabbis who derive for them this exposition above (see Tractate Arakhin, Chapter 8, Mishnah 6): “from everything that is devoted to the priests or to sacred purposes are the most holy things,” [the words] "אל תקדיש" /”You will not sanctify” (Leviticus 27:26) is required for them as a negative commandment, for if one seizes it for the purposes of another sacrifices, he is violating a negative commandment, and [the word] "תקדיש"/”You shall sanctify” (Deuteronomy 15:19) they require to state that it is a commandment to sanctify it and to state this is holy for a first-born, and even though that of its own it is holy. But Rabbi Yishmael does not hold by this exposition. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.