On which the soul depends. [This comes] to exclude a hand or a leg upon which the soul does not depend, [e.g.,] if he said, “the worth of [his] hand or leg [is incumbent upon me],” it is as if he said nothing and he is absolved from making payment.

But rather, whether he is worth much or little. I.e., other items whose monetary value is dedicated to the Temple, where, if the donor said, “The money of so and so is on me,” we calculate according to the high or low value at that time. This dedication, however, is not so, but rather [it is calculated] according to his years written in this section.

And as to the doubling of the kof, I do not know. Re’m writes: This is surprising as in Toras Kohanim, cited in the first chapter of Erchin (4a), it explicitly says that this is a kaf of kinui [a pronominal suffix, “your value”): “It was taught in a Beraisa, בערכך, ’according to your value.’ One gives the value of a person’s whole body and one does not give the value of his limbs. Since you might think I exclude the value of a limb that the soul depends on, the verse says, ’souls.’.” We see that the meaning of בערכך is the value of one’s whole body and from this [word] they derived [that one] cannot [dedicate] not the value of part of him, and they [also] said, ‘not the value of his limbs’. So far are his words. I do not understand his difficulty with Rashi, since Rashi is writing about the other appearance of ערכך in the section where the explanation of our Sages is not applicable at all [since they derive it from the first mention of this word]. You cannot say that since one is for an exposition, for this reason the Torah wrote the rest as ערכך because of this even where this exposition of the Sages is not relevant at all., as Rashi thinks it this is a strained explanation.

An old man in the houseùa snare (פחא) in the house. Like the expression “a net (פח) that snares” (Tehillim 91:3). I.e., it is bad to have him in the house.

An old woman in the houseùa treasure (סימא) in the house. A good treasure. The Targum translates ומטמוני מסתרים, “secret hidden things” (Yeshayahu 45:3) as סימא דמטמרן.

“The foot of this [animal] is a burnt-offering,” his statement is binding. But not so regarding the evaluation of a person since we require something on which life depends, because it is written “souls” regarding a person. But here it is written “any of it that he will give,” to include whatever he dedicates as becomes dedicated.

An unblemished one for one which has a blemish. I.e., he may not give an undedicated unblemished animal in place of an already dedicated one which has a blemish. You might ask: How does Rashi know this? Perhaps the verse means according to its plain meaning, a fat one for a thin one? The answer is: We find elsewhere regarding sanctified animals that it is written רעand “blemish” is written next to it, indicating that wherever it says ‘bad’ regarding sanctified animals, it means a blemish. Because it is written in parshas Re’ey (Devarim 15:21), “And if it has a blemish, if it is crippled or blind, or has any severe (רע) blemish.”

And certainly (כל שכן) [the exchange of] good for good or bad for bad. You might ask: Why is this a כל שכן?” Perhaps one may only not change a bad undedicated [animal] for a good dedicated one, but if they are both good, this כל שכן does not indicate that it is forbidden? Also, why does the Torah need to write “a good one for a worse one”? This would be a כל שכן as even a bad one for a good one is forbidden? Also, why does Rashi explain “certainly good for good” when discussing “a bad one for a good one”? He should have explained this while discussing “a good one for a bad one”! The answer is: He means as follows. The verse certainly has to write “or a bad one for a good one” because of the end of the verse where it says, “If he did exchange, etc., then both it and its replacement shall be sacred.” This indicates that after the act they are both sacred. Therefore the Torah needs to write “a bad one for a better one” to include that even if one gives a bad one in exchange for something better that was dedicated, where one may have thought it does not become sanctified at all, the verse lets us know that if one made such an exchange it is holy, since the end of the verse refers to both cases. And now that even a blemished one exchanged for an unblemished one, the blemished one becomes sacred, so then exchanging an unblemished one for an unblemished one, will certainly become sacred since both are good. You might ask: Why does Rashi [also] mention “bad for bad”? The answer is that you might have said this only works if one exchanges good for good because the sanctity of the good one has the power to fall on its exchange. However, if one exchanged bad for bad you might have thought that the sanctity of the blemished animal does not have the power to fall [on its exchange]. So Rashi tells us [that it does], because it is also written “a good one for a bad one.” Analyze this. See Re’m who discusses this at length, asking many questions.

A blemished [animal]. Rashi’s proof of this is from the end of the section (verse 27) where it is written, “If it is of an unclean animal...” There one is has to say that it is speaking of an actual unclean animal, and it is connected to this verse [which speaks of exchanging animals for animals], as Rashi explains there. If so, this indicates that [here] it is speaking of a blemished animal (Re’m). Alternatively, Rashi derives this since it is written, “Which cannot be offered to Hashem.” This is superfluous as it is obvious that one cannot offer unclean animals to Hashem. Thus it teaches that the verse is speaking of a blemished animal.

For other people who come to buy it from Temple property. Rashi is answering the question: Initially it is written “As the kohein determines its value for you, so shall it be,” but then [in the next verse] it is written “If he will indeed redeem it he shall add on one fifth to its valuation”? Rashi answers: Here it is speaking of another person who comes to buy it, and there [in the next verse it is speaking] of owners who want to redeem it. Gur Aryeh explains: But [here it is not speaking of] the owners, because the owners [who redeem it] have to add a fifth. You might ask: Just because it belonged to him before [why does] he haves to add a fifth? The explanation is that because it was his before, he is more satisfied [when he purchases it back], as it states everywhere (e.g., Bava Metzia 93b), “The difference [between keeping one’s own animals or having to buy new ones] is that his animals are accustomed to work for their owner, [i.e., it is easier for the owner to work with such animals].” Explanation:, a person prefers his first animal. Therefore, he has to add, because it is worth more to him. And the same applies to one who sanctifies his house. However, we still need to understand, why a fifth. According to teachings of wisdom, a second is not considered an addition to one, and a third is not considered an addition to two, and a fourth is not considered an addition to three. This is because [only] a plane is considered a complete [entity] as it has four corners. Therefore, a fourth portion is not considered an addition. But a fifth portion is considered an addition because a complete item is four. Therefore, one has to add a fifth portion.

Not according to its worth. Explanation: “According to the measure of its seed” means according to the amount of seed he can sow in it. I.e., according to its size and not according to its worth, since if it is big enough to sow in it a chomer of seed, even if it is inferior, he has to give the amount written in the parsha.

According to this assessment mentioned shall it be. Explanation: Rashi substitutes the word יקום (established) with יהיה (it will be), because the verse is referring to the giving [of money], and not saying that the field should be established in the hand of the person who presently has it. And [because] the word יקום [generally] cannot be explained as “giving something,” Rashi explains that יקום means יהיה. Because this word (יהיה) can either be translated as meaning that it shall “it shall be established where it is” [i.e., יהיה can have the same meaning as יקום], or [it can mean] that “it shall be according to the amount he gives,” which is connected to giving.

And it remains in the possession of the [Temple] treasurer. Explanation: When the verse says, “The kohein shall calculate the money,” and that he does not give the whole fifty shekels, this is not only when the dedication was after the jubilee year. It also applies when the dedication was immediately after the jubilee year in a case where the redeemer only came to redeem it a few years after his dedication. The verse wrote one case and the same applies to someone who came a few years after his dedication.

A kalbon (small sum). I.e., an additional amount for each sela [acquired in exchange for smaller coins, because small coins are more valuable]. פרוטרוט is similar to the word פרוטה (the small perutah coin), i.e., small coins [lit. little by little].

That are from the jubilee year. Because it was in the hands of the Temple during those years, we count from [after] those years. Because the amount the redeemer must give is only according to number [of years] from the year of redemption until the jubilee year, when the redeemer eats its fruits. But not according to the number of years from the jubilee year until the year of redemption when he does not eat its fruits.

The Temple treasurer. Explanation: He is the seller and not the ‘one who dedicated’ mentioned above.

To return to. In the jubilee year.

From the possession of the one who bought it from the Temple treasury. Explanation: But not from possession of the Temple treasury, because we do not find anywhere that the Torah commands that the field leaves the possession of the Temple treasury at in the jubilee year, so how could it say, “When the field is then released...”?

Which is given to the kohanim. Because the expression “It becomes sacred to Hashem” is said in reference to the Temple upkeep and also in reference to the kohanim, Rashi now explains, “’Just as a field that was consecrated,’ which is given to the kohanim.”

Must be in holy shekolim. Rashi is answering the question: The verse implies that no valuation is less than a shekel, but this is not true since we assess him according to his means and leave him enough to live on, as said earlier (verse 8).

Twenty-four mo’oh to the sela. Because the sela is four dinar, and the dinar is six mo’oh. Thus there are twenty-four mo’oh to the sela.

This verse does not refer to ... Rather, the verse refers to... Gur Aryeh asks: Why does it interrupt between them, writing the parshah of dedication of a house and inherited field between them? Why does it not juxtapose [the exchanging of an] animal to [the exchanging of an] animal? The answer is that it is juxtaposed to the firstling as they are similar. There are things whose sanctity cannot be transferred such as the firstling of a clean animal, which cannot be sanctified for something else because it was born with the sanctity [of a firstling], and likewise, there are things born without the ability of attaining sanctity, such as an unclean animal, which is in itself unclean and cannot attain sanctity [i.e., it cannot be sanctified].

“He shall redeem it based on the valuation.” [Furthermore,] this [cannot] be a donkey. Because no unclean animals, except for the donkey, have a firstling law.

Unspecified consecrations belong to the Temple treasury. Meaning, to the Temple upkeep.

To the hand of the kohein. Explanation: After they reach the hand of the kohein they are completely unconsecrated in every way, and if one wants, one may buy them from the kohein and they are like absolutely unconsecrated items.

Dedications [dedicated] to the Highest may be redeemed. Explanation: Dedications to the Temple upkeep while still in his hand. The money goes to the Temple upkeep and the property becomes unconsecrated.

If a vow he gives their worth. Explanation: That he said “I am obligated (to bring an offering).” He is therefore liable for responsibility [to pay if the animal] is lost, and thus the dedication obligates him [to give its full value]. He has to give money equal to its value to a kohein, because dedicated items go to kohanim, and the animal is sacrificed on the altar because of his prior vow.

If a voluntary offering, he gives the worth of its benefit. That is, if he says, “This burnt-offering is dedicated.” He is thus not liable for responsibility [i.e., he is not liable to pay] if the animal got lost, and the dedication is only effective regarding the benefit he derives. That is, what another kohein would want to give this owner in order to delay this sacrifice and not sacrifice it until his watch arrives so that he can have its skin and the other items [a kohein can may take]. There used to be twenty-four watches. Each one took one week during which it sacrificed all the sacrifices and the watch of that each week took whatever the kohanim had a right to. [The person who dedicated a voluntary sacrifice gives] what another kohein would give the owner [of the sacrifice] to delay sacrificing this sacrifice until his watch arrives so that he can have the sacrifice’s skin and the other items. This is a small amount [of money] as the sacrifice might get lost and the kohein will get nothing. Because the owner is not liable for responsibility [if it gets lost], the owner who dedicated a voluntary offering only has to give this [small] amount to a kohein.

His [Canaanite] slaves or his Canaanite maidservants. Gur Aryeh explains: Because it says מאדם (lit. of a person), this implies only his Canaanite slaves and maidservants, but not his Hebrew slaves and maidservants.

If a person is going to be executed. But if his death verdict was not finalized, even if he was plagued with boils, one gives according to the rate of years. Rashi explains the verses out of order, first explaining “Everything that is dedicated is most holy,” and then going back and explaining “be it people (slave), or animal,” and then [moving forward again to verse 29 and] explaining “Any dedication that a man will dedicate.” This is because he wants to explain all the laws of dedication in order. [That is, he first explains the verse in general, “However, any dedication that a man will dedicate to Hashem from any of his belongings ... Everything that is dedicated is most holy, unto Hashem.” Afterwards, he explains the specifics of the verse, “Be it people, etc.] Because he explained “However, any dedication...,” saying that dedications to kohanim cannot be sold to someone else or redeemed by the owner himself [who dedicated it], but must [first] be given to the kohein, he concludes that this [dedication also] works for sacrifices that are most holy and for sacrifices of lesser degree, and he gives the money of the vow and the worth of its benefit of a voluntary offering to a kohein. And if something is dedicated to Hheaven [the Temple], one redeems it and gives its worth to the Temple upkeep, and it is not like a dedication to kohanim that one cannot redeem until it has reached the hand of a kohein. This is the explanation of “Everything that is dedicated is most holy.” Afterwards, Rashi goes back and explains the laws of [specific] dedicated items and explains מאדם (lit. from a man) but not every man; thus only one’s Canaanite slaves. “’Any dedication that a man will dedicate,’ If a person is going to be executed... behold, he is going to die... [and] he has no worth.”

Second tithe. Because here it is written is written “sacred to Hashem,” and regarding second tithe it is written (Devarim 26:13) “I have divested my estate of sacred material.” Thus we derive one from the other [through the common words] “sacred,” “sacred.” This excludes first tithe which is completely non-sacred as it is written (Bamidbar 18:27), “Your terumah-gift will be considered the same as grain from the granary.”

Grain. Since the verse is speaking of the second tithe, and pertaining to the second tithe it is written “grain,wine” so surely here “of the seed of the land “ [refers to] grain, wine and oil which are “of the seed of the land.”

And eat in Jerusalem. Not that it actually belongs to Hashem and would therefore be forbidden to benefit from.

And calves. Because this mitzvah only applies to cattle and the flock as it says, “tithes of cattle and the flock.”