Sifra 13.0.17

Bechukotai, Chapter 12

1) (Vayikra 27:27) ("And if [he wishes to redeem] an unclean beast [that he dedicated to Temple maintenance], then he shall redeem it according to your valuation, and he shall add its fifth upon it. And if it is not redeemed, then it shall be sold by your valuation.") "And if an unclean beast, then he shall redeem it according to your valuation." What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Vayikra 27:25) "according to the shekel of the sanctuary," I might think (that he can redeem) only with that. Whence do I derive for inclusion any movable object? From "then he shall redeem"; but on condition that he assesses (the object) monetarily (to coincide with the worth of the animal), e.g., if he said: "This garment for this ass," the latter becomes chullin (non-consecrated) and he must cover any arrears (between the worth of the animal and the worth of the garment).

2) "and he shall add its fifth upon it": So that it and the fifth make five (equal parts [as opposed to a fifth of the principal], i.e., he divides the principal by four and adds a fifth part [e.g., if the principal were twenty, he pays twenty-five]).

3) (Vayikra 27:28) ("But every 'devotion' (cherem) which a man shall devote to the L–rd, of all that he has, of man and beast, and of field of his holding, shall not be sold and shall not be redeemed; every devotion, holy of holies is it to the L–rd.") "of all that he has": and not all that he has. "of man": to include his Canaanite man-servant and maid-servant. — But perhaps, to include his Hebrew man-servant and maid-servant! It is, therefore, written "of" man" and not "every man." "of beast," and not "every beast." "and of field of his holding," and not a field of acquisition. I might think that if a man devoted all of them (to the Temple) they would remain devoted; it is, therefore, written "But" (to exclude this). R. Elazar b. Azaryah said: If a man is not permitted to devote (all) of his possessions (to the Temple), how much, then, must he be solicitous of his possessions!

4) "shall not be sold": to others. "and shall not be redeemed": by the owner. What shall he do with it? (Vayikra 27:21) "To the Cohein (of that watch) shall be his holding." I might think (that this is so) even if he stipulated "to the L–rd." It is, therefore, written "every devotion, holy of holies is it to the L–rd" (i.e., if he stipulates "to the L–rd" it reverts not to the Cohein but to Temple maintenance).

5) R. Yehudah b. Betheirah says: Whence is it derived that unspecified "devotions" go to Temple maintenance? From "every devotion, holy of holies is it to the L–rd." I might think, even if he specified "to the Cohein"; it is, therefore, written "it ([i.e., unspecified] to the L–rd").

6) Whence is it derived that one can "devote" his consecrations (i.e., that (the term) "cherem" can "take" upon his consecrations to the Cohein)? From "cherem holy." Whence is it derived that "cherem" can "take" upon his consecration of holy of holies? From "every cherem holy of holies." I might think that Cohanim and Levites can make "devotions"; it is, therefore, written "But" (to exclude this). These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Shimon says: Cohanim do not "devote," for devotions revert to them. Levites can "devote," for devotions do not revert to them. Rebbi says: The words of R. Yehudah (that Cohanim and Levites cannot "devote") seem correct in respect to land, it being written (Vayikra 25:34) "for it (i.e., their land) is a perpetual holding for them" (and cannot be consecrated). And the words of R. Shimon (that Levites can "devote") seem correct in respect to movable objects, for devotions do not revert to them.

7) (Vayikra 27:29) "Every cherem which is devoted of man shall not be redeemed, (for) he is to die." Whence is it derived that if one awaiting execution said: "My value upon me" (to give to the Temple), he has said nothing? From (He is) "cherem ['condemned'] … he shall not be redeemed." This tells me only of (those who are guilty) of severe capital offenses, (where unwitting perpetration is not susceptible of atonement.) Whence do I derive (the same for) lesser capital offenses (where unwitting perpetration is susceptible of atonement)? From "Every cherem … shall not be redeemed." I might think that this is so (even) before his verdict has been pronounced. It is, therefore, written "which is devoted 'of man' (connoting one whose verdict has been pronounced) shall not be redeemed," and not one whose verdict has not been pronounced.

8) R. Chananiah b. Akavya said: He is valuated (ne'erach) because his worth (i.e., the worth of one who is valuated) is fixed (by Scripture), but he cannot be made the subject of a vow (nidar) because his worth is not fixed by Scripture. R. Yossi says: He can vow and valuate and consecrate, and if he damages, he is liable for payment.

9) (Vayikra 27:30) ("And all the ma'aser [tithes] of the earth, of the seed of the earth, or the fruit of the tree, it is the L–rd's; it is holy to the L–rd.") "the seed of the earth": to include (the seed of) garlic, onycha, and berries. I might think to include the seed of turnips, radishes, and other garden seeds which are not eaten; it is, therefore, written "of the seed of the earth," and not all of the seed of the earth. "of the fruit of the tree": to include all the fruit of the tree. I might (also) think to include the carobs of Shikmah and Tzalmonah and those of Giridah, (which are of inferior quality); it is, therefore, written "of the fruit of the tree," and not all the fruit of the tree. Whence do we derive the inclusion of vegetables for ma'aser? From "And all the ma'aser." I might think that Scripture is speaking of two tithes (ma'aser rishon and ma'aser sheni); it is, therefore, written "it (is the L–rd's"). What is mentioned there (in the section of ma'aser (Devarim 14:22-23), (namely, ma'aser sheni), is the same as "it" mentioned here. What is missing here is mentioned there.

10) (Vayikra 27:31) ("And if redeem, will redeem, a man of his ma'aser, its fifth shall he add upon it.") "redeem, will redeem": to include his wife. "and if redeem will redeem": to include his heir. "a man": to exclude a minor. I might think to include one who is nine years and one day (and above); it is, therefore, written "and if redeem will redeem, a man." "of his ma'aser": and not all of his ma'aser — to exclude (from redemption) ma'aser which was brought into Jerusalem and then taken out. (Once it was in Jerusalem, the mitzvah of eating it in Jerusalem devolved upon it, and it can no longer be redeemed), and to exclude (from redemption, ma'aser) which does not have (in itself or in the fifth) the value of a perutah. "shall he add upon it": so that it and its fifth are five (equal parts. See 2) above).

11) (Vayikra 27:32) ("And all ma'aser of cattle and sheep, all that shall pass under the staff, the tenth shall be holy to the L–rd.") Whence is it derived that one does not tithe from cattle for sheep, and not from sheep for cattle? From "And all the ma'aser of cattle and sheep."

12) I might think that one may not tithe from lambs for goats; and it would follow a fortiori, viz.: If new (animals, those born before Elul) and old (those born after Elul), which are not kilayim ("a forbidden admixture") one with the other, may not be tithed one for the other, then lambs and goats, which are kilayim one with the other — how much more so should they not be tithed one for the other! It is, therefore, written "and sheep," implying that all sheep-like animals are one (for purposes of tithing).

13) A kal vachomer (a fortiori argument) that new and old may be tithed one for the other: If lambs and goats, which are kilayim one with the other, may be tithed one for the other, then new and old, which are not kilayim one with the other — how much more so may they be tithed one for the other! It is, therefore, written (Devarim 14:22) "Tithe shall you tithe … year by year" — It is forbidden to tithe from one year for the other.