Eruchin 8:6 - 8:7

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.