diff --git "a/txt/Mishnah/Rishonim on Mishnah/Bartenura/Seder Kodashim/Bartenura on Mishnah Arakhin/English/merged.txt" "b/txt/Mishnah/Rishonim on Mishnah/Bartenura/Seder Kodashim/Bartenura on Mishnah Arakhin/English/merged.txt"
new file mode 100644--- /dev/null
+++ "b/txt/Mishnah/Rishonim on Mishnah/Bartenura/Seder Kodashim/Bartenura on Mishnah Arakhin/English/merged.txt"
@@ -0,0 +1,459 @@
+Bartenura on Mishnah Arakhin
+ברטנורא על משנה ערכין
+merged
+https://www.sefaria.org/Bartenura_on_Mishnah_Arakhin
+This file contains merged sections from the following text versions:
+-Bartenura on Mishnah, trans. by Rabbi Robert Alpert, 2020
+-https://www.sefaria.org/texts
+
+Bartenura on Mishnah Arakhin
+
+
+
+Chapter 1
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+הכל מעריכין (dedicate the value of a person or of an animal unfit for the altar) – "הכל" /everyone includes a male who is thirteen years and one day old who did not bring forth two [pubic] hairs, that he dedicates the value of a person or of an animal unfit for the altar, or he is a minor one year before he (or she) reaches majority/adulthood [if it can be shown that the child understood the nature of the vow] (which is based upon Numbers 6:2: “If anyone, man or woman כי יפלא/explicitly utters a Nazirite’s vow to set himself apart for the LORD”), and he is called מופלא/uttering a distinct vow because they examine him if he knows how to utter a vow distinctly and to explain in the name of Whom he made the vow, and in the name of whom he dedicated [to the altar]. And even though it is written (Leviticus 27:2): “[Speak to the Israelite people and say to them:] When anyone explicitly vows/"איש כי יפלא נדר בערכך" [to the LORD the equivalent for a human being],” when he is near his period of maturity/adulthood, he is called a man (i.e., an adult) in this matter. And [the word] "הכל"/everyone that also refers to [the individual who is] the subject of the valuation, including someone disfigured/disgraced and/or afflicted with boils, who is not worth anything [financially]. For you might think that I would say that a vow of assessment of a person or animal dedicated to the sanctuary, as it is written (Leviticus 27:2 -see above), he whose person has a value, can vow the value of a person or an animal, but he whose person has no value cannot (see Tractate Arakhin 2a), which comes to tell us that [the word] "הכל"/everyone that refers to those entitled to dedicate, because it is taken for being dedicated, and those being dedicated is necessary [to teach] to include those who are younger than a month old, which can be dedicated [for a sacrifice] even though they are not the subject of valuation.
+מעריכין – if a person said about someone, “I vow the value of so-and-so,” he gives the value of that individual according to his years as it is determined in the [Torah] portion of valuations, as the vow of value is regulated by the condition of the person whose value is vowed.
+ונערכין – if another person said about him, “the value of this individual is upon me” or he said himself, “I vow my own value,” (see Talmud Arakhin 7b).
+נודרין – if he said: “the monetary value of so-and-so is upon me,” he must give according to what is appropriate to be sold in the marketplace.
+ונידרין – another person said regarding him: “the monetary value of so-and-so is upon me,” or he himself said: “the monetary value is upon me.”
+כהנים ולוים – it was necessary for him (i.e., the teacher of this Mishnah) to teach us that they (Kohanim and Levites) are valuated, for you might think that I would say, since it is written (Leviticus 27:8): “[But if one cannot afford the equivalent,] he shall be presented before the priest, and the priest shall assess him,” an Israelite comes before a Kohen but not a Kohen before a Kohen, therefore, a Kohen is not [personally involved] in valuation, for if he is poor, we do not call upon him: “he shall be presented before the priest,” it comes to tell us that Kohanim are included in the laws of Arakhin/valuation, and since it teaches Kohanim [in the Mishnah], it also teaches Levites and Israelites [in the Mishnah].
+נשים ועבדים – that the woman pays when she becomes a widow or when she becomes a widow or when she becomes a divorcee, whereas the slave [pays] when he is freed.
+טומטום ואנדרוגינוס נודרים ונידרים – for behold they have monetary value.
+ומעריכין –(pledge the valuation/dedicate the value of a person or an animal unfit for the altar) – of others, if they said, “the valuation of so-and-so is upon me,” they give the valuation of that individual.
+אבל לא נערכין – if he said: “my value is upon me,” or another person said about them: “the value of so-and-so is upon me” (regarding someone who is of doubtful sexual traits or exhibits traits of both sexes), he did not say anything, for a male and a female are mentioned In the [Torah] portion of Arakhin/valuation, until he will be a real male or [she] a real female.
+פחות מבן חודש נידר – if [another] person said: “his monetary value is upon me,” because he is worth something fiscally.
+אבל לא נערך – for the word ערך/valuation is not mentioned in this [Torah] portion other than with something from one month old and beyond.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+הנכרי ר' מאי�� אומר נערך – two Biblical verses are written in the [Torah] portion of Arakhin/valuation – one is an amplification and the other is a restriction. The words "בני ישראל" /Israelites (see Leviticus 27:2), excludes heathen. [The words] "איש כי יפלא"/When anyone explicitly vows, amplifies/expands upon "כל איש"/every person, and even a heathen [is included] by implication. Rabbi Meir holds that a heathen is subject to the pledge of Valuation [by others] but does not pledge the Valuation [of others], for we found that Scripture amplified those who are subject to the pledge of Valuation by others more than pledging the Valuation of others, for a deaf-mute, imbecile and a minor are subject to the pledge of Valuation by others, but they do not pledge the Valuation of others, therefore, it is sufficient that the restriction is for those who pledge the Valuation of others and the amplification is for those subject to the pledge of Valuation by others.
+ר' יהודה אומר נכרי מעריך ואינו נערך – for we have found that a person who is of doubtful sexual traits and a person who exhibits elements of both sexes pledge the Valuation [of others] but are not subject to the pledge of Valuation by others. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda. Therefore, a heathen who said: “the value of this Israelite person is upon me is liable to give according to the years of the determined value in the [Torah] portion [of Arakhin]. But an Israelite who said: “the value of this particular heathen is upon me,” or a heathen who said, “my value is upon me,” did not say anything.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+הגוסס – is not subject to the vow [of payment of their worth to another], for he stands to be dead.
+ולא נערך – as it is written (Leviticus 27:8): “he shall be presented…and [the priest] shall assess him,” but this one (i.e., the person at the point of death) is presentable nor assessable.
+והיוצא ליהרג – that the proceedings [of his trial] are finished (i.e., the sentence has been pronounced) in an Israelite court. But if he goes to be killed at the hands of the [heathen] kingdom, it does not matter whether it is a kingdom of Israelites or a kingdom of heathens, everyone holds that he pledges the Valuation [of others] and he is subject to the Valuation [by others].
+לא נידר – that he is not worth anything [monetarily].
+ולא נערך – as it is written (Leviticus 27:29): “No human being who has been proscribed can be ransomed; [he shall be put to death].”But Rabbi Haninah ben Akaviah who stated that he is subject to the Valuation [of others], maintains this Biblical verse (Leviticus 27:29): “No human being who has been proscribed” for a different exposition.
+ר' יוסי אומר כו' – Rabbi Yossi and the first Tanna/teacher do not disagree regarding a person who takes a vow and makes an assessment and who sanctifies. But they disagree if it caused damaged. The first Tanna/teacher holds, if it caused damage, it is exempt from payment/indemnity. For even if the one who causes damage is liable for indemnity/payment from the Torah, a loan that is written about in the Torah is not equivalent to something written in a document, but it is an oral loan. And an oral loan does not collect from the heirs. But Rabbi Yossi holds, that the loan that is written in the Torah is equivalent to a loan written in a document and he collects from the heirs. But the Halakha is according to the first Tanna/teacher. But after they have established that an oral loan collects from the heir, the Jewish court collects his money and they pay for what he has damaged.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+אין ממתינין לה עד שתלד – for you might have thought that offspring, the monies belong to the husband, as it is written (Exodus 21:22): “the one responsible shall be fined according to the woman’s husband may exact from him.” But we don’t cause him to lose, as it comes to teach us as it is written (Deuteronomy 22:22): “both of them – the man and the woman with whom he lay – shall die,” also including the offspring.
+ישבה על המשבר – it is the place of sitting for the woman in labor is called משבר/the travailing stool.
+ממתינין לה עד שתלד – for since it (i.e., the fetus) is uprooted/removed to depart, it is another body and is not like the body of the mother.
+נהנין בשערה – it is not an actual hair that is stated, but rather a wig that she had from the hair of another woman tied to her hair. And especially when she said [to them]: “Give it to my daughter or to so-and-so (i.e., another woman), for since she said, “Give it,” she revealed her intention that it is not appropriate for her that it would be like her body to prohibit it, and when it is taken from a living person it is similar. But for another matter, it is prohibited, for the strangeness of the dead is prohibited to derive benefit from it.
+בהמה שנהרגה אסורה בהנאה – even its hair.
+
+Chapter 2
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+אין בערכין פחות מסלע (there is no [amount of money] in Valuations less than a Sela)- even if a poor person who made a valuation (i.e., dedicated the value of a person or of an animal unfit for the altar) and he doesn’t have the means/he cannot afford, he is not judged for less than a Sela, as it is written (Leviticus 27:25): “All assessments shall be by the sanctuary weight, [the shekel being twenty gerahs],” all the valuations that you dedicate shall not be less than a shekel.
+ולא יותר על חמשים – that this is the largest of the valuations that are written in the [Torah] portion [of Arakhin].
+נתן סלע והעשיר – someone twenty-years old whose valuation is fifty [Sela] but he was poor and gave a Selah for his valuation, for a poor person is judged by his financial means, and if he became rich, he is exempt.
+פחות מסלע – he gave less than a Sela.
+והעשיר he gives fifty [Sela]. For the first giving did not fulfill his obligation of his valuation, and his valuation was still upon him [to fulfill].
+היה בידיו חמש סלעים – a poor person twenty-years of age who valuated himself, and he had five Selas.
+רבי מאיר אומר אינו נותן אלא אחת – for Rabbi Meir held that he should give all of the fifty [Sela] that is upon him or he doesn’t give anything but a Shekel.
+וחכמים אומרים נותן כל מהש שבידו – for the Biblical verse as it is written (Leviticus 27:25): “All assessments shall be made by the sanctuary weight,” to the least of the valuations he comes, for even if he is the poorest of the poor, he doesn’t give less. However, where he has more, he gives, as it is written (Leviticus 27:8): “according to what [the vower] can afford.” And the Halakha is according to the Sages.
+אין פתח בטועה פחות משבעה (there is no [re] opening for a woman who misses count [of her period] less than seven days) – since it (i.e., our Mishnah) speaks that there is nothing less in valuation and nothing more, it also teaches in the Mishnah for all things that have no less and no more.
+פתח – the beginning of menstruant women/Niddot. That the law of the menstruant woman is from the Torah, if she began and saw it (i.e., menstrual blood) today, she counts six [days] and that day. If she saw it (i.e., menstrual blood) two days, she counts five [days] and those [two days]. If she saw it (i.e., menstrual blood) three [days], she counts four [days] and those [three days]. [And even] if she saw it (i.e., menstrual blood] all seven [days] and it stopped by the evening, she immerses [in a Mikveh] and she has conjugal relations. But from the seventh day and further they are the days of protracted menstruation/vaginal bleeding/Y’mei Zivah [which are] eleven days, for if she saw it (i.e., menstrual blood) on them one day or two days, she observes a day for day [without blood flow before she immerses in the ritual bath to regain ritual purity], and if she saw it (i.e., vaginal bleeding) for three consecutive days, she is a woman who experienced a flow of menstrual-type blood that requires seven clean days and a sacrificial offering. But if the days of her seeing a flow of menstrual-type blood over a month or [even] a year, she does not return to the beginning of the menstruant women until she sits seven clean days. But when she has sat seven clean [days] and saw it, that is the beginning of her menstrual period and she counts six [days] and it (i.e., that day), and returns to her matters as everything has been explained. But if she did not see on those eleven days three consecutive days [of menstrual-type blood], she is not a Zavah/a woman who experiences a flow of menstrual-type blood on three consecutive days during a time of the month when she is not due to experience menstrual bleeding. But if she sees it (i.e., menstrual blood) after them, whether she sees it whether adjacent to or whether she has been distanced from it, it is the beginning of the menstrual cycle of a menstruant woman. Even if she sees it (i.e., blood) for three consecutive [days], she does not count other than four [days] and those [three days], for the days of Zivah/days of protracted vaginal bleeding are not other than those eleven days that are between the end of this menstrual period to the beginning of the next menstrual cycle.
+אין פתח בטועה פחות משבעה – an [errant] woman [who misses count] [that she saw it (i.e., blood)] today and does not know if it she is standing in the days of her menstrual period or , or in those eleven days of the days of vaginal blood flow, she does not return to the opening of her menstrual cycle with less than seven clean days and not more than seventeen clean [days]. How so? If she was errant when she said one day: “I saw ritual impurity today,” and she doesn’t know if it is the period of her menstrual cycle and she needs to count six [days] and it (i.e., that day), [or] if in those eleven days, and she doesn’t need to observe a day for a day (i.e., wait until only one day has passed, a day for a day, without blood flow before she immerses herself in a ritual bath to regain ritual purity), if is less than seventeen, that if she didn’t see it (i.e., blood) until after the seventh day other than this day, she returns to the opening of her menstrual cycle. For if this day that she first saw it (i.e., blood) were the days of vaginal flow, because he eleven days were finished, the days of vaginal flow were completed and her observation of it (i.e., blood) was distanced that she did not see it until after seventeen days, and it is the beginning of her menstrual period. But even if she would say that this day is the beginning of her menstrual period, nevertheless, she left from the days of her vaginal flow at the end of seventeen days except for this day. But if she saw it (i.e., blood) on the seventeenth day, she did not leave from doubt if this is the day of her menstrual period or the day of her vaginal flow, for one could say that perhaps this day that she saw it (i.e., blood) first were the days of her menstrual period, and the seventeenth day that she saw it (i.e., blood) was the end of the eleven days between one menstrual period to another menstrual period, or perhaps the first day of the days of vaginal flow, and when the eleven days are completed, she has left from the days of flux , and the seventh day on which she saw it was the beginning of her menstrual period. And all the more so, if she saw it (i.e., blood) prior to the seventeenth day, that she did not depart from doubt. And all the while that she is in this doubt, she is disgraced, for always we will be strict upon her [status] from doubt. For when she sees it (i.e., blood) one day, it will be said that it is the beginning of her menstrual period and requires six [days] and it. And if she sees it (i.e., blood) on three consecutive days, it will be said that they are the days of vaginal flow and that she requires seven clean [days] and a sacrificial offering, but after seventeen days, one cannot be stringent, for it is certainly the beginning of her menstrual period and even if she should see [blood] on three consecutive days, she should count four [days] and those [three] and she immerses in a ritual bath and is ritually pure.
+אין בנגעים פחות משבוע אחד – for there are in the plagues that afflict a human that are made evident for one week if to [declare] ritually pure or to declare a person a leper.
+ולא יותר על שלשה שבועות – the plagues that afflict houses, as is taught in a Baraita in Torat Kohanim (i.e., the Sifra – also see Tractate Negaim, Chapter 3, Mishnah 8): from where do we know that if he stood unaltered during the first week, and during the second week, that he tears out [the leprous stone] and scrape [the wall] and plaster and he gives him the third week, as the inference teaches us (Leviticus 14:44,48): “The priest shall come to examine….if however, the priest comes [and sees that the plague has not spread in the house after the house was replastered].”
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+אין פוחתין מארבעה חדשים מעוברות – of thirty days for the year. For we don’t make more than eight months as defective/deficient (i.e., that they have only 29 days). But eight deficient ones we make [in the calendar].
+ולא נראה יותר על שמונה – meaning to say, and it doesn’t appear to the Sages to complement a month by assigning to it an additional day for more than eight months. For the “renewal” of the moon (i.e., the time that the moon takes to go around the planet earth between each beginning of the moon’s first quarter) is twenty-nine and one-half days and two-thirds of an hour and seventy-three parts (i.e., 793/1080 parts). For every two months has fifty-nine days, one month from twenty-nine days and one month from thirty days. The month of twenty-nine [days] is defective/deficient, and the month of thirty [days] is called full or “pregnant.” And according to law, it was that all of the months of the year, one would be “full,” and the other would be “deficient,” but because of the difference of the two-thirds by an hour and seventy-three parts, that there are in each and every month, sometimes, it is necessary to make eight months from the year as full and four deficient, and sometimes eight months are deficient and four are full/complete.
+אין פחות משנים – to the second day of their being baked.
+ולא יותר על שלשה – and on the third day of their being baked, they are consumed, but not beyond that. How so? If the Festival of Atzeret/Shavuot occurs on Sunday, they are baked on Friday, for their baking does not supersede neither the Sabbath nor the Festival, and they are consumed after they are waved, that is, on the third day. But when Atzeret/Shavuot occurs on the rest of the days of the week, they are baked on the eve of the Festival and consumed on the Festival which is the second [day] from their being baked.
+לחם פנים נאכל אין פחות מתשעה – which is baked on the Eve of the Sabbath (i.e., Friday) and eaten on the next Sabbath which is nine days from their being baked. If the two Festival days of Rosh Hashanah occur on Thursday and Friday of that week, they bake the shewbread on the Wednesday of that week, and arrange it on the table on Shabbat, but it is eaten on the second Shabbat which is the eleventh day from their having been baked.
+ולא יותר על שנים עשר – How so? If a male child is born at twilight of the Eve of the Sabbath (i.e., late afternoon on Friday just prior to the onset of the Sabbath), he is not circumcised on the Sabbath (of the next week), for perhaps it might be the ninth day (instead of the eighth day). For the twilight period is doubtfully day and doubtfully night. But if it is day, it would mean that the Sabbath is the ninth day, but circumcision that is not at its appropriate time does not supersede either the Sabbath or the Festival Dy. But if the two Festival Days of Rosh Hashanah occurred after that Sabbath, he is not circumcised until Tuesday, which is twelve days from his birth.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+אין פוחתין מעשרים ואחת תקיעות במקדש (see parallel Mishnah with this information in Tractate Sukkah, Chapter 5, Mishnah 5) - in the Tractate Sukkah, Chapter “HeKhalil”/The Flute [53b] they are explained. But it is taught in the Mishnah: “But they do not sound more than forty-eight,” not exactly, for sometimes, they add up until seventy-five blasts of the Shofar when the eve of Passover falls/occurs on Shabbat, and because it is not all that frequent, it is not considered.
+אין פוחתין משני נבלים – for two Levites [when they sing over the sacrifice].
+ולא מוסיפין על ששה – but the reason is not given.
+חלילין – a kind of musical instrument whose sound can be heard from afar, TZALAMILISH in the foreign tongue and MIZMORI in Arabic.
+ולא מוסיפין על שנים עשר – corresponding to the twelve days in the year when the flute strikes them (figuratively – it means, “plays”) before the Altar. But the language of "מכה"/strikes – is a play on the word חליל/flute which is made with holes and one strikes the holes with one’s finger to make a pleasing sound.
+בשחיטת הפסח – on the fourteenth day of Nisan when they would recite the Hallel (i.e., Psalms 113-118) at the time of the slaughter of the Passover [offering], as is stated in the chapter, “The Daily Offering is slaughtered” (Chapter 5 of Tractate Pesahim) [84b].
+אבוב (brass flute) – the thin reed that is at the head/top of the flute, and in the Gemara (Tractate Arakhin 10b) it proves that the flute itself is called an אבוב /thin reed.
+שקולו ערב (its sound is sweet) – when it is of a reed, more so than that of copper/bronze. And specifically a flute that one strikes before the Altar on a sacrifice that supersedes the Sabbath, and all the more so, the Festival. But the flute of the ceremony of the drawing of water did not supersede neither the Sabbath nor the Festival, as is proven in [Tractate] Sukkah in the chapter "החליל"/The Flute (see Tractate Sukkah, Chapter 5, Mishnah 1/50a).
+לא היה מחליק אלא באבוב יחידי (none but flute solo was used for closing a tune, because it makes a pleasant finale – see Talmud Arakhin 10a) – when he would reach the conclusion of the tune, one of the flutes would lengthen his playing after the others had completed, and this is a pleasant closing more than if both of them would conclude as one (see Talmud Arakhin 10b). And חילוק/closing a tune softly is the conclusion of producing the sound of a melody/tune, and at the time of the offering [of the sacrifice] there was this song, and the Levites would sing with their mouth the Hallel (Psalms 113-118) in those twelve days, and the flutes would be playing. But on the rest of the days, they would praise [God] with cymbals and harps. But the song that the Levites would recite in the Temple on the first day [of the week] (Psalm 24): The earth is the LORD’s and its fullness,” and all of the Psalm, on the second day [of the week] (Psalm 48): “Great is the LORD and highly to be praised,” and similarly all of them (see also Tractate Tamid, Chapter 7, Mishnah 4).
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+ועבדי כהנים היו – those who would play the flute, for Rabbi Meir felt that they do not promote one from the Dukhan (i.e., the platform upon which the Levites stood during the singing of Psalms) to noble families (i.e., free from any taint of illegitimacy) and not to the enjoyment of tithes (i.e., if they are Levites they are not only privileged to marry into Israel’s noble families, but also, a more practical benefit, to obtain the tithe which a member of that tribe is entitled to receive from the average Jew). Therefore, it is does not matter to us if they were slaves.
+בית הפגרים בית צפריא – names of noble families.
+ומאמאום – name of a place.
+ומשיאין לכהונה – Kohanim would marry their daughters, that were from noble families of Israel. But Rabbi Yossi held that they promote one from the platform to noble families, therefore, if they were not noble families, he would not let them continue to play on the Dukhan.
+רבי חנניא בן אנטינוס אומר לוים היו – Rabbi Hananiah ben Antigonos holds that they promote one from the platform to the enjoyment of tithes, therefore, they were Levites. But they don’t dispute other than regarding those who play the musical instruments, but regarding singing by mouth, everyone agrees that only the Levites sing songs by mouth over the offering of sacrifices, as it is written (Deuteronomy 18:7): “He may serve in the name of the LORD his God [like all his fellow Levites who are there in attendance before the LORD],” what is service which is in the name of the LORD? He would say, this is the song. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yossi.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+אין פוחתין מששה טלאים המבוקרים (there are no less than six inspected lambs) – this Tanna/teacher holds that lambs of the daily burnt-offering require examination from blemish four days prior to their slaughter, similar to the Passover offering of Egypt, that was taken from the tenth [of Nisan] and its slaughter was on the fourteenth, for we derive (Numbers 28:2): "מועדו"/”at stated times,” that is stated in the daily offerings: “Be punctilious in presenting to Me at stated times [the offerings of food due Me],” from [the word] "מועדו"/at its set time, that is stated (Numbers 9:2): “[Let the Israelite people offer] the Passover sacrifice at its set time.” Therefore, prior to the day of inauguration [as a common priest] is four days of examination of eight lambs and we place them in the chamber of lambs, and on the day of inauguration, we take two for daily burnt-offerings and here remains there six inspected lambs, and after that, prior to the night, we examine two and place them there. And because that those are not yet at the time of the taking up of the two, they are not considered. And always, we take two and give two, an those two that we give, we take them on the fifth day of their being given.
+כדי לשת ושני ימים טובים של ראש השנה – he took a general sign, for just as that if Shabbat and two Festival days of Rosh Hashanah fall together I was necessary to advance and to examine this lamb for Shabbat on the Eve of the Sabbath, for he was not able prior to that day to go and to request a lamb and to examine it, for that is taking four days prior to slaughter, here also we always require four days prior to slaughter.
+ומוסיפין עד לעולם – if they wanted to add examined lambs in the chamber of the lambs, they add according to as they will want.
+משתי חצוצרות – when they sounds the trumpets, there are no less than two.
+ומוסיפין עד לעולם – But in the Gemara (Tractate Arakhin 13b – quoting Rav Zabdi in the name of Rav Huna) until one-hundred and twenty, as it states (II Chronicles 5:12): “and with them were one-hundred and twenty priests who blew the trumpets.”
+והצלצל לבד – one cymbal was there and no more. For it states in Scripture (First Chronicles 16:5): “And Asaph sounding the cymbals” (note: the Hebrew in the verse is slightly different – ואסף במצלתים להשמיע in the Bartenura – than what is found in the Bible: ואסף במצלתים משמיע ). But even though the word מצלתים is written in a plural form, because they are two wide pieces of metal that strike each other, but however, it is one occupation/trade that he is performing (i.e., playing the cymbals, with one set of utensils), for one of them does not work without its partner, and one person plays them.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+אין פוחתין משנים עשר לוים – nine [Levites] for the nine lutes/citherns and two [Levites] for the two lyres and one for the cymbals.
+דוכן – a kind of balcony/portico that the Levites stand upon it.
+אין קטן נכנס – no minor Levite enters into the Temple courtyard for any Divine service, as for example, to sweep the Temple courtyard or to close the doors.
+אלא בשעה שהלוים עומדים – on the Dukhan in song or the minor Levites enter to sing with them.
+ולא היו – those minors sing with a lyre and lute/cithern, but only by mouth.
+כדי ליתן תבל – to give spices to the chanting of the Levites, because the voice of the children is thin and clear and spices up the voice of the adults.
+לא עולין – those minors. למנין – of the twelve Levites that are need for the Dukhan.
+ואין עולין – on the balcony/portico that is prepared for the Dukhan. But rather they stand on the ground.
+וצוערי הלוים היו נקראים – that they cause pain to the adult Levites, for they are not able to make fragrant and to sweeten their voices like they can.
+
+Chapter 3
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+יש בערכין להקל ולהחמיר וכו' – all of them are explained further on in our chapter.
+את הנאה שבישראל – even if he is worth one-hundred Maneh, he does not give other than fifty Selah, and that is rule leniently. And to rule stringently, that a person pledges the valuation of the ugliest among the Israelites, even that he is not worth anything other than five Selah. He gives fifty Selah if the person being valuated is between the ages of twenty and sixty.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+בחולת המחוז – around the city. That which is not all that praiseworthy because of the treading of the feet.
+חולות – surrounding [of a town] (Jastrow defines this as the “sand-plain of the Mahoz (district of Semaria). Like (Tractate Kilayim, Chapter 4, Mishnah 2): “the outer space of the vineyard”/מחול הכרם.
+מחוז – a city. Another explanation of מחוז – name of a place where its fields are not important.
+פרדסאות (pleasure gardens) – a place where there are a lot of gardens planted.
+סבסטי – name of a place. And the trees there are very exalted.
+
+בית זרע חומר שעורים בחמשים שקל כסף (see Leviticus 27:16: “[If anyone consecrates to the LORD any land that he holds,] its assessment shall be in accordance with its seed requirement: fifty shekels of silver to a HOMER of barley seed.”) If it is the beginning of the Jubilee cycle. But if not, he deducts from the years that have passed a Selah and a Pundiyon (i.e. 16 Perutah or 2 Issar) per year. [For every part of a field that suffices for] the vowing of a HOMER of barley, a place that is appropriate for sowing a KOR, that is thirty SEAH of barley, and it is larger than the place of sowing a KOR of wheat. But the person who dedicates the field of possession that is filled with trees, when he redeems them , he deems the trees at their worth, and then returns and redeems the land, its assessment shall be in accordance with its seed requirement: fifty shekels of silver to a HOMER of barley seed.
+ובשדה מקנה נותן את שויו – for in a field which he has bought, it is written (Leviticus 27:23): “The priest shall compute for him the proportionate assessment [up to the jubilee year, and he shall pay the assessment as of that day,” but the proportionate assessment is not other than the number of coins, which are according to what it is worth, and similar, it (i.e., the Torah) states (Numbers 31:28): “You shall exact a levy [for the LORD: in the case of the warriors who engaged in the campaign, one item in five hundred, of persons, oxen, asses, and sheep].”
+אחד שדה אחוזה ואחד שדה מקנה – for it is stated [in the Torah] regarding the ancestral field/field of possession (Leviticus 27:18): “the priest shall compute,” and regarding the acquired field it is stated (Leviticus 27:23): “the priest shall compute for him [the proportionate assessment up to the jubilee year],” just as regarding an ancestral field it is a fixed amount, so also, it is a fixed amount for an acquired field, “which is fifty shekels of silver [for every part of a field that suffices for] the sowing of a HOMER of barley” (see Leviticus 27:16 -and Tractate Arakhin, Chapter 7, Mishnah 1).
+ובשדה מקנה אינו נותן חומש – that regarding an acquired field, it is written (Leviticus 27:23): “[the priest shall compute for him] the proportionate assessment [up to the jubilee year],” Scripture makes an analogy to valuation/Arakhin, just as regarding valuation, one does not include an added fifth, even with regard to an acquired field, one does not add a fifth. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eliezer.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+המית בן חורין נותן את שוויו – as it is written (Exodus 21:30): “If ransom is laid upon him, he must pay whatever is laid upon him to redeem his life,” the fee for the one who suffered damage.
+חבל בזה ובזה – whether on a slave or a free person, and he did not kill him, he pays full damages.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+פגם – they estimate how much a person wants to give whether for a virgin maid-servant or a maid-servant who has already had sexual relations to marry her off to his male servant that he has gratification/satisfaction from.
+לפי המבייש ומהתבייש – a disgraced person who is bashful, and the one upon whom the indignity is inflicted, according to the importance of his embarrassment (see also Tractate Ketubot, Chapter 3, Mishnah 7).
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+נמצא האומר בפיו יתר מן העושה מעשה – the person who says: “I did not find her to be a virgin” gives/pays [a fine of] one-hundred [shekel] and he rapist [and seducer] who reveals her virginity through an action gives fifty [shekel].
+גזר דין – to not enter into the Land [of Israel].
+זה עשר פעמים – this is written regarding the Spies (Numbers 14:22), that implies that their legal sentence was sealed on this (i.e., the evil report that they shared about the Promised Land when they returned from their forty-day spy mission).
+
+Chapter 4
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+השג יד-בנודר (the law regulating the payment of certain vows according to one’s means – Leviticus 27:8) -the teaching of the law regulating the payment of certain vows according to one’s means, that the poor person is judged in Valuation according to his means/wealth, for we follow after the person making the vow, and not after the person about whom the vow is taken, as will be explained further on (see Mishnah 4 of this chapter) and as we learned in Tractate Arakhin, Chapter 2, Mishnah 1, the valuation is no less than a Sela).
+והשנים בנידר – a young child that made a valuation of the value of an old person gives the valuation of the old person, and we don’t follow after the years of the person who is making the vow. And the Tanna/teacher who calls the one dedicating the value of the person [or of an animal unfit for the altar] the one making a vow, as he took the language of Scripture, as it is written (Leviticus 27:8): “and the priest shall assess hm according to what the vower can afford.” And since it (i.e., the Mishnah) stated, “[the estimate of] ability to pay [is made in accordance with the status of] the one who vows, it (i.e., the Mishnah) also stated, [the estimate of the] the years [of age is made in accord with the status of] the one [whose Valuation] is vowed.
+והערכים בנערך (the vows of value are regulated by the condition of the person whose value is vowed) - the determination of the valuation of a male and a female, we follow after that of the one who is the subject of Valuation, as it will be explained further on (see Mishnah 4 of this chapter).
+והערך בזמן הערך – as it is explained further on (Mishnah 2), for if he made a valuation of himself when he was less than twenty-years of age, which is the valuation of a minor, and prior to his giving it, he was twenty-years of age, he does not give other than at the time of the valuation.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+אומר אני אף בערכין כן – if it happens by chance, even with Valuations is similar to sacrifices, then it is like sacrifices, But it was stated [in this Mishnah] that Valuations are not like Sacrifices, because they are not similar one with the other, and for what reason does a poor person who dedicated the value of a rich person, gives the value of a poor person because of the law regarding the payment of certain vows according to one’s [own] means, because the rich person is not liable for anything, and not the monetary value of the Metzorah/leper. But this [individual] who spoke regarding the rich person, did not intend other than according to the measurement of the years of the rich individual which are less or more than his own years. Therefore, he is judged according to his own means/wealth, but the rich person who said: “My value is upon me,” that he is liable for a complete/full value, similar to the [wealthy] leper and the poor person heard it and said, “What that person that this upon me,” he gives the value of a rich person. This is the reading.
+היה עני והעשיר או עשיר והעני משלם ערך עשיר – if he was poor and became rich prior to giving [the valuation money], he pays the value of a rich person, for the All-Merciful one said (Leviticus 27:8): “according to what the vower can afford,” for it is in regard to one’s wealth/means. Rich and the poor [alike] also according to one’s means of the person who vows, is written (see the verse mentioned above), for he had the means at the time that he made the vow.
+רבי יהודה אומר אפילו עני והעשיר וחזר והעני נותן ערך עשיר – as it is written (Leviticus 27:8): “But if one cannot afford the equivalent,” until it will be that he must have remained in his impoverished condition from the beginning to the end of the proceedings (see Talmud Arakhin 17b). But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+אפילו אביו מת – at the time when this person is obligated for a sacrifice, his father is on his deathbed and about to die, and he (i.e., the father) died and he inherited from him ten-thousand before he brought his sacrifice, he does not bring anything other than the sacrifice of an impoverished person, just as he was at the time that he became obligated for a sacrifice.
+ספינתו בים – not that his ship was lade from his business-dealings with ten-thousand, for if so, he is rich. But rather, that his ship was rented out to others with ten-thousand as payment, and he lacks anything in his hand other than that ship. But because of the payment, he is not rich, for the rent is not completely paid other than at the end, and it is found that now he is a poor person. But, because of the ship itself, he is a poor person, for this Tanna/teacher [of the Mishnah] holds like one who says further on (see Talmud Arakhin 17b-18a) that if the person making the Valuation was a donkey-driver, the Kohen gives him his donkey and he doesn’t give it to be dedicated to the Temple, but if he was a farmer, he leaves for him the yoke/pair of working animals tied to the yoke which is his income. And so too, he leaves him his ship.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+ילד – (who pledged the valuation of an elder) from age twenty until age sixty, for his value is fifty Shekel.
+נותן כזמן הערך – as it is written (Leviticus 27:17): “[If he consecrates his land as of the jubilee year,] its assessment stands,” he does not give other than according to the time of the valuation.
+יום שלשים כלמטה – if he stated that the valuation of so-and-so a minor child is upon me, and that minor was on that day was thirty [days old], it is like it is below that, and he did not say anything, for there is no valuation for less than a month [old], and thus it is written (Leviticus 27:6): “If the age is from one month [to five years, the equivalent for a male is five shekels of silver, and the equivalent for a female is three shekels of silver].”
+מבן ששים שנה ומעלה – implying that the sixtieth year was completed, and then he is judged like someone sixty [years old], but in the sixtieth year, he is judged as a child.
+הן אם עשינו – in astonishment. Meaning to say, and if this the case, if we made the sixtieth [year] like it is lower than this to be stringent for a valuation of an adult one should lessen from athe age of sixty for fifty Sela, but for someone older than age sixty, it is not other than fifteen [Sela].
+כלמטה ממנה להקל – that the valuation is more for someone who is twenty years old, an adult who is a less than twenty years, old, and similarly, with someone who is five [years old]. As it is written in Biblical verses.
+רבי אליעזר אומר (the foregoing applies so long as they are a month and a day more than the years [which are prescribed]) - Always the fifth year and the twentieth year and the sixtieth year are like less than that age. That we derive from an analogy comparing from the usage of the word "למעלה" and "למעלה". It is stated here (Leviticus 27:7): “If the age is sixty years or over/מבן-ששים שנה ומעלה, [the equivalent is fifteen shekels in the case of a male and ten shekels for a female],” and it is stated (Numbers 18:16): “Take as their redemption price from the age of one month up/ופדויו מבן חודש ומעלה [the money equivalent of five shekels by the sanctuary weight which is twenty gerahs],” just as there it is it is one month and one day, for a firstling is not redeemed any younger than from one month and one day, so even here, until he adds on to the sixty months and one day. And the fifth year and the twentieth year we derive from an analogy – שנה שנה /a year, a year (see the Mishnah), from the sixtieth year, as the first Tanna/teacher derives above, but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eliezer.
+
+Chapter 5
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+האומר משקלי עלי כו', אם כסף כסף – if he specified silver, he gives his weight in silver, but if he specified gold, he gives his weight in gold. But surely it comes to tell us that if he didn’t specify, but rather stated merely, “my weight is upon me,” he exempted himself from anything, as long as there will be a thing that is similar to it that is ordinarily weighed in that place. And even pitch/tar and even onions and the people of the place are accustomed to sell them by weight, and one of the people of that place said merely: “my weight is incumbent on me [as a pledge to the Temple]” but did not specify, he gives his weight in pitch/tar or in onions and is further exempt.
+ומעשה באמה של ירמטיה – It explains in the Gemara (Tractate Arakhin 19a) that our Mishnah is deficient and should be read as follows, and if he is a prominent person, even though he has not expressly stated, we estimate in accordance with his honor, and it happened with the mother of the Yirmatia, a woman whose name was such, that said, “I vow the weight of my daughter,” and she went up to Jerusalem and weighed her, and then she paid her weight in gold, because she was estimated in wealth.
+משקל ידי עלי – how does he weigh his hand, for if he wants he makes it heavy and if he wants, he makes it lighter?
+ומכניסה עד מרפקו (pokes his hand in up to his elbow) – KUDO in the foreign tongue, because in vows one follows the language of human beings and at tht time, they would call the hand from the arm to the elbow, and when one places one’s hand into the jar filled with water, the water that is in the jar will spill out according to the place of the hand that one entered into it until the elbow (i.e., the water is displaced), and he goes back and places the flesh, sinews and bones of a donkey, for the weight of the flesh of a donkey is like the weight of the flesh of a human being, and there will be in that flesh sinews and bones according what is in the hand [of a human being] for the weight of the bones and sinews is not equivalent to the weight of the flesh, and he places into it until it returns and is filled up like it was, for now there is volume like the measurement of his hand, and he weighs the flesh and these sinews and this is the weight of his hand.
+היאך אפשר לכוין בשר כנגד בשר – for perhaps here is in the flesh of a donkey that place that he places into the jar more sinews and bones from what is in the hand [of a human being] or less, and it is found that the weight is not equivalent. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yossi.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+וכמה הוא שוה בלא יד – it explains in the Gemara (Tractate Arakhin 19b – see Rashi, s.v. אומד של נזקין), that we don’t valuate/estimate how beautiful when his hand is cut off and how much he would be worth when his hands are whole. For a person whose hand was cut off, when they come to valuate him how much he would be worth at first, they don’t valuate him other than cheaply, because we view him as despised, for this person who says: “the price of my hand is incumbent upon me,” his hand was not cut off. Therefore, it (i.e., the Gemara) explains how much he is worth without a hand, as for example, if his master sold all of him except for his hand, for his one hands is recorded/levied to his first master and we estimate how much he is worth when his master sells all of him and does not leave anything of him to himself. And how much less he is worth if his master left his one hand without selling it, for now he is not despised. And such he gives to the sanctity of the Temple.
+זה חומר בנדרם מבערכין – for whereas, if he said in valuation , that the value of my hand and/or my foot is upon me, he did not say anything, unless he said it with regard to which life depends.
+ערכי עלי ומת יתנו היורשים – the value of something that is determined/clearly defined. But specifically when he stood in judgment prior to his death, because he is not liable for a valuation until after he stands before the Kohen, as it is written (Leviticus 27:8): “he shall be pesented before the priest.” But my price is incumbent upon me, which is not other than what the Jewish court will estimate him, and behold he doesn’t come to that for he has died, even though he stood in judgment, he is lacking an approximate assessment, and the heirs do not pay it.
+נותן ערך כולו – for it is written (Leviticus 27:2): “the equivalent for human being.”
+זה הכלל – to include the rest of the limbs on which life depends.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+חציי עלי – it would be like the valuation of my head and the valuation of my liver, for it is something upon which his life depends upon.
+דמי חציי עלי נותן דמי כולו – as it is written (Leviticus 27:2): “explicitly vows [to the LORD] the equivalent for a human being,” an analogy is made between a vow and a valuation, just as regarding a valuation, if he said: “the valuation of half of me is incumbent on me,” he pays the whole of his valuation, so also that of a vow if he said: “the price of half of me is incumbent on me,” he pays the whole of his price.
+זה הכלל – to include all of he limbs upon which his life depends, for if he said: “half of the price of that limb is upon me, as for example, that he said: “half of he price of my heart is upon me,” or the price of half of my liver is upon me, he gives the price of all of it.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+מת הנודר והנידר יתנו היורשים – and he that stood in judgement before he died, as was explained above, but the ending clause is necessary: “The price of so-and-so is incumbent upon me,” if the person taking the vow dies, the heirs will give the money, for you might have thought that even though that he stood in judgment, since the person making the vow died prior to making an estimate/valuation of the one whom the vow was about, his possessions are not mortgaged, for it comes to tell us that an approximate assessment/assessment by sight is a revealing a general thing, for since the person about whom the vow is taken lives, we assess him.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+בית זה קרבן – for keeping the Temple in repair.
+ונפל הבית – prior to the treasurer [of the Temple] grabbed hold of him.
+מת השור וכו' חייב לשלם – and we don’t say that there are no funds for the deed, other than for a human alone.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+ממשכנין אותן (exact pledges from them) – the treasurer enters into their homes and takes it against their will.
+חייבי חטאות ואשמות – since it is for atonement that came, they do not procrastinate [in providing the sin-offering or guilt offering] , and they do not exact pledges from them. But the sin-offering of the Nazirite, since it does not come for atonement, and does not prevent him from drinking wine, for since the blood of one of the sacrifices was sprinkled, the Nazirite is permitted to drink wine and to become defiled to the dead, on occasion that he acted negligently and delayed, therefore we exact the pledge on his sin-offering.
+חייבי עולות ושלמים – even though the burnt-offering atones for [violation of] a positive commandment and for a prohibition that after its violation is transformed into a positive commandment, since the negative commandment is not an obligation, it is not considered as an atonement and one can delay performing it, therefore, we exact a pledge from them. But there are those liable for burnt-offerings where we don’t exact a pledge from them, as for example the burnt-offering of a leper, because it delays his purification and it does not come to delay him.
+כופין אותו עד שיאמר רוצה אני – where that the Jewish court exacts a pledge from him, he must state: “I want to do it.”
+וכן אתה אומר בגטי נשים – whomever his judgement is that they force him to divorce [his wife], the Jewish court of Israel beats him until he says: “I want [to do it] (i.e., divorce his wife), and he gives [her] the Jewish bill of divorce and it is appropriate (see also Tractate Ketubot, Chapter 7, Mishnah 10).
+
+Chapter 6
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+שום היתומים –([the proclamation of the sale of goods of] orphans evaluated [by the court to meet the father’s debt]) – a Jewish court that goes down into the property of orphans to sell them to cause to be collected to the creditor, we estimate the property/land and announce it thirty consecutive days one after another: “all who wish to take it should come and take.” But if they wanted, they announce for sixty days every Monday and Thursday, and this is more preferable. For even though that they considered every Monday and Thursday that are part of the sixty days from the beginning of the second day of the first public announcement, they did not find other than eighteen days; nevertheless, this is preferable since the matter drags on/stretches a lot more than they know and hear about.
+ושום הקדש – a person who dedicates an acquired field [to the Temple] which is redeemed with money according to what it is worth.
+בבוקר ובערב – at the time when the workers go out [to work] and at the time when they go home. For if there those who desire to sell it, he tells the workers at the time they go out [to work]: “See for me a particular field if it is nice,” and at the time when they go home, when he hears the public announcement, he recalls and goes and asks them. But when they make the announcement, they say: “This particular field – that such-and-such are its signs/marks [of identification], such and such are its pathways, such is how it makes grain and such the Jewish court has provided an estimate of it. And if they sell it for the [payment of] the Ketubah of his wife, they state: “The purchaser will buy it on the condition that he (i.e., the seller) will give the monies for the Ketubah of his wife.” But if they sell it for the creditor, they state: “On the condition that he gives the monies to the creditor.” Because there is a purchaser that it is pleasant for him to purchase it in order to pay the woman that he married bit by bit, and there is a case where it is more pleasant for him to pay the creditor who takes defective and broken Zuzim (i.e., coins), for it is not the manner of merchants to be so exacting in this. But even though we hold that the Jewish court does not require the property of orphans to sell them, and here (i.e., in this Mishnah) it is taught that “[the proclamation of the sale of goods of] orphans evaluated [by the court to meet the father’s debt] is thirty days,” that implies that the Jewish court does sell the property of orphans. But we state that only for three things does the Jewish court need to sell the property of orphans: a heathen creditor that their father owed him, and that interest [payments] eat up [their settlement], and on the Ketubah of a wife because there is ample provision for the orphans when she collects her Ketubah/marital settlement, for all the while that she didn’t collect her Ketubah settlement she has provisions/alimentation from the orphans; once she collects her Ketubah settlement, she no longer has alimentation. And on a debt that their father admitted to/acknowledged at the time of his death that someone has [a claim] of a Maneh, or that the Jewish court excommunicated him on this debt and he died in his being excommunicated, or that the time had not yet arrived at the time of his death for repayment of the debt, for a person does not act in the midst of its time, and when the Jewish court needs the property of the orphans for these things, they appoint for them an administrator (or guardian) and they sell it through public announcement, as is taught in our Mishnah. But these words apply with regard to land, but regarding movables, now that we hold that movables of orphans can be mortgaged to a creditor, the creditor needs to take an oath and collect his lien from the movables and there is no need for public announcement, for we don’t make public announcements on either slaves nor on documents nor on movable properties.
+ידירנה הנאה – with the knowledge of the many a vow that has no releasing/loosening [from the vow], so that he will never return her [as his wife] ever, for perhaps through a subtlety, he divorces her in order that she can collect her Ketubah settlement from that which was dedicated to the Temple.
+קנוניא (a conspiracy to defraud and divide the profits) – a subtlety.
+ר' יהושע אומר אינו צריך – Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua do not disagree here if a person performs a conspiracy on something dedicated to the Temple to defraud and divide the profits or not, both of them admit regarding a person that is on his deathbed, that always, he would not perform a conspiracy on something dedicated to the Temple, for a person does not sin regarding something that is not his. But regarding someone healthy, they both admit that he does make a conspiracy on something dedicated to the Temple. What they do disagree on is on a question [to a Sage] of dedication of something to the Temple for Rabbi Eliezer holds that they do not appear before a Sage regarding a question of dedicating something to the Temple, and even if he states to the Sage that it was not for this purpose that he vowed and the dedication to the Temple is in error, even so, the Sage cannot release his vow, for Rabbi Eliezer holds that a dedication done to the Temple in error is a valid dedication, and because this person making a dedication cannot find a Sage who will release him, he performs this conspiracy. But Rabbi Yehoshua holds that they do appear before a Sage regarding someone who dedicates something to the Temple [who wants to be released] for he states that it was not for that purpose that I made the vow and I errored, they release him, for something dedicated to the Temple in error is not a dedication to the Temple. Therefore, he does not have to take a vow [against] deriving any benefit, for if it was for making a conspiracy that he did it, he would come [before a Sage] to be absolved of his vow and he would not have to divorce her. And he Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehoshua.
+הערב לאשה בכתובתה – and the husband lacks property and needs a guarantor to pay off her Ketubah settlement. The guarantor should not pay her Ketubah settlement until the husband first makes her take a vow that he will not be able to take her back [as his wife]. For we suspect lest it is his intention to take her back and to consume her Ketubah settlement after she collects it from the guarantor. And the legal decision in the law of the guarantor of the Ketubah is explained at the end of [Tractate] Bava Batra [Chapter 10, Mishnah 7].
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+והיתה עליו כתובת אשה – as for example that the divorce of his wife preceded the dedication of property to the Temple, for now there is no conspiracy to defraud and divide the profits (see Tractate Arakhin 23a).
+אלא הפודה פודה – her husband redeems them from the property of the Temple cheaply for a small amount in order to pay the woman her Ketubah settlement, for certainly the dedication to the Temple does not take effect on them, for they are not his. And this is a small amount, as a decree, lest they say that what is dedicated to the Temple goes out to become unconsecrated without redemption.
+הקדיש תשעים והיה חובה מאה – even though his liability is larger than that which he dedicated to the Temple, we don’t say that it was not the intention that these possessions would be borrowed but rather he is completely believed therefore he did not collect that which was dedicated to the Temple. But we state that it was the intention that these possessions were borrowed, and he collected from them. And up to how much? Up to one half. But if the possessions that he dedicated to the Temple are not worth half of the liability, he does not collect from them, for it was not with the intention of these properties that he borrowed, for a person is not used to purchasing land for more than double than it is worth.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+ממשכנין אותן (as a follow up to Tractate Arakhin, Chapter 5, Mishnah 6) – a treasurer enters into their homes and takes [the surety/pledge] against their will.
+מזון וכסו ומטה סנדלים ותפילין – on all of hem they leave over for him money to purchase them if he lacks them, as it is written (Leviticus 27:8): “But if one cannot afford the equivalent, [he shall be presented before the priest, and the priest shall assess him,” and the Rabbis expound upon this Biblical verse thusly: “but if one cannot afford/ואם מך “ – it will be made that he will remain, that he would have existence/stability (הויה ) and support/livelihood (חיות ), “the equivalent/מערכך “- from the money of the valuation. And this implies that he has existence and livelihood from the money of the valuation, but not for his wife and not for his children.
+מכל מין ומין – from all of the trades/skilled labors that require four or five utensils.
+מעצדים (adze) -DULDORA in the foreign tongue, that smoothens/levels the face of the board/tablet.
+מגירה (saw/plane) – a kind of long knife filled with notches, And the language is Biblical,משור/saw (see Isaiah 10:15: “[Does an ax boast over him who hews with it] or a saw magnify itself above him who wields it/אם-יתגדל המשור על מניפו ,” SIGA in the foreign tongue.
+צמדו – the yoke of cattle. For they are the utensils of his trade/craft, but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eliezer that the yoke of cattle and a donkey are property, and are not considered utensils of a craft/trade.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+מין אחד מרובה ומין אחד מועט – as for example, three adzes and one saw.
+נותנים לו שנים מן המרובה – and the third the treasurer takes.
+וכל שיש לו מן המועט – they leave for him and we don’t sell him another. For in order that it is sufficient for him until now with this, now also it will be sufficient for him. For you might have thought that until now there were people that would lend him, because he had one kind of utensil to lend him another, now that the treasurer took from the abundant [tools], there is no found who would lend him [another], therefore, we will sell him another, it comes to tell us that this is incorrect (see Talmud Arakhin 24a).
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+אין לו בכסות אשתו ובניו – because these properties are not his.
+שצבען לשמן – for the sake of his wife and children.
+לא בסנדלים חדשים – it comes to teach us something remarkable for even though that they still had not worn them (i.e., the shoes), they are he time of their purchasing/acquiring them.
+אע"פ שאמרו עבדים נמכרים בכסותן לשבח – their nice raiment/clothing praises and raises their monetary value, as for example regarding the possessions of orphans, that if clothing worth thirty Denar should be acquired by a slave, he should ameliorate it by a Maneh on the monetary value that it is worth currently.
+לאטליס – to the market day.
+לכרך – that it is the manner of merchants to come there and purchase pearls at an expensive price.
+אין להקדש אלא מקומו – regarding a pearl.
+ושעתו – regarding a slave, as it is written (Leviticus 27:23): “and he shall pay the assessment as of that day,” that he not delay it. “a sacred donation to the LORD” (ibid.), implying that everything that is a sacred donation to the LORD, such as mere donations to the Sanctuary, which are for the repair of the Temple, all of them should be given on that day immediately, so that he would not delay them. And the reason is, as Maimonides wrote (in his commentary to the Mishnah), that sometimes when they come delay [their sale] in order to increase their value, but [in actuality] they come to a loss in value, and for this reason, also, one does not profit from that which is dedicated to the Temple.
+
+Chapter 7
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+אין מקדישין – an ancestral field.
+פחות משתי שנים (less than two years before the Jubilee year) – as it is written, regarding one who dedicates an ancestral field (Leviticus 27:18): “[the priest shall compute the price] according to the years that are left [until the jubilee year],” and [the word] שנים/years is not les than two. A person who dedicates his ancestral field in the first year of the jubilee and comes to redeem it, gives fifty Sela for an area requiring a KOR of seed, as it is written (Leviticus 27:16): “fifty shekels of silver to a HOMER of barley seed, etc.” But if he dedicated it ten or twenty years after the Jubilee year, we calculate the remaining years until the coming Jubilee year, and he gives a SELAH and a PUNDIYON for each year, as it is written (Leviticus 27:18): “But if he consecrates his land after the jubilee, the priest shall compute the price according to the years that are left [until the jubilee year], and its assessment shall be reduced,” that is, the deduction [from the price of redemption according to the years of redemption] that he doesn’t give fifty complete [years]. But a person who dedicates [his field] two years before the Jubilee [year], he redeems it for two SELA and two PUNDIYONIM, as it is written (Leviticus 27:18): “according to the years that are left”, and such is the accountability which goes up of the redemption of the ancestral field for each year a SELA and a PUNDIYO, for if he dedicated it in the first year after the Jubilee he would redeem it for fifty shekel, deduct from them the forty-nine coming years until the next Jubilee forty-nine shekel, it is found a Sela for each year and an additional Sela, and this additional Sela is divided into PUNDIYONIM, for in each SELA there are forty- eight PUNDIYONIM, therefore a SELA and a PUNDIYON for each year less a PUNDIYON. And just as they required him to give a SELA and a PUNDIYON for each year, for forty-nine years – forty-nine SELA and forty-nine PUNDIYONIM, and there is here one additional PUNDIYON more than the fifty shekel that the Torah mentioned, that PUNDIYON is agio (an addition) to the units (making fifty, as a round sum, instead of forty-eight – see Tractate Bekhorot 50a), meaning to say for the customary addition weight in retailing that he must give for each and every shekel on its own. Alternatively, even though the Selah is not other than forty-eight Pundiyonot, he is required to give forty nine, which is a Selah and a Pundiyon for forty-nine years, because one who gives Pundiyonim to purchase a Sela from the money-changer gives forty- nine Pundiyonim, and that is an agio (an addition) to the units (making fifty, as a round sum, instead of forty-eight. And the person who dedicates his ancestral field less than two years prior to the Jubilee year, there isn’t deduction from the price of redemption according to the years of possession (see Tractate Arakhin 24a), but if he comes to redeem it, he gives fifty complete [shekels], for concerning deduction, it is written (Leviticus 27:18): “according to the years that are left until the jubilee, and its assessment shall be so reduced,” and the minimum of שנים/years is two years. And it is good advice that our Mishnah teaches us that a person should have consideration for his possessions (see Tractate Negaim, Chapter 12, Mishnah 5) and not dedicate them [to the Temple] less than two years [from the Jubilee year] and not lose forty-eight Sela.
+ולא גואלין אחר היובל – and not after the Jubilee, it is stating near the Jubilee [year], but this “after” refers to even after twenty or thirty years. And this is what it says: A person who comes to redeem [his field] in the middle of the Jubilee and to give a Sela and a Pundiyon for the coming years, and he would stand in Nisan, which is the middle of the year, he should not say: “I give half-a-Sela and half-a-Pundiyon from this year, but rather, he gives a complete Sela and Pundiyon. And that is why it (i.e., the Mishnah) states, “They do not redeem it less than a year after the Jubilee”, for as long as the entire year did not go out, he does not deduct anything at all and he does give a redemption fee for half-a year- but rather a full year’s redemption fee. And what is the reason? Because we don’t calculate months with the Dedication to the Temple. A person who comes to redeem his field five and one-half years before the Jubilee [year], we don’t calculate them as six months that had passed from the sixth year, but rather, he gives six Sela and six Pundiyonim, as it is written (Leviticus 27:18): “the priest shall compute the price according to the years that are left,” years – you calculate, but you don’t calculate months, meaning to say, all that which remains is considered years, to make remaining month a year, but you don not calculate the months that passed, to deduct from the Shekel and Pundiyon for them.
+אבל הקדש מחשב חדשים – meaning to say, if it is interval of dedication to the Temple, that we calculate it through the passing of the half year that passed, as for example, that a person sanctifies to the Temple in the half of the forty-eighth year of the Jubilee, for if you calculated for that passage, it would be less than two years before the Jubilee and we don’t redeem for a deduction from the price of the redemption according to the years of possession with due deduction other than for fifty years. But if you say that we don’t calculate the months that passed, we have here two years prior to the Jubilee, and there is loss to that which is dedicated to the Temple that he did not give other than two Sela and two Pundiyonim, here certainly we calculate them according to the complete passage of time, and there aren’t two years before the Jubilee [year], but we don’t redeem for a deduction from the price of the redemption other than for fifty shekels, as it is written (Leviticus 27:18): “the priest shall compute the price,” nonetheless.
+בשעת היובל – at the time when the Jubilee is in vogue. But at the time when the Jubilee is not in vogue, he redeems it according to its value like the rest of the things dedicated to the Temple.
+זרע חמר שעורים – a place where he is able to sow a KOR of barley when they sow with the quantity of seed which it takes when throwing with the hand and with an intermediate sowing, not that the seed should be pressed together greatly or spread out and dispersed a great deal.
+נקעים עמוקים וכו' (cavities that are ten handbreadths deep) – and that they would be filled with water that are not appropriate for sowing, but if they are not filled with water, for since, they are proper whatever it may be, even though they are not measured with it, we calculate them on their own, and they are redeemed according to the calculation of fifty Sela for a Bet Kor/an area requiring a Kor of seed.
+פחות מכאן נמדדין עמה – even though they are filled with water and hey are not proper for sowing, since they are not ten [handbreadths] deep. And similarly rocks, since they are not ten [handbreadths] high, they are called by the name of the land [it is part of] and are not considered on their own.
+אלא נותן את כולו כאחד – as it is written (Leviticus 27:18): “the priest shall compute the price” until there would be all of the money would be as one.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+ואחד כל אדם – who redeems a Bet Kor/an area requiring a Kor of seed, whether it is worth one-thousand shekel or whether it is not worth anything other than fifty shekel.
+שהבעלים נותנים חומש – as it is written (Leviticus 27:19): “and if he who consecrated the land wishes to redeem itג, [he must add one-fifth to the sum at which it was assessed, and it will pass to him].”
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+אינה יוצאה מידו ביובל – to be distributed to the Kohanim for just as that if another person had redeemed it and it go forth on the Jubilee and distributed to the Kohanim, as it is written (Leviticus 27:21): “when it is released in the jubilee, the land shall be holy to the LORD, [as land proscribed; it becomes the priest’s holding].”
+גאלה בנו יוצאה לאביו ביובל – but not to the Kohanim, as it is written (Leviticus 27:20): “[But if he does not redeem the land] and the land is sold to another, it shall no longer be redeemable,” "לאיש אחר" /to another person – but not to the son.
+גאלה איד מקרוביו – of the person who dedicated it from the hand of the treasurer, and the person who dedicated it and redeemed it from the hand of his relative, it does not go out from the hand of the one who dedicated it in the Jubilee [year] to be distributed to the Kohanim.
+גאלה כהן – from the hand of the treasurer.
+לא יאמר הגואל – but if an Israelite redeemed it, it goes out to me and to my colleagues on the Jubilee [year], now that it is under my hand that I redeemed it, there is no Kohen who is more appropriate for me than me.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+ולא נגאלה – it was not redeemed from the hand/domain of the Temple, neither by its owners or by anyone else.
+הכהנים נכנסים לה – Kohanim of the priestly watch (one of the twenty-four such groups – each for a week at a time) when the Jubilee comes in contact with it, they enter into it, and it is irredeemable in their hands.
+ונותנים את דמיה למקדש – for they derive/learned "קודש" (i.e., Leviticus 27:14: “If anyone consecrates his house to the LORD”) "קודש" (i.e., Leviticus 27:21: “when it is released in the jubilee it shall be holy to the LORD”) from one who dedicates/sanctifies his house. It is written here regarding an ancestral land (Leviticus 27:21): “when it is released in the jubilee, the land shall be holy to the LORD,” and it is written regarding one who consecrates his house (Leviticus 27:14): “If anyone consecrates his house to the LORD,” just as the house does not leave from the possession of the Temple without payment of money, as it is written there (Leviticus 27:14): “the priest shall assess it”, for a house does not go out to the Kohanim but rather is redeemed with money, so also the ancestral field does not go out from being devoted to the Temple without money. Therefore, when another person redeems it, the monies go to the Sanctuary for the repair of the Temple, and when the Jubilee [year] arrives, it goes out without payment to the Kohanim, and if it was not redeemed, the Kohanim give the sum of fifty Shekels and take it.
+ר' שמעון נכנסין אבל לא נותנין – that he derived/learned "קודש" (i.e., Leviticus 23:20): “[The priest shall elevate these] – the two lambs [together with the bread of first fruits as an elevation offering before the LORD;] they shall be holy to the LORD/קדש יהיו לה', for the priest.”) "קודש" (i.e., Leviticus 27:14) from the lambs of Atzeret/Shavuot, as it is written with them (Leviticus 23:20): “they shall be holy to the LORD for the priest.” Just as there they are done gratuitously, even here, it is done gratuitously. And it is satisfactory for him that the ancestral field is derived from the lambs for Atzeret/Shavuot, for both of them are from the twenty-four gifts to the priesthood, and he doesn’t derive it from one who dedicates his home [to the Temple] and it is not given ever to the Kohanim. But for Rabbi Yehuda, it is satisfactory that the ancestral field is derived from one who dedicates/sanctifies his home [to the Temple] for both of them are the holy things devoted to the repair of the Temple. And it is not derived from the lambs for Atzeret which are the holy things of the Altar. But the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda.
+שדה רטושין – an abandoned/left-behind field. Like (Hosea 10:14): “When mothers and babes were dashed to death together.”
+עד שיגאלנה אחר – when it leaves from hand on the Jubilee, Kohanim can enter it. And the reason of Rabbi Eliezer, as it is written (Leviticus 27:21): “when it is released in the jubilee, the land shall be holy to the LORD, [as land proscribed; it becomes the priest’s holding],” which implies that when it leaves from the hand of he redeemer like the law of the rest of people who purchase land that leaves [his hand] in the Jubilee, in that Biblical verse, it states that it will be for the Kohanim, but when it leaves from the hand of that which belongs to the Sanctuary, is not implied. For still the Biblical verse does not teach us that something dedicated to the Temple breaks forth from his power in the Jubilee year.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+הלוקח שדה מאביו, מת אביו ואח"כ הקדישה הרי היא כשדה אחוזה – for prior to his dedicating/sanctifying it (i.e., his hand), it fell to him as an inheritance. Therefore, if he comes to redeem it, he redeems a Bet Kor for fifty shekels like an ancestral land, but he does not redeem it, but another redeems it, and it goes to the Kohanim in the Jubilee year (see Leviticus 27:16: “If anyone consecrates to the LORD any land that he owns/שדה אחוזתו, it assessment shall be in accordance with the seed requirements: fifty shekels of silver to a HOMER of barley seed.”).
+הרי היא כשדה מקנה – for we follow after the time that it was dedicated/sanctified. But if he comes to redeem it, he redeems the field according to its worth like the law of an acquired field, but if he himself did not redeem but another person redeemed, it returns to him on the Jubilee [year]. For at the time it was dedicated/sanctified, its actual body was not his, for in the future it would return to his father in the Jubilee like all other sales, and like others who dedicate/sanctify an acquired field, since the person who redeems it from the hand of the treasurer restores/returns it on the Jubilee to whomever has the possession of the land [through inheritance], which is to the father of this one, for he inherits the power of his father. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Meir.
+שדה מקנה – that he dedicated/sanctified it and another redeemed it, it does not out to the Kohanim on the Jubilee [year], for a person does not dedicate/sanctify something that is not his, and the land was not his other than until the Jubilee.
+כהנים ולוים מקדישים לעולם – and even during the actual year of Jubilee itself. But an Israelite who dedicated/sanctified his field in the Jubilee year itself, it is not sanctified.
+וגואלין לעולם – what is not the case for an Israelite who does not redeem [his field] after the Jubilee, as it is it written (Leviticus 27:20): “[But if he does not redeem the land,] and the land is sold to another, it shall no longer be redeemable,” but a Kohen or a Levite that sanctified [to the Temple] land that he inherited from his forefathers, he can always redeem it, and even if a Jubilee [year] passed on it and it was not redeemed, he can redeem it after the Jubilee, as it is written (Leviticus 25:32): “[As for the cities of the Levities, the houses in the cities that they hold -] the Levities shall forever have the right of redemption.”
+
+Chapter 8
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+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.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+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.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+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).
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+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.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+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.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+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.”
+
+Mishnah 7
+
+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.
+
+Chapter 9
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+המוכר את שדהו בשעת היובל – at the time when the Jubilee is in force. But in the year of the Jubilee itself, he is not permitted to sell it, but if he sold, the sale is void and he returns the money.
+אינו מותר לגאול – even if the purchaser is satisfied, we don’t listen to him, as it is written (Leviticus 25:15): “In buying from your neighbor, you shall deduct only for the number of years/שנים (plural) since the jubilee; [and in selling to you, he shall charge you only for the remaining crop years],” it will be acquired by him for two years, but if he returns it before this, he violates a positive commandment. And the seller also violates a positive commandment if he redeems it prior to two years, as it is written (Leviticus 25:15): “and in selling it to you, he shall charge you only for the remaining crop years.” But after two years if he wants to redeem it, he redeems it against the will of the purchaser and gives him according to what he sold it, as it is written (Leviticus 25:27): “he shall compute the years since its sale, [refunding the difference to the man to whom he sold it, and return to his holding],” that he calculates how many years from when he sold it until the Jubilee [year], and divides the monies according to the years. As for example, if he sold it ten years prior to the Jubilee [year] for a Maneh (100 zuz), it is found that he sold the produce each and every year for a tenth of a Maneh, for a mere sale is only until the Jubilee, it remained in the hand of the purchaser for five years and afterwards the seller comes to redeem it, the purchaser deducts for him half a Maneh (50 zuz).
+אינה עולה ממנין – two years. For it is written (Leviticus 25:15): “[and in selling to you, he will charge you only] for the remaining crop years/שני תבואות (literally two years),” two years that are appropriate for the crops that they will remain in the hand of the purchaser. But if if it was a year appropriate for grain, and breaking ground/נרה (without planting – see Tractate Arakhin 29b), that is he plowed it and made it a newly broken land but did not sow it, or if he left it untilled/neglected, that he left it wild-growing and even breaking ground but did not do anything with it, he is causes loses to himself, and it counts for him in the reckoning [of crop years].
+שלש תבואות לשתי שנים – that grain that stands in it at the time of the purchase and two crop years in two years that it will exist in his hand. But Rabbi Eleazar does not dispute the first Tanna/teacher in this, but it represents the opinion of everyone.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+אינו מחשב – the [original] seller that came to redeem it.
+אלא עם הראשון – and that calculation he will deduct for him for each and every year that he occupied it (i.e., enjoying its produce), and the remainder he will pay him.
+אשר מכר לו – it is written concerning the redeemer of his acquired field (Leviticus 25:27): “[he shall compute the years since its sale,] refund the difference to the man to whom he sold it.”
+לאיש אשר בתוכה – that he finds himself within the field that he (i.e., the original owner) comes to redeem. And from where [in the Torah] do we learn that we expound leniently regarding the seller and we don’t expound stringently? We learn [from a comparative analogy using the words]"גאולה" "גאולה" from [the law of] the Hebrew slave in the ancestral field; it is written (Leviticus 25:26): “[If a man has no one to redeem for him, but prospers] and acquires enough to redeem with,” and concerning a Hebrew slave, it is written (Leviticus 25:31): “[But houses in villages that have no encircling walls shall be classed as open country;] they may be redeemed,[and they will be released through the jubilee],” just as there leniently, so also here leniently. And there, from where [in the Torah] do we learn to be lenient? As it is taught in a Baraitha: “if it was sold for a Maneh (i.e., 100 zuz) and it improved in value/ameliorated, and now stood at two-hundred [Maneh], from where do we learn that we only calculate it for a Maneh and like as it arrived from that Maneh for each year we deduct it, we derive it from (Leviticus 25:52): “[and if few years remain until the jubilee year, he shall so compute:] he shall make payment for his redemption according to the years involved,” that is to say, to what it is worth in that year.
+לא ימכור – [he should not sell] a far-off field that he has, in order to redeem this field that is close by. And similarly, he should not sell off a bad field in order that he can redeem this field which Is nice. And he may not borrow from others in order that he can redeem it. And he does not redeem half-of the field that he sold but rather either he redeems all of it or not any of it. And all of these things we derive from Scripture, as it is written (Leviticus 25:26): “[If a man has no one to redeem for him,] but prospers and acquires enough to redeem with.” "השיגה ידו" /he prospers from his own [efforts], and not that he will borrow and then redeem. "ומצא" /and acquires enough, implying that he will find something that he was not found with him at the time that he sold it, excluding selling [a field] far off in order to redeem what is close/nearby, with something bad in order that he can redeem it for something good that was found with him at the time that he sold it. "כדי גאותו" /enough to redeem with [in order that the redemption] that he is redeeming is not redeeming halves.
+ובהקדש מותר בכולן – a person who dedicates/sanctifies his field is permitted to sell another field, or to borrow in order to redeem it, and if it is not sufficient to redeem all of it, he can redeem part of it and when he prospers, he will redeem all of it.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+הרי זה גאל מיד – and its law (i.e., of a house among houses in walled cities) is not like the law of an ancestral field which he does not redeem less than two years [after its sale].
+הרי זה כמין ריבית – when he returns to him (i.e., the buyer) his money within a year and this one (i.e., the original seller) does not deduct from him anything, it is found that it was used in his house for the fee of the detaining of his money that certainly comes towards [collecting] interest, which is not permanently sold, but not through a sale for if he did not redeem it and it (i.e., the sale) becomes final, there is no interest charged.
+
+יגאל בנו – [his son shall redeem it] within a year if he desires, but after a year, it is completely sold and it is not ever redeemed, as it is written (Leviticus 25:30): “If it is not redeemed before a complete year has elapsed, [the house in the walled city shall pass to the purchaser beyond reclaim throughout the ages; it shall not be released in the jubilee].”
+משעה שמכר לו – that if Reuven sold it to Shimon in Nisan and Shimon [sold it] to Levi in Iyar, once Nisan arrived, it is permanently sold, and we don’t reckon to the second sale, but rather to the fist sale [only], as it is stated (Leviticus 25:30): “before a full year has elapsed,” for it implies to this one that it was his.
+להביא חודש העיבור – for if it is a leap year (i.e., with an added month of Adar – seven times in every nineteen years), it is not completely sold until thirteen months [have passed].
+שנה ועיבורה – whether it is a simple year or whether it is a leap year, we give him the lunar year which is three-hundred and fifty-four days and the eleven extra days that a solar year has over that of a lunar year that their intercalation we complement the year with. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+ואחד הנותן במתנהn – if he wanted to redeem [the house] within its year, he can redeem, but if not, it is permanently sold to him.
+היה נטמן (was hidden, hide oneself) – the purchaser on the [exact] day of twelve months in order that the seller not find him to give him [back] his money so that it will be permanently sold to him.
+שהיא חולש – that he would put his monies in the chamber of that which is dedicated to sacred purposes in the Temple courtyard.
+ויהא שובר את הדלת – of the house of that he sold and enter it. [The word] חולש / assign (his redeeming money to the Temple by depositing there , to assert his privilege of redemption) is like (Isaiah 14:12):”[How are you felled to earth,] O vanquisher of nations!”
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+כל שלפנים מן החומה – such as the building containing the tank and all the implements for pressing olives that they make olive oil in them and the bathhouses and towers and cisterns, ditches and caves. As it is written (Leviticus 25:30): “in the city [that has a wall],” including everything that is within the city. I would be able to include the fields, the inference teaches us, “the house [in the walled city shall pass to the purchaser beyond reclaim throughout the ages],” (ibid.) excluding the fields that are not similar at all to the houses.
+ר' מאיר אומר אף השדות – Rabbi Meir is stating not the actual fields, for it is written “the house” (Leviticus 25:30), and fields are not similar to houses. But the land of rocks and fish-ponds/glen (see Tractate Arakhin 32a) that are not appropriate for sowing and are made for the building of the house. A place of stones, to take from there stones for building. And a fish-pond/glen – to take from there sand for building. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Meir.
+אינו כבתי ערי חומה – to be permanently sold at the end of a year.
+כותל החיצון הוא חומתו – and it is judged like houses in a walled city. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+שגגותיה חומותיה – that a wall did not surround it but rather houses surround and the immediate sequence of houses one next to the other are like a wall.
+אינה כבתי ערי חומה – for [the word] "חומה" /wall (see Leviticus 25:29: “if a man sells a dwelling house in a walled city”)is written and not that its roofs are its walls.
+ושאינה מוקפת חומה מימות יהושע בן נון – but that which is surrounded by a wall from the days of Joshua son of Nun even though it does not have a wall now, is judged like a dwelling house in a walled city. It is written as (Leviticus 27:30): " [הבית אשר-בעיר אשר-] לוא חומה" /the house in the walled city, with a full [letters] Vav and Alephs, that implies that it is his and implies not [his], meaning to say, it does not have it now, but it had a wall prior to this, therefore, it is also house that is permanently sold.
+שלש חצרות – that in each and every one [of the courtyards] is two houses, which is called a city.
+כגון קצרה – the name of a small city that was outside of Tsippori.
+וחקרא שבגוש חלב וכו' – all of these that are counted in our Mishnah, are known that they been walled [cities] from the time of Joshua son of Nun. But Jerusalem that is counted in our Mishnah, we hold that there is no permanently sold house in Jerusalem, therefore there is the opinion of one [Sage (Rav Ashi)] in the Gemara (Tractate Arakhin 32b), and this is not the holy Jerusalem where a house cannot be sold permanently, but there is another Jerusalem that was in the Land of Israel and it also was surrounded by a wall from the time of Joshua, and there was a house sold permanently in it like the rest of dwelling houses in a walled city.
+
+Mishnah 7
+
+בתי החצרים – that these villages lack a wall.
+כח יפה (strong legal right, privilege) – as it is explained, 
+and they are redeemed immediately, that it is not necessary to delay him for two years in the hand of the purchaser like that of fields, as it is written concerning them (Leviticus 25:31): “they may be redeemed/גאלה תהיה לו [and they shall be released through the jubilee],” implying that he may redeem it immediately (see Tractate Arakhin, Chapter 9, Mishnah 3) if he wants and that is like dwelling houses in a walled city.
+ובגרעון כסף (see Tractate Arakhin, Chapter 9, Mishnah 1) – [at a reduced price] – that the purchaser deducts for him according to the years that they remained in his hand, like fields. For regarding the houses in villages/בתי החצרים , it is written (Leviticus 25:31): “they shall be classed as open country”/על שדה הארץ יחשב – that they go forth [by payment] of a reduced price like fields.
+שתי חצרות של שני שני בתים – a city which doesn’t have in it other than two courtyards, even though it is surround by a wall from the time of Joshua, are regarded as houses in villages.
+
+Mishnah 8
+
+ישראל שירש – dwelling houses in a walled city from his mother’s father who is a Levite.
+אינו גואל כסדר הזה – in the Gemara (Tractate Arakhin 33b) they said that it teaches that he does not redeem other than according to this procedure. But this is what he said: he does not redeem like Levites, as it is written concerning them (Leviticus 25:32): “the Levites shall forever have the right of redemption,” but rather like this procedure that is stated regarding an Israelite that it will be permanently sold at the end of a year.
+וכן לוי שירש את אבי אמו ישראל – even he (i.e., this Levite) does not redeem [the property] like a Levite, but rather like this procedure that is stated regarding an Israelite. For he can never redeem like a Levite until he will be a Levite and in a Levitical city. For two Biblical verses are written: It is written (Leviticus 25:33): “for the houses in the cities of the Levities are their holding [among the Israelites],” and it is written (Leviticus 25:33): “Such property as may be redeemed from the Levites,” which implies that for some of the Levities I have given permission to redeem, but not to all of them, excluding the son of Levite who comes from a mother who is illegitimately married to him (i.e., a bastard) or from a female descendant of the Gibeonites (see Joshua 9:27 as well as Tractate Yevamot, Chapter 8 at the conclusion Mishnah 3), and all the more so an Israelite who inherited his mother’s father, a Levite, for he (i.e., the grandson) is a complete Israelite and does not ever redeem [like a Levite].
+אין הדברים אמורים (these rules have been stated only) – these things/rules are stated regarding redemption at any time other than concerning Levitical cities. But until he will be a [full] Levite, we don’t require this. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.
+מגרש – a place empty of anything, and there is no house in it nor do they sow [seeds] other than being a beauty/embellishment of the town [which requires open space all around] (see Rashi to Bava Batra 24b).
+אין עושין שדה מגרש – 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],” What do [the words] "לא ימכר"/cannot be sold mean? If you were to say that it cannot be sold at all, but [it is written] (Leviticus 25:32): “the Levites shall forever have the right of redemption,” it follows that it can [in fact] be sold, but what [is the meaning of] (Leviticus 25:34): “[But the enclosed land about their cities] cannot be sold/לא ימכר ?” It shall not be changed.
+כדי שלא יחריבו – the settlement of the land.
+מוכרים לעולם (see Tractate Arakhin, Chapter 9, Mishnah 1) – and not like an Israelite who is not able to sell less than two years prior to the Jubilee [year] as it is written concerning them (Leviticus 25:15): “and in selling to you, he shall charge you only for the remaining crop years,” but they (i.e., the Priests and Levites) can sell even near the Jubilee [year].
+וגואלים לעולם – but if they (i.e., Kohanim and Levites) sold dwelling houses in a walled city, they are permanently sold at the end of the year like dwelling houses in a walled cities of an Israelite, but if they sold fields, they don’t need to stand in the hands of the purchaser for two years, but rather, they redeem [them] immediately, if they wish.
\ No newline at end of file