English translation — בחוקותי

A.

When someone consecrated a field of ancestral possession and he did not redeem it,

or the treasurer sold it to another,

it says in the verse¹

"And the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee, shall be holy to the Lord, like a field of the devoted thing; to the priest shall be his ancestral possession."

that it goes out to the priests in the Jubilee exactly like a field of the devoted thing which is given to priests.

At the conclusion of tractate Arakhin²

the Gemara stands on the words "like a field of the devoted thing; to the priest shall be his ancestral possession" and asks "What is the purpose of stating

(What does "field of the devoted thing" teach regarding a field that goes out to the priests in the Jubilee³

(From where [do we know] a priest who consecrated a field of his devoted thing,

that he should not say: Since it goes out to the priests

(if he does not redeem it, for it is his like a field of ancestral possession, etc.³)

and it is under my hand, let it be mine; and it is logical: in that which belongs to others I acquire a share,

(a field of ancestral possession of an Israelite goes out to the priests in the Jubilee,

"I had a portion in it"³)

in that which is my own, is it not all the more so?

The verse states: "And the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee, shall be holy to the Lord, like a field of the devoted thing, etc." It comes to teach and is found to be taught; it compares his field of devoted thing to a field of ancestral possession of an Israelite: just as a field of ancestral possession of an Israelite

(when a priest redeemed it from the Temple treasury³)

goes out from under his hand

(in the Jubilee)

and is divided among the priests⁴

so too his field of devoted thing goes out from under his hand and is divided among his fellow priests."⁵

The Rambam⁶

rules: A kohen who had a field of cherem that another acquired after the Jubilee and he declared it cherem, behold this is declared cherem and goes out to his brother kohanim, as it is said: "To the kohen shall be his possession," teaching that a field of his cherem is to him like a field of ancestral possession to an Israelite, that if he declared it cherem, it is declared cherem immediately.

Asks the Minchas Chinuch⁷

a)

From where does the Rambam derive that the law "it goes out to his brothers the priests" applies also when the priest had <b>devoted </b>a field of his devotion?

The Gemara speaks only when a priest "<b>consecrated </b>a field of his devotion"<sup>8</sup>.

Moreover: a priest cannot devote anything at all,

as the Mishnah<sup>9</sup>

says in the previous chapter, "Priests and Levites do not devote."

The entire law of devotion does not apply to priests and Levites by a decree of the verse,

and there is no difference regarding which field it is about,

whether it was his from before,

or he received it later in any manner whatsoever; because even movable property they do not devote,

as the Mishnah says,

and as the Rambam himself rules in the law after this<sup>10</sup>,

"Land or movable property of priests and Levites they do not devote them."

From where does the Rambam derive that a kohen can declare his field cherem?

b)

From where does the Rambam get what he writes at the end of his language "that if he declared it cherem it is immediately cherem"?

In the Gemara it is only mentioned that "it goes out to his fellow kohanim"

(and it is repeated and tripled in this language),

But it does not state in the Gemara that we derive "that if he declared it cherem it is immediately cherem".

3)

The wording of the Rambam at the beginning of the halacha "that he acquired it after the Jubilee" is entirely not understandable: the Jubilee has no relevance to the devoted things of the priests,

a priest acquires the devoted things always

(both before the Jubilee and during the Jubilee and after the Jubilee¹²),

and as the Rambam rules in the preceding halacha¹³,

that the devoted things of the priests "behold these are given to the priest of that watch <b>at the time that he devoted</b>".

2.

One could say

(as is implied from commentators¹⁴)

that "and he devoted it" here the Rambam does not mean devoted things of the priests,

but a devoted thing for the Temple treasury or a devoted thing for Heaven

(about which he also speaks in the preceding halachot),

and "a priest who had a <b>devoted field</b> that he acquired after the Jubilee" also means a field devoted to the treasury

the house¹⁵,

that he merits it after the Jubilee.

But it is not smooth in the language of the Rambam

(in addition to this, that according to this it is puzzling — from where is the source of this law in the Rambam¹⁶?

— is)

from the conclusion of his language "it teaches that a field of <b>his devoted</b> to him" it is implied¹⁷,

that he speaks about devoted things of the priests¹⁸.

3.

Regarding the third question mentioned above

(section a)

from Minchas Chinuch,

it is implied from other commentators¹⁹

that with the words "that another acquired it after the Jubilee" the Rambam means a different case and it must stand

(or it is as if the Rambam had written)

"<b>or </b>that another acquired it after the Jubilee",

a field of ancestral possession of a Jew which the Jew had consecrated and did not redeem,

which then goes out to the priests at the Jubilee²⁰

— also such a field can the priest declare banned "that if he banned it, it is banned immediately".

One must still, however, understand: why is the Rambam precise and <b>prefaces</b>

"A kohen who had a field of cherem",

and at the conclusion of his language in this study of the verse he says <b>only</b> "it teaches that the field of <b>his cherem</b> is his"²¹.

4.

In the essential question on the Rambam that kohanim do not declare cherem,

one could simply answer²²

: according to the Rambam, this that kohanim do not declare cherem

(on land)

— is not merely a decree of the verse,

a law in the person that among <b>kohanim</b> the entire law of cherem does not exist²³,

but it is a law in the object in the <b>property</b> of the kohen,

and as is precise in the change in the language of the Rambam:

In the Mishnah the wording is "the priests and the Levites do not consecrate [by herem]",

and the Rambam writes "land or movable property of priests and Levites they do not consecrate [by herem] them".

What the reason for this is, as the Rambam continues²⁴

"for it says²⁵

concerning a field: for it is an eternal holding to you"²⁶

(which is stated regarding the cities of the Levites)

— and therefore the law is specifically regarding fields that are essentially theirs by virtue of the Holy One's gift

(the fields in the cities of the Levites and what they inherited from their father²⁷),

and regarding the fields it is not applicable that one should consecrate them [by herem],

because

Through this, the possession from them is nullified, and the Torah said "an eternal possession it is to them"&lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt;,

but a field of cherem that a kohen received,

since this is not his possession,

he can declare it cherem.

This, however, is apparently also not sufficient,

for according to this, that which the kohen can declare cherem is not because it is a field of &lt;b&gt;his cherem&lt;/b&gt;,

but because it is &lt;b&gt;not his possession&lt;/b&gt; — not his eternal possession.

the Rambam should have emphasized not

(a kohen who had)

&lt;b&gt;a field of cherem&lt;/b&gt;,

but that it speaks about a land that is &lt;b&gt;not an eternal possession&lt;/b&gt; of his

(a kohen who had a field that he acquired

(from a Yisrael),

or the like)?

Also in the very logic,

that the cherem takes effect because the field is not his actual possession,

It is puzzling: the teaching how the Rambam brings the analogy "field of his cherem" to "field of possession" is in opposite content than it is in the Gemara.

The Gemara says: "He compares the field of his cherem to the field of possession of an Israelite: just as the field of possession of an Israelite goes out from his hand and is divided to the priests, etc."²⁹,

I.

e.

One learns the field of his cherem from the field of possession of an Israelite which the priest had redeemed from the Temple treasury,

that just as there it is <b>not</b> his and it goes out from his hand,

"so too the field of his cherem goes out from his hand, etc."³⁰.

In the Rambam, however, the wording is "it teaches that the field of his cherem is <b>to him</b> like the field of <b>possession of an Israelite</b>",

which its implication is — the <b>ownership</b> of the field of his cherem,

exactly like the field

possession³¹

of Israel that <b>he can</b> declare it <i>cherem</i>.

5.

And one must say the explanation in all this with the preface that the <i>Chinuch</i>³²

explains the roots of the commandment of the laws of <i>charamim</i>: Because Israel is the nation which God chose for His service and to acknowledge His name, and they are not under the dominion of the constellations which the Holy One, blessed be He, apportioned to the nations of the other nations, but they are under the hand of the Holy One, blessed be He, without the mediation of angel or constellation, and as it is said, "For the portion of the Lord is His people, Jacob the lot of His inheritance," etc., only goodness and an abundance of blessing and a generous spirit and purity will rest upon them.

And the opposite, which is the curse and the <i>cherem</i>, upon the enemies and haters of Israel. And therefore, when the spirit of one of them is short and he utters from his mouth a language of curse and <i>cherem</i> upon his money and his lands, which are under blessing, the Scripture informs him that it is impossible for him to remove it from the domain of the Blessed One to another domain, because all that belongs to Israel, who are the portion of the Holy One, blessed be He, is His, and "what a servant acquires, his master acquires." But nevertheless, since we know in truth that the intention of the one declaring <i>cherem</i> is to remove that thing from his domain, it is fitting to fulfill his desire, and it will return to the domain of his Master.³³

And it shall be holy, etc. And from this root is that which our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said, that all that belongs to the Levites and the priests, whether land or movable property, they do not declare them <i>cherem</i>; that is to say, even if the priest or the Levite says about his field that it should be <i>cherem</i>, it is not seized at all, because he is like one dwelling in the house of his Master, a place of blessing and grace and goodness, and all that he has belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He, and within blessing there is no place for <i>cherem</i>, Heaven forbid.

And superficially, the difference between a Yisrael who can pronounce cherem and a Kohen and Levi who do not pronounce cherem is not understood: also by a Yisrael, after all, in place of "to cherem, heaven forbid,"

and as he says earlier,

"It is not possible to remove it from the domain of the Blessed One to another domain."

It is only "after we know in truth that the intention of the one pronouncing cherem is to remove that item from his domain, it is fitting to fulfill his desire, and it returns to the domain of its Master and becomes holy."

Now, why should we not say so also when a Kohen or a Levi pronounce cherem,

that it leaves his domain and becomes holy?

But the difference is: the property of a Yisrael,

since their connection to the portion of Hashem is not by virtue of

(and in)

them themselves,

but by virtue of the Jew — "what a servant acquires, his master acquires,"

therefore, although the concept of cherem does not take effect

(the opposite of blessing)

upon the property,

rather it becomes holy,

since, however, that which the Torah removes it from his domain is its cause "the intention of the one pronouncing cherem,"

"and his desire"

(in his heart)

which expresses itself in the language of cherem that he used,

which, by virtue of the property itself, could have taken effect — at least the name cherem takes effect upon the field,

and the opposite of blessing in these properties regarding the one pronouncing cherem, it leaves his domain

("and it returns to the domain of its Master and becomes holy").

And as this is literally that it is called a field of cherem.

But not so by Kohanim and Levi'im,

since the properties themselves are "like the dwelling of the house

of his master, a place of blessing and grace and goodness and all that He has, of the Holy One, blessed be He" — therefore, regarding their properties, even the term cherem does not apply concerning the Kohanim and Levi'im,

which would cause their departure from their ownership.

6.

And since that which Kohanim [are] in [the matter of] declaring property consecrated,

is because upon their ancestral land the name cherem cannot take effect.

Therefore, a Kohen who has received a field [declared] cherem from a Yisrael,

upon which <b>its essence</b> could have had the name cherem take effect — the name cherem can take effect upon it even when it is already in the possession³⁵

And likewise a field of a Yisrael that he acquired

of the Kohen³⁶.

(the Kohen)

after the Jubilee,

which the ancestral land was not the dwelling place of its master,

and consequently there was in it a possibility that it should be declared cherem by the Yisrael,

the possibility remains also when the field comes to the Kohen³⁷.

And this the Rambam derives "as it is said, 'For the priest shall be his possession, teaching

that a field of his devoted property is for him like a field of possession for Israel, that if he devotes it, it is immediately devoted."

That the field has a status like a field of possession for Israel,

not like his possession of the priest: that which the field of devoted property or the field that he acquired after the Jubilee is devoted,

is not so

(from the negative side)

because this is not his possession concerning which it was said "an eternal possession it shall be for them,"

but

(from the positive side)

because it is a field of his devoted property³⁸,

upon it the name of devoted property already applied,

the field had the potential of devoted property,

as above,

and consequently — this field becomes even after coming into the possession of the priest,

not like his possession which is "like one who dwells in the house of his master."

And therefore "if he devotes it, it is immediately devoted."

And this is the difference between the inference in the Gemara "Just as a field of ancestral possession of a Jew leaves his hand and is divided among the priests, so too a field of his cherem leaves his hand and is divided among his brother priests"&lt;sup&gt;39&lt;/sup&gt;,

and the teaching in the Rambam: In the Gemara the teaching is that it does not remain his but is divided among his brother priests&lt;sup&gt;40&lt;/sup&gt;,

in the Rambam the

teaching "that a field of his cherem is to him like a field of ancestral possession to a Jew, that if he declared it cherem it is &lt;b&gt;immediately cherem&lt;/b&gt;",

that the name cherem applies to it,

it leaves his domain

(and it becomes holy with sanctity of the body&lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt;).

And the Rambam takes this out from the conclusion of the Gemara⁴²

: It was necessary, lest you say, since it is written "for an eternal possession it is to them," this one too is his possession, it teaches us, his possession, his possession, no; <b>his devoted thing</b> no,

that when one comes primarily to negate that his devoted thing is not his possession,

and consequently the law of "and the name of devoted thing"⁴³ applies to it.

7.

And behold, superficially, this is a novelty to innovate a reason in the law and based on this to innovate a

(distinction in)

halacha⁴⁴.

And it can be said that this is related to that the laws of a field of ancestral possession and a field of devoted property are in the portion and in the tractate Arakhin.

That the entire matter of valuations is connected with reason and intellect

(One assesses how much is the value of a male from twenty years until sixty years,

how much of a female etc.

Their value in the years before this and after this,

The valuation of a person by "and he shall value him &lt;b&gt;the priest&lt;/b&gt; etc." the valuation of an animal "and he shall value &lt;b&gt;the priest&lt;/b&gt; it etc."&lt;sup&gt;45&lt;/sup&gt;).

The matter

The reason and intellect is here so much relevant until it becomes a law directly at the beginning&lt;sup&gt;46&lt;/sup&gt;

of tractate Arakhin "All make valuations to include what? To include a precocious youth close to majority" — since the entire matter of valuations is connected with reason and intellect&lt;sup&gt;47&lt;/sup&gt;.

And in this way one learns regarding <em>charamim</em> which are also in the portion and in the tractate <em>Arachin</em>,

that the boundaries and laws of them are not a <em>gezeiras hakasuv</em>,

but rather from the reason.

And therefore the Rambam learns the conclusion of the Gemara "it is proven: his ancestral possession, his ancestral possession, but not his <em>cherem</em>",

that this is connected with the special reason that exists in his <em>cherem</em>.

And consequently it emerges from this that his <em>cherem</em> a Kohen may indeed declare <em>cherem</em>⁴⁸.

8.

It is known⁴⁹

the story of R. Hillel Paritcher⁵⁰

: being a young man, he wanted to see the old Rebbe and he had prepared for himself a question in tractate Arakhin to ask the old Rebbe.

As soon as the old Rebbe entered the room where R. Hillel had hidden himself,

R. Hillel heard how the old Rebbe said

(with the well-known melody)

"That a

young man has a question in Arakhin, he must first evaluate himself."

And it can be said that this was a directive to R. Hillel for the duration of all the days of his life,

as is known the conduct of R. Hillel in stringencies and extra precautions⁵¹.

But,

at first glance,

according to the above,

is not the matter of valuations connected with reason and intellect,

and the main virtue and advantage of R. Hillel consisted entirely in that he was a <b>servant</b> of G-d,

and not in that he was a <b>prodigious intellectual</b>.

is the explanation in this,

that this is what gives: when one is <b>oneself</b> evaluating,

then one comes to the comprehension and understanding,

that

(the essence of)

service is not the matter of taste and intellect,

rather acceptance of the yoke,

to be a <b>servant</b> of God.

Which this expresses itself at the conclusion of the tractate in the matter of the vows of prohibition: he prohibits not only the assets,

that he should not have benefit from the assets of

(physical)

the world

(the world of concealment),

but also — the powers of his soul,

that <b>they</b> should be "in the authority of his Master," holy and separated from matters of this world,

until like the manner of vows of priests that "they have no redemption,"

it shall not be sold and it shall not be redeemed⁵²

; they become sanctity of the body

Until it is like it was by R. Hillel,

that from the side of his great carefulness in separation from matters of this world,

his body itself felt <b>what</b> he needs to do and <b>how</b> he needs to do⁵³.

And when the conduct of a Jew is in such a manner,

that he devotes his material matters and his spiritual powers in a manner of holiness and separation the aforementioned, this is so all the more so in his speech literally,

that he is careful in his speech most greatly,

and it is not possible that there should go out from his mouth a tongue of the opposite of blessing;

And then there is by him "only goodness and abundance of blessing",

until in a manner as it is by priests and Levites,

that every man of Israel whose spirit moves him can come to this "to separate to stand before the Lord to serve Him and to worship Him etc.",

that then "behold this is sanctified holy of holies and the Lord will be his portion and his inheritance forever and ever"⁵⁴.

And also all his possessions

(and certainly — all his children and his household)

are themselves "dwelling in the house of his Lord, place of blessing and grace and goodness",

And it comes to pass in the revealed and visible good in children, life, and ample sustenance,

And may it be His will — for all sons and daughters of Israel in every place that they are.

Shabbat Parshat Vayeishev 5741)