Kommentar zu Arakhin 8:7

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.

A man may proscribe his holy things, whether they are most holy things or less holy things.
If [they had been] consecrated as a vow, he must give their value, if as a freewill-offering, he must give what it is worth to him.
[If he said:] “Let this ox be an olah,” one estimates how much a man would pay for the ox to offer it as an olah, which he was not obliged [to offer].
A first-born, whether unblemished or blemished, may be proscribed. How can it be redeemed? They estimate what a man would give for this first-born in order to give it to the son of his daughter or to the son of his sister.
Rabbi Ishmael says: one verse says, [All first-born males] you shall sanctify,” (Deuteronomy 15:19) and another verse says: [“The first-borns among beasts] no man shall sanctify it” (Leviticus 27:26). It is impossible to say: “You shall sanctify,” since it was said already: “No man shall sanctify,” and it is impossible to say: “No man shall sanctify,” since it is also said: “You shall sanctify”? Therefore resolve [thus]: you may sanctify it by consecrating its value [to the owner], but you may not sanctify it by consecrating it to the altar.
Today’s mishnah explains how one proscribes something that is already holy.
Section one: As we learned in yesterday’s mishnah, a person can proscribe his most holy things (such as an olah a whole burnt offering) or his less holy things (such as a shelamim a wellbeing offering). Our mishnah describes what happens when he does after all, if something is already sanctified, how can he proscribe it either to the priests or for the upkeep of the Temple?
Section two: There are two ways of consecrating something: 1) as a vow; 2) as a freewill offering. Consecrating something as a vow means that he said, “I vow to bring an olah or a shelamim.” Then he sets aside an animal to be the olah or shelamim (a burnt offering and an offering of wellbeing). In this case, if something should happen to the animal he would have to bring another in its stead in order to fulfill his vow. He then proscribes this animal. In this case, since he was responsible for the animal, he can proscribe its entire value. This value must be given either to the priests or to the upkeep of the Temple.
Section three: The other way of consecrating something is by saying, “This animal will be an olah or a shelamim.” In this case, if something should happen to the animal, he is not responsible to bring another in its stead. Thus the animal was not worth to him its full value (as it was in the previous case) because if it gets lost or dies, he need not bring another. We now have to evaluate how much it was worth to him. There are two ways of understanding how this is done. The first is that we evaluate how much a person would pay to offer an olah when he is not obligated to do so. A person might feel some pleasure from bringing a sacrifice and we could even give a monetary amount to this benefit. This is the amount that he would have to pay to the priests or to the upkeep of the Temple.
The other interpretation of this section is that we find how much a priest who is not currently on his watch at the Temple would pay a person to wait until his watch to bring his olah so that he could have the benefit of offering it up. This amount of money is what the person who proscribed the animal would be obligated to give to the priests or to the upkeep of the Temple.
Section four: A person can proscribe a first born animal, whether it is blemished (and edible to its owner) or unblemished (and must be given to the priest). The mishnah now explains how we evaluate how much the one who proscribed the first-born owes in a case where he was obligated to give it to a priest (an unblemished animal.) This animal cannot be given to a priest in return for money. But he could give it to his daughter’s son, if his daughter married a priest or to his nephew if his sister married a priest. We estimate how much a person would pay to give such a gift to his nephew or grandson and that is the amount he owes.
Rabbi Ishmael now provides a midrash to prove that one can dedicate a first born so that its value goes to the Temple or to the priests but one cannot dedicate a first-born for it to become a sacrifice. He points out that in reference to the first born one verse says, “you shall dedicate” and another verse says, “you shall not consecrate.” These two verses seemingly disagree with one another. He resolves them by having them refer to our situation you can dedicate the first born so that its value goes to the priests, but you cannot dedicate a first born so that it is put onto the altar as a different type of sacrifice.

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.