Related for Arakhin 8:5

הַמַּחֲרִים בְּנוֹ וּבִתּוֹ, עַבְדּוֹ וְשִׁפְחָתוֹ הָעִבְרִים, וּשְׂדֵה מִקְנָתוֹ, אֵינָן מֻחְרָמִים, שֶׁאֵין אָדָם מַחֲרִים דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ. כֹּהֲנִים וּלְוִיִּם אֵינָן מַחֲרִימִין, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, הַכֹּהֲנִים אֵינָן מַחֲרִימִין, שֶׁהַחֲרָמִים שֶׁלָּהֶם. הַלְוִיִּם מַחֲרִימִים, שֶׁאֵין הַחֲרָמִים שֶׁלָּהֶן. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר, נִרְאִים דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּקַּרְקָעוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כה), כִּי אֲחֻזַּת עוֹלָם הוּא לָהֶם, וְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּמִטַּלְטְלִים, שֶׁאֵין הַחֲרָמִים שֶׁלָּהֶם:

If one proscribes his son or his daughter, or his Hebrew slave or female slave, or his field [acquired by purchase], they are not considered [validly] proscribed, for one cannot proscribe something that does not belong to him. Priests and Levites cannot proscribe [their belongings] - [these are] the words of Rabbi Judah; Rabbi Shimon says: the priests cannot proscribe, because things proscribed belong to them, but Levites can proscribe, because things proscribed do not belong to them. Rabbi says: the words of Rabbi Judah seem acceptable in cases of immovable property as it is said: “For that is their perpetual possession,” (Leviticus 25:34) and the words of Rabbi Shimon seem acceptable in cases of movable property, since things proscribed do not fall to them.

Radak on Judges

Shall be offered by me as an offering The opinion of our rabbis of blessed memory regarding this is known, and my lord and father, that the explanation of "shall be offered by me", the vav [ו] is disjunctive, with the same function as "or". And it can be explained as follows: "And it will be for God," i.e. sanctified [הקדש], if it is unsuitable for a burnt offering. Or it "shall be offered by me as a burnt offering," if it is suitable for a burnt offering. And similar to this, the vav of "He who strikes his father or [ו] his mother" (Exodus 25:15) signifies "or". And it is well explained, and so it seems to me from the verse, for it is not death, because the verse would say "And I will weep for my life" -- rather, [she will weep] that she has not known a man [because in fact the verse says "I will weep for my maidenhood" (Judges 11:37)]. And that which it also says, "he did to her as he had vowed to do" (Judges 11:39), and it does not say "He offered her as a burnt offering." This shows us that she was celibate/separated, and this is what he had vowed -- that she should be for God. This seems to me to be according to the plain meaning of the verses, and the words of our rabbis of blessed memory; if they [the words] were accepted into their hands as an acceptance, it is our duty to accept them [?].

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Previous Verse Full Chapter Next Verse