Se uno proibisce suo figlio o sua figlia, o la sua schiava o schiava ebrea o il suo campo [acquisito per acquisto], non vengono considerati [validamente] vietati, perché non si può vietare qualcosa che non gli appartiene. Sacerdoti e leviti non possono vietare [i loro averi] - [queste sono] le parole del rabbino Giuda; Il rabbino Shimon dice: i sacerdoti non possono vietare, perché le cose proibite appartengono a loro, ma i leviti possono vietare, perché le cose vietate non appartengono a loro. Il rabbino dice: le parole del rabbino Giuda sembrano accettabili nei casi di beni immobili in quanto si dice: "Perché quello è il loro possesso perpetuo" (Levitico 25:34) e le parole del rabbino Shimon sembrano accettabili nei casi di beni mobili, poiché le cose vietate non ricadono su di loro.
Bartenura on Mishnah Arakhin
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Arakhin
If one proscribes his son or his daughter, or his Hebrew slave or female slave, or the field which he acquired by purchase, they are not considered [validly] proscribed, for one can proscribe something that does not belong to him. One can proscribe only things that belong to him as permanent possessions. This is stated quite clearly in Leviticus 27:28, “But of all that anyone owns, be it man or beast or land of his holding.” Thus one cannot proscribe his children, his Hebrew slaves (whom he does not own) or land which he acquired through purchase. Such land will revert to its original owners when the Jubilee year comes, so it doesn’t really belong to its current owner.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Arakhin
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Arakhin
Priests and Levites cannot proscribe [their belongings], 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. As we stated in the introduction, when someone proscribes (he uses the language, herem) his property, he is giving it to the priests. Therefore, if priests proscribe their property, nothing happens to it. According to Rabbi Judah, Levites too cannot proscribe their property. Rabbi Shimon holds that while priests cannot proscribe, Levites can, because the property they proscribe does not become theirs, but rather the priets.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Arakhin
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Arakhin
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. Rabbi [Judah Hanasi] functions in this mishnah as a halakhic decisor in the debate between Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Shimon concerning whether Levites can proscribe their property. Rabbi agrees that when it comes to immovable property, i.e. land, a Levite cannot proscribe his property. This is because states that the land that the Levites own is their “perpetual possession.” If they were allowed to proscribe their land, they could lose it. Therefore, they cannot proscribe any of their land. However, when it comes to movable property (animals, possessions, etc.) they can proscribe it, as Rabbi Shimon stated. This is because they don’t have the complication that priests have that the proscribed property would become theirs.
