ויקרא, פרק כ״ז, פסוק כ״ח

פרשת בחוקתי

Leviticus 27:28Sefaria

אַךְ־כׇּל־חֵ֡רֶם אֲשֶׁ֣ר יַחֲרִם֩ אִ֨ישׁ לַֽיהֹוָ֜ה מִכׇּל־אֲשֶׁר־ל֗וֹ מֵאָדָ֤ם וּבְהֵמָה֙ וּמִשְּׂדֵ֣ה אֲחֻזָּת֔וֹ לֹ֥א יִמָּכֵ֖ר וְלֹ֣א יִגָּאֵ֑ל כׇּל־חֵ֕רֶם קֹֽדֶשׁ־קׇדָשִׁ֥ים ה֖וּא לַיהֹוָֽה׃

Dedicating property to God can take various forms, but there exists an ultimate, absolute level of consecration. Unlike standard dedications designed simply to transfer monetary value to the Temple, this supreme vow represents a total severing of an object from secular use and from the owner's domain. The primary approach among commentators is that such absolute dedications are intended for the priests. Since the priests do not possess a tribal land inheritance, these gifts serve to supplement their estate [רלב״ג, רש״ר הירש, חומש קה״ת].

A fundamental disagreement exists regarding a vow where the destination is left unstated. Some maintain that any unspecified absolute dedication automatically defaults to the priests. Conversely, others argue that an unspecified vow defaults to the Temple treasury, meaning this specific type of dedication only takes effect when the individual explicitly designates the property for the priests [רש״י, מזרחי, מלבי״ם]. Regardless of the exact phrasing, the vow is driven by the person's intent. Even if someone struggles with language and mispronounces the terms of the vow, the dedication takes full effect as long as their intention is clear [תורה תמימה].

While the desire to give is noble, there are strict moral and practical limits. An individual is only permitted to dedicate a portion of their assets, never the entirety of their wealth. Squandering all of one's money on charity or holy causes is considered a sin, as it ultimately reduces the person to a state of poverty and makes them a burden on society [רלב״ג, רש״ר הירש, תורה תמימה]. Furthermore, a person can only dedicate property over which they have absolute ownership [ביאור יש״ר, אבן עזרא].

This requirement of absolute ownership dictates exactly what can be dedicated, specifically regarding humans, animals, and land. A person cannot dedicate free individuals, their own children, or Hebrew slaves, as they do not own their bodies. The dedication of humans applies exclusively to non-Hebrew slaves and maidservants, who are fully owned by the master. Just as an animal can be permanently sold, the humans subject to this vow are only those who can be sold permanently [רש״י, שד״ל, מזרחי, תורה תמימה]. Similarly, the dedication of real estate is restricted to inherited ancestral land, excluding purchased fields that legally must return to their original owners during the Jubilee year [אדרת אליהו].

The most defining characteristic of this absolute dedication is its irrevocability. Unlike standard consecrated items that can be redeemed with money, these gifts are final. The Temple treasurer cannot sell them to another party, and the original owner has no right to buy them back [שד״ל, מזרחי, חומש קה״ת]. This creates a fascinating two-stage process in the life of the dedicated object. As long as the property remains in the original owner's house and has not yet reached the priest, it is considered the holy of holies. Deriving any personal benefit from it is strictly forbidden, a severe status meant to distance people from misusing it. However, the moment the property is handed over to the priests, its sacred status lifts. It becomes entirely secular, allowing the priests to use it for their personal needs or sell it to anyone [רלב״ג, רש״ר הירש, ביאור יש״ר, גור אריה].

This intense level of sanctity also introduces unique rules regarding overlapping vows. A person can apply this absolute dedication to the priests even upon an animal that has already been consecrated as a sacrifice. In such a case, the animal is still offered on the altar for its original purpose, but the person who made the vow must pay the priest its monetary value or the value of its benefit, depending on the specific nature of the vow [רש״י, מזרחי, גור אריה]. Finally, while this absolute dedication is irrevocable, it is legally distinct from the firstborn animal. Although governed by similar concepts, a blemished firstborn animal may be sold, an allowance strictly forbidden for property placed under this ultimate vow [תורה תמימה].

נעזרתם בפירוש שלנו ומצאתם בו ערך?

עזרו לנו להגדיל תורה ולהאדירה. תחזוקת האתר והשבחת התוכן כרוכות בהוצאות מרובות. תרומה קטנה שלכם תסייע לנו להחזיק את הפלטפורמה ותהפוך אתכם לשותפים מלאים בהנגשת חוכמת המקרא.

תרמו עכשיו

מה דעתכם על הפירוש?

התחברתם? יש לכם חידוש או הארה על הפסוק שלמדתם כאן? נשמח לשמוע!

ההערות שלכם חשובות לנו ועוזרות לשפר את הפירוש.