1)

(a)Rebbi Eliezer in our Mishnah permits a person to be Machrim - to declare Cherem some of his sheep, cattle, Avadim and Sh'fachos ('Cana'anim') or Sadeh Achuzah.

(b)Having declared it Cherem - he then gives it to the Kohanim.

(c)The 'Mem' in front of each item ('mi'Tzono', 'mi'Bekaro' ... ) - indicates a prohibition to be Machrim all that he owns of that particular item.

2)

(a)Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah Darshens a Kal-Chomer from there, that - if one is forbidden to give away too much to Hekdesh, how much more so should one be careful not to squander one's money on behalf of a Hedyot.

(b)Rebbi Eliezer in a Beraisa learns from the Pasuk in Bechukosai "Ach Kol Cherem asher Yochram ...

1. ... mi'Kol asher lo" - the prohibition of being Machrim all of one's Metaltelin.

2. ... me'Adam, u'Veheimah u'mi'Sedei Achuzaso" - that of being Machrim all of one's Avadim, Shefachos, animals or inherited fields.

(c)And from "Ach" he learns that - even Bedi'eved, such a declaration will not be effective.

3)

(a)In spite of having written ...

1. ... "mi'Kol asher lo", the Pasuk nevertheless found it necessary to add other things - to extend the prohibition (from all one's property) to each and every species individually (as we explained in the Mishnah).

2. ... "Adam", the Torah needed to add "Sadeh" - which is more dispensable than slaves (as one can always rent a piece of land, whereas there is no alternative to Avadim). Consequently, we might have thought that one is permitted to declare all of one's fields Cherem.

3. ... "Adam and Sadeh", the Torah needs to add Metaltelin" - which is the most dispensable of all, since one's livelihood does not depend on them.

(b)Whereas another Beraisa learns from the word "Beheimah" that - Cherem is confined to articles that one is permitted to sell, to exclude one's son, daughter, Eved Ivri or Amah Ivriyah, which are not subject to Cherem.

(c)We query this with regard to Bito - whom the father is permitted to sell.

(d)And we answer that - whereas one may sell one's animal permanently, the sale of a daughter is limited (up to her twelfth birthday or even earlier, should the Yovel arrive earlier).

4)

(a)We establish the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah with regard to a statement of Rebbi Ila according to whom, the Chachamim in Usha instituted that - one is not allowed to give more a fifth of one's money to the poor.

(b)Their source for this is - Ya'akov Avinu, who promised to give Hash-m Ma'aser consisting of a tenth plus a tenth of all that he owned.

(c)Some say that an unidentified person wanted to give all his property to the poor, and Rebbi Yesheivav stopped him; whereas according to others, it was Rebbi Yesheivav who wanted to give all his property to the poor - and Rebbi Akiva stopped him.

(d)The Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah is - whether the Chachamim really did institute such a prohibition (Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah) or not (Rebbi Eliezer).

(e)The practical difference between them is that - according to the latter, one is permitted to give away all one's possessions (more than a fifth) leaving only a little for oneself; whereas the former maintains that this is forbidden.

5)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that if someone who is Machrim a Sadeh Mikneh (besides his son, daughter, Eved Ivri or Amah Ivriyah) - his declaration is not effective (because one cannot declare Hekdesh something that is not his).

(b)According to Rebbi Yehudah, the Cherem of both Kohanim and Levi'im is not effective either. Rebbi Shimon - agrees with regard to Kohanim, but not to Levi'im ...

(c)... because (bearing in mind that Charamim go to the Kohanim), whereas a Kohen who is Machrim a field will merely keep it himself, there is no reason for the Cherem of a Levi not to be effective.

(d)Rebbi makes a compromise between the two opinions. He holds that if a Levi is Machrim ...

1. ... Karka - it is not effective (like Rebbi Yehudah), due to the Pasuk "Ki Achuzas Olam hi lahem".

2. ... Metaltelin - it is (like Rebbi Shimon).

6)

(a)The problem with Rebbi Yehudah's ruling is - why a Levi cannot be Machrim his Metaltelin.

(b)This problem does not extend to Karka - due to the Pasuk "Ki Achuzas Olam hi lahem", that Rebbi already quoted.

7)

(a)In answer to the question, Rebbi Yehudah learns from the Hekesh "mi'Kol asher lo ... u'mi'Sedei Achuzaso" that - the Metaltelin of Levi'im are not subject to Cherem, as their Karka'os are.

(b)In view of the Pasuk "Ki Achuzas Olam hi lahem", when Rebbi Shimon says 'ha'Levi'im Machrimin', he must be referring to - Metaltelin ...

(c)... because he disagrees with Rebbi Yehudah's Hekesh (of Metaltelin to Karka).

(d)And now that Rebbi Shimon agrees with Rebbi Yehudah regarding Karka, when Rebbi says 'Nir'in Divrei Yehudah be'Karka'os' (implying that Rebbi Shimon disagrees), he really means to say - 'Nir'in Divrei Yehudah be'Karka'os le'Rebbi Shimon' (that Rebbi Shimon agrees with Rebbi Yehudah in this point).

8)

(a)Rebbi Chiya bar Avin learns from the Pasuk in Korach "Kol Cherem be'Yisrael l'cha Yih'yeh" that - one may give one's Charamim to any individual Kohen (like Aharon, to whom the Pasuk is speaking), even if he is not from the current Mishmar (see also Rabeinu Gershom).

(b)To reconcile this with the Pasuk in Bechukosai "ki'Sedei ha'Cherem la'Kohen Tih'yeh Achuzaso", which implies that it is given to the Kohanim of that Mishmar (as we will soon see) - he establishes the Pasuk in Korach by Metaltelin (whereas the Pasuk in Bechukosai refers specifically to fields).

9)

(a)We learn the latter ruling from a Gezeirah-Shavah "la'Kohen" "la'Kohen" (from Gezel ha'Ger). The Beraisa interprets the Pasuk in Noso "la'Hashem la'Kohen" (concerning the latter) to mean that - Hash-m acquires it and gives it to the Kohanim of that Mishmar.

(b)And we substantiate this explanation with the Pasuk there "Mil'vad Eil ha'Kipurim asher Yechaper bo Alav", which teaches us that - whoever is eligible to bring the ram of atonement (on behalf of the person who, after stealing from a Ger, swears that he didn't), can receive Gezel ha'Ger.

(c)According to Rebbi Chiya bar Avin, fields of Cherem - are given to the Kohanim of the Mishmar that is serving when the Yovel arrives.

10)

(a)We ask what the Din will be if the beginning of Yovel falls on Shabbos - when the current Mishmar serves at the beginning of the day, whereas the Mishmar of next week takes over in the middle of Shabbos. And the She'eilah is which Mishmar receives the Charamim.

(b)Rebbi Chiya bar Ami Amar Chulf'na resolves it - to the advantage of the latter Mishmar.

(c)Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak supports this with a Beraisa, which talks about Sh'mitah and Yovel being Meshamet simultaneously, a proof that - Yovel takes effect at the beginning of the year.

(d)By the Hashmatah of ...

1. ... Sh'mitah, he means that - debts are canceled.

2. ... Yovel that - the fields return to their owners.

11)

(a)The problem with the Tana who says that because the forty-ninth is the Sh'mitah and the fiftieth year, the Yovel, they are Meshamet simultaneously is that - surely it is because Sh'mitah is Meshamet at the end of the year and Yovel at the beginning, that we extrapolate that the forty-ninth year must be Sh'mitah and the fiftieth year, Yovel, and not vice-versa?

(b)We therefore amend the Beraisa from 'Nimtzeis Atah Omer Echad Yovel ve'Echad Shevi'is' to 'Mipnei she'ha'Yovel bi'Techilaso u'Sh'mitah be'Sofo' turning the second phrase into the cause, rather than the effect).

(c)We learn from the Pasuk in Re'ei "Mikeitz Sheva Shanim Ta'aseh Sh'mitah" - that Sh'mitah is Meshamet at the end of the year.

(d)The problem with the Beraisa, based on the Pasuk in B'har "be'Yom ha'Kipurim Ta'aviru Shofar be'Chol Artzechem" is that - if, as the Pasuk implies, Yovel is Meshamet only on Yom Kipur, how can it take effect at the same time as the Sh'mitah (which begins on Rosh-Hashanah)?

12)

(a)We answer by establishing the Beraisa like Rebbi Yishmael b'no shel Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah - who holds that Hashmatas Karka in the Yovel takes place already on Rosh Hashanah.

(b)Chizkiyah bar Biluti said over Rebbi Chiya bar Avin's statement (differentiating between Cherem of Metaltelin and Cherem of Karka) in front of Rebbi Avahu. Based on the Hekesh of Metaltelin to Karka (of Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah, the latter asked - why Rebbi Chiya bar Avin did not learn from the Hekesh that Metaltelin too, must go to the Kohanim of that Mishmar.

(c)To which Chizkiyah bar Biluti replied that - this Hekesh is subject to a Machlokes Tana'im, as we learned in our Mishnah, and Rebbi Chiya bar Avin holds like Rebbi Shimon, who, as we already learned, does not learn the Hekesh.

13)

(a)Our Mishnah learns from the Pasuk in Bechukosai "Lo Yipadeh ve'Lo Yiga'el that - Charamim cannot be redeemed (but must be given intact to the Kohen).

(b)Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira learns from "Kol Cherem Kodesh Kodshim hu la'Hashem" that - S'tam Charamim go to Bedek ha'Bayis (and not to the Kohanim).

(c)The Chachamim ...

1. ... based on the Pasuk "ki'Sedei ha'Cherem la'Kohen Tih'yeh Achuzaso", hold that - S'tam Charamim go to the Kohanim.

2. ... learn from "Kol Cherem Kodesh Kodshim hu la'Hashem" that - Charamim take effect both on Kodshei Kodshim and on Kodshim Kalim.

(d)The ramifications of this ruling, assuming the Kodshim animal is ...

1. ... a Neder (for which he will be responsible, should it get stolen or lost) are that - he must pay the full value to the Kohen (as that is what the animal is worth to him), and the animal is brought on the Mizbe'ach.

2. ... a Nedavah (for which he will not be responsible) are that - he must pay as much as a person would be willing to pay if he was offered such as animal at a bargain price, to bring as a voluntary Olah.

14)

(a)Our Mishnah assesses the Tovas Hana'ah of a B'chor Beheimah that the owner declares Cherem - according to how much someone would be willing to pay him to give this animal to the son of his daughter or of his sister (who married a Kohen).

(b)The B'chor itself does not become Cherem - because it does not belong to the him to be Machrim.

(c)The Tana specifically says 'ben Bito' and 'ben Achoso' (and not ben B'no and Achiv) - because that would mean that he (the Balabos who is paying the money) is a Kohen too, and it is forbidden for a Kohen who is fit to receive the Matanah in question to pay money for it, even for the Matanah to go to someone else (like in this case), because it resembles Kohen ha'Mesaye'a be'Veis ha'Geranos (a Kohen who helps in the granary in order to receive Terumah as payment).

(d)... which is forbidden - because it looks as if he is getting paid for helping in the granary (rather than simply receiving Terumah).