This Week's Article

Cherem and Kodshim

Erchin (8:7) | Yisrael Bankier | a day ago

The eight perek of Arachin discusses Charamim. This category of dedication is where the object, depending on how or where the cherem was made, is either given to the kohanim or to the Beit HaMikdash.

The seventh Mishnah discusses the case where one attempt to machrim an animal that was already a korban. The Mishnah draws a distinction between whether the korban was a neder or nedava. A neder is where the person committed to bring a korban, such that if something happened to the korban he set aside, he is obligated to bring a replacement. In other words, he is chayav be'achrayut. A nedava however is where one set aside a specific animal to be brought as a korban. If something happens to that animal, he is not required to take any further action.

The Mishnah explains that if someone was machrim a neder then he would be required to pay the value of that animal. The Bartnura explains that since he is responsible for its replacement, it is considered as if it is his. He gives the value to a kohen, to effectively redeem the cherem and then the animal is offered as a korban. If however the animal was a nedava, the amount is the value of being able to offer this animal, when one is not obligated to do so. We shall try to understand the case of the neder.

Rashi (28b) explains like the Bartenura above yet adds that he cannot machrim the korban itself since it is not his. The difficultly with this Mishnah is that in the previous Mishnah we learnt that one cannot redeem charamim. Yet it appears that that is exactly what we are doing in this Mishnah -- the value of the korban is given to the kohanim. Secondly, if the animal is not considered his, then how can the cherem work at all. In the Mishnah prior to that one we learnt that one cannot machrim something that belongs to someone else.

The Griz (Temura 31a, s.v u'v'Rashi) asks an additional question. Why did Rashi need to say that he cannot make the korban itself cherem because it is not his? Instead, one can explains that since it already has kedusha you cannot switch it to another kedusha. That is why the animal itself cannot become a cherem.

The Achiezer (3:1:5) cites the Mekor Chaim who explain that in our Mishnah the person is not being machrim the animal, but rather the tovat hana'ah, the financial benefit. To explain, this is also true in the case of the neder. The cherem applies to the tovat hana'ah. It so happens that the tovat hanaah is equal to the full value of the animal, since he would be required to replace it if were it lost. That explains why he can machrim the animal, even if the animal being a korban is not considered his. It is because the full tovat hana'ah is. Consequently, the "redemption" that follows is not the redemption of a cherem object (which is not allowed) but the payment for that tovat hana'ah.¹

The Achiezer however disagrees. Since the korban is not his, the cherem is not connected to the korban at all. Instead he notes that the source that charamim can apply to korbanot is from the pasuk, "kol cherem, kodesh kadashim hu la'Hashem". He understands that the pasuk teaches that in this context the cherem takes the form of a neder. In other words, it is not attached to anything. Instead, one simply obligated himself to provide a certain sum of money.

Yisrael Bankier

¹ The Mekor Chaim explains that our Mishnah could then be understood as distinct from the debate regarding whether tovat hana'ah is considered mamon -- money. Recall that according to the opinion that it is not mamon, one would not be able to, e.g. perform kiddushin with tovat hana'ah. He maintains that even that position would agree that it has financial value. It is simply whether tovat hana'ah is sufficient to have a title on the object itself or whether it is distinct from it and cannot be acquired with the standard means of acquisition. In contrast, since hekdesh, cherem, hefker or bitul are affected by a verbal declaration, they would agree that it could affect tovat hanaah.

The Achiezer however rejects this as a proof as cited in the article and understands that the opinion that maintains that tovat hana'ah is not mamon, would maintains that hefker and bitul would not apply.

Download

Calendar