What are the circumstances of such an offer? It is in a case where the owner initially said he would purchase the field for twenty-one sela. In such an instance, the additional one-fifth amounts to five sela and one dinar, which means that the total payment of the owner is twenty-six sela and one dinar, greater than the offer of the other person. Accordingly, the owner takes precedence, and when the one-fifth is added to the twenty-six sela offer of the other person, the total price paid by the owner is equal to thirty-one sela and one dinar. And if the payment of the owner does not exceed the offer of the other person even when accounting for the additional one-fifth, then the treasurer says to the other person: The field has come into your possession.

MISHNA: A person may dedicate, for sacred or priestly use, some of his flock and some of his cattle, and some of his Canaanite slaves and maidservants, and some of his ancestral field. But if he dedicated all that he has of any type of property, they are not dedicated, i.e., the dedication does not take effect; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said: If for the Most High a person may not dedicate all his property, it is all the more so the case that a person should spare his property and not give all of it to others.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where are these matters, stated in the mishna, derived? The Gemara explains that this is as the Sages taught in a baraita, with regard to the verse: “Notwithstanding, no dedicated thing that a man may dedicate to the Lord of all that he has, whether of man or animal, or of his ancestral field” (Leviticus 27:28). The verse indicates that one may dedicate “of all that he has” but not all that he has; likewise “of man” but not every man, i.e., not every slave of his; “of man or animal” but not every animal of his; and finally one may dedicate “of his ancestral field” but not all of his ancestral field.

It might have been thought that one may not dedicate all his properties ab initio, but if he did dedicate all of them, they should be dedicated. Therefore the verse states: “Notwithstanding,” to teach that they are not dedicated. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said: If for the Most High a person may not dedicate all his property, it is all the more so the case that a person should spare his property and not give it all to others.

The Gemara notes: And it is necessary to derive this halakha with regard to all the categories in the verse. As, if the Merciful One had written only: “Of all that he has,” I would say that one may not dedicate all that he has, but let him dedicate all of one type of property. Therefore, the Merciful One writes “of man,” to teach that he may not dedicate every man.

And if the Merciful One had written only: “of man,” one might say that he may not dedicate all of his slaves, as it is not possible for him to be without a slave to perform his work; but with regard to a field, it is possible for him to maintain a livelihood by sharecropping [distoran]. And if the Torah had taught this halakha with regard to only these two types, i.e., ancestral fields and slaves, one might say these may not be dedicated in their entirety because here there is livelihood and here there is also livelihood. But in the case of movable property, on which maintaining a livelihood does not depend, let him dedicate all of them. Therefore, all of these derivations are necessary.

The Gemara further asks: Why do I need for the verse to state “or animal”? The Gemara explains it is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: One might have thought a person can dedicate his son or his daughter, his Hebrew slave or maidservant, or his purchased field. Therefore, the verse states “animal” to teach that just as an animal is an item that he has permission to sell, so too, one can dedicate any item that he has permission to sell. He cannot dedicate an item that he does not have the ability to sell.

The baraita continues: But in the case of his minor daughter, he has permission to sell her as a Hebrew maidservant. If so, one might have thought he may dedicate her. Therefore, the verse states “animal,” indicating that just as an animal is an item that he always has permission to sell, so too, one can dedicate any item that he always has permission to sell, whereas one may not sell his daughter once she reaches majority. A field as well can be sold only until the Jubilee Year.

§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said: If for the Most High a person may not dedicate all his property, it is all the more so the case that one should spare his property and not give it all to others. The Gemara raises a difficulty: This is identical to the opinion of the first tanna, i.e., Rabbi Eliezer, who prohibits the dedication of all one’s property.

The Gemara responds: There is a practical difference between them with regard to the statement of Rabbi Ila, as Rabbi Ila said: In Usha the Sages instituted that one who dispenses his money to charity should not dispense more than a fifth. Rabbi Eliezer, who did not state that one should spare his property, rules that one may give all his money to charity, provided he keeps a small portion for himself, whereas Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya maintains that one should not give more than a fifth.

The Gemara relates that there was an incident involving a certain individual who sought to dispense more than a fifth of his property as charity, and his friend did not let him act upon his wishes. And who was this friend? It was Rabbi Yeshevav. And some say it was Rabbi Yeshevav who wanted to give too much charity, and his friend did not let him do so. And who was the friend? It was Rabbi Akiva.

MISHNA: In the case of one who dedicates his son or his daughter, or his Hebrew slave or maidservant, or his purchased field, those items are not considered dedicated, as a person may not dedicate an item that is not his. Priests and Levites may not dedicate their property; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says: Priests may not dedicate their property, as all dedicated property is theirs; it is one of the priestly gifts, as the verse states: “Everything dedicated in Israel shall be yours” (Numbers 18:14). But Levites may dedicate their property, as dedicated property is not theirs.

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The statement of Rabbi Yehuda appears to be correct with regard to land, as it is stated about the land of the Levites: “But the fields of the open land surrounding their cities may not be sold, as that is their perpetual possession” (Leviticus 25:34), and they cannot renounce that land. And the statement of Rabbi Shimon appears to be correct with regard to movable property, which the Levites may dedicate, as dedicated property is not theirs. It is a gift for the priests, not the Levites.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Yehuda, what is his reasoning? Granted, priests may not dedicate property, as dedicated property is theirs; it is one of the gifts of the priesthood. But why are Levites unable to dedicate their property? Granted, they may not dedicate land, as it is written: “As that is their perpetual possession” (Leviticus 25:34). But let them dedicate movable property. The Gemara explains that the verse states: “Notwithstanding, no dedicated thing, that a man may dedicate to the Lord of all that he has, whether of man or animal, or of his ancestral field” (Leviticus 27:28). The verse juxtaposes the dedication of movable property to that of land. Accordingly, as Levites cannot dedicate land, they cannot dedicate movable property either.

The Gemara asks: And with regard to Rabbi Shimon, what is his reasoning? Granted, priests may not dedicate their property, as we stated above, because dedicated property is theirs. But why may Levites dedicate their property? Granted, let them dedicate movable property, as Rabbi Shimon does not juxtapose movable property to land. But why may Levites dedicate land? Isn’t it written: That is their perpetual possession? The Gemara answers: What does Rabbi Shimon mean when he says Levites may dedicate property? He means they may dedicate only movable property.

The Gemara objects: But from the fact that the latter clause of the mishna teaches: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said the statement of Rabbi Yehuda appears to be correct with regard to land, and the statement of Rabbi Shimon appears to be correct with regard to movable property; by inference one may conclude that Rabbi Shimon also says Levites can dedicate their land. The Gemara explains that this is what the mishna is saying: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said that the statement of Rabbi Yehuda appears to be correct even to Rabbi Shimon with regard to land belonging to Levites, as even Rabbi Shimon disagrees with Rabbi Yehuda about the ability of Levites to dedicate property only with regard to movable property. But with regard to land, Rabbi Shimon concedes to Rabbi Yehuda that the Levites cannot dedicate it.

§ Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin says: One who dedicated movable property may give it to any priest that he wishes, as it is stated: “Everything dedicated in Israel