Hekdesh and a Lien

Hekdesh vs. Lien

The Gemora cited Rava’s statement, that a lien can be broken by three mechanisms: hekdesh (consecration), chametz on Pesach, and shichrur (freeing a slave). The Rishonim discuss the parameters of hekdesh breaking a lien.

Type of Hekdesh

Rashi states that this is only true for hekdesh haguf – consecration of an item itself, and not just its value. If someone consecrates an animal as a sacrifice, the animal itself is to be used for the sacrifice, and is therefore considered hekdesh haguf. If someone consecrates other items, they will be sold, with their value being used by hekdesh. This is called hekdesh damim (monetary consecration).

Tosfos explains that since hekdesh haguf is not redeemed (unless the animal becomes unfit), once it applies to an animal, a lien does not remove it. However, just as hekdesh damim can be removed via redemption, it is removed by the lien.

The Rambam (Malve v’lo’ve 18:7) holds that both types of hekdesh remove a lien.

Rabbeinu Tam (Tosfos Gittin 40b hekdesh) says that on movable items, both types of hekdesh remove a lien, but on real estate, only hekdesh haguf removes a lien, since real estate is considered to currently be property of the lien holder.

The Meiri states that the type of hekdesh is immaterial, and the only issue is whether the borrower has any more assets for the lien holder to collect from. If there are more assets, the hekdesh removes the lien, but if there are no more assets, the hekdesh does not affect the lien.

How?

Tosfos (Gittin 40b hekdesh) state that Rava is consistent with his opinion (Pesachim 30b) that a creditor is considered an owner of property he collects only from the time of collection. Therefore, until that time, the assets are still the property of the borrower, and he has the power to consecrate it.

Konam

The Rishonim discuss whether forbidding an item through a konam (vow) can also break a lien, inasmuch as a konam is akin to a personal consecration. Most Rishonim say that only a konam that forbids everyone from benefiting from the item can break the lien, since such a konam is similar to consecration in it universal application. Some Rishonim (Meiri, Ran, Nimukei Yosef) hold that even a konam only prohibiting the creditor from benefit breaks a lien, but we pressure the borrower to undo his konam, since he unfairly has harmed the creditor alone by his action.

Read more!

Whose Money is it?

By: Reb Yechezkel Khayyat

The Gemora (Bava Kamma 76a) discusses the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, that something that can cause someone monetary loss is tantamount to being that person’s money. The Ra’avad rules like Rabbi Shimon, and therefore considers hekdesh for which the makdish is responsible (harei alai) to be the property of the makdish. Therefore, according to the Ra’avad, if someone steals such hekdesh, he must pay full damages (including kefel and dv’h) to the makdish.

The Rambam (Geneivah 2:1), however, rules like the Chachamim, as this is the anonymous Mishna’s position. Therefore, in all cases of hekdesh articles that are stolen, the thief is not liable to pay any damages to the makdish. The Rambam first states that one who steals from hekdesh does not pay kefel, and quotes the verse yeshalem shnaim l’reyeyhu’ – he should pay double to his peer, excluding hekdesh, which is not his peer. Then, the Rambam applies this equally to all hekdesh – irrespective of the makdish’s responsibility – and quotes the verse of v’gunav mibeis ha’ish – and it was stolen from the home of the man, excluding hekdesh, which is not a man.

Tosfos (63a rayayhu) ask why the Gemora on 62b uses reyeyhu to exclude hekdesh, while our Gemora uses the verse of ha’ish to exclude hekdesh. While Tosfos explains that both are actually being learned from reyeyhu, the Lechem Mishnah states that the Rambam was implicitly addressing this question by quoting the different verses. The verse of reyeyhu is the fundamental source for excluding hekdesh from theft payments. However, the extra verse of ha’ish is the source for our ruling that this applies to all hekdesh – whether the makdish is responsible for it or not.

The Rishonim and Achronim discuss the exact formulation and rationale behind Rabbi Shimon’s opinion. Some of the facets discussed are:

1. At what point is it considered money? Does this begin while it’s in the responsible person’s property, simply because it can cause him to lose money, or is it only once it’s been removed from his property?

2. Is the obligation of one who harms such an item simply because he has caused a monetary loss, or because the holder’s responsibility created a status of money in the abstract? Another formulation of this question is – when one pays for damage to such an article, is it because of the damage done (which now includes monetary loss), or because the item is considered the property of the holder?

3. The Gemora in Pesachim (5b-6a) discusses Rabbi Shimon’s opinion in the context of chametz on Pesach. The rule established by the braisa quoted there is that the chametz of a non Jew in a Jew’s possession is considered the Jew’s only if the Jew is responsible for it. The Gemora debates whether this is a function of Rabbi Shimon’s opinion, or an exception to the ruling of the Chachamim. The exact application of this rule in the case of Chametz may depend on this debate. If chametz is a function of Rabbi Shimon’s opinion, it may be subject to the possible limitations and definitions of Rabbi Shimon’s general position on such items. If, however, it is an exception to the ruling of the Chachamim, the Torah is telling us a more sweeping statement about how we determine ownership for chametz on Pesach. One ramification of this may be how responsible for the Chametz a Jew must have in order to be obligated to remove it.

See the Ketzos Hachoshen 386:7 and Afikei Yam 2:10 for more detailed discussion of these topics.

Read more!

Yaakov's Altar (this week's Parshah)

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here

It is written [Breishis 28:18]: And Yaakov arose early in the morning, and he took the stone that he had placed at his head, and he set it up as a monument, and he poured oil on top of it.

The Chasam sofer asks: The Gemora in Zevachim (116a) states: Anything used by a common person becomes forbidden to be used for the High! Once Yaakov used these stones for his head, how could he have used them afterwards to build an Altar?

He answers: the Yalkut (119) states that these stones were the stones from Noach’s altar, and it was also the stones used for Akeidas Yitzchak. The Zayis Raanaan asks: How could Yaakov use these stones to lie upon; he should be guilty of me’ilah in hekdesh!? Firstly, he answers that he did not actually use the stones, but rather, he placed them around him as a protection. Accordingly, we can use this to answer the original question. Yaakov could use these stones to build a monument, for he never actually used them for his personal needs.

The Zayis Raanaan offers an alternative answer to his question. Yaakov used these stones to lie upon even though they were hekdesh because he was in dangerous situation. He needed the stones to protect him from the wild animals. Accordingly, the first question returns. How could he then use these stones to build an altar, if these stones were actually used for his personal needs? He answers based upon our Gemora, which states that if one knowingly uses hekdesh for his own personal needs, the hekdesh does not become deconsecrated. Consequently, Yaakov was permitted to use these stones for an altar, for his deliberate usage of the stones beforehand did not deconsecrate them.

Read more!

The Annonymous Man

The Mishna (Daf Yomi: Nazir 32b) had stated: They (six people) were walking on a road, and there was one person coming towards them. One of them said, “I am hereby a nazir that this person is So-and-so,” and a second one said, “I am hereby a nazir that this person is not So-and-so.” The third one said, “I am hereby a nazir that one of you (the first two) is a nazir,” and the fourth one said, “I am hereby a nazir that one of you (the first two) is not a nazir.” The fifth one said, “I am hereby a nazir that both of you (the first two) are nezirim.” The sixth person said, “I am hereby a nazir that all of you (the first five) are nezirim.”

Tosfos explains the rationale of each person: They (six people) were walking on a road, and there was one person coming towards them, who could not be identified from afar. One of them said, “I am hereby a nazir that this person is So-and-so,” for he was convinced that he recognized the far away person to be Reuven.

The second one said, “I am hereby a nazir that this person is not So-and-so,” for he was in fact certain that the person was not Reuven.

The third one said, “I am hereby a nazir that one of you (the first two) is a nazir,” for he figured that one of them was certainly correct.

The fourth one said, “I am hereby a nazir that one of you (the first two) is not a nazir.” He is in essence saying the same as the third one, except it is the converse of his declaration.

The fifth one said, “I am hereby a nazir that both of you (the first two) are nezirim,” for he thinks that both of them should be a nazir since they both accepted upon themselves nezirus according to what they honestly thought to be the truth.

The sixth person said, “I am hereby a nazir that all of you (the first five) are nezirim,” for in his opinion, they should all be nezirim.

Retracting from Nezirus and Hekdesh

The Mishna had stated: Beis Hillel rules that none of them are nezirim except the one whose words were not fulfilled.

The Gemora asks: Why is he a nazir if his words were not fulfilled?

Rav Yehudah emends the Mishna to say that none of them are nezirim except the one whose words were fulfilled.

Abaye says: The case is where he added, “If it is not So-and-so, I am hereby a nazir.” (The novelty of this ruling is that he may retract from his original statement if his retraction was within the time of an utterance.) [Accordingly] What does Beis Hillel mean when they said, “His words did not come to fruition?” They meant that his first words did not come to fruition; only his second words.

The Tiferes Tziyon writes that this would be a distinction between the halachos of a nazir and the halachos regarding hekdesh. If one vows to become a nazir under a certain condition and immediately retracts, we accept his second declaration, for his intention is to become a nazir. However, regarding hekdesh, we would not allow one to retract from a vow declaring something to be hekdesh.

The Be’er Moshe disagrees and states that just like one may immediately retract from his nezirus vow, he may retract from a hekdesh declaration as well. He concludes that since the Rambam rules that one may not retract from hekdesh, even within the time of an utterance, it is apparent that he does not rule like our Gemora, and one may not retract from a nezirus vow either.

Read more!

The prohibition remaining even after the item leaves his possession

Avimi inquired (Nedarim Daf 47): If one said to his friend, “Konam, your entering this house,” and then he dies or sold it to someone else, what is the halacha? Does a person have the ability to prohibit something presently in his ownership, and the prohibition will remain even after it leaves his ownership or not?

The Nimukei Yosef cites a Ritva, who quotes the following Yerushalmi: A person will only have the ability to prohibit something presently in his ownership, and the prohibition will remain even after it leaves his ownership. However, he cannot initially prohibit the item only for the time after it leaves his possession.

The Haflaas Nedarim explains: The only reason that someone would have the ability to prohibit something presently in his ownership, and the prohibition will remain even after it leaves his ownership is because it is similar to hekdesh. Since the item in question is presently in his possession, the neder takes effect and the prohibition remains on this object forever just like hekdesh. However, one does not have the ability to consecrate an item that is presently not in his possession, and therefore, a neder to prohibit something only for the time after it leaves his possession will not take effect.

The Korban Nesanel asks: Why couldn’t this inquiry be resolved from the Gemora above (42a-b) which concluded that if one says to his fellow, “These possessions should be forbidden to you”; if he vowed prior to shemitah, he may not enter his field and he may not eat from the fruits which are growing on the branches outside of his field even when shemitah arrives? This is because a person has the ability to prohibit something presently in his ownership, and the prohibition will remain even after it leaves his ownership! Shouldn’t the halacha be the same in our case where he sold the property to someone else?

He answers that shemitah is different. Since the vower has the right to acquire the fruits that are growing just like anyone else, it is regarded as if it is still in his possession, and that is why the fruits remain forbidden. (This is a tremendous chiddush that something can be considered yours because you have the right to acquire it.) However, the Gemora’s inquiry here is regarding a case where he sold the property. In this case, the item is not in his possession at all, and perhaps, the prohibition will not remain after it leaves his possession.

The Shitah Mikubetzes answers that Avimi did not know the conclusion of the Gemora above and that is why he made this inquiry.

Read more!