shall be yours'' (Numbers 18:14), i.e., for Aaron and any of his descendants. But if one dedicated his fields, he gives them to a priest of that priestly watch which is currently serving in the Temple, as it is stated: ''As a field dedicated; its possession shall be to the priest'' (Leviticus 27:21). And one derives a verbal analogy between ''to the priest'' here and ''to the priest'' from a verse (Numbers 5:8) discussing property robbed from a convert. The halakha in that case is that if one took an oath that he did not rob a convert, and then after the convert died and left no descendants he admitted to taking a false oath, he must give the stolen property to the priests of the priestly watch currently serving in the Temple.

The Gemara asks: And there, in the case of property robbed from a convert, from where do we derive that it is given to the priests of the current priestly watch? As it is taught in a baraita: In the verse: ''But if the man has no kinsman to whom restitution may be made for the guilt, the restitution for guilt that is made shall be the Lord’s, to the priest'' (Numbers 5:8), the phrase: ''Shall be the Lord’s, to the priest,'' indicates that God has acquired the restitution for the guilt and has given it to the priest of that priestly watch.

The Gemara objects: Do you say the restitution is given to the priest of that priestly watch; or perhaps is it necessary only for it to be given to any priest to whom the robber wishes to give it. The Gemara explains that when the same verse says: ''Besides the ram of the atonement, whereby atonement shall be made for him,'' this indicates that the verse speaks of a priest of that priestly watch, i.e., the watch that is currently involved in sacrificing offerings.

§ Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin states another halakha involving property that is given to the priests. With regard to a field that was consecrated by its owner and was not redeemed by him, which goes out of his possession and passes to the possession of the priests at the Jubilee Year, one gives it to the members of the priestly watch serving when the Jubilee Year occurred, i.e., the watch serving at the beginning of the Jubilee Year. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If the beginning of the Jubilee Year occurred on Shabbat, which is the day on which the priestly watches rotate, what is the halakha? Which priestly watch receives the property? Rav Ḥiyya bar Ami says in the name of Ḥulfana: One gives it to the watch that leaves the service of the Temple on that Shabbat.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with these statements: You are found to say that both the Jubilee Year, when fields that were sold are returned to their owners, and the Sabbatical Year, when debts are canceled, abrogate at once, i.e., at the same time, except that the Jubilee Year abrogates at its beginning and the Sabbatical Year abrogates at its end. In other words, the evening of Rosh HaShana at the conclusion of the Sabbatical Year, which is the forty-ninth year of the Jubilee cycle, is also the beginning of the Jubilee Year, which is the fiftieth year. At this time, all debts and land purchases are abrogated, and consecrated fields that were not redeemed become the property of the priests. Accordingly, if Rosh HaShana occurs on a Shabbat, the priestly watch that ends their service receives the fields, as the priestly watches rotate only in the morning.

The Gemara questions the terminology of the baraita: Why does the baraita state: Except that? This statement indicates that the Sabbatical Year and the Jubilee Year abrogate simultaneously despite the fact that the Jubilee Year abrogates at its beginning. On the contrary, this halakha is due to that very reason, i.e., they abrogate simultaneously because the Jubilee Year abrogates at its beginning and the Sabbatical Year at its end. The Gemara explains that in fact one should say the baraita as follows: They abrogate at the same time, due to the fact that the Jubilee Year abrogates at its beginning and the Sabbatical Year at its end.

The Gemara asks: Granted, it is clear that the Sabbatical Year abrogates at its end, as it is written: ''At the end of every seven years you shall make a release'' (Deuteronomy 15:1). But does the Jubilee Year abrogate at its very beginning? It abrogates only ten days later, on Yom Kippur, as it is written: ''On Yom Kippur shall you make proclamation with the shofar throughout all your land…and you shall return every man to his possession'' (Leviticus 25:9–10). The Gemara explains: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, who says: It is from Rosh HaShana that the Jubilee Year takes effect.

The Gemara returns to the statement of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin that one who dedicates his movable property may give it to a priest of his choosing, whereas one who dedicates his land gives it to members of the current priestly watch. The Gemara relates that Ḥizkiyya bar Biluto heard this statement and went and said the following difficulty before Rabbi Abbahu: But let one juxtapose movable property to land, as the verse states: ''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). If so, movable property must also be given to members of the current priestly watch.

Rabbi Abbahu responded: Is it not a dispute between tanna’im? As there are those who juxtapose and there are those who do not juxtapose, in accordance with the earlier explanation of the Gemara that this is the basis for the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon with regard to whether or not Levites may dedicate movable property. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin holds in accordance with the opinion of the one who says we do not juxtapose movable property and land.

MISHNA: Dedications of property for priests, unlike consecrations of property for Temple maintenance, have no redemption; rather, one gives it to the priests, and it is their property in every sense, like teruma. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: Dedications dedicated without specification of their purpose are designated for Temple maintenance, as it is stated: ''Every dedicated item is most sacred to the Lord'' (Leviticus 27:28).

And the Rabbis say: Dedications dedicated without specification of their purpose are designated for priests, as it is stated with regard to one who consecrated a field and did not redeem it: ''As a field dedicated; its possession shall be to the priest'' (Leviticus 27:21), indicating that a non-specific dedication belongs to the priest. If so, why is it stated: ''Every dedicated item is most sacred to the Lord''? This comes to teach that dedication takes effect on offerings of the most sacred order and offerings of lesser sanctity. If one consecrated an animal for sacrifice and then dedicated it, the dedication takes effect. Nevertheless, it does not take effect on the body of the animal; rather, it applies to the owner’s financial stake in the offering.

As the Sages delineated: A person may dedicate his sacrificial animals, both offerings of the most sacred order and offerings of lesser sanctity. If the offering he dedicated was the object of a vow, e.g., if he said: It is incumbent upon me to sacrifice a burnt offering, since he is obligated to replace such offerings they are considered his property, and therefore he gives their value to the priests.

And if the offering he dedicated was a gift offering, e.g., if he said: This animal is a burnt offering, in which case he is not obligated to replace the animal, he gives the monetary benefit that he has in them. For example, if he said: This bull is a burnt offering, one estimates how much money a person would be willing to give in order to sacrifice the animal as a voluntary burnt offering, even though he is not permitted to do so.

With regard to a firstborn animal, whether it is unblemished or whether it is blemished, its owner may dedicate it. And how does one assess the payment required to redeem it? One estimates how much an Israelite person would be willing to give in exchange for that firstborn in order to give it to a priest who is his daughter’s son or to a priest who is his sister’s son.