כל חרם אשר יחרם מן האדם היוצא ליהרג ואמר אחד ערכו עלי לא אמר כלום "מות יומת" הרי הוא הולך למות לפיכך לא יפדה אין לו דמים ולא ערך לשון רש"י (רש"י על ויקרא כ״ז:כ״ט) ורבותינו נחלקו בדבר (ערכין ו) ויש מהם אומרים שהוא אזהרה לחייבי מיתות שאין לוקחין מהן כופר לפטרן ויתכן שהזכיר זה בכאן לומר שלא יתן ממון לשם כשאר החרמים ויפטר ועל דרך הפשט יאמר הכתוב כי כל המחרים משלו בין אדם בין בהמה ושדה אחוזתו הוא קודש לשם שהן חרמים לכהנים ואין להם פדיון אבל המחרים מן האדם שאינו שלו כגון הנלחמים על אויביהם ונודרים נדר אם נתון תתן את העם הזה בידי והחרמתי את עריהם (במדבר כא ב) ימותו כל האדם הנמצא בהם והטעם שאין דעת הנודר כן לתתו לכהנים רק שיהיה הכל אסור בהנאה כי נתכוון להכרית האויבים ולכלותם ומצינו אנשי יבש גלעד שעברו על שבועת הקהל ולא באו אל המצפה וכתיב (שופטים כא י) וישלחו שם העדה שנים עשר אלף איש מבני החיל ויצוו אותם לאמר לכו והכיתם את יושבי יבש גלעד לפי חרב ואין הסברא נותנת שעשו כל העדה רעה כזאת להמית אנשים רבים מישראל שאינם חייבים מיתה ופנחס היה שם ועל פיו נעשה כל הענין ההוא ועוד מצאתי באגדה בילמדנו תניא רבי עקיבא אומר החרם הוא השבועה והשבועה הוא החרם אנשי יבש עברו על החרם ונתחייבו מיתה ולכך אני אומר כי מן הכתוב הזה יצא להם הדין הזה שכל מלך בישראל או סנהדרי גדולה במעמד כל ישראל שיש להם רשות במשפטים אם יחרימו על עיר להלחם עליה וכן אם יחרימו על דבר העובר עליו חייב מיתה והוא חיובן של אנשי יבש גלעד ושל יהונתן שאמר לו אביו (שמואל א יד מד) כה יעשה אלהים וכה יוסיף כי מות תמות יונתן ומהיכן נתחייבו אלו מיתה מן הדין חוץ מן המקום הזה וזה היה טעותו של יפתח בבתו כי חשב כאשר חרם נגיד ישראל חל וקים להמית אנשים או העובר על חרמו חייב מיתה כן אם נדר בעת מלחמה לעשות מאיש או אנשים זבח יחול הנדר ולא ידע כי חרם המלך והסנהדרין חל על המורדים לכלותם או על העובר גזירתם ותקנתם אבל לחול הנדר לעשות עולה מדבר שאין ראוי לה' חס וחלילה ולכך אמר בב"ר (ס ג) שאפילו הקדש דמים לא היה חייב ונענש בדמה ואל תהיה נפתה בהבלי ר"א האומר כי פירוש והעליתיהו עולה (שופטים יא לא) או והעליתיהו לומר אם יהיה היוצא מדלתי ביתי איש או אשה והיה לה' קודש שיהיה פרוש מדרכי העולם לעמוד לשרת בשם ה' בתפלה והודות לאלהים ואם יהיה דבר ראוי ליקרב אעלנו עולה ועשה בית לבתו מחוץ לעיר והתבודדה שם וכלכלה כל ימיה ואיש לא ידעה והיתה בתו צרורה שם ואלה דברי רוח כי אם נדר שיהיה לה' איננו שיהיה פרוש אבל יהיה כמו שמואל שאמרה אמו ונתתיו לה' (שמואל א א יא) והיה משרת בבית ה' לא פרוש וכפי משפטי התורה אין ביד האדם שידור ביוצאי פתח ביתו שיהיו פרושים כאשר אין בידו להעלותם עולה ואם הדבר כן היתה בתו הבוכה על בתוליה ורעיותיה עמה כזונות לקלס אתנן וח"ו שיהיה חק בישראל לתנות לבת יפתח ארבעת ימים בשנה מפני שלא נשאת לבעל והיתה עובדת את ה' בטהרה אבל הדבר כפשוטו וטעותו היה ממה שאמרתי ולדעת רבותינו ז"ל יתכן שיהיה הכתוב הזה כולל דברים רבים כמו לא תאכלו על הדם (ויקרא י״ט:כ״ו) וכמו לא יומתו אבות על בנים (דברים כד טז) שהם דורשים אותו בפסול עדות הקרובים (סנהדרין כז) והכתוב אומר בו עוד (מלכים ב יד ו) ואת בני המכים לא המית ככתוב בספר תורת משה אשר צוה ה' לאמר לא יומתו אבות על בנים ובנים לא יומתו על אבות וכן זה הכתוב יכלול דין המעריך מחוייבי מיתה ודין מי שמחרימים אותו בעת הכיבוש כמו שאמרנו והעובר על החרם של בית דין הגדול או של מלך ישראל כענין מעשה שאול וזהו שנאמר שם (שמואל א יד מה) ויפדו העם את יהונתן ולא מת כי כלפי מה שאמרה בו תורה לא יפדה מות יומת אמר שם ויפדו העם את יונתן ולא מת כי בעבור שאירע נס על ידו ידעו כי בשוגג עשה וזה טעם אשר עשה הישועה הגדולה הזאת בישראל (שם) וכן תרגם יונתן בן עוזיאל ארי קדם ה' גלי דבשלו עבד יומא דין ופרק עמא ית יונתן: NONE DOOMED WHO SHALL BE DOOMED OF MAN, SHALL BE REDEEMED. “[This means that] if a person is about to be executed [by the court], and someone else says, ‘I take upon myself to pay his valuation [to the Temple treasury],’ his vow is of no effect.” HE SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH. “For you see he is going to die. Therefore he is not to be redeemed; he has neither a market-price nor a fixed valuation” [as fixed by the Torah on the basis of his age]. This is Rashi’s language. But our Rabbis have differed on this matter, some saying198Arakhin 6 b. The name of the Sage holding this opinion is Rabbi Yishmael. that it constitutes an admonition in connection with those who are liable to the death-penalty, that one must not take a ransom from them in order to free them. It is possible that He mentions this admonition here in order to state that he [the condemned] cannot give money to [the Temple of] G-d as other devoted things [are given], and thereby go free of punishment.
By way of the plain meaning of Scripture, the verse is stating that whatever a man devotes of his belongings, whether man or animal or field of his possession, it is holy unto the Eternal, meaning that they become devoted things of the priests, and there is no redemption for them. But if he devotes people who are not his, such as those who go to war against their enemies and utter a vow, If Thou wilt indeed deliver this people into my hand, then will I utterly destroy their cities,199Numbers 21:2. then all the people found in them are to die. The reason for this is that the intention of those making such a vow is not that [the captives] be given to the priests, but rather that it be forbidden to derive any benefit from them, since their purpose is to utterly destroy the enemies. Thus we find in the case of the men of Jabesh-gilead who transgressed the oath of the assembly by not coming to Mitzpah [to take part in the battle against Gibeah for the outrage they had committed],200See Judges Chapter 19. that it is written, And the congregation sent thither ten thousand men of the valiantest, and commanded them saying: ‘Go and smite the inhabitants with the edge of the sword’.201Ibid., 21:10. And common sense does not allow [us to say] that the whole congregation perpetrated such an evil deed, killing many people of Israel who were not guilty of death! And Phinehas was there,202Ibid., 20:28. and by word of his mouth the whole affair was done! I have further found in the Agadah, in the [Midrash] Yelamdeinu:203I have found this in the Yalkut Shimoni, Shoftim 76. On “Yelamdeinu” see in Seder Bo (Vol. II, p. 131, Note 196). “We have been taught: Rabbi Akiba says, Cheirem (‘doomed to destruction’) is an oath, and an oath is cheirem. The men of Jabesh transgressed the cheirem, and thus they became liable to the death penalty.”
Therefore I say that it was from this verse [before us] that they deduced this law — that if any king of Israel, or the Great Sanhedrin [of seventy-one judges] in the presence of all Israel, who have the authority to institute ordinances [for the good of the people], if they declare a certain city cheirem, to be warred on, and likewise if they declare a certain matter cheirem, he who violates it is liable to the death-penalty. This indeed was the guilt of the men of Jabesh-gilead [as mentioned above], and of Jonathan, to whom his father [Saul] had said, ‘G-d do so and more also, thou shalt surely die, Jonathan.’204I Samuel 14:44. Now on the basis of what legal authority did these people deserve death, if not because of this source [in Scripture]?
And this was the mistake that Jephthah made with his daughter.205See Judges 11:30-34, where it is related that Jephthah vowed that whosoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, it shall be the Eternal’s, and I will offer it up as a burnt-offering, and it was his daughter who came out to meet him first. For he thought that just as a cheirem [“doomed” object] of the chief of Israel is valid and takes effect to put [certain] people to death, and [also] anyone who transgresses it is liable to the death-penalty, so [Jephthah thought] that if he uttered a vow at a time of war, to make an offering of a certain person or persons, the vow is valid; but he did not know that a cheirem declared by the king and Sanhedrin is valid [only] regarding the destruction of rebels, or against one who transgresses their decrees and ordinances. But that a vow should take effect to make a burnt-offering of something not appropriate for G-d, [as Jephthah thought] — Heaven forbid! Therefore the Rabbis have said in Bereshith Rabbah206Bereshith Rabbah 60:3. that [Jephthah] was not even obliged to pay the price of her market-value to the Temple treasury [as his vow was totally invalid], and he was punished for her [innocent] blood!
Now do not let yourself be misled by Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra’s207The source is unknown to me since we have no commentary of Ibn Ezra on the Book of Judges. This interpretation, however, is found in the commentary of Ralbag. empty words, when he says that the meaning of the expression and I will offer it up for a burnt-offering208Judges 11:31. is “or I will offer it up,” as if to say: “if that which comes forth of the doors of my house be a man or woman, that person shall be holy to G-d, inasmuch as he will abstain from the ways of the world, to stand to minister in the Name of the Eternal209Deuteronomy 18:5. in prayer and thanksgiving to G-d; but if it be something fit for an offering, I will make it a burnt-offering.” Accordingly [Ibn Ezra’s interpretation continues, since Jephthah’s daughter was the first to come out to meet her father], he built her a house outside the city where she resided in seclusion, and he provided her with sustenance all her days, and no man knew her,210Genesis 24:16. so that his daughter remained shut away [from the world all her life].
All this are words of emptiness. For if he vowed that [whatsoever comes forth of the door of his house] shall be the Eternal’s,208Judges 11:31. this does not mean that he should be a recluse [from the world], but instead he is to be like Samuel, of whom his mother said, and I shall give him unto the Eternal,211I Samuel 1:11. and he was a servant in the House of G-d, not a recluse. And according to the ordinances of the Torah, no man can utter a vow which will bind the persons who come out of the door of his house to live thereafter in seclusion, just as he cannot bring them as an offering. And if the matter be so [as Ibn Ezra put it] then Jephthah’s daughter would be bewailing her virginity with her companions with her,212Judges 11:38. like harlots enhancing their hire!213See Ezekiel 16:31. Heaven forbid that this be a custom in Israel, to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year214Judges 11:39-40. Ramban’s comment here is typical of Jewish teaching which abhors celibacy. because she did not marry and she worshipped G-d in purity! Rather, this whole subject is to be understood in its plain meaning [that Jephthah actually brought her as an offering], and his mistake was as I have explained.
And according to the opinion of our Rabbis, of blessed memory, it is possible that this verse [before us] includes many [different] subjects, similar to the verse, Ye shall not eat with the blood;215Above, 19:26. See Ramban there. and like the verse, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children216Deuteronomy 24:16. which the Rabbis interpret217Sanhedrin 27 b. The meaning of the verse is thus: a parent cannot be condemned on the evidence of his children. as invalidating the testimony of relatives, and Scripture further states concerning it: But the children of the murderers he [King Amaziah of Judah] put not to death, according to that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, as the Eternal commanded, saying, ‘The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers.’218II Kings 14:6. Here it is obvious that the Rabbis also understood the verse in its literal sense — that children are not to be put to death for the sins of their parents, and vice versa. Similarly this verse [before us] includes the law of one who vows to give to the Temple treasury the valuation of a person who is liable to the death-penalty [as explained above], the law of those against whom a cheirem is declared at a time of conquest, as we have said, and the law of one who transgresses the cheirem of the Great Court or of the king of Israel, as was the case in the incident of Saul [and Jonathan mentioned above]. It is with reference to that that it is said there, So the people rescued Jonathan, that he die not,219I Samuel 14:45. for since the Torah states, he shall not be ransomed; he shall surely be put to death,220In Verse 29 before us. it says there, So the people rescued Jonathan, that he die not;219I Samuel 14:45. [meaning] that since a miracle happened through him [i.e., that the Philistines suffered a great defeat on that day], they knew that it was in error that Jonathan had acted [contrary to the cheirem of his father]. And this is the sense of the expression [of the people in speaking on behalf of Jonathan], who hath wrought this great salvation in Israel.219I Samuel 14:45. And so likewise did Yonathan ben Uziel translate this expression: “For before the Eternal it is revealed that he [Jonathan] acted in error on that day, and so the people rescued Jonathan.”
ונשלם ספר תורת הכהנים וקרבנותן ומצותן ישובב אל עליון דברים להויתן לוים לשירן ולזמרן וכהנים לעבודתן וישראל אל נוה איתן עינינו תראינה ירושלים גנת ביתן וארמון על משפטו היכל ודביר על מכונתן ובנות יהודה בשלוותן וערבה לה' מנחת יהודה כימי עולם וכשנים כקדמותן יעלו על רצון מזבחו תמידין כסדרן ומוספין כהלכתן: Thus is completed the Book of the Law of the Priests [i.e., the Book of Leviticus], their offerings and their commandments.
May G-d the Most High restore matters to their [former] condition, the Levites to their song, the priests to their ministry, and Israel to their mighty habitation.
And may our eyes behold Jerusalem, the garden of the Palace;221The Sanctuary is “the Palace” and Jerusalem “the garden of the Palace.” The expression is taken from Esther 1:5. See, however, at end of his Sermon on the New Year (Kithvei Haramban, Vol. I, p. 289) where Ramban refers to the whole Land of Israel as “the Palace of the King.”
And the Palace upon its wonted place,222Jeremiah 30:18.
The Temple and the Innermost Sanctuary upon their firm foundation, and the daughters of Judah223Psalms 97:8. This is a reference to the cities of Judah surrounding Jerusalem. in their security.
Then will the offering of Judah be pleasant unto the Eternal as in the days of old,224Malachi 3:4. and as in their ancient years.
And acceptable upon His altar will be the Daily Whole-offerings in their order and the Additional Offerings according to their law.
תם ונשלם ספר ויקרא בעז"ה: Finished and completed is the Book of Leviticus with the help of G-d.