Arakhin 29A

גמ׳ תנו רבנן: חרמי כהנים אין להן פדיון ונותנין לכהן. חרמים כל זמן שהן בבית בעלים הרי הן כהקדש לכל דבריהן, שנאמר: ״כל חרם בישראל קדש קדשים הוא לה׳״. נתנן לכהן ⁠— הרי הן לכל דבריהן כחולין, שנאמר: ״כל חרם בישראל לך יהיה״.

Talmud: A baraita states: Dedications of property for priests have no redemption, and one gives the property to the priest. With regard to these dedications, as long as they remain in the house of the owner they are considered like consecrated property in every sense, as it is stated: “Every dedicated item is most sacred to YHWH” (Leviticus 27:28). Once the owner has given them to the priest they are in every sense like non-sacred property, as it is stated: “Everything dedicated in Israel should be yours” (Numbers 18:14), i.e., it should be like all other regular property belonging to a priest, which is non-sacred.

רבי יהודה בן בתירא אומר: סתם חרמים לבדק הבית כו׳. בשלמא רבנן כדקא מפרשי טעמייהו וטעמא דרבי יהודה בן בתירא, אלא רבי יהודה בן בתירא האי ״כשדה החרם״ מאי עביד ליה?

§ The Mishnah teaches: R' Yehuda ben Beteira says dedications donated without specification are designated for Temple maintenance, as it is stated: “Every dedicated item is most sacred to YHWH” (Leviticus 27:28). And the Rabbis say they are designated for priests, as it is stated: “As a field dedicated; its possession should be to the priest” (Leviticus 27:21), whereas the verse cited by R' Yehuda ben Beteira teaches that dedication takes effect on offerings of the most sacred order and offerings of lesser sanctity. The Talmud asks: Granted, the opinion of the Rabbis is clear, as they explain their reason and the reason of R' Yehuda ben Beteira, i.e., they interpret the verse he cited as his proof. But as for R' Yehuda ben Beteira, this verse: “As a field dedicated; its possession should be to the priest,” what does he do with it, i.e., what does he derive from it?