Parshas Re'eh 5785
- Torah Tavlin
- Aug 22
- 3 min read
עבודה זרה דף סג.
"אמירתו לגבוה"
Rav Hoshiya quotes the Mishna: [קידושין כח:] "אמירתו לגבוה כמסירתו להדיוט". If one declares that something should go to הקדש it is effective and הקדש is קונה just like מסירה works by aהדיוט . For example: If one says שור זה עולה orבית זה הקדש , even if these items are at the other end of the world, הקדש isקונה . However, a הדיוט wouldn’t be קונה the animal until he did a משיכה and the בית until he made a חזקה. The [שם] מאירי brings the ירושלמי that the reasonאמירה is enough by הקדש is because it says:[תהלים כד,א] "לה' הארץ ומלואה" Since ה' owns the world, once someone makes anאמירה , הקדשis קונה the item wherever it might be with קנין חצר. [נדרים כט:] פירוש הרא"שsays the מקור that אמירה is enough is fromמוצא שפתיך תשמור , which teaches us that regarding הקדש one is מחייב to be מקיים what he said as if he made a נדר.
The [קידושין כח.] ריטב"א says the דין of אמירתו לגבוה also applies today when donating צדקה. The שו"ע [יו"ד רנ"ח, יג'] paskens: Any time a profit will result to הקדש we say אמירתו לגבוה. The רמ"א says: if one is חשב בלבו to give צדקה he is חייב to fulfill his מחשבה. The רמ"א quotes the מרדכי that the term אמירה לגבוה is used only because we are discussing if this can be enforced by ב"ד. But really מחשבה לגבוה is also כמסירה it’s just not enforceable since we aren’t privy to people’s מחשבות. The רמ"א brings a יש אומרים that מחשבה alone is אינו כלום but says the עיקר is that מחשבה is enough. The גליון מהרש"א brings תשובת דת אש that the case of the רמ"א is where the person verbalizes he wants to give צדקה but only a מחשבה on the amount. But if he never verbalized that he wants to give צדקה all agree מחשבה is not binding. [עיין שו"ת ושב הכהן ס' כ']
The [ערכין כז.] משנה says: if one wants to redeem a שדה אחוזה at a time in history when יובל is not in force, the דין is that הקדש auctions it off to the highest bidder. If one person bids 10 סלעים and another bids 20, if the 20 סלע bidder backs out, he must reimburse הקדש the 10 selaim it lost by him backing out. רבינו גרשום explains: since אמירה לגבוה כמסירה the 20 selah bidder must reimburse הקדש up to what he had bid, even though it was only an אמירה. The [יו"ד רמ"ט ס"ק א'] ט"ז says: One may use מעשר money to purchase כיבודים in shul even though he is having הנאה as long as he has this in mind at the outset, otherwise, once purchased it becomes a חוב which may not be paid from מעשר. חידושי רע"א brings the של"ה: if someone bid 50 & the winner bid 60, the winner may only use מעשר to pay the extra 10 he bid, since that is all he benefitted הקדש. The אליהו רבה brings this של"ה and says ויש לדחות. The [שו"ת באר משה ח"ב ס' ח'] דעברעצינער discusses a case where someone wrote a check to צדקה then changed his mind & ripped it up. Is he מחוייב to give that money? First he says regarding שבועות & נדרים writing is like אמירה but maybe since he didn’t clearly write I am מנדר, rather he only had a מחשבה to give a certain amount & filled out the check, it is not considered a נדר בכתב but would fall under the מחלוקת above, if a מחשבה by צדקה is binding. He brings the תשובת דת אש that learns in the רמ"א that with מחשבה alone, all agree would be אינו כלום but למסקנא he says that since he did a מעשה כתיבה to be מקיים his הרהור he may not be חוזר.