Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Daf Yomi

April 22, 2024 | ื™ืดื“ ื‘ื ื™ืกืŸ ืชืฉืคืดื“

  • Masechet Bava Metzia is sponsored by Rabbi Art Gould in memory of his beloved bride of 50 years, Carol Joy Robinson, Karina Gola bat Huddah vโ€™Yehuda Tzvi.

    ืจื‘ื•ืช ื‘ื ื•ืช ืขืฉื• ื—ื™ืœ ื•ืืช ืขืœื™ืช ืขืœึพื›ืœื ื”

Bava Metzia 54

Today’s daf is sponsored byย Lori Stark in loving memory of her mother in law, Sara Shapiro and her father Nehemiah Sosewitz. “Sara proudly shared that her father taught her some Talmud at a time when that was not done. He came to Chicago from Stashov Poland and was known for delivering the laundry along with a dvar Torah. Sara was a highly respected Jewish educator in Chicago. May both their memories be for a blessing.”ย 

Today’s daf is sponsored by the Hadran women of Long Island in honor of the birth of a grandson to our friend and co-learner Leah Brick. “May the entire family be zoche to raise him ืœืชื•ืจื” ื•ืœื—ื•ืคื” ื•ืœืžืขืฉื™ื ื˜ื•ื‘ื™ื and may this simcha be one of many we will celebrate together.”

When redeeming maaser sheni, the owner must add one-fifth more than the value of the produce. Is this one-fifth of the principal or one-fifth of the total once the one-fifth is added (1/4 of the principal)? After proving it is 1/4 from a tannatic source, a braita is quoted showing there is a tannaitic debate on how to calculate the one-fifth. If one does not add the one-fifth, is the produce considered redeemed? After answering this question from a tannaitic source proving that the one-fifth is not essential and the produce can be considered redeemed even without the one-fifth, the Gemara suggests that perhaps it is a tannaitic debate. However, this suggestion is rejected as all agree it is not essential but the rabbis deliberate about whether or not one can eat the produce by rabbinic law if the one-fifth has not been added as a way to prevent negligence. Regarding redeeming hekdesh, sanctified items, there is no concern for negligence as the treasurers collect the one-fifth payment. It is still not considered redeemed until one-fifth is added, but if it were Shabbat, one could eat the hekdesh item on account of the mitzva of oneg Shabbat. Rami bar Hama lists three rules relating to one-fifth payment in hekdesh, truma and maaser – do the same rules apply to the one-fifth payment as for the principal – if hekdesh, can it be redeemed on land, if for truma that one stole, does it need to be paid in produce, and if for maaser, can it be redeemedย on an asimon? One who stole and denied it or a non-kohen who ate truma, can potentially pay one-fifth on a one-fifth payment. Is the same true for maaser and hekdesh? Is there a connection between this issue and the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi that the additional one-fifth payment is not added if one is redeeming a secondary hekdesh, an item that was sanctified from an item that was already sanctified (via hatpasa)?

ื”ื‘ืขืœื™ื ื ื•ืชื ื™ืŸ ืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ืฉืฉ ืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ืฉื ื™ื ื”ื‘ืขืœื™ื ื ื•ืชื ื™ืŸ ืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ืฉื‘ืข ื‘ืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ืฉืœืฉ ื”ื‘ืขืœื™ื ื ื•ืชื ื™ืŸ ืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ืฉืžื•ื ื” ื‘ืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ืืจื‘ืข ื”ื‘ืขืœื™ื ื ื•ืชื ื™ืŸ ืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ืชืฉืข


the owner gives a payment of twenty-six dinars. Were they to enable the other person to purchase it for twenty-one dinars, the Temple treasury would incur a loss, as the principal plus one-fifth paid by the owner is greater than the payment of the other person, who must pay only the principal. Were the owner to pay only twenty for the principal and add one-fifth, the principal paid by the owner is less than the sum offered by the other person. Therefore, the owner pays the principal proposed by the other person and then adds the payment of one-fifth that he was obligated to pay based on his own offer, i.e., five dinars, for a total of twenty-six. Likewise, if the other person offers twenty-two dinars, the owner gives twenty-seven; if the other person offers twenty-three, the owner gives twenty-eight; if the other person offers twenty-four, the owner gives twenty-nine.


ืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ื—ืžืฉ ื”ื‘ืขืœื™ื ื ื•ืชื ื™ืŸ ืฉืœืฉื™ื ืœืคื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžื•ืกื™ืคื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืขืœ ืขื™ืœื•ื™ ืฉืœ ื–ื” ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื—ื•ืžืฉื ืžืœื‘ืจ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”


If the other person offers twenty-five dinars, the owner gives thirty, due to the fact that the owner does not add one-fifth based on the raise in the offer of this other person, but only on the principal according to his own offer. It is clear from these calculations that a principal of twenty plus an addition of one-fifth equal twenty-five dinars. Learn from it that one-fifth is calculated from without, meaning one-quarter of the value of the redeemed item. The Gemara affirms: Learn from it that this is the halakha.


ื›ืชื ืื™ ื•ื™ืกืฃ ื—ืžืฉืชื• ืขืœื™ื• ืฉื™ื”ื ื”ื•ื ื•ื—ื•ืžืฉื• ื—ืžืฉื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืืฉื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื ืชืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ื—ืžื™ืฉื™ืชื• ื—ื•ืžืฉื• ืฉืœ ืงืจืŸ


The Gemara comments: The two sides of this dilemma are parallel to a dispute between tannaโ€™im, as it is taught in a baraita that it is written: โ€œAnd shall add unto it one-fifth part thereofโ€ (Leviticus 27:27). This means that the item and its additional one-fifth payment will total five parts; one-fifth is calculated from without; this is the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya. Rabbi Yonatan says: Its one-fifth means one-fifth of the principal; one-fifth is calculated from within.


ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืžืขื›ื‘ ืื• ืื™ื ื• ืžืขื›ื‘ ืืจื‘ืขื” ื‘ืืจื‘ืขื” ืคืจื™ืง ื•ืื›ื ืคืฉื™ื” ืžื•ืกื™ืฃ ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืืœืžื ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืœื ืžืขื›ื‘ ืื• ื“ืœืžื ืืจื‘ืขื” ื‘ื—ืžืฉื” ืคืจื™ืง ื•ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืžืขื›ื‘


ยง A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Does failure to pay the additional one-fifth prevent consumption outside of Jerusalem of second tithe that was redeemed, or does it not prevent consumption? The dilemma is: Is second-tithe produce worth four dinars redeemed with four dinars, and the obligation to add the payment of one-fifth is an obligation incumbent upon the owner himself? In that case, apparently, failure to pay the additional one-fifth does not prevent consumption. Or perhaps second-tithe produce worth four dinars is redeemed with five dinars, no less, and failure to pay the additional one-fifth prevents consumption.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ื ื ืชื ืฉืžืข ื”ื“ืžืื™ ืื™ืŸ ืœื• ื—ื•ืžืฉ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืœื• ื‘ื™ืขื•ืจ


Ravina said: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from a mishna (Demai 1:2): For second tithe of doubtfully tithed produce [demai], whose status is that of untithed produce by rabbinic law, there is no payment of one-fifth if the owner redeems its second tithe, and there is no obligation of the eradication of tithes after three years, as is the case with tithes taken from untithed produce.


ื”ื ืงืจืŸ ื™ืฉ ืœื• ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืงืจืŸ ื“ืžืขื›ื‘ ื‘ื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ืื™ืชื ื‘ื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื—ื•ืžืฉ ื“ืœื ืžืขื›ื‘ ื‘ื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ืœื™ืชื ื‘ื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ


Ravina explains: But by inference, there is payment of principal. Although there is no obligation to add one-fifth, second tithe separated from demai requires redemption. What is the reason for this? Apparently, concerning the principal, about which failure to pay it prevents consumption of second tithe of untithed produce by Torah law, it is also a sum that must be paid in the case of demai by rabbinic law. Concerning the payment of one-fifth, about which failure to pay it does not prevent consumption of second tithe of untithed produce by Torah law, it is not a sum that must be paid in the case of demai by rabbinic law.


ืœื™ืžื ื›ืชื ืื™ ื ืชืŸ ืืช ื”ืงืจืŸ ื•ืœื ื ืชืŸ ืืช ื”ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื™ืื›ืœ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืื•ืžืจ ืœื ื™ืื›ืœ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื ืจืื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ื•ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ื—ื•ืœ


The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the two sides of this dilemma are parallel to a dispute between tannaโ€™im, as it is taught in a baraita: In a case where one gave payment to redeem the principal but did not give payment of the additional one-fifth, Rabbi Eliezer says: One may eat it, and Rabbi Yehoshua says: One may not eat it. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The statement of Rabbi Eliezer appears correct with regard to Shabbat, when the Sages deemed it permitted for one to eat without the additional payment, in deference to Shabbat, and the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua appears correct with regard to the days of the week.


ืžื“ืืžืจ ื ืจืื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ื—ื•ืœ ืžื“ืืžืจ ื ืจืื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ื—ื•ืœ ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืฉื‘ืช


The Gemara infers: From the fact that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The statement of Rabbi Eliezer appears correct with regard to Shabbat, by inference they disagree even with regard to the days of the week. Likewise, from the fact that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The statement of Rabbi Yehoshua appears correct with regard to the days of the week, by inference they disagree even with regard to Shabbat. Apparently, theirs is a fundamental dispute.


ืžืื™ ืœืื• ื‘ื”ื ืกื‘ืจื ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืกื‘ืจ ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืœื ืžืขื›ื‘ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืกื‘ืจ ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืžืขื›ื‘


What, is it not that they disagree with regard to this reasoning, that Rabbi Eliezer holds that failure to pay the additional one-fifth does not prevent consumption, as redemption of the principal alone suffices; and Rabbi Yehoshua holds that failure to pay the additional one-fifth prevents consumption?


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืœื ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืœื ืžืขื›ื‘ ื•ื”ื›ื ื‘ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ ืœืคืฉื™ืขื•ืชื ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ ืœืคืฉื™ืขื•ืชื ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืœื ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ ืœืคืฉื™ืขื•ืชื


Rav Pappa said: No, perhaps the explanation is that everyone agrees that failure to pay the additional one-fifth does not prevent consumption, and here they disagree with regard to whether we are concerned for potential negligence. One Sage, Rabbi Yehoshua, holds: We are concerned for negligence, lest one fail to pay the additional one-fifth and therefore the owner may not eat the second-tithe produce until he adds the one-fifth payment. And one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds: We are not concerned for negligence, and one will presumably add the one-fifth payment later.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื”ื›ืœ ืžื•ื“ื™ื ื‘ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืฉื—ื™ืœืœ ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื’ื–ื‘ืจื™ืŸ ืชื•ื‘ืขื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ื‘ืฉื•ืง


Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: Although the tannaโ€™im disagree with regard to second tithe, all concede with regard to consecrated property that if the one who consecrated it paid the principal and did not add one-fifth, that he successfully desacralized the produce, since the Temple treasurers demand payment from him in the marketplace, preventing any potential negligence. Therefore, he may use the property immediately.


ื•ื‘ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ื ืชืŸ ืืช ื”ืงืจืŸ ื•ืœื ื ืชืŸ ืœื• ืืช ื”ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื—ื™ืœืœ ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืœื ื—ื™ืœืœ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื ืจืื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื•ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื—ื›ืžื™ื ื‘ืžืขืฉืจ


The Gemara asks: And do they not disagree with regard to consecrated property? But isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita: In a case where one gave payment to redeem the principal but did not give him payment of the additional one-fifth, Rabbi Eliezer says: He successfully desacralized the produce, and the Rabbis say: He did not desacralize the produce? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The statement of Rabbi Eliezer appears correct with regard to consecrated property, and the statement of the Rabbis appears correct with regard to second tithe.


ืžื“ืืžืจ ื ืจืื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืคืœื™ื’ ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืžืขืฉืจ ืžื“ืงืืžืจ ื ืจืื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื—ื›ืžื™ื ื‘ืžืขืฉืจ ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืื™ื ื”ื• ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ื”ืงื“ืฉ


The Gemara infers: From the fact that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that the statement of Rabbi Eliezer appears correct with regard to consecrated property, by inference they disagree even with regard to second tithe. Likewise, from the fact that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said that the statement of the Rabbis appears correct with regard to second tithe, by inference they disagree even with regard to consecrated property. This contradicts Rabbi Yoแธฅananโ€™s statement that there is no dispute with regard to consecrated property.


ืืœื ืื™ ืืชืžืจ ื”ื›ื™ ืืชืžืจ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื”ื›ืœ ืžื•ื“ื™ื ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ื‘ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืฉื—ื™ืœืœ ื—ื“ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืงืจืืช ืœืฉื‘ืช ืขื ื’ ื•ืขื•ื“ ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื’ื–ื‘ืจื™ืŸ ืชื•ื‘ืขื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ื‘ืฉื•ืง


Rather, if it was stated, it was stated like this: Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: All concede that concerning Shabbat with regard to consecrated property that he successfully desacralized the property. One reason for this halakha is as it is written: โ€œAnd you shall call Shabbat a delightโ€ (Isaiah 58:13). The Sages sought to facilitate that delight in Shabbat by ruling leniently. And furthermore, it is desacralized without payment of the additional one-fifth, since the Temple treasurers demand payment from him in the marketplace.


ืืžืจ ืจืžื™ ื‘ืจ ื—ืžื ื”ืจื™ ืืžืจื• ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืื™ื ื• ืžืชื—ืœืœ ืขืœ ื”ืงืจืงืข ื“ืจื—ืžื ื ืืžืจ ื•ื ืชืŸ ื”ื›ืกืฃ ื•ืงื ืœื• ื—ื•ืžืฉื• ืžื”ื• ืฉื™ืชื—ืœืœ ืขืœ ื”ืงืจืงืข


ยง Rami bar แธคama says: The Sages said that consecrated property cannot be desacralized with land, as the Merciful One states with regard to the redemption of a consecrated field: โ€œAnd he will give the money and it will be assured to himโ€ (Leviticus 27:19), indicating that redemption is accomplished with money. The question is with regard to payment of its additional one-fifth: What is the halakha in terms of the possibility that it will be desacralized with land?


ืชืจื•ืžื” ืื™ื ื” ืžืฉืชืœืžืช ืืœื ืžืŸ ื”ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื“ืจื—ืžื ื ืืžืจ ื•ื ืชืŸ ืœื›ื”ืŸ ืืช ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ืจืื•ื™ ืœื”ื™ื•ืช ืงื“ืฉ ื—ื•ืžืฉื” ืžื”ื• ืฉื™ืฉืชืœื ืฉืœื ืžืŸ ื”ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ


If a non-priest unwittingly ate teruma, his debt can be repaid to the priest only with non-sacred property, not with teruma, as the Merciful One states: โ€œAnd if a man eats that which is sacred unwittinglyโ€ฆand he shall give that which is sacred to a priestโ€ (Leviticus 22:14), from which it is derived that repayment must be with an item fit to become sacred, i.e., a non-sacred item, not teruma, which cannot be consecrated again. The question is with regard to payment of its additional one-fifth: What is the halakha in terms of the possibility that it will be repaid not from non-sacred items, but from teruma?


ืžืขืฉืจ ืื™ืŸ ืžืชื—ืœืœ ืขืœ ื”ืืกื™ืžื•ืŸ ื“ืจื—ืžื ื ืืžืจ ื•ืฆืจืช ื”ื›ืกืฃ ื‘ื™ื“ืš ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ื›ืœ ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉื™ืฉ ืขืœื™ื• ืฆื•ืจื” ื—ื•ืžืฉื• ืžื”ื• ืฉื™ืชื—ืœืœ ืขืœ ื”ืืกื™ืžื•ืŸ


Second-tithe produce cannot be desacralized with an unminted coin, as the Merciful One states: โ€œAnd you shall bind up [vetzarta] the money in your handโ€ (Deuteronomy 14:25), which the Sages interpret as serving to include any item that has the imprint [tzura] of a coin upon it for desacralization, not an unminted coin. The question is with regard to payment of its additional one-fifth: What is the halakha in terms of the possibility that it will be desacralized with an unminted coin?


ืืชื’ืœื’ืœ ืžืœืชื ื•ืžื˜ื ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืขืœื™ื• ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ื—ื•ืžืฉื• ื›ืžื•ืชื•


Rami bar แธคama was unable to resolve this series of dilemmas, and the matter proceeded and came before Rava, who said to the people who related the dilemmas to him: The verse states: โ€œAnd shall add unto it one-fifth part thereofโ€ (Leviticus 27:27), which serves to include its additional one-fifth within the same legal status as that of its principal.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ื ื ืืฃ ืื ืŸ ื ืžื™ ืชื ื™ื ื ื”ื’ื•ื ื‘ ืชืจื•ืžื” ื•ืœื ืื›ืœื” ืžืฉืœื ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ื›ืคืœ ื“ืžื™ ืชืจื•ืžื” ืื›ืœื” ืžืฉืœื ืฉื ื™ ืงืจื ื™ื ื•ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืงืจืŸ ื•ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืžืŸ ื”ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื•ื”ืงืจืŸ ื“ืžื™ ืชืจื•ืžื”


Ravina said: We too learn this in a mishna (Terumot 6:4): One who steals teruma and did not partake of it pays a payment of double the principal at the price of the teruma, as a thief pays double the value of the item that he stole. Both payments are calculated based on the price of teruma, which is lower than the price of non-sacred food, as the demand for it is lower because it is eaten only by priests. If the thief ate it unwittingly, he pays a payment worth the value of two principals and adds one-fifth in this manner: He pays one principal and one-fifth from non-sacred items, like any non-priest who partakes of teruma, and with regard to the other principal, he pays it according to the price of teruma.


ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื—ื•ืžืฉื• ื›ืžื•ืชื• ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”


Learn from it that the legal status of its one-fifth payment is like that of the principal itself, in that it must be paid from non-sacred property. The Gemara affirms: Learn from it that it is so.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื’ื‘ื™ ื’ื–ืœ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื—ืžืฉืชื™ื• ื™ืกืฃ ืขืœื™ื• ื•ืชื ืŸ ื ืชืŸ ืœื• ืืช ื”ืงืจืŸ ื•ื ืฉื‘ืข ืœื• ืขืœ ื”ื—ื•ืžืฉ ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ืžื•ืกื™ืฃ ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืขืœ ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืขื“ ืฉื™ืชืžืขื˜ ื”ืงืจืŸ ืคื—ื•ืช ืžืฉื•ื” ืคืจื•ื˜ื”


ยง Rava said: With regard to robbery, it is written: โ€œAnd he shall restore the robbed item that he robbedโ€ฆand he shall add its one-fifth payments to itโ€ (Leviticus 5:23โ€“24), and we learned in a mishna (Bava Kamma 103a): If the robber gave the robbery victim the principal and took a false oath to him concerning the additional one-fifth payment, asserting that he had already paid it, then the additional one-fifth is considered a new principal obligation. This robber adds an additional one-fifth payment apart from the additional one-fifth payment about which he had taken a false oath. If he then takes a false oath concerning the second one-fifth payment, he is assessed an additional one-fifth payment for that oath, until the principal, i.e., the additional one-fifth payment about which he has most recently taken the false oath, is reduced to less than the value of one peruta.


ื’ื‘ื™ ืชืจื•ืžื” ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืื™ืฉ ื›ื™ ื™ืื›ืœ ืงื“ืฉ ื‘ืฉื’ื’ื” ื•ื™ืกืฃ ื—ืžืฉื™ืชื• ืขืœื™ื• ื•ืชื ืŸ ื”ืื•ื›ืœ ืชืจื•ืžื” ื‘ืฉื•ื’ื’ ืžืฉืœื ืงืจืŸ ื•ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืื—ื“ ื”ืื•ื›ืœ ื•ืื—ื“ ื”ืฉื•ืชื” ื•ืื—ื“ ื”ืกืš ืื—ื“ ืชืจื•ืžื” ื˜ื”ื•ืจื” ื•ืื—ื“ ืชืจื•ืžื” ื˜ืžืื” ืžืฉืœื ื—ื•ืžืฉื” ื•ื—ื•ืžืฉื ื“ื—ื•ืžืฉื ื•ืื™ืœื• ื’ื‘ื™ ืžืขืฉืจ ืœื ืžื›ืชื‘ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืœื ืžื™ืชื ื ืชื ื ื•ืœื ืื™ื‘ืขื•ื™ื™ ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœืŸ


Rava continues: With regard to teruma too, it is written: โ€œIf a man eats that which is sacred unwittingly, then he shall add its one-fifth payment to itโ€ (Leviticus 22:14), and as we learned in a mishna (Terumot 6:1): One who partakes of teruma unwittingly pays the principal and an additional one-fifth. This is the halakha whether it concerns one who partakes of teruma, or one who drinks it, or one who applies oil to himself; or whether it is ritually pure teruma or ritually impure teruma. He pays its one-fifth payment, and if he partook of that one-fifth, he pays one-fifth of its one-fifth. Rava concludes: While with regard to second tithe, it is neither written in the Torah, nor taught in a mishna, nor raised as a dilemma before us by the amoraโ€™im.


ื’ื‘ื™ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืื ื”ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ื™ื’ืืœ ืืช ื‘ื™ืชื• ื•ื™ืกืฃ ื—ืžื™ืฉื™ืช ื›ืกืฃ ืขืจื›ืš ื•ืชื ืŸ ื”ืคื•ื“ื” ืืช ื”ืงื“ืฉื• ืžื•ืกื™ืฃ ื—ื•ืžืฉ ื—ื•ืžืฉื ืชื ืŸ ื—ื•ืžืฉื ื“ื—ื•ืžืฉื ืœื ืชื ืŸ ืžืื™ ื’ื‘ื™ ืชืจื•ืžื” ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื™ืกืฃ ื’ื‘ื™ ืงื“ืฉ ื ืžื™ ื”ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื™ืกืฃ


The Gemara pursues a similar line of inquiry: With regard to consecrated property it is written: โ€œAnd if he who consecrated it will redeem his house, then he shall add one-fifth of the money of your valuation unto it, and it shall be hisโ€ (Leviticus 27:15), and we learned in a mishna (55b): One who redeems his own consecrated property that he consecrated himself adds one-fifth to the sum of the redemption. We learned one-fifth; we did not learn one-fifth of the one-fifth. What is the halakha? The Gemara elaborates: With regard to teruma it is written: โ€œThen he shall add,โ€ and with regard to consecrated property too, isnโ€™t it written: โ€œThen he shall addโ€? Apparently, in a case of consecrated property one also pays one-fifth of the one-fifth.


ืื• ื“ืœืžื ื’ื‘ื™ ืชืจื•ืžื” ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื™ืกืฃ ืื™ ืฉืงืœืช ืœื™ื” ืœื•ื™ื• ื“ื•ื™ืกืฃ ื•ืฉื“ื™ืช ืœื™ื” ืขืœ ื—ืžืฉื™ืชื• ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ื—ืžื™ืฉื™ืชื™ื• ื’ื‘ื™ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื™ืกืฃ ื—ืžื™ืฉื™ืช ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ื›ื™ ืฉืงืœืช ืœื™ื” ืœื•ื™ื• ื“ื•ื™ืกืฃ ื•ืฉื“ื™ืช ืœื™ื” ืขืœ ื—ืžื™ืฉื™ืช ืกื•ืฃ ืกื•ืฃ ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ื—ืžืฉืชื•


Or perhaps we should learn the halakha as follows: With regard to teruma it is written: โ€œThen he shall add [veyasaf ],โ€ and the halakha of one-fifth of the one-fifth is derived in this manner: If you take the letter vav of the word veyasaf, and cast it to the end of the word แธฅamishito, its one-fifth payment, it then becomes the plural แธฅamishitav, its one-fifths payments, as it is written in the case of robbery, indicating that one pays one-fifth of one-fifth. With regard to consecrated property, it is written: โ€œThen he shall add [veyasaf ] one-fifth [แธฅamishit].โ€ Even when you take the vav of veyasaf and cast it to the end of the word แธฅamishit, ultimately it is only แธฅamishito, in the singular, indicating payment of only a single one-fifth. What is the halakha?


ื•ืชื™ืคื•ืง ืœื™ื” ื“ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืฉื ื™ ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ืื”ืงื“ืฉ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืžื•ืกื™ืฃ ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืขืœ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืฉื ื™ ืื™ืŸ ืžื•ืกื™ืฃ ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืคืคื™ ืœืจื‘ื™ื ื ื”ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื—ื•ืžืฉ ื›ืชื—ื™ืœืช ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื“ืžื™


The Gemara suggests: And why not derive the halakha of consecrated property from the fact that it is tantamount to a second consecration. When one redeems consecrated property with another item, although that item is thereby consecrated, not all the halakhot of consecrated property apply to it. And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: For redemption of first consecration one adds one-fifth; for redemption of second consecration one does not add one-fifth. Rav Pappi said to Ravina that this is what Rava said: The legal status of the additional one-fifth is like that of initial consecration, not like that of second consecration.


ืžืื™ ื”ื•ื” ืขืœื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื˜ื‘ื™ื•ืžื™ ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ื™ืกืฃ ื—ืžื™ืฉื™ืช ื›ืกืฃ ืขืจื›ืš ืžืงื™ืฉ ื—ื•ืžืฉื• ืœื›ืกืฃ ืขืจื›ื• ืžื” ื›ืกืฃ ืขืจื›ื• ืžื•ืกื™ืฃ ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืืฃ ื›ืกืฃ ื—ื•ืžืฉื• ื ืžื™ ืžื•ืกื™ืฃ ื—ื•ืžืฉ


The Gemara asks: What halakhic conclusion was reached about this dilemma? Rav Tavyumei said in the name of Abaye that the verse states with regard to one who redeems a house that he consecrated: โ€œThen he shall add one-fifth of the money of your valuation unto itโ€ (Leviticus 27:15). The Torah juxtaposes its payment of one-fifth to the money of its valuation, i.e., the consecrated house: Just as when redeeming the money of its valuation one adds one-fifth, so too, when redeeming the money of its one-fifth, one adds one-fifth as well.


ื’ื•ืคื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ืขืœ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืžื•ืกื™ืฃ ื—ื•ืžืฉ ื•ืขืœ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืฉื ื™ ืื™ืŸ ืžื•ืกื™ืฃ ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ืื ื”ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ื™ื’ืืœ ืืช ื‘ื™ืชื• ื”ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ื•ืœื ื”ืžืชืคื™ืก


ยง The Gemara analyzes the matter itself. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: For redemption of first consecration one adds one-fifth; for redemption of second consecration one does not add one-fifth. Rava said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi? It is as the verse states: โ€œAnd if he who consecrated it will redeem his house, then he shall add one-fifth of the money of your valuation unto itโ€ (Leviticus 27:15), from which it may be inferred that when he who consecrates the house redeems it, he adds one-fifth, but this is not so with regard to one who associates an item with an existing sanctity, as in this case, where the sanctity of the one-fifth is derived from its association with the sanctity of the house.


ืชื ื™ ืชื ื ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื•ืื ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื” ื”ื˜ืžืื” ื•ืคื“ื” ื‘ืขืจื›ืš ืžื” ื‘ื”ืžื” ื˜ืžืื” ืžื™ื•ื—ื“ืช ืฉืชื—ื™ืœืชื” ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื•ื›ื•ืœื” ืœืฉืžื™ื ื•ืžื•ืขืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื” ืืฃ ื›ืœ ืฉืชื—ื™ืœืชื” ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื•ื›ื•ืœื” ืœืฉืžื™ื ืžื•ืขืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื”


The Gemara relates that the tanna who recited mishnayot and baraitot in the study hall taught a baraita before Rabbi Elazar. It is written: โ€œAnd if it is of a non-kosher animal, then he shall redeem it according to your valuationโ€ (Leviticus 27:27). This verse teaches that just as a non-kosher animal that was consecrated is unique in that it is an example of initial consecration and it is devoted entirely to Heaven, as neither the owner nor anyone else may derive benefit from it after its consecration, and one violates the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property by using it after it was consecrated, so too, with regard to any item that both undergoes initial consecration and is devoted entirely to Heaven, one violates the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property by using it after it was consecrated.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืœืชื ื ื‘ืฉืœืžื ื›ื•ืœื” ืœืฉืžื™ื ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืื™ืช ืœื”ื• ืœื‘ืขืœื™ื ื‘ื’ื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ืœื™ืช ื‘ื”ื• ืžืขื™ืœื” ืืœื ืชื—ื™ืœืช ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ืžืื™ ืชื—ื™ืœืช ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื”ื•ื ื“ืื™ืช ื‘ื™ื” ืžืขื™ืœื” ืกื•ืฃ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืœื™ืช ื‘ื™ื” ืžืขื™ืœื” ื“ืœืžื ืœืขื ื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืงืืžืจืช ื•ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ืŸ ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžื™ื ื


Rabbi Elazar said to the tanna: Granted, the statement: It is devoted entirely to Heaven, serves to exclude offerings of lesser sanctity, e.g., peace-offerings. Since the owners have a share in them, as they may partake of those offerings, they are not subject to the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property. But what does the mention of initial consecration in the baraita serve to exclude? Is it that initial consecration is subject to the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property and ultimate consecration is not subject to the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property? Even the property consecrated last in a series of redemptions is full-fledged consecrated property. Perhaps it is with regard to the matter of the payment of one-fifth that you are saying this, and it is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi? The tanna said to him: Yes, that is what I am saying.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืœืจื‘ื™ื ื ื‘ื”ืžื” ื˜ืžืื” ื‘ืชื—ื™ืœืช ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืื™ืชื


Apropos that baraita, Rav Ashi said to Ravina: Is it so that a non-kosher animal is subject to initial consecration


  • Masechet Bava Metzia is sponsored by Rabbi Art Gould in memory of his beloved bride of 50 years, Carol Joy Robinson, Karina Gola bat Huddah vโ€™Yehuda Tzvi.

    ืจื‘ื•ืช ื‘ื ื•ืช ืขืฉื• ื—ื™ืœ ื•ืืช ืขืœื™ืช ืขืœึพื›ืœื ื”

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

talking talmud_square

Bava Metzia 54: The Fifth

The daf discusses a variety if different aspects about the chomesh. Click here for the Talking Talmud podcast on Bava...

Bava Metzia 54

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 54

ื”ื‘ืขืœื™ื ื ื•ืชื ื™ืŸ ืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ืฉืฉ ืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ืฉื ื™ื ื”ื‘ืขืœื™ื ื ื•ืชื ื™ืŸ ืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ืฉื‘ืข ื‘ืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ืฉืœืฉ ื”ื‘ืขืœื™ื ื ื•ืชื ื™ืŸ ืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ืฉืžื•ื ื” ื‘ืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ืืจื‘ืข ื”ื‘ืขืœื™ื ื ื•ืชื ื™ืŸ ืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ืชืฉืข


the owner gives a payment of twenty-six dinars. Were they to enable the other person to purchase it for twenty-one dinars, the Temple treasury would incur a loss, as the principal plus one-fifth paid by the owner is greater than the payment of the other person, who must pay only the principal. Were the owner to pay only twenty for the principal and add one-fifth, the principal paid by the owner is less than the sum offered by the other person. Therefore, the owner pays the principal proposed by the other person and then adds the payment of one-fifth that he was obligated to pay based on his own offer, i.e., five dinars, for a total of twenty-six. Likewise, if the other person offers twenty-two dinars, the owner gives twenty-seven; if the other person offers twenty-three, the owner gives twenty-eight; if the other person offers twenty-four, the owner gives twenty-nine.


ืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ื—ืžืฉ ื”ื‘ืขืœื™ื ื ื•ืชื ื™ืŸ ืฉืœืฉื™ื ืœืคื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžื•ืกื™ืคื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืขืœ ืขื™ืœื•ื™ ืฉืœ ื–ื” ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื—ื•ืžืฉื ืžืœื‘ืจ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”


If the other person offers twenty-five dinars, the owner gives thirty, due to the fact that the owner does not add one-fifth based on the raise in the offer of this other person, but only on the principal according to his own offer. It is clear from these calculations that a principal of twenty plus an addition of one-fifth equal twenty-five dinars. Learn from it that one-fifth is calculated from without, meaning one-quarter of the value of the redeemed item. The Gemara affirms: Learn from it that this is the halakha.


ื›ืชื ืื™ ื•ื™ืกืฃ ื—ืžืฉืชื• ืขืœื™ื• ืฉื™ื”ื ื”ื•ื ื•ื—ื•ืžืฉื• ื—ืžืฉื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืืฉื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื ืชืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ื—ืžื™ืฉื™ืชื• ื—ื•ืžืฉื• ืฉืœ ืงืจืŸ


The Gemara comments: The two sides of this dilemma are parallel to a dispute between tannaโ€™im, as it is taught in a baraita that it is written: โ€œAnd shall add unto it one-fifth part thereofโ€ (Leviticus 27:27). This means that the item and its additional one-fifth payment will total five parts; one-fifth is calculated from without; this is the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya. Rabbi Yonatan says: Its one-fifth means one-fifth of the principal; one-fifth is calculated from within.


ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืžืขื›ื‘ ืื• ืื™ื ื• ืžืขื›ื‘ ืืจื‘ืขื” ื‘ืืจื‘ืขื” ืคืจื™ืง ื•ืื›ื ืคืฉื™ื” ืžื•ืกื™ืฃ ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืืœืžื ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืœื ืžืขื›ื‘ ืื• ื“ืœืžื ืืจื‘ืขื” ื‘ื—ืžืฉื” ืคืจื™ืง ื•ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืžืขื›ื‘


ยง A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Does failure to pay the additional one-fifth prevent consumption outside of Jerusalem of second tithe that was redeemed, or does it not prevent consumption? The dilemma is: Is second-tithe produce worth four dinars redeemed with four dinars, and the obligation to add the payment of one-fifth is an obligation incumbent upon the owner himself? In that case, apparently, failure to pay the additional one-fifth does not prevent consumption. Or perhaps second-tithe produce worth four dinars is redeemed with five dinars, no less, and failure to pay the additional one-fifth prevents consumption.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ื ื ืชื ืฉืžืข ื”ื“ืžืื™ ืื™ืŸ ืœื• ื—ื•ืžืฉ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืœื• ื‘ื™ืขื•ืจ


Ravina said: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from a mishna (Demai 1:2): For second tithe of doubtfully tithed produce [demai], whose status is that of untithed produce by rabbinic law, there is no payment of one-fifth if the owner redeems its second tithe, and there is no obligation of the eradication of tithes after three years, as is the case with tithes taken from untithed produce.


ื”ื ืงืจืŸ ื™ืฉ ืœื• ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืงืจืŸ ื“ืžืขื›ื‘ ื‘ื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ืื™ืชื ื‘ื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื—ื•ืžืฉ ื“ืœื ืžืขื›ื‘ ื‘ื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ืœื™ืชื ื‘ื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ


Ravina explains: But by inference, there is payment of principal. Although there is no obligation to add one-fifth, second tithe separated from demai requires redemption. What is the reason for this? Apparently, concerning the principal, about which failure to pay it prevents consumption of second tithe of untithed produce by Torah law, it is also a sum that must be paid in the case of demai by rabbinic law. Concerning the payment of one-fifth, about which failure to pay it does not prevent consumption of second tithe of untithed produce by Torah law, it is not a sum that must be paid in the case of demai by rabbinic law.


ืœื™ืžื ื›ืชื ืื™ ื ืชืŸ ืืช ื”ืงืจืŸ ื•ืœื ื ืชืŸ ืืช ื”ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื™ืื›ืœ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืื•ืžืจ ืœื ื™ืื›ืœ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื ืจืื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ื•ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ื—ื•ืœ


The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the two sides of this dilemma are parallel to a dispute between tannaโ€™im, as it is taught in a baraita: In a case where one gave payment to redeem the principal but did not give payment of the additional one-fifth, Rabbi Eliezer says: One may eat it, and Rabbi Yehoshua says: One may not eat it. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The statement of Rabbi Eliezer appears correct with regard to Shabbat, when the Sages deemed it permitted for one to eat without the additional payment, in deference to Shabbat, and the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua appears correct with regard to the days of the week.


ืžื“ืืžืจ ื ืจืื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ื—ื•ืœ ืžื“ืืžืจ ื ืจืื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ื—ื•ืœ ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืฉื‘ืช


The Gemara infers: From the fact that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The statement of Rabbi Eliezer appears correct with regard to Shabbat, by inference they disagree even with regard to the days of the week. Likewise, from the fact that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The statement of Rabbi Yehoshua appears correct with regard to the days of the week, by inference they disagree even with regard to Shabbat. Apparently, theirs is a fundamental dispute.


ืžืื™ ืœืื• ื‘ื”ื ืกื‘ืจื ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืกื‘ืจ ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืœื ืžืขื›ื‘ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืกื‘ืจ ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืžืขื›ื‘


What, is it not that they disagree with regard to this reasoning, that Rabbi Eliezer holds that failure to pay the additional one-fifth does not prevent consumption, as redemption of the principal alone suffices; and Rabbi Yehoshua holds that failure to pay the additional one-fifth prevents consumption?


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืœื ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืœื ืžืขื›ื‘ ื•ื”ื›ื ื‘ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ ืœืคืฉื™ืขื•ืชื ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ ืœืคืฉื™ืขื•ืชื ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืœื ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ ืœืคืฉื™ืขื•ืชื


Rav Pappa said: No, perhaps the explanation is that everyone agrees that failure to pay the additional one-fifth does not prevent consumption, and here they disagree with regard to whether we are concerned for potential negligence. One Sage, Rabbi Yehoshua, holds: We are concerned for negligence, lest one fail to pay the additional one-fifth and therefore the owner may not eat the second-tithe produce until he adds the one-fifth payment. And one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds: We are not concerned for negligence, and one will presumably add the one-fifth payment later.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื”ื›ืœ ืžื•ื“ื™ื ื‘ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืฉื—ื™ืœืœ ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื’ื–ื‘ืจื™ืŸ ืชื•ื‘ืขื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ื‘ืฉื•ืง


Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: Although the tannaโ€™im disagree with regard to second tithe, all concede with regard to consecrated property that if the one who consecrated it paid the principal and did not add one-fifth, that he successfully desacralized the produce, since the Temple treasurers demand payment from him in the marketplace, preventing any potential negligence. Therefore, he may use the property immediately.


ื•ื‘ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ื ืชืŸ ืืช ื”ืงืจืŸ ื•ืœื ื ืชืŸ ืœื• ืืช ื”ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื—ื™ืœืœ ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืœื ื—ื™ืœืœ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื ืจืื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื•ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื—ื›ืžื™ื ื‘ืžืขืฉืจ


The Gemara asks: And do they not disagree with regard to consecrated property? But isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita: In a case where one gave payment to redeem the principal but did not give him payment of the additional one-fifth, Rabbi Eliezer says: He successfully desacralized the produce, and the Rabbis say: He did not desacralize the produce? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The statement of Rabbi Eliezer appears correct with regard to consecrated property, and the statement of the Rabbis appears correct with regard to second tithe.


ืžื“ืืžืจ ื ืจืื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืคืœื™ื’ ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืžืขืฉืจ ืžื“ืงืืžืจ ื ืจืื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื—ื›ืžื™ื ื‘ืžืขืฉืจ ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืื™ื ื”ื• ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ื”ืงื“ืฉ


The Gemara infers: From the fact that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that the statement of Rabbi Eliezer appears correct with regard to consecrated property, by inference they disagree even with regard to second tithe. Likewise, from the fact that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said that the statement of the Rabbis appears correct with regard to second tithe, by inference they disagree even with regard to consecrated property. This contradicts Rabbi Yoแธฅananโ€™s statement that there is no dispute with regard to consecrated property.


ืืœื ืื™ ืืชืžืจ ื”ื›ื™ ืืชืžืจ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื”ื›ืœ ืžื•ื“ื™ื ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ื‘ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืฉื—ื™ืœืœ ื—ื“ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืงืจืืช ืœืฉื‘ืช ืขื ื’ ื•ืขื•ื“ ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื’ื–ื‘ืจื™ืŸ ืชื•ื‘ืขื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ื‘ืฉื•ืง


Rather, if it was stated, it was stated like this: Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: All concede that concerning Shabbat with regard to consecrated property that he successfully desacralized the property. One reason for this halakha is as it is written: โ€œAnd you shall call Shabbat a delightโ€ (Isaiah 58:13). The Sages sought to facilitate that delight in Shabbat by ruling leniently. And furthermore, it is desacralized without payment of the additional one-fifth, since the Temple treasurers demand payment from him in the marketplace.


ืืžืจ ืจืžื™ ื‘ืจ ื—ืžื ื”ืจื™ ืืžืจื• ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืื™ื ื• ืžืชื—ืœืœ ืขืœ ื”ืงืจืงืข ื“ืจื—ืžื ื ืืžืจ ื•ื ืชืŸ ื”ื›ืกืฃ ื•ืงื ืœื• ื—ื•ืžืฉื• ืžื”ื• ืฉื™ืชื—ืœืœ ืขืœ ื”ืงืจืงืข


ยง Rami bar แธคama says: The Sages said that consecrated property cannot be desacralized with land, as the Merciful One states with regard to the redemption of a consecrated field: โ€œAnd he will give the money and it will be assured to himโ€ (Leviticus 27:19), indicating that redemption is accomplished with money. The question is with regard to payment of its additional one-fifth: What is the halakha in terms of the possibility that it will be desacralized with land?


ืชืจื•ืžื” ืื™ื ื” ืžืฉืชืœืžืช ืืœื ืžืŸ ื”ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื“ืจื—ืžื ื ืืžืจ ื•ื ืชืŸ ืœื›ื”ืŸ ืืช ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ืจืื•ื™ ืœื”ื™ื•ืช ืงื“ืฉ ื—ื•ืžืฉื” ืžื”ื• ืฉื™ืฉืชืœื ืฉืœื ืžืŸ ื”ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ


If a non-priest unwittingly ate teruma, his debt can be repaid to the priest only with non-sacred property, not with teruma, as the Merciful One states: โ€œAnd if a man eats that which is sacred unwittinglyโ€ฆand he shall give that which is sacred to a priestโ€ (Leviticus 22:14), from which it is derived that repayment must be with an item fit to become sacred, i.e., a non-sacred item, not teruma, which cannot be consecrated again. The question is with regard to payment of its additional one-fifth: What is the halakha in terms of the possibility that it will be repaid not from non-sacred items, but from teruma?


ืžืขืฉืจ ืื™ืŸ ืžืชื—ืœืœ ืขืœ ื”ืืกื™ืžื•ืŸ ื“ืจื—ืžื ื ืืžืจ ื•ืฆืจืช ื”ื›ืกืฃ ื‘ื™ื“ืš ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ื›ืœ ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉื™ืฉ ืขืœื™ื• ืฆื•ืจื” ื—ื•ืžืฉื• ืžื”ื• ืฉื™ืชื—ืœืœ ืขืœ ื”ืืกื™ืžื•ืŸ


Second-tithe produce cannot be desacralized with an unminted coin, as the Merciful One states: โ€œAnd you shall bind up [vetzarta] the money in your handโ€ (Deuteronomy 14:25), which the Sages interpret as serving to include any item that has the imprint [tzura] of a coin upon it for desacralization, not an unminted coin. The question is with regard to payment of its additional one-fifth: What is the halakha in terms of the possibility that it will be desacralized with an unminted coin?


ืืชื’ืœื’ืœ ืžืœืชื ื•ืžื˜ื ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืขืœื™ื• ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ื—ื•ืžืฉื• ื›ืžื•ืชื•


Rami bar แธคama was unable to resolve this series of dilemmas, and the matter proceeded and came before Rava, who said to the people who related the dilemmas to him: The verse states: โ€œAnd shall add unto it one-fifth part thereofโ€ (Leviticus 27:27), which serves to include its additional one-fifth within the same legal status as that of its principal.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ื ื ืืฃ ืื ืŸ ื ืžื™ ืชื ื™ื ื ื”ื’ื•ื ื‘ ืชืจื•ืžื” ื•ืœื ืื›ืœื” ืžืฉืœื ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ื›ืคืœ ื“ืžื™ ืชืจื•ืžื” ืื›ืœื” ืžืฉืœื ืฉื ื™ ืงืจื ื™ื ื•ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืงืจืŸ ื•ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืžืŸ ื”ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื•ื”ืงืจืŸ ื“ืžื™ ืชืจื•ืžื”


Ravina said: We too learn this in a mishna (Terumot 6:4): One who steals teruma and did not partake of it pays a payment of double the principal at the price of the teruma, as a thief pays double the value of the item that he stole. Both payments are calculated based on the price of teruma, which is lower than the price of non-sacred food, as the demand for it is lower because it is eaten only by priests. If the thief ate it unwittingly, he pays a payment worth the value of two principals and adds one-fifth in this manner: He pays one principal and one-fifth from non-sacred items, like any non-priest who partakes of teruma, and with regard to the other principal, he pays it according to the price of teruma.


ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื—ื•ืžืฉื• ื›ืžื•ืชื• ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”


Learn from it that the legal status of its one-fifth payment is like that of the principal itself, in that it must be paid from non-sacred property. The Gemara affirms: Learn from it that it is so.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื’ื‘ื™ ื’ื–ืœ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื—ืžืฉืชื™ื• ื™ืกืฃ ืขืœื™ื• ื•ืชื ืŸ ื ืชืŸ ืœื• ืืช ื”ืงืจืŸ ื•ื ืฉื‘ืข ืœื• ืขืœ ื”ื—ื•ืžืฉ ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ืžื•ืกื™ืฃ ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืขืœ ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืขื“ ืฉื™ืชืžืขื˜ ื”ืงืจืŸ ืคื—ื•ืช ืžืฉื•ื” ืคืจื•ื˜ื”


ยง Rava said: With regard to robbery, it is written: โ€œAnd he shall restore the robbed item that he robbedโ€ฆand he shall add its one-fifth payments to itโ€ (Leviticus 5:23โ€“24), and we learned in a mishna (Bava Kamma 103a): If the robber gave the robbery victim the principal and took a false oath to him concerning the additional one-fifth payment, asserting that he had already paid it, then the additional one-fifth is considered a new principal obligation. This robber adds an additional one-fifth payment apart from the additional one-fifth payment about which he had taken a false oath. If he then takes a false oath concerning the second one-fifth payment, he is assessed an additional one-fifth payment for that oath, until the principal, i.e., the additional one-fifth payment about which he has most recently taken the false oath, is reduced to less than the value of one peruta.


ื’ื‘ื™ ืชืจื•ืžื” ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืื™ืฉ ื›ื™ ื™ืื›ืœ ืงื“ืฉ ื‘ืฉื’ื’ื” ื•ื™ืกืฃ ื—ืžืฉื™ืชื• ืขืœื™ื• ื•ืชื ืŸ ื”ืื•ื›ืœ ืชืจื•ืžื” ื‘ืฉื•ื’ื’ ืžืฉืœื ืงืจืŸ ื•ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืื—ื“ ื”ืื•ื›ืœ ื•ืื—ื“ ื”ืฉื•ืชื” ื•ืื—ื“ ื”ืกืš ืื—ื“ ืชืจื•ืžื” ื˜ื”ื•ืจื” ื•ืื—ื“ ืชืจื•ืžื” ื˜ืžืื” ืžืฉืœื ื—ื•ืžืฉื” ื•ื—ื•ืžืฉื ื“ื—ื•ืžืฉื ื•ืื™ืœื• ื’ื‘ื™ ืžืขืฉืจ ืœื ืžื›ืชื‘ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืœื ืžื™ืชื ื ืชื ื ื•ืœื ืื™ื‘ืขื•ื™ื™ ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœืŸ


Rava continues: With regard to teruma too, it is written: โ€œIf a man eats that which is sacred unwittingly, then he shall add its one-fifth payment to itโ€ (Leviticus 22:14), and as we learned in a mishna (Terumot 6:1): One who partakes of teruma unwittingly pays the principal and an additional one-fifth. This is the halakha whether it concerns one who partakes of teruma, or one who drinks it, or one who applies oil to himself; or whether it is ritually pure teruma or ritually impure teruma. He pays its one-fifth payment, and if he partook of that one-fifth, he pays one-fifth of its one-fifth. Rava concludes: While with regard to second tithe, it is neither written in the Torah, nor taught in a mishna, nor raised as a dilemma before us by the amoraโ€™im.


ื’ื‘ื™ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืื ื”ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ื™ื’ืืœ ืืช ื‘ื™ืชื• ื•ื™ืกืฃ ื—ืžื™ืฉื™ืช ื›ืกืฃ ืขืจื›ืš ื•ืชื ืŸ ื”ืคื•ื“ื” ืืช ื”ืงื“ืฉื• ืžื•ืกื™ืฃ ื—ื•ืžืฉ ื—ื•ืžืฉื ืชื ืŸ ื—ื•ืžืฉื ื“ื—ื•ืžืฉื ืœื ืชื ืŸ ืžืื™ ื’ื‘ื™ ืชืจื•ืžื” ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื™ืกืฃ ื’ื‘ื™ ืงื“ืฉ ื ืžื™ ื”ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื™ืกืฃ


The Gemara pursues a similar line of inquiry: With regard to consecrated property it is written: โ€œAnd if he who consecrated it will redeem his house, then he shall add one-fifth of the money of your valuation unto it, and it shall be hisโ€ (Leviticus 27:15), and we learned in a mishna (55b): One who redeems his own consecrated property that he consecrated himself adds one-fifth to the sum of the redemption. We learned one-fifth; we did not learn one-fifth of the one-fifth. What is the halakha? The Gemara elaborates: With regard to teruma it is written: โ€œThen he shall add,โ€ and with regard to consecrated property too, isnโ€™t it written: โ€œThen he shall addโ€? Apparently, in a case of consecrated property one also pays one-fifth of the one-fifth.


ืื• ื“ืœืžื ื’ื‘ื™ ืชืจื•ืžื” ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื™ืกืฃ ืื™ ืฉืงืœืช ืœื™ื” ืœื•ื™ื• ื“ื•ื™ืกืฃ ื•ืฉื“ื™ืช ืœื™ื” ืขืœ ื—ืžืฉื™ืชื• ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ื—ืžื™ืฉื™ืชื™ื• ื’ื‘ื™ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื™ืกืฃ ื—ืžื™ืฉื™ืช ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ื›ื™ ืฉืงืœืช ืœื™ื” ืœื•ื™ื• ื“ื•ื™ืกืฃ ื•ืฉื“ื™ืช ืœื™ื” ืขืœ ื—ืžื™ืฉื™ืช ืกื•ืฃ ืกื•ืฃ ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ื—ืžืฉืชื•


Or perhaps we should learn the halakha as follows: With regard to teruma it is written: โ€œThen he shall add [veyasaf ],โ€ and the halakha of one-fifth of the one-fifth is derived in this manner: If you take the letter vav of the word veyasaf, and cast it to the end of the word แธฅamishito, its one-fifth payment, it then becomes the plural แธฅamishitav, its one-fifths payments, as it is written in the case of robbery, indicating that one pays one-fifth of one-fifth. With regard to consecrated property, it is written: โ€œThen he shall add [veyasaf ] one-fifth [แธฅamishit].โ€ Even when you take the vav of veyasaf and cast it to the end of the word แธฅamishit, ultimately it is only แธฅamishito, in the singular, indicating payment of only a single one-fifth. What is the halakha?


ื•ืชื™ืคื•ืง ืœื™ื” ื“ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืฉื ื™ ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ืื”ืงื“ืฉ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืžื•ืกื™ืฃ ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืขืœ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืฉื ื™ ืื™ืŸ ืžื•ืกื™ืฃ ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืคืคื™ ืœืจื‘ื™ื ื ื”ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื—ื•ืžืฉ ื›ืชื—ื™ืœืช ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื“ืžื™


The Gemara suggests: And why not derive the halakha of consecrated property from the fact that it is tantamount to a second consecration. When one redeems consecrated property with another item, although that item is thereby consecrated, not all the halakhot of consecrated property apply to it. And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: For redemption of first consecration one adds one-fifth; for redemption of second consecration one does not add one-fifth. Rav Pappi said to Ravina that this is what Rava said: The legal status of the additional one-fifth is like that of initial consecration, not like that of second consecration.


ืžืื™ ื”ื•ื” ืขืœื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื˜ื‘ื™ื•ืžื™ ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ื™ืกืฃ ื—ืžื™ืฉื™ืช ื›ืกืฃ ืขืจื›ืš ืžืงื™ืฉ ื—ื•ืžืฉื• ืœื›ืกืฃ ืขืจื›ื• ืžื” ื›ืกืฃ ืขืจื›ื• ืžื•ืกื™ืฃ ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืืฃ ื›ืกืฃ ื—ื•ืžืฉื• ื ืžื™ ืžื•ืกื™ืฃ ื—ื•ืžืฉ


The Gemara asks: What halakhic conclusion was reached about this dilemma? Rav Tavyumei said in the name of Abaye that the verse states with regard to one who redeems a house that he consecrated: โ€œThen he shall add one-fifth of the money of your valuation unto itโ€ (Leviticus 27:15). The Torah juxtaposes its payment of one-fifth to the money of its valuation, i.e., the consecrated house: Just as when redeeming the money of its valuation one adds one-fifth, so too, when redeeming the money of its one-fifth, one adds one-fifth as well.


ื’ื•ืคื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ืขืœ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืžื•ืกื™ืฃ ื—ื•ืžืฉ ื•ืขืœ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืฉื ื™ ืื™ืŸ ืžื•ืกื™ืฃ ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ืื ื”ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ื™ื’ืืœ ืืช ื‘ื™ืชื• ื”ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ื•ืœื ื”ืžืชืคื™ืก


ยง The Gemara analyzes the matter itself. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: For redemption of first consecration one adds one-fifth; for redemption of second consecration one does not add one-fifth. Rava said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi? It is as the verse states: โ€œAnd if he who consecrated it will redeem his house, then he shall add one-fifth of the money of your valuation unto itโ€ (Leviticus 27:15), from which it may be inferred that when he who consecrates the house redeems it, he adds one-fifth, but this is not so with regard to one who associates an item with an existing sanctity, as in this case, where the sanctity of the one-fifth is derived from its association with the sanctity of the house.


ืชื ื™ ืชื ื ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื•ืื ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื” ื”ื˜ืžืื” ื•ืคื“ื” ื‘ืขืจื›ืš ืžื” ื‘ื”ืžื” ื˜ืžืื” ืžื™ื•ื—ื“ืช ืฉืชื—ื™ืœืชื” ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื•ื›ื•ืœื” ืœืฉืžื™ื ื•ืžื•ืขืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื” ืืฃ ื›ืœ ืฉืชื—ื™ืœืชื” ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื•ื›ื•ืœื” ืœืฉืžื™ื ืžื•ืขืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื”


The Gemara relates that the tanna who recited mishnayot and baraitot in the study hall taught a baraita before Rabbi Elazar. It is written: โ€œAnd if it is of a non-kosher animal, then he shall redeem it according to your valuationโ€ (Leviticus 27:27). This verse teaches that just as a non-kosher animal that was consecrated is unique in that it is an example of initial consecration and it is devoted entirely to Heaven, as neither the owner nor anyone else may derive benefit from it after its consecration, and one violates the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property by using it after it was consecrated, so too, with regard to any item that both undergoes initial consecration and is devoted entirely to Heaven, one violates the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property by using it after it was consecrated.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืœืชื ื ื‘ืฉืœืžื ื›ื•ืœื” ืœืฉืžื™ื ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืื™ืช ืœื”ื• ืœื‘ืขืœื™ื ื‘ื’ื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ืœื™ืช ื‘ื”ื• ืžืขื™ืœื” ืืœื ืชื—ื™ืœืช ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ืžืื™ ืชื—ื™ืœืช ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื”ื•ื ื“ืื™ืช ื‘ื™ื” ืžืขื™ืœื” ืกื•ืฃ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืœื™ืช ื‘ื™ื” ืžืขื™ืœื” ื“ืœืžื ืœืขื ื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืงืืžืจืช ื•ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ืŸ ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžื™ื ื


Rabbi Elazar said to the tanna: Granted, the statement: It is devoted entirely to Heaven, serves to exclude offerings of lesser sanctity, e.g., peace-offerings. Since the owners have a share in them, as they may partake of those offerings, they are not subject to the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property. But what does the mention of initial consecration in the baraita serve to exclude? Is it that initial consecration is subject to the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property and ultimate consecration is not subject to the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property? Even the property consecrated last in a series of redemptions is full-fledged consecrated property. Perhaps it is with regard to the matter of the payment of one-fifth that you are saying this, and it is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi? The tanna said to him: Yes, that is what I am saying.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืœืจื‘ื™ื ื ื‘ื”ืžื” ื˜ืžืื” ื‘ืชื—ื™ืœืช ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืื™ืชื


Apropos that baraita, Rav Ashi said to Ravina: Is it so that a non-kosher animal is subject to initial consecration


Scroll To Top