Reference for Bava Metzia 104:16

מיתיבי התרומה והביכורים חייבין עליהן מיתה וחומש

AND ONE MAY REDEEM THE SECOND TITHE THEREWITH AND HAVE NO FEAR, BECAUSE IT IS MERE CHURLISHNESS. R. Papa said: This proves that he who is exacting in respect to coins<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Refusing to accept them even if slightly worn. ');">¹³</span> is dubbed a churl;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'a malevolent soul.' ');">¹⁴</span> providing, however, that they [still] circulate. This [the Mishnah] supports Hezekiah, for Hezekiah said: When he comes to exchange it, he must exchange it as its intrinsic value; if he comes to redeem therewith, he estimates it at a proper [coin].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If one exchanges a worn sela' for perutahs, he must estimate it at its metallic, intrinsic value. If, however, he redeems second tithe produce with such coins, he gives the coins their nominal value, as though unworn. ');">¹⁵</span> What does he mean?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'When he comes…intrinsic value:' but surely that is already stated in the Mishnah, that, when a coin depreciates to the extent that overreaching is involved, it may not be passed off at full value! ');">¹⁶</span> — He means this: Though when he comes to exchange it, he exchanges it at its present value,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When coming to change a sela', which has depreciated, though not to the extent involving overreaching with which the second tithe was redeemed, into perutahs in Jerusalem, he naturally receives from money-changers perutahs only for its depreciated value (cf. Tosaf.). ');">¹⁷</span> yet when he redeems [second tithe] therewith, he may estimate it as a good [coin].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus Hezekiah informs us that when the Mishnah states that the second tithe may be redeemed therewith, it means that the coin is reckoned at its full nominal value, because to be exacting in regard to coins that are slightly worn is a mark of churlishness. ');">¹⁸</span> Shall we say that Hezekiah holds that the second tithe may be treated disparagingly?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As above, estimating the deficient sela' at its full value, thus minimising that of the second tithe. ');">¹⁹</span> But did not Hezekiah say: With respect to second tithe [produce] worth less than a <i>perutah</i>, one may declare, 'It, together with its fifth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 272, n. 9. ');">²⁰</span> is redeemed with the first money [of redemption];'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., money which has already been used in redeeming other second tithe produce. ');">²¹</span> because it is impossible for a person to calculate his money exactly!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When one redeems the second tithe, he does not calculate its exact value, lest he underestimate it, and so redeems it at slightly more than its true worth. This slight excess may now be regarded as the redemption money of second tithe produce worth less than a Perutah, the smallest possible coin. This proves that in the first place it is liberally calculated, which contradicts his former statement that even deficient coins may be reckoned at their full value for this purpose. ');">²²</span> — What is meant by 'a proper [coin]'? On the basis of the proper value [of the coin], because it [the second tithe] may not be lightly treated in two respects.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The defective coin is computed only at the proper value it possesses now, i.e., not only is full allowance made for its deficiency, but its valuation is slightly lowered even beyond that, so as to make quite certain that it does possess the value attributed to it. On this interpretation, Hezekiah asserts that we are stricter in respect to the redemption of the second tithe than in ordinary secular transactions. And the reason is, 'because it may not be lightly treated in two respects' — for the mere fact that it may be redeemed with a defective coin, which some might refuse as a coin at all, is considered a light treatment of the second tithe; we may certainly not subject it to the further indignity, as it were, of computing the value of this coin in a liberal spirit (Rashi). The statement in the Mishnah that the second tithe can be redeemed with it means, accordingly, 'at its present intrinsic value,' for to refuse to accept it thus is a mark of churlishness. ');">²³</span> The [above] text stated: 'Hezekiah said: With respect to second tithe [produce] worth less than a <i>perutah</i>, one may declare, "It, together with its fifth, is redeemed by the first money [of redemption];" because it is impossible for a person to calculate his money exactly.' An objection is raised: For <i>terumah</i> and the first fruits<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Num. XXVIII. 26; Deut. XXVI, 1-4. ');">²⁴</span> one is liable to death and [the addition of] a fifth;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a zar (q.v. Glos.) or an unclean priest wantonly eats them, he is liable to 'death at the hands of Heaven'; whilst If a zar eats them in ignorance of their true character, he must make restoration, adding a fifth to their value (Lev. XXII, 14). These laws were stated primarily with respect to terumah, but by Biblical exegesis they were extended to the first fruits too. ');">²⁵</span>

Explore reference for Bava Metzia 104:16. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.