ט <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> המקדיש שדהו בשעה כו': אומרין והתניא כופין מאי אומרין נמי כופין ואיבעית אימא מעיקרא אומרין אי צאית צאית ואי לא כופין:
9 Why argue from the fact that the owner is obliged to pay an added fifth, infer it from the fact that since it is dear to him he will pay more to redeem it? And furthermore, the obligation to redeem it rests upon the owner?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. XXVII, 23.');"><sup>12</sup></span> - He gives one reason and then another. One reason, that since it is dear to him he will pay more to redeem it; and another, that the obligation to redeem it rests upon the owner, and furthermore, the owner is obliged to pay an added fifth. IT HAPPENED THAT ONE CONSECRATED HIS FIELD etc. Shall we say they are disputing this principle: R'Jose holds that money's worth is like money, whilst the Rabbis are of the opinion that money's worth is not like money? But then we have an established principle that money's worth is like money!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. B.K. 7a.');"><sup>13</sup></span> - [No.] All agree that money's worth is like money, but here they are disputing whether one may redeem by an object the fifth of which is not worth one perutah; the first Tanna holding only with an issar, the fifth of which is worth one perutah, may one redeem [but not by less],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The disagreement is in detail, not on principle, both holding that redemption may be achieved by either money or money's worth. An issar is the smallest coin containing five perutahs.');"><sup>14</sup></span> whilst R'Jose holds with an egg too one may redeem.