Bava Metzia 107

הבעלים נותנין עשרים ושש עשרים ושנים הבעלים נותנין עשרים ושבע בעשרים ושלש הבעלים נותנין עשרים ושמונה בעשרים וארבע הבעלים נותנין עשרים ותשע

the owners must give twenty-six; 'for twenty-two,' the owners must give twenty-seven; 'for twenty-three,' the owners must pay twenty-eight; 'for twenty-four,' the owners must pay twenty-nine; 'for twenty-five,' the owners must pay thirty; because a fifth is not added on this man's higher valuation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a man consecrated an inherited field when the Jubilee laws were in force, the redemption was according to a fixed scale, as stated in Lev. XXVII, 16-19. If, however, he consecrated it when the Jubilee laws had fallen into desuetude, he had to value it for the purpose of redemption, whilst at the same time others too might redeem it and keep the field for themselves. Now, the owner had to add a fifth to his valuation, but not strangers. Consequently, if both he and strangers valued it equally, it was for him to redeem it, since he would add thereto. But if strangers made a higher offer, the owner had to redeem it at their assessment, adding a fifth on the basis of his own, as stated in the Mishnah quoted. In order that the price might not be unduly forced up, the Mishnah concludes that if the owner valued it at 20, whilst another valued it at 26, i.e., more than the owner's offer plus a fifth, the latter offer was accepted. Thus both the Temple treasury and the owner were safeguarded. ');">¹</span> This proves that the fifth is calculated on the outer sum.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Five on twenty. ');">²</span>

עשרים וחמש הבעלים נותנין שלשים לפי שאין מוסיפין חומש על עילוי של זה שמע מינה חומשא מלבר ש"מ

This proves it. This is disputed by Tannaim: Then he shall add a fifth part of it thereto<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVII, 27. ');">³</span>

כתנאי (ויקרא כז, טו) ויסף חמישיתו עליו שיהא הוא וחומשו חמשה דברי רבי יאשיה ר' יונתן אומר חמישיתו חומשו של קרן

— i.e., it [sc. the principal] plus its fifth shall amount to five:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the principal is four the total shall be five, the addition thus being a fifth of the total — an 'outer' fifth. ');">⁴</span> this is the view of R. Josia. R. Jonathan said: 'A fifth part of it' means a fifth of the principal.

איבעיא להו חומש מעכב או אינו מעכב ד' בד' פריק ואכנפשיה מוסיף חומש אלמא חומש לא מעכב או דלמא ארבעה בחמשה פריק וחומש מעכב

The scholars propounded: Does the fifth restrain or not?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If one redeems the second tithe without adding a fifth, does this omission restrain him from eating that produce outside Jerusalem, it being regarded as unredeemed, or not? ');">⁵</span> [Thus:] do four [<i>zuz</i>] redeem four [<i>zuz</i>'s worth of second tithes], whilst a fifth is independently added,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not as part of the actual redemption. ');">⁶</span>

אמר רבינא ת"ש הדמאי אין לו חומש ואין לו ביעור

so that the fifth is no bar [to the validity of the redemption]: or perhaps, four [<i>zuz</i>'s worth] must be redeemed by five,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It being a scriptural decree that the addition forms an integral part of the redemption. ');">⁷</span> the fifth being [thus] a bar? — Said Rabina: Come and hear: <i>demai</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">⁸</span>

הא קרן יש לו מאי טעמא קרן דמעכב בדאורייתא איתא בדרבנן חומש דלא מעכב בדאורייתא ליתא בדרבנן

is not subject to the law of a 'fifth' or to the law of removal.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If one redeems second tithe of demai, he need not add a fifth. Again, ordinary (Biblical) tithes had (in accordance with Deut. XIV, 28ff.) to be removed from the house in the third year after the year of Release, but not demai (Dem. I, 2). ');">⁹</span> [This implies,] but the law of the principal does apply to it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., unless redeemed at par it may not be eaten outside Jerusalem. ');">¹⁰</span>

לימא כתנאי נתן את הקרן ולא נתן את החומש רבי אליעזר אומר יאכל רבי יהושע אומר לא יאכל א"ר נראין דברי רבי אליעזר בשבת ודברי רבי יהושע בחול

Why so?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why this distinction? ');">¹¹</span> [Surely because] the principal, which is indispensable for [tithe by] Biblical law, is required in the case of [tithe by] Rabbinic law; whereas the fifth, which is not a bar in [tithe by] Biblical law, is not required in the case of Rabbinic [tithe]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This proves therefore that the omission of the fifth does not invalidate redemption. ');">¹²</span>

מדאמר נראין דברי רבי אליעזר בשבת מכלל דפליגי אפילו בחול מדאמר נראין דברי רבי יהושע בחול מכלל דפליגי אפילו בשבת

Shall we say that this is disputed by Tannaim? [It has been taught:] If one gave the principal but not the fifth: R. Eliezer ruled: It [the redeemed tithe] may be eaten [outside Jerusalem]; R. Joshua said: It may not be eaten. Said Rabbi: I approve of R. Eliezer's view for the Sabbath, and R. Joshua's view for week-days.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the Sabbath the redeemed tithe may be eaten, for otherwise the cheerfulness of the Sabbath might be destroyed, as one might not have anything else to eat. But on week-days it may not be eaten unless the necessary fifth has been added. ');">¹³</span> Now, since he said 'I approve of R. Eliezer's view for the Sabbath,' it follows that their dispute applies even to week-days; and since he said, 'I approve of R. Joshua's view for week-days,' it follows that their dispute applies even to the Sabbath. Surely then, they differ in this reasoning, viz., R. Eliezer holds that the fifth is no bar, whilst R. Joshua holds that it is! — Said R. papa: That is not so. All agree that the fifth is no bar, but here they differ as to whether we fear culpable omission. One Master holds that we fear culpable omission;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If we permit eating the tithe even before the fifth has been added, one may intentionally omit his addition. ');">¹⁴</span>

מאי לאו בהא סברא קמיפלגי דרבי אליעזר סבר חומש לא מעכב ור' יהושע סבר חומש מעכב

whilst the other Master maintains that we do not fear this. R. Johanan said: All agree in the case of <i>hekdesh</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">¹⁵</span>

אמר רב פפא לא דכולי עלמא חומש לא מעכב והכא בחיישינן לפשיעותא קמיפלגי מר סבר חיישינן לפשיעותא ומר סבר לא חיישינן לפשיעותא

that it is redeemed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even before the necessary fifth is added, and it may then be eaten. ');">¹⁶</span> since the treasurers demand it in the market place.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There is no fear that the additional fifth will be intentionally omitted, since the treasurers enforce payment. [The treasurers are apparently not allowed to enter the premises of the donor to take a pledge; cf. Deut. XXIV, 11 (v. Strashun a. l.).] ');">¹⁷</span>

אמר ר' יוחנן הכל מודים בהקדש שחילל הואיל וגזברין תובעין אותו בשוק

Now, do they really not differ in respect to <i>hekdesh</i>? Surely it has been taught: If one gave the principal but did not give him [sc. the treasurer] the fifth: R. Eliezer said: He has redeemed it; whilst the Sages say: He has not redeemed it. Said Rabbi: I approve of R. Eliezer's view in respect to <i>hekdesh</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the reason stated, cf. n. 5. ');">¹⁸</span> and that of the Sages in respect to tithes. Now, since he said 'I approve of R. Eliezer's view In respect to <i>hekdesh</i>,' it follows that he himself [R. Eliezer] differs even in reference to the tithe; and since he said, 'I approve of the view of the Sages in respect to tithes,' it follows that they differ even on <i>hekdesh</i>! — But if it [R. Johanan's dictum] was stated, it was stated thus: R. Johanan said: All agree in respect to the Sabbath and <i>hekdesh</i>, that it is redeemed. Firstly, because it is written, And thou shalt call the Sabbath a delight;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Isa. LVIII, 13; v. n. 1. ');">¹⁹</span>

ובהקדש לא פליגי והתניא נתן את הקרן ולא נתן לו את החומש ר' אליעזר אומר חילל וחכמים אומרים לא חילל א"ר נראין דברי ר' אליעזר בהקדש ודברי חכמים במעשר

and furthermore, since the treasurers demand it in the market place. Rami b. Hama said: Now, it has been said that <i>hekdesh</i> cannot be redeemed by land, for the Divine Law ordered, Then he shall give the money, and it shall be assured to him;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Actually there is no such verse. Rashi and Tosaf. here and in Pes. 35b s.v. [H], without pointing to the non-existence of this verse, quotes, Then he shall add the fifth part of the money of thy estimation unto it, and it shall be assured to him (Lev. XXVII, 19) as the source of this law, implying money, but not land. But in that case the obvious difficulty arises, to which Tosaf. draws attention in Pes. loc. cit., since the verse primarily refers to the fifth, how can one question whether the implication of 'money' as excluding land refers to the fifth too, besides the principal? In Bek. 51a s.v. [H], however, Tosaf. states on the authority of the Sifra that the deduction is really based upon, and all thy estimations shall be according to the shekel of the sanctuary (v. 25), 'shekel' excluding land. ');">²⁰</span>

מדאמר נראין דברי רבי אליעזר בהקדש מכלל דפליג אפילו במעשר מדקאמר נראין דברי חכמים במעשר מכלל דאינהו פליגי אפי' בהקדש

but can its fifth be 'redeemed by' [i.e., rendered in] land? [Again,] <i>terumah</i> can be repaid only by <i>hullin</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a zar (v. Glos.) eats it unwittingly, he must make restoration to the priest, and the repayment must be with money of hullin. ');">²¹</span> for the Divine Law saith, Then he shall give unto the priest the holy thing,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 14. ');">²²</span>

אלא אי אתמר הכי אתמר א"ר יוחנן הכל מודים בשבת בהקדש שחילל חדא דכתיב (ישעיהו נח, יג) וקראת לשבת עונג ועוד הואיל וגזברין תובעין אותו בשוק

implying, that which is eligible to be holy:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it becomes holy only when he gives it to the priest; hence he cannot repay him with what is already holy. ');">²³</span> can its fifth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which had to be added to the principal: then he shall put the fifth part thereof unto it, ibid. ');">²⁴</span>

אמר רמי בר חמא הרי אמרו הקדש אינו מתחלל על הקרקע דרחמנא אמר (ויקרא כז, יט) ונתן הכסף וקם לו חומשו מהו שיתחלל על הקרקע

be rendered out of what is not <i>hullin</i>? [Further, the second] tithe cannot be redeemed by asimon,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Uncoined metal; v. supra 47b. ');">²⁵</span> because the Divine Law said, And thou shalt bind up the money in thy hand,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIV, 25. ');">²⁶</span>

תרומה אינה משתלמת אלא מן החולין דרחמנא אמר (ויקרא כב, יד) ונתן לכהן את הקדש דבר הראוי להיות קדש חומשה מהו שישתלם שלא מן החולין

thus including everything which has a figure:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 282, n. 6. I.e., only a stamped coin can redeem, but not bullion or uncoined metal. ');">²⁷</span> can its [additional] fifth be exchanged for uncoined metal? Now, it eventually transpired<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'The thing was rolled on.' ');">²⁸</span>

מעשר אין מתחלל על האסימון דרחמנא אמר (דברים יד, כה) וצרת הכסף בידך לרבות כל דבר שיש עליו צורה חומשו מהו שיתחלל על האסימון

that it [these questions] reached Raba. Thereupon he said to them: Scripture saith, [Then he shall add the fifth part of the money of thine estimation] unto it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVII, 19, also in every place where the addition of a fifth is mentioned; v. XXII, 14; XXVII. 31 (E.V. 'thereto'). ');">²⁹</span> [which is] to include its fifth as equal to itself [sc. the principal].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the fifth must be redeemed in the same way as the principal; hence the answer to all the questions is in the negative. ');">³⁰</span>

אתגלגל מלתא ומטא לקמיה דרבא אמר להו אמר קרא עליו לרבות חומשו כמותו

Rabina said: We have learnt likewise: If one stole <i>terumah</i> but did not eat it, he must repay double the value of the <i>terumah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The usual punishment of a thief. V. Ex. XXII, 3. As terumah, its value is less than hullin, since it can be sold only to priests, and may not be eaten if defiled. ');">³¹</span> If he ate it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not knowing that it was terumah. ');">³²</span>

אמר רבינא אף אנן נמי תנינא הגונב תרומה ולא אכלה משלם תשלומי כפל דמי תרומה אכלה משלם שני קרנים וחומש קרן וחומש מן החולין והקרן דמי תרומה

he must repay two principals and a fifth, one principal and a fifth out of <i>hullin</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in actual produce, notwithstanding that the value of terumah is less, for since he ate it, he derived the same benefit from it as though it were hullin. ');">³³</span> and the other principal as the value of <i>terumah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., money to that value. For the second principal is a fine for theft; therefore it is rendered in money, and based on the actual market value of the article stolen (Ter. VI, 4). ');">³⁴</span>