Bava Metzia 108

ש"מ חומשו כמותו ש"מ

This proves that the fifth is as the principal.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'as itself.' — It follows from the fact that the fifth has to be paid in produce, just as the principal. ');">¹</span> Raba said: With respect to robbery it is written, [<i>he shall even restore it in the principal,</i>] <i>and shall add the fifth part more thereto</i>;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V, 24. This fifth is payable if the culprit first denied the robbery and swore falsely, and then repented. The Heb. for 'the fifth part' is [H], which is plural in form, lit., 'and its fifth parts'. This justifies the ruling that the fifth itself becomes the principal and a fifth is payable upon that — i.e., there may be many fifth parts. ');">²</span> and we learnt: If he restored the principal and then swore [falsely] concerning the fifth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Regretting his repentance before giving the fifth, he falsely swore that he had already paid it. ');">³</span>

אמר רבא גבי גזל כתיב (ויקרא ה, טז) וחמישיתיו יוסף עליו ותנן נתן לו את הקרן ונשבע לו על החומש הרי זה מוסיף חומש על חומש עד שיתמעט הקרן פחות משוה פרוטה

he must then add<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he repents again. ');">⁴</span> a fifth upon the fifth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the fifth is regarded as a new principal, and he is liable to a fifth of that on account of his false oath. ');">⁵</span> [and so on,] until the principal is less than a perutah's worth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'The principal' refers to the fifth in respect of which he took a false oath (v. B.K. 103a). ');">⁶</span>

גבי תרומה כתיב (ויקרא כב, יד) איש כי יאכל קדש בשגגה ויסף חמישיתו עליו ותנן האוכל תרומה בשוגג משלם קרן וחומש אחד האוכל ואחד השותה ואחד הסך אחד תרומה טהורה ואחד תרומה טמאה משלם חומשה וחומשא דחומשא ואילו גבי מעשר לא מכתב כתיב ולא מיתנא תנא ולא איבעויי איבעיא לן

With respect to <i>terumah</i>, it is written, <i>And if a man eat of the holy thing unwittingly, then he shall add the fifth part thereof unto it</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XXII, 14. Here the Heb. reads [H], sing.; nevertheless it is shewn further on that there is a Biblical allusion that there may be many fifths, as in the case of robbery. ');">⁷</span> And we learnt: If one eats <i>terumah</i> unwittingly, he must restore the principal and a fifth; whether he eats, drinks or anoints [therewith]; whether it was undefiled or defiled <i>terumah</i>, he must pay a fifth and a fifth of the fifth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This fifth becomes the same as the original terumah, and if he ate it, he must restore that fifth and a fifth thereof, just as in the case of robbery (Ter. VI, 4). ');">⁸</span> With respect to [the second] tithe it is neither written<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There is no allusion to the payment of many fifths. ');">⁹</span>

גבי הקדש כתיב (ויקרא כז, טו) ואם המקדיש יגאל את ביתו ויסף חמישית כסף ערכך ותנן הפודה את הקדשו מוסיף חומש חומשא תנן חומשא דחומשא לא תנן מאי גבי תרומה כתיב ויסף גבי קדש נמי הא כתיב ויסף

nor taught,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To that effect, e.g., if one redeems the second tithe, duly adding a fifth, and then wishes to redeem that fifth with other coins, it was not taught that he must add a fifth thereof. ');">¹⁰</span> nor do we regard it at all as a problem.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., another fifth need certainly not be added, since there is not the slightest indication in the Bible to that effect. ');">¹¹</span> With respect to <i>hekdesh</i> it is written, <i>And if he that sanctified it will redeem his house, then he shall add the fifth part of the money of thy estimation unto it</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVII, 15. ');">¹²</span>

או דלמא גבי תרומה כתיב ויסף אי שקלת ליה לוי"ו דויסף ושדית ליה על חמישיתו הוה ליה חמישיתיו גבי הקדש כתיב ויסף חמישית אע"ג דכי שקלת ליה לוי"ו דויסף ושדית ליה על חמישית סוף סוף הוה ליה חמישיתו

And we learnt: He who redeems his <i>hekdesh</i> adds a fifth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 55b. ');">¹³</span> Now, only a fifth was thus taught, but not a fifth of the fifth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it is not stated that if he wishes to redeem that fifth, which is now consecrated, that he must add a fifth thereof unto it. ');">¹⁴</span> What then [is the law]? [The problem arises for this reason:] With respect to <i>terumah</i> it is written, <i>and he shall add [we-yasaf]</i>;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The and (we-) is interpreted as an extending particle, and therefore teaches that this fifth may be added more than once, i.e., on repeated redemption a fifth of the added fifth is required. ');">¹⁵</span>

ותיפוק ליה דהוה ליה הקדש שני ואמר רבי יהושע בן לוי אהקדש ראשון מוסיף חומש על הקדש שני אין מוסיף חומש אמר ליה רב פפי לרבינא הכי אמר רבא חומש כתחילת הקדש דמי

then with respect to <i>hekdesh</i> too it is likewise written, <i>and he shall add [weyasaf]</i>:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence hekdesh too may require many fifths. ');">¹⁶</span> or perhaps, with respect to <i>terumah</i> it is written <i>he shall add [we-yasaf]</i>, and if you remove the <i>waw</i> from <i>we-yasaf</i> and add it to <i>hamishito</i> [the fifth part thereof] it becomes <i>hamishithaw</i> [the fifth parts thereof];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the plural form v. 322, nn. 5' 10. It is one of the principles of exegesis that a letter may be taken from one word and added to another, and interpreted in the transposed form. Such removal and addition is permissible only at the beginning or end of a word, hut not in the middle; so here [H] > [H] ');">¹⁷</span> whereas in respect to <i>hekdesh</i> is written, <i>and he shall add the fifth part [we-yasaf hamishith]</i>, and even if you remove the <i>waw</i> from <i>we-yasaf</i> and add it to <i>hamishith</i>, after all it only becomes <i>hamishitho</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., sing., [H] > [H] thus giving no hint that a second fifth may be required. Though the insertion of the waw in the middle of the word would turn it into plural viz., [H] 'fifths', such insertion is not permissible, as stated on previous note. ');">¹⁸</span>

מאי הוי עלה אמר רב טביומי משמיה דאביי אמר קרא (ויקרא כז, טו) ויסף חמישית כסף ערכך מקיש חומשו לכסף ערכו מה כסף ערכו מוסיף חומש אף כסף חומשו נמי מוסיף חומש

But cannot this [sc. the answer to the problem] be deduced from the fact that it [the fifth] is a second <i>hekdesh</i>, and R. Joshua b. Levi said: A fifth is added to first [i.e., original] <i>hekdesh</i> [in redemption], but not to second <i>hekdesh</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This fifth is not the object originally dedicated, but a substitute for it through redemption, the second hekdesh. According to R. Joshua b. Levi's dictum, which is deduced from Scripture further on, hence authentic, no addition is necessary when redeeming the substitute; so that even if he redeemed the principal with which the original hekdesh had been redeemed, no fifth thereof would be necessary: surely then no fifth of the fifth is required! ');">¹⁹</span> — Said R. papa to Rabina: Thus did Raba say: The fifth ranks as original <i>hekdesh</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not as a substitute at all. Thus: the original is redeemed at par, and that principal ranks as a substitute. The added fifth, however, is not a substitute, but in the nature of money now consecrated for the first time in obedience to the Scriptural law that when one redeems hekdesh he must consecrate something (viz., a fifth) in addition. Hence, though no fifth is added when the principal is redeemed, it may be necessary for the fifth. ');">²⁰</span> What is our decision in the matter? — R. Tabyomi said in Abaye's name: Scripture saith, <i>Then he shall add the fifth part of the money of thy estimation [unto it]</i>: thus its fifth is assimilated to its assessed value:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the money of his estimation'. ');">²¹</span>

גופא א"ר יהושע בן לוי על הקדש ראשון מוסיף חומש ועל הקדש שני אין מוסיף חומש אמר רבא מ"ט דרבי יהושע בן לוי אמר קרא (ויקרא כז, טו) ואם המקדיש יגאל את ביתו המקדיש ולא המתפיס

just as a fifth is added to the assessed value, so is a fifth added to the fifth of its value.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In point of fact the analogy appears defective, since a fifth is not added when the assessed value is itself redeemed, as has just been stated. But the argument is somewhat like this: the fifth is regarded in exactly the same light as the principal assessment: just as when the principal assessment is made, a fifth is to be added, so is a fifth of the fifth to be added likewise, and that is possible only in another redemption (Strashun, a. l.) ');">²²</span> The [above] text states: 'R. Joshua b. Levi said: A fifth is added to first [i.e., original] <i>hekdesh</i> [in redemption], but not to second hekdesh' Said Raba: What is R. Joshua b. Levi's reason? — Scripture says, <i>And if</i> he that sanctified <i>it will redeem his house, [then he shall add the fifth part]</i>: implying, only he who sanctified, but not he who transferred [its sanctity].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'who caused to seize,' i.e., who by means of redemption transferred sanctity from one object to another. The deduction is that a fifth is to be added only in the case of that which was sanctified itself, but not for that which received its sanctity through redemption. ');">²³</span> A tanna recited before R. Eleazar: <i>And if it be of the unclean beast,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if an unclean animal was consecrated. The E.V. is 'and if it be of an unclean beast,' the def. art. being understood generically. But as the Talmud bases a particular conclusion upon it (55a), the literal translation has been given here. ');">²⁴</span></i>

תני תנא קמיה דרבי אלעזר (ויקרא כז, כז) ואם בבהמה הטמאה ופדה בערכך מה בהמה טמאה מיוחדת שתחילתה הקדש וכולה לשמים ומועלין בה אף כל שתחילתה הקדש וכולה לשמים מועלין בה

then he shall redeem it according to thine estimation [, and shall add a fifth part of it thereto]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 27. ');">²⁵</span> just as an unclean beast is distinguished in that it is the original dedication,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Its sanctity was not received through transference from another animal. The Talmud objects further on that it is possible for an unclean beast to possess transferred sanctity. ');">²⁶</span> belongs entirely to Heaven,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., its value goes entirely to the Temple, and nothing to the owner. But a clean animal is sacrificed, and the owner enjoys a portion thereof. ');">²⁷</span>

אמר ליה ר' אלעזר לתנא בשלמא כולה לשמים למעוטי קדשים קלים כיון דאית להו לבעלים בגוייהו לית בהו מעילה אלא תחילת הקדש למעוטי מאי תחילת הקדש הוא דאית ביה מעילה סוף הקדש לית ביה מעילה דלמא לענין חומש קאמרת וכרבי יהושע בן לוי אמר ליה אין הכי קאמינא

and it involves trespass;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is now assumed that this means that if one makes use of it he must bring a trespass offering, just as for benefiting from any other form of hekdesh. ');">²⁸</span> so everything which is original <i>hekdesh</i> and belongs entirely to Heaven involves one in trespass. Thereupon R. Eleazar observed to the tanna: As for [the stipulation] that it must belong entirely to Heaven, it is well: that excludes sacrifices of secondary sanctity;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] Sacrifices are divided into two grades of sanctity, the higher, which includes the burnt offering and sin offering, and the secondary or lower, e.g., the peace offering and thanks offering. ');">²⁹</span> since its owners enjoy part thereof,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The fat of these lower grade sacrifices was burnt on the altar, the breast and shoulder were the priests portions, and the rest was consumed by the owner. ');">³⁰</span>

אמר ליה רב אשי לרבינא בהמה טמאה בתחילת הקדש איתא

they involve no trespass offering. But what is 'original dedication' intended to exclude? [Do you mean that] only original <i>hekdesh</i> involves a trespass offering, but not final <i>hekdesh</i>!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the term 'final hekdesh' v. n. 5. Surely 'final hekdesh' too involves trespass! ');">³¹</span> perhaps you said it in reference to the fifth, and in agreement with R. Joshua b. Levi?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By 'trespass', not the trespass offering for making use of hekdesh is meant, but the fifth which must be added on redemption, the fifth being called 'trespass' because there too (sc. when hekdesh is secularly used) a fifth must be added, as stated above, Lev. XXII, 14; thus he asked the Tanna whether he meant that no fifth was to be added in redeeming substitute hekdesh. ');">³²</span> — Even so, he replied, that is what I meant. R. Ashi said to Rabina: Is an unclean animal capable only of original <i>hekdesh</i>,