Bava Metzia 109

באמצע הקדש ליתא אמר ליה לפי שאינה בסוף הקדש

but not of intermediary <i>hekdesh</i>!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Three categories are distinguished: (i) original hekdesh, i.e., that which is itself consecrated in the first place, though it cannot be directly employed in the temple; (ii) intermediary hekdesh, viz., that which is consecrated instead of another, which required redemption — referred to above as 'transferred hekdesh;' (iii) 'final hekdesh,' that which is itself finally used as hekdesh, e.g., a clean beast, which is sacrificed, or a wood beam, which, if dedicated to Temple use, may be directly built into the Temple or similarly employed. — Now, R. Ashi observes that an unclean animal is capable of this intermediary or transferred sanctity, viz., if it is substituted for another. Another two expressions are used in this discussion, viz., 'first hekdesh' and 'second hekdesh.' 'First hekdesh' would appear to be synonymous with 'original hekdesh;' 'second hekdesh,' like 'intermediary hekdesh,' refers to transferred sanctity, but whereas the latter term is used in contrast to 'final hekdesh' to denote that which cannot itself be finally employed as hekdesh, 'second hekdesh' refers to that which can be finally used so. ');">¹</span>

אמר ליה רב אחא מדיפתי לרבינא באמצע הקדש מיהא איתא ולוסיף נמי חומש אמר ליה הרי הוא כסוף הקדש מה סוף הקדש אינו מוסיף חומש אף אמצע הקדש אינו מוסיף חומש

— He replied, Because it is incapable of final <i>hekdesh</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It cannot be used itself as hekdesh, not being eligible for the altar, nor can it be built into the Temple.< li> If this unclean animal is redeemed as intermediary hekdesh. ');">²</span>

אמר ליה רב זוטרא בריה דרב מרי לרבינא מאי חזית דמדמית ליה לסוף הקדש נדמייה לתחילת הקדש א"ל מסתברא לסוף הקדש הו"ל לדמויי שכן נתפס מנתפס אדרבה לתחילת הקדש הוה ליה לדמויי שכן דבר שיש אחריו קדושה מדבר שיש אחריו קדושה

But R. Aha of Difti objected to Rabina: Yet it is capable of 'intermediary <i>hekdesh</i>:' then let a fifth be added too!<a rel="footnote" href="#55a_3">³</a>

כדאמר רבא (ויקרא ו, ג) העולה עולה ראשונה ה"נ הטמאה טמאה ראשונה

— He replied: It is as final <i>hekdesh</i>: just as a fifth is not added for final <i>hekdesh</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since there is no fifth for final hekdesh, in accordance with the teaching reported by the tanna, apart from the fact that there can be no room for the addition of a fifth, since it is finally disposed of as hekdesh and not redeemed. ');">⁴</span>

תניא כוותיה דריב"ל פרה זו תחת פרה של הקדש טלית זו תחת טלית של הקדש הקדשו פדוי ויד הקדש על העליונה

so for intermediary <i>hekdesh</i> no fifth is added. R. Zutra, son of R. Mari, said to Rabina: On what grounds<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what do you see?' ');">⁵</span>

פרה זו בחמש סלעים תחת פרה של הקדש טלית זו בחמש סלעים תחת טלית של הקדש הקדשו פדוי על הקדש ראשון מוסיף חומש על הקדש שני אין מוסיף חומש:

do you liken it to final <i>hekdesh</i>? Liken it [rather] to original <i>hekdesh</i>! — He replied: It is logical to liken it to final <i>hekdesh</i>, since thereby transferred [sanctity is deduced] from transferred [sanctity]. On the contrary, it should rather be compared with original <i>hekdesh</i>, [deducing] that which may be followed by sanctity from that which may be followed by sanctity!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Original' and 'intermediary' hekdesh, (v. p, 325, n. 5), can be redeemed and thus 'followed' by the sanctity of the article wherewith it is redeemed. But this of course cannot apply to 'final' hekdesh. ');">⁶</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> האונאה ארבעה כסף והטענה שתי כסף וההודאה שוה פרוטה

— It is as Raba said, [viz.,] [<i>And the fire upon the altar shall be burning in it; it shall not be put out: and the priest shall burn wood on it every morning, and lay</i>] the <i>burnt offering</i> [<i>in order upon it; and he shall burn thereon the fat of the peace offering</i>]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VI, 5. ');">⁷</span>

חמש פרוטות הן ההודאה שוה פרוטה והאשה מתקדשת בשוה פרוטה והנהנה בשוה פרוטה מן ההקדש מעל והמוצא שוה פרוטה חייב להכריז והגוזל את חבירו שוה פרוטה ונשבע לו יוליכנו אחריו אפילו למדי:

implies 'the <i>first</i> burnt offering;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The definite article points to some particular sacrifice, and Raba observes that it denotes that the first, i.e., the burnt offering, must be the first thing to ascend the altar every day, and nothing else may take precedence over it. Tosaf. offers some other explanations. ');">⁸</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> תנינא חדא זימנא האונאה ארבעה כסף מעשרים וארבעה כסף לסלע שתות למקח הטענה שתי כסף וההודאה שוה פרוטה אצטריכא ליה

so here too, [<i>and if it be of</i>] the <i>unclean [beast]</i> denotes the first uncleanliness [to which it may be subject].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that it applies to original hekdesh only. ');">⁹</span>

הא נמי תנינא שבועת הדיינין הטענה שתי כסף וההודאה שוה פרוטה סיפא אצטריכא ליה דקתני חמש פרוטות הן:

It has been taught in accordance with R. Joshua b. Levi: [If one declared,] 'This cow is a substitute for this cow of hekdesh';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [E.g., where the originally consecrated cow was dedicated for temple repairs, no redemption being possible in the case of a clean animal dedicated as an offering; cf. Lev. XXVI, 10; v. Tosaf.] ');">¹⁰</span>

חמש פרוטות הן וכו': וליתני נמי האונאה פרוטה אמר רב כהנא זאת אומרת אין אונאה לפרוטות

'this garment be instead of this other garment of hekdesh', his consecrated object is redeemed, whilst <i>hekdesh</i> has the upper hand.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If hekdesh is redeemed by an object of far less value than itself, the redemption is valid and the consecrated article loses its sanctity; nevertheless, the treasurers collect its full value. On the other hand, if the object substituted is worth more, there is no refund. So here too, if the second cow or garment is worth less than the original, the deficiency must be made good, whilst if it exceeds it, hekdesh gains. This is the meaning of 'hekdesh has the upper hand.' — In this clause, no actual value is ascribed to the substitute. ');">¹¹</span>

ולוי אמר יש אונאה לפרוטות וכן תני לוי במתניתיה חמש פרוטות הן האונאה פרוטה וההודאה פרוטה וקידושי אשה בפרוטה וגזל בפרוטה וישיבת הדיינין בפרוטה

[Even if he declares,] 'This cow, which is worth five <i>sela's</i> be a substitute for this other cow of hekdesh', or 'this garment, worth five <i>sela's</i>, be instead of this other garment of hekdesh', his consecrated object is redeemed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though he ascribes a certain value to the substitute, which it lacks. I might have thought that his declaration is therefore invalid, since it contains a misstatement. We are therefore taught otherwise. ');">¹²</span>

ותנא דידן מאי טעמא לא קתני ישיבת הדיינין תנא ליה גזל

For the first <i>hekdesh</i> he must add a fifth, but not for the second.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Should he desire to redeem the substitute, which is now sanctified in its turn, no addition is required. This agrees with R. Joshua b. Levi. ');">¹³</span>

ומי לא תני גזל וקתני אבידה הנך אצטריכא ליה גזל הגוזל מחבירו שוה פרוטה ונשבע לו יוליכנו אחריו ואפילו למדי אבידה המוצא אבידה שוה פרוטה חייב להכריז ואע"ג דזל

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. OVERREACHING IS CONSTITUTED BY FOUR SILVER [<i>MA'AHS</i>].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In a purchase worth a sela', i.e., a sixth, v. p. 295, n. 10. ');">¹⁴</span>

ולוי מאי טעמא לא תני אבידה בפרוטה תנא ליה גזל

THE [MINIMUM] CLAIM IS TWO SILVER [<i>MA'AHS</i>],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is the smallest claim which can involve the imposition of an oath. ');">¹⁵</span>

ומי לא קתני גזל וקתני ישיבת הדיינין ישיבת הדיינין אצטריכא ליה לאפוקי מדרב קטינא דא"ר קטינא ב"ד נזקקין אפילו לפחות משוה פרוטה

AND ADMISSION IS [AT LEAST] THE VALUE OF A <i>PERUTAH</i>.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As stated supra 3a, no oath is required by Biblical law unless part of one's claim is admitted. This admission must be for at least a perutah or its equivalent. ');">¹⁶</span>

ולוי מ"ט לא קתני הקדש בחולין קמיירי בקדשי' לא קמיירי

A <i>PERUTAH</i> WAS SPECIFIED IN FIVE INSTANCES: [i] ADMISSION MUST BE [AT LEAST] THE EQUIVALENT OF A <i>PERUTAH</i>; [ii] A WOMAN IS BETROTHED BY THE VALUE OF A <i>PERUTAH</i>;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The smallest sum of money or its equivalent whereby a woman can be betrothed is a perutah. ');">¹⁷</span>

אלא תנא דידן דקא מיירי בקדשים נתני מעשר בפרוטה כמאן דאמר אין בחומשו פרוטה וליתני חומש מעשר בפרוטה בקרנא קא מיירי בחומש לא קא מיירי

[iii] HE WHO BENEFITS FROM <i>HEKDESH</i> TO THE VALUE OF A <i>PERUTAH</i> IS LIABLE TO A TRESPASS OFFERING; [iv] HE WHO FINDS [AN ARTICLE] WORTH A <i>PERUTAH</i> IS BOUND TO PROCLAIM IT, AND [v] HE WHO ROBS HIS NEIGHBOUR OF THE VALUE OF A <i>PERUTAH</i> AND SWEARS [FALSELY] TO HIM [CONCERNING IT],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Denying the theft. ');">¹⁸</span>

גופא אמר רב קטינא ב"ד נזקקין אפילו לפחות משוה פרוטה מתיב רבא (ויקרא ה, טז) ואת אשר חטא מן הקדש ישלם

MUST FOLLOW HIM TO RETURN IT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'must carry it after him.' ');">¹⁹</span> EVEN AS FAR AS MEDIA.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he repents, he does not obtain forgiveness unless he returns it to him personally, and he must go even so far. ');">²⁰</span> <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. But we have already learnt it once: fraud is constituted by [an overcharge of] four silver [<i>ma'ahs</i>] in twenty four, which is a <i>sela'</i>, [hence] a sixth of the purchase!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 49b. ');">²¹</span> — He [the Tanna] desires [to state], THE [MINIMUM] CLAIM IS TWO SILVER [<i>MA'AHS</i>], AND ADMISSION IS [AT LEAST] THE VALUE OF A <i>PERUTAH</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 327, n. 5. ');">²²</span> But that too we have [already] learnt: The judicial oath is [imposed] for a claim of two silver [<i>ma'ahs</i>] and an admission of a <i>perutah</i>! — The last clause is necessary, viz., A <i>PERUTAH</i> IS SPECIFIED IN FIVE INSTANCES. A <i>PERUTAH</i> IS SPECIFIED IN FIVE INSTANCES etc. But let him [the Tanna] teach also, [The minimum] overreaching is a <i>perutah</i>!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That if the overreaching is less there is neither compensation nor cancellation of the sale. ');">²³</span> — Said R. Kahana: This proves that the law of overreaching does not apply to perutahs.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which are copper coins. I.e., the minimum sum to which it applies is an issar, which is a silver coin. ');">²⁴</span> But Levi maintained: The law of overreaching does apply to perutahs. And thus did Levi read in his Baraitha [collection]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Levi had a compilation of Baraithas similar to that of R. Hiyya and R. Hoshaia, v. B.B. (Sonc. ed.) p. 216, n. 5.] ');">²⁵</span> A <i>perutah</i> was specified in five instances: [i] [Minimum] overreaching is a <i>perutah</i>; [ii] Admission is a <i>perutah</i>; [iii] The <i>kiddushin</i> of a woman is with a <i>perutah</i>; [iv] Robbery [imposes its obligations] on account of a <i>perutah</i>; and [v] The court session is on account of a <i>perutah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If liability is admitted or proved by witnesses, yet payment is refused, a court session orders measures of compulsion against the recalcitrant debtor. The smallest sum to be involved for this step to be taken is a perutah. ');">²⁶</span> Now, why does our Tanna not include the court session? — He includes it under robbery.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the same principle operates in both. ');">²⁷</span> Yet does he not teach both robbery and loss?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' HE WHO FINDS AN ARTICLE WORTH A PERUTAH IS BOUND TO PROCLAIM IT. The principles here too are identical, viz., that perutah is 'money', to the return of which the owner has a right, even if it involves considerable trouble. ');">²⁸</span> — Those are [both] necessary. 'Robbery', [to teach that] HE WHO ROBS HIS NEIGHBOUR OF THE VALUE OF A <i>PERUTAH</i> AND SWEARS [FALSELY] TO HIM [CONCERNING IT], MUST FOLLOW HIM TO RETURN IT EVEN AS FAR AS MEDIA.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus apart from the fact that the minimum which constitutes robbery is perutah, we are further informed that even such a small sum must be returned to the robbed man personally, though the expenses of such return far exceed the actual sum involved. ');">²⁹</span> 'A loss:' [thus] HE WHO FINDS [AN ARTICLE] WORTH A <i>PERUTAH</i> IS BOUND TO PROCLAIM IT, even if it depreciated [after being found].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that by the time it is announced it is not worth a perutah; yet the announcement must be made. ');">³⁰</span> Now, why does Levi not teach that a loss [in the sense of the Mishnah] is [at least] a <i>perutah</i>? — He teaches robbery. But does he not teach both robbery and the court session?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And in both these cases too the same principle is at stake. ');">³¹</span> — He needs [to teach that] in order to reject the view of R. Kattina, who said, The court sits<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'meets'. ');">³²</span> even for less than a perutah's worth. Now, why does Levi omit <i>hekdesh</i>? — He deals with <i>hullin</i>, not sacred objects. Then since our Tanna does treat of sacred objects, let him teach, The [minimum of second] tithe [to be eligible for redemption] is a <i>perutah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But a lesser quantity must be consumed in Jerusalem. ');">³³</span> — [The omission is] in accordance with the view that if its fifth is less than a <i>perutah</i> [it cannot be redeemed]. Then let him state, The [added] fifth of the [second] tithe must be [not less than] a <i>perutah</i>. — He treats of principals, not fifths.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In all cases stated in the Mishnah the principal itself must be not less than a perutah. ');">³⁴</span> The [above text] states: 'R. Kattina said: The court sits even for less than a perutah's worth.' Raba objected: <i>And he shall make amends for the harm that he hath done in the holy thing</i>:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V, 16. ');">³⁵</span>