Bava Metzia 110

לרבות פחות משוה פרוטה להישבון לקדש אין אבל להדיוט לא

this [<i>'and</i>'] extends the law of restoration even to less than a perutah's worth. Thus, it applies to <i>hekdesh</i>, but not to <i>hullin</i>!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., no legal compulsion can be exerted to effect the restoration of something worth less than a perutah in the case of hullin; this follows from the fact that the Baraitha deduces the necessity of such restoration only in the case of sacred objects. ');">¹</span> — But if stated, it was stated thus: R. Kattina said, if the court met for [a claim of] the equivalent of a <i>perutah</i>, they conclude [the hearing] even for less,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the claim of the plaintiff was reduced in the course of the trial. ');">²</span>

אלא אי אתמר הכי אתמר אמר רב קטינא אם הוזקקו בית דין לשוה פרוטה גומרין אפילו לפחות משוה פרוטה תחילת הדין בעינן פרוטה גמר דין לא בעינן פרוטה:

[because] at the beginning of a trial a <i>perutah</i> must be involved, but at the end a [claim of a] <i>perutah</i> is unnecessary. <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. [THE ADDITION OF] A FIFTH [TO THE PRINCIPAL] IS PRESCRIBED IN FIVE CASES: [i] ONE WHO EATS <i>TERUMAH</i>, THE <i>TERUMAH</i> OF THE TITHE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 293, n. 8. ');">³</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> חמשה חומשין הן אלו הן האוכל תרומה ותרומת מעשר ותרומת מעשר של דמאי והחלה והבכורים מוסיף חומש והפודה נטע רבעי ומעשר שני שלו מוסיף חומש הפודה את הקדשו מוסיף חומש הנהנה שוה פרוטה מן ההקדש מוסיף חומש והגוזל את חבירו שוה פרוטה ונשבע לו מוסיף חומש:

THE <i>TERUMAH</i> OF THE TITHE OF <i>DEMAI</i>, <i>HALLAH</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">⁴</span> AND THE FIRST FRUITS,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which was to be given to the priest. ');">⁵</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר רבא קשיא ליה לר' אלעזר תרומת מעשר של דמאי וכי עשו חכמים חיזוק לדבריהם כשל תורה

MUST ADD A FIFTH;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he eats any of these in ignorance of their true nature. These count as one, 'terumah' being a generic designation for all. ');">⁶</span> [ii] HE WHO REDEEMS THE FOURTH YEAR PLANTING<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When trees were planted, their fruit was forbidden during the first three years. The produce of the fourth was permitted, but on the same terms as the second tithe, viz., it either had to be taken to Jerusalem for consumption or redeemed without Jerusalem and the money expended there; v. Lev. XIX, 24ff. ');">⁷</span>

אמר רב נחמן אמר שמואל הא מני ר"מ היא דאמר עשו חכמים חיזוק לדבריהם כשל תורה דתניא המביא גט ממדינת הים נתנו לה ולא אמר לה בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם יוציא והולד ממזר דברי ר"מ וחכ"א אין הולד ממזר כיצד יעשה יטלנו ממנה ויחזור ויתננו לה בפני שנים ויאמר לה בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם

AND HIS OWN SECOND TITHE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On 'his own' v. supra, p. 272 n. 9. ');">⁸</span> ADDS A FIFTH; [iii] HE WHO REDEEMS HIS SACRED OBJECTS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Here too 'his' is emphatic. ');">⁹</span>

ולרבי מאיר משום דלא אמר לה בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם יוציא והולד ממזר אין ר"מ לטעמיה דאמר רב המנונא משמיה דעולא אומר היה ר' מאיר כל המשנה ממטבע שטבעו חכמים בגיטין יוציא והולד ממזר

ADDS A FIFTH; [iv] HE WHO BENEFITS FROM <i>HEKDESH</i> TO THE VALUE OF A <i>PERUTAH</i> ADDS A FIFTH;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V, 16. ');">¹⁰</span> AND [v] HE WHO ROBS HIS NEIGHBOUR OF A PERUTAH'S WORTH AND SWEARS [FALSELY] TO HIM [CONCERNING IT] MUST ADD A FIFTH.

מתיב רב ששת מחללין אותו כסף על כסף נחושת על נחושת כסף על נחושת ונחושת על הפירות ויחזור ויפדה את הפירות דברי רבי מאיר וחכ"א יעלו פירות ויאכלו בירושלים

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Raba said: The <i>terumah</i> of the tithe of <i>demai</i> presented a difficulty to R. Eleazar: Did then the Sages set up protective measures for their enactments as for those of the Torah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By ruling that one who eats the terumah of the tithe of demai must make restitution and add a fifth, though the law of demai is altogether only Rabbinical. ');">¹¹</span> — Said R. Nahman in Samuel's name: The author of this [Mishnah] is R. Meir, who maintained: The Sages did set up protective measures for their enactments as for those of the Torah. For it has been taught: If one brought a divorce from countries overseas and delivered it to her [the wife] without declaring, 'It was written in my presence and signed in my presence,' he [her next husband] must divorce her [too], and their offspring is a bastard: this is R. Meir's view. But the Sages Say: Their offspring is not a bastard. What then shall he [the messenger] do? He must take it [the divorce] back from her, give it to her again in the presence of two witnesses and declare, 'It was written in my presence and signed in presence.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It was a Rabbinic law that when a divorce was brought from overseas the messenger had to make this declaration, though by Biblical law this is unnecessary. We see from the above that in R. Meir's opinion the Sages enacted their laws with such stringency that if this formality was omitted the divorcee's subsequent marriage is null, even to the extent that the offspring is a bastard, as the child of a married woman who conceived in adultery. ');">¹²</span>

ומי מחללינן כסף על נחושת והא תנן סלע של מעשר שני ושל חולין שנתערבו מביא בסלע מעות ואומר כל מקום שישנה סלע של מעשר שני מחוללת על מעות הללו ובורר את היפה שבהן ומחללו עליה

But according to R. Meir, [merely] because he did not declare to her, 'It was written in my presence and signed in my presence,' he must divorce her, and the child is a bastard! — Even so: R. Meir is consistent with his view. For R. Hamnuna said on 'Ulla's authority: R. Meir used to say, Whenever one departs from the fixed procedure ordained by the Sages<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'from the coin struck by the Sages.' ');">¹³</span> in case of divorce, he [her next husband] must give a divorce, whilst the offspring is a bastard. R. Shesheth objected: It [sc. the second tithe <i>demai</i>] is redeemed [by exchanging] silver for silver, copper for copper, silver for copper and copper for produce;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In each case the former of the pair is redeemed by the latter. Hence the last clause means that in the case of demai copper coins may be redeemed outside Jerusalem by substituting produce (not of the second tithe) for them, which produce in turn becomes sanctified. ');">¹⁴</span> then he may redeem the produce: this is R. Meir's opinion. But the Sages say: He must carry the produce to Jerusalem and eat it there.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Dem. II, 6. The translation follows Tosaf. R. Meir permits the produce to be redeemed, though that itself was formerly employed for redeeming the money; whilst the Sages maintain that in these circumstances the produce itself must be taken to Jerusalem. Hence R. Meir is more lenient here in respect to demai than the Sages, which contradicts Samuel's assertion above that in this R. Meir is particularly stringent (more so than the Rabbis). ');">¹⁵</span> Now, is it permissible to redeem silver with copper?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to Tosaf., this is adduced to shew further that R. Meir is more lenient than the Sages. In Rashi's view, however, this is part of the reasoning leading up to R. Shesheth's objection. ');">¹⁶</span> Surely we learnt: If a <i>sela'</i> of the second tithe was intermixed with one of <i>hullin</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the owner wishes to spend the hullin money outside of Jerusalem. ');">¹⁷</span> he brings a sela''s worth of copper coins and declares: 'Wherever the <i>sela'</i> of the second tithe may be, it is redeemed with these coins.' Then he selects the best of them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the best sela' of the two; these are now both hullin. ');">¹⁸</span> and redeems them [the copper coins] therewith;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With the finer sela' which now becomes second tithe. ');">¹⁹</span>