Bava Metzia 53b (נג:) — the Talmud in English

And from where do we know that one may redeem it? —

As Rabbi Elazar said: From where do we know that second tithe that became impure may be redeemed —

even in Jerusalem?

As it is stated

Deuteronomy 14:24–25]: “

And when the way is too long for you

because you are unable to carry it,

you shall give it for money, and bind the money in your hand

”; and “carrying” refers only to eating, as it is stated: “And portions were carried to him from before him.”

If so, the Torah is saying that if one cannot eat it, for example, because it became impure, it is permitted to redeem it—even in Jerusalem.

If so, mixed second tithe that became impure can be redeemed; why, then, is it nullified by the majority?

Rather,

it is referring

to

food

purchased with second-tithe money,

which he purchased in Jerusalem, took out of Jerusalem, and which then became impure.

And we raise an objection:

Food purchased with second-tithe money can also be redeemed, cannot it?

As we learned in the mishna: Food purchased with second-tithe money that became impure shall be redeemed.

This tanna holds

in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says: “

Food purchased with second-tithe money that became impure

must be buried.”

Its sanctity is not sufficiently stringent for its monetary value to become subject to redemption.

And we raise an objection:

If

he holds in accordance with

Rabbi Yehuda, why specifically “it left,”

why did we establish the case as referring to tithe that left Jerusalem?]

Even if it did not leave, too,

it cannot be redeemed.

Rather, it is actually referring to

pure tithe.

And what does “it left” mean? —

That the partition walls fell.

That is, the walls of Jerusalem fell after it had entered the city, and second tithe may no longer be eaten there until the walls are restored, as the verse requires: “Before the Lord your God shall you eat it” .

And it is also impossible to redeem it after it has entered Jerusalem, since the partition walls have apprehended it. Its only remedy is to eat it within the walls.

And

we raise an objection:

But Rava said:

The law of

a partition for eating

that is, the law that second tithe may not be eaten in Jerusalem after the walls have fallen] is

by Torah law.

But the law of

partitions for apprehending

that is, if it entered Jerusalem, it can no longer be redeemed even outside Jerusalem, since the partitions apprehended it] is only

by rabbinic ordinance.

And

if so,

when the Sages issued their decree, it was when the partitions were present;

but

when the partitions were absent

for example, because they had fallen],

the Sages did not issue their decree,

and it can be redeemed?

We answer:

The Sages made no distinction between a case in which the partitions are present and a case in which the partitions are absent.

In summary: The meaning of the beraita, “and that entered Jerusalem and left,” according to this answer of the Gemara, is as follows:

It concerns pure second tithe containing the value of at least one pruta, which entered Jerusalem while the walls were standing, and the walls then fell. In such a case, if it becomes mixed with non-sacred produce, it is nullified by the majority, since it cannot become permitted through redemption.

Another possibility for explaining the beraita:

Rav Huna bar Yehuda said in the name of Rav Sheshet: It is a single teaching: Second tithe that does not contain the value of a pruta, which entered Jerusalem and left.

In this case, the apprehension by the partitions prevents it from being redeemed with the original money, in accordance with Hezekiah’s ruling.

And we raise an objection:

Why

is it considered something that will not become permitted and therefore nullified by the majority

? Let us return it, bring it into Jerusalem, and eat it

return it to Jerusalem and eat it there]?

We answer: The case is one

in which the partitions have fallen,

as above.

And we raise an objection:

Let us redeem it

redeem it]?

For

did

Rava

say: A partition for eating is a Torah-law requirement, whereas a partition for apprehending is a rabbinic ordinance.

And

if so,

when the Sages issued their decree, it was when the partitions were present;

when the partitions were absent, did the Sages not issue their decree?

We answer:

The Sages made no distinction,

as above.

And we raise an objection:

If so, why specifically “that does not contain the value of a pruta,”

why did we establish the case as referring to tithe worth less than a pruta]

even if it contains

the value of a pruta

as well,

it cannot be redeemed, as stated above?

We answer:

It states the matter in the manner of “needless to say.”

Needless to say, if it contains

the value of a pruta, it cannot be redeemed, since

the partitions apprehend it; but if it does not contain

the value of a pruta,

you might say that the partitions do not apprehend it.

It teaches us

that even in this case it cannot be redeemed once the partitions have apprehended it.

The Gemara explains the source for the law that second tithe must be worth a pruta in order to be redeemed:

The Sages taught: The Torah states

Leviticus 27:31]: “

And

if a person redeems any of his tithe,

he shall add its fifth to it.”

.”

And we expound:

“Of his tithe” —

but not all of his tithe.

That is, not all tithes are fit for redemption.]

And this excludes:

except for second tithe that does not contain the value of a

pruta.

It does not apprehend even a pruta through its redemption.

Now, the amoraim disagree as to which part of the tithe must be worth a pruta:

It was stated: Rav Ami said:

Tithe that

does not contain

the value of a pruta does not apprehend a pruta through its redemption. But if it contains the value of a pruta, the redemption takes effect, even though its fifth is worth less than a pruta.

But

Rav Asi said: Tithe that

does

not have in its fifth

the value of a pruta [that is, it is not worth at least four prutot] cannot be redeemed.

Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish likewise disagree in this manner:

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It does not contain.

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: It does not have in its fifth.

And we raise an objection:

The beraita challenges this,

as we learned in a beraita:

“With regard to second tithe that does not contain the value of a pruta, it is sufficient for him to say: ‘It and its fifth are redeemed with the original money.’”

This is in accordance with Hezekiah. He is not required to bring it up to Jerusalem or to wait until additional tithe joins it.

The Gemara analyzes this:

Granted, according to the one who says, “It does not have in its fifth,” this is why it teaches, “it is sufficient for him”;

that is, it teaches us

that although it itself contains

the value of a pruta,

since its fifth does not contain

the value of a pruta, it is not considered significant, and it is sufficient for him to redeem it with the original money. The wording of the beraita is

fully

appropriate.

But according to the one who says, “It does not contain,” what

innovation does it teach us with the word

“sufficient”?

It should have said: “He says: ‘It and its fifth are redeemed with the original money.’”

And we conclude that it remains

difficult.

The Gemara considers the law of the fifth mentioned with regard to second tithe [Leviticus 27:31]: “And if a person redeems any of his tithe, he shall add its fifth to it.” How much must he add to the redemption price?

They raised a dilemma before them: Is the fifth calculated from within,

that is, he divides the principal into five parts and adds an amount equal to one-fifth of it. [For example, if it was worth twenty, he adds four.]

Or is the fifth calculated from outside,

that is, he adds the fifth to four-fifths of the value. [For example, if it was worth twenty, he adds five]?

Ravina said: Come

and

hear

what we learned in tractate Arakhin:

With regard to one who consecrated an object and then came to redeem it,

“The owners say twenty, and everyone else says twenty; the owners have precedence, because they add a fifth

to the principal. Thus, their twenty is equivalent to twenty-five. But anyone else does not add a fifth.