Bava Metzia 53b — the Talmud in English

And from where [do we know] that he can redeem it? —

For Rabbi Elazar said: From where [do we know] that second tithe that became impure is redeemed? ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

Even in Jerusalem?

As it is stated [Deuteronomy 14:24–25]: “

When the way is too far from you

And if the way is too long for you

because you cannot carry it,

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

”; and “carrying” means only eating, as it is stated: “And he lifted portions from before him.”

And if so, the intention of the Torah is to say that if he cannot eat it, such as when it became impure, he is permitted to redeem it. And even in Jerusalem .

And if so, mixed second tithe that became impure has redemption, and why is it nullified by the majority?

Rather,

it is speaking

of

food

purchased with second-tithe money.

He purchased it in Jerusalem, and it left there, and became impure.

And we raise an objection:

Food purchased with tithe money can also be redeemed?

For we learned: Food purchased with second-tithe money that became impure shall be redeemed.

This tanna holds

like Rabbi Yehuda, who says: “

Food purchased with second-tithe money that became impure

shall be buried.”

And its sanctity is not sufficiently stringent for it to seize its money through redemption .

And we raise an objection:

If

he holds like

Rabbi Yehuda, why specifically [does the beraita say] “it left,” [why did we establish it as tithe that left Jerusalem],

—why did we establish the case as one in which the tithe left Jerusalem—

even if it did not leave also,

it has no redemption?

Rather, [it is] always with

pure

tithe, and what is [meant by] “it left”? —

That the walls fell.

That is to say—the walls of Jerusalem fell after it entered the city, and second tithe is no longer eaten there until the walls stand. For we require: “Before the Lord you shall eat it” .

And it is also impossible to redeem it after it entered Jerusalem, since the walls have seized it. And it has no remedy except eating it between the walls.

And

we raise an objection:

But Rava said:

The law of

a partition for eating [that is, the law that second tithe is not eaten in Jerusalem after the walls fell] is

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

from the Torah.

But the law of

partitions for seizing [that is, if it entered Jerusalem, it no longer has redemption even outside it, since the walls seized it] is only

—that is, once it entered Jerusalem, it can no longer be redeemed even outside the city, since the walls took hold of it—is only

rabbinic.

And

if so,

when the Sages decreed, it was when the partitions existed,

but

when the partitions do not exist [such as when they fell],

—for example, when they have fallen—

the Sages did not decree,

and it has redemption?

And we answer:

The Sages made no distinction between when the partitions exist and when the partitions do not exist .

And in summary: the meaning of the words of the beraita, “and that entered Jerusalem and left,” according to this answer of the Gemara:

It is speaking of pure second tithe, worth a peruta, which entered Jerusalem while the walls existed, and the walls fell. And in such a case, if it became mixed with non-sacred produce, it is nullified by the majority, since it has no permitted means [of becoming permitted] through redemption.

Another possibility for explaining the words of the beraita:

Rav Huna bar Yehuda said in the name of Rav Sheshet: It teaches one matter. [It refers to] second tithe that is not worth a peruta, which entered Jerusalem and left.

And in this case, the seizing by the partitions prevents it from being redeemed with the original money [as stated by Hezekiah].

And we raise an objection:

Why

is it considered “something that does not have a permitted time” and nullified by the majority

? Let us return it, bring it inside, and eat it [return it to Jerusalem and eat it there]?

—return it to Jerusalem and eat it there?

And we answer: [it is] in a case

where the partitions fell.

As above.

And we raise an objection:

Let us redeem it [let him redeem it]?

—let him redeem it?

For

the

same

Rava said: A partition for eating is from the Torah; a partition for seizing is rabbinic.

And

if so,

when the Sages decreed, it was when the partitions existed;

when the partitions do not exist, did the Sages not decree?

And we answer:

The Sages made no distinction.

As above.

And we raise an objection:

If so, why specifically [does it say] “that is not worth a peruta,” [why did we establish it as tithe worth less than a peruta],

—why did we establish the case as second tithe worth less than a peruta—

even if it has

the value of a peruta

also

it has no redemption, as above?

And we answer:

It states a matter that is not obvious.

It is not necessary [to state that] if it has

the value of a peruta, it has no redemption, since

the partitions seized it; but [even if] it does not have

the value of a peruta,

you might say that the partitions did not seize it .

It teaches us

that even in this case it has no redemption once the partitions have seized it.

The Gemara explains what is the source for the law of “the value of a peruta” in the redemption of tithe:

The Sages taught:

It is stated in the Torah [Leviticus 27:31]: “

And

if a man redeems, he shall redeem from his tithe,

he shall add its fifth to it

.”

And we expound:

“From his tithe”—

but not all of his tithe. [That is, not all tithes are fit for redemption.]

And this excludes:

And it excludes:

except for second tithe that is not worth

a peruta.

For it does not seize a peruta through its redemption .

Now, the amoraim disputed which portion of the tithe must be worth a peruta:

It was stated: Rav Ami said:

Tithe that

does not have

the value of a peruta does not seize a peruta through its redemption. But if it is worth a peruta, redemption takes effect for it, even though its fifth is worth less than a peruta.

But

Rav Asi said: Tithe that

does not have in its added fifth

does not have in its fifth

the value of a peruta [that is, it is not worth at least four perutot] is not subject to redemption .

And similarly, Rabbi Yohanan and Resh Lakish disputed in this matter:

Rabbi Yohanan said: [If] it does not have [a peruta].

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: [If] it does not have [a peruta] in its fifth.

And we raise an objection:

Meitivi,

we learned in a beraita:

“Second tithe that is not worth a peruta: it is sufficient for him to say, ‘It and its fifth are redeemed upon the original money.’”

In accordance with Hezekiah. And we do not require him to bring it up to Jerusalem or to wait until additional tithe joins it.

The Gemara infers:

Granted, according to the one who says, “It does not have [a peruta] in its fifth,” this is why it teaches “it is sufficient,”

that is, it informs us

that even though in the tithe itself there is

the value of a peruta,

since in its fifth there is not

the value of a peruta, it is not considered [sufficiently valuable], and it is sufficient that he redeem it upon the original money. And

properly

the language of the beraita follows.

But according to the one who says, “It does not have [a peruta],” what

innovation does it teach us with the word

“it is sufficient”?

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

And we conclude with

a difficulty .

The Gemara considers the law of the fifth mentioned regarding second tithe [Leviticus 27:31]: “And if a man redeems, he shall redeem from his tithe—he shall add its fifth to it.” How much must he add to his redemption:

It was a question for them: Is the fifth calculated inward,

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

Or, is the fifth calculated outward,

that is, upon four quarters he adds the fifth from outside? [For example, if it was worth twenty, he adds five]?

Ravina said: Come

and

hear

what we learned in tractate Arakhin:

One who consecrated an object and came to redeem it:

“The owners say [it is worth] twenty, and every person [says it is worth] twenty; the owners take precedence, because they add a fifth

to the principal. And it turns out that their twenty is like twenty-five. But every other person does not add a fifth.