Bava Metzia 54a (נד.) — the Talmud in English

“If one said: I hereby undertake to pay twenty-one,”

the owners are compelled

to pay

twenty-six.

Since it is impossible to give twenty-one for this item, as that would result in a loss to the Temple treasury of four sela, which the owners were required to add as their chomesh.

On the other hand, it is impossible to deduct from the owners the principal value at which another person appraised it.

Therefore, they give twenty-one for the principal, according to the appraisal of the other person, and an additional five for the chomesh of the principal, according to the appraisal that they themselves initially made.

And likewise, if he said

“twenty-two,” the owners are compelled to pay twenty-seven.

“Twenty-three, the owners are compelled to pay twenty-eight.”

“Twenty-four, the owners are compelled to pay twenty-nine.”

“Twenty-five, the owners are compelled to pay thirty.”

Because they do not add a chomesh to this person’s appraisal,

but rather, the chomesh is calculated according to the amount at which they initially appraised it—that is, a chomesh of twenty.

And if he said: “Twenty-six,” the owners are not compelled to redeem it, and he acquires it.

In any event,

infer from here

from the fact that it teaches that the chomesh of twenty sela is five sela, that

the chomesh

is calculated externally—that is, the added fifth is one-quarter of the principal.

And we conclude: Indeed,

infer from here .

However, in truth, this matter is subject to a dispute among tannaim:

As it is taught in a dispute between tannaim.

It is stated in the Torah [Leviticus 27:27]: “And if it is an impure animal, then he shall redeem it according to your valuation,

and he shall add its fifth to it.”

And we expound this:

Its value together with its chomesh shall equal five

—that is, the chomesh is calculated externally.

This is the statement of Rabbi Yoshiyya.

But

Rabbi Yonatan says: “Its fifth”—

its chomesh of the principal.

That is, the chomesh is calculated internally.

There is another matter concerning the laws of the chomesh:

They raised a dilemma: Is the chomesh indispensable, or is it not indispensable?

That is, if one redeemed the maaser but did not add the chomesh, may he eat the maaser outside the walls of Jerusalem, or must he wait until he gives the chomesh?

The two sides of the dilemma are as follows: Is it the case that

four are redeemed with four,

[four zuz redeem the maaser corresponding to them,] and

on its own

[automatically, and not as part of the redemption,]

he adds the chomesh,

and according to this side—

apparently, the chomesh is not indispensable.

Or perhaps

the Torah’s decree is that

four are redeemed with five,

and maaser worth four cannot be redeemed for less than five.

And

according to this side—

the chomesh is indispensable .

Ravina said: Come and hear,

as we learned in a beraita:

With regard to demai

[maaser sheni of demai, which the Sages instituted should be separated from produce purchased from an am ha-aretz,]

there is no chomesh

[he need not add a chomesh when redeeming it,]

and there is no removal

[he need not remove it in the third year, as with the other tithes, which were commanded to be removed in the third year, as it is stated [Deuteronomy 14:28]: “At the end of three years you shall bring out all the tithe of your produce in that year, and you shall deposit it within your gates.”]

The Gemara infers: It has no chomesh;

but it does have the principal.

That is, if he comes to redeem it, he must give its full value.

What is the reason?

The principal, which is indispensable for

the redemption of maaser

by Torah law, exists in

the redemption of maaser

by rabbinic law,

but

the chomesh, which is not indispensable by Torah law, does not exist in rabbinic maaser .

And this teaches us that the chomesh is not indispensable.

The Gemara discusses this:

Shall we say

that this dilemma is

like

the dispute of the

tannaim

cited below?

We learned in the Tosefta [Maaser Sheni, chapter 4, halakha 4]: If one had maaser sheni produce in his possession and came to redeem it in order to eat it outside the walls of Jerusalem, and

he gave the principal but did not give the chomesh,

Rabbi Eliezer says: He may eat it.

Rabbi Yehoshua says: He may not eat it.

Rabbi said: The statement of Rabbi Eliezer appears correct on Shabbat,

because, out of respect for Shabbat, he should not be prevented from eating it until he gives the chomesh.

And the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua appears correct on weekdays.

The Sages decreed that he may not eat it until he gives the chomesh, lest he act negligently and forget to add the chomesh.

And we raise a question:

From the fact that

Rabbi

said, “The statement of Rabbi Eliezer appears correct on Shabbat,”

it follows

by inference

from his words

, that they disagree even on weekdays.

And according to Rabbi Eliezer, it is permitted to eat it without the chomesh even on weekdays.

Likewise,

from the fact that he said, “The statement of Rabbi Yehoshua appears correct on weekdays,” it follows by inference that they disagree even on Shabbat.

And according to Rabbi Yehoshua, it is prohibited to eat it even on Shabbat.

What, then, is the principle over which they disagree? Is it not that Rabbi Eliezer holds—

the chomesh is not indispensable.

For “four are redeemed with four, and on its own he adds the chomesh,” as stated above.

And Rabbi Yehoshua holds—

the chomesh is indispensable.

For “four are redeemed with five.”

And we reject this:

Rav Pappa said: No! Everyone

holds that

“the chomesh is not indispensable”

as a matter of fundamental law.

Here, they disagree regarding

the principle of

“we are concerned about negligence.”

One Sage holds: We are concerned about negligence.

Perhaps he will act negligently and fail to pay the chomesh. Therefore, they decreed that he may not eat it until he adds the chomesh .

And the other Sage holds: We are not concerned about negligence.

Rabbi Yohanan said: Although they disagree with regard to maaser,

everyone agrees with regard to consecrated property that one redeemed

and did not add the chomesh,

the redemption takes effect.

And we are not concerned about negligence,

since the treasurers demand payment from him

of the chomesh

in the marketplace .

And we object:

But

does this mean that

they do not disagree with regard to consecrated property?!

But it was taught in a beraita: —

“He gave the principal but did not give the chomesh; Rabbi Eliezer says: He redeemed it.

And the Sages say: He did not redeem it.

Rabbi said: The statement of Rabbi Eliezer appears correct with regard to consecrated property, and the statement of the Sages with regard to maaser.”

And we infer:

From the fact that

Rabbi

said, “The statement of Rabbi Eliezer appears correct with regard to consecrated property,” it follows that they disagree even with regard to maaser.

Likewise,

from the fact that he said, “The statement of the Sages appears correct with regard to maaser,” it follows that they disagree even with regard to consecrated property.

And this is not in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan’s statement that they did not disagree with regard to consecrated property.

And we conclude:

Rather, if this statement was reported, it was reported as follows

[if Rabbi Yohanan’s statement was said, this is how it was said]:

Rabbi Yohanan said: Everyone agrees that on Shabbat, with regard to consecrated property, if

he

redeemed it

and did not add the chomesh, he may eat it.

What is the reason?

First, as it is written: “And you shall call Shabbat a delight.” And further,

since the treasurers demand payment from him in the marketplace .

But on weekdays, when there is no principle of “You shall call Shabbat a delight,” Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis disagree as to whether he may eat it before giving the chomesh.

There is another matter concerning the law of the chomesh:

Rami bar Hama said: They said—

“Consecrated property cannot be redeemed with land,”

because

the Merciful One said: “And he shall give the money, and it shall be established for him”

[as it is written [Leviticus 27:15]: “And if the one who consecrated it redeems his house, he shall add a fifth of the money of your valuation to it, and it shall be his,”] and we expound this to mean that specifically money is required, and not land .

But

what is the law regarding redeeming its chomesh with land ?

And likewise, a question may be raised concerning a non-koen who ate

teruma

unintentionally , who

is not liable to make payment

in money,

but

with produce

from non-sacred produce,

which is fit to be consecrated.

Because

the Merciful One said

[Leviticus 22:14]: “And if a man eats a sacred thing unintentionally, he shall add its fifth to it,

and he shall give the sacred thing to the koen.”

And we expound: He must give

something fit to become sacred.

That is, non-sacred produce .

But

what is the law regarding its chomesh: may it be paid not from non-sacred produce

[but with money or clothing]?

And likewise, a question may be raised concerning

maaser,

which

cannot be redeemed with an asimon

[a coin without an image on it],

because

the Merciful One said

[Deuteronomy 14:25]

“And you shall bind up the money in your hand,” to include anything upon which there is an image.

But

what is the law regarding redeeming its chomesh with an asimon?

The matter was discussed, and it came before Rava. He said to them: The verse says

[Leviticus 22:14; Deuteronomy 24:16, 19; 14:25] “He shall add its fifth

to it,”

to include

its chomesh as being like it.

Ravina said: We, too, have learned

in tractate Terumot:

“One who steals teruma but does not eat it must pay double the value of teruma.

That is, in addition to returning the teruma itself , he adds a further double payment in money, equal to the value of the teruma .

But if

he ate it, he pays two principals and a chomesh. The principal and the chomesh are paid from non-sacred produce,

that is, from non-sacred produce fit to become teruma,

and the principal

that is added as the double payment is paid in money,

the value of teruma.”