Bava Metzia 54a — the Talmud in English

If one said: “It is upon me [to redeem it] for twenty-one,” ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

the owners are compelled

against their will

[to give] twenty-six.

Since it is impossible to give this for twenty-one, for it would be found that the consecrated property loses four sela, which the owners were required to add in their fifth.

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

Therefore, they give twenty-one for the principal, according to the appraisal of the other person, and another five for the fifth of the principal, according to the appraisal that he made.

And likewise, if he said

“twenty-two,” the owners give twenty-seven.

For twenty-three, the owners give twenty-eight.

For twenty-four, the owners give twenty-nine.

Twenty-five, the owners give thirty.

Because they do not add a fifth onto this person’s appraisal,

but the fifth is measured according to what they appraised at first. That is, a fifth of twenty.”

And if he said: “For twenty-six,” the owners are not compelled to redeem it. And he acquired it.

In any event,

infer from it

from the fact that it teaches: a fifth on twenty sela is five sela, behold,

the fifth

is from outside.

And we conclude: indeed,

infer from it.

However, in truth, this matter is dependent upon a dispute between tannaim:

As a dispute between tannaim.

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

and he shall add its fifth to it.”

And we derive:

that it and its fifth shall be five.

That is, the fifth is from outside.

The words of Rabbi Yoshaya.

But

Rabbi Yonatan says: “Its fifth”—

its fifth of the principal.

That is, the fifth is from within.

Another discussion concerning the laws of the fifth:

They raised a dilemma before them: Does the fifth impede, or does it not impede?

That is, if he redeemed the second tithe and did not add a fifth, is it permitted for him to eat the tithe outside the wall of Jerusalem, or must he wait until he gives the fifth?

And the sides of the uncertainty are: Is it that

four for four he redeems,

[four zuz redeemed the tithe corresponding to them],

and on its own

[by itself, and it is not included in the redemption]

he adds a fifth,

and according to this side—

apparently, the fifth does not impede.

Or perhaps

the scriptural decree is that

four for five he redeems,

and a tithe worth four may not be redeemed for less than five.

And

according to this side—

the fifth impedes.

Ravina said: Come and hear,

we learned in a beraita:

Demai

[second tithe of demai, which the Sages instituted to separate from produce purchased from an am ha-aretz],

does not have a fifth

[he need not add a fifth when he redeems it],

and does not have removal

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

The Gemara infers: It does not have a fifth,

but it does have the principal.

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

What is the reason?

The principal, which impedes

the redemption of a tithe

by Torah law, exists

in the redemption of a tithe

by rabbinic law,

but

the fifth, which does not impede by Torah law, does not exist by rabbinic law.

And it teaches us that the fifth does not impede.

And the Gemara discusses:

Shall we say

this uncertainty is

like

the dispute of the

tannaim

brought below:

We learned in the Tosefta [Second Tithe, chapter 4, halakha 4]: If one had second-tithe produce in his possession, and came to redeem it and eat it outside the walls of Jerusalem, and

gave the principal but did not give the fifth,

Rabbi Eliezer says: He may eat.

Rabbi Yehoshua says: He may not eat.

Rabbi said: The words of Rabbi Eliezer appear [to be correct] on Shabbat,

because, on account of the honor of Shabbat, he should not be prevented from eating them until he gives the fifth.

And the words of Rabbi Yehoshua [appear to be correct] on a weekday.

A decree of the Sages: he may not eat them until he gives the fifth, lest he be negligent and forget to add the fifth.

And we raised an objection:

From what

Rabbi

said, “The words of Rabbi Eliezer appear [to be correct] on Shabbat,”

it implies

by inference

his words

, that they disagree even on a weekday.

And according to Rabbi Eliezer, it is permitted to eat it without a fifth even on a weekday.

And likewise,

from what he said, “The words of Rabbi Yehoshua appear [to be correct] on a weekday,” it follows by inference that they disagree even on Shabbat.

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

What, is it not that they disagree over this principle, that Rabbi Eliezer holds—

the fifth does not impede.

For “four for four he redeems, and on its own he adds a fifth,” as above.

And Rabbi Yehoshua holds—

the fifth impedes.

For “four for five he redeems.”

And we reject this:

Rav Pappa said: No! Everyone

holds

“the fifth does not impede,”

as a matter of law.

And here, they disagree over

the view of

“we are concerned about negligence.”

One Master holds: We are concerned about negligence.

Perhaps he will be negligent and will not pay the fifth. Therefore, they decreed that he may not eat until he adds the fifth.

And one Master holds: We are not concerned about negligence.

Rabbi Yohanan

said: Even though they disagreed concerning the tithe,

everyone agrees concerning consecrated property that he חילל

it and did not add a fifth, that the redemption takes effect.

And we are not concerned about negligence,

since the treasurers demand it from him

to pay the fifth

in the marketplace.

And we challenge this:

And

why,

with consecrated property did they not disagree?!

But it was taught:—

“He gave the principal but did not give him the fifth; Rabbi Eliezer says: He חילל.

And the Sages say: He did not חילל.

Rabbi said: The words of Rabbi Eliezer appear [to be correct] concerning consecrated property, and the words of the Sages concerning the tithe.”

And we infer:

From what

Rabbi

said, “The words of Rabbi Eliezer appear [to be correct] concerning consecrated property,” it follows by inference that he disagrees even concerning the tithe.

And likewise,

from his saying, “The words of the Sages appear [to be correct] concerning the tithe,” it follows by inference that they disagree even concerning consecrated property.

And this is not like the words of Rabbi Yohanan, that they did not disagree concerning consecrated property.

And we conclude:

Rather, if it was stated thus, it was stated thus

[if Rabbi Yohanan’s statement was said, it was said as follows]:

Rabbi Yohanan said: Everyone agrees on Shabbat, concerning consecrated property, that

if he

redeemed it

and did not add a fifth, it is permitted to eat it.

What is the reason?

One reason is that it is written, “And you shall call Shabbat a delight.” And furthermore—

since the treasurers demand it from him in the marketplace.

But on weekdays, when there is no principle of “And you shall call Shabbat a delight,” Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis disagree whether he may eat it before he gives the fifth.

Another discussion concerning the law of “the fifth”:

Rami bar Hama said: They have said—

“Consecrated property is not חילל upon land,”

because

the Merciful One said, ‘And he shall give the money, and it shall be his’

[for 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 derive that specifically money is required, and not land].

But

what is the law regarding its fifth: can it be חילל upon land

? And likewise, there is a doubt concerning a non-koen who ate

teruma

unwittingly, which

is not paid

with money,

but

with produce

from unconsecrated produce,

which is fit to be consecrated.

Because

the Merciful One said

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

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

And we derive: He must give

something fit to become sacred.

That is, unconsecrated produce.

But

what is the law regarding its fifth: can it be paid from something not unconsecrated

[but with money or garments]?

And likewise, there is a doubt concerning

the tithe,

which

cannot be חילל upon an asimon

[a coin upon which there is no image],

because

the Merciful One said

[Deuteronomy 14:25]

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

But

what is the law regarding its fifth: can it be חילל upon an asimon?

The matter circulated and came before Rava: He said to them, the verse says

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

upon it,” to include

its fifth

as equivalent to it.

Ravina said: We too have learned

in Tractate Terumot:

“One who steals teruma and did not eat it pays double payment of the value of teruma.

That is, besides the teruma itself being returned intact , he adds another double payment, money, as the value of teruma .

But if

he ate it, he pays two principals and a fifth. The principal and the fifth are from unconsecrated produce,

that is, from unconsecrated produce fit to become teruma,

and the principal

additional, which comes as the double payment—money,

the value of teruma.”