Bava Metzia 54b — the Talmud in English

Infer from this: its fifth is like it.

And it too must come from non-sacred produce, like the teruma itself.

Infer from this.

Further concerning the laws of the fifth:

It is necessary to discuss whether the fifth is considered entirely like the principal, and if he robbed the fifth, or derived benefit from the fifth in the case of teruma and sacred items and the like, whether he is liable for a fifth on the fifth.

Or perhaps the fifth is not considered like the principal for this matter.

Rava said: With regard to robbery

if he robbed, then denied it, and swore falsely, he brings a guilt-offering for robbery and gives the robbed person the principal and a fifth,

it is written

Leviticus 5:24:

“and he shall add its fifths to it,”

and we expound: “its fifths,” in the plural, implies many fifths.

And we learned in a Mishna:

One who robbed, swore falsely, confessed, and became liable for the principal and a fifth, and

gave him the principal, and swore to him concerning the fifth,

that is, he again denied the fifth and said, “I gave it to you,” swore falsely, and confessed,

this one adds a fifth upon a fifth,

and likewise, if he denied the second fifth, he adds an additional fifth upon the fifth,

until the principal becomes diminished

until the fifth concerning which he swore falsely is

less than the value of a peruta.”

And it is explained that the fifth given in the case of robbery is considered entirely like the principal, and one becomes liable for an additional fifth upon it.

And likewise

with regard to

one who eats

teruma

unintentionally, becoming liable for the principal and a fifth,

it is written

Leviticus 22:14:

“If a man eats a sacred thing unintentionally, he shall add its fifth to it,”

And

although the verse says “its fifth,” in the singular, nevertheless

we learned in a Mishna: “One who eats teruma unintentionally pays the principal and a fifth.

Whether one who eats, whether one who drinks, or whether one who anoints himself

with oil of teruma

, whether pure teruma or whether impure teruma, he pays its fifth, and a fifth of its fifth [if, for example, he gave the principal and a fifth from non-sacred produce, those produce became teruma, and he again ate them unintentionally, he pays a fifth on the fifth] .”

for example, if he gave the principal and a fifth from non-sacred produce, and that produce became teruma, and he then ate it unwittingly, he pays a fifth on the fifth] .”

But with regard to tithe, it is not written in Scripture.

We do not find in the verses a teaching to say that he brings a fifth upon a fifth; for example, if he again redeemed the first fifth onto produce, he does not add an additional fifth upon the first fifth,

nor did a tanna teach

concerning this,

nor was this question asked of us.

And it is obvious to us that he does not add a fifth.

But

with regard to

one who redeems

a sacred item

and adds a fifth, it is necessary to be uncertain, 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.”

And we learned in a Mishna: “One who redeems his sacred item adds a fifth.”

We learned a fifth; we did not learn a fifth of a fifth.

And it is necessary to be uncertain:

What

does he add a fifth of a fifth, in a case where he again redeemed the fifth? And the sides of the uncertainty are:

with regard to teruma it is written, “and he shall add,”

which implies two additions, and therefore he adds a fifth upon a fifth. And

with regard to a sacred item, too, “and he shall add” is written,

and we should likewise expound it to add a fifth of a fifth.

Or perhaps,

specifically

with regard to teruma]]

does he add a fifth upon a fifth, for

“and he shall add” is written,

and we expound it as follows: we hold that “we subtract, add, and expound,” and therefore,

if you take the vav of “and he shall add” and place it upon “its fifth,” it becomes “

fifth-vav,” and it is called:

“its fifths,”

in the plural. And therefore he adds a fifth upon a fifth.

But

with regard to a sacred item it is written, “and he shall add a fifth,”

and if so,

even though when you take the vav of “and he shall add” and place it upon “a fifth,” in the end it becomes “its fifth.”

It is singular. And one cannot expound from here that he adds a fifth upon a fifth.

And

we object: Why was Rava uncertain concerning the law of the fifth of a sacred item?

Let it follow that

if he again redeemed the first fifth, he does not add an additional fifth, because

it is a second sacred item?

And Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said: For a first sacred item, he adds a fifth; for a second sacred item,

he does not add a fifth!?

And we answer:

Rav Papi said to Ravina: This is what

Rava said: A fifth

is not considered a “second sacred item,” since it was added on its own and was not invested with sanctity in place of the first one , and

it is comparable to the beginning of consecration.

And therefore one cannot resolve the uncertainty from the law of a “second sacred item.”

In any event,

what came of it

what was decided concerning Rava’s uncertainty?

Rav Taviumi said in the name of Abaye: The verse says—

“and he shall add a fifth of the money of your valuation,”

and we expound:

he compares its fifth to the money of its valuation: just as the money of its valuation adds a fifth, so too the money of its fifth adds a fifth .

The body of the matter:

Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said: For a first sacred item, he adds a fifth, and for a second sacred item, he does not add a fifth.

Rava said: What is the reason of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi?

The verse says

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:

“The one who consecrated it”

he adds a fifth when he redeems his sacred item.

But not one who invests

this in place of another sacred item, for the second is invested with the sanctity of the first, and the sanctity does not come to it on account of itself.

Further on the same matter:

A tanna taught before Rabbi Elazar

one of the tannaim said this statement before Rabbi Eliezer: It is stated in the Torah [Leviticus 27:27]

“And if it is among an impure animal, then he shall redeem it according to your valuation

he shall add its fifth to it,”

and we expound: Since it is written “among an animal,” and not “if it is an impure animal,” it implies that only for consecrated items that are like an impure animal does he add a fifth.

And

what is distinctive about an impure animal? That its beginning is consecration,

as will be explained below,

and it is entirely for Heaven,

and the owners have nothing in it, for an ordinary consecration of an impure animal is for the maintenance of the Temple,

and one commits misuse with it

as will be explained below,

so too, everything whose beginning is consecration and which is entirely for Heaven, one commits misuse with it.

Rabbi Eliezer understood that the intention of the tanna was to say that anything possessing these characteristics has the law of misuse,

and therefore

Rabbi Elazar said to the tanna: Granted, “entirely for Heaven” serves to exclude lesser sacred items; since the owners have a share in them, there is no misuse in them.

But “the beginning of consecration” serves to exclude what?

And is it that

only the beginning of consecration has misuse,

but

the end of consecration

such as a second sacred item, as above,

has no misuse?!

Perhaps you said this with regard to the fifth, in accordance with Rabbi Joshua ben Levi,

who says that one does not add a fifth for a second sacred item.

He said to him: Yes! This is what I am saying.

Indeed, this was my intention.