Bava Metzia 54b (נד:) — the Talmud in English

This proves: its fifth is like it.

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

This proves it.

Further laws concerning the fifth:

It is necessary to analyze whether the fifth is considered entirely like the principal, and whether, if one stole the fifth or derived benefit from the fifth of teruma, consecrated property, and the like, he is liable for a fifth on the fifth.

Or perhaps the fifth is not considered like the principal in this regard.

Rava said: With regard to theft,

if one stole, denied it, swore falsely, brought an asham for robbery, and gives the robbed party 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, indicates many fifths.

And we learned in the Mishna: “

One who stole, swore falsely, and then admitted, becoming liable for the principal and a fifth, and

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

that is, he again denied owing the fifth, saying, “I gave it to you,” swore falsely, and then admitted,

adds a fifth on the fifth.

And likewise, if he denied owing the second fifth, he adds another fifth on the fifth,

until the principal is diminished

until the fifth concerning which he swore falsely is

less than the value of a peruta.”

It is thus explained that the fifth given in the case of theft is considered entirely like the principal, and one becomes liable for an additional fifth on it.

And likewise

with regard to

one who eats

teruma

unwittingly, becoming liable for the principal and a fifth,

it is written

Leviticus 22:14

“If a man eats consecrated food unwittingly, he shall add its fifth to it,”

and

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

we learned: “One who eats teruma unwittingly pays the principal and a fifth.

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

with teruma oil

, whether pure teruma or impure teruma, he pays its fifth, and a fifth of 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 second tithe, it is not written in Scripture.

There is no scriptural derivation teaching that one brings a fifth on a fifth—for example, if he again redeemed the first fifth onto produce, he does not add an additional fifth on the first fifth—

nor did a tanna teach

anything concerning this matter,

nor was a question raised for us.

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

However,

with regard to

one who redeems his

consecrated property

and adds a fifth, the matter is 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 its valuation.”

And we learned: “One who redeems his consecrated property adds a fifth.”

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

And the matter is uncertain:

What is the ruling?

Does he add a fifth of a fifth when he again redeems the fifth? The two sides of the uncertainty are as follows:

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

which indicates two additions, and therefore he adds a fifth on a fifth.

And with regard to consecrated property too, it is written, “and he shall add,”

so we should likewise expound that he adds a fifth of a fifth.

Or perhaps

specifically

with regard to teruma

does he add a fifth on a fifth, for

it is written, “and he shall add,”

and we expound it as follows: We hold that “we subtract, add, and expound.” Therefore,

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

“its fifths,” and it is read:

“its fifths,”

in the plural. Therefore, he adds a fifth on a fifth.

But

with regard to consecrated property, it is written, “and he shall add a fifth,”

and if so,

even though you take the vav of “and he shall add” and transfer it to “a fifth,” ultimately it becomes “its fifth.”

It remains in the singular, and one cannot derive from here that he adds a fifth on a fifth.

And

we challenge this: Why did Rava raise an uncertainty concerning the law of the fifth of consecrated property?

Why not infer that

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

it would be a second consecrated property?

And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: For first consecrated property, one adds a fifth; for second consecrated property

one does not add a fifth!?

And we answer:

Rav Pappi said to Ravina: This is what

Rava said: The fifth

is not considered “second consecrated property,” since it was added on its own and was not transferred in place of the first, and it is

considered like the initial consecrated property.

Therefore, the uncertainty cannot be resolved from the law of “second consecrated property.”

In any event,

what conclusion was reached

what ruling was issued 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:

The fifth is juxtaposed 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 Gemara returns to the subject itself:

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: For first consecrated property, one adds a fifth, but for second consecrated property, one does not add a fifth.

Rava said: What is the reason of Rabbi Yehoshua 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 its valuation to it, and it shall be his”.

And we expound:

“The one who consecrated it”

adds a fifth when he redeems his consecrated property.

But not one who transfers

this item in place of another consecrated item, since the second item acquires the sanctity of the first, and the sanctity does not come to it on account of itself.

Further on the same subject:

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 of an impure animal, and he redeems it according to your valuation

he shall add its fifth to it,”

and we expound: Since it is written “of an animal,” and not “if an animal is impure,” this indicates that only consecrated items that are like an impure animal require the addition of a fifth.

And

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

as will be explained below,

and it is entirely for Heaven,

and the owners have no rights in it, since the ordinary consecration of an impure animal is for Temple maintenance,

and one commits misuse with it,

as will be explained below,

so too, anything whose beginning is consecrated and which is entirely for Heaven is subject to misuse.

Rabbi Eliezer understood that the tanna intended to say that anything possessing these characteristics is subject to the law of misuse,

and therefore

Rabbi Elazar said to the tanna: Granted, “entirely for Heaven” excludes lesser sanctity offerings, since the owners have rights in them and therefore they are not subject to misuse.

But what does “beginning is consecrated” exclude?

Does this mean that

only the beginning of consecration is subject to misuse,

but

the end of consecration

such as second consecrated property mentioned above

is not subject to misuse?!

Perhaps you were speaking with regard to the fifth, and in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi,

who says that one does not add a fifth for second consecrated property.

He said to him: Yes! That is what I meant.

Indeed, this was my intention.