Bava Metzia 55b (נה:) — the Talmud in English

Rava raised an objection:

It is stated in the Torah concerning one who unwittingly misuses hekdesh [Leviticus 5:16]:

“And he shall pay for what he sinned against the sacred property

and add its fifth to it”.

And the word “and” is expounded:

to include

one who misuses hekdesh

in an amount less than a peruta for purposes of restitution

who is obligated to return it even if it is worth less than a peruta.

This implies that only

with regard to sacred property—

no [the word “and” does not teach that],

the verse includes an obligation to return even an amount worth less than a peruta.

But with regard to ordinary property—

no,

the verse does not include an obligation to return an amount worth less than a peruta.

If so, how did Rav Ketina say that the court judges a case involving an amount worth less than a peruta?

Rather, if it was stated,

the statement of Rav Ketina

was stated as follows:

Rav Ketina said: If the court has begun

to adjudicate

a case involving a peruta’s worth,

and during the proceedings, before the court has risen from the case, the defendant claims from the plaintiff an amount worth less than a peruta, the court

completes

the adjudication and proceeds to hear and rule on the claim

even if it involves less than a peruta.

This is because only

the beginning of the adjudication

requires

that it involve a peruta’s worth;

a peruta,

but

the completion of the adjudication

does not require

that it involve a

peruta,

and the court completes the adjudication even over less than a peruta.

Mishna:

There are five cases involving an added fifth: in five matters one adds a fifth to the payment.

These are they:

1.

One who eats

unwittingly—

teruma

gedola.

terumat ma'aser

which the Levite separates from his tithe for the priest.

terumat ma'aser of demai

which is from produce purchased from an am ha'aretz, from which the purchaser separates terumat ma'aser as a matter of uncertainty, lest its tithes were not separated [but he does not separate teruma gedola, because everyone was careful with it, as explained in Sota 48a].

and challa

which is separated from dough.

and first fruits—

One who unwittingly eats one of these pays the principal and

adds a fifth,

as it is stated with regard to teruma [Leviticus 22:14]: “And if a person eats sacred property unwittingly, he shall add its fifth to it”; and all of these are called teruma.

Terumat ma'aser is called teruma, as it is stated [Numbers 18:26]: “And you shall raise from it the teruma of the Lord, a tithe from the tithe.” Likewise, challa is called teruma, as it is stated [Numbers 15:20]: “Of the first portion of your kneading shall you raise a teruma.” And even first fruits are called teruma, as it is stated [Deuteronomy 12:17]: “And the teruma of your hand”; and the beraita explained [Makkot 17a] that this refers to first fruits, because with regard to first fruits we find the expression “your hand,” as it is stated [Deuteronomy 26:4]: “And the priest shall take the basket from your hand.”

2.

And one who redeems fourth-year produce—

the fruit of a tree in the fourth year after its planting [after the three years of orla have ended], whose status is that it must be brought—or its redemption money must be brought—to Jerusalem and eaten there, in accordance with the law of ma'aser sheni.

And his ma'aser sheni—

one who redeems his ma'aser sheni produce and brings the money to Jerusalem.

adds a fifth

to its redemption, as it is stated [Leviticus 27:31]: “And if a person redeems his tithe, he shall add its fifth to it.” Fourth-year produce is derived from ma'aser sheni by means of a gzera shava based on the terms “sacred” and “sacred,” since with regard to fourth-year produce it is written [Leviticus 19:24]: “And in the fourth year all its fruit shall be sacred, for praises to the Lord,” while with regard to ma'aser sheni it is written [Leviticus 27:30]: “And every tithe of the land … is sacred to the Lord.” And they expound: Just as ma'aser sheni has an added fifth, so fourth-year produce has an added fifth.

Only one who redeems his own ma'aser sheni adds a fifth; but one who redeems another’s ma'aser sheni does not add a fifth, as it is stated [Leviticus 27:31]: “A person who redeems his tithe,” i.e., his own tithe.

3.

One who redeems his hekdesh

that he himself consecrated—

adds a fifth,

as it is stated [Leviticus 27:19]: “And if he shall redeem it, the one who consecrated it shall add a fifth of the money of your valuation to it.”

4.

One who derives benefit

unwittingly

from a peruta’s worth of hekdesh—

adds a fifth,

for he is liable to bring a sacrifice for misuse of sacred property and an added fifth, as it is stated [Leviticus 5:16]: “And he shall pay for what he sinned against the sacred property, and he shall add its fifth to it and give it to the priest.”

5.

And one who robs his fellow of a peruta’s worth and swears to him—

adds a fifth,

as it is stated [Leviticus 5:24]: “Or any of all that he swears falsely about; he shall pay it in its principal, and add its fifth to it.”

Gemara:

Rava said:

Our Mishna

was difficult for Rabbi Elazar

ben Pedat, for we learned in our Mishna that one who eats

terumat ma'aser of demai

must add a fifth, although the obligation to separate terumat ma'aser from demai is only rabbinic; and this was difficult for him:

Did the Sages institute a reinforcement for their words as though they were of Torah origin

by requiring an added fifth for terumat ma'aser of demai?

Rav Nachman said that Shmuel said: Whose opinion is this—

our Mishna?

It is Rabbi Meir’s, who said: The Sages instituted a reinforcement for their words as though they were of Torah origin.

And where do we find that Rabbi Meir holds that the Sages instituted a reinforcement for their words, so that they are considered like a Torah obligation?

As it was taught:

An agent

who brings a bill of divorce

to a woman from her husband

from overseas,

whom the husband appointed as an agent to carry the bill of divorce to the woman so that she would be divorced through it, the Sages required him to say to the woman: “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence,” [because residents of overseas are not expert in the requirement that the bill of divorce be written for her sake, and witnesses are not available there to validate that the bill of divorce was properly executed].

And if the agent

gave it to her but did not say to her, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence,”

the man who married her after this bill of divorce was delivered to her

must divorce

her,

and the child

born to them is considered

a mamzer,

since the agent did not deliver the bill of divorce in accordance with the Sages’ enactment, and therefore she is not considered divorced by the bill of divorce she received; she remains the married wife of her first husband,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say: The child is not a mamzer!

This is because the agent did not deliver the bill of divorce in accordance with the Sages’ enactment; rather, he must give her the bill of divorce again properly, so that she will not have to leave her second husband.

What should he do

the agent?

He should take it [the bill of divorce]

from her,

and give it to her again in the presence of two witnesses, and say to her

at the time of delivery:

“It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence.”

The Gemara wondered:

But according to Rabbi Meir,

is it only

because he did not say to her

the agent

“It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence,”

that

he must divorce

her,

and the child

born to them is considered

a mamzer?

But the bill of divorce itself is valid, and it was written in his presence; the agent merely did not say to her, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence,” as required by the Sages. Is it possible that the child should be considered a mamzer for this reason alone?

The Gemara answers:

Yes,

this is the view of

Rabbi Meir

here,

in accordance with his reasoning—

in keeping with his reasoning and approach elsewhere as well.

For Rav Hamnuna said in the name of Ulla: Rabbi Meir would say

the following principle:

Anyone who deviates from the formula that the Sages instituted for bills of divorce,

the law is:

he must divorce her and the child is a mamzer.

If so, it is explained in the beraita that Rabbi Meir holds that the Sages reinforced their enactment so that it would be considered like Torah law. Therefore, whenever the agent did not deliver the bill of divorce in accordance with their enactment, it is considered as though the bill of divorce did not take effect by Torah law, and therefore the child is considered a mamzer.

Rav Sheshet raised an objection:

Does Rabbi Meir hold that the Sages reinforced their enactment so that it would be considered like Torah law? But we learned that Rabbi Meir is lenient with regard to the redemption of ma'aser sheni of demai, which is rabbinic, and does not consider it like definite ma'aser, whose obligation is from the Torah.

For we learned in a Mishna concerning demai [chapter 1, mishna 2]: If one has a coin invested with the sanctity of ma'aser sheni of demai and he needs it,

we redeem it

the coin

of silver

that possesses the sanctity of ma'aser sheni of demai

onto

a coin

of silver [of ordinary produce] that he has elsewhere, and the first money becomes ordinary, while the sanctity of the tithe takes effect on the second money. Likewise, he may redeem copper coins

onto

copper

coins.

And

a coin

of silver may also be redeemed

onto

a coin

of

copper, and copper

can be redeemed

onto produce,

even outside Jerusalem [which is not the place where it may be eaten, since it may be eaten only in Jerusalem]; and after he has redeemed the copper coin onto produce,

he then redeems the produce again

for a silver coin and brings the silver to Jerusalem, as it is stated [Deuteronomy 14:25]: “Then you shall bind up the money in your hand and go to the place that the Lord your God will choose,”

the words of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say:

He need not redeem the produce again for silver in order to bring the ma'aser sheni of demai to Jerusalem; rather, if he wishes,

the produce itself may be brought

itself

and eaten in Jerusalem,

because they were lenient with regard to demai.

It is clear from the Mishna that Rabbi Meir is lenient with regard to the redemption of ma'aser sheni of demai, permitting a silver coin to be redeemed onto a silver coin, and a silver coin onto a copper coin.

For with regard to definite ma'aser sheni,

do we redeem it

in this manner, even

silver onto copper [which more closely resembles redemption than redeeming silver onto silver]?

But we learned concerning ma'aser sheni [chapter 2, mishna 6]:

A sela of ma'aser sheni and a sela of ordinary money that became mixed together,

and he wishes to remove the ordinary sela from Jerusalem, but does not know which one it is—what does he do?

He brings money with the value of a sela—

he brings copper coins worth a silver sela [with an added fifth if the tithe is his, because redemption requires adding a fifth ],

and says: Wherever the ma'aser sheni sela is,

it is

redeemed onto this money.

The two sela coins are thereby ordinary, and the copper money is ma'aser sheni.

is hereby redeemed onto this money.”

As a result, both coins are ordinary, and the copper money has the status of second tithe.

And afterward

he selects

the

better

sela among them, and

redeems it

the copper money

onto it,

onto the better sela. The better sela is consequently ma'aser sheni, while the second sela and the copper money are ordinary, as they were initially.