Bava Metzia 55b — the Talmud in English

Rava raised an objection:

It is stated in the Torah concerning one who misappropriates consecrated property inadvertently [Leviticus 5:16]:

“And that which he sinned against from the consecrated property

he shall pay, and its fifth he shall add to it”.

And they expound the word “and” as

including

one who misappropriates consecrated property

less than the value of a peruta for restitution—

who is obligated to return it even if it is less than the value of a peruta .

It follows that only

for consecrated property—

there is [indeed],

the verse includes an obligation to return even less than the value of a peruta.

But for ordinary property—

no,

the verse does not include an obligation to return less than the value of a peruta.

If so, how did Rav Ketina say that the court judges to impose liability for less than the value of a peruta?

Rather, if it was stated,

the statement of Rav Ketina,

it was stated as follows:

Rav Ketina said: If the court has been called upon

to adjudicate

a claim worth a peruta,

and during the course of the proceedings, before the court had risen from the proceeding, the defendant claimed from the plaintiff less than the value of a peruta, the court

completes

the judgment and is called upon to adjudicate and issue a ruling on the claim

even for less than the value of a peruta .

For only

the beginning of the judgment—

we require

that it be for the value of

a peruta,

but

the completion of the judgment—

we do not require

that it be for the value of

a peruta,

and even for less than the value of a peruta, they complete the judgment.

Mishna:

There are five fifths—in five matters one adds a fifth in payment.

These are they:

1.

One who eats

inadvertently—

great teruma

.

and teruma of the tithe,

which the Levite separates from his tithe for the priest.

and teruma of the tithe of demai,

which is from produce purchased from an am ha-aretz, from which the purchaser separates teruma of the tithe as a matter of doubt, lest its tithes were not separated [but he does not separate great teruma, because everyone was careful concerning it, as explained in Sotah 48a].

and hallah,

which they separate from the dough.

and first fruits—

one who eats one of these inadvertently pays the principal, and upon it he

adds a fifth,

as it is stated concerning teruma [Leviticus 22:14]: “And if a man eats a sacred thing inadvertently, then he shall add its fifth to it,” and all these are called teruma.

Teruma of the tithe 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.” And hallah is likewise called teruma, as it is stated [Numbers 15:20]: “The first portion of your kneading shall you raise as a teruma.” And even first fruits are called teruma, as it is stated [Deuteronomy 12:17]: “And the teruma of your hand”; and they explained in a beraita [Makkot 17a] that this refers to first fruits, because we find concerning first fruits 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 plantings—

the fruit of a tree in the fourth year after its planting [after the three years of orlah have been completed], whose law is that they must be brought up, or their redemption money brought up, to Jerusalem and eaten there according to the law of second tithe.

And his second tithe—

one who redeems the fruit of his second tithe and brings the money up to Jerusalem.

adds a fifth

to its redemption, as it is stated [Leviticus 27:31]: “And if a man will redeem any of his tithe, its fifth he shall add to it.” And fourth-year plantings are learned from second tithe by a gezerah shavah, “holy,” “holy,” since concerning fourth-year plantings it is written [Leviticus 19:24]: “And in the fourth year all its fruit shall be holy, praises to the Lord,” and concerning second tithe it is written [Leviticus 27:30]: “And every tithe of the land, etc., is holy to the Lord.” And they expound: Just as second tithe has a fifth, so fourth-year plantings have a fifth.

And only one who redeems his second tithe adds a fifth, but one who redeems the second tithe of others does not add a fifth, as it is stated [Leviticus 27:31]: “A man of his tithe”—that is, his tithe.

3.

One who redeems his consecrated property,

which he himself consecrated—

adds a fifth,

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

4.

One who benefits

inadvertently

from consecrated property worth a peruta—

adds a fifth,

for he is obligated to bring a sacrificial offering for sacrilege and a fifth, as it is stated [Leviticus 5:16]: “And that which he sinned against from the consecrated property he shall pay, and its fifth he shall add to it, and he shall give it to the priest.”

5.

And one who steals from his fellow an item worth a peruta and swears to him—

adds a fifth,

as it is stated [Leviticus 5:24]: “Or anything about which he swears falsely, he shall repay it by its principal, and its fifth he shall add to it.”

Gemara:

Rava said:

Our Mishna

was difficult for Rabbi Elazar

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

teruma of the tithe of demai

must add a fifth, while the obligation to separate teruma of the tithe in demai is only rabbinic; and it was difficult for him:

Did the Sages institute reinforcement for their words as for a Torah matter,

to add a fifth for teruma of the tithe of demai?

Rav Nahman said in the name of Shmuel: Whose opinion is this—

our Mishna?

It is Rabbi Meir’s, for he says: The Sages instituted reinforcement for their words as for a Torah matter.

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

For it was taught:

An agent

who brings a bill of divorce

to a woman from her husband

from overseas,

for the husband appointed him as an agent to convey 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” [since the inhabitants of overseas are not expert in the requirement that the bill of divorce be written for her sake, and witnesses are not available here to validate that the bill of divorce was properly made].

And if the agent

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

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

shall send her out

from him,

and the child

born to them is considered

a mamzer,

since the agent did not deliver the bill of divorce according to the enactment of the Sages, and therefore she is not considered divorced by the bill of divorce that she received; she is still the married wife of her first husband,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

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

Because he did not deliver the bill of divorce according to the enactment of the Sages; rather, he must give her the bill of divorce again in a valid manner, so that she will not have to leave her second husband.

What shall he do,

this agent?

He shall take it [the bill of divorce]

from her, and he shall give it to her again in the presence of two, and he shall say to her

at the time of the delivery

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

And the Gemara asks:

And according to Rabbi Meir,

is it the case that only

because he did not say to her

the agent

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

because of this

he

shall send her out

from him,

and the child

of theirs is considered

a mamzer?

But the bill of divorce is valid, and it was written in his presence; it is only that the agent did not say to her, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence,” according to the enactment of the Sages. Is it possible that only because of this the child should be considered a mamzer?

And we answer:

Yes,

the view of

Rabbi Meir

here is

according to his approach—

according to his view and method in other places as well.

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

the following rule:

Anyone who alters the formula that the Sages instituted concerning bills of divorce,

the law is:

“He shall send her out, and the child is a mamzer.”

If so, it is explained in the beraita that Rabbi Meir’s view is that the Sages reinforced their enactment so that it would be considered like Torah law; and for that reason, whenever the agent did not deliver the bill of divorce according to 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:

Is it indeed Rabbi Meir’s view that the Sages reinforced their enactment so that it would be considered like Torah law? But we learned that Rabbi Meir is lenient concerning the redemption of second tithe of demai, which is rabbinic, and does not consider it like definite second tithe, whose obligation is from the Torah.

For we learned in a Mishna concerning demai [chapter 1, mishna 2]: If he has a coin consecrated with the sanctity of second tithe of demai and he needs it,

they redeem it

the coin

of silver

which has the sanctity of second tithe 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. And likewise, he may redeem money

of copper onto money

of copper.

And money

of silver

may also be redeemed

onto a coin

of copper, and copper

may 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 redeemed the copper coin with produce,

he shall return and redeem the produce

with silver money, and bring the silver up to Jerusalem, as it is stated [Deuteronomy 14:25]: “And you shall bind up the money in your hand and go to the place that the Lord your God shall choose,”

the words of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say:

He need not return and redeem the produce with silver in order to bring the second tithe of demai up to Jerusalem; rather, if he wishes,

the produce itself shall be brought up

and

eaten in Jerusalem,

because they were lenient with demai.

It is explained in the Mishna that Rabbi Meir is lenient concerning the redemption of second tithe of demai, to redeem a silver coin with a silver coin, and a silver coin with a copper coin.

For in the case of definite second tithe,

may we redeem it

in this manner, even

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

But did we not learn

concerning second tithe [chapter 2, mishna 6]:

A sela of second tithe and of ordinary produce that became mixed together,

and he wants to take the sela of ordinary produce outside Jerusalem, but he does not know which one it is—what does he do?

He brings money in the value of a sela—

he brings copper money worth a silver sela [with the addition of a fifth, if the tithe is his, because redemption requires the addition of a fifth] ,

and says: Wherever the sela of second tithe is,

it is

redeemed onto this money.

The two selaot are then found to be ordinary produce, and the copper money is second tithe.

and says: “Wherever the coin of second tithe is,

And afterward

he selects

the sela

that is the better of them, and he again

redeems it

the copper money

onto it,

onto the better sela. The better sela is then second tithe, while the second sela and the copper money are ordinary, as at first,

redeems

the copper money

onto it,

onto the better coin. The better coin is consequently second tithe, while the other coin and the copper money are ordinary, as they were at first,