בבא מציעא דף נה

באמצע הקדש, ליתה? אמר ליה: לפי שאינה בסוף הקדש.

but it is not subject to an intermediate stage of consecration resulting from redemption? Ravina said to him: It is due to the fact that it is not subject to ultimate consecration. A non-kosher animal does not ultimately remain consecrated, as it is used neither as an offering nor in the upkeep of the Temple. Instead, it is redeemed and its value is consecrated.

אמר ליה רב אחא: מדיפתי לרבינא, באמצע הקדש מיהא איתה, ולוסיף נמי חומש! אמר ליה: הרי הוא כסוף הקדש, מה סוף הקדש אינו מוסיף חומש –

Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina: It is subject, at least, to an intermediate stage of consecration; and in that case, let one add one-fifth as well. Ravina said to him: Its legal status is like that of ultimate consecration: Just as one does not add one-fifth with regard to a non-kosher animal in ultimate consecration, as that category does not exist in a non-kosher animal, so too, one does not add one-fifth in a case of intermediate consecration.

אף אמצע הקדש אינו מוסיף חומש.

אמר ליה רב זוטרא בריה דרב מרי לרבינא: מאי חזית דמדמית ליה לסוף הקדש? נדמייה לתחילת הקדש! אמר ליה: מסתברא לסוף הקדש הוה ליה לדמויי,

Rav Zutra, son of Rav Mari, said to Ravina: What did you see that led you to liken the intermediate stage of consecration to ultimate consecration? Let us liken it to initial consecration. Ravina said to him: It stands to reason that he should liken it to ultimate consecration, as he thereby derives the halakha of an item consecrated by association with the sanctity of an item consecrated by association. The Gemara asks: On the contrary, he should have likened it to initial consecration, as he thereby derives the halakha of an item after which there is another stage of sanctity, the intermediate stage of consecration, from an item after which there is another stage of sanctity.

שכן נתפס מנתפס. אדרבה: לתחילת הקדש הוה ליה לדמויי, שכן דבר שיש אחריו קדושה מדבר שיש אחריו קדושה!

כדאמר רבא ״העלה״ – עולה ראשונה. הכי נמי ״הטמאה״ – טמאה ראשונה.

The Gemara answers: It is as Rava says: “The burnt-offering” (Leviticus 6:2), employing the definite article, indicates that the reference is to the first burnt-offering. So too, when it is written: The non-kosher animal, the reference is to the initial consecration of the non-kosher animal, not the intermediate stage of consecration.

תניא כוותיה דרבי יהושע בן לוי: ״פרה זו תחת פרה של הקדש״, ״טלית זו תחת טלית של הקדש״ – הקדשו פדוי, ויד הקדש על העליונה.

The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: If one said that this cow is in place of that cow, which belongs to the Temple treasury, or this garment is in place of that garment, which belongs to the Temple treasury, his consecrated property is redeemed, and the treasurer of consecrated property is at an advantage. If the replacement item is equal to or more valuable than the original item, it belongs to the treasurer, and if it is less valuable, the one who consecrated it must pay the difference.

״פרה זו בחמש סלעים תחת פרה של הקדש״, ״טלית זו בחמש סלעים תחת טלית של הקדש״ – הקדשו פדוי. על הקדש ראשון מוסיף חומש,

If he said: This cow valued at five sela is in place of this cow, which belongs to the Temple treasury, or: This garment valued at five sela is instead of this garment, which belongs to the Temple treasury, his consecrated property is redeemed. Even if the second consecrated item is more valuable, it is not considered a consecration done in error. He will have to pay the difference. He adds one-fifth when redeeming the item that was the initial consecration, but when redeeming the item for which the initial consecration was redeemed, the second consecration, he does not add one-fifth.

על הקדש שני אין מוסיף חומש.

מתני׳ האונאה – ארבעה כסף, והטענה – שתי כסף, וההודאה – שוה פרוטה.

MISHNA: The measure of exploitation is four silver ma’a from the twenty-four silver ma’a of a sela. And the smallest monetary claim in court for which a plaintiff can obligate a respondent to take an oath is two silver ma’a. And the smallest monetary admission for which that respondent takes the oath is an admission that one owes at least the value of one peruta.

חמש פרוטות הן: ההודאה שוה פרוטה, והאשה מתקדשת בשוה פרוטה, והנהנה בשוה פרוטה מן ההקדש מעל, והמוצא שוה פרוטה חייב להכריז, והגוזל את חבירו שוה פרוטה ונשבע לו,

On a related note, the tanna adds that there are five halakhic situations involving perutot: The admission to part of a claim must be that one owes at least the value of one peruta, and a woman is betrothed with the value of one peruta. And one who derives benefit of the value of one peruta from consecrated property has misused consecrated property and is liable to bring an offering, and one who finds an item that has the value of one peruta is obligated to proclaim that he found it. And with regard to one who robs from another an item that has the value of one peruta and took an oath to him that he robbed nothing, when he repents and seeks to return the stolen item he must take it and follow its owner even to Media. In that case, he may not return the item by means of a messenger; he must give it directly to its owner.

יוליכנו אחריו אפילו למדי.

גמ׳ תנינא חדא זימנא: האונאה ארבעה כסף מעשרים וארבעה כסף לסלע, שתות למקח! הטענה שתי כסף וההודאה שוה פרוטה אצטריכא ליה.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: We already learned this on another occasion in an earlier mishna (49b): The measure of exploitation for which one can claim that he was exploited is four silver ma’a from the twenty-four silver ma’a in a sela, which is one-sixth of the transaction. The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the tanna to mention two halakhot: The smallest monetary claim in court for which a plaintiff can obligate a respondent to take an oath is two silver ma’a, and the smallest monetary admission for which that respondent takes the oath is an admission that one owes at least the value of one peruta. Therefore, the tanna cited the halakha of exploitation as well.

הא נמי תנינא: שבועת הדיינין, הטענה שתי כסף וההודאה שוה פרוטה! סיפא אצטריכא ליה, דקתני: חמש פרוטות הן.

The Gemara asks: That too we already learned in a mishna (Shevuot 38b): The oath for admission to part of a claim imposed by the judges is in a case where the claim is two silver ma’a, and the admission is the value of one peruta. The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the tanna to teach the latter clause of the mishna, as it teaches: There are five halakhic situations involving perutot, which is not taught elsewhere.

חמש פרוטות הן כו׳. וליתני נמי האונאה פרוטה? אמר רב כהנא: זאת אומרת, אין אונאה לפרוטות.

§ The mishna teaches: There are five halakhic situations involving perutot. The Gemara asks: And let the tanna also teach that the measure of exploitation is one peruta. Rav Kahana said: That is to say that there is no exploitation concerning perutot. Any disparity between value and price that is less than the value of the smallest silver coin, an issar, which is worth eight perutot, is not considered exploitation.

ולוי אמר: יש אונאה לפרוטות. וכן תני לוי במתניתיה: חמש פרוטות הן: האונאה פרוטה, וההודאה פרוטה, וקדושי אשה בפרוטה, וגזל בפרוטה, וישיבת הדיינין בפרוטה.

And Levi says: There is exploitation even for perutot. And likewise, Levi taught in his version of the Mishna, which parallels the Mishna redacted by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, that there are five halakhic situations involving perutot: The measure of exploitation is one peruta, the admission is the value of one peruta, and the betrothal of a woman is with one peruta, and the halakha of one who takes an oath denying a robbery applies in the case where he denies having robbed another of at least one peruta, and the convening of judges to adjudicate a case of monetary law is in the case where the claim is at least one peruta.

ותנא דידן, מאי טעמא לא קתני ישיבת הדיינין? תנא ליה גזל.

The Gemara asks: And with regard to the tanna of our mishna, what is the reason he does not teach the case of the convening of judges in his list of cases involving perutot? The Gemara answers: He taught the case of robbery, which includes all monetary claims one has against another.

ומי לא תני גזל וקתני אבידה? הנך אצטריכא ליה: גזל – הגוזל מחבירו שוה פרוטה ונשבע לו, יוליכנו אחריו ואפילו למדי.

The Gemara asks: But doesn’t the tanna teach the case of robbery and teach the case of lost property? Apparently, he lists monetary cases that are included under the rubric of robbery. The Gemara answers: With regard to these two cases, it was necessary for the tanna to teach them separately, as there is a novel element in each. The novel element in the case of robbery is not only that a robbery of one peruta is considered robbery, but also in the case of one who robs an item from another worth at least one peruta and then took an oath to him that he robbed nothing, he must carry the stolen item and follow its owner even to Media. The novel element in the case of lost property is that one who finds lost property the value of at least one peruta is obligated to proclaim that he found it, even though the lost article depreciated and is no longer worth one peruta.

אבידה – המוצא אבידה שוה פרוטה חייב להכריז, ואף על גב דזל.

ולוי, מאי טעמא לא תני אבידה בפרוטה? תנא ליה גזל.

The Gemara asks: And as for Levi, what is the reason he does not teach that one is obligated to proclaim that he found lost property only if it is worth at least one peruta? The Gemara answers: He taught the case of robbery, which includes all monetary claims one has against another.

ומי לא קתני גזל וקתני ישיבת הדיינין? ישיבת הדיינין אצטריכא ליה, לאפוקי מדרב קטינא, דאמר רב קטינא: בית דין נזקקין אפילו לפחות משוה פרוטה.

The Gemara asks: But doesn’t he teach robbery and also teach the convening of judges? Apparently, he lists monetary cases that are included under the rubric of robbery. The Gemara explains: With regard to the convening of judges it was necessary for the tanna to specify the halakha to exclude the opinion of Rav Ketina, as Rav Ketina says: The court attends to monetary claims of even less than the value of one peruta. Anyone wronged by another is entitled to have his case adjudicated in court.

ולוי, מאי טעמא לא קתני הקדש? בחולין קמיירי, בקדשים לא קמיירי.

The Gemara asks: And as for Levi, what is the reason he does not teach the peruta of misuse of consecrated property? The Gemara answers: He is speaking with regard to non-sacred property; he is not speaking with regard to consecrated property.

אלא תנא דידן דקא מיירי בקדשים, נתני מעשר בפרוטה? כמאן דאמר אין בחומשו פרוטה. וליתני חומש מעשר בפרוטה? בקרנא קא מיירי, בחומש לא קא מיירי.

The Gemara asks: But in the case of the tanna of our mishna, who is speaking with regard to consecrated property, let him teach the halakha that second tithe may be redeemed only if the produce is worth at least one peruta. The Gemara answers: This tanna holds in accordance with the one who says: Second tithe is redeemed only if its one-fifth, which one adds when redeeming his own produce, is worth at least one peruta. In other words, second tithe is redeemed only if it is worth at least four perutot. The Gemara asks: And let him teach that second tithe is redeemed only if its one-fifth, which one adds when redeeming his own produce, is worth at least one peruta. The Gemara responds: The tanna is speaking with regard to the principal; the tanna is not speaking with regard to the one-fifth.

גופא, אמר רב קטינא: בית דין נזקקין אפילו לפחות משוה פרוטה. מתיב רבא: ״ואת אשר חטא מן הקדש ישלם״,

§ With regard to the matter itself raised in the previous discussion, the Gemara elaborates. Rav Ketina says: The court attends to monetary claims of even less than the value of one peruta. Rava raises an objection from a baraita. It is written: “And he shall make restitution for that which he has done amiss in the sacred matter” (Leviticus 5:16).

לרבות פחות משוה פרוטה להישבון. לקדש – אין, אבל להדיוט – לא.

This serves to include misuse of consecrated property less than the value of one peruta in the halakha of restitution to the Temple treasury. The Gemara infers: To the Temple treasury, yes, one must return that which he took; but to an ordinary person [hedyot], no, one need not pay restitution for theft of less than one peruta.

אלא, אי אתמר הכי אתמר: אמר רב קטינא, אם הוזקקו בית דין לשוה פרוטה – גומרין, אפילו לפחות משוה פרוטה. תחילת הדין בעינן פרוטה,

Rather, if Rav Ketina’s ruling was stated, this is how it was stated: Rav Ketina says: If the court attends to a monetary claim of the value of one peruta, the judges conclude adjudicating and issue a ruling even if the item in question depreciated to less than the value of one peruta. For the beginning of the legal proceedings, we require a claim worth one peruta, whereas for the verdict, we do not require a claim worth one peruta.

גמר הדין לא בעינן פרוטה.

מתני׳ חמשה חומשין הן, אלו הן: האוכל תרומה, ותרומת מעשר, ותרומת מעשר של דמאי, והחלה, והבכורים – מוסיף חומש. והפודה נטע רבעי ומעשר שני שלו – מוסיף חומש.

MISHNA: In this mishna, as in the previous one, the tanna enumerates several halakhot that share a common element. There are five halakhic situations where one-fifth is added to the value of the principal, and these are they: A non-priest who eats either teruma, or teruma of the tithe, which the Levite separates from the first tithe and gives to a priest, or teruma of the tithe of demai, or ḥalla, or first fruits; in each of these cases, he adds one-fifth when paying restitution to the priest who owned the produce. And one who redeems his own fruit of a fourth-year sapling or second-tithe produce adds one-fifth. One who redeems his own consecrated property adds one-fifth. One who derives benefit worth one peruta from consecrated property adds one-fifth. And one who robs the value of one peruta from another and takes a false oath in response to his claim adds one-fifth when paying restitution.

הפודה את הקדשו – מוסיף חומש. הנהנה שוה פרוטה מן ההקדש – מוסיף חומש. והגוזל את חבירו שוה פרוטה ונשבע לו – מוסיף חומש.

גמ׳ אמר רבא: קשיא ליה לרבי אלעזר תרומת מעשר של דמאי, וכי עשו חכמים חיזוק לדבריהם כשל תורה?

GEMARA: Rava says: Rabbi Elazar found the halakha in the mishna with regard to teruma of the tithe of demai to be difficult. He asked: And since the obligation to tithe demai is by rabbinic law, did the Sages reinforce their pronouncements and render them parallel to Torah law by requiring the addition of one-fifth when paying restitution?

אמר רב נחמן אמר שמואל: הא מני – רבי מאיר היא, דאמר עשו חכמים חיזוק לדבריהם כשל תורה. דתניא: המביא גט ממדינת הים,

Rav Naḥman said that Shmuel said: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says: The Sages reinforced their pronouncements and rendered them parallel to Torah law, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to an agent who brings a bill of divorce from a country overseas, if he gave it to the woman but did not say to her: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, as is the requirement by rabbinic ordinance, one who marries that woman must divorce her, and any offspring born of that marriage is a mamzer; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Although he is in violation of the ordinance, the offspring is not a mamzer. How then should the agent proceed? He should take the bill of divorce from her and give it to her again, this time in the presence of two witnesses, and say to her: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence.

נתנו לה ולא אמר לה ״בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם״ – יוציא, והולד ממזר, דברי רבי מאיר. וחכמים אומרים: אין הולד ממזר. כיצד יעשה?

יטלנו ממנה ויחזור ויתננו לה בפני שנים, ויאמר לה: ״בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם״.

ולרבי מאיר, משום דלא אמר לה ״בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם״, יוציא והולד ממזר? אין, רבי מאיר לטעמיה, דאמר רב המנונא משמיה דעולא: אומר היה רבי מאיר:

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Meir, although the bill of divorce was otherwise valid, merely due to the fact that he did not say to her: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, must he divorce her and the offspring is a mamzer? The Gemara answers: Yes, as Rabbi Meir conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as Rav Hamnuna says in the name of Ulla that Rabbi Meir would say: In the case of anyone who gives a bill of divorce that deviates from the formula coined by the Sages with regard to bills of divorce, one who then marries the divorced woman on the basis of that bill of divorce must divorce her, and the offspring is a mamzer. Concerning teruma of the tithe of demai as well, Rabbi Meir reinforced the pronouncements of the Sages and rendered them parallel to Torah law.

כל המשנה ממטבע שטבעו חכמים בגיטין – יוציא, והולד ממזר.

מתיב רב ששת: מחללין אותו כסף על כסף, נחושת על נחושת, כסף על נחושת, ונחושת על הפירות, ויחזור ויפדה את הפירות – דברי רבי מאיר. וחכמים אומרים:

Rav Sheshet raises an objection to this principle from a mishna (Demai 1:2), which teaches: One may desacralize silver coins of second tithe of demai upon other silver coins, and copper coins upon copper coins, and silver coins upon copper coins, and copper coins upon produce, and he may then redeem that produce with money; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: That produce that redeemed the copper coins must be taken up and eaten in Jerusalem. It may not be redeemed again.

יעלו פירות ויאכלו בירושלים.

ומי מחללינן כסף על נחושת? והא תנן: סלע של מעשר שני ושל חולין שנתערבו, מביא בסלע מעות ואומר: כל מקום שישנה סלע של מעשר שני,

Rav Sheshet continues: And can one desacralize silver coins with copper coins? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Ma’aser Sheni 2:6): In the case of a silver sela of second tithe and a sela of non-sacred property that were intermingled, one brings copper ma’a equaling the value of a sela and says: Wherever there is a sela of second tithe among these two coins, it is redeemed upon these copper ma’a, which assume the sanctity of second tithe. And he selects the better-quality sela among the two and redeems the copper coins upon that sela. The result is that the better-quality sela is second tithe, while the other sela and the copper coins are non-sacred.

מחוללת על מעות הללו, ובורר את היפה שבהן ומחללו עליה.