y

|  |  | Previous Folio / Baba Mezi'a Contents / Tractate List / Navigate Site # Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Baba Mezi'a ### Baba Mezi'a 55a but not of intermediary hekdesh!1 — He replied, Because it is incapable of final hekdesh.2 But R. Aha of Difti objected to Rabina: Yet it is capable of 'intermediary hekdesh:' then let a fifth be added too!3 — He replied: It is as final hekdesh: just as a fifth is not added for final hekdesh,4 so for intermediary hekdesh no fifth is added. R. Zutra, son of R. Mari, said to Rabina: On what grounds5 do you liken it to final hekdesh? Liken it [rather] to original hekdesh! — He replied: It is logical to liken it to final hekdesh, since thereby transferred [sanctity is deduced] from transferred [sanctity]. On the contrary, it should rather be compared with original hekdesh, [deducing] that which may be followed by sanctity from that which may be followed by sanctity!6 — It is as Raba said, [viz.,] [And the fire upon the altar shall be burning in it; it shall not be put out: and the priest shall burn wood on it every morning, and lay] the burnt offering [in order upon it; and he shall burn thereon the fat of the peace offering]7 implies 'the first burnt offering;8 so here too, [and if it be of] the unclean [beast] denotes the first uncleanliness [to which it may be subject].9 It has been taught in accordance with R. Joshua b. Levi: [If one declared,] 'This cow is a substitute for this cow of hekdesh';10 'this garment be instead of this other garment of hekdesh', his consecrated object is redeemed, whilst hekdesh has the upper hand.11 [Even if he declares,] 'This cow, which is worth five sela's be a substitute for this other cow of hekdesh', or 'this garment, worth five sela's, be instead of this other garment of hekdesh', his consecrated object is redeemed.12 For the first hekdesh he must add a fifth, but not for the second.13 MISHNAH. OVERREACHING IS CONSTITUTED BY FOUR SILVER [MA'AHS].14 THE [MINIMUM] CLAIM IS TWO SILVER [MA'AHS],15 AND ADMISSION IS [AT LEAST] THE VALUE OF A PERUTAH.'16 A PERUTAH WAS SPECIFIED IN FIVE INSTANCES: [i] ADMISSION MUST BE [AT LEAST] THE EQUIVALENT OF A PERUTAH; [ii] A WOMAN IS BETROTHED BY THE VALUE OF A PERUTAH;17 [iii] HE WHO BENEFITS FROM HEKDESH TO THE VALUE OF A PERUTAH IS LIABLE TO A TRESPASS OFFERING; [iv] HE WHO FINDS [AN ARTICLE] WORTH A PERUTAH IS BOUND TO PROCLAIM IT, AND [v] HE WHO ROBS HIS NEIGHBOUR OF THE VALUE OF A PERUTAH AND SWEARS [FALSELY] TO HIM [CONCERNING IT],18 MUST FOLLOW HIM TO RETURN IT19 EVEN AS FAR AS MEDIA.20 GEMARA. But we have already learnt it once: fraud is constituted by [an overcharge of] four silver [ma'ahs] in twenty four, which is a sela', [hence] a sixth of the purchase!21 — He [the Tanna] desires [to state], THE [MINIMUM] CLAIM IS TWO SILVER [MA'AHS], AND ADMISSION IS [AT LEAST] THE VALUE OF A PERUTAH.22 But that too we have [already] learnt: The judicial oath is [imposed] for a claim of two silver [ma'ahs] and an admission of a perutah! — The last clause is necessary, viz., A PERUTAH IS SPECIFIED IN FIVE INSTANCES. A PERUTAH IS SPECIFIED IN FIVE INSTANCES etc. But let him [the Tanna] teach also, [The minimum] overreaching is a perutah!23 — Said R. Kahana: This proves that the law of overreaching does not apply to perutahs.24 But Levi maintained: The law of overreaching does apply to perutahs. And thus did Levi read in his Baraitha [collection]:25 A perutah was specified in five instances: [i] [Minimum] overreaching is a perutah; [ii] Admission is a perutah; [iii] The kiddushin of a woman is with a perutah; [iv] Robbery [imposes its obligations] on account of a perutah; and [v] The court session is on account of a perutah.26 Now, why does our Tanna not include the court session? — He includes it under robbery.27 Yet does he not teach both robbery and loss?28 — Those are [both] necessary. 'Robbery', [to teach that] HE WHO ROBS HIS NEIGHBOUR OF THE VALUE OF A PERUTAH AND SWEARS [FALSELY] TO HIM [CONCERNING IT], MUST FOLLOW HIM TO RETURN IT EVEN AS FAR AS MEDIA.29 'A loss:' [thus] HE WHO FINDS [AN ARTICLE] WORTH A PERUTAH IS BOUND TO PROCLAIM IT, even if it depreciated [after being found].30 Now, why does Levi not teach that a loss [in the sense of the Mishnah] is [at least] a perutah? — He teaches robbery. But does he not teach both robbery and the court session?31 — He needs [to teach that] in order to reject the view of R. Kattina, who said, The court sits32 even for less than a perutah's worth. Now, why does Levi omit hekdesh? — He deals with hullin, not sacred objects. Then since our Tanna does treat of sacred objects, let him teach, The [minimum of second] tithe [to be eligible for redemption] is a perutah.33 — [The omission is] in accordance with the view that if its fifth is less than a perutah [it cannot be redeemed]. Then let him state, The [added] fifth of the [second] tithe must be [not less than] a perutah. — He treats of principals, not fifths.34 The [above text] states: 'R. Kattina said: The court sits even for less than a perutah's worth.' Raba objected: And he shall make amends for the harm that he hath done in the holy thing:35 To Part b Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files Three categories are distinguished: (i) original hekdesh, i.e., that which is itself consecrated in the first place, though it cannot be directly employed in the temple; (ii) intermediary hekdesh, viz., that which is consecrated instead of another, which required redemption — referred to above as 'transferred hekdesh;' (iii) 'final hekdesh,' that which is itself finally used as hekdesh, e.g., a clean beast, which is sacrificed, or a wood beam, which, if dedicated to Temple use, may be directly built into the Temple or similarly employed. — Now, R. Ashi observes that an unclean animal is capable of this intermediary or transferred sanctity, viz., if it is substituted for another. Another two expressions are used in this discussion, viz., 'first hekdesh' and 'second hekdesh.' 'First hekdesh' would appear to be synonymous with 'original hekdesh;' 'second hekdesh,' like 'intermediary hekdesh,' refers to transferred sanctity, but whereas the latter term is used in contrast to 'final hekdesh' to denote that which cannot itself be finally employed as hekdesh, 'second hekdesh' refers to that which can be finally used so. It cannot be used itself as hekdesh, not being eligible for the altar, nor can it be built into the Temple.< li> If this unclean animal is redeemed as intermediary hekdesh. Since there is no fifth for final hekdesh, in accordance with the teaching reported by the tanna, apart from the fact that there can be no room for the addition of a fifth, since it is finally disposed of as hekdesh and not redeemed. Lit., 'what do you see?' 'Original' and 'intermediary' hekdesh, (v. p, 325, n. 5), can be redeemed and thus 'followed' by the sanctity of the article wherewith it is redeemed. But this of course cannot apply to 'final' hekdesh. Lev. VI, 5. The definite article points to some particular sacrifice, and Raba observes that it denotes that the first, i.e., the burnt offering, must be the first thing to ascend the altar every day, and nothing else may take precedence over it. Tosaf. offers some other explanations. I.e., that it applies to original hekdesh only. [E.g., where the originally consecrated cow was dedicated for temple repairs, no redemption being possible in the case of a clean animal dedicated as an offering; cf. Lev. XXVI, 10; v. Tosaf.] If hekdesh is redeemed by an object of far less value than itself, the redemption is valid and the consecrated article loses its sanctity; nevertheless, the treasurers collect its full value. On the other hand, if the object substituted is worth more, there is no refund. So here too, if the second cow or garment is worth less than the original, the deficiency must be made good, whilst if it exceeds it, hekdesh gains. This is the meaning of 'hekdesh has the upper hand.' — In this clause, no actual value is ascribed to the substitute. Though he ascribes a certain value to the substitute, which it lacks. I might have thought that his declaration is therefore invalid, since it contains a misstatement. We are therefore taught otherwise. Should he desire to redeem the substitute, which is now sanctified in its turn, no addition is required. This agrees with R. Joshua b. Levi. In a purchase worth a sela', i.e., a sixth, v. p. 295, n. 10. This is the smallest claim which can involve the imposition of an oath. As stated supra 3a, no oath is required by Biblical law unless part of one's claim is admitted. This admission must be for at least a perutah or its equivalent. The smallest sum of money or its equivalent whereby a woman can be betrothed is a perutah. Denying the theft. Lit., 'must carry it after him.' If he repents, he does not obtain forgiveness unless he returns it to him personally, and he must go even so far. Supra 49b. V. p. 327, n. 5. That if the overreaching is less there is neither compensation nor cancellation of the sale. Which are copper coins. I.e., the minimum sum to which it applies is an issar, which is a silver coin. [Levi had a compilation of Baraithas similar to that of R. Hiyya and R. Hoshaia, v. B.B. (Sonc. ed.) p. 216, n. 5.] If liability is admitted or proved by witnesses, yet payment is refused, a court session orders measures of compulsion against the recalcitrant debtor. The smallest sum to be involved for this step to be taken is a perutah. For the same principle operates in both. HE WHO FINDS AN ARTICLE WORTH A PERUTAH IS BOUND TO PROCLAIM IT. The principles here too are identical, viz., that perutah is 'money', to the return of which the owner has a right, even if it involves considerable trouble. Thus apart from the fact that the minimum which constitutes robbery is perutah, we are further informed that even such a small sum must be returned to the robbed man personally, though the expenses of such return far exceed the actual sum involved. So that by the time it is announced it is not worth a perutah; yet the announcement must be made. And in both these cases too the same principle is at stake. Lit., 'meets'. But a lesser quantity must be consumed in Jerusalem. In all cases stated in the Mishnah the principal itself must be not less than a perutah. Lev. V, 16. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference ### Baba Mezi'a 55b this ['and'] extends the law of restoration even to less than a perutah's worth. Thus, it applies to hekdesh, but not to hullin!1 — But if stated, it was stated thus: R. Kattina said, if the court met for [a claim of] the equivalent of a perutah, they conclude [the hearing] even for less,2 [because] at the beginning of a trial a perutah must be involved, but at the end a [claim of a] perutah is unnecessary. MISHNAH. [THE ADDITION OF] A FIFTH [TO THE PRINCIPAL] IS PRESCRIBED IN FIVE CASES: [i] ONE WHO EATS TERUMAH, THE TERUMAH OF THE TITHE,3 THE TERUMAH OF THE TITHE OF DEMAI, HALLAH,4 AND THE FIRST FRUITS,5 MUST ADD A FIFTH;6 [ii] HE WHO REDEEMS THE FOURTH YEAR PLANTING7 AND HIS OWN SECOND TITHE8 ADDS A FIFTH; [iii] HE WHO REDEEMS HIS SACRED OBJECTS9 ADDS A FIFTH; [iv] HE WHO BENEFITS FROM HEKDESH TO THE VALUE OF A PERUTAH ADDS A FIFTH;10 AND [v] HE WHO ROBS HIS NEIGHBOUR OF A PERUTAH'S WORTH AND SWEARS [FALSELY] TO HIM [CONCERNING IT] MUST ADD A FIFTH. GEMARA. Raba said: The terumah of the tithe of demai presented a difficulty to R. Eleazar: Did then the Sages set up protective measures for their enactments as for those of the Torah?11 — Said R. Nahman in Samuel's name: The author of this [Mishnah] is R. Meir, who maintained: The Sages did set up protective measures for their enactments as for those of the Torah. For it has been taught: If one brought a divorce from countries overseas and delivered it to her [the wife] without declaring, 'It was written in my presence and signed in my presence,' he [her next husband] must divorce her [too], and their offspring is a bastard: this is R. Meir's view. But the Sages Say: Their offspring is not a bastard. What then shall he [the messenger] do? He must take it [the divorce] back from her, give it to her again in the presence of two witnesses and declare, 'It was written in my presence and signed in presence.'12 But according to R. Meir, [merely] because he did not declare to her, 'It was written in my presence and signed in my presence,' he must divorce her, and the child is a bastard! — Even so: R. Meir is consistent with his view. For R. Hamnuna said on 'Ulla's authority: R. Meir used to say, Whenever one departs from the fixed procedure ordained by the Sages13 in case of divorce, he [her next husband] must give a divorce, whilst the offspring is a bastard. R. Shesheth objected: It [sc. the second tithe demai] is redeemed [by exchanging] silver for silver, copper for copper, silver for copper and copper for produce;14 then he may redeem the produce: this is R. Meir's opinion. But the Sages say: He must carry the produce to Jerusalem and eat it there.15 Now, is it permissible to redeem silver with copper?16 Surely we learnt: If a sela' of the second tithe was intermixed with one of hullin,17 he brings a sela''s worth of copper coins and declares: 'Wherever the sela' of the second tithe may be, it is redeemed with these coins.' Then he selects the best of them18 and redeems them [the copper coins] therewith;19 - To Next Folio - Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files I.e., no legal compulsion can be exerted to effect the restoration of something worth less than a perutah in the case of hullin; this follows from the fact that the Baraitha deduces the necessity of such restoration only in the case of sacred objects. If the claim of the plaintiff was reduced in the course of the trial. V. p. 293, n. 8. V. Glos. Which was to be given to the priest. If he eats any of these in ignorance of their true nature. These count as one, 'terumah' being a generic designation for all. When trees were planted, their fruit was forbidden during the first three years. The produce of the fourth was permitted, but on the same terms as the second tithe, viz., it either had to be taken to Jerusalem for consumption or redeemed without Jerusalem and the money expended there; v. Lev. XIX, 24ff. On 'his own' v. supra, p. 272 n. 9. Here too 'his' is emphatic. Lev. V, 16. By ruling that one who eats the terumah of the tithe of demai must make restitution and add a fifth, though the law of demai is altogether only Rabbinical. It was a Rabbinic law that when a divorce was brought from overseas the messenger had to make this declaration, though by Biblical law this is unnecessary. We see from the above that in R. Meir's opinion the Sages enacted their laws with such stringency that if this formality was omitted the divorcee's subsequent marriage is null, even to the extent that the offspring is a bastard, as the child of a married woman who conceived in adultery. Lit., 'from the coin struck by the Sages.' In each case the former of the pair is redeemed by the latter. Hence the last clause means that in the case of demai copper coins may be redeemed outside Jerusalem by substituting produce (not of the second tithe) for them, which produce in turn becomes sanctified. Dem. II, 6. The translation follows Tosaf. R. Meir permits the produce to be redeemed, though that itself was formerly employed for redeeming the money; whilst the Sages maintain that in these circumstances the produce itself must be taken to Jerusalem. Hence R. Meir is more lenient here in respect to demai than the Sages, which contradicts Samuel's assertion above that in this R. Meir is particularly stringent (more so than the Rabbis). According to Tosaf., this is adduced to shew further that R. Meir is more lenient than the Sages. In Rashi's view, however, this is part of the reasoning leading up to R. Shesheth's objection. And the owner wishes to spend the hullin money outside of Jerusalem. I.e., the best sela' of the two; these are now both hullin. With the finer sela' which now becomes second tithe. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference |  |  |