## Bava Metzia Daf 53b

###### Bava Metzia 53b:1
[Bava Metzia 53b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/53b:1)

אֲפִילּוּ בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם – שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי לֹא תוּכַל שְׂאֵתוֹ״, וְאֵין ״שְׂאֵת״ אֶלָּא אֲכִילָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיִּשָּׂא מַשְׂאֹת מֵאֵת פָּנָיו״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**even in Jerusalem,** although ritually pure second tithe cannot be desacralized in Jerusalem? It is **as it is stated: “For you are unable to carry [*se’et*] it…**and you shall turn it into money, and bind up the money in your hand” (Deuteronomy 14:24–25). **And *se’et* means nothing other than eating, as it is stated: “And he took portions [*masot*] from before him”** (Genesis 43:34). Since ritually impure second-tithe produce may not be consumed, Rabbi Elazar holds that one may desacralize it even if it had been brought into Jerusalem.


###### Bava Metzia 53b:2
[Bava Metzia 53b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/53b:2)

אֶלָּא בְּלָקוּחַ בְּכֶסֶף מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי. לָקוּחַ בְּכֶסֶף מַעֲשֵׂר נָמֵי לִיפְרְקֵיהּ, דִּתְנַן: הַלָּקוּחַ בְּכֶסֶף מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי שֶׁנִּטְמָא – יִפָּדֶה! כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּאָמַר יִקָּבֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the *halakha* of the *baraita* is taught not with regard to second-tithe produce, but **with regard to** food **acquired with second-tithe money,** which cannot be desacralized. The Gemara asks: With regard to food **acquired with second-tithe money too, let him redeem it, as we learned** in a mishna (*Ma’aser Sheni* 3:10): Food **acquired with second-tithe money that became ritually impure should be redeemed.** The Gemara answers: The *baraita* is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, who says:** Food acquired with second-tithe money that became ritually impure **must be buried** and may not be redeemed.


###### Bava Metzia 53b:3
[Bava Metzia 53b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/53b:3)

אִי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, מַאי אִירְיָא ״יָצָא״? אֲפִילּוּ לֹא יָצָא נָמֵי, אֶלָּא: לְעוֹלָם בְּטָהוֹר, וּמַאי ״יָצָא״ – דִּנְפוּל מְחִיצוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If** the *baraita* is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, why** did the *tanna* teach **specifically** a case where the food **exited** Jerusalem? **Even** if it **did not exit** Jerusalem, that *halakha* **also** applies, as he holds that once the food becomes ritually impure it must be buried. **Rather, actually,** it is taught in the *baraita* **with regard to** second tithe that is **ritually pure, and what** is the meaning of **exited?** It is not that the produce actually exited Jerusalem. Rather, the *baraita* is discussing a case **where the partitions,** i.e., the walls, surrounding the city **fell.** The legal status of that second-tithe produce is that of produce that exited the city.


###### Bava Metzia 53b:4
[Bava Metzia 53b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/53b:4)

וְהָאָמַר רָבָא: מְחִיצָה לֶאֱכוֹל – דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, מְחִיצוֹת לִקְלוֹט – דְּרַבָּנַן. וְכִי גְּזַרוּ דְּרַבָּנַן: כִּי אִיתַנְהוּ לִמְחִיצוֹת. כִּי לֵיתַנְהוּ לִמְחִיצוֹת – לָא גְּזַרוּ רַבָּנַן! לָא פְּלוּג רַבָּנַן בֵּין אִיתַנְהוּ לִמְחִיצוֹת, בֵּין לֵיתַנְהוּ לִמְחִיצוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But doesn’t Rava say:** The *halakha* that **a partition** enables one **to eat** second-tithe produce is **by Torah law,** and the *halakha* with regard to the capability of **partitions** of the city **to gather** second-tithe produce into the city is **by rabbinic law, and when the Sages issued a decree** that partitions gather second-tithe produce in terms of their being considered within the city, they did so only **where there are** intact **partitions,** but **where there are no** intact **partitions, the Sages did not issue a decree?** The Gemara answers: Once they issued the decree, **the Sages did not distinguish between** cases where **there are** intact **partitions** and cases where **there are not** intact **partitions.** Once the Sages issued the decree with regard to partitions and the produce being gathered they applied it globally. This is one manner of explaining the *baraita*.


###### Bava Metzia 53b:5
[Bava Metzia 53b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/53b:5)

רַב הוּנָא בַּר יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: חֲדָא קָתָנֵי: מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה שֶׁנִּכְנַס לִירוּשָׁלַיִם וְיָצָא. אַמַּאי? וְנִיהְדַּר וּנְעַיְּילֵיהּ וְנֵיכְלֵיהּ! דִּנְפוּל מְחִיצוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna bar Yehuda** said that **Rav Sheshet said:** The *tanna* of the *baraita* **is teaching one** *halakha*: It is **with regard to second-tithe** produce **that is not worth** even **one *peruta*** and **which** both **entered Jerusalem and** then **exited** it. It cannot be redeemed because it is worth less than one *peruta*. The Gemara asks: **Why? And let him bring it back** into Jerusalem **and partake of it** there. The Gemara answers: It is a case **where the partitions** surrounding the city **fell.**


###### Bava Metzia 53b:6
[Bava Metzia 53b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/53b:6)

וְנִפְרְקֵיהּ? הָאָמַר רָבָא: מְחִיצָה לֶאֱכוֹל דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, מְחִיצָה לִקְלוֹט דְּרַבָּנַן, וְכִי גְּזַרוּ רַבָּנַן – כִּי אִיתַנְהוּ לִמְחִיצוֹת. כִּי לֵיתַנְהוּ לִמְחִיצוֹת – לָא גְּזַרוּ רַבָּנַן. לָא פְּלוּג רַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And let him redeem** the second-tithe produce, as **doesn’t Rava say:** The *halakha* that **a partition** enables one **to eat** second-tithe produce is **by Torah law,** and the *halakha* with regard to the capability of **partitions** of the city **to gather** second-tithe produce into the city is **by rabbinic law, and when the Sages issued a decree** that partitions gather second-tithe produce in terms of their being considered within the city, they did so only **where there are** intact **partitions,** but **where there are no** intact **partitions, the Sages did not issue a decree?** The Gemara answers: **The Sages did not distinguish** between cases where there are intact partitions and cases where there are not intact partitions.


###### Bava Metzia 53b:7
[Bava Metzia 53b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/53b:7)

אִי הָכִי, מַאי אִירְיָא אֵין בּוֹ שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה? אֲפִילּוּ יֵשׁ בּוֹ נָמֵי! לָא מִיבַּעְיָא קָאָמַר. לָא מִיבַּעְיָא יֵשׁ בּוֹ, דְּקָלְטָן לֵיהּ מְחִיצוֹת. אֲבָל אֵין בּוֹ, אֵימָא: לָא קְלַטוּ לֵיהּ מְחִיצוֹת, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **If so, why** did the *tanna* teach **specifically** a case where the produce **does not have the value of one *peruta*?** The same would hold true **even if it has** the value of one *peruta*. The Gemara answers: The *tanna* **is speaking** utilizing the style of: **It is not necessary. It is not necessary** to state that if the produce **has** the value of one *peruta* the *halakha* is **that the partitions gather it** and it can no longer be redeemed, **but** if **it does not have** the value of one *peruta*, **say** that **the partitions do not gather it.** Therefore, **he teaches us** that the partitions gather even second-tithe produce worth less than one *peruta*, and it cannot be redeemed.


###### Bava Metzia 53b:8
[Bava Metzia 53b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/53b:8)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״אִם גָּאֹל יִגְאַל אִישׁ מִמַּעַשְׂרוֹ״, מִמַּעַשְׂרוֹ – וְלֹא כׇּל מַעַשְׂרוֹ. פְּרָט לְמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה. אִיתְּמַר. רַב אַמֵּי אָמַר: אֵין בּוֹ. רַב אַסִּי אָמַר: אֵין בְּחוּמְשׁוֹ. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֵין בּוֹ. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר: אֵין בְּחוּמְשׁוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught** that it is written: **“And if a man will redeem of his tithe,** he shall add to it the fifth part thereof” (Leviticus 27:31), from which it is inferred: **Of his tithe, but not all his tithe.** This serves **to exclude second tithe that does not have the value of one *peruta*,** which cannot be redeemed. **It was stated** that there is an amoraic dispute with regard to this *halakha*. **Rav Ami says:** The second tithe cannot be redeemed in a case where the produce itself **does not have** the value of one *peruta*. **Rav Asi says:** The second tithe cannot be redeemed in a case where **its** additional payment of **one-fifth does not have** the value of one *peruta*. Other *amora’im* dispute the same issue. **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** The produce itself **does not have** the value of one *peruta*. **Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: Its** additional payment of **one-fifth does not have** the value of one *peruta*.


###### Bava Metzia 53b:9
[Bava Metzia 53b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/53b:9)

מֵיתִיבִי: מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה – דַּיּוֹ שֶׁיֹּאמַר ״הוּא וְחוּמְשׁוֹ מְחוּלָּל עַל מָעוֹת רִאשׁוֹנוֹת״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** from a *baraita*: With regard to **second-tithe** produce **that does not have the value of one *peruta*,** it is **sufficient that he will say: It and its** additional payment of **one-fifth are desacralized upon the first coins** upon which I already redeemed second-tithe produce.


###### Bava Metzia 53b:10
[Bava Metzia 53b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/53b:10)

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״אֵין בְּחוּמְשׁוֹ״ – הַיְינוּ דְּקָתָנֵי ״דַּיּוֹ״, דְּאַף עַל גַּב דִּבְדִידֵיהּ אִית בֵּיהּ, כֵּיוָן דִּבְחוּמְשֵׁיהּ לֵיכָּא – שַׁפִּיר. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״אֵין בּוֹ״, מַאי ״דַּיּוֹ״? קַשְׁיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the objection: **Granted, according to the one who says:** There is **not** the value of a *peruta* **in its** additional payment of **one-fifth, this** is the reason **that the** *tanna* **teaches: It is sufficient,** which indicates **that even though in** the produce **itself it has** the value of one *peruta*, **since** there is **not** the value of a *peruta* **in its one-fifth** payment, it works out **well,** as it is sufficient if he redeems the produce with other second-tithe produce. **But according to the one who says:** It is in a case where the produce itself **does not have** the value of one *peruta* that the second tithe cannot be redeemed, **what** is the meaning of: **It is sufficient?** From the outset, there was never sufficient value for there to be any element of redemption. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is **difficult** to explain the *baraita* according to that opinion.


###### Bava Metzia 53b:11
[Bava Metzia 53b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/53b:11)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: חוּמְשָׁא מִלְּגָיו, אוֹ חוּמְשָׁא מִלְּבַר? אָמַר רָבִינָא, תָּא שְׁמַע: הַבְּעָלִים אוֹמְרִים בְּעֶשְׂרִים, וְכׇל אָדָם בְּעֶשְׂרִים – הַבְּעָלִים קוֹדְמִין מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמּוֹסִיפִין חוֹמֶשׁ. אָמַר אֶחָד: הֲרֵי עָלַי בְּעֶשְׂרִים וְאֶחָד –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ Apropos the additional payment of one-fifth, **a dilemma was raised before** the Sages: Is the payment of **one-fifth** calculated **from within,** i.e., one-fifth of the value of the redeemed item, **or** is the payment of **one-fifth** calculated **from without,** meaning one-quarter of the value of the redeemed item, which is one-fifth of the eventual payment, i.e., the principal plus the additional one-fifth? **Ravina says: Come** and **hear** a resolution of the dilemma from a *baraita*: In a case where **the owner says** he is willing to redeem consecrated property **for twenty** dinars, **and any** other **person** is willing to purchase the property **for twenty** dinars, **the owners take precedence** and redeem the property **due to** the fact **that they** are obligated to **add one-fifth,** and the Temple treasury profits more from the owner than from anyone else. If **one** who is not the owner **said: It is** incumbent **upon me** to desacralize it **for twenty-one** dinars,