## Bava Metzia Daf 54b

###### Bava Metzia 54b:1
[Bava Metzia 54b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/54b:1)

שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ חוּמְשׁוֹ כְּמוֹתוֹ. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Learn from it** that the legal status of **its one-fifth** payment is **like** that of the principal **itself,** in that it must be paid from non-sacred property. The Gemara affirms: **Learn from it** that it is so.


###### Bava Metzia 54b:2
[Bava Metzia 54b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/54b:2)

אָמַר רָבָא, גַּבֵּי גָּזֵל כְּתִיב: ״וַחֲמִשִׁתָיו יֹסֵף עָלָיו״. וּתְנַן: נָתַן לוֹ אֶת הַקֶּרֶן, וְנִשְׁבַּע לוֹ עַל הַחוֹמֶשׁ – הֲרֵי זֶה מוֹסִיף חוֹמֶשׁ עַל חוֹמֶשׁ, עַד שֶׁיִּתְמַעֵט הַקֶּרֶן פָּחוֹת מִשָּׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rava said: With regard to robbery, it is written:** “And he shall restore the robbed item that he robbed…**and he shall add its one-fifth payments to it”** (Leviticus 5:23–24), **and we learned** in a mishna (*Bava Kamma* 103a): If the robber **gave** the robbery victim **the principal and took** a false **oath to him concerning the** additional **one-fifth** payment, asserting that he had already paid it, then the additional one-fifth is considered a new principal obligation. **This** robber **adds** an additional **one-fifth** payment **apart from** the additional **one-fifth** payment about which he had taken a false oath. If he then takes a false oath concerning the second one-fifth payment, he is assessed an additional one-fifth payment for that oath, **until the principal,** i.e., the additional one-fifth payment about which he has most recently taken the false oath, **is reduced to less than the value of one *peruta*.**


###### Bava Metzia 54b:3
[Bava Metzia 54b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/54b:3)

גַּבֵּי תְּרוּמָה כְּתִיב: ״אִישׁ כִּי יֹאכַל קֹדֶשׁ בִּשְׁגָגָה וְיָסַף חֲמִשִׁיתוֹ עָלָיו״. וּתְנַן: הָאוֹכֵל תְּרוּמָה בְּשׁוֹגֵג – מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וָחוֹמֶשׁ. אֶחָד הָאוֹכֵל וְאֶחָד הַשּׁוֹתֶה וְאֶחָד הַסָּךְ. אֶחָד תְּרוּמָה טְהוֹרָה, וְאֶחָד תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה – מְשַׁלֵּם חוּמְשָׁהּ וְחוּמְשָׁא דְחוּמְשָׁא. וְאִילּוּ גַּבֵּי מַעֲשֵׂר, לָא מִכְתָּב כְּתִיב, וְלָא מִיתְנָא תְּנֵא, וְלָא אִיבְּעוֹיֵי אִיבַּעְיָא לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava continues: **With regard to *teruma*** too, **it is written: “If a man eats that which is sacred unwittingly, then he shall add its one-fifth payment to it”** (Leviticus 22:14), **and as we learned** in a mishna (*Terumot* 6:1): **One who partakes of *teruma* unwittingly pays** the **principal and** an additional **one-fifth.** This is the *halakha* **whether** it concerns **one who partakes of** *teruma*, **or one who drinks** it, **or one who applies** oil to himself; or **whether** it is **ritually pure *teruma* or ritually impure *teruma*. He pays its one-fifth** payment, **and** if he partook of that one-fifth, he pays **one-fifth of its one-fifth.** Rava concludes: **While with regard to** second **tithe,** it **is neither written** in the Torah, **nor taught** in **a mishna, nor raised as a dilemma before us** by the *amora’im*.


###### Bava Metzia 54b:4
[Bava Metzia 54b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/54b:4)

גַּבֵּי הֶקְדֵּשׁ כְּתִיב: ״וְאִם הַמַּקְדִּישׁ יִגְאַל אֶת בֵּיתוֹ וְיָסַף חֲמִישִׁית כֶּסֶף עֶרְכְּךָ״. וּתְנַן: הַפּוֹדֶה אֶת הֶקְדֵּשׁוֹ – מוֹסִיף חוֹמֶשׁ. חוּמְשָׁא תְּנַן, חוּמְשָׁא דְחוּמְשָׁא לָא תְּנַן. מַאי? גַּבֵּי תְּרוּמָה כְּתִיב ״וְיָסַף״, גַּבֵּי קֹדֶשׁ נָמֵי הָא כְּתִיב ״וְיָסַף״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara pursues a similar line of inquiry: **With regard to consecrated** property **it is written: “And if he who consecrated it will redeem his house, then he shall add one-fifth of the money of your valuation** unto it, and it shall be his” (Leviticus 27:15), **and we learned** in a mishna (55b): **One who redeems his** own **consecrated** property that he consecrated himself **adds one-fifth** to the sum of the redemption. **We learned one-fifth; we did not learn one-fifth of the one-fifth. What** is the *halakha*? The Gemara elaborates: **With regard to *teruma* it is written: “Then he shall add,”** and **with regard to consecrated** property **too, isn’t it written: “Then he shall add”?** Apparently, in a case of consecrated property one also pays one-fifth of the one-fifth.


###### Bava Metzia 54b:5
[Bava Metzia 54b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/54b:5)

אוֹ דִלְמָא גַּבֵּי תְּרוּמָה כְּתִיב ״וְיָסַף״: אִי שָׁקְלַתְּ לֵיהּ לְוָיו דִּ״וְיָסַף״ וְשָׁדֵית לֵיהּ עַל ״חֲמִשִּׁיתוֹ״, הָוֵה לֵיהּ ״חֲמִישִׁיתָיו״. גַּבֵּי הֶקְדֵּשׁ כְּתִיב ״וְיָסַף חֲמִישִׁית״: אַף עַל גַּב דְּכִי שָׁקְלַתְּ לֵיהּ לְוָיו דִּ״וְיָסַף״ וְשָׁדֵית לֵיהּ עַל ״חֲמִישִׁית״, סוֹף סוֹף הָוֵה לֵיהּ ״חֲמִשִׁתוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Or perhaps** we should learn the *halakha* as follows: **With regard to *teruma* it is written: “Then he shall add [*veyasaf* ],”** and the *halakha* of one-fifth of the one-fifth is derived in this manner: **If you take the** letter ***vav* of** the word ***veyasaf*, and cast it to** the end of the word ***ḥamishito*,** its one-fifth payment, **it** then **becomes** the plural ***ḥamishitav*,** its one-fifths payments, as it is written in the case of robbery, indicating that one pays one-fifth of one-fifth. **With regard to consecrated** property, **it is written: “Then he shall add [*veyasaf* ] one-fifth [*ḥamishit*].” Even when you take the *vav* of *veyasaf* and cast it to** the end of the word ***ḥamishit*, ultimately it is** only ***ḥamishito*,** in the singular, indicating payment of only a single one-fifth. What is the *halakha*?


###### Bava Metzia 54b:6
[Bava Metzia 54b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/54b:6)

וְתִיפּוֹק לֵיהּ דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ הֶקְדֵּשׁ שֵׁנִי. וְאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: אַהֶקְדֵּשׁ רִאשׁוֹן מוֹסִיף חוֹמֶשׁ, עַל הֶקְדֵּשׁ שֵׁנִי אֵין מוֹסִיף חוֹמֶשׁ! אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פַּפִּי לְרָבִינָא: הָכִי אָמַר רָבָא: חוֹמֶשׁ כִּתְחִילַּת הֶקְדֵּשׁ דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **And why not derive** the *halakha* of consecrated property from the fact **that it is** tantamount to **a second consecration.** When one redeems consecrated property with another item, although that item is thereby consecrated, not all the *halakhot* of consecrated property apply to it. **And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: For** redemption of **first consecration one adds one-fifth; for** redemption of **second consecration one does not add one-fifth. Rav Pappi said to Ravina** that **this** is what **Rava said:** The legal status of the additional **one-fifth is like** that **of initial consecration,** not like that of second consecration.


###### Bava Metzia 54b:7
[Bava Metzia 54b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/54b:7)

מַאי הָוֵה עֲלַהּ? אָמַר רַב טָבְיוֹמֵי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּאַבָּיֵי: אָמַר קְרָא ״וְיָסַף חֲמִישִׁית כֶּסֶף עֶרְכְּךָ״, מַקִּישׁ חוּמְשׁוֹ לְכֶסֶף עֶרְכּוֹ. מָה כֶּסֶף עֶרְכּוֹ מוֹסִיף חוֹמֶשׁ – אַף כֶּסֶף חוּמְשׁוֹ נָמֵי מוֹסִיף חוֹמֶשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** halakhic conclusion **was** reached **about** this dilemma? **Rav Tavyumei said in the name of Abaye** that **the verse states** with regard to one who redeems a house that he consecrated: **“Then he shall add one-fifth of the money of your valuation** unto it” (Leviticus 27:15). The Torah **juxtaposes its** payment of **one-fifth to the money of its valuation,** i.e., the consecrated house: **Just as** when redeeming **the money of its valuation one adds one-fifth, so too,** when redeeming **the money of its one-fifth, one adds one-fifth as well.**


###### Bava Metzia 54b:8
[Bava Metzia 54b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/54b:8)

גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: עַל הֶקְדֵּשׁ רִאשׁוֹן מוֹסִיף חוֹמֶשׁ, וְעַל הֶקְדֵּשׁ שֵׁנִי אֵין מוֹסִיף חוֹמֶשׁ. אָמַר רָבָא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי, אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְאִם הַמַּקְדִּישׁ יִגְאַל אֶת בֵּיתוֹ״. הַמַּקְדִּישׁ, וְלֹא הַמַּתְפִּיס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara analyzes **the** matter **itself. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: For** redemption of **first consecration one adds one-fifth; for** redemption of **second consecration one does not add one-fifth. Rava said: What is the reason** for the opinion **of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi?** It is as **the verse states: “And if he who consecrated it will redeem his house,** then he shall add one-fifth of the money of your valuation unto it” (Leviticus 27:15), from which it may be inferred that when **he who consecrates** the house redeems it, he adds one-fifth, **but** this is **not** so with regard to **one who associates** an item with an existing sanctity, as in this case, where the sanctity of the one-fifth is derived from its association with the sanctity of the house.


###### Bava Metzia 54b:9
[Bava Metzia 54b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/54b:9)

תָּנֵי תַּנָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: ״וְאִם בַּבְּהֵמָה הַטְּמֵאָה וּפָדָה בְעֶרְכֶּךָ״, מָה בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה מְיוּחֶדֶת, שֶׁתְּחִילָּתָהּ הֶקְדֵּשׁ וְכוּלָּהּ לַשָּׁמַיִם – וּמוֹעֲלִין בָּהּ, אַף כֹּל שֶׁתְּחִילָּתָהּ הֶקְדֵּשׁ וְכוּלָּהּ לַשָּׁמַיִם – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates that **the *tanna*** who recited *mishnayot* and *baraitot* in the study hall **taught** a *baraita* **before Rabbi Elazar.** It is written: **“And if it is of a non-kosher animal, then he shall redeem it according to your valuation”** (Leviticus 27:27). This verse teaches that **just as a non-kosher animal** that was consecrated **is unique** in **that it is** an example of **initial consecration and it is** devoted **entirely to Heaven,** as neither the owner nor anyone else may derive benefit from it after its consecration, **and one** violates the prohibition against **misuse** of consecrated property **by** using **it** after it was consecrated, **so too,** with regard to **any** item that both undergoes **initial consecration and is** devoted **entirely to Heaven, one** violates the prohibition against **misuse** of consecrated property **by** using **it** after it was consecrated.


###### Bava Metzia 54b:10
[Bava Metzia 54b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/54b:10)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר לְתַנָּא: בִּשְׁלָמָא ״כּוּלָּהּ לַשָּׁמַיִם״ – לְמַעוֹטֵי קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים, כֵּיוָן דְּאִית לְהוּ לִבְעָלִים בְּגַוַּיְיהוּ – לֵית בְּהוּ מְעִילָה. אֶלָּא ״תְּחִילַּת הֶקְדֵּשׁ״ לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? תְּחִילַּת הֶקְדֵּשׁ הוּא דְּאִית בֵּיהּ מְעִילָה, סוֹף הֶקְדֵּשׁ לֵית בֵּיהּ מְעִילָה?! דִּלְמָא לְעִנְיַן חוֹמֶשׁ קָאָמְרַתְּ, וּכְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין, הָכִי קָאָמֵינָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Elazar said to the *tanna*: Granted,** the statement: **It is** devoted **entirely to Heaven,** serves **to exclude offerings of lesser sanctity,** e.g., peace-offerings. **Since the owners have** a share **in them,** as they may partake of those offerings, **they are not subject to** the prohibition against **misuse** of consecrated property. **But what** does the mention of **initial consecration** in the *baraita* serve **to exclude?** Is it that **initial consecration is subject to** the prohibition against **misuse** of consecrated property and **ultimate consecration is not subject to** the prohibition against **misuse** of consecrated property? Even the property consecrated last in a series of redemptions is full-fledged consecrated property. **Perhaps** it is with regard **to** the **matter of** the payment of **one-fifth** that **you are saying** this, **and** it is **in accordance with** the statement of **Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi?** The *tanna* **said to him: Yes, that is** what **I am saying.**


###### Bava Metzia 54b:11
[Bava Metzia 54b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/54b:11)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי לְרָבִינָא: בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה בִּתְחִילַּת הֶקְדֵּשׁ אִיתַהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Apropos that *baraita*, **Rav Ashi said to Ravina:** Is it so that **a non-kosher animal is** subject **to initial consecration**