## Bava Metzia Daf 55b

###### Bava Metzia 55b:1
[Bava Metzia 55b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/55b:1)

לְרַבּוֹת פָּחוֹת מִשָּׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה לְהִישָּׁבוֹן. לְקֹדֶשׁ – אִין, אֲבָל לְהֶדְיוֹט – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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*.


###### Bava Metzia 55b:2
[Bava Metzia 55b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/55b:2)

אֶלָּא, אִי אִתְּמַר הָכִי אִתְּמַר: אָמַר רַב קַטִּינָא, אִם הוּזְקְקוּ בֵּית דִּין לְשָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה – גּוֹמְרִין, אֲפִילּוּ לְפָחוֹת מִשָּׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה. תְּחִילַּת הַדִּין בָּעֵינַן פְּרוּטָה, גְּמַר הַדִּין לָא בָּעֵינַן פְּרוּטָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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*.**


###### Bava Metzia 55b:3
[Bava Metzia 55b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/55b:3)

**מַתְנִי׳** חֲמִשָּׁה חוּמְשִׁין הֵן, אֵלּוּ הֵן: הָאוֹכֵל תְּרוּמָה, וּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר, וּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁל דְּמַאי, וְהַחַלָּה, וְהַבִּכּוּרִים – מוֹסִיף חוֹמֶשׁ. וְהַפּוֹדֶה נֶטַע רְבָעִי וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי שֶׁלּוֹ – מוֹסִיף חוֹמֶשׁ. הַפּוֹדֶה אֶת הֶקְדֵּשׁוֹ – מוֹסִיף חוֹמֶשׁ. הַנֶּהֱנֶה שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה מִן הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ – מוֹסִיף חוֹמֶשׁ. וְהַגּוֹזֵל אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה וְנִשְׁבַּע לוֹ – מוֹסִיף חוֹמֶשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bava Metzia 55b:4
[Bava Metzia 55b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/55b:4)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רָבָא: קַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁל דְּמַאי, וְכִי עָשׂוּ חֲכָמִים חִיזּוּק לְדִבְרֵיהֶם כְּשֶׁל תּוֹרָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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?


###### Bava Metzia 55b:5
[Bava Metzia 55b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/55b:5)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הָא מַנִּי – רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, דְּאָמַר עָשׂוּ חֲכָמִים חִיזּוּק לְדִבְרֵיהֶם כְּשֶׁל תּוֹרָה. דְּתַנְיָא: הַמֵּבִיא גֵּט מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם, נְתָנוֹ לָהּ וְלֹא אָמַר לָהּ ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״ – יוֹצִיא, וְהַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין הַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר. כֵּיצַד יַעֲשֶׂה? יִטְּלֶנּוּ מִמֶּנָּה וְיַחֲזוֹר וְיִתְּנֶנּוּ לָהּ בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם, וְיֹאמַר לָהּ: ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Bava Metzia 55b:6
[Bava Metzia 55b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/55b:6)

וּלְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, מִשּׁוּם דְּלֹא אָמַר לָהּ ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״, יוֹצִיא וְהַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר? אִין, רַבִּי מֵאִיר לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רַב הַמְנוּנָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּעוּלָּא: אוֹמֵר הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר: כָּל הַמְשַׁנֶּה מִמַּטְבֵּעַ שֶׁטָּבְעוּ חֲכָמִים בְּגִיטִּין – יוֹצִיא, וְהַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Metzia 55b:7
[Bava Metzia 55b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/55b:7)

מֵתִיב רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: מְחַלְּלִין אוֹתוֹ כֶּסֶף עַל כֶּסֶף, נְחוֹשֶׁת עַל נְחוֹשֶׁת, כֶּסֶף עַל נְחוֹשֶׁת, וּנְחוֹשֶׁת עַל הַפֵּירוֹת, וְיַחְזוֹר וְיִפְדֶּה אֶת הַפֵּירוֹת – דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: יַעֲלוּ פֵּירוֹת וְיֹאכְלוּ בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bava Metzia 55b:8
[Bava Metzia 55b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/55b:8)

וּמִי מְחַלְּלִינַן כֶּסֶף עַל נְחוֹשֶׁת? וְהָא תְּנַן: סֶלַע שֶׁל מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְשֶׁל חוּלִּין שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ, מֵבִיא בְּסֶלַע מָעוֹת וְאוֹמֵר: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁיֶּשְׁנָהּ סֶלַע שֶׁל מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי, מְחוּלֶּלֶת עַל מָעוֹת הַלָּלוּ, וּבוֹרֵר אֶת הַיָּפֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן וּמְחַלְּלוֹ עָלֶיהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.