Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) HOW MUCH IS THE ADDED FIFTH

(a) Question: Is the fifth an inner fifth (of the principal), or an outer fifth (of the principle and fifth, i.e. a quarter of the principal)?
(b) Answer (Ravina - Mishnah): If Reuven (the owner of a field) offers to redeem his field for 20, the same as others offer, he redeems it, because he adds a fifth;

1. If Shimon offers to redeem the field for 21, Reuven must pay 26 (the 20 he offered and five for the fifth, plus another one because he may not pay less principal than Shimon's appraisal).
2. Likewise, if Shimon offers between 22 and 25, Reuven must pay five more - the fifth of his own offer, and Shimon's appraisal - but he need not add a fifth of the excess of Shimon's offer over his own.

i. Since the fifth of 20 is five, this shows it is an outer fifth.

(c) Conclusion: Actually, Tana'im argue if it is an outer or inner fifth.

1. (Beraisa - R. Yoshiya): "V'Yasaf Chamishiso Alav" - it and the fifth are five (i.e. it is four, the fifth is one, an outer fifth);
2. R. Yonason says, "Chamishiso (its fifth)" - the fifth is of the principle (an inner fifth).

(a) Question: If the fifth was not given, was the redemption valid?

1. Does the principal redeem, and the added fifth is a separate obligation?
2. Or - perhaps the added fifth is needed to redeem!

(b) Answer (Mishnah): (Ma'aser Sheni of) Demai - the added fifth and Bi'ur do not apply to it.

1. Inference: One must pay principal (to redeem it).
2. The reason is, since principal is essential to redeem mid'Oraisa Ma'aser, it applies to mid'Rabanan Ma'aser;

i. Since the added fifth is not essential to redeem mid'Oraisa Ma'aser, it does not apply to mid'Rabanan Ma'aser.

(c) Suggestion: Tana'im argue if the added fifth is essential.

1. (Beraisa - R. Eliezer): If one gave the principal (to redeem Ma'aser) but not the added fifth, he may eat it;
2. R. Yehoshua says, he may not eat it.
3. Rebbi says, R. Eliezer's opinion is presumably true regarding Shabbos, R. Yehoshua's opinion is true for a weekday.

i. This implies, they argue both on Shabbos and on a weekday.
ii. Suggestion: R. Eliezer holds that the added fifth is not essential, R. Yehoshua holds that it is essential!

(d) Rejection (Rav Papa): No, all agree that the added fifth is not essential;

1. They argue whether we are concerned that he will neglect to pay it - R. Yehoshua is concerned, R. Eliezer is not.

(e) (R. Yochanan): All agree regarding Hekdesh that it is redeemed without the added fifth - since Gizbarim (treasurers of Hekdesh) demand payment from him in the market, we are not concerned that he will not pay.
(f) Question: But they argue regarding Hekdesh!

1. (Beraisa - R. Eliezer): If one gave the principal (to redeem Hekdesh) but not the added fifth, it is redeemed;
2. Chachamim say, it is not redeemed.
3. Rebbi says, R. Eliezer's opinion is presumably true regarding Hekdesh, Chachamim's opinion is true regarding Ma'aser.

i. This implies, they argue both regarding Hekdesh and Ma'aser!

(g) Correction (R. Yochanan): All agree regarding Hekdesh that on Shabbos, it is considered redeemed without the added fifth.

1. Firstly, "v'Karasa l'Shabbos Oneg" (therefore, Chachamim should be lenient to allow enjoyment of Shabbos);
2. Secondly, since Gizbarim demand payment from him in the market, surely he will pay.

(a) Question #1 (Rami bar Chama): Hekdesh cannot be redeemed on land - "v'Nosan ha'Kesef v'Kam Lo";

1. Can the added fifth be redeemed on land?

(b) Question #2 (Rami bar Chama): A non-Kohen that unintentionally ate Terumah - the payment for it must be from Chulin - "v'Nosan la'Kohen Es ha'Kodesh" - something fitting to become Kodesh;;

1. Must the added fifth be from Chulin?

(c) Question #3 (Rami bar Chama): Ma'aser cannot be redeemed on an Asimon - "v'Tzarta ha'Kesef b'Yadecha"; to include anything with a Tzurah (image);

1. Can the added fifth be redeemed on an Asimon?

(d) Answer (Rava): By all of these it says "Alav" - the added fifth has the same law as the principal.
(e) Support (Ravina - Mishnah): One who steals Terumah and did not eat it, he pays double the value of the Terumah;

1. If he ate it, he pays one principal and an added fifth from Chulin, and a second principal, the value of the Terumah.

2. This teaches that the added fifth is like the principal.

(a) (Rava): Regarding theft, it says "va'Chamishisav Yosef Alav".

1. (Mishnah): If Reuven paid the principle, and (falsely) swore that he also paid the added fifth, he must pay (the added fifth and) an additional fifth of the added fifth.
2. Each time he swears falsely about paying a fifth (of a fifth...) he is obligated to add a fifth of what he swore about, until the denied money is less than a Perutah.

(f) (Rava): Regarding a non-Kohen who unintentionally eats Terumah, it says "v'Yasaf Chamishiso Alav";

1. (Mishnah): A non-Kohen who unintentionally eats Terumah pays principal and an added fifth; this applies to one who eats, drinks or anoints, whether the Terumah is Tahor or Tamei;
2. He pays the added fifth and (if he eats the fifth after he gave it to the Kohen, which makes it Terumah) an added fifth on the fifth;
3. Regarding Ma'aser, we have no verse nor Mishnah teaching that he adds a fifth on the fifth - we have no doubt (clearly, if one redeems his Ma'aser and later redeems the redemption money, he (adds a second fifth on the principal but) does not add a fifth on the fifth, for we have no source for this).

(g) (Rava): Regarding Hekdesh, it says "v'Yasaf Chamishis";

1. (Mishnah): One who redeems Hekdesh - he adds a fifth;
2. The Mishnah says that he adds a fifth, it does not say that he adds a fifth on the fifth (if he redeems the redemption) - what is the law?

i. By Terumah, it says "va'Yasaf" - one can take the 'Vov' and append it to "Chamishiso", to make 'Chamishisav' (its fifths);
ii. Regarding Hekdesh, it says - even if we append the 'Vov', we are left with 'Chamishiso' (one fifth)!

(h) Question: We should know the law because it is secondary Hekdesh!

1. (R. Yehoshua ben Levi): One adds a fifth on initial Hekdesh, not on secondary Hekdesh.

(i) Answer (Rav Papi): Rava meant, the added fifth is like initial Hekdesh (since it does not come in place of another Kedushah).
(j) Question: What was the conclusion?
(k) Answer (Rav Tavyomi): "V'Yasaf Chamishis Kesef Erkecha" - the Torah equates the added fifth to money of Erchin.

1. Just as one adds a fifth on Erchin, also on the added fifth of Hekdesh.

(a) (R. Yehoshua ben Levi): One adds a fifth on initial Hekdesh, not on secondary Hekdesh.
(b) (Rava): He learns from "ha'Makdish" (one who makes new Hekdesh), - not ha'Matfis (one who imbues Chulin with the Kedushah of existing Hekdesh).
(c) (A Tana (reciter of Beraisos)): "Ba'Behemah ha'Teme'ah" - just as a Tamei animal is initial Hekdesh, and the owner has no part in it (it is Hekdesh of Bedek ha'Bayis), and Me'ilah applies to it, any initial Hekdesh in which the owner has no part in it, Me'ilah applies to it.
(d) (R. Elazar): I understand 'the owner has no part in it' - this excludes Kodshim Kalim - since the owner has a share, there is no Me'ilah,
(e) Question (R. Elazar): But 'initial Hekdesh' - what does this come to exclude? Can you say that Me'ilah only applies to initial Hekdesh, not to secondary Hekdesh?!

1. Perhaps it refers (not to Me'ilah, rather to) the added fifth, as R. Yehoshua ben Levi?

(f) The Tana: That is what I meant.