Bava Metzia

the owners must give twenty-six; 'for twenty-two,' the owners must give twenty-seven; 'for twenty-three,' the owners must pay twenty-eight; 'for twenty-four,' the owners must pay twenty-nine; 'for twenty-five,' the owners must pay thirty; because a fifth is not added on this man's higher valuation.  This proves that the fifth is calculated on the outer sum.  This proves it. This is disputed by Tannaim: Then he shall add a fifth part of it thereto  — i.e., it [sc. the principal] plus its fifth shall amount to five:  this is the view of R. Josia. R. Jonathan said: 'A fifth part of it' means a fifth of the principal. The scholars propounded: Does the fifth restrain or not?  [Thus:] do four [zuz] redeem four [zuz's worth of second tithes], whilst a fifth is independently added,  so that the fifth is no bar [to the validity of the redemption]: or perhaps, four [zuz's worth] must be redeemed by five,  the fifth being [thus] a bar? — Said Rabina: Come and hear: demai  is not subject to the law of a 'fifth' or to the law of removal.  [This implies,] but the law of the principal does apply to it.  Why so?  [Surely because] the principal, which is indispensable for [tithe by] Biblical law, is required in the case of [tithe by] Rabbinic law; whereas the fifth, which is not a bar in [tithe by] Biblical law, is not required in the case of Rabbinic [tithe]! Shall we say that this is disputed by Tannaim? [It has been taught:] If one gave the principal but not the fifth: R. Eliezer ruled: It [the redeemed tithe] may be eaten [outside Jerusalem]; R. Joshua said: It may not be eaten. Said Rabbi: I approve of R. Eliezer's view for the Sabbath, and R. Joshua's view for week-days.  Now, since he said 'I approve of R. Eliezer's view for the Sabbath,' it follows that their dispute applies even to week-days; and since he said, 'I approve of R. Joshua's view for week-days,' it follows that their dispute applies even to the Sabbath. Surely then, they differ in this reasoning, viz., R. Eliezer holds that the fifth is no bar, whilst R. Joshua holds that it is! — Said R. papa: That is not so. All agree that the fifth is no bar, but here they differ as to whether we fear culpable omission. One Master holds that we fear culpable omission;  whilst the other Master maintains that we do not fear this. R. Johanan said: All agree in the case of hekdesh  that it is redeemed,  since the treasurers demand it in the market place.  Now, do they really not differ in respect to hekdesh? Surely it has been taught: If one gave the principal but did not give him [sc. the treasurer] the fifth: R. Eliezer said: He has redeemed it; whilst the Sages say: He has not redeemed it. Said Rabbi: I approve of R. Eliezer's view in respect to hekdesh,  and that of the Sages in respect to tithes. Now, since he said 'I approve of R. Eliezer's view In respect to hekdesh,' it follows that he himself [R. Eliezer] differs even in reference to the tithe; and since he said, 'I approve of the view of the Sages in respect to tithes,' it follows that they differ even on hekdesh! — But if it [R. Johanan's dictum] was stated, it was stated thus: R. Johanan said: All agree in respect to the Sabbath and hekdesh, that it is redeemed. Firstly, because it is written, And thou shalt call the Sabbath a delight;  and furthermore, since the treasurers demand it in the market place. Rami b. Hama said: Now, it has been said that hekdesh cannot be redeemed by land, for the Divine Law ordered, Then he shall give the money, and it shall be assured to him;  but can its fifth be 'redeemed by' [i.e., rendered in] land? [Again,] terumah can be repaid only by hullin,  for the Divine Law saith, Then he shall give unto the priest the holy thing,  implying, that which is eligible to be holy:  can its fifth  be rendered out of what is not hullin? [Further, the second] tithe cannot be redeemed by asimon,  because the Divine Law said, And thou shalt bind up the money in thy hand,  thus including everything which has a figure:  can its [additional] fifth be exchanged for uncoined metal? Now, it eventually transpired  that it [these questions] reached Raba. Thereupon he said to them: Scripture saith, [Then he shall add the fifth part of the money of thine estimation] unto it,  [which is] to include its fifth as equal to itself [sc. the principal]. Rabina said: We have learnt likewise: If one stole terumah but did not eat it, he must repay double the value of the terumah.  If he ate it,  he must repay two principals and a fifth, one principal and a fifth out of hullin,  and the other principal as the value of terumah.