Bava Metzia

This proves that the fifth is as the principal. Raba said: With respect to robbery it is written, [he shall even restore it in the principal,] and shall add the fifth part more thereto;  and we learnt: If he restored the principal and then swore [falsely] concerning the fifth,  he must then add  a fifth upon the fifth,  [and so on,] until the principal is less than a perutah's worth.  With respect to terumah, it is written, And if a man eat of the holy thing unwittingly, then he shall add the fifth part thereof unto it.  And we learnt: If one eats terumah unwittingly, he must restore the principal and a fifth; whether he eats, drinks or anoints [therewith]; whether it was undefiled or defiled terumah, he must pay a fifth and a fifth of the fifth.  With respect to [the second] tithe it is neither written  nor taught,  nor do we regard it at all as a problem.  With respect to hekdesh it is written, And if he that sanctified it will redeem his house, then he shall add the fifth part of the money of thy estimation unto it.  And we learnt: He who redeems his hekdesh adds a fifth.  Now, only a fifth was thus taught, but not a fifth of the fifth.  What then [is the law]? [The problem arises for this reason:] With respect to terumah it is written, and he shall add [we-yasaf];  then with respect to hekdesh too it is likewise written, and he shall add [weyasaf]:  or perhaps, with respect to terumah it is written he shall add [we-yasaf], and if you remove the waw from we-yasaf and add it to hamishito [the fifth part thereof] it becomes hamishithaw [the fifth parts thereof];  whereas in respect to hekdesh is written, and he shall add the fifth part [we-yasaf hamishith], and even if you remove the waw from we-yasaf and add it to hamishith, after all it only becomes hamishitho.  But cannot this [sc. the answer to the problem] be deduced from the fact that it [the fifth] is a second hekdesh, and R. Joshua b. Levi said: A fifth is added to first [i.e., original] hekdesh [in redemption], but not to second hekdesh.  — Said R. papa to Rabina: Thus did Raba say: The fifth ranks as original hekdesh. What is our decision in the matter? — R. Tabyomi said in Abaye's name: Scripture saith, Then he shall add the fifth part of the money of thy estimation [unto it]: thus its fifth is assimilated to its assessed value:  just as a fifth is added to the assessed value, so is a fifth added to the fifth of its value. The [above] text states: 'R. Joshua b. Levi said: A fifth is added to first [i.e., original] hekdesh [in redemption], but not to second hekdesh' Said Raba: What is R. Joshua b. Levi's reason? — Scripture says, And if he that sanctified it will redeem his house, [then he shall add the fifth part]: implying, only he who sanctified, but not he who transferred [its sanctity]. A tanna recited before R. Eleazar: And if it be of the unclean beast,  then he shall redeem it according to thine estimation [, and shall add a fifth part of it thereto]:  just as an unclean beast is distinguished in that it is the original dedication,  belongs entirely to Heaven,  and it involves trespass;  so everything which is original hekdesh and belongs entirely to Heaven involves one in trespass. Thereupon R. Eleazar observed to the tanna: As for [the stipulation] that it must belong entirely to Heaven, it is well: that excludes sacrifices of secondary sanctity;  since its owners enjoy part thereof,  they involve no trespass offering. But what is 'original dedication' intended to exclude? [Do you mean that] only original hekdesh involves a trespass offering, but not final hekdesh!  perhaps you said it in reference to the fifth, and in agreement with R. Joshua b. Levi?  — Even so, he replied, that is what I meant. R. Ashi said to Rabina: Is an unclean animal capable only of original hekdesh,