Bava Metzia

but not of intermediary hekdesh!  — He replied, Because it is incapable of final hekdesh.  But R. Aha of Difti objected to Rabina: Yet it is capable of 'intermediary hekdesh:' then let a fifth be added too!  — He replied: It is as final hekdesh: just as a fifth is not added for final hekdesh,  so for intermediary hekdesh no fifth is added. R. Zutra, son of R. Mari, said to Rabina: On what grounds  do you liken it to final hekdesh? Liken it [rather] to original hekdesh! — He replied: It is logical to liken it to final hekdesh, since thereby transferred [sanctity is deduced] from transferred [sanctity]. On the contrary, it should rather be compared with original hekdesh, [deducing] that which may be followed by sanctity from that which may be followed by sanctity!  — It is as Raba said, [viz.,] [And the fire upon the altar shall be burning in it; it shall not be put out: and the priest shall burn wood on it every morning, and lay] the burnt offering [in order upon it; and he shall burn thereon the fat of the peace offering]  implies 'the first burnt offering;  so here too, [and if it be of] the unclean [beast] denotes the first uncleanliness [to which it may be subject]. It has been taught in accordance with R. Joshua b. Levi: [If one declared,] 'This cow is a substitute for this cow of hekdesh';  'this garment be instead of this other garment of hekdesh', his consecrated object is redeemed, whilst hekdesh has the upper hand.  [Even if he declares,] 'This cow, which is worth five sela's be a substitute for this other cow of hekdesh', or 'this garment, worth five sela's, be instead of this other garment of hekdesh', his consecrated object is redeemed.  For the first hekdesh he must add a fifth, but not for the second. MISHNAH. OVERREACHING IS CONSTITUTED BY FOUR SILVER [MA'AHS].  THE [MINIMUM] CLAIM IS TWO SILVER [MA'AHS],  AND ADMISSION IS [AT LEAST] THE VALUE OF A PERUTAH.'  A PERUTAH WAS SPECIFIED IN FIVE INSTANCES: [i] ADMISSION MUST BE [AT LEAST] THE EQUIVALENT OF A PERUTAH; [ii] A WOMAN IS BETROTHED BY THE VALUE OF A PERUTAH;  [iii] HE WHO BENEFITS FROM HEKDESH TO THE VALUE OF A PERUTAH IS LIABLE TO A TRESPASS OFFERING; [iv] HE WHO FINDS [AN ARTICLE] WORTH A PERUTAH IS BOUND TO PROCLAIM IT, AND [v] HE WHO ROBS HIS NEIGHBOUR OF THE VALUE OF A PERUTAH AND SWEARS [FALSELY] TO HIM [CONCERNING IT],  MUST FOLLOW HIM TO RETURN IT  EVEN AS FAR AS MEDIA. GEMARA. But we have already learnt it once: fraud is constituted by [an overcharge of] four silver [ma'ahs] in twenty four, which is a sela', [hence] a sixth of the purchase!  — He [the Tanna] desires [to state], THE [MINIMUM] CLAIM IS TWO SILVER [MA'AHS], AND ADMISSION IS [AT LEAST] THE VALUE OF A PERUTAH.  But that too we have [already] learnt: The judicial oath is [imposed] for a claim of two silver [ma'ahs] and an admission of a perutah! — The last clause is necessary, viz., A PERUTAH IS SPECIFIED IN FIVE INSTANCES. A PERUTAH IS SPECIFIED IN FIVE INSTANCES etc. But let him [the Tanna] teach also, [The minimum] overreaching is a perutah!  — Said R. Kahana: This proves that the law of overreaching does not apply to perutahs.  But Levi maintained: The law of overreaching does apply to perutahs. And thus did Levi read in his Baraitha [collection]:  A perutah was specified in five instances: [i] [Minimum] overreaching is a perutah; [ii] Admission is a perutah; [iii] The kiddushin of a woman is with a perutah; [iv] Robbery [imposes its obligations] on account of a perutah; and [v] The court session is on account of a perutah.  Now, why does our Tanna not include the court session? — He includes it under robbery.  Yet does he not teach both robbery and loss?  — Those are [both] necessary. 'Robbery', [to teach that] HE WHO ROBS HIS NEIGHBOUR OF THE VALUE OF A PERUTAH AND SWEARS [FALSELY] TO HIM [CONCERNING IT], MUST FOLLOW HIM TO RETURN IT EVEN AS FAR AS MEDIA.  'A loss:' [thus] HE WHO FINDS [AN ARTICLE] WORTH A PERUTAH IS BOUND TO PROCLAIM IT, even if it depreciated [after being found].  Now, why does Levi not teach that a loss [in the sense of the Mishnah] is [at least] a perutah? — He teaches robbery. But does he not teach both robbery and the court session?  — He needs [to teach that] in order to reject the view of R. Kattina, who said, The court sits  even for less than a perutah's worth. Now, why does Levi omit hekdesh? — He deals with hullin, not sacred objects. Then since our Tanna does treat of sacred objects, let him teach, The [minimum of second] tithe [to be eligible for redemption] is a perutah.  — [The omission is] in accordance with the view that if its fifth is less than a perutah [it cannot be redeemed]. Then let him state, The [added] fifth of the [second] tithe must be [not less than] a perutah. — He treats of principals, not fifths. The [above text] states: 'R. Kattina said: The court sits even for less than a perutah's worth.' Raba objected: And he shall make amends for the harm that he hath done in the holy thing: