the owner gives a payment of twenty-six dinars. Were they to enable the other person to purchase it for twenty-one dinars, the Temple treasury would incur a loss, as the principal plus one-fifth paid by the owner is greater than the payment of the other person, who must pay only the principal. Were the owner to pay only twenty for the principal and add one-fifth, the principal paid by the owner is less than the sum offered by the other person. Therefore, the owner pays the principal proposed by the other person and then adds the payment of one-fifth that he was obligated to pay based on his own offer, i.e., five dinars, for a total of twenty-six. Likewise, if the other person offers twenty-two dinars, the owner gives twenty-seven; if the other person offers twenty-three, the owner gives twenty-eight; if the other person offers twenty-four, the owner gives twenty-nine.

If the other person offers twenty-five dinars, the owner gives thirty, due to the fact that the owner does not add one-fifth based on the raise in the offer of this other person, but only on the principal according to his own offer. It is clear from these calculations that a principal of twenty plus an addition of one-fifth equal twenty-five dinars. Learn from it that one-fifth is calculated from without, meaning one-quarter of the value of the redeemed item. The Gemara affirms: Learn from it that this is the halakha.

The Gemara comments: The two sides of this dilemma are parallel to a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita that it is written: “And shall add unto it one-fifth part thereof” (Leviticus 27:27). This means that the item and its additional one-fifth payment will total five parts; one-fifth is calculated from without; this is the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya. Rabbi Yonatan says: Its one-fifth means one-fifth of the principal; one-fifth is calculated from within.

§ A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Does failure to pay the additional one-fifth prevent consumption outside of Jerusalem of second tithe that was redeemed, or does it not prevent consumption? The dilemma is: Is second-tithe produce worth four dinars redeemed with four dinars, and the obligation to add the payment of one-fifth is an obligation incumbent upon the owner himself? In that case, apparently, failure to pay the additional one-fifth does not prevent consumption. Or perhaps second-tithe produce worth four dinars is redeemed with five dinars, no less, and failure to pay the additional one-fifth prevents consumption.

Ravina said: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from a mishna (Demai 1:2): For second tithe of doubtfully tithed produce [demai], whose status is that of untithed produce by rabbinic law, there is no payment of one-fifth if the owner redeems its second tithe, and there is no obligation of the eradication of tithes after three years, as is the case with tithes taken from untithed produce.

Ravina explains: But by inference, there is payment of principal. Although there is no obligation to add one-fifth, second tithe separated from demai requires redemption. What is the reason for this? Apparently, concerning the principal, about which failure to pay it prevents consumption of second tithe of untithed produce by Torah law, it is also a sum that must be paid in the case of demai by rabbinic law. Concerning the payment of one-fifth, about which failure to pay it does not prevent consumption of second tithe of untithed produce by Torah law, it is not a sum that must be paid in the case of demai by rabbinic law.

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the two sides of this dilemma are parallel to a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: In a case where one gave payment to redeem the principal but did not give payment of the additional one-fifth, Rabbi Eliezer says: One may eat it, and Rabbi Yehoshua says: One may not eat it. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The statement of Rabbi Eliezer appears correct with regard to Shabbat, when the Sages deemed it permitted for one to eat without the additional payment, in deference to Shabbat, and the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua appears correct with regard to the days of the week.

The Gemara infers: From the fact that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The statement of Rabbi Eliezer appears correct with regard to Shabbat, by inference they disagree even with regard to the days of the week. Likewise, from the fact that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The statement of Rabbi Yehoshua appears correct with regard to the days of the week, by inference they disagree even with regard to Shabbat. Apparently, theirs is a fundamental dispute.

What, is it not that they disagree with regard to this reasoning, that Rabbi Eliezer holds that failure to pay the additional one-fifth does not prevent consumption, as redemption of the principal alone suffices; and Rabbi Yehoshua holds that failure to pay the additional one-fifth prevents consumption?

Rav Pappa said: No, perhaps the explanation is that everyone agrees that failure to pay the additional one-fifth does not prevent consumption, and here they disagree with regard to whether we are concerned for potential negligence. One Sage, Rabbi Yehoshua, holds: We are concerned for negligence, lest one fail to pay the additional one-fifth and therefore the owner may not eat the second-tithe produce until he adds the one-fifth payment. And one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds: We are not concerned for negligence, and one will presumably add the one-fifth payment later.

Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Although the tanna’im disagree with regard to second tithe, all concede with regard to consecrated property that if the one who consecrated it paid the principal and did not add one-fifth, that he successfully desacralized the produce, since the Temple treasurers demand payment from him in the marketplace, preventing any potential negligence. Therefore, he may use the property immediately.

The Gemara asks: And do they not disagree with regard to consecrated property? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: In a case where one gave payment to redeem the principal but did not give him payment of the additional one-fifth, Rabbi Eliezer says: He successfully desacralized the produce, and the Rabbis say: He did not desacralize the produce? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The statement of Rabbi Eliezer appears correct with regard to consecrated property, and the statement of the Rabbis appears correct with regard to second tithe.

The Gemara infers: From the fact that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that the statement of Rabbi Eliezer appears correct with regard to consecrated property, by inference they disagree even with regard to second tithe. Likewise, from the fact that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said that the statement of the Rabbis appears correct with regard to second tithe, by inference they disagree even with regard to consecrated property. This contradicts Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement that there is no dispute with regard to consecrated property.

Rather, if it was stated, it was stated like this: Rabbi Yoḥanan says: All concede that concerning Shabbat with regard to consecrated property that he successfully desacralized the property. One reason for this halakha is as it is written: “And you shall call Shabbat a delight” (Isaiah 58:13). The Sages sought to facilitate that delight in Shabbat by ruling leniently. And furthermore, it is desacralized without payment of the additional one-fifth, since the Temple treasurers demand payment from him in the marketplace.

§ Rami bar Ḥama says: The Sages said that consecrated property cannot be desacralized with land, as the Merciful One states with regard to the redemption of a consecrated field: “And he will give the money and it will be assured to him” (Leviticus 27:19), indicating that redemption is accomplished with money. The question is with regard to payment of its additional one-fifth: What is the halakha in terms of the possibility that it will be desacralized with land?

If a non-priest unwittingly ate teruma, his debt can be repaid to the priest only with non-sacred property, not with teruma, as the Merciful One states: “And if a man eats that which is sacred unwittingly…and he shall give that which is sacred to a priest” (Leviticus 22:14), from which it is derived that repayment must be with an item fit to become sacred, i.e., a non-sacred item, not teruma, which cannot be consecrated again. The question is with regard to payment of its additional one-fifth: What is the halakha in terms of the possibility that it will be repaid not from non-sacred items, but from teruma?

Second-tithe produce cannot be desacralized with an unmint-ed coin, as the Merciful One states: “And you shall bind up [vetzarta] the money in your hand” (Deuteronomy 14:25), which the Sages interpret as serving to include any item that has the imprint [tzura] of a coin upon it for desacralization, not an unminted coin. The question is with regard to payment of its additional one-fifth: What is the halakha in terms of the possibility that it will be desacralized with an unminted coin?

Rami bar Ḥama was unable to resolve this series of dilemmas, and the matter proceeded and came before Rava, who said to the people who related the dilemmas to him: The verse states: “And shall add unto it one-fifth part thereof” (Leviticus 27:27), which serves to include its additional one-fifth within the same legal status as that of its principal.

Ravina said: We too learn this in a mishna (Terumot 6:4): One who steals teruma and did not partake of it pays a payment of double the principal at the price of the teruma, as a thief pays double the value of the item that he stole. Both payments are calculated based on the price of teruma, which is lower than the price of non-sacred food, as the demand for it is lower because it is eaten only by priests. If the thief ate it unwittingly, he pays a payment worth the value of two principals and adds one-fifth in this manner: He pays one principal and one-fifth from non-sacred items, like any non-priest who partakes of teruma, and with regard to the other principal, he pays it according to the price of teruma.