This serves to include misuse of consecrated property less than the value of one peruta in the halakha of restitution to the Temple treasury. The Gemara infers: To the Temple treasury, yes, one must return that which he took; but to an ordinary person [hedyot], no, one need not pay restitution for theft of less than one peruta.

Rather, if Rav Ketina’s ruling was stated, this is how it was stated: Rav Ketina says: If the court attends to a monetary claim of the value of one peruta, the judges conclude adjudicating and issue a ruling even if the item in question depreciated to less than the value of one peruta. For the beginning of the legal proceedings, we require a claim worth one peruta, whereas for the verdict, we do not require a claim worth one peruta.

MISHNA: In this mishna, as in the previous one, the tanna enumerates several halakhot that share a common element. There are five halakhic situations where one-fifth is added to the value of the principal, and these are they: A non-priest who eats either teruma, or teruma of the tithe, which the Levite separates from the first tithe and gives to a priest, or teruma of the tithe of demai, or ḥalla, or first fruits; in each of these cases, he adds one-fifth when paying restitution to the priest who owned the produce. And one who redeems his own fruit of a fourth-year sapling or second-tithe produce adds one-fifth. One who redeems his own consecrated property adds one-fifth. One who derives benefit worth one peruta from consecrated property adds one-fifth. And one who robs the value of one peruta from another and takes a false oath in response to his claim adds one-fifth when paying restitution.

GEMARA: Rava says: Rabbi Elazar found the halakha in the mishna with regard to teruma of the tithe of demai to be difficult. He asked: And since the obligation to tithe demai is by rabbinic law, did the Sages reinforce their pronouncements and render them parallel to Torah law by requiring the addition of one-fifth when paying restitution?

Rav Naḥman said that Shmuel said: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says: The Sages reinforced their pronouncements and rendered them parallel to Torah law, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to an agent who brings a bill of divorce from a country overseas, if he gave it to the woman but did not say to her: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, as is the requirement by rabbinic ordinance, one who marries that woman must divorce her, and any offspring born of that marriage is a mamzer; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Although he is in violation of the ordinance, the offspring is not a mamzer. How then should the agent proceed? He should take the bill of divorce from her and give it to her again, this time in the presence of two witnesses, and say to her: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence.

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Meir, although the bill of divorce was otherwise valid, merely due to the fact that he did not say to her: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, must he divorce her and the offspring is a mamzer? The Gemara answers: Yes, as Rabbi Meir conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as Rav Hamnuna says in the name of Ulla that Rabbi Meir would say: In the case of anyone who gives a bill of divorce that deviates from the formula coined by the Sages with regard to bills of divorce, one who then marries the divorced woman on the basis of that bill of divorce must divorce her, and the offspring is a mamzer. Concerning teruma of the tithe of demai as well, Rabbi Meir reinforced the pronouncements of the Sages and rendered them parallel to Torah law.

Rav Sheshet raises an objection to this principle from a mishna (Demai 1:2), which teaches: One may desacralize silver coins of second tithe of demai upon other silver coins, and copper coins upon copper coins, and silver coins upon copper coins, and copper coins upon produce, and he may then redeem that produce with money; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: That produce that redeemed the copper coins must be taken up and eaten in Jerusalem. It may not be redeemed again.

Rav Sheshet continues: And can one desacralize silver coins with copper coins? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Ma’aser Sheni 2:6): In the case of a silver sela of second tithe and a sela of non-sacred property that were intermingled, one brings copper ma’a equaling the value of a sela and says: Wherever there is a sela of second tithe among these two coins, it is redeemed upon these copper ma’a, which assume the sanctity of second tithe. And he selects the better-quality sela among the two and redeems the copper coins upon that sela. The result is that the better-quality sela is second tithe, while the other sela and the copper coins are non-sacred.