Answer (Ravina - Mishnah): If Reuven was Makdish his field and offers to redeem it for 20, the same as others offer, he redeems it, because he adds a Chomesh;

If Shimon offers to redeem the field for 21, Reuven must pay 26 (the 20 he offered and five for the fifth, plus another one because he may not pay less principal than Shimon's offer).

Likewise, if Shimon offers between 22 and 25, Reuven must pay five more: the Chomesh of his own offer, and Shimon's offer. He need not add a Chomesh of the excess of Shimon's offer over his own.

Since the Chomesh of 20 is five, this shows it is an outer fifth.

Conclusion: Tana'im argue whether it is an outer or inner fifth.

(Beraisa - R. Yoshiyah): "V'Yasaf Chamishiso Alav" - it and the fifth are five (i.e. it is four, the fifth is one, an outer fifth);

R. Yonasan says, "Chamishiso (its fifth)" - the fifth is of the principal (an inner fifth).

Question: If the fifth was not given, was the redemption valid?

Does the principal redeem, and the Chomesh is a separate obligation?

Or, perhaps the Chomesh is Me'akev (essential for redemption)!

Answer (Mishnah): Chomesh and Bi'ur do not apply to Ma'aser Sheni of Demai.

Inference: One must pay principal (to redeem it).

The reason is, since principal is Me'akev redemption of mid'Oraisa Ma'aser, it applies to mid'Rabanan Ma'aser;

Since the Chomesh is not Me'akev for mid'Oraisa Ma'aser, it does not apply to mid'Rabanan Ma'aser.

Suggestion: Tana'im argue about whether the Chomesh is Me'akev.

(Beraisa - R. Eliezer): If one gave the principal (to redeem Ma'aser) but not the Chomesh, he may eat it;

R. Yehoshua says, he may not eat it.

Rebbi says, presumably, R. Eliezer's opinion is true for Shabbos, and R. Yehoshua's opinion is true for a weekday.

Inference: They argue about both Shabbos and weekdays.

Suggestion: R. Eliezer holds that the Chomesh is not Me'akev, and R. Yehoshua holds that it is Me'akev!

Rejection (Rav Papa): No, all agree that the Chomesh is not Me'akev (mid'Oraisa);

They argue about whether or not (mid'Rabanan) we are concerned lest he neglect to pay it. R. Yehoshua is concerned, and R. Eliezer is not.

(R. Yochanan): All agree that Hekdesh is redeemed without the Chomesh. Since Gizbarim (treasurers of Hekdesh) demand payment from people in the market, we are not concerned lest one not pay.

Question: They argue about Hekdesh!

(Beraisa - R. Eliezer): If one gave the principal (to redeem Hekdesh) but not the Chomesh, it is redeemed;

Chachamim say, it is not redeemed.

Rebbi says, presumably, we follow R. Eliezer regarding Hekdesh, and we follow Chachamim regarding Ma'aser.

This implies that they argue both about Hekdesh and Ma'aser!

Correction (R. Yochanan): All agree regarding Hekdesh that on Shabbos, it is considered redeemed without the Chomesh.

Firstly, "v'Korasa la'Shabbos Oneg" (therefore, Chachamim should be lenient to enable enjoyment of Shabbos);

Secondly, since Gizbarim demand payment from him in the market, surely he will pay.

Question #1 (Rami bar Chama): Hekdesh cannot be redeemed on land, for it says "v'Nasan ha'Kesef v'Kam Lo";

Can the Chomesh be redeemed on land?

Question #2 (Rami bar Chama): If a Zar ate Terumah b'Shogeg, he must pay Chulin for it (it becomes Terumah when the Kohen receives it) - "v'Nasan la'Kohen Es ha'Kodesh", i.e. something that can become Kodesh;

Must the Chomesh be from Chulin?

Question #3 (Rami bar Chama): One cannot redeem Ma'aser on an Asimon. "V'Tzarta ha'Kesef b'Yadecha" includes anything with a Tzurah (image);

Can the Chomesh be redeemed on an Asimon?

Answer (to all three questions - Rava): Regarding all of these it says "Alav." The Chomesh has the same law as the principal.

Support (Ravina - Mishnah): If one stole Terumah and did not eat it, he pays twice the value of the Terumah;

If he ate it, he pays one principal and a Chomesh from Chulin, and a second principal, the value of the Terumah.

This teaches that the Chomesh is like the principal.

(Rava): Regarding theft, it says "va'Chamishisav Yosef Alav".

(Mishnah): If Reuven paid the principal, and (falsely) swore that he also paid the Chomesh, he must pay (the Chomesh and) an additional Chomesh of the Chomesh.

Each time he swears falsely about paying a Chomesh (of a Chomesh ...) he is liable to add a Chomesh of what he swore about, until the denied money is less than a Perutah.

(Rava): Regarding a Zar who b'Shogeg eats Terumah, it says "v'Yasaf Chamishiso Alav";

(Mishnah): If a Zar ate Terumah b'Shogeg, he pays principal and a Chomesh. This applies to one who ate, drank or anointed, whether the Terumah was Tahor or Tamei;

He pays the Chomesh and (if he eats the Chomesh after he gave it to the Kohen, which makes it Terumah) a Chomesh on the Chomesh;

Regarding Ma'aser, we have no verse nor Mishnah teaching that he adds a Chomesh on the Chomesh. We have no doubt (clearly, if one redeems his Ma'aser and later redeems the redemption money, he (adds a second Chomesh on the principal but) does not add a Chomesh on the Chomesh, for we have no source for this).

(Rava): Regarding Hekdesh, it says "v'Yasaf Chamishis";

(Mishnah): One who redeems Hekdesh adds a Chomesh.

Question (Rava): The Mishnah says that he adds a Chomesh. It does not say that he adds a Chomesh on the Chomesh (if he redeems the redemption). What is the law?

Regarding Terumah, it says "v'Yasaf." One can take the 'Vav' and append it to "Chamishiso", to make 'Chamishisav' (its fifths);

Regarding Hekdesh, it says Chamishis. Even if we append the 'Vav', we are left with 'Chamishiso' (one fifth)!

Question: We should know the law because it is secondary Hekdesh!

(R. Yehoshua ben Levi): One adds a Chomesh on initial Hekdesh, but not on secondary Hekdesh (it became Kodesh through redeeming Hekdesh).

Answer (Rav Papi): Rava meant, the Chomesh is like initial Hekdesh (since it does not come in place of another Kedushah).

Question: What was the conclusion?

Answer (Rav Tavyumi): "V'Yasaf Chamishis Kesef Erkecha" - the Torah equates the Chomesh to money of Erchin (principle);

Just like one adds a Chomesh to principle, also to the Chomesh.

(R. Yehoshua ben Levi): One adds a Chomesh on initial Hekdesh, but not on secondary Hekdesh.

(Rava): He learns from "ha'Makdish" (one who makes new Hekdesh), not ha'Matfis (one who imbues Chulin with the Kedushah of existing Hekdesh).

(A Tana, i.e. one who recites Beraisos): "Ba'Behemah ha'Teme'ah" - just like a Tamei animal is initial Hekdesh, and the owner has no part in it (it is Hekdesh of Bedek ha'Bayis), and Me'ilah applies to it, Me'ilah applies to any initial Hekdesh in which the owner has no part.

Question (R. Elazar): Granted, 'the owner has no part in it' excludes Kodshim Kalim. Since the owner has a share, there is no Me'ilah;

What does 'initial Hekdesh' come to exclude? Can you say that Me'ilah applies only to initial Hekdesh, but not to secondary Hekdesh?!

Suggestion: Perhaps it refers (not to Me'ilah, rather) to the Chomesh (which applies to Secondary Hekdesh), like R. Yehoshua ben Levi taught?

The Tana: That is what I meant.