Pesachim 32
ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ‘ΦΌΦΈΧΦ°, ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧ β ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ©Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦΈΧ.
And even with regard to one who anoints himself with the teruma oil, both in a case of ritually impure teruma as well as in a case of ritually pure teruma, he must pay an additional fifth if he unwittingly consumes this teruma. If he unwittingly consumes this fifth then he must pay an additional fifth of the fifth. The original fifth has a status comparable to teruma itself, and therefore one is required to pay an additional fifth for consuming it.
ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ: ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦΆΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ, ΧΦ°Χ€Φ΄Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ°Χ€Φ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ? ΧΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ’Φ΄ΧΧ§ΦΌΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΌΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ‘ΦΌΧΦΉΧ£ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ°Χ’Φ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ°, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ’Φ΄ΧΧ§ΦΌΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°Χ€Φ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧ¨Φ·Χ’ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ·Χ: ΧΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ,
A dilemma was raised before the Sages with regard to the laws of teruma: When he pays for this teruma, does he pay according to the measure of the teruma or according to its monetary value? The Gemara explains the question in greater detail: Anywhere that the teruma is worth four zuz at the outset, i.e., at the time he consumed the teruma, and is worth only one zuz at the end, at the time of payment, do not raise a dilemma, for in that case he is certainly required to pay according to the monetary value at the outset. The rationale behind this ruling is that he is no worse than a thief, and therefore the law in this case is the same as if he had stolen property from another person. As we learned in a mishna: All thieves must repay what they have stolen according to the value of the stolen object at the time it was stolen, even if its value subsequently goes down.
ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧͺΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ°Χ’Φ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ° ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ’Φ΄ΧΧ§ΦΌΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ‘ΦΌΧΦΉΧ£ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΌΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ·ΧΧ? ΧΦ°Χ€Φ΄Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ: ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ β ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ. ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ€Φ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ: ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ β ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ.
You can raise the dilemma, however, with regard to a case where it was worth one zuz at the outset, when it was consumed, and at the end, at the time of the payment, it was worth four zuz. What is the ruling in that case? Does he pay according to the measure of teruma, as the treasurer of the consecrated property can say to him: You ate a seβa and you must pay a seβa, even if the value of the teruma has increased, or perhaps he must repay according to the monetary value, and if he ate a zuz worth of teruma then he must pay a zuz?
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ£, ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’: ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΉΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΧΦΉ ΧͺΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧΦΉΧ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧͺΦΌΦ° ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ€Φ΄Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ β ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧΦΉΧ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΉΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΌΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧ. ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧͺΦΌΦ° ΧΦ°Χ€Φ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ β ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΧ ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧΦΉΧ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ? ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ β ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ!
Rav Yosef said: Come and hear an answer to this question from what was taught in a baraita: One who ate dried figs that were teruma and paid the priest with dates, may a blessing rest upon him, as dates are worth more than dried figs. Granted, if you say that one must repay according to the measure of teruma he ate, it is due to this that a blessing should rest upon him, as he ate a seβa of dried figs that are worth one zuz and gave in return a seβa of dates worth four zuz. However, if you say that he must repay according to the monetary value of the teruma, then why should a blessing rest upon him? He ate a zuz worth of teruma and he paid a zuz worth as compensation; what is laudatory about his payment?
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ΅Χ: ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ€Φ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΧ ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧΦΉΧ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ? ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧ€Φ΅ΧΧ₯ Χ’Φ²ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΧΦΉΧΧ Φ΅ΧΧΦΌ, ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ€Φ΅ΧΧ₯ Χ’Φ²ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΧΦΉΧΧ Φ΅ΧΧΦΌ.
Abaye said: Actually, one can explain that he must repay according to the monetary value of the teruma, and why is it stated that a blessing should rest upon him? This is because he ate an item that buyers donβt jump at, i.e., it is undesirable to buyers, but paid with an item that buyers jump at. Consequently, although the produce he gives is worth no more than the produce he ate, the priest still prefers this type of payment, as he can more easily resell this produce.
ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ Φ·Χ: ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ₯ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ€ΦΌΦΆΧ‘Φ·Χ, ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ Χ§ΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ©Χ. ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧͺΦΌΦ° ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ€Φ΄Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ β Χ©ΧΦ·Χ€ΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ¨. ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧͺΦΌΦ° ΧΦ°Χ€Φ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ, ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ₯ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ€ΦΌΦΆΧ‘Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ? ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ₯ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ€ΦΌΦΆΧ‘Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΌΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ²Χ ΦΈΧΦΈΧ.
The Gemara seeks proof with regard to this dispute: We learned in the mishna: One who unwittingly eats teruma of leavened bread on Passover must pay the principal and an additional fifth. Granted, if you say that he must pay according to the measure of teruma that he ate, it is well. As he ate a seβa of teruma he must also repay a seβa. However, if you say that he must pay according to the monetary value of the teruma, this is difficult, for is leavened bread on Passover of any monetary value? Certainly it is not worth anything, given that it is forbidden to benefit from this food. The Gemara answers: Yes, this leavened bread does indeed have monetary value. In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who said that it is permissible to derive benefit from leavened bread on Passover.
ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ Χ‘Φ΅ΧΧ€ΦΈΧ: ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦΌΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ Χ’Φ΅Χ¦Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ΄Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΧ Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦΌΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ Χ’Φ΅Χ¦Φ΄ΧΧ?!
The Gemara challenges this suggestion: If that is so, then say the latter clause of the mishna, where it is stated: If he consumes the teruma intentionally, then he is exempt from payment and from paying the priest for its monetary value as wood. But if this follows the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, then why is he exempt from payment to the priest for the value of the teruma and for its monetary value in wood? Although he is exempt from paying the additional fifth as he acted intentionally, he nonetheless should be required to compensate the priest for the financial loss he caused him, as in any other case of theft.
Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ Φ°ΧΧΦΌΧ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦΆΧ ΧΦ·Χ§ΦΌΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ. ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ: Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ Φ°ΧΧΦΌΧ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦΆΧ ΧΦ·Χ§ΦΌΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ’ΧΦΉΧ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ€ΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ ΧΦ°ΧͺΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ³.
The Gemara answers: He holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi NeαΈ₯unya ben HaKana, as it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi NeαΈ₯unya ben HaKana rendered the status of Yom Kippur the same as that of Shabbat with regard to payment. In his opinion, not only a person who committed a transgression punishable by a court-administered capital punishment, like one who desecrated Shabbat, is exempt from monetary payment incurred at the time of the transgression. Even one who is deserving of a divinely administered capital punishment, such as one who desecrates Yom Kippur and is punished with karet, is exempt from monetary payment for property he damaged in the course of such an act. Therefore, since one who consumes another personβs leavened bread during Passover is deserving of karet, he is exempt from monetary payment incurred by this act.
ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦ·Χ ΦΌΦΈΧΦ΅Χ: ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ₯ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ€ΦΌΦΆΧ‘Φ·Χ β Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦΌΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ Χ’Φ΅Χ¦Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ’Φ²Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ. Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦΆΧ Χ ΧΦΌΧ¨Φ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ. ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΧΦΉ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ’Φ²Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦΆΧ Χ ΧΦΌΧ¨Φ΄Χ: ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ²Χ ΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅Χ©Χ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΌ? ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΧΦΉ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦΆΧ Χ ΧΦΌΧ¨Φ΄Χ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ’Φ²Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ²Χ ΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅Χ©Χ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ, Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ!
The Gemara comments: The question of whether one must repay according to the measurement or the monetary value of the teruma is like a dispute between tannaβim, as it was taught in the Tosefta: If one eats teruma of leavened bread on Passover, whether intentionally or unwittingly, then he is exempt from payment and for its monetary value in wood; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Whereas Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan ben Nuri deems him liable to pay. Rabbi Akiva said to Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan ben Nuri: What benefit can he derive from this? What benefit could the priest have derived from this teruma as it is prohibited to benefit from this teruma and the teruma is therefore worthless? Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan ben Nuri said to Rabbi Akiva: What benefit can one derive from eating ritually impure teruma on the rest of the days of the year, and yet nevertheless the non-priest is still obligated to pay for what he has taken. Despite the fact that a priest may not eat impure teruma, a non-priest must reimburse the priest for the principal of the teruma and add an additional fifth if he eats it.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΧΦΉ: ΧΦΉΧ! ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧͺΦΌΦΈ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ, Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ·Χ£ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ€ΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΆΧΧͺΦΌΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΅Χ©Χ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΆΧΧͺΦΌΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦ·Χ‘ΦΌΦΈΧ§ΦΈΧ, ΧͺΦΌΦΉΧΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΆΧ β Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΆΧΧͺΦΌΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΆΧΧͺΦΌΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦ·Χ‘ΦΌΦΈΧ§ΦΈΧ! ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ β ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦ·Χͺ ΧͺΦΌΧΦΌΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ, Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΆΧΧͺΦΌΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΆΧΧͺΦΌΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦ·Χ‘ΦΌΦΈΧ§ΦΈΧ.
Rabbi Akiva said to him: No, a distinction can be made between these two cases: If you say that he is obligated to pay in a case of ritually impure teruma on the rest of the days of the year, that although it is not permissible to eat it, the priest is nevertheless permitted to burn it and derive benefit from the heat generated as a result of this burning, shall you also say the same with regard to this, teruma of leavened bread during Passover, that is not permitted to be eaten or burned? Rather, to what may this be compared? It is similar to teruma of berries and grapes that became ritually impure, which is not permitted to be eaten or burned, as berries and grapes are unfit for firewood.
ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ²ΧΧΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·Χ€Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ©Χ ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦ±ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¦ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ€Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ©Χ ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ₯ β ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΉΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧΦΌ Χ§Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©ΧΦΈΧ.
The Tosefta adds: In what case is this statement said, that these tannaβim disagree about the reimbursement for teruma? It was said with regard to a case where he separated teruma in a permitted manner and it became leavened during Passover. However, if he separated the teruma from leavened bread during Passover, then everyone agrees that it is not consecrated, as it is worthless.
ΧͺΦΌΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°: Χ΄ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧͺΦ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·Χ§ΦΌΦΉΧΦΆΧ©ΧΧ΄ β ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧͺ Χ§ΦΉΧΦΆΧ©Χ. Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ₯ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ€ΦΌΦΆΧ‘Φ·Χ, Χ©ΧΦΆΧ€ΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦΌΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ Χ’Φ΅Χ¦Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ±ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΦΆΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦΆΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ§ΦΉΧ. ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ·Χ‘ΦΌΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ. ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΧΦΉ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ±ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΦΆΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦΆΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ§ΦΉΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ·Χ‘ΦΌΦΈΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ²Χ ΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅Χ©Χ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΌ? ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΧΦΉ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ·Χ‘ΦΌΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ±ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΦΆΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦΆΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ§ΦΉΧ: ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ²Χ ΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅Χ©Χ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ, Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ?
It was taught in another baraita: With regard to the verse βAnd if a man eats a sacred thing in error, then he shall add a fifth part in addition to it, and shall give to the priest the sacred itemβ (Leviticus 22:14), the Sages expound as follows: He must give the priest an item that is fit to be consecrated, to the exclusion of one who eats teruma of leavened bread on Passover, who is exempt from payment of the teruma and even from paying its monetary value as wood; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaβakov. Rabbi Elazar αΈ€isma deems him liable to reimburse the priest for these items. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaβakov said to Rabbi Elazar αΈ€isma: What benefit can the priest derive from this teruma of leavened bread, as it is prohibited to benefit from it? Rabbi Elazar αΈ€isma said to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaβakov: What benefit can one derive from eating ritually impure teruma on the rest of the days of the year, and yet a non-priest who eats it must pay the priest.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΧΦΉ: ΧΦΉΧ! ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧͺΦΌΦΈ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ, Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ·Χ£ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ€ΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΆΧΧͺΦΌΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅Χ©Χ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΆΧΧͺΦΌΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦ·Χ‘ΦΌΦΈΧ§ΦΈΧ, ΧͺΦΌΦΉΧΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΉ β Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΆΧΧͺΦΌΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΆΧΧͺΦΌΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦ·Χ‘ΦΌΦΈΧ§ΦΈΧ! ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΧΦΉ: ΧΦ·Χ£ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΅Χ©Χ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΆΧΧͺΦΌΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦ·Χ‘ΦΌΦΈΧ§ΦΈΧ, Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΄Χ Χ¨ΦΈΧ¦ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΉΧΦ΅Χ β ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ¦ΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ Φ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΧΦΉ, ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ·Χ‘ΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ§ΦΈΧΦΌ ΧͺΦΌΦ·ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧͺΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΧΦΉ.
Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaβakov said to him: No, a distinction can be made between these two cases: If you say he is obligated to pay in a case of ritually impure teruma on the rest of the days of year, that although it is not permissible to eat it, the priest is nonetheless permitted to burn it and derive benefit from the heat generated as a result of this burning, shall you say the same with regard to this, teruma of leavened bread during Passover, that is not permitted to be eaten or burned? Rabbi Elazar αΈ€isma said to him: Even teruma of leavened bread on Passover is permitted to be burned, for if the priest wishes, he may throw it before his dog or burn it under his food, for Rabbi Elazar αΈ€isma agrees with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili that one may derive benefit from leavened bread during Passover.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ΅Χ: Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ±ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΦΆΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦΆΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ§ΦΉΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ’Φ²Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦΆΧ Χ ΧΦΌΧ¨Φ΄Χ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌ Χ‘Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ₯ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ€ΦΌΦΆΧ‘Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧ‘ΧΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ²Χ ΦΈΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ€ΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ’Φ²Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ°Χ€Φ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ, ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦΆΧ Χ ΧΦΌΧ¨Φ΄Χ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ°Χ€Φ΄Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ.
Abaye said: Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaβakov, Rabbi Akiva, and Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan ben Nuri all hold that it is forbidden to derive benefit from leavened bread during Passover. And they disagree with regard to the following issue: Rabbi Akiva holds that one pays according to the monetary value, and therefore he need not pay anything for consuming teruma of leavened bread during Passover. And Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan ben Nuri holds that one pays according to the measure of teruma that he consumed, such that even if he ate teruma of leavened bread on Passover he must repay this amount.
Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ! ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ: Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦΆΧ Χ ΧΦΌΧ¨Φ΄Χ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ’Φ²Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ Χ‘Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ°Χ€Φ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ. ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧ ΧΦΌ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ β ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ₯ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ€ΦΌΦΆΧ‘Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΌΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ²Χ ΦΈΧΦΈΧ, Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ·Χ.
The Gemara asks: Isnβt this obvious? There does not seem to be another way to explain these opinions. The Gemara rejects this question: This statement is necessary lest you say that Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan ben Nuri also holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva that states that one must pay according to the monetary value of the teruma. And there, in the case of leavened bread, this is the reason that Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan ben Nuri deems him liable to pay for the teruma because he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who said: It is permissible to derive benefit from leavened bread during Passover. Therefore, he teaches us that Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan ben Nuri agrees that one may not derive benefit from leavened bread during Passover.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ? ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ, Χ Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦΆΧ Χ ΧΦΌΧ¨Φ΄Χ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ’Φ²Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ·Χ‘ΦΌΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ±ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΦΆΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦΆΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ§ΦΉΧ.
The Gemara suggests: And say it is indeed so, that Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan ben Nuri accepts Rabbi Yosei HaGeliliβs position. The Gemara rejects this possibility: If this was the case, then Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan ben Nuri should have responded to Rabbi Akiva in the same way that Rabbi Elazar αΈ€isma responded to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaβakov, by saying that this leavened bread may be fed to a dog thus deriving benefit from it. Since he did not offer this answer, it is clear that he agrees that deriving benefit from leavened bread during Passover is forbidden.
ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ: ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄Χͺ ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ Χ§ΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ©Χ, ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: Χ’Φ·Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΧΦΉ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦ·Χ ΦΌΦΈΧ Χ§Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ β ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ§Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ©Χ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦΉΧΧΦ·Χ Χ§ΦΉΧΦΆΧ©Χ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧΧ΄, ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄Χͺ.
After mentioning cases where a person damages teruma, the Gemara continues with a discussion of this topic. The Rabbis taught: A non-priest who eats an olive-bulk of teruma must pay the principal value of the teruma itself and an additional fifth. Abba Shaul says: He is not required to pay unless the teruma he ate is worth a peruta. The Gemara explains: What is the reason for the opinion of the first tanna? It is because the verse states: βAnd if a man eats a sacred item in error, then he shall add a fifth part in addition to it, and he shall give to the priest the sacred itemβ (Leviticus 22:14). The minimal amount that is halakhically considered eating is an olive-bulk.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ, ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ? ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ§Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧͺΦ·ΧΧ΄, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ Χ Φ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ° Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ, ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ Χ΄ΧΦΉΧΧΦ·ΧΧ΄! ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ, Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ§ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ²ΧͺΦΈΧ.
And what is the reason for the opinion of Abba Shaul? The verse states: βAnd he shall give,β and giving less than the value of a peruta is not legally considered to be giving. The Gemara asks: And according to the other one, Abba Shaul, too, isnβt it written: βEats,β implying that there must be at least an olive-bulk portion? The Gemara answers: That verse comes to exclude one who damages teruma without deriving benefit from it, such that he is exempt from the requirement to add an additional fifth. This is derived from the fact that the verse specifies that only one who eats is required to add a fifth.
ΧΦ°ΧͺΦ·Χ ΦΌΦΈΧ Χ§Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ, ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ Χ΄ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧͺΦ·ΧΧ΄! ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ°Χ’Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧͺ Χ§ΦΉΧΦΆΧ©Χ (Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ₯ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ€ΦΌΦΆΧ‘Φ·Χ).
And according to the first tanna, one can ask: Isnβt it written βAnd he shall giveβ? The Gemara answers: That phrase is necessary to teach the requirement that teruma must be an item that is fit to be consecrated, as an item cannot become teruma unless it is has some value. This is meant to exclude one who eats teruma of leavened bread on Passover, since it is worthless and therefore cannot be designated as teruma.
ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ: ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄Χͺ β ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·Χ§ΦΌΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ©Χ. ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ΅Χ? ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ β Χ§ΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΦΌ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ β ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ©Χ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ! ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΦΌ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄Χͺ β ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·Χ§ΦΌΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ©Χ.
The Sages taught in a baraita: One who eats less than an olive-bulk of teruma must pay the principal, but is not required to pay the additional fifth. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this case? If there was not the value of a peruta of teruma, then he should also not be required to pay for the principal either, because that is less than the amount for which one is obligated to pay. But if there was the value of a peruta of teruma, then he should be required to pay the additional fifth as well. The Gemara explains the case: Actually, it should be understood that there was the value of a peruta of teruma, and nonetheless, since the food was not at least an olive-bulk, he is required to pay only the principal, but he does not pay the additional fifth.
ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ Χ§Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ€ΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ, ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ΅Χ©Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΌ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ·Χ£ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄Χͺ. ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ€ΦΌΦΈΧ: ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧͺΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ, ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧͺΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧ’Φ΅Χ.
The Sages said before Rav Pappa that this halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul. As, if it were in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul, didnβt he say: One is obligated to pay because there is the value of a peruta, even if it is not at least an olive-bulk? Rav Pappa said to them: This is no proof, as even if you say that this halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul, Abba Shaul requires two conditions: That the teruma be at least an olive-bulk in volume, and that it be worth at least a peruta.
ΧΦΌΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧ’Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧͺΦΌΦ΅Χ? ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ Φ·Χ, ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦΆΧͺ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ΅Χ©Χ ΧΦΌΧΦΉ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΆΧͺ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΉ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ. ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌ ΧΧΦΉ: ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ, ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄Χͺ. ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦΈΧ, Χ΄ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ΅Χ©Χ ΧΦΌΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΧͺΧ΄ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ°Χ’Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ. ΧͺΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ.
The Gemara asks: Does Abba Shaul actually require two conditions? Didnβt we learn in the mishna that Abba Shaul says: For that food which is at least the value of a peruta of teruma, one is liable to pay compensation to the priest, but for that food which does not contain the value of a peruta of teruma, he is not liable to pay compensation to the priest? The Rabbis said to Abba Shaul: They said that the item must be worth a peruta only with regard to misuse of consecrated items; however, with regard to teruma, one is liable to reimburse the priest only when he eats an olive-bulk or more. And if it is so, that Abba Shaul requires both conditions, and this is a case where there is an olive-bulk, then the Rabbis should have worded their objection differently. They should have said: Since it is at least an olive-bulk, he is liable to pay, even though it is not worth a peruta. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, this is a conclusive refutation, and Rav Pappaβs position is rejected.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ£ Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ€ΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧΧ΄ β Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ. ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ: ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΉΧͺ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧ¨Φ΅Χͺ β Χ€ΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦΈΧ¨Φ΅Χͺ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ€ΦΌΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ?
The Gemara notes that Rav Pappa himself also retracted this explanation. As it was taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: βIf any one commits a trespass, and sins through error, in the sacred items of the Lord, then he shall bring his guilt-offering to the Lord, a ram without blemish from the flock, according to your valuation in silver shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary, for a guilt-offeringβ (Leviticus 5:15), the baraita explains: The phrase βand sins through errorβ excludes one who sins intentionally through misuse of consecrated property. Could this not be derived through an a fortiori inference, as follows: Just as with regard to other mitzvot for which one is liable to receive karet the verse exempts one from bringing an offering when the transgression was committed intentionally, is it not right that with regard to misuse of consecrated property, which does not incur the punishment of karet, it should exempt one who acts intentionally?
ΧΦΉΧ! ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧͺΦΌΦΈ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΉΧͺ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦΈΧ, ΧͺΦΌΦΉΧΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ, Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦΈΧ! ΧͺΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧΧ΄ β Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ.
The baraita rejects this claim: No, if you say that this is true with regard to the rest of the mitzvot, even those for which one is liable to receive karet, for which one is not liable to receive the death penalty if he violates them, shall you also say that this is the case with regard to misuse of consecrated items, for which one is liable to receive the death penalty, as this offense is punishable by death at the hand of Heaven? Since one cannot logically deduce this principle, the verse states βthrough errorβ to exclude one who acted intentionally.
ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΈΧ§ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ: ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ·Χ ΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅Χ’Φ΄ΧΧ§ΦΌΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦΈΧ¨Φ΅Χͺ, ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ‘ΦΌΧΦΉΧ£ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦΈΧ!
And Rav NaαΈ₯man bar YitzαΈ₯ak said to Rav αΈ€iyya bar Avin in wonderment with regard to this baraita: This tanna initially considers the punishment of karet to be stronger by assuming that misuse of consecrated property was less severe because it was not punished by karet, and subsequently he considers the punishment of death at the hand of Heaven to be stronger by stating that one cannot deduce this principle from other sins whose punishment is not death at the hand of Heaven.
ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ, ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦΉΧ! ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧͺΦΌΦΈ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΉΧͺ β Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ€ΦΈΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄Χͺ, ΧͺΦΌΦΉΧΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ β Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ€ΦΈΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄Χͺ. ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ: ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ· ΧΦΌΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧͺΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΄Χ ΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦΈ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧͺΦΌΦ΄Χ. ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ: ΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ Φ΄ΧΧΧΦΌΧͺΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ©ΧΦ΅Χ©ΧΦΆΧͺ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ Φ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΌΦΈΧ: ΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ’Φ·ΧͺΦΌΦ° ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨
And Rav αΈ€iyya bar Avin said to him that it is possible to maintain the accepted position that karet is more stringent by explaining that this is what he is saying: No, these are incomparable for the following reason: If you say that one is exempt from an offering when he violates the rest of the mitzvot, for which one is not liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven if he eats less than an olive-bulk of a forbidden substance, shall you also say that this is the case with regard to misuse of consecrated property, for which one is liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven if he eats less than an olive-bulk? Rav NaαΈ₯man bar YitzαΈ₯ak said to him: May your mind be settled, as you have settled my mind and put it at ease by answering this question that was troubling me. Rav αΈ€iyya bar Avin said to him: What is settling about this explanation? Rabba and Rav Sheshet threw an axe at my answer; i.e., they reject my explanation, as follows: Who did you hear that said