Pesachim 32

Pesachim 32

וְאֶחָד הַסָּךְ, אֶחָד תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה וְאֶחָד תְּרוּמָה טְהוֹרָה — מְשַׁלֵּם חוֹמֶשׁ וְחוּמְשָׁא דְחוּמְשָׁא.

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.

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: כְּשֶׁהוּא מְשַׁלֵּם, לְפִי מִדָּה מְשַׁלֵּם אוֹ לְפִי דָמִים מְשַׁלֵּם? כׇּל הֵיכָא דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא שָׁוְיָא אַרְבְּעָה זוּזֵי וּלְבַסּוֹף שָׁוְיָא זוּזָא — לָא תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ, דְּוַדַּאי כִּדְמֵעִיקָּרָא מְשַׁלֵּם לְפִי דָּמִים, דְּלָא גָּרַע מִגַּזְלָן. דִּתְנַן: כׇּל הַגַּזְלָנִין מְשַׁלְּמִין כִּשְׁעַת הַגְּזֵלָה,

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.

כִּי תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא שָׁוְיָא זוּזָא וּלְבַסּוֹף שָׁוְיָא אַרְבְּעָה, מַאי? לְפִי מִדָּה מְשַׁלֵּם, דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: גְּרִיוָא אֲכַל — גְּרִיוָא מְשַׁלֵּם. אוֹ דִילְמָא לְפִי דָמִים מְשַׁלֵּם: בְּזוּזָא אֲכַל — בְּזוּזָא מְשַׁלֵּם.

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 se’a and you must pay a se’a, 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?

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף, תָּא שְׁמַע: אָכַל גְּרוֹגְרוֹת וְשִׁילֵּם לוֹ תְּמָרִים תָּבֹא עָלָיו בְּרָכָה. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא לְפִי מִדָּה מְשַׁלֵּם — אַמְּטוּ לְהָכִי תָּבֹא עָלָיו בְּרָכָה, דְּאָכֵיל גְּרִיוָא דִגְרוֹגְרוֹת דְּשָׁוְיָא זוּזָא, וְקָא יָהֵיב גְּרִיוָא דִתְמָרִים דְּשָׁוְיָא אַרְבְּעָה. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ לְפִי דָמִים מְשַׁלֵּם — אַמַּאי תָּבֹא עָלָיו בְּרָכָה? בְּזוּזָא אֲכַל — בְּזוּזָא קָא מְשַׁלֵּם!

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 se’a of dried figs that are worth one zuz and gave in return a se’a 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?

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לְעוֹלָם לְפִי דָמִים מְשַׁלֵּם, וְאַמַּאי תָּבֹא עָלָיו בְּרָכָה? דַּאֲכַל מִידֵּי דְּלָא קָפֵיץ עֲלֵיהּ זָבֹינֵיהּ, וְקָא מְשַׁלֵּם מִידֵּי דְּקָפֵיץ עֲלֵיהּ זָבֹינֵיהּ.

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 don’t 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.

תְּנַן: הָאוֹכֵל תְּרוּמַת חָמֵץ בַּפֶּסַח, בְּשׁוֹגֵג מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וָחוֹמֶשׁ. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא לְפִי מִדָּה מְשַׁלֵּם — שַׁפִּיר. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ לְפִי דָמִים מְשַׁלֵּם, חָמֵץ בַּפֶּסַח בַּר דָּמִים הוּא? אִין, הָא מַנִּי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי הִיא, דְּאָמַר חָמֵץ בַּפֶּסַח מוּתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה.

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 se’a of teruma he must also repay a se’a. 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.

אִי הָכִי, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: בְּמֵזִיד פָּטוּר מִן הַתַּשְׁלוּמִין וּמִדְּמֵי עֵצִים, אִי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, אַמַּאי פָּטוּר מִן הַתַּשְׁלוּמִין וּמִדְּמֵי עֵצִים?!

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.

סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי נְחוּנְיָא בֶּן הַקָּנָה. דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי נְחוּנְיָא בֶּן הַקָּנָה הָיָה עוֹשֶׂה אֶת יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים כַּשַּׁבָּת לְתַשְׁלוּמִין וְכוּ׳.

The Gemara answers: He holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana, as it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Neḥunya 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 person’s leavened bread during Passover is deserving of karet, he is exempt from monetary payment incurred by this act.

כְּתַנָּאֵי: הָאוֹכֵל תְּרוּמַת חָמֵץ בַּפֶּסַח — פָּטוּר מִן הַתַּשְׁלוּמִין וּמִדְּמֵי עֵצִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי מְחַיֵּיב. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי: וְכִי מָה הֲנָאָה יֵשׁ לוֹ בָּהּ? אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: וּמָה הֲנָאָה יֵשׁ לָאוֹכֵל תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה בִּשְׁאָר כׇּל יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה, שֶׁמְּשַׁלֵּם!

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 tanna’im, 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 Yoḥanan ben Nuri deems him liable to pay. Rabbi Akiva said to Rabbi Yoḥanan 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 Yoḥanan 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.

אָמַר לוֹ: לֹא! אִם אָמַרְתָּ בִּתְרוּמָה טְמֵאָה בִּשְׁאָר יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה, שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָּהּ הֶיתֵּר אֲכִילָה, יֵשׁ לוֹ בָּהּ הֶיתֵּר הַסָּקָה, תֹּאמַר בָּזֶה — שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָּהּ לֹא הֶיתֵּר אֲכִילָה וְלֹא הֶיתֵּר הַסָּקָה! הָא לְמָה זֶה דּוֹמֶה — לִתְרוּמַת תּוּתִים וַעֲנָבִים שֶׁנִּטְמְאָה, שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָּהּ לֹא הֶיתֵּר אֲכִילָה וְלֹא הֶיתֵּר הַסָּקָה.

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.

בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בְּמַפְרִישׁ תְּרוּמָה וְהֶחֱמִיצָה, אֲבָל מַפְרִישׁ תְּרוּמַת חָמֵץ — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אֵינָהּ קְדוֹשָׁה.

The Tosefta adds: In what case is this statement said, that these tanna’im 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.

תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״וְנָתַן לַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַקֹּדֶשׁ״ — דָּבָר הָרָאוּי לִהְיוֹת קֹדֶשׁ. פְּרָט לָאוֹכֵל תְּרוּמַת חָמֵץ בַּפֶּסַח, שֶׁפָּטוּר מִן הַתַּשְׁלוּמִים וּמִדְּמֵי עֵצִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב. וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר חַסָּמָא מְחַיֵּיב. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר חַסָּמָא: וְכִי מָה הֲנָאָה יֵשׁ לוֹ בָּהּ? אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר חַסָּמָא לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב: וְכִי מָה הֲנָאָה יֵשׁ לוֹ לָאוֹכֵל תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה בִּשְׁאָר יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה, שֶׁמְּשַׁלֵּם?

It was taught in another baraita: With regard to the verse “And 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 item” (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 Ya’akov. Rabbi Elazar Ḥisma deems him liable to reimburse the priest for these items. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov said to Rabbi Elazar Ḥisma: What benefit can the priest derive from this teruma of leavened bread, as it is prohibited to benefit from it? Rabbi Elazar Ḥisma said to Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov: 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.

אָמַר לוֹ: לֹא! אִם אָמַרְתָּ בִּתְרוּמָה טְמֵאָה בִּשְׁאָר יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה, שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָּהּ הֶיתֵּר אֲכִילָה יֵשׁ לוֹ בָּהּ הֶיתֵּר הַסָּקָה, תֹּאמַר בָּזוֹ — שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָּהּ לֹא הֶיתֵּר אֲכִילָה וְלֹא הֶיתֵּר הַסָּקָה! אָמַר לוֹ: אַף בְּזוֹ יֵשׁ לוֹ בָּהּ הֶיתֵּר הַסָּקָה, שֶׁאִם רָצָה הַכֹּהֵן — מְרִיצָהּ לִפְנֵי כַּלְבּוֹ, אוֹ מַסִּיקָהּ תַּחַת תַּבְשִׁילוֹ.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov 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 Ḥisma 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 Ḥisma agrees with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili that one may derive benefit from leavened bread during Passover.

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי כּוּלְּהוּ סְבִירָא לְהוּ חָמֵץ בַּפֶּסַח אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה, וּבְהָא פְּלִיגִי, דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר: לְפִי דָמִים מְשַׁלֵּם, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי סָבַר: לְפִי מִדָּה מְשַׁלֵּם.

Abaye said: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, Rabbi Akiva, and Rabbi Yoḥanan 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 Yoḥanan 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.

פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי נָמֵי כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר לְפִי דָמִים מְשַׁלֵּם. וְהָתָם הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּקָא מְחַיֵּיב — מִשּׁוּם דְּסָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, דְּאָמַר: חָמֵץ בַּפֶּסַח מוּתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

The Gemara asks: Isn’t 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 Yoḥanan 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 Yoḥanan 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 Yoḥanan ben Nuri agrees that one may not derive benefit from leavened bread during Passover.

וְאֵימָא הָכִי נָמֵי? אִם כֵּן, נַהְדַּר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא כִּי הֵיכִי דְּמַהְדַּר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר חַסָּמָא לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב.

The Gemara suggests: And say it is indeed so, that Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri accepts Rabbi Yosei HaGelili’s position. The Gemara rejects this possibility: If this was the case, then Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri should have responded to Rabbi Akiva in the same way that Rabbi Elazar Ḥisma responded to Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, 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.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הָאוֹכֵל כְּזַיִת תְּרוּמָה מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וָחוֹמֶשׁ, אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר: עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא בּוֹ שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה. מַאי טַעְמָא דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא — אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְאִישׁ כִּי יֹאכַל קֹדֶשׁ בִּשְׁגָגָה״, וַאֲכִילָה בִּכְזַיִת.

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: “And 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 item” (Leviticus 22:14). The minimal amount that is halakhically considered eating is an olive-bulk.

וְאַבָּא שָׁאוּל, מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְנָתַן״, וְאֵין נְתִינָה פָּחוֹת מִשָּׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה. וְאִידַּךְ נָמֵי, הָא כְּתִיב ״יֹאכַל״! הָהוּא, פְּרָט לְמַזִּיק הוּא דַּאֲתָא.

And what is the reason for the opinion of Abba Shaul? The verse states: “And he shall give,” 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, isn’t it written: “Eats,” 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.

וְתַנָּא קַמָּא, הָכְתִיב ״וְנָתַן״! הַהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְדָבָר הָרָאוּי לִהְיוֹת קֹדֶשׁ (פְּרָט לָאוֹכֵל תְּרוּמַת חָמֵץ בַּפֶּסַח).

And according to the first tanna, one can ask: Isn’t it written “And he shall give”? 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.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הָאוֹכֵל תְּרוּמָה פָּחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת — מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַחוֹמֶשׁ. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִי דְּלֵית בֵּיהּ שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה — קֶרֶן נָמֵי לָא לִישַׁלֵּם, וְאִי דְּאִית בֵּהּ שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה — חוֹמֶשׁ נָמֵי לִישַׁלֵּם! לְעוֹלָם דְּאִית בֵּהּ שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה, וַאֲפִילּוּ הָכִי, כֵּיוָן דְּלֵית בֵּיהּ כְּזַיִת — מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַחוֹמֶשׁ.

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.

אַמְרוּהָ רַבָּנַן קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא הָא דְּלָא כְּאַבָּא שָׁאוּל, דְּאִי כְּאַבָּא שָׁאוּל, הָאָמַר: כֵּיוָן שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה, אַף עַל גַּב דְּלֵית בֵּיהּ כְּזַיִת. אָמַר לְהוּ רַב פָּפָּא: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא אַבָּא שָׁאוּל, אַבָּא שָׁאוּל תַּרְתֵּי בָּעֵי.

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, didn’t 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.

וּמִי בָּעֵי אַבָּא שָׁאוּל תַּרְתֵּי? וְהָא תְּנַן, אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר: אֶת שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה — חַיָּיב בְּתַשְׁלוּמִין, אֶת שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה — אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב בְּתַשְׁלוּמִין. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: לֹא אָמְרוּ שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה אֶלָּא לְעִנְיַן מְעִילָה בִּלְבַד, אֲבָל לִתְרוּמָה — אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא בּוֹ כְּזַיִת. וְאִם אִיתָא, ״כֵּיוָן שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ כְּזַיִת״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ. תְּיוּבְתָּא.

The Gemara asks: Does Abba Shaul actually require two conditions? Didn’t 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 Pappa’s position is rejected.

וְאַף רַב פָּפָּא הֲדַר בֵּיהּ, דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְחָטְאָה בִּשְׁגָגָה״ — פְּרָט לְמֵזִיד. וַהֲלֹא דִּין הוּא: וּמָה שְׁאָר מִצְוֹת שֶׁחַיָּיב בָּהֶן כָּרֵת — פּוֹטֵר בָּהֶן אֶת הַמֵּזִיד, מְעִילָה שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ כָּרֵת — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁפָּטַר אֶת הַמֵּזִיד?

The Gemara notes that Rav Pappa himself also retracted this explanation. As it was taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “If 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-offering” (Leviticus 5:15), the baraita explains: The phrase “and sins through error” 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?

לֹא! אִם אָמַרְתָּ בִּשְׁאָר מִצְוֹת שֶׁכֵּן לֹא חִיֵּיב בָּהֶן מִיתָה, תֹּאמַר בִּמְעִילָה, שֶׁחִיֵּיב בָּהּ מִיתָה! תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בִּשְׁגָגָה״ — פְּרָט לְמֵזִיד.

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 “through error” to exclude one who acted intentionally.

וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק לְרַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין: הַאי תַּנָּא מֵעִיקָּרָא אַלִּימָא לֵיהּ כָּרֵת, וּלְבַסּוֹף אַלִּימָא לֵיהּ מִיתָה!

And Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to Rav Ḥiyya 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.

וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ, הָכִי קָאָמַר: לֹא! אִם אָמַרְתָּ בִּשְׁאָר מִצְוֹת — שֶׁכֵּן לֹא חִיֵּיב בָּהֶן מִיתָה בְּפָחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת, תֹּאמַר בִּמְעִילָה — שֶׁחִיֵּיב בָּהּ מִיתָה בְּפָחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת. וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ: תָּנוּחַ דַּעְתְּךָ שֶׁהִנַּחְתָּ אֶת דַּעְתִּי. וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי נִיחוּתָא, דְּרַבָּה וְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת שָׁדוּ בֵּיהּ נַרְגָּא: מַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ דְּאָמַר

And Rav Ḥiyya 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 Naḥman bar Yitzḥak 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 Ḥiyya 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