Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

December 23, 2020 | 讞壮 讘讟讘转 转砖驻状讗

Masechet Pesachim is sponsored by Sivya Twersky in honor of her daughter, Shoshana Baker, her grandson's upcoming Bar Mitzvah ,and in memory of her father, Harav Pesach Zachariah Halevi ben Reuven and Leah Z'late Z'L. He lived Torah and emunah by example to congregational and biological families. His yahrzeit falls within this masechet.

The Daf Yomi women of Neve Daniel are proud to dedicate a month of learning in honor of all the women learning Torah in the world and in honor of completing our first year of learning together. Thank you to Hadran and to the Rabbaniot Michelle, Chamotal, Tanya, Sally, Michal, Chayuta and Meirav that lead us in our in depth learning. Yishar Cochachen!

Pesachim 32

The Daf Yomi women of Neve Daniel are proud to dedicate a month of Daf Yomi learning in honor of all the women learning Torah in the world and in honor of completing our first year of learning together. Thank you to Hadran and to the Rabbaniot Michelle, Chamotal, Tanya, Sally, Michal, Chayuta and Meirav that lead us in our in depth learning. Yishar Kochachen!

Today鈥檚 Daf is dedicated by Sarah Weil in memory of Michael Weil z”l and in honor of his unwavering commitment to his beloved family. May his memory be a blessing. And by Joanna Rom for a refuah sheleima of her mother-in-law, Shirley Goldberg. And in memory of Boaz Leib ben Meir on his 7th yahrzeit. May his neshama have an aliya today and may his legacy continue to shine through his family. Also for a refuah shleima for Shaindel Chaya bat Leah.

If someone (an Israelite) eats truma that that is chametz on Pesach, will he/she be obligated to pay? It depends if it was done intentionally or unwittingly. Eventually the gemara will explain this difference in two ways. The gemara quotes the Mishna Trumot 6:1 regarding the payment of the principle and the added fifth that one is obligated if one eats truma unwittingly and asks a question – is it valued at the financial value of what was eaten or by the measurement? The gemara limits the question to a case where there was a decrease in price from the time it was eaten until the time is was to be paid back. The gemara tries to bring an answer from two sources, one of them our mishna, but ultimately explains that each source can be explained according to each option. In the end the gemara proves that the answer to the question is the subject of a tannaitic debate between Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri and Rabbi Akiva. What is the requisite amount required to be obligated to pay for truma eaten – is it a law of eaten forbidden items and therefore an olive bulk or is it a law of stealing and therefore needs to be the value of a coin (pruta)? Abba Shaul says the value of a coin and it is suggested that perhaps he requires both, however this option is rejected.

讜讗讞讚 讛住讱 讗讞讚 转专讜诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讜讗讞讚 转专讜诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 诪砖诇诐 讞讜诪砖 讜讞讜诪砖讗 讚讞讜诪砖讗


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.


讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讻砖讛讜讗 诪砖诇诐 诇驻讬 诪讚讛 诪砖诇诐 讗讜 诇驻讬 讚诪讬诐 诪砖诇诐 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诪注讬拽专讗 砖讜讬讗 讗专讘注讛 讝讜讝讬 讜诇讘住讜祝 砖讜讬讗 讝讜讝讗 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讚讜讚讗讬 讻讚诪注讬拽专讗 诪砖诇诐 诇驻讬 讚诪讬诐 讚诇讗 讙专注 诪讙讝诇谉 讚转谞谉 讻诇 讛讙讝诇谞讬谉 诪砖诇诪讬谉 讻砖注转 讛讙讝诇讛


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.


讻讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讚诪注讬拽专讗 砖讜讬讗 讝讜讝讗 讜诇讘住讜祝 砖讜讬讗 讗专讘注讛 诪讗讬 诇驻讬 诪讚讛 诪砖诇诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讙专讬讜讗 讗讻诇 讙专讬讜讗 诪砖诇诐 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诇驻讬 讚诪讬诐 诪砖诇诐 讘讝讜讝讗 讗讻诇 讘讝讜讝讗 诪砖诇诐


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鈥檃 and you must pay a se鈥檃, 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?


讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 转讗 砖诪注 讗讻诇 讙专讜讙专讜转 讜砖讬诇诐 诇讜 转诪专讬诐 转讘讗 注诇讬讜 讘专讻讛 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇驻讬 诪讚讛 诪砖诇诐 讗诪讟讜 诇讛讻讬 转讘讗 注诇讬讜 讘专讻讛 讚讗讻讬诇 讙专讬讜讗 讚讙专讜讙专讜转 讚砖讜讬讗 讝讜讝讗 讜拽讗 讬讛讬讘 讙专讬讜讗 讚转诪专讬诐 讚砖讜讬讗 讗专讘注讛 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇驻讬 讚诪讬诐 诪砖诇诐 讗诪讗讬 转讘讗 注诇讬讜 讘专讻讛 讘讝讜讝讗 讗讻诇 讘讝讜讝讗 拽讗 诪砖诇诐


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


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇注讜诇诐 诇驻讬 讚诪讬诐 诪砖诇诐 讜讗诪讗讬 转讘讗 注诇讬讜 讘专讻讛 讚讗讻诇 诪讬讚讬 讚诇讗 拽驻讬抓 注诇讬讛 讝讘讬谞讬讛 讜拽讗 诪砖诇诐 诪讬讚讬 讚拽驻讬抓 注诇讬讛 讝讘讬谞讬讛:


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鈥檛 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.


转谞谉 讛讗讜讻诇 转专讜诪转 讞诪抓 讘驻住讞 讘砖讜讙讙 诪砖诇诐 拽专谉 讜讞讜诪砖 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇驻讬 诪讚讛 诪砖诇诐 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇驻讬 讚诪讬诐 诪砖诇诐 讞诪抓 讘驻住讞 讘专 讚诪讬诐 讛讜讗 讗讬谉 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讞诪抓 讘驻住讞 诪讜转专 讘讛谞讗讛


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


讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讘诪讝讬讚 驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讜诪讚诪讬 注爪讬诐 讗讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讗诪讗讬 驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讜诪讚诪讬 注爪讬诐


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.


住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 谞讞讜谞讬讗 讘谉 讛拽谞讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 谞讞讜谞讬讗 讘谉 讛拽谞讛 讛讬讛 注讜砖讛 讗转 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讻砖讘转 诇转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讜讻讜壮


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


讻转谞讗讬 讛讗讜讻诇 转专讜诪转 讞诪抓 讘驻住讞 驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讜诪讚诪讬 注爪讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 诪讞讬讬讘 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讜讻讬 诪讛 讛谞讗讛 讬砖 诇讜 讘讛 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜诪讛 讛谞讗讛 讬砖 诇讗讜讻诇 转专讜诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讘砖讗专 讻诇 讬诪讜转 讛砖谞讛 砖诪砖诇诐


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鈥檌m, 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 Yo岣nan ben Nuri deems him liable to pay. Rabbi Akiva said to Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan 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.


讗诪专 诇讜 诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘转专讜诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讘砖讗专 讬诪讜转 讛砖谞讛 砖讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讘讛 讛讬转专 讗讻讬诇讛 讬砖 诇讜 讘讛 讛讬转专 讛住拽讛 转讗诪专 讘讝讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讘讛 诇讗 讛讬转专 讗讻讬诇讛 讜诇讗 讛讬转专 讛住拽讛 讛讗 诇诪讛 讝讛 讚讜诪讛 诇转专讜诪转 转讜转讬诐 讜注谞讘讬诐 砖谞讟诪讗讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讘讛 诇讗 讛讬转专 讗讻讬诇讛 讜诇讗 讛讬转专 讛住拽讛


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.


讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘诪驻专讬砖 转专讜诪讛 讜讛讞诪讬爪讛 讗讘诇 诪驻专讬砖 转专讜诪转 讞诪抓 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗讬谞讛 拽讚讜砖讛


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


转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讜谞转谉 诇讻讛谉 讗转 讛拽讚砖 讚讘专 讛专讗讜讬 诇讛讬讜转 拽讚砖 驻专讟 诇讗讜讻诇 转专讜诪转 讞诪抓 讘驻住讞 砖驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛转砖诇讜诪讬诐 讜诪讚诪讬 注爪讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讞住诪讗 诪讞讬讬讘 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讞住诪讗 讜讻讬 诪讛 讛谞讗讛 讬砖 诇讜 讘讛 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讞住诪讗 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讜讻讬 诪讛 讛谞讗讛 讬砖 诇讜 诇讗讜讻诇 转专讜诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讘砖讗专 讬诪讜转 讛砖谞讛 砖诪砖诇诐


It was taught in another baraita: With regard to the verse 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (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鈥檃kov. Rabbi Elazar 岣sma deems him liable to reimburse the priest for these items. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov said to Rabbi Elazar 岣sma: What benefit can the priest derive from this teruma of leavened bread, as it is prohibited to benefit from it? Rabbi Elazar 岣sma said to Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov: 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.


讗诪专 诇讜 诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘转专讜诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讘砖讗专 讬诪讜转 讛砖谞讛 砖讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讘讛 讛讬转专 讗讻讬诇讛 讬砖 诇讜 讘讛 讛讬转专 讛住拽讛 转讗诪专 讘讝讜 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讘讛 诇讗 讛讬转专 讗讻讬诇讛 讜诇讗 讛讬转专 讛住拽讛 讗诪专 诇讜 讗祝 讘讝讜 讬砖 诇讜 讘讛 讛讬转专 讛住拽讛 砖讗诐 专爪讛 讛讻讛谉 诪专讬爪讛 诇驻谞讬 讻诇讘讜 讗讜 诪住讬拽讛 转讞转 转讘砖讬诇讜


Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov 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 岣sma 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 岣sma agrees with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili that one may derive benefit from leavened bread during Passover.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讻讜诇讛讜 住讘讬专讗 诇讛讜 讞诪抓 讘驻住讞 讗住讜专 讘讛谞讗讛 讜讘讛讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 诇驻讬 讚诪讬诐 诪砖诇诐 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 住讘专 诇驻讬 诪讚讛 诪砖诇诐


Abaye said: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, Rabbi Akiva, and Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan 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.


驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 谞诪讬 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 诇驻讬 讚诪讬诐 诪砖诇诐 讜讛转诐 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚拽讗 诪讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 讚住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讚讗诪专 讞诪抓 讘驻住讞 诪讜转专 讘讛谞讗讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 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 Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan ben Nuri agrees that one may not derive benefit from leavened bread during Passover.


讜讗讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗诐 讻谉 谞讛讚专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讛讚专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讞住诪讗 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘:


The Gemara suggests: And say it is indeed so, that Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri accepts Rabbi Yosei HaGelili鈥檚 position. The Gemara rejects this possibility: If this was the case, then Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri should have responded to Rabbi Akiva in the same way that Rabbi Elazar 岣sma responded to Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, 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.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讗讜讻诇 讻讝讬转 转专讜诪讛 诪砖诇诐 拽专谉 讜讞讜诪砖 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘讜 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗讬砖 讻讬 讬讗讻诇 拽讚砖 讘砖讙讙讛 讜讗讻讬诇讛 讘讻讝讬转


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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (Leviticus 22:14). The minimal amount that is halakhically considered eating is an olive-bulk.


讜讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜谞转谉 讜讗讬谉 谞转讬谞讛 驻讞讜转 诪砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讜讗讬讚讱 谞诪讬 讛讗 讻转讬讘 讬讗讻诇 讛讛讜讗 驻专讟 诇诪讝讬拽 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗


And what is the reason for the opinion of Abba Shaul? The verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall give,鈥 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鈥檛 it written: 鈥淓ats,鈥 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.


讜转谞讗 拽诪讗 讛讻转讬讘 讜谞转谉 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讚讘专 讛专讗讜讬 诇讛讬讜转 拽讚砖 (驻专讟 诇讗讜讻诇 转专讜诪转 讞诪抓 讘驻住讞):


And according to the first tanna, one can ask: Isn鈥檛 it written 鈥淎nd he shall give鈥? 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.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讗讜讻诇 转专讜诪讛 驻讞讜转 诪讻讝讬转 诪砖诇诐 讗转 讛拽专谉 讜讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 讗转 讛讞讜诪砖 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚诇讬转 讘讬讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 拽专谉 谞诪讬 诇讗 诇讬砖诇诐 讜讗讬 讚讗讬转 讘讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讞讜诪砖 谞诪讬 诇讬砖诇诐 诇注讜诇诐 讚讗讬转 讘讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讬转 讘讬讛 讻讝讬转 诪砖诇诐 讗转 讛拽专谉 讜讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 讗转 讛讞讜诪砖


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.


讗诪专讜讛 专讘谞谉 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讛讗 讚诇讗 讻讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讚讗讬 讻讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讛讗诪专 讻讬讜谉 砖讬砖 讘讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讬转 讘讬讛 讻讝讬转 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 驻驻讗 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 转专转讬 讘注讬


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鈥檛 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.


讜诪讬 讘注讬 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 转专转讬 讜讛讗 转谞谉 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专 讗转 砖讬砖 讘讜 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讞讬讬讘 讘转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讗转 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讘转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇讗 讗诪专讜 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 诪注讬诇讛 讘诇讘讚 讗讘诇 诇转专讜诪讛 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘讜 讻讝讬转 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 讻讬讜谉 砖讬砖 讘讜 讻讝讬转 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 转讬讜讘转讗


The Gemara asks: Does Abba Shaul actually require two conditions? Didn鈥檛 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鈥檚 position is rejected.


讜讗祝 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讚专 讘讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 讜讞讟讗讛 讘砖讙讙讛 驻专讟 诇诪讝讬讚 讜讛诇讗 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 砖讗专 诪爪讜转 砖讞讬讬讘 讘讛谉 讻专转 驻讜讟专 讘讛谉 讗转 讛诪讝讬讚 诪注讬诇讛 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讻专转 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖驻讟专 讗转 讛诪讝讬讚


The Gemara notes that Rav Pappa himself also retracted this explanation. As it was taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: 鈥淚f 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鈥 (Leviticus 5:15), the baraita explains: The phrase 鈥渁nd sins through error鈥 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?


诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘砖讗专 诪爪讜转 砖讻谉 诇讗 讞讬讬讘 讘讛谉 诪讬转讛 转讗诪专 讘诪注讬诇讛 砖讞讬讬讘 讘讛 诪讬转讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘砖讙讙讛 驻专讟 诇诪讝讬讚


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 鈥渢hrough error鈥 to exclude one who acted intentionally.


讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讛讗讬 转谞讗 诪注讬拽专讗 讗诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讻专转 讜诇讘住讜祝 讗诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 诪讬转讛


And Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said to Rav 岣yya 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.


讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘砖讗专 诪爪讜转 砖讻谉 诇讗 讞讬讬讘 讘讛谉 诪讬转讛 讘驻讞讜转 诪讻讝讬转 转讗诪专 讘诪注讬诇讛 砖讞讬讬讘 讘讛 诪讬转讛 讘驻讞讜转 诪讻讝讬转 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讜讞 讚注转讱 砖讛谞讞转 讗转 讚注转讬 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 谞讬讞讜转讗 讚专讘讛 讜专讘 砖砖转 砖讚讜 讘讬讛 谞专讙讗 诪讗谉 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专


And Rav 岣yya 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 Na岣an bar Yitz岣k 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 岣yya 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


Masechet Pesachim is sponsored by Sivya Twersky in honor of her daughter, Shoshana Baker, her grandson's upcoming Bar Mitzvah ,and in memory of her father, Harav Pesach Zachariah Halevi ben Reuven and Leah Z'late Z'L. He lived Torah and emunah by example to congregational and biological families. His yahrzeit falls within this masechet.

The Daf Yomi women of Neve Daniel are proud to dedicate a month of learning in honor of all the women learning Torah in the world and in honor of completing our first year of learning together. Thank you to Hadran and to the Rabbaniot Michelle, Chamotal, Tanya, Sally, Michal, Chayuta and Meirav that lead us in our in depth learning. Yishar Cochachen!

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Pesachim Daf 32-38 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time with Dr Tamara Spitz

This week we will learn the consequence of eating Chametz on Pesach that was also Terumah and therefore forbidden to...

Pesachim 32

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Pesachim 32

讜讗讞讚 讛住讱 讗讞讚 转专讜诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讜讗讞讚 转专讜诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 诪砖诇诐 讞讜诪砖 讜讞讜诪砖讗 讚讞讜诪砖讗


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.


讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讻砖讛讜讗 诪砖诇诐 诇驻讬 诪讚讛 诪砖诇诐 讗讜 诇驻讬 讚诪讬诐 诪砖诇诐 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诪注讬拽专讗 砖讜讬讗 讗专讘注讛 讝讜讝讬 讜诇讘住讜祝 砖讜讬讗 讝讜讝讗 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讚讜讚讗讬 讻讚诪注讬拽专讗 诪砖诇诐 诇驻讬 讚诪讬诐 讚诇讗 讙专注 诪讙讝诇谉 讚转谞谉 讻诇 讛讙讝诇谞讬谉 诪砖诇诪讬谉 讻砖注转 讛讙讝诇讛


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.


讻讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讚诪注讬拽专讗 砖讜讬讗 讝讜讝讗 讜诇讘住讜祝 砖讜讬讗 讗专讘注讛 诪讗讬 诇驻讬 诪讚讛 诪砖诇诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讙专讬讜讗 讗讻诇 讙专讬讜讗 诪砖诇诐 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诇驻讬 讚诪讬诐 诪砖诇诐 讘讝讜讝讗 讗讻诇 讘讝讜讝讗 诪砖诇诐


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鈥檃 and you must pay a se鈥檃, 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?


讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 转讗 砖诪注 讗讻诇 讙专讜讙专讜转 讜砖讬诇诐 诇讜 转诪专讬诐 转讘讗 注诇讬讜 讘专讻讛 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇驻讬 诪讚讛 诪砖诇诐 讗诪讟讜 诇讛讻讬 转讘讗 注诇讬讜 讘专讻讛 讚讗讻讬诇 讙专讬讜讗 讚讙专讜讙专讜转 讚砖讜讬讗 讝讜讝讗 讜拽讗 讬讛讬讘 讙专讬讜讗 讚转诪专讬诐 讚砖讜讬讗 讗专讘注讛 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇驻讬 讚诪讬诐 诪砖诇诐 讗诪讗讬 转讘讗 注诇讬讜 讘专讻讛 讘讝讜讝讗 讗讻诇 讘讝讜讝讗 拽讗 诪砖诇诐


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


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇注讜诇诐 诇驻讬 讚诪讬诐 诪砖诇诐 讜讗诪讗讬 转讘讗 注诇讬讜 讘专讻讛 讚讗讻诇 诪讬讚讬 讚诇讗 拽驻讬抓 注诇讬讛 讝讘讬谞讬讛 讜拽讗 诪砖诇诐 诪讬讚讬 讚拽驻讬抓 注诇讬讛 讝讘讬谞讬讛:


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鈥檛 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.


转谞谉 讛讗讜讻诇 转专讜诪转 讞诪抓 讘驻住讞 讘砖讜讙讙 诪砖诇诐 拽专谉 讜讞讜诪砖 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇驻讬 诪讚讛 诪砖诇诐 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇驻讬 讚诪讬诐 诪砖诇诐 讞诪抓 讘驻住讞 讘专 讚诪讬诐 讛讜讗 讗讬谉 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讞诪抓 讘驻住讞 诪讜转专 讘讛谞讗讛


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


讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讘诪讝讬讚 驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讜诪讚诪讬 注爪讬诐 讗讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讗诪讗讬 驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讜诪讚诪讬 注爪讬诐


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.


住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 谞讞讜谞讬讗 讘谉 讛拽谞讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 谞讞讜谞讬讗 讘谉 讛拽谞讛 讛讬讛 注讜砖讛 讗转 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讻砖讘转 诇转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讜讻讜壮


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


讻转谞讗讬 讛讗讜讻诇 转专讜诪转 讞诪抓 讘驻住讞 驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讜诪讚诪讬 注爪讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 诪讞讬讬讘 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讜讻讬 诪讛 讛谞讗讛 讬砖 诇讜 讘讛 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜诪讛 讛谞讗讛 讬砖 诇讗讜讻诇 转专讜诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讘砖讗专 讻诇 讬诪讜转 讛砖谞讛 砖诪砖诇诐


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鈥檌m, 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 Yo岣nan ben Nuri deems him liable to pay. Rabbi Akiva said to Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan 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.


讗诪专 诇讜 诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘转专讜诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讘砖讗专 讬诪讜转 讛砖谞讛 砖讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讘讛 讛讬转专 讗讻讬诇讛 讬砖 诇讜 讘讛 讛讬转专 讛住拽讛 转讗诪专 讘讝讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讘讛 诇讗 讛讬转专 讗讻讬诇讛 讜诇讗 讛讬转专 讛住拽讛 讛讗 诇诪讛 讝讛 讚讜诪讛 诇转专讜诪转 转讜转讬诐 讜注谞讘讬诐 砖谞讟诪讗讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讘讛 诇讗 讛讬转专 讗讻讬诇讛 讜诇讗 讛讬转专 讛住拽讛


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.


讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘诪驻专讬砖 转专讜诪讛 讜讛讞诪讬爪讛 讗讘诇 诪驻专讬砖 转专讜诪转 讞诪抓 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗讬谞讛 拽讚讜砖讛


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


转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讜谞转谉 诇讻讛谉 讗转 讛拽讚砖 讚讘专 讛专讗讜讬 诇讛讬讜转 拽讚砖 驻专讟 诇讗讜讻诇 转专讜诪转 讞诪抓 讘驻住讞 砖驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛转砖诇讜诪讬诐 讜诪讚诪讬 注爪讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讞住诪讗 诪讞讬讬讘 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讞住诪讗 讜讻讬 诪讛 讛谞讗讛 讬砖 诇讜 讘讛 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讞住诪讗 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讜讻讬 诪讛 讛谞讗讛 讬砖 诇讜 诇讗讜讻诇 转专讜诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讘砖讗专 讬诪讜转 讛砖谞讛 砖诪砖诇诐


It was taught in another baraita: With regard to the verse 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (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鈥檃kov. Rabbi Elazar 岣sma deems him liable to reimburse the priest for these items. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov said to Rabbi Elazar 岣sma: What benefit can the priest derive from this teruma of leavened bread, as it is prohibited to benefit from it? Rabbi Elazar 岣sma said to Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov: 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.


讗诪专 诇讜 诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘转专讜诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讘砖讗专 讬诪讜转 讛砖谞讛 砖讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讘讛 讛讬转专 讗讻讬诇讛 讬砖 诇讜 讘讛 讛讬转专 讛住拽讛 转讗诪专 讘讝讜 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讘讛 诇讗 讛讬转专 讗讻讬诇讛 讜诇讗 讛讬转专 讛住拽讛 讗诪专 诇讜 讗祝 讘讝讜 讬砖 诇讜 讘讛 讛讬转专 讛住拽讛 砖讗诐 专爪讛 讛讻讛谉 诪专讬爪讛 诇驻谞讬 讻诇讘讜 讗讜 诪住讬拽讛 转讞转 转讘砖讬诇讜


Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov 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 岣sma 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 岣sma agrees with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili that one may derive benefit from leavened bread during Passover.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讻讜诇讛讜 住讘讬专讗 诇讛讜 讞诪抓 讘驻住讞 讗住讜专 讘讛谞讗讛 讜讘讛讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 诇驻讬 讚诪讬诐 诪砖诇诐 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 住讘专 诇驻讬 诪讚讛 诪砖诇诐


Abaye said: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, Rabbi Akiva, and Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan 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.


驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 谞诪讬 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 诇驻讬 讚诪讬诐 诪砖诇诐 讜讛转诐 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚拽讗 诪讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 讚住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讚讗诪专 讞诪抓 讘驻住讞 诪讜转专 讘讛谞讗讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 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 Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan ben Nuri agrees that one may not derive benefit from leavened bread during Passover.


讜讗讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗诐 讻谉 谞讛讚专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讛讚专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讞住诪讗 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘:


The Gemara suggests: And say it is indeed so, that Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri accepts Rabbi Yosei HaGelili鈥檚 position. The Gemara rejects this possibility: If this was the case, then Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri should have responded to Rabbi Akiva in the same way that Rabbi Elazar 岣sma responded to Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, 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.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讗讜讻诇 讻讝讬转 转专讜诪讛 诪砖诇诐 拽专谉 讜讞讜诪砖 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘讜 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗讬砖 讻讬 讬讗讻诇 拽讚砖 讘砖讙讙讛 讜讗讻讬诇讛 讘讻讝讬转


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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (Leviticus 22:14). The minimal amount that is halakhically considered eating is an olive-bulk.


讜讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜谞转谉 讜讗讬谉 谞转讬谞讛 驻讞讜转 诪砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讜讗讬讚讱 谞诪讬 讛讗 讻转讬讘 讬讗讻诇 讛讛讜讗 驻专讟 诇诪讝讬拽 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗


And what is the reason for the opinion of Abba Shaul? The verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall give,鈥 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鈥檛 it written: 鈥淓ats,鈥 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.


讜转谞讗 拽诪讗 讛讻转讬讘 讜谞转谉 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讚讘专 讛专讗讜讬 诇讛讬讜转 拽讚砖 (驻专讟 诇讗讜讻诇 转专讜诪转 讞诪抓 讘驻住讞):


And according to the first tanna, one can ask: Isn鈥檛 it written 鈥淎nd he shall give鈥? 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.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讗讜讻诇 转专讜诪讛 驻讞讜转 诪讻讝讬转 诪砖诇诐 讗转 讛拽专谉 讜讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 讗转 讛讞讜诪砖 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚诇讬转 讘讬讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 拽专谉 谞诪讬 诇讗 诇讬砖诇诐 讜讗讬 讚讗讬转 讘讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讞讜诪砖 谞诪讬 诇讬砖诇诐 诇注讜诇诐 讚讗讬转 讘讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讬转 讘讬讛 讻讝讬转 诪砖诇诐 讗转 讛拽专谉 讜讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 讗转 讛讞讜诪砖


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.


讗诪专讜讛 专讘谞谉 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讛讗 讚诇讗 讻讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讚讗讬 讻讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讛讗诪专 讻讬讜谉 砖讬砖 讘讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讬转 讘讬讛 讻讝讬转 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 驻驻讗 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 转专转讬 讘注讬


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鈥檛 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.


讜诪讬 讘注讬 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 转专转讬 讜讛讗 转谞谉 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专 讗转 砖讬砖 讘讜 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讞讬讬讘 讘转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讗转 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讘转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇讗 讗诪专讜 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 诪注讬诇讛 讘诇讘讚 讗讘诇 诇转专讜诪讛 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘讜 讻讝讬转 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 讻讬讜谉 砖讬砖 讘讜 讻讝讬转 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 转讬讜讘转讗


The Gemara asks: Does Abba Shaul actually require two conditions? Didn鈥檛 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鈥檚 position is rejected.


讜讗祝 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讚专 讘讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 讜讞讟讗讛 讘砖讙讙讛 驻专讟 诇诪讝讬讚 讜讛诇讗 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 砖讗专 诪爪讜转 砖讞讬讬讘 讘讛谉 讻专转 驻讜讟专 讘讛谉 讗转 讛诪讝讬讚 诪注讬诇讛 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讻专转 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖驻讟专 讗转 讛诪讝讬讚


The Gemara notes that Rav Pappa himself also retracted this explanation. As it was taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: 鈥淚f 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鈥 (Leviticus 5:15), the baraita explains: The phrase 鈥渁nd sins through error鈥 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?


诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘砖讗专 诪爪讜转 砖讻谉 诇讗 讞讬讬讘 讘讛谉 诪讬转讛 转讗诪专 讘诪注讬诇讛 砖讞讬讬讘 讘讛 诪讬转讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘砖讙讙讛 驻专讟 诇诪讝讬讚


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 鈥渢hrough error鈥 to exclude one who acted intentionally.


讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讛讗讬 转谞讗 诪注讬拽专讗 讗诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讻专转 讜诇讘住讜祝 讗诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 诪讬转讛


And Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said to Rav 岣yya 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.


讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘砖讗专 诪爪讜转 砖讻谉 诇讗 讞讬讬讘 讘讛谉 诪讬转讛 讘驻讞讜转 诪讻讝讬转 转讗诪专 讘诪注讬诇讛 砖讞讬讬讘 讘讛 诪讬转讛 讘驻讞讜转 诪讻讝讬转 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讜讞 讚注转讱 砖讛谞讞转 讗转 讚注转讬 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 谞讬讞讜转讗 讚专讘讛 讜专讘 砖砖转 砖讚讜 讘讬讛 谞专讙讗 诪讗谉 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专


And Rav 岣yya 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 Na岣an bar Yitz岣k 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 岣yya 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


Scroll To Top