Pesachim 32a

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.