Jerusalem Talmud Terumot Chapter 6

הָאוֹכֵל תְּרוּמָה שׁוֹגֵג מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וְחוֹמֶשׁ אֶחָד הָאוֹכֵל וְאֶחָד הַשּׁוֹתֶה וְאֶחָד הַסָּךְ אֶחָד תְּרוּמָה טְהוֹרָה וְאֶחָד תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה מְשַׁלֵּם חוֹמֶשׁ וְחוֹמֶשׁ חוּמְשָׁא אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם תְּרוּמָה אֶלָּא חוּלִין מְתוּקָּנִין וְהֵן נַעֲשִׂין תְּרוּמָה. וְהַתַּשְׁלוּמִין תְּרוּמָה. אִם רָצָה הַכֹּהֵן לִמְחוֹל אֵינוֹ מוֹחֵל. בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאָכְלָה תְרוּמָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִשְׂאֵת לְכֹהֵן אִם תְּרוּמָה שֶׁלֹּא זָכָה בָהּ כֹּהֵן אָכְלָה מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וְחוֹמֶשׁ לְעַצְמָהּ. וְאִם תְּרוּמָה שֶׁזָּכָה בָהּ כֹּהֵן אָכְלָה מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן לְבַעֲלִים וְחוֹמֶשׁ לְעַצְמָהּ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאָמְרוּ הָאוֹכֵל תְּרוּמָה שׁוֹגֵג מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן לְבַעֲלִים וְחוֹמֶשׁ לְמִי שֶׁיִּרְצֶה. הָאוֹכֵל תְּרוּמָה שׁוֹגֵג כו׳. כְּתִיב וְאִישׁ כִּי יֹאכַל קוֹדֶשׁ בִּשְׁגָגָה וְיָסַף חֲמִישִּׁיתוֹ. שֶׁיְּהֵא הוּא וְחוּמְשׁוֹ חֲמִשָּׁה. וְלֹא כֵן אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן שׁוֹגֵג בְּחֵלֶב מֵזִיד בְּקָרְבָּן מַתְרִין בּוֹ וְלוֹקֶה וּמֵבִיא קָרְבָּן. וֶאֱמוֹר אַף הָכָא מֵזִיד בִּתְרוּמָה וְשׁוֹגֵג בְּחוֹמֶשׁ יִתְרוּ בוֹ וְיִלְקֶה וְיָבִיא חוֹמֶשׁ. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא גְּזֵירַת הַכָּתוּב הִיא. וְאִישׁ כִּי יֹאכַל קוֹדֶשׁ בִּשְׁגָגָה שֶׁתְּהֵא כָּל אֲכִילָתוֹ בִשְׁגָגָה. כְּמֵזִיד בִּסְפֵיקוֹ כְשׁוֹגֵג בְּוַדָּאוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי הָדָא אָמְרָה הַשָּׁב לוֹ מִידִיעָתוֹ. חַיָיב עַל שִׁגְּגָתָהּ. אָמַר אֲנִי פּוֹרֵשׁ מִכְּזַיִת וְאֵינִי פּוֹרֵשׁ מִכַּחֲצִי זַיִת. אָמַר רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה נַעֲשֶׂה כְאוֹכֵל חֲצִי זַיִת בְּשׁוֹגֵג וַחֲצִי זַיִת בְּמֵזִיד. וְאִין יִסְבּוֹר רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה כְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֵּן לָקִישׁ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֵּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר אָכַל חֲצִי זַיִת בְּהֶעֱלֵם אֶחָד פָּטוּר. וְהָכָא אָכַל שְׁנֵי חֲצָאֵי זֵתִין וְחָסֵר כָּל שֶׁהוּא פָּטוּר. מוֹדֵי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ בְּאִיסּוּרֵי הֲנָיָיה וּמוֹדֵי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים וּמוֹדֵה רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ בְּעָתִיד לְהַשְׁלִים. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן הַמְּגַמֵּעַ חוֹמֶץ שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה לוֹקֶה. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן הַכּוֹסֵס חִיטָּה שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה לוֹקֶה. תַּנֵּי הַכּוֹסֵס אֶת הַחִיטָּה שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַחוֹמֶשׁ. רִבִּי אוֹמֵר אֲנִי אוֹמֵר שֶׁמְּשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וְחוֹמֶשׁ. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אִימִּי מוֹדִין חֲכָמִים לְרִבִּי בִּמְגַמֵּעַ חוֹמֶץ שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה אַחַר טִיבְלוֹ שֶׁהוּא מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וְחוֹמֶשׁ שֶׁהַחוֹמֶץ מְיַשֵּׁב אֶת הַנֶּפֶשׁ. תַּנֵּי אָכַל תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה מְשַׁלֵּם חוּלִין טְהוֹרִין וְאִם שִׁילֵּם חוּלִין טְמֵאִין יָצָא. רִבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר סוּמָּכוֹס אוֹמֵר שׁוֹגֵג מַה שֶׁעָשָׂה עָשׂוּי מֵזִיד לֹא עָשָׂה כְּלוּם. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן אֵין תּוֹרְמִין מִן הַטָּמֵא עַל הַטָּהוֹר. תַּנֵי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אִם תָּרַם מִן הַטָּמֵא עַל הַטָּהוֹר בֵּין בְּשׁוֹגֵג בֵּין בְּמֵזִיד מַה שֶׁעָשָׂה עָשׂוּי. אַתְיָא דִיחִידָאָה דְהָכָא כִּסְתָמָא דְתַמָּן וִיחִידָאָה דְתַמָּן כִּסְתָמָא דְהָכָא. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָא רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חֲנִינָה תַּשְׁלוּמֵי תְרוּמָה הֲרֵי הֵן כִּתְרוּמָה לְכָל דָּבָר אֶלָּא שֶׁגִּידוּלֵיהֶן חוּלִין. גִּידוּלֵי תְרוּמָה הֲרֵי הֵן כְּחוּלִין לְכָל דָּבָר אֶלָּא שֶׁאֲסוּרִין לְזָרִים. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי וַאֲנָן תַּנִּינָן תַּרְתֵּיהוֹן תַּשְׁלוּמִין תְּרוּמָה הֲרֵי הֵן כִּתְרוּמָה לְכָל דָּבָר דְּתַנִּינָן אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם תְּרוּמָה אֶלָּא חוּלִין מְתוּקָּנִין וְהֵן נַעֲשִׂין תְּרוּמָה. אֶלָּא שֶׁגִּידוּלֵיהֶן חוּלִין דְּתַנִּינָן גִּידוּלֵי תְרוּמָה הָא גִידוּלֵי תַשְׁלוּמִין חוּלִין גִּידוּלֵי תְרוּמָה הֲרֵי הֵן כְּחוּלִין לְכָל דָּבָר. דְּתַנִּינָן וְחַיֶיבֶת בְלֶקֶט וּבְשִׁכְחָה וּבְפֵיאָה וַעֲנִיֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַעֲנִיֵי כֹּהֲנִים מְלַקְּטִין אֶלָּא שֶׁאֲסוּרִין לְזָרִים דְּתַנִּינָן וַעֲנִיֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מוֹכְרִין אֶת שֶׁלָּהֶן לַכֹּהֲנִים בִּדְמֵי תְרוּמָה וְהַדָּמִין שֶׁלָּהֶן. תַּנֵּי תַּשְׁלוּמֵי תְרוּמָה אֵין מְשַׁלְּמִין מֵהֶן קֶרֶן וְחוֹמֶשׁ וְאֵין מְשַׁלְּמִין עֲלֵיהֶן קֶרֶן וְחוֹמֶשׁ וְאֵין חַיָיבִין בְּחַלָּה וְאֵין הַיָּדַיִם פּוֹסְלוֹת בִּטְבוּל יוֹם כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁפּוֹסְלוֹת בְּחוּלִין. וְאוּף רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי מוֹדֶה בָהּ. אִם רָצָה כֹּהֵן לִמְחוֹל אֵינוֹ מוֹחֵל. בִּשֶׁלֹּא הִפְרִישׁ. הִפְרִישׁ וְאַחַר כָּךְ אָכַל פְּלוּגְתָא דְּרִבִּי וּדְרִבִּי לָעְזָר בֵּי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. דְּתַנֵּי וְנָתַן לַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַקּוֹדֶשׁ מַתָּנָתוֹ מְקַדְּשָׁתוֹ מִלּוֹכַל בִּתְרוּמָה. וְאַף הַפְרָשָׁתוֹ מְקַדְּשָׁתוֹ לְחַיֵיב עָלָיו חוֹמֶשׁ דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי לָעְזָר בֵּי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. וְאַף הַפְרָשָׁתוֹ מְקַדְּשָׁתוֹ לְחַיֵיב עָלָיו קֶרֶן וְחוֹמֶשׁ מִלּוֹכַל בִּתְרוּמָה. מָחַל וְאַחַר כָּךְ אָכַל תַּפְלוּגְתָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וּדְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. דְּאִיתְפַּלְּגוּן גָּזַל תְּרוּמָה מִשֶּׁל אֲבִי אִמּוֹ כֹּהֵן רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר מְשַׁלֵּם לְשֵׁבֶט. וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר מְשַׁלֵּם לְעַצְמוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה כָּךְ הָיָה מֵשִׁיב רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן עַל דַּעֲתָּךְ דְּתֵימַר מְשַׁלֵּם לְשֵׁבֶט. וְהָא תַנִּינָן גָּנַב תְּרוּמַת הֶקְדֵּשׁ וַאֲכָלָהּ מְשַׁלֵּם שְׁנֵי חוֹמְשִׁין וְקֶרֶן. וִישַׁלֵּם שְׁלֹשָׁה. רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן הַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה יָצָא בוֹ יְדֵי גְזֵילָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי זְעִירָא לְרִבִּי אִיסִי תַּרְתֵּין מִילִין אָמְרִין בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְלֵית אַתּוּן אָמְרִין מֵהֶן אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן יָצָא יְדֵי גְזֵילוֹ וְלֵית אַתּוּן אָמְרִין מָהוּ כְדוֹן וְנָתַן לַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַקּוֹדֶשׁ. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁנְּתָנוֹ לוֹ יָצָא יְדֵי גְזֵילוֹ. אַתּוּן אָמְרִין בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּמָקוֹם שְׁחִיטָתָהּ שָׁם תְּהֵא שְׂרֵיפָתָהּ. וְלֵית אַתּוּן מֵינהֶון. מָהוּ כְדוֹן. רִבִּי לָעְזָר בְשֵׁם רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה עַל פִּרְשָׁהּ יִשְׂרוֹף. מַה אַתְּ שְׁמַע מִינָהּ. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אִימִּי מְקוֹם פְּרִישָׁתָהּ מֵחַיִים שָׁם תְהֵא שְׂרֵיפָתָהּ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן כְּרִבִּי. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ כְּרִבִּי לָעְזָר בֵּי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. אָמַר רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה וְאִין יִסְבּוֹר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ כְּרִבִּי וּבִלְבַד בְּדָבָר שֶׁהוּא זָקוּק לִיתְּנוֹ לְכֹהֵן אֲבָל בְּדָבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ זָקוּק לִיתְּנוֹ לְכֹהֵן אוּף רִבִּי מוֹדֵי דְהִיא מַתְנִיתָא הִפְרִישׁ פִּדְיוֹן פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר וּמֵת רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר חַיָיבִין בְּאַחֵרָיוּתוֹ כְּחָמֵשׁ סְלָעִים שֶׁל בֵּן. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִין אֵין חַיָיבִין בְּאַחֵרָיוּתוֹ אֶלָּא כְפִדְיוֹן מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי. מוֹדֵי רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר בְּפִטְרֵי חֲמוֹרוֹת שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לוֹ מִבֵּית אֲבִי אִמּוֹ כֹּהֵן מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁהִפְרִישׁוֹ קִדְּשׁוֹ. אָכַל תְּרוּמַת חָבֵר מְשַׁלֵּם לְחָבֵר. תְּרוּמַת עַם הָאָרֶץ מְשַׁלֵּם לְעַם הָאָרֶץ. וְלֹא נִמְצָא מוֹסֵר טָהֳרוֹתָיו לְעַם הָאָרֶץ. כֵּיצַד הוּא עוֹשֶׂה נוֹתֵן שְׁתֵּיהֶן לְכֹהֵן חָבֵר וְנוֹטֵל דְּמֵי אַחַת מֵהֶן וְנוֹתֵן לְכֹהֵן עַם הָאָרֶץ. רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה אָמַר קוֹמֵי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אַתְיָא כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר הַפְרָשָׁתוֹ מְקַדְּשָׁתוֹ. בְּרַם כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר מַתְּנָתוֹ מְקַדְּשָׁתוֹ בְּלֹא כֵן אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ זְכִיָיה. אָמַר לָהֶן בִּמְזַכֶּה עַל יְדֵי אַחֵר. לֹא הִסְפִּיקָה לְשַׁלֵּם עַד שֶׁנִּתְגָּרְשָׁה. אִיתָא חֲמִי אִילּוּ הָיָה לָהּ כַּמָּה מַעְשְׂרוֹת שֶׁמָּא אֵינָן שֶׁלָּהּ. תַּמָּן מַעְשְׂרוֹת מְסוּיָימִין בְרַם הָכָא תְּרוּמָה אֵינָהּ מְסוּיֶימֶת. מַה דָמֵי לָהּ פִּיטְרֵי חֲמוֹרוֹת.

MISHNAH: If somebody eats heave in error, he pays principal and fifth. 22:14 : “Anybody who ate sanctified food in error must add its fifth to it and give the holy food to the Cohen.” In the Yerushalmi (6:1) and the Sifra [ Wayyiqra pereq 20(8); Emor pereq 6(4 )], its fifth is interpreted to mean that the addition must be one fifth of the restitution, or one fourth of the principal. In the Babli ( Baba Meẓi‘a 54a ) this is the opinion of R. Oshaia, whereas R. Jonathan refers its fifth to the principal. The latter opinion is never found in the Yerushalmi. There will be a discussion in the Halakhah whether the expression “give the holy food to the Cohen” means that the designation as reparation makes holy or only its delivery. ; whether he eats, drinks, or anoints, whether the heave be pure or impure, he pays. The fifth and the fifth of the fifths he does not pay in heave but in totally profane food which is turned into heave. All payments become heave. Although the Cohen may want to forgive this, he has no right to forgive. If an Israel woman ate heave and then was married to a Cohen, ate the heave before a Cohen had acquired it, she pays principal and fifth to herself, but if she ate heave which a Cohen had acquired, she pays principal to its owner and the fifth to herself since they said, he who eats heave in error pays the principal to its owner and the fifth to a person of his choice. HALAKHAH: “If somebody eats heave in error,” etc. It is written ( Lev . 22:14 ): “Anybody who ate sanctified food in error must add its fifth.” That it and its fifth make five. Did not Rabbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan 11:5 (13b), Baba Qamma 7:2 (5d). Šebuot 3:1 (34b), Ketubot 3:1 (27c), except Terumot 7:1 (44c) in the name of R. Simeon ben Laqish, and here in the Rome ms. which reads תני. The parallel discussion in the Babli is Šabbat 69a . : If he is in error about fat but intentional about a sacrifice, he can be warned, is whipped, and brings a sacrifice Chapter 8, Note 9 , a criminal court can impose biblical sanctions only if criminal intent is proven by two witnesses. This means that two witnesses testify that the alleged criminal was warned about the criminality of the act he seems intent to commit. The situation here is that the perpetrator knew that eating fat (those fatty parts of domesticated animals which in a sacrifice have to be burned on the altar) was forbidden but did not know what the punishment would be. In the Babli, R. Joḥanan holds that if he knew that eating fat was forbidden but not that it was a deadly sin he committed an intentional sin but an unintentional deadly sin, just as described here by R. Abbahu. If duly warned, he can be punished for eating fat as a misdemeanor but in addition he has to bring a sacrifice for the aspect of deadly sin of which he was oblivious, as asserted here also. R. Simeon ben Laqish does not permit a sacrifice unless the person was ignorant of the fact that the act was punishable. . Say also here, if he has intention about heave but is inadvertent about the fifth, one should warn him and he should be whipped and bring a fifth. Rebbi Zeїra said, it is a decision of the verse, “if somebody eats heave in error,” that all his eating should be in error. If he is intentional in doubt it is as if he is unintentional in his certainty. Rebbi Yose said, this means that if somebody forgot after he knew, he is guilty unintentionally. 5:4 : “Or a person who swears, by expression of his lips, to his advantage or detriment, about anything a person is apt to swear, then he forgot , but later remembered that he had incurred guilt about one of these.” . If somebody said, I would not touch the volume of an olive, but I will touch half the volume of an olive, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, he is like a person who eats half the volume of an olive unintentionally and half the volume of an olive intentionally 73b , R. Simeon ben Laqish states that less than the established minimum in any case is not forbidden by the Torah, but R. Joḥanan holds that everything forbidden is forbidden in any quantity; it simply cannot be prosecuted if the quantity is minimal. In Šabbat 12:6 (13d), this position is ascribed to Rabban Gamliel and the question about two olive halves is not answered. . Would Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya hold with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he ate half the volume of an olive during one forgetting spell 12:6 (13:d), Babli Šabbat 105a . , he is free from punishment. So here, if he ate two times half the volume of an olive minus something, he is free from punishment. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees in the case of prohibitions of usufruct usufruct is forbidden, such as grain growing in a vineyard or food from an idolatrous sacrifice, half a measure must be forbidden because its use would be usufruct. , Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees in the case of the Day of Atonement, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees in case he would complete it in the future. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan14:4 (14d), Yoma 8:3 (45a); cf. Babli Yoma 80b–81a . In the parallels, the statement about payment of principal only is asserted both for vinegar and a wheat grain. : He who swallows heave vinegar is whipped. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who chews a wheat grain of heave is whipped. It was stated: He who chews a wheat grain of heave pays the principal but not the fifth; Rebbi says, I am saying that he pays principal and fifth. 22:14 . Therefore, one has to pay for the value of what he took, as anybody must who took another’s property illegally, since even his own heave is not his property but a Cohen’s. The baraita here deals with raw wheat kernels which are not a health hazard; it is simply asserted that the fifth applies only to what is considered eating by a majority of the population. . Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ammi: The Sages agree with Rebbi about him who swallows heave vinegar after such ṭevel , that he pays principal and fifth because vinegar refreshes the spirit vinegar, which also is sinful but not subject to the fifth, and then added some more heave vinegar, that makes vinegar food as a folk medicine. . It was stated 3:1 (27b). In the Babli ( Yebamot 90a , Giṭṭin 54a ) the text is quoted in somewhat enlarged form but rejected (since impure heave is paid for as if it were fuel for principal and fifth, cf. Halakhah 5:8, Tosephta 7:2 ) and reformulated to speak of pure heave; that changed text is in Tosephta 7:7 . : If someone ate impure heave, he has to pay in pure profane food, but if he paid in impure profane, he discharged his obligation. Rebbi Nathan says, Symmachos says, if inadvertently, what he did is done, intentionally, he did not do anything as speaking of pure heave, inapplicable today. These decrees mostly are rejected as minority opinions in the Yerushalmi; there is no need for reformulation. . There, we have stated: “One does not give heave from impure produce for pure.” It was stated in the name of Rebbi Yose, “if he gave heave from impure produce for pure, whether inadvertently or intentionally, what he did is done.” It turns out that the single opinion here is like the anonymous one there, and the single there like the anonymous here. How is this? Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: The replacements of heave are like heave in every respect except that what grows from them is profane. The growth from heave is like profane in every respect except that it is forbidden for outsiders. Rebbi Yose said, we have stated all three: The replacements of heave are like heave in every respect as we have stated, “he does not pay in heave but in totally profane food which is turned into heave.” Except that what grows from them is profane as we have stated, “the growth from heave,” which implies that what grows from replacement is profane. The growth from heave is like profane in all respects, as we have stated, “ it is subject to gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah ; Israel poor and Cohanim poor collect it,” except that it is forbidden to outsiders as we have stated, “Israel poor sell theirs to Cohanim for the price of heave but the money is theirs.” It was stated: One does not use the complement of heave notes, it is impossible that this baraita deal with replacement of heave in the sense of this Halakhah, since the Mishnah stated clearly that even “the fifth of the fifth” comes under the rules of heave. One has to assume, with R. M. Margalit, that one deals with the complement of heave, if the heave given turns out to be less than 1/60 of the harvest, and the farmer has to add the difference; cf. Tosephta 8:2 . Since heave has no biblical minimum, that complement is only rabbinic heave and is not covered by Lev . 22:14 . But since the name of heave has been pronounced over it, it is not profane to be used for payment and cannot become ḥallah . for payment of principal and fifth and for them one does not pay principal and fifth, it is not subject to ḥallah , and hands and the ṭevul yom do not make it unusable in the way they do not make profane unusable makes heave unusable by his touch ( Chapter 5, Note 68 ), the same is true for unwashed hands which are always considered impure in the second degree. Profane food cannot become impure by touch of impurity of second degree in contrast to heave. There is one opinion in Soṭa 5:2 (fol. 20a; Babli Pesaḥim 18a ) that R. Aqiba asserts the possibility of third degree impurity for profane food, but it is clearly stated there that this is not acceptable practice. . Even Rebbi Simeon and Rebbi Yose agree with this 46b–47a , R. Yose and R. Simeon free from ḥallah profane dough made to rise by heave (or dema‘ ) sour dough (since the action of the sour dough shows it is not insignificant even if less than 1% in volume). Similarly, in Mishnah Ṭevul Yom 3:4, R. Yose and R. Simeon declare that such a dough will become unusable by the touch of a ṭevul yom (and presumably also of unwashed hands). In both cases, the anonymous majority declares the dough to be profane. . “Although the Cohen may want to forgive this, he has no right to forgive.” That is, if he did not yet separate. If he separated and after that ate, the disagreement of Rebbi and Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon, as it is stated: “( Lev . 22:14 ) ‘He shall give the holy food to the Cohen,’ his delivery sanctifies it so that he cannot eat it because it is heave. Also the separation sanctifies it so that he should be liable for principal and fifth, the words of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon. Also the separation sanctifies it so that he should be liable for principal and fifth preventing him from eating it because it is heave. 6(7 ): “I could think that the separation [taking the payment out of some profane food] sanctifies it so that one would be obligated for principal and fifth; the verse says ‘He shall give the holy food to the Cohen,’ his delivery sanctifies it so that one [any non-Cohen] will be liable for principal and fifth, but the separation does not sanctify it so that he should be liable for principal and fifth, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, also the separation sanctifies it so that he should be liable for principal and fifth.” ” If he [the Cohen] forgave and after that he [the Israel owner] ate, there is disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish since they disagreed: If he robbed heave from his maternal grandfather, a Cohen, Rebbi Joḥanan said, he has to pay to the tribe, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he pays to himself 2:3 (29a). . Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish answered Rebbi Joḥanan thus: According to you, who says he has to pay to the tribe, did we not state: “If he stole heave of the Sanctuary, he has to pay two fifths and the principal. 22:14 ) and of property of the Sanctuary ( Lev . 5:16 ). The two obligations are independent of one another and computed on the same basis. .” Should he not pay three 5:16 ). The heave can become property of the Sanctuary only if the Cohen dedicated it. Therefore, if the Cohen may forgive repayment, the thief cannot be forced to swear and there never can be three fifths. But according to R. Joḥanan, the tribe should be able to force the thief to swear in court and the Tanna should have noticed the possibility of a third fifth. ? Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Torah said, it takes him out of his robbery. Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Ammi: Two things you say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan but you do not say why. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it takes him out of his robbery but you do not say why. It is so, “he shall give the holy food to the Cohen;” once he gave it, it stopped being his robbery. You say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, at the place of its slaughter should be its burning. 19 ) must be slaughtered on the stake; its carcass cannot be moved. . You do not say why. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, Num . 19:5 : “On its excrement shall be its burning.” How do you understand this? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ammi: At the place of its exit from life shall be its burning 113 , in opposition to R. Joḥanan who requires the carcass to be moved in case it was slaughtered at a place from which the Temple doors are not visible; cf. also Sifry Ḥuqqat 124. . Rebbi Joḥanan follows Rebbi, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, even if Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish would hold with Rebbi, but only for something he is obligated to give to a Cohen; but for something he is not obligated to give to a Cohen, even Rebbi will agree since that is a Mishnah 1:6. The Babli ( Bekhorot 12b ) holds that the rules for first-borns depend on special expressions in the appropriate verses and are not derived from general principles, against the Yerushalmi. ( Num . 18:15 ) “You should certainly redeem the human firstborn, and the firstborn of the impure animal you shall redeem.” For R. Eliezer, “certainly” refers to both cases, for the Sages only to the human firstborn. The redemption for a donkey is a lamb ( Ex . 13:13 ), for a human it is 5 šeqel ( Num . 3:47 ). : “If he separated the redemption of a first-born donkey and then it died, Rebbi Eliezer says one is responsible for alienation as for the five tetradrachmas of the [human] first-born; but the Sages say, he is not responsible for alienation, as for Second Tithe.” Rebbi Eliezer will agree about first-born donkeys he inherited from the estate of his maternal grandfather, a Cohen, that he sanctified it when he separated it. One who ate the heave of a Fellow has to pay the Fellow, one who ate the heave of a vulgar person has to pay the vulgar person. Does he then not deliver his pure food to a vulgar person? How does he do it, he gives both to a Cohen Fellow, takes the price of one of them and gives that to the vulgar Cohen. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, this follows him who says, its separation sanctifies. But for him who says, the delivery sanctifies, does it not need acquisition in any case? He said to them, he operates through the services of a third person. If she did not manage to pay before she was divorced? Come and see, if she had so many tithes, would they not be hers? There tithes are defined but here the heave is still undefined. What compares to this? First-born of donkeys. It seems that one refers to the opinion of the Sages (Note 48) that the lamb is the Cohen’s property upon designation, before delivery. In this case, the heave would remain hers if designated before the divorce. .

הַמַּאֲכִיל אֶת פּוֹעֲלָיו וְאֶת אוֹרְחָיו תְּרוּמָה הוּא מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְהֵן מְשַׁלְּמִין אֶת הַחוֹמֶשׁ דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים הֵן מְשַׁלְּמִין קֶרֶן וְחוֹמֶשׁ וְהוּא מְשַׁלֵּם לָהֶן דְּמֵי סְעוּדָתָן. הַגּוֹנֵב תְּרוּמָה וְלֹא אֲכָלָהּ מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל דְּמֵי תְרוּמָה. אֲכָלָהּ מְשַׁלֵּם שְׁנֵי קַרְנַיִם וְחוֹמֶשׁ. קֶרֶן וְחוֹמֶשׁ מִן הַחוּלִין וְקֶרֶן דְּמֵי תְרוּמָה. גָּנַב תְּרוּמַת הֶקְדֵּשׁ וַאֲכָלָהּ מְשַׁלֵּם שְׁנֵי חוֹמְשִׁין וְקֶרֶן שֶׁאֵין בְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל. אֵין מְשַׁלְּמִין מִן הַלֶּקֶט וּמִן הַשִּׁכְחָה וּמִן הַפֵּיאָה וּמִן הַהֶבְקֵר וְלֹא מִמַּעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁנִּיטְּלָה תְרוּמָתוֹ וְלֹא מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁנִּפְדּוּ שֶׁאֵין הֶקְדֵּשׁ פּוֹדֶה אֶת הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים מִתִּירִין בְּאֵלּוּ. הָא רִבִּי מֵאִיר אָמַר מְשַׁלְּמִין וְרַבָּנִין אָמְרִין מְשַׁלְּמִין. מַה בֵּינֵיהוֹן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן עִיקַּר סְעוּדָה בֵּינֵיהוֹן. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אָמַר עִיקַּר סְעוּדָה לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת. וְרַבָּנִין אֹמְרִין עִיקַּר סְעוּדָה לְפוֹעֲלִין. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר טְפֵילָה בֵּינֵיהוֹן. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר טְפֵילָה לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת. וְרַבָּנִין אָמְרִין טְפֵילָה לְפוֹעֲלִין. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ הָא לְמָה זֶה דוֹמֶה לְמוֹכֵר חֵפֶץ לַחֲבֵירוֹ וְנִמְצָא שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ שֶׁהוּא חַיָיב לְהַעֲמִיד לוֹ מִקְחוֹ. אִילּוּ כְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֵֶּן לָקִישׁ אִית אָמְרָת נִיחָא. וְאִין כְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר עִיקַּר סְעוּדָּתוֹ בֵּינֵיהוֹן וְאַתְּ אָמַר הָכֵין. כְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר אַתְּ אָמַר. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָא שֶׁבַח סְעוּדָה בֵּינֵיהוֹן בְשֶׁפָּסַק עִמָּהֶן לְהַאֲכִילָן דֻּבְשְׁנֵי חוּלִין וְהֶאֱכִילָן דֻּבְשְׁנֵי תְרוּמָה. וְלֹא כְּבָר אָכְלוּ. כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר טְבָלִים נַפְשׁוֹ שֶׁל אַדַם חַתָּה מֵהֶן. אָמַר רִבִּי יַנַּאי לִצְדָדִין הִיא מַתְנִיתָא יֵשׁ בּוֹ כְזַיִת וְאֵין בּוֹ שָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה מְשַׁלֵּם לְקֹדֶשׁ. יֵשׁ בּוֹ שָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה וְאֵין בּוֹ כְזַיִת מְשַׁלֵּם לְשֵׁבֶט. יֵשׁ בּוֹ כְזַיִת וְיֵשׁ בּוֹ שָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה. שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר וָוא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מְשַׁלֵּם לְקֹדֶשׁ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר מְשַׁלֵּם לְשֵׁבֶט. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא גְּזֵירַת הַכָּתוּב הִיא וְאִישׁ כִּי יֹאכַל קוֹדֶשׁ בִּשְׁגָגָה לְמָקוֹם שֶׁהַקֶּרֶן מְהַלֶּךְ שָׁם הַחוֹמֶשׁ מְהַלֵּךְ. כַּהֲנָא אָמַר מְשַׁלֵּם שְׁנֵי חוֹמְשִׁין חוֹמֶשׁ לְשֵׁבֶט וְחוֹמֶשׁ לְהֶקְדֵּשׁ. שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ בְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר יְשַׁלֵּם שְׁנַיִם לְרֵעֵהוּ וְלֹא לְהֶקְדֵּשׁ. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר לָהֶן עַל תַּרְתֵּין אֲחַרִיָיתָא לָמָּה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן זִיקַת תְּרוּמָה וּמַעְשְׂרוֹת. וְלֶקֶט וְשִׁכְחָה אֵין בָּהֶן זִיקַת תְּרוּמָה וּמַעְשְׂרוֹת. אֶלָּא בִּנְשִׁיכַת פֵּיאָה וּבְקָמַת פֵּיאָה אֲנָן קַיָימִן. לֵית הָדָא פָּשְׁטָה שִׁאִילְתֵּיהּ דְּחִילְפַיי דְּחִילְפַיי שְׁאַל לֶקֶט בִּנְשִׁירָה מַהוּ שֶׁיְּקַדֵּשׁ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר לֵיהּ וְהָא תַנִּינָן לֶקֶט. אִית לָךְ מִימַר פֵּיאָה כְּלֶקֶט. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר לֵיהּ עַל כּוּלְּהוֹן.

MISHNAH: If one serves heave to his workers or his guests, he pays the principal and they pay the fifth, the word of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, they pay principal and fifth and he pays them the price of their meal. He who steals heave but does not eat it pays double restitution for the value of heave. If he ate it, he pays twice the principal and a fifth. The principal and the fifth from profane food and a principal the value of heave. If he stole heave of the Sanctuary and ate it, he pays two fifths and the principal. 22:14 ) and of property of the Sanctuary ( Lev . 5:16 ). The two obligations are independent of one another and computed on the same basis. since double restitution does not apply to the Sanctuary. One does not pay with gleanings, forgotten sheaves, peah , and abandoned property, nor with First Tithe whose heave was taken, nor with Second Tithe, nor with dedicated food that was redeemed, for dedicated food cannot redeem dedicated food, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages permit the latter. HALAKHAH: Now Rebbi Meïr says, they pay, and the Sages say, they pay, what is between them? Rebbi Joḥanan said, the meal itself is between them. Rebbi Meïr said, the meal is the resposibility of the employer, but the rabbis say, the meal is the resposibility of the workers. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the exertion is between them. Rebbi Meïr said, the exertion is the resposibility of the employer, but the rabbis say, the exertion is the resposibility of the workers. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: To what can this be compared, to one who sells something to another person, but it turns out that it was not his [to sell]. Does he not have to replace his buy? If you hold with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, this is fine. But if you hold with Rebbi Joḥanan, who said, the meal itself is between them, and you say so? He said following Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The value of the meal is between them. If he promised them to feed them profane honey-cakes but he fed them heave honey-cakes. Did they not eat already? This follows him who says, a person’s soul is afraid of ṭevel . Rebbi Yannai said, the Mishnah is split. If there is the size of an olive but it is not worth a peruṭah , a small Hasmonean coin, ⅙ or ⅛ of an as. Theft of less than a peruṭah is not prosecutable and does not entitle the injured person to ask for restitution. In the case under consideration, there was sin but no monetary restitution is possible; there is no principal but the fifth has to be paid. But Lev. 22:14 ends: He hands over the consecrated food to the Cohen. Since “handing over” implies something substantial, it must be the value of at least a peruṭah . This means that in this case, restitution to the Cohen is excluded; the recipient must be the Sanctuary even though legally no larceny has occured. , he pays to the Sanctuary. If it is worth a peruṭah but is not the size of an olive, he pays to the tribe. If it is the size of an olive and is worth a peruṭah , Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, he pays to the Sanctuary. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he pays to the tribe. Rebbi Zeïra said, it is a decision of the verse ( Lev . 22:14 ): “If somebody should eat consecrated food in error,” where the principal goes, there the fifth has to go. Cahana said, he pays two fifths, one to the tribe and one to the Sanctuary. “Since double restitution does not apply to the Sanctuary”. For it was said ( Ex . 22:8 ): “He should restitute double to his neighbor ,” but not to the Sanctuary. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it refers to the last two. Why? Because these have affinity to heave and tithes. Do gleanings and forgotten sheaves never have affinity to heave and tithes, which should be given as standing grain. But since the obligation of peah remains on the cut grain if peah was not left standing at harvest time (cf. Peah , Chapter 1, Note 275 ), even peah cannot be excluded from any possibility of heave. One has to assume that the addition of “and tithes” is a mnemonic device. ? But we deal with growth of”. The reading of the Venice print, נשיכת פיאה “the biting of peah ”, is difficult to accept (for the meaning of “biting” cf. Demay 6:6, Note 140 ); that of the Rome ms., נשכחת פיאה “finding (Babylonian Aramaic) peah ”, is certainly a scribal error. R. E. Fulda’s emendation נשירת פיאה “what falls down from peah ” is unsupported and irrelevant. peah and standing peah . Does this not simply answer Hilfai’s question, since Hilfai asked: Do gleanings become sanctified in the act of falling down 7:3, Note 52 . The idea is that if gleanings may be subject to heave, a stalk cannot become gleanings automatically by falling down. ? Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, but did we not state “gleanings” postulated by R. Simeon ben Laqish. ? How can you have peah from gleanings? Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, about everything only if given from sheaves or stacks, rather than standing grain. In this case, a qualifying “the latter” is acceptable. .

רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר מְשַׁלְּמִין מִמִּין עַל מִין שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ בִּלבַד שֶׁיְּשַׁלֵּם מִן הַיָּפֶה עַל הָרַע וְרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר אֵין מְשַׁלְּמִין אֶלָּא מִמִּין עַל מִינוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ אִם אָכַל קִשּׁוּאִין שֶׁל עֶרֶב שְׁבִיעִית יַמְתִּין לְקִשּׁוּאִין שֶׁל מוֹצָאֵי שְׁבִיעִית וִישַׁלֵּם מֵהֶן. מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁרִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מֵיקֵל מִשָּׁם רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה מַחְמִיר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְנָתַן לַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַקּוֹדֶשׁ כָּל שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לֵעָשׂוֹת קוֹדֶשׁ דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר וְנָתַן לַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַקּוֹדֶשׁ קוֹדֶשׁ שֶׁאָכַל. הָא כֵּיצַד אָכַל יָרָק וְשִׁילֵּם גְּרוֹגְרוֹת. גְּרוֹגְרוֹת וְשִׁילֵּם תְּמָרִים תָּבוֹא לוֹ בְּרָכָה. אָכַל בִּיכּוּרִים מָהוּ מְשַׁלֵּם. אָכַל עֲנָבִים מְשַׁלֵם יַיִן זֵתִים מְשַׁלֵם שֶׁמֶן. אָכַל חַלָּה מָהוּ שֶׁיְּשַׁלֵּם מִפֵּירוֹת שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיאוּ שְׁלִישׁ שֶׁכֵּן פֵּירוֹת שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיאוּ שְׁלִישׁ חַיָיבִין בְּחַלָּה. אָכַל בִּיכּוּרִים מָהוּ שֶׁיְּשַׁלֵּם בִּמְחוּבָּר לְקַרְקַע שֶׁכֵּן הַבִּיכּוּרִים נִקְנִין בִּמְחוּבָּר לְקַרְקַע. רִבִּי אָבִין בְּשֵׁם רַבָּנִין דְּתַמָּן זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת שֶׁאֵין מְשַׁלְּמִין מִפֵּירוֹת חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ וַאֲפִילוּ תֵימַר מְשַׁלְּמִין מַתְנִיתִן עַד שֶׁלֹּא הִתִּיר רִבִּי לְהָבִיא יָרָק מֵחוֹצָה לָאָרֶץ לָאָרֶץ. לֹא אָמַר אֶלָּא קִישּׁוּאִין. דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא פֵּירוֹת אִיסּוּר. אֲבָל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא פֵּירוֹת הֵיתֵר לֹא. שֶׁאִם אָמַר אַתְּ כֵּן לֹא נִמְצָא לוֹקֵחַ לוֹ קוֹרְדּוֹם מִדְּמֵי שְׁבִיעִית.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Eliezer says, one repays from one kind for another kind which is not the same, on condition that he repay with better quality for worse, but Rebbi Aqiba says, one only repays from one kind for its own. Therefore, if one ate green melon of the year before the Sabbatical, he should wait for green melons of the year following the Sabbatical and repay from them. From the verse which Rebbi Eliezer reads to be lenient, from there Rebbi Aqiba is restrictive, since it is said ( Lev . 22:14 ): “He hands over the consecrated food to the Cohen,” anything that may be consecrated, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. But Rebbi Aqiba says, “he hands over the consecrated food to the Cohen,” the consecrated food he himself ate. HALAKHAH: How is this? If he ate vegetable and repaid a dried fig, a dried fig and repaid dates, a blessing should come to him 6(6 ): “From where that one only repays from one kind for its own? The verse says ‘he hands over the consecrated food to the Cohen,’ therefore, if one ate green melon of the year before the Sabbatical, he should wait for green melons of the year following the Sabbatical and repay from them, the words of R. Aqiba. Rebbi Eliezer says, one repays from one kind for another kind which is not the same, on condition that he repay with better quality for worse. How is this? If he ate a dried fig and repaid dates, a blessing should come to him.” This is partially quoted in Babli Eruvin 29b , Pesaḥim 32a , in a discussion about whether heave has to be repaid by value or by volume. . If he ate first fruits2:1 . , what can he repay? If he ate grapes, he repays wine, olives he repays oil. If he ate ḥallah , may he repay with produce not yet one-third ripe since produce not yet one-third ripe is subject to ḥallah 1:3 ) which states that flour made from unripe grain is free from tithes but subject to ḥallah ; R. Eliezer dissents and frees it from ḥallah . In matters of repayment, ḥallah follows the rules of heave ( Mishnah Ḥallah 1:9 ). ? If he ate first fruits, may he repay with what is still connected to the ground since first fruits acquire their status while connected to the ground? Rabbi Abin in the name of the rabbis from there: This means that one may not repay with produce from outside the Land. Even if you say one may repay, our Mishnah is from before Rebbi permitted the import of vegetables from outside the Land 6:4. . He mentioned only green melons which are forbidden produce. But not permitted produce, because if you say so, does it not turn out that he buys himself an axe from Sabbatical money?