Jerusalem Talmud Terumot Chapter 7

הָאוֹכֵל תְּרוּמָה מֵזִיד מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַחוֹמֶשׁ. הַתַּשְׁלוּמִין חוּלִין. אִם רָצָה הַכֹּהֵן לִמְחוֹל מוֹחֵל. הָאוֹכֵל תְּרוּמָה מֵזִיד כו׳. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן אֵלּוּ הֵן הַלּוֹקִין וְהָתַנִּינָן אֵלּוּ נְעָרוֹת. הָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר לוֹקֶה. וְהָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר מְשַׁלֵּם. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן לִצְדָדִין הִיא מַתְנִיתִין אִם הִתְרוּ בוֹ לוֹקֶה. אִם לֹא הִתְרוּ בוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם. סָבַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מֵימַר בִּמְקוֹם מַכּוֹת וְתַשְׁלוּמִין מְשַׁלֵּם וְאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. וְיִלְקֶה וִישַׁלֵּם. כְּדֵי רִשְׁעָתוֹ. רִשְׁעָה אַחַת אַתָּה מְחַיְיבוֹ. וְאֵי אַתָּה מְחַיְיבוֹ שְׁתֵּי רִשְׁעָיוֹת. וִישַׁלֵּם וְלֹא יִלְקֶה. בִּמְחַיְיבֵי שְׁתֵּי רִשְׁעָיוֹת הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר וְהִפִּילוֹ הַשּׁוֹפֵט וְהִכָּהוּ לְפָנָיו כְּדֵי רִשְׁעָתוֹ בַּמִּסְפָּר. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר אֲפִילוּ לֹא הִתְרוּ בוֹ אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם מֵאַחַר שֶׁאִילּוּ הִתְרוּ בוֹ הָיָה לוֹקֶה. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אֵלּוּ נְעָרוֹת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן קְנָס וְאּלּוּ הִתְרוּ בוֹ אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. סָבַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ כְרִבִּי מֵאִיר דּוּ רִבִּי מֵאִיר אָמַר לוֹקֶה וּמְשַׁלֵּם. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֶׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ מִן הַמּוֹצִיא שֵׁם רָע לָמַד רִבִּי מֵאִיר. וְעָנְשׁוּ אוֹתוֹ מָמוֹן וְיִסְּרוּ אוֹתוֹ מַלְקוּת. וְרַבָּנִין אָמְרִין לְחִידּוּשׁוֹ יָצָא הַמּוֹצִיא שֵׁם רָע וְדָבָר שֶׁהוּא יוֹצֵא בְחִידּוּשׁוֹ אֵין לְמֵידִין מִמֶּנּוּ. לְפִי שֶׁבְּכָל מָקוֹם אֵין אָדָם מִתְחַיֵיב בְּדִיבּוּרוֹ. וְכָאן אָדָם מִתְחַיֵיב בְּדִיבּוּרוֹ. וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁאֵין לְמֵידִין מִמֶּנּוּ לְדָבָר אַחֵר כָּךְ אֵין לְמֵידִין מִמֶּנּוּ לֹא לְעוֹנְשִׁין וְלֹא לְמַכּוֹת. וְלֹא כֵן אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ בְּמֵזִיד בְּחֵלֶב וּבְשׁוֹגֵג בְּקָרְבָּן מַתְרִין בּוֹ וְלוֹקֶה וּמֵבִיא קָרְבָּן. וְהָכָא יִלְקֶה וִישַׁלֵּם. רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיא בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק [אָמַר כְּדֵי רִשְׁעָתוֹ.] שְׁנֵי דְבָרִים מְסוּרִין לְבֵית דִּין אַתְּ תּוֹפֵס אֶחָד מֵהֶן. יָצָא דָבָר שֶׁהוּא מָסוּר לַשָּׁמַיִם. הַכֹּל מוֹדִין שֶׁאֵין מָמוֹן אֶצֶל מִיתָה דִּכְתִיב וּמַכֵּה (נֶפֶשׁ) בְּהֵמָה יְשַׁלְּמֶנָּה וּמַכֵּה אָדָם יוּמָת. מַה מַכֵּה בְהֵמָה לֹא חִלַּקְתָּה בָהּ בֵּין שׁוֹגֵג בֵּין מֵזִיד (לִפְטוֹר) [לְחַיְיבוֹ] מָמוֹן אַף מַכֵּה אָדָם לֹא תַחֲלוֹק בּוֹ בֵּין שׁוֹגֵג בֵּין מֵזִיד לִפְטוֹר. בְּמַה פְלִיגִין. בְּמָמוֹן אֶצֶל מַכּוֹת. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר אֵין מָמוֹן אֶצֶל מִיתָה וְיֵשׁ מָמוֹן אֶצֶל מַכּוֹת. וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֵין מָמוֹן אֶצֶל מִיתָה כָּךְ אֵין מָמוֹן אֶצֶל מַכּוֹת. רִבִּי אִימִּי בַּבְלַיָיא בְשֵׁם רַבָּנִין דְּתַמָּן טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ רָשָׁע רָשָׁע. נֶאֱמַר רָשָׁע בִּמְחוּיְיבֵי מִיתוֹת. וְנֶאֱמַר רָשָׁע בִּמְחוּיְיבֵי מַכּוֹת. מַה רָשָׁע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בִּמְחוּיְיבֵי מִיתוֹת אֵין מָמוֹן אֶצֶל מִיתָה. אוּף רָשָׁע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בִּמְחוּיְיבֵי מֵכּוֹת אֵין מָמוֹן אֶצֶל מַכּוֹת. נָתָן בַּר הוֹשַׁעְיָה אָמַר כָּאן בְנַעֲרָה כָּאן בְּבוֹגֶרֶת. נַעֲרָה יֵשׁ לָהּ קְנָס וְאֵין לָהּ מֶכֶר. בּוֹגֶרֶת אֵין לָהּ לֹא מֶכֶר וְלֹא קְנָס וְאֵין לָהּ בּוֹשֶׁת וּפְגָם. רַבָּנִין דְּקֵיסָרִין אָמְרִין תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁפִּיתְּתוֹ אוֹ שֶׁמָּחֲלָה לוֹ. סָבַר נָתָן בַּר הוֹשַׁעְיָה לְמָקוֹם מַכּוֹת וְתַשְׁלוּמִין מְשַׁלֵּם וְאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. וְיִלְקֶה וִישַׁלֵּם. כְּדֵי רִשְׁעָתוֹ. רִשְׁעָה אַחַת אַתָּה מְחַיְיבוֹ. וְאֵי אַתָּה מְחַיְיבוֹ שְׁתֵּי רִשְׁעָיוֹת. וְיִלְקֶה וְלֹא יְשַׁלֵּם. מִן עֵדִים זוֹמְמִין. מַה עֵדִים זוֹמְמִין מְשַׁלְּמִין וְאֵינָן לוֹקִין. אַף הָכָא מְשַׁלֵּם וְאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה טַעֲמָא דְנָתָן בַּר הוֹשַׁעְיָה וְהִפִּילוֹ הַשּׁוֹפֵט וְהִכָּהוּ לְפָנָיו אֶת שֶׁמַּכּוֹתָיו יוֹצְאוֹת בּוֹ יְדֵי רִשְׁעוֹ יַצָא זֶה שֶׁאוֹמֵר לוֹ עֲמוֹד וְשַׁלֵּם. מַתְנִיתִין פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. וְהָא תַנִּינָן הָאוֹכֵל תְּרוּמָה שׁוֹגֵג. פָּתַר לָהּ כְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר אָמַר לוֹקֶה וּמְשַׁלֵּם. וְהָא תַנִּינָן הָאוֹכֵל תְּרוּמָה מֵזִיד. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּנָתָן בַּר הוֹשַׁעְיָה דוּ אָמַר מְשַׁלֵּם וְאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה נִיחָא. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן דּוּ אָמַר אִם הִתְרוּ בוֹ לוֹקֶה וְאִם לֹא הִתְרוּ בוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם. פָּתַר לָהּ מֵזִיד בְּלֹא הַתְרָיָיה. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ לא שַׁנְיָיא הִיא מֵזִיד הִיא שׁוֹגֵג. הִיא הִתְרוּ בוֹ הִיא לֹא הִתְרוּ בוֹ. סָבַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ כְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר דּוּ אָמַר רִבִּי מֵאִיר לוֹקֶה וּמְשַׁלֵּם. אָמַר רִבִּי חִינְנָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא וְאִין יִסְבּוֹר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ כָּל מַתְנִיתִין דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר קְרַיָיא דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר. וְהָא כְתִיב וְאִישׁ כִּי יֹאכַל קוֹדֵשׁ בִּשְׁגָגָה וגו׳. אֶלָּא מִיסְבַּר סָבַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ שֶׁהַחוֹמֶשׁ קָרְבָּן. וַאֲפִילוּ יִסְבּוֹר חוֹמֶשׁ קָרְבָּן קֶרֶן קָרְבָּן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן בַּר שָׁלוֹם מַתְנִיתִין אָמְרָה שֶׁהַקֶּרֶן קְנָס דְּתַנִּינָן אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם תְּרוּמָה אֶלָּא חוּלִין מְתוּקָּנִין וְהֵן נַעֲשִׂין תְּרוּמָה. אִלּוּ מִמַּה שֶׁאָכַל הָיָה מְשַׁלֵּם יֵאוּת. וְתַנֵּי כֵן אָכַל תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה מְשַׁלֵּם חוּלִין טְהוֹרִין וְאִם שִׁילֵּם חוּלִין טְמֵאִין יָצָא. וְלֹא דְמֵי עֵצִים הוּא חַיָיב לוֹ. הָדָא אָמְרָה שֶׁהַקֶּרֶן קְנָס. וּכְמַה דְתֵימַר קֶרֶן קְנָס וְדִכְוָותָהּ חוֹמֶשׁ קְנָס. אֶלָּא אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ כְּדַעְתֵּיהּ. כְּמַה דוּ רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר תַּמָּן הַכֹּל הָיוּ בִכְלָל לֹא תַעֲנֶה בְרֵעֲךָ עֵד שָׁקֵר. יָצָא זֶה וַעֲשִׂיתֶם לוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר זָמַם לַעֲשׂוֹת לְאָחִיו לְחַיְיבוֹ מָמוֹן. וְהָכָא הַכֹּל הָיָה בִכְלָל וְכָל זָר לֹא יֹאכַל קוֹדֶשׁ. יָצָא וְאִישׁ כִּי יֹאכַל קוֹדֵשׁ בִּשְׁגָגָה לְחַיְיבוֹ מָמוֹן. וְהָתַנֵּי מוֹדִין חֲכָמִים לְרִבִּי מֵאִיר בְּגוֹנֵב חֶלְבּוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ שֶׁהוּא לוֹקֶה וּמְשַׁלֵּם שֶׁכֵּן הָאוֹכֵל חֶלְבּוֹ לוֹקֶה. וְהָתַנֵּי מוֹדִין חֲכָמִים לְרִבִּי מֵאִיר בְּגוֹנֵב תְּרוּמַת חֲבֵירוֹ שֶׁהוּא לוֹקֶה וּמְשַׁלֵּם שֶׁכֵּן הָאוֹכֵל תְּרוּמָתוֹ לוֹקֶה. וְהָתַנֵּי מוֹדִין חֲכָמִים לְרִבִּי מֵאִיר בְּחוֹסֵם פָּרָתוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ שֶׁהוּא לוֹקֶה וּמְשַׁלֵּם שֵׁשֶׁת קַבִּין לְפָרָה וְאַרְבָּעַת קַבִּין לַחֲמוֹר שֶׁכֵּן הַחוֹסֵם פָּרָתוֹ לוֹקֶה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי שֶׁכֵּן בִּמְחוּיָיבֵי מִיתוֹת. גָּנַב תְּרוּמַת הֶקְדֵּשׁ וַאֲכָלָהּ לוֹקֶה וּמְשַׁלֵּם מִכָּל מָקוֹם הִפְסִיד מָמוֹן. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי מֵעַתָּה הַבָּא עַל אֲחוֹתוֹ קְטַנָּה יִלְקֶה וִישַׁלֵּם. שֶׁכֵּן הַבָּא עַל אֲחוֹתוֹ בוֹגֶרֶת לוֹקֶה. חָזַר רִבִּי מָנַא וְאָמַר תַּמָּן חָל עָלָיו מִיתָה וְתַשְׁלוּמִין כְּאַחַת. בְּרַם הָכָא מֵהַחֲסִימָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה נִתְחַיֵיב מַלְקוּת וּמִיכָּן וָאֵילַךְ לְתַשְׁלוּמִין. הָתִיב רִבִּי עֶזְרָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא הַמֵּצִית גְּדִישׁוּ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ בַשַּׁבָּת מִשִּׁיבּוֹלֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה נִתְחַיֵיב מִיתָה מִיכָּן וְהֵילַךְ לְתַשְׁלוּמִין. וְלֵית אַתְּ אָמַר הָכֵין אֶלָּא עַל כָּל שִׁיבּוֹלֶת וְשִׁיבּוֹלֶת יֵשׁ בָּהּ הַתְרָיַית מִיתָה. וְאוּף הָכָא עַל כָּל חֲסִימָה יֵשׁ בָּהּ הַתְרָיַית מַכּוֹת (וְהַתְרָיַית תַּשְׁלוּמִין). אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּי רִבִּי בּוּן תְּרֵין אֲמוֹרִין חַד אָמַר בְּחוֹסֵם בִּתְרוּמָה בְמוּקְדָּשִׁין. וְחָרָנָה אָמַר בְּחוֹסֵם עַל יְדֵי שָׁלִיחַ. שָׁלִיחַ לוֹקֶה וְהוּא פָטוּר. דָּם יֵחָשֵׁב לָאִישׁ הַהוּא וְלֹא לִשְׁלוֹחָיו. שׁוֹגֵג בִּתְרוּמָה וְמֵזִיד בְּחָמֵץ. שׁוֹגֵג בִּתְרוּמָה וּמֵזִיד בְּנָזִיר. שׁוֹגֵג בִּתְרוּמָה וְמֵזִיד בְּיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים. אִין נִיפְתְּרִינָהּ בִּשְׁנֵי דְבָרִים נִיחָא. אִין נִיפְתְּרִינָהּ בְּדָבָר אֶחָד מַחְלוֹקֶת רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן אֵין בֵּין שַׁבָּת לְיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים אֶלָּא שֶׁזֶּה זְדוֹנוֹ בִּידֵי אָדָם וְזֶה זְדוֹנוֹ בְּהִיכָּרֵת. הָא בְתַשְׁלוּמִין זֶה וְזֶה שָׁוִין. מַתְנִיתָא דְרִבִּי נְחוֹנְיָה בֶּן הַקָּנָה דְּתַנֵּי רִבִּי נְחוֹנְיָה בֶּן הַקָּנָה אוֹמֵר יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים כְּשַׁבָּת לְתַשְׁלוּמִין. וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְּיָא אוֹמֵר כִּמְחוּיָיבֵי כְרִיתוּת כָּךְ חַיְיבֵי מִיתוֹת בֵּית דִּין. מַה בֵּינֵיהוֹן. רִבִּי אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אֲבִינָא אָמַר נַעֲרָה נִדָּה בֵּינֵיהוֹן. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא אוּף אָחוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ בֵּינֵיהוֹן. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי נְחוֹנְיָה בֶּן הַקָּנָה מַה שַׁבָּת אֵין לָהּ הֵיתֵר אַחַר אִיסּוּרָהּ וְיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים אֵין לוֹ הֵיתֵר אַחַר אִיסּוּרוֹ. וְזוֹ הוֹאִיל וְיֵשׁ לָהּ הֵיתֵר אַחַר אִיסּוּרָהּ מְשַׁלֵּם. וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְּיָא אָמַר שַׁבָּת יֵשׁ בָּהּ כָּרֵת וְיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים יֵשׁ בּוֹ כָּרֵת וְזוֹ הוֹאִיל וְיֵשׁ בּוֹ כָּרֵת אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם. רִבִּי יוּדָה בַּר פָּזִי בָּעֵי לָוִוין וּכְרִיתוּת מַה אָמְרִין בָּהּ אִילֵּין תַּנָּיֵי. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי צְרִיכָה לְרַבָּנִין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה וְלָמָּה לֹא שֶָׁמַע לֵיהּ מִן הָדָא דְּתַנִּי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי. דְּתַנִּי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי רִבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר נֶאֱמַר כָּרֵת בְּשַׁבָּת וְנֶאֱמַר כָּרֵת בְּיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים. מַה כָּרֵת הָאָמוּר בְּשַׁבָּת אֵין מָמוֹן אֶצֶל מִיתָה. אַף כָּרֵת הָאָמוּר בְּיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים אֵין מָמוֹן אֶצֶל כָּרֵת. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי מַה צְרִיכִין לֵיהּ כְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ בְּרַם כְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אִם מַכּוֹת אֶצֶל מִיתָה יֵשׁ לוֹ לֹא כָּל שֶׁכֵּן מָמוֹן אֶצֶל מַכּוֹת. אָמַר לֵיהּ וְאַף כְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן צְרִיכָה לֵיהּ. אִיתְפַּלְּגוּן הַשּׁוֹחֵט אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ לְשׁוּם עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר אִם הִתְרוּ בוֹ לְשׁוּם אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ לוֹקֶה. לְשֵׁם עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הָיָה נִסְקָל. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר וַאֲפִילוּ הִתְרוּ בוֹ לְשׁוּם אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. מֵאַחַר שֶׁאִילּוּ הִתְרוּ בוֹ לְשֵׁם עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הָיָה נִסְקָל. הָכָא שְׁנֵי דְבָרִים. וְהָכָא דָבָר אֶחָד. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ מַה בֵּין אִילֵּין תַּנָּיֵי לְאִילֵּין רַבָּנִין לְלָאוִין לֹא לִכְרִיתוּת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ דּוּ אָמַר כְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר דּוּ אָמַר לוֹקֶה וּמְשַׁלֵּם. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה הַמֵּצִית גְּדִישׁוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ בְּיוֹם טוֹב בֵּינֵיהוֹן. אִילֵּין תַּנָּיֵי סָבְרִין מֵימַר הוֹאִיל וְאֵין בָּהֶן כָּרֵת מְשַׁלֵּם. וְאִילֵּין רַבָּנִין סָבְרִין מֵימַר הוֹאִיל וְיֵשׁ מַכּוֹת אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם. מֵעַתָּה אֵילּוּ נְעָרוֹת דְּלָא כְרַבָּנִין. אָמַר רִבִּי מַתַּנְיָה בְּבָא עַל הַמַּמְזֶרֶת בֵּינֵיהוֹן. וְאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו לָאו יְבִימְתּוֹ הִיא. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁמֵּת אָחִיו וְהָיוּ לוֹ בָנִים וְאֵירַשׂ אִשָּׁה וּמֵת וּבָא אָחִיו וְאָנְסָהּ.

MISHNAH: If somebody eats heave intentionally, he pays the principal but not the fifth. His payment is profane and if the Cohen wants to forgive this, he may forgive. 22:14 : “Anybody who ate sanctified food in error must add its fifth to it and give the consecrated food to the Cohen.” The verse explicitly restricts the duty of adding a fifth to the case when heave is eaten in error. Also, the restitution is called holy only in that case. Since the money for restitution is not holy, the Cohen may give it to the offender, i. e., refrain from accepting it. The sin of eating heave intentionally is too great to be forgiven for just a monetary fine. The Mishnah applies only to the case in which the offender was not warned by two witnesses not to sin; in the latter case, he will be whipped by order of the court. Whether he then has to pay is discussed in the Halakhah. . HALAKHAH: “If somebody eats heave intentionally,” etc. . 22:14 : “Anybody who ate sanctified food in error must add its fifth to it and give the consecrated food to the Cohen.” The verse explicitly restricts the duty of adding a fifth to the case when heave is eaten in error. Also, the restitution is called holy only in that case. Since the money for restitution is not holy, the Cohen may give it to the offender, i. e., refrain from accepting it. The sin of eating heave intentionally is too great to be forgiven for just a monetary fine. The Mishnah applies only to the case in which the offender was not warned by two witnesses not to sin; in the latter case, he will be whipped by order of the court. Whether he then has to pay is discussed in the Halakhah. There, we have stated 3:1–5 gives a list of all transgressions punishable by flogging. The list starts with “him who sleeps with his sister”, and later mentions “him who eats ṭevel and First Heave of which no heave was taken,” where he is punished for eating the heave contained in the produce; hence, eating heave is punished by flogging. : “The following are flogged,” and we have stated 3:1 : “These are the girls for which one incurs a fine, .. he who sleeps with his sister, …” The fines are incurred either for the rape ( Deut . 22:19 ) or the seduction ( Ex . 22 : 16 ) of a minor girl; cf. Note 26 . The Mishnaiot seem to imply that raping one’s minor sister (and a non-Cohen’s eating heave) is punished by flogging and a fine. : “These are the girls.” Here you say, he is flogged, and there you say, he pays. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Mishnah is two-sided: If he was cautioned, Chapter 8, Note 9 . , he is flogged; if he was not cautioned, he pays. Rebbi Joḥanan is of the opinion that in a case where there is flogging or restitution, when he pays he is not flogged. Why should he not be flogged and have to pay? ( Deut . 25:2 ) “His guilt.” You sentence him for one guilt but you may not sentence him for two guilts. 286). . The verse speaks of one who may incur two punishments ( Deut . 25:2 ): “The judge shall have him laid down and flogged in his presence, a number [of times] because of his guilt.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he was not cautioned should he not pay since when cautioned he would be flogged 3:1 (fol. 27b), but there the Mishnah here is quoted as proof. In Ševu‘ot 4:9 (fol. 35d), R. Simeon ben Laqish is quoted as disagreeing with R. Meïr. In the Babli, Ketubot 33b , R. Simeon ben Laqish is quoted only as noting that Mishnah 3:1 gives the opinion of R. Meïr without endorsing it. ? A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “These are the girls for which one incurs a fine,” but if he was cautioned, will he not be flogged 3:1 and Terumot 7:1 are formulated unconditionally, they should be interpreted as applying any time there are two witnesses to the transgression, independent of witnesses regarding cautioning. ? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish holds with Rebbi Meïr since Rebbi Meïr said, he is flogged and pays. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish 4b , the author is Ulla (R. La). : Rebbi Meïr learned from the calumniator. ( Deut . 22:19 ) “And they shall fine him”, money; ( Deut . 22:18 ) “they shall punish him,” flogging. But the rabbis say, [the law of] the calumniator is separate because of its novelty; one cannot learn from a novelty! Because nowhere else will a person become guilty by speech, but here he becomes guilty by speech 4b ), in a criminal case will be flogged without prior cautioning. In no case can perjury parallel calumny. . Since one cannot transfer this feature, one cannot transfer the rules of either payment or flogging. Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If he [eats] fat intentionally but is in error about the sacrifice, if he was cautioned he will be flogged and has to bring a sacrifice! Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, ( Deut . 25:2 ) “Because of his guilt.” If two possibilities are given to the court, one chooses one of them. This excludes matters in the power of Heaven. Everybody agrees that there is no money payment in capital cases 35a ) in the name of the school of Ḥizqiah; it is not found in tannaïtic sources. , as it is written ( Lev . 24:21 ): “The slayer of a living. animal must pay for it but the slayer of a human shall be put to death.” Just as you did not make a difference between unintentional and intentional action of a slayer of an animal to force him to pay money, so you should not make a difference between unintentional and intentional action of a slayer of a human to free him [from paying]. Where do they differ? About money in a flogging case. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no money in a capital case but there is money in a flogging case 34b ). , but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, just as there is no money in a capital case so there is no money in a flogging case. Rebbi Immi the Babylonian 35a ) by Abbai, one generation after R. Immi. in the name of the rabbis from there: The reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is “criminal, criminal.” “Criminal” is mentioned in capital cases. 35:31 : “Do not take weregild for the life of a human who is a criminal condemned to death.” , “criminal” is mentioned in cases of flogging. 25:2 : “If the criminal is condemned to flogging, …” . Just as for the criminal in capital cases there is no monetary fine, so for the criminal mentioned in flogging cases there is no monetary fine. Nathan bar Hoshiah said, one speaks about a girl. 21:7–11 ) but is not yet an adult who can marry on her own. Practically, a girl is a minor if she is less than 12 years old and becomes an adult at 12 years 6 months. The father has the right to marry her off as נערה and he collects the fine if she is raped before she is married. The Mishnah in Ketubot refers only to נערה since the verse determining the fine uses that expression. , the other about an adult woman. The girl has a fine but cannot be sold, the adult has no fine, she cannot be sold; has she no claim for shame and blemish refers to an adult. ? The rabbis of Caesarea said, explain it that she seduced him or forgave him. Nathan bar Hoshaiah thinks that in a case of flogging and payment he pays and is not flogged. Why should he not be flogged and have to pay? ( Deut . 25:2 ) “Because of his guilt.” You sentence him for one guilt but you may not sentence him for two guilts. 286). . Why should he pay and not have to be flogged? From perjured witnesses. Just as perjured witnesses pay and are not flogged. 19:19 ): “Do to him what he intended to do to his brother”. If the perjury was in a civil case, the perjurer has to pay to the injured party the amount the latter would have had to pay if the testimony had stood. Since this is the only punishment decreed by the verse, the perjurer cannot be flogged. {In criminal cases, the perjurer is flogged or executed, as the case may be.} , here also he pays and is not flogged. Rebbi Jonah said, the reason of Nathan bar Hoshaiah: ( Deut . 25:2 ): “The judge shall have him laid down and flogged in his presence.” It refers to one whose flogging frees him from his guilt, excluding one who is told: get up and pay. Our Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish! Did we not state “If somebody eats heave in error”? He explains it following Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr said, he is whipped and pays. But did we not state: “If somebody eats heave intentionally”? In the opinion of Nathan bar Hoshaiah who said, when he pays he is not flogged, it is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan who said, if he was cautioned he is flogged, but if he was not cautioned he pays, he explains it as intentional without cautioning. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish there is no difference between intentional and unintentional, between cautioned or not cautioned. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish holds with Rebbi Meïr since Rebbi Meïr says, he is flogged and he pays. Rebbi Ḥinena said before Rebbi Mana: If Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish thought the entire Mishnaiot were Rebbi Meïr’s, he would call them “the words of Meïr.” But is it not written ( Lev . 22:14 ): “If a person ate consecrated food in error, etc.”? But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish must hold that the fifth is a sacrifice. But even if he holds that the fifth is a sacrifice, can the principal be a sacrifice? Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom said, the Mishnah declares that the principal is a fine, as we have stated: “He does not pay in heave but in totally profane food which is turned into heave.” If he had to pay from what he ate, it would be fine. And it was stated: “If he ate impure heave, he has to pay in pure profane food, but if he paid in impure profane, he discharged his obligation.” Does he not owe him the price of wood? That shows that the principal is a fine and since the principal is a fine, the fifth also is a fine. But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion. Just as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, there, everybody was under the obligation of ( Ex . 20:16 ) “Do not become a false witness against your neighbor”, but this one was treated separately, ( Deut . 19:19 ) “do to him what he intended to do to his brother”, to force him to pay. Ismael Yitro 8, p. 233 ; Mekhilta deR . Simeon bar Ioḥai Yitro p. 152; Sifry Deut . 190(19)). ; also here, everybody was under the obligation of ( Lev . 22:10 ) “no outsider shall eat holy [food],” but this one was treated separately, ( Lev . 22:14 ) “if somebody should eat holy [food] in error,” to force him to pay. Did we not state:. One can transgress several commandments in one action, e. g., if the thief immediately upon taking the fat puts it into his mouth. Then the thief acquires the fat (and at the same time makes himself liable for restitution) in the same moment he incurs guilt for eating fat. For each obligation or guilt incurred there is one and only one punishment. The Sages admit to Rebbi Meïr that one who stole his neighbor’s fat is flogged and has to pay since he who eats fat is flogged. Did we not state: The Sages admit to Rebbi Meïr that one who stole his neighbor’s heave is flogged and has to pay since he who eats his own heave is flogged. One can transgress several commandments in one action, e. g., if the thief immediately upon taking the fat puts it into his mouth. Then the thief acquires the fat (and at the same time makes himself liable for restitution) in the same moment he incurs guilt for eating fat. For each obligation or guilt incurred there is one and only one punishment. . Did we not state: The Sages admit to Rebbi Meïr that one who muzzled his neighbor’s cow is flogged and has to pay six qab per cow and four qab for a donkey since he who muzzles his cow is flogged 91a, in the interpretation of Rav Papa, against Abbaye who sees in the rule only the opinion of R. Meïr. According to Rav Papa, the thief is obliged to feed the animals from the moment of the theft but is flogged only after he muzzled them for threshing ( Deut . 25:4 ). . Rebbi Yose said, the same holds if death is the penalty. If he stole Temple heave and ate it, he is whipped and has to pay since in any case he caused monetary loss. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: If it is so, he who sleeps with his minor sister should be flogged and have to pay since if he sleeps with his adult sister he is flogged. Rebbi Mana reversed himself and said, there death and payment fall on him simultaneously. But here, from the first muzzling he is subject to flogging but only later for payment’s worth had he not been muzzled. The two obligations are not simultaneous even though they come from transgressing one and the same prohibition. . Rebbi Ezra, Chapter 1, Note 90 ). The Rome ms. and the Ketubot text have ר׳ זעירא; that reading is impossible for chronological reasons. objected before Rebbi Mana: He who sets fire to his neighbor’s grain stack on the Sabbath is subject to capital punishment from the first ear but only later for payment! One cannot say so, for every single ear there is cautioning for the death penalty. Here also, for every moment of muzzling there is cautioning for flogging (and cautioning for payment). Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, two Amoraïm. One said, if he muzzled for heave which is Temple property. The other one said, if he muzzled through an agent. Then the agent is flogged and he is free ( Lev . 17:4 ): “As a blood guilt it will be charged on this man,” not on his employers. In error for heave and intentional for leavened, in error for heave and intentional for nazir vow ( Num . 6 ) and he intentionally breaks his vow and eats grapes or drinks wine but unintentionally took heave. , in error for heave and intentional for the Day of Atonement. If one explains it with two things, it is fine. If one explains it for one, this is the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. There 1:5 . The statement means that everything forbidden on the Sabbath is forbidden on the Day of Atonement, but not vice-versa. Infraction of the laws of the Sabbath is a capital crime but punishment for infraction of the laws of the Day of Atonement is in the hands of Heaven. The question is, how far do we equate the possibility of a death sentence by an earthly court with one by the Heavenly court. , we have stated: “The only difference between the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement is that intentional infraction of the former is punished by the hands of man, but intentional infraction of the latter is punished by extirpation.” Therefore, for payment both follow the same rules. The Mishnah is by Rebbi Neḥoniah ben Haqanah since they stated: “Neḥoniah ben Haqanah says, the Day of Atonement follows the rules of Sabbath for payment. But Rebbi Simeon ben Menassiah says those subject to extirpation equal those subject to capital punishment.” What is between them? Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Avina said, a menstruating girl is between them. 20:18 . . Rebbi Mana said, also his wife’s sister is between them. 18:18 , all incest prohibitions enumerated in Lev . 18 are subject to Lev . 18:29 : “For anybody who will commit any of these abominations, persons acting thus will be exterminated from the midst of their people.” ( Rashi on Mishnah Keritut 1:1 .) . In the opinion of Rebbi Neḥoniah ben Haqanah, just as the Sabbath does not become permitted after its prohibition started, so the Day of Atonement does not become permitted after its prohibition started. However, this one will become permitted after her prohibition started, he has to pay. But Rebbi Simeon ben Menassiah said, extirpation applies to Sabbath. 31:14 ): “Keep the Sabbath because it is holy for you; its desecrator shall be put to death. Anybody doing work on it shall be extirpated from the midst of his people.” and the day of Atonement; extirpation applies also to this one, he does not have to pay. as original and the one here corrupt. However, the Babli in Ketubot 33a–36a seems more to refer to a text like the one in Terumot which is preferable as lectio difficilior . On the other hand, the last paragraph of the Halakhah shows that the text here is copied from Ketubot . Therefore, both versions have to be explained. Rebbi Judah bar Pazi asked: What say these Tannaïm about prohibitions and extirpation 34b/35a , this is deduced as above and in addition from Ex . 21:22–23 , where payment is due if a pregnant woman is injured and an abortion is caused, but no payment is due if the woman is murdered. ? Rebbi Yose said, that is a problem for the rabbis. Rebbi Jonah said, why can we not understand it from what Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated? As Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: “Rebbi Ṭarphon says, extirpation was mentioned for the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement. Since for extirpation mentioned for the Sabbath there is no payment in a case involving the death penalty 34b/35a , this is deduced as above and in addition from Ex . 21:22–23 , where payment is due if a pregnant woman is injured and an abortion is caused, but no payment is due if the woman is murdered. , so for extirpation mentioned for the Day of Atonement there is no payment in a case involving extirpation 35a , only R. Simeon ben Laqish accepts this reasoning; R. Joḥanan admits payment concurrent with extirpation. The text in Ketubot deals with the situation in which a simple transgression for which the punishment is flogging is combined with a transgression punishable by extirpation and there was cautioning for the first but not for the second; can the flogging be executed? There is no question that flogging is the earthly punishment for most extirpation transgressions, as stated in Mishnah Makkot 3:16 : “All those subject to extirpation who were flogged became free from extirpation, as it is written ( Deut . 25:3 ): ‘that your brother should not be degraded in your eyes;’ after he was flogged he is your brother.” .” Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: When do we need this? For Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish! But for Rebbi Joḥanan, if he admits flogging in death penalty cases, certainly payment in extirpation cases 35b , this is deduced from the Mishnah which assigns a fine to a brother who seduced his sister which, in absence of witnesses, is an extirpation case. For the Ketubot text it is obvious that a capital crime can never lead to a sentence of flogging since no sentence can be delivered without the testimony of two witnesses. If there were witnesses it would be a case for the death penalty; without witnesses it is a case for the Heavenly court. . He said to him, we need it even for Rebbi Joḥanan! They disagreed: If somebody slaughters [an animal] and its young. 22:28 . Idolatrous sacrifices are capital crimes. for idolatrous purposes. Rebbi Joḥanan says, if he was cautioned about an animal and its young, he is flogged, about idolatry, he is stoned to death. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he was cautioned about an animal and its young, he is not flogged since he would be stoned to death had he been cautioned about idolatry. Here are two cases 81b , where it is pointed out that the case discussed must be that the first animal was slaughtered for food but the second for idolatry; only in that case does one act result in two transgressions. , there it is one case. According to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, what is between these Tannaïm and those rabbis? Rebbi Judan said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish [is the one] who said following Rebbi Meïr, who said he is flogged and pays. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, he who puts fire to the grain stack of his neighbor on a holiday is between them. These Tannaïm think, since there is no extirpation, he pays. Those rabbis think, since there is flogging he does not pay. But then “these are the girls” cannot follow the rabbis 3:1 notes only those cases in which the rapist could not marry his victim as required by Deut . 22:29 , either because of an incest prohibition or other biblical restriction on permitted sexual relations. Then the rapist is subject to flogging; according to R. Simeon ben Laqish he never would have to pay. Since this invalidates an entire Mishnah, it is an impossible stance. ! Rebbi Mattaniah said, he who sleeps with a bastard girl is between them text reads: “A bastard who sleeps with a bastard girl is between them.” It seems that the difference between the two texts is based on a difference in the interpretation of the relevant verse Deut . 23:3 . The reading here supports Maimonides ( Issure Bi’ah 15:2) that sexual relations with a bastard (male or female) are only punishable by flogging after marriage; then a fine is due without question. The reading in Ketubot supports R. Abraham ben David ( ad loc .) and Nachmanides (in his Novellae to Ketubot ) that the verse forbids all sexual relations with a bastard since the expression used, “to come”, in rabbinic Hebrew means “to sleep with.” According to everybody, a male bastard may marry a female bastard. . But is his brother’s wife not his sister-in-law 3:1 and shows that the text there is original. The Mishnah mentions the brother’s wife as one of the categories of girls for whom the rapist has to pay the fine of 50 šeqel . Now this fine is due only for the rape of a virgin. The only case where the brother’s wife still could be a virgin is that the brother died between the preliminary wedding (cf. Peah Chapter 6, Note 46 ; Demay Chapter 4, Note 19 ) and the actual wedding. If the brother died childless, his widow should be married by his brother and she can be married only by the sex act ( Deut . 25:5 , Mishnah Yebamot 6:1 ) and no rape is legally possible. If the brother did have children, his widow is forbidden to the brother under penalty of extirpation. One possible scenario for inclusion of the brother’s wife in the list is the one given in the text, when there are no eye witnesses. Another (cf. Rashi ad loc ., Tosafot Ketubot 29a, s. v. והבא ) is that the brother is still alive but the girl was divorced after the preliminary ceremony, before the actual marriage, when she is still a virgin but permanently forbidden to her brother-in-law. ? Explain it that the man’s brother died when he had children and had performed the preliminary wedding with a woman when he died and [the surviving] brother came and raped her.

בַּת כֹּהֵן שֶׁנִּישְׂאֵת לְיִשְׂרָאֵל וְאַחַר כָּךְ אָכְלָה תְרוּמָה מְשַׁלֶּמֶת אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְאֵינָהּ מְשַׁלֶּמֵת אֶת הַחוֹמֶשׁ. וּמִיתָתָהּ בִּשְׂרֵיפָה. נִישְׂאֵת לְאֶחָד מִכָּל הַפְְּסוּלִין מְשַׁלֶּמֶת קֶרֶן וְחוֹמֶשׁ וּמִיתָתָהּ בְּחֵנֶק דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים זוֹ וְזוֹ מְשַׁלְּמוֹת אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְאֵין מְשַׁלְּמוֹת אֶת הַחוֹמֶשׁ. וּמִיתָתָן בִּשְׂרֵיפָה. הַמַּאֲכִיל אֶת בָּנָיו קְטַנִּים וְאֶת עֲבָדָיו בֵּין גְּדוֹלִים בֵּין קְטַנִּים הָאוֹכֵל תְּרוּמַת חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ וְהָאוֹכֵל פָּחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת תְּרוּמָה מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַחוֹמֶשׁ וְהַתַשְׁלוּמִין חוּלִין. אִם רָצָה הַכֹּהֶן לִמְחוֹל לוֹ מוֹחֵל. זֶה הַכְּלָל כָּל הַמְּשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וְחוֹמֶשׁ וְתַשְׁלוּמִין תְּרוּמָה אִם רָצָה הַכֹּהֵן לִמְחוֹל אֵינוֹ מוֹחֵל וְכָל הַמְּשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֵֶת הַחוֹמֶשׁ וְהַתַשְׁלוּמִין חוּלִין אִם רָצָה הַכֹּהֵן לִמְחוֹל מוֹחֵל. כָּךְ הִיא מַתְנִיתָא זִינְתָה מִיתָתָהּ בִּשְׂרֵיפָה. מַה טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי מֵאִיר כִּי תֵחֵל לִזְנוֹת בֵּית אָבִיהָ. אֶת שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה לַחֲזוֹר לְבֵית אָבִיהָ. יָצָאת זוֹ שֶׁהִיא רְאוּיָה לַחֲזוֹר לְבֵית אָבִיהָ. נִישְׂאֵת לְכָשֵׁר וְזִינָת הֲרֵי הִיא רְאוּיָה לַחֲזוֹר לְבֵית אָבִיהָ. מַיי כְדוֹן כִּי תֵחֵל לִזְנוֹת אֶת שֶׁחִילּוּלָהּ מַחְמַת הַזְּנוּת וְלֹא חִילּוּלָהּ מַחְמַת נִישּׂוּאִין. מַה טַעֲמָא דְרַבָּנִין וּבַת אִישׁ כֹּהֵן מִכָּל מָקוֹם. מֵעַתָּה וַאֲפִילּוּ חֲלָלָה מִבְּנָהּ. תַּנָּא רִבִּי חִינְנָא בַר פַּפָּא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָא דְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אֶת אָבִיהָ הִיא מְחַלֶּלֶת. אֶת שֶׁחִילּוּלָהּ מַחְמַת עַצְמָהּ. וְלֹא שֶׁחִילּוּלָהּ מַחְמַת אָבִיהָ. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָה שׁוֹנֶה אֲנִי עַל דְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל וַאֲפִילוּ חֲלָלָה מִבְּנָהּ. וְהָתַנִּינָן רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר מְחַיֵיב קֶרֶן וְחוֹמֶשׁ. וְרִבִּי יוֹשׁוּעַ פּוֹטֵר. הֲווֹן בָּעֵיי מֵימַר מַה פְלִיגִין בְּחוֹמֶשׁ אֲבָל בְּקֶרֶן אֲפִילוּ רִבִּי יוֹשׁוּעַ מוֹדֵי. מַה פְלִיגִין לְשֶׁעָבַר אֲבָל לָבֹא אֲפִילוּ רִבִּי יוֹשׁוּעַ מוֹדֵי. לֹא הִסְפִּיק לְשַׁלֵּם עַד שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּחְרֵר נוֹתֵן. הָיוּ לוֹ נְכָסִים שֶׁאֵין לְרַבּוֹ רְשׁוּת בָּהֶן נוֹתֵן. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָה. רְאוּבֵן שֶׁגָּזַל מִשִּׁמְעוֹן וְהֶאֱכִילָהּ לְלֵוִי יָצָא יְדֵי גְזֵילוֹ. תַּפְלוּגְתָא דְרִבִּי חִיָיה רַבָּא וְרִבִּי יַנַּאי. דְּאִיתְפַּלְּגוּן גָּזַל מַעֲפָרָתוֹ שֶׁל זֶה וּנְתָנוֹ לְזֶה. רִבִּי לָעְזָר בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי חִיָיה רַבָּה מוֹצִיאִין מִן הָרִאשׁוֹן וְאֵין מוֹצִיאִין מִן הַשֵּׁנִי. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְשֶׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי אַף מוֹצִיאִין מִן השֵּׁנִי. וְאַף רִבִּי חִיָיה רוֹבָה מוֹדֵי מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁנְּתָנָהּ לְלֵוִי יָצָא בָהּ יְדֵי גְזֵילוֹ.

MISHNAH: The daughter of a Cohen married to an Israel. 22:12 ). However, if the marriage is dissolved without issue, she returns to eat heave ( v. 13 ). This implies that even in her marriage she is not a stranger in the sense of v. 13; the obligation of payment of a fifth ( v. 14 ) cannot apply to her. It is clear that one has returned to the case of eating heave in error, not intentionally. who afterwards ate heave pays the principal but does not pay the fifth; her death is by burning. 21:9 . . If she married one of the ineligible. 23:2–4 ), or a Cohen after she had been divorced ( Lev . 21:7 ). In these cases, even if her marriage is dissolved, she may never return to eating heave since she is desecrated. R. Meïr holds that she is now a stranger to her former tribe. , she pays principal and fifth and her death is by strangulation, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say. 21:9 she is characterized as “daughter of a Cohen man,” and this she remains [ Sifra Emor Parašah 5(7 ), Babli Sanhedrin 51a ]. The involved formulation is taken to include also illegitimate offspring of a Cohen [ Sifra Emor Pereq 1(16 )]. In Babli Keritut 6a , the opinion of the Sages is traced to R. Jehudah. , both pay principal but not the fifth and their deaths are by burning. He who feeds his minor children or his slaves, adult or minor, he who eats heave from outside the Land, and he who eats less than the volume of an olive of heave pays the principal but not the fifth. 22:14 : “If a man ate in error from the holy [food], then he has to add a fifth and hand over the holy [food] to the Cohen.” In the first cases of the Mishnah, he himself does not eat; therefore, he is not covered by the verse. But minors and slaves are not responsible; they cannot be asked to pay. Heave from outside the Land is of questionable holiness. Less than the volume of an olive may be nibbling; it is not eating. . The payment is profane and if the Cohen wants to forgive it, he may forgive. This is the principle: In every case one pays the principal and the fifth, the payment is heave and although the Cohen may want to forgive, he may not forgive. In every case one pays the principal but not the fifth, the payment is profane and if the Cohen wants to forgive, he may do so. HALAKHAH: So is the Mishnah: If she commits adultery, her death is by burning 1(14 )]. . What is the reason of Rebbi Meïr? ( Lev . 21:9 ) “If she desecrates her father’s house by whoring,” one who may not return to her father’s house; this excludes one who may return to her father’s house. If she married acceptably but committed adultery, may she return to her father’s house? How is this? “If she desecrates by whoring;” the one whose desecration is by whoring, not the one whose desecration is by marriage. What is the reason of the rabbis? ( Lev . 21:9 ) “A Cohen man’s daughter,” under all circumstances. Then also if her desecration is by her son? Rebbi Ḥinena par Papa stated before Rebbi Zeïra following Rebbi Ismael: ( Lev . 21:9 ) “She desecrates her father.” One whose desecration is caused by herself, not one whose desecration is because of her father. Rebbi Ḥanina said, I learn from the words of Rebbi Ismael, even if her desecration is by her son 51a , disagrees and in all cases requires the harsher punishment. . Did we not state: “Rebbi Eliezer holds him responsible for principal and fifth, but Rebbi Joshua frees.” They wanted to say, they disagree about the fifth, but for the principal even Rebbi Joshua agrees. They disagree for the past, but for the future even Rebbi Joshua agrees. If he did not have occasion to pay before he was manumitted, he gives. If he had property about which his master had no power, he gives. How is this? If Reuben robbed from Simeon and served it to Levi, is he quit for his robbery? This is the disagreement between the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Yannai, since they disagreed: One robbed a hooded coat from one person and gave it to someone else. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya, one can collect from the first but not from the second. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai, one can also collect from the second 111b , it is held in the name of R. Ḥisda that a change of ownership removes the buyer from the obligation of restitution only if the original owners had given up hope to regain the robbed article. This is not the position of the Yerushalmi. . But the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya also agrees that when Levi gave, he is quit for his robbery.

שְׁתֵּי קוּפּוֹת אַחַת שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה וְאַחַת שֶׁל חוּלִין שֶׁנָּפְלָה סְאָה שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה לְתוֹךְ אַחַת מֵהֶן וְאֵין יָדוּעַ לְאֵי זוֹ מֵהֶן נָפְלָה הֲרֵי אֲנִי אוֹמֵר לְתוֹךְ שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה נָפְלָה. אֵין יָדוּעַ אֵי זוֹ הִיא שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה וְאֵי זוֹ הִיא שֶׁל חוּלִין. אָכַל אֶת אַחַת מֵהֶן פָּטוּר. וְהַשְּׁנִיָיה נוֹהֵג בָּהֶן כִּתְרוּמָה וְחַיֶיבֶת בְּחַלָּה דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי פוֹטֵר. אָכַל אֶחָד מִן הַשְּׁנִיָיה פָטוּר. אָכַל אֶחָד מִן שְׁנֵיהֶן מְשַׁלֵּם כִּקְטַנָּה שֶׁבִּשְׁתֵּיהֶן. נָפְלָה אַחַת מֵהֶן לְתוֹךְ הַחוּלִין אֵינָהּ מְדַמְּעָתָן וְהַשְּׁנִיָיה נוֹהֵג בָּּהּ בִּתְרוּמָה וְחַיֶיבֶת בְּחַלָּה דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי פוֹטֵר. נָפְלָה שְׁנִיָיה לְמָקוֹם אַחֵר אֵינָהּ מְדַמְּעָתָוֹ. נָפְלוּ שְׁתֵּיהֶן לְמָקוֹם אֶחָד מְדַמְּעוֹת כִּקְטַנָּה שֶׁבִּשְׁתֵּיהֶן. זָרַע אֶת אַחַת מֵהֶן פָּטוּר. וְהַשְּׁנִיָיה נוֹהֵג בָּהּ כִּתְרוּמָה וְחַיֶיבֶת בְּחַלָּה דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי פּוֹטֵר. זָרַע אַחֵר אֶת הַשְּׁנִיָיה פָּטוּר. זָרַע אֶחָד אֶת שְׁתֵּיהֶן בְּדָבָר שֶׁזַּרְעוֹ כָלָה מוּתָּר. וּבְדָבָר שֶׁאֵין זַרְעוֹ כָלָה אָסוּר. אַחַת טְמֵאָה וְאַחַת טְהוֹרָה אֲנִי אוֹמֵר לְתוֹךְ טְמֵאָה נָפְלָה. אַחַת מְדוּמָּעַת וְאַחַת אֵינָהּ מְדוּמָּעַת אֲנִי אוֹמֵר לַמְּדוּמַּעַת נָפְלָה. אַחַת יֵשׁ בָּהּ כְּדֵי לַעֲלוֹת וְאַחַת אֵין בָּהּ כְּדֵי לַעֲלוֹת אֲנִי אוֹמֵר לְאוֹתָהּ שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ כְּדֵי לַעֲלוֹת נָפְלָה. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ בְּשֵׁם בַּר קַפָּרָא אָמַר וְהוּא שֶׁיֵּשׁ בִּשְׁנִיָיה רוֹב. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בִּשְׁנִיָיה רוֹב. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. תַּמָּן הוּא אוֹמֵר סְפֵיקָן בָּטֵל בְּרוֹב וְהָכָא אָמַר הָכֵין. תַּמָּן בְּשֵׁם גַּרְמֵיהּ. וְהָכָא בְשֵׁם בַּר קַפָּרָא. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. תַּמָּן הוּא אָמַר כּוּלְּהֶם נַעֲשׂוּ הוֹכִיחַ וְהָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר הָכֵין. שַׁנְיָיא הִיא הָכָא שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בְּמַה לִתְלוֹת. שְׁתֵּי קוּפּוֹת אַחַת שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה וְאַחַת שֶׁל חוּלִין טְהוֹרִין וְנָפְלָה סְאָה תְרוּמָה טְמֵאָה לְתוֹךְ אַחַת מֵהֶן וְאֵין יָדוּעַ לְאֵי זוֹ מֵהֶן נָפְלָה אֲנִי אוֹמֵר לְתוֹךְ שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה נָפְלָה. וְהַחוּלִין יֵאָכְלוּ בְטָהֳרָה. נָפְלָה סְאָה תְרוּמָה טְהוֹרָה אֲנִי אוֹמֵר לְתוֹךְ שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה נָפְלָה וְחוּלִין יֵאָכְלוּ נִיקּוּדִים. שְׁתֵּי קוּפּוֹת אַחַת שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה טְהוֹרָה וְאַחַת שֶׁל חוּלִין טְמֵאָה וְנָפְלָה סְאָה תְרוּמָה טְהוֹרָה לְתוֹךְ אַחַת מֵהֶן וְאֵין יָדוּעַ לְאֵי זוֹ מֵהֶן נָפְלָה. אֲנִי אוֹמֵר לְתוֹךְ תְּרוּמָה נָפְלָה וְהַחוּלִין יֵאָכְלוּ נִיקּוּדִין. נָפְלָה סְאָה תְרוּמָה טְמֵאָה שְׁתֵיהֶן אֲסוּרוֹת. מַה נַפְשָׁךְ אִי לְתוֹךְ תְּרוּמָה נָפְלָה אָסוּר. אִי לְתוֹךְ שֶׁל חוּלִין נַפְלָה אָסוּר. לָמָּה שֶׁסָּפֵק טָמֵא טָמֵא וְסָפֵק מְדוּמָּע מוּתָּר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן סָפֵק מְדוּמָּע פָּטוּר מִן הָחַלָּה. סָפֵק דִּימּוּעַ הַנֶּאֱכַל מִשּׁוּם דֶּמַע חַיָיב בְּחַלָּה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה הִיא. דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן אִם נִשְׁאֲלוּ בְּבַת אַחַת טְמֵאִין. בְּזֶה אַחַר זֶה טְהוֹרִין. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ טְמֵאִין. בְּמַה נָן קַיָימִין. אִם בְּשֶׁנִּשְׁאָלוֹ שְׁנֵיהֶן כְּאַחַת טְמֵאִין וְאִם בְּזֶה אַחַר זֶה טְהוֹרִין. אֶלָּא כִּי נָן קַיָימִין בְבָא לִשָּׁאֵל עָלָיו וְעַל חֲבֵירוֹ. רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר אוֹמֵר לוֹ שְׁאוֹל דִּילָךְ וְאֵיזִיל לָךְ. וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר כְּמִי שֶׁנִּשְׁאֲלוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן כְּאַחַת. וְהָכָא לֹא כְּמִי שֶׁנִּשְׁאֲלוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן כְּאַחַת. רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חִיָיא בַר וָוא וְהוּא שֶׁזָּרַע אֶת הַשְּׁנִיָיה עַד שֶׁלֹּא קָצַר רִאשׁוֹנָה. אִם זָרַע אֶת הַשְּׁנִיָיה עַד שֶׁלֹּא קָצַר אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה אֵין תָּלוּשׁ וּמְחוּבָּר נַעֲשׂוּ הוֹכִיחַ. רִבִּי חֲנִינָה תִירָתַיָיה בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי בָּצָל שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה שֶׁעֲקָרוֹ וּשְׁתָלוֹ מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁרָבָה עָלָיו הֶחָדָשׁ מוּתָּר. הָתִיב רִבִּי זְעִירָא וְהָתַנִּינָן אֶת שֶׁזַּרְעוֹ כָלָה מוּתָּר וְדָבָר שֶׁאֵין זַרְעוֹ כָלָה אָסוּר. דָבָר שֶׁזַּרְעוֹ כָלָה מוּתָּר בְּמַרְבֶּה עָלָיו הֶחָדָשׁ. וְדִכְוָותָהּ דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין זַרְעוֹ כָלָה אָסוּר וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁרָבָה עָלָיו הֶחָדָשׁ. רִבִּי זְעִירָא כְדַעְתֵּיהּ דְּאָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹנָתָן בָּצָל שֶׁל כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם שֶׁעֲקָרוֹ וּשְׁתָלוֹ אֲפִילוּ הוֹסִיף כַּמָּה אָסוּר שֶׁאֵין גִּידּוּלֵי אִיסּוּר מַעֲלִין אֶת הָאִיסּוּר.

MISHNAH: Two boxes, one of heave and one profane. A seah of heave fell into one of them and it is not known into which one; I say it fell into heave. If it is not known which [box] is heave and which one is profane, if one ate [the contents of] one of them, he is free. The [contents of] the second he treats as heave but it is subject to ḥallah is heave taken from profane dough. While one treats the contents as heave, one is not sure that it is heave. If they were profane, any dough made from them would be subject to ḥallah under the rules of heave. Since R. Meïr always considers all possibilities, he must require that ḥallah be taken. , the words of Rebbi Meïr; but Rebbi Yose declares it free‘. Dough made from dema ‘ is free from the obligation of ḥallah ( Mishnah Ḥallah 3:2 ). . If another person ate from the second [box], he is free. If he ate from both of them, he pays according to the lesser of the two. If one of them fell into profane [produce] it would not make it dema ‘. The [contents of] the second he treats as heave but it is subject to ḥallah is heave taken from profane dough. While one treats the contents as heave, one is not sure that it is heave. If they were profane, any dough made from them would be subject to ḥallah under the rules of heave. Since R. Meïr always considers all possibilities, he must require that ḥallah be taken. , the words of Rebbi Meïr; but Rebbi Yose declares it free‘. Dough made from dema ‘ is free from the obligation of ḥallah ( Mishnah Ḥallah 3:2 ). . If the [contents of the] second [box] fell into another place, they would not make it dema ‘. If both together fell into one place they would create dema ‘ relative to the smaller one. sup>118 If he sowed [the contents of] one of them, he is free. The [contents o f ] the second he treats as heave but it is subject to ḥallah is heave taken from profane dough. While one treats the contents as heave, one is not sure that it is heave. If they were profane, any dough made from them would be subject to ḥallah under the rules of heave. Since R. Meïr always considers all possibilities, he must require that ḥallah be taken. , the words of Rebbi Meir; but Rebbi Yose declares it free‘. Dough made from dema ‘ is free from the obligation of ḥallah ( Mishnah Ḥallah 3:2 ). . If another person sowed the second one, he is free. If one person sowed [the contents of] both of them, if it is a kind whose seeds disappear, all is permitted, if they do not disappear120, it is forbidden. HALAKHAH: One impure and one pure, I say it fell into the impure one. One dema ‘ and one not dema ‘, I say it fell into the one containing dema ‘. One contains enough for lifting and one does not, I say it fell into the one which does not contain enough for lifting. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Bar Qappara: Only if the second [box] was larger. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if the second was not larger. The opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted. There, he says this doubt disappears in the plurality but here, he says so? There, he said it as his own [opinion], here in the name of Bar Qappara. The opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan seems inverted. There, he says all become subject to proof but here, he says so? There is a difference because here there is a peg to hang on. “Two boxes, one of impure heave and one of pure profane [grain]: a seah of impure heave fell into one of them and it is not known into which of them it fell, I say it fell into heave but the profane should be eaten in the form of crackers‘ which is rabbinical. Since in reality, the heave might be in the profane box, one has to take care not to contaminate it with impurity (R. Joseph Caro on Maimonides Terumot 15:20.) . If a seah of pure heave fell, I say it fell into heave but the profane should be eaten as crackers. Two boxes, one of pure heave and one of impure profane [grain]: a seah of pure heave fell into one of them and it is not known into which of them it fell, I say it fell into heave but the profane should be eaten as crackers. If a seah of impure heave fell, both of them are forbidden.” In any way you look at it, if it fell into heave, it is forbidden, if it fell into the profane, it is forbidden since impurity in doubt is impure but dema‘ in doubt is permitted 15:1 (fol. 15c), Ketubot 1:1 (fol. 24d)]. . Rebbi Joḥanan said, a doubt of dema ‘ is free from ḥallah 1:3, on condition that the profane grain be more than the amount causing the dema ‘. but a doubt of dema ‘ which is eaten as dema ‘ is subject to ḥallah ‘ but we require the grain to be eaten as if there were. . Rebbi Joḥanan said, this follows Rebbi Jehudah, as we have stated there 5:5 : “Two roads, one impure [it leads over a grave whose exact position is unknown] and one pure [and it is unknown which is which]. A person walked on one of them and prepared food in purity, another person walked on the other and prepared food in purity. Rebbi Jehudah says, if they ask together …” : “If they ask together, they are impure. One after the other they are pure. Rebbi Yose says, in both cases they are impure.” Where do we hold? If somebody comes to ask about himself and his friend. Rebbi Jehudah says, he says: ask about yourself and go away. But Rebbi Yose said, it is as if both of them asked together. And here it is as if both of them asked together follows not only R. Yose but even R. Jehudah. . Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Only if he sowed the [contents of the] second [box] before he harvested from the first. If he sowed the [contents of the] second [box] before he harvested from the first then what is cut and what is standing does not all become subject to proof. Rebbi Ḥanina Eyntanaya in the name of Rebbi Yannai: An onion of heave that was uprooted and replanted becomes permitted as soon as the new growth is more [than what was planted]. Rebbi Zeïra objected: Did we not state: “If it is a kind whose seeds disappear, all is permitted, if they do not disappear, it is forbidden.” If it is a kind whose seeds disappear, [it is permitted] the moment the new growth is more [than the original amount]. Similarly, if they do not disappear, [it is forbidden] even if the new growth is more! Halakhah 5:7 , cf. Note 76 . Rebbi Zeïra follows his own opinion, as Rebbi Zeira said in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: An onion from kilaim in a vineyard that he removed from the soil and planted anew is forbidden even if it increases manifold, since growth of what is forbidden can never justify forbidden produce.