Pesachim 63

ואחד הסך אחד תרומה טמאה ואחד תרומה טהורה משלם חומש וחומשא דחומשא

or anoints [therewith]; whether it was defiled or undefiled terumah, he must pay a fifth and a fifth of the fifth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first fifth becomes the same as the original terumah, and if he ate it, he must restore that fifth and a fifth thereof.');">¹</span> The scholars asked: When he repays, does he repay according to quantity<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'measure'.');">²</span> or according to value?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The question arises because since he must repay in kind it is possible that the quantity is the deciding factor, as explained in the text.');">³</span>

איבעיא להו כשהוא משלם לפי מדה משלם או לפי דמים משלם כל היכא דמעיקרא שויא ארבעה זוזי ולבסוף שויא זוזא לא תיבעי לך דודאי כדמעיקרא משלם לפי דמים דלא גרע מגזלן דתנן כל הגזלנין משלמין כשעת הגזלה

Where it was originally worth four zuz while subsequently it was worth a zuz,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Originally' and 'subsequently' mean when he ate it and when he makes restoration respectively.');">⁴</span> there is no question, for he must certainly repay on the original [price]. according to its value,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This he must return quantitively four times as much, and the fifth in addition.');">⁵</span>

כי תיבעי לך דמעיקרא שויא זוזא ולבסוף שויא ארבעה מאי לפי מדה משלם דא"ל גריוא אכל גריוא משלם או דילמא לפי דמים משלם בזוזא אכל בזוזא משלם

because it is no worse than a robber, for we learned: All robbers repay as at the time of the robbery.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.K. 93b; i.e., what its value was then.');">⁶</span> The question arises where it was originally worth a zuz while subsequently it was worth four. What then?

אמר רב יוסף תא שמע אכל גרוגרות ושילם לו תמרים תבא עליו ברכה אי אמרת בשלמא לפי מדה משלם אמטו להכי תבא עליו ברכה דאכיל גריוא דגרוגרות דשויא זוזא וקא יהיב גריוא דתמרים דשויא ארבעה אלא אי אמרת לפי דמים משלם אמאי תבא עליו ברכה בזוזא אכל בזוזא קא משלם

Must he repay according to quantity, for he [the priest] can say, He ate a griwa,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A dry measure equal to one se'ah.');">⁷</span> he must repay a griwa; or perhaps he repays according to the value: he ate [the worth of] a zuz, he repays [the worth of] a zuz? - Said R'Joseph, Come and hear: If he ate figs [of terumah] and repaid him dates, blessings be upon him! It is well if you say that he must repay according to quantity: therefore 'blessings be upon him,' because he ate a griwa of dried figs, which is worth a zuz, and he returns [him] a griwa of dates, which is worth four. But if you say that he pays according to its value, why should 'blessings be upon him': he ate for a zuz and he returns [as much as] for a zuz? - Said Abaye, Indeed he pays according to value, yet why should 'blessings come upon him'?

אמר אביי לעולם לפי דמים משלם ואמאי תבא עליו ברכה דאכל מידי דלא קפיץ עליה זביניה וקא משלם מידי דקפיץ עליה זביניה:

Because he ate something for which buyers are not eager,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. 'dried figs'. Lit., 'buyers do not leap upon it'.');">⁸</span> and he pays [with] something for which buyers are eager.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. dates.');">⁹</span> We learned:HE WHO EATS TERUMAH OF LEAVEN ON PASSOVER UNWITTINGLY, MUST PAY [TO THE PRIEST] THE PRINCIPAL PLUS A FIFTH.

תנן האוכל תרומת חמץ בפסח בשוגג משלם קרן וחומש אי אמרת בשלמא לפי מדה משלם שפיר אלא אי אמרת לפי דמים משלם חמץ בפסח בר דמים הוא אין הא מני ר' יוסי הגלילי היא דאמר חמץ בפסח מותר בהנאה

It is well if you say that he must pay according to quantity: then it is right. But if you say that he must pay according to the value, has then leaven on Passover any value? - Yes: the author of this is R'Jose the Galilean, who maintained: Leaven on Passover is permitted for use. If so, consider the second clause: IF DELIBERATELY, HE IS FREE FROM PAYMENT AND FROM [LIABILITY FOR] ITS VALUE AS FUEL.

אי הכי אימא סיפא במזיד פטור מן התשלומין ומדמי עצים אי ר' יוסי הגלילי אמאי פטור מן התשלומין ומדמי עצים

But if [the author is] R'Jose the Galilean, why is he free from payment and from [liability for] its value as fuel?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Seeing that it has a monetary value.');">¹⁰</span> - He holds as R'Nehunia B'ha-Kanah. For it was taught: R'Nehunia B'ha-Kanah used to treat the Day of Atonement as the Sabbath in regard to payment, etc.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra ');">¹¹</span>

סבר לה כר' נחוניא בן הקנה דתניא רבי נחוניא בן הקנה היה עושה את יום הכפורים כשבת לתשלומין וכו'

This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether payment is to be made according to quantity or value.');">¹²</span> is dependent on Tannaim: He who eats terumah of leaven on Passover is free from payment and from [liability for] the value of the fuel: this is R'Akiba's ruling. R'Johanan B'Nuri declares him liabl Said R'Akiba to R'Johanan B'Nuri: What benefit then has he [the priest] therein?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Seeing that it is forbidden to him for use, he suffers no loss.');">¹³</span>

כתנאי האוכל תרומת חמץ בפסח פטור מן התשלומין ומדמי עצים דברי רבי עקיבא ר' יוחנן בן נורי מחייב אמר לו רבי עקיבא לר' יוחנן בן נורי וכי מה הנאה יש לו בה אמר לו ר' יוחנן בן נורי לר"ע ומה הנאה יש לאוכל תרומה טמאה בשאר כל ימות השנה שמשלם

R'Johanan B'Nuri retorted to R'Akiba: And what benefit has [the priest therein] that he who eats unclean terumah during the rest of the year must pay?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., what benefit can a priest derive from unclean terumah, seeing that it must not be eaten. Yet if a lay Israelite eats it, all agree that he must pay. The text is in disorder, cf. Rashi and Tosef. Pes. I.');">¹⁴</span> Not so, replied he: if you speak of unclean terumah during the rest of the year, [that is] because though he [the priest] does not enjoy the right to eat it, yet he enjoys the right to use it a fuel.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'though he has not in it a permission of eating, yet he has in it a permission of heating'. The other passages below have the same literal meanings.');">¹⁵</span> Will you say the same of this, in which he does not enjoy the right of eating or the right to use it as fuel?

אמר לו לא אם אמרת בתרומה טמאה בשאר ימות השנה שאע"פ שאין לו בה היתר אכילה יש לו בה היתר הסקה תאמר בזה שאין לו בה לא היתר אכילה ולא היתר הסקה הא למה זה דומה לתרומת תותים וענבים שנטמאה שאין לו בה לא היתר אכילה ולא היתר הסקה

Hence, to what is this like: to terumah of mulberries and grapes which was defiled, in which he does not enjoy the right of eating or the right to use it as fuel.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Strictly speaking, he enjoys the latter right, but it is unfit for fuel on account of the juice');">¹⁶</span> When is this said?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When is it conceivable that terumah of leaven should possess sanctity during Passover?');">¹⁷</span> When he separates terumah and it because leaven.

בד"א במפריש תרומה והחמיצה אבל מפריש תרומת חמץ דברי הכל אינה קדושה

But if he separates terumah of leaven [on Passover], all agree [that] it is not holy.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even according to R. Jose the Galilean, though he permits general benefit from leaven on Passover. The reason is given below.');">¹⁸</span> Another [Baraitha] taught: [And if a man eat of the holy things unwittingly, then he shall put the fifth par thereof unto it,] and shall give unto the priest the holy thing;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 14.');">¹⁹</span> [that implies,] something which is fit to be holy, thus excluding him who eats terumah of leaven on Passover, [teaching] that he is free from payment and from

תניא אידך (ויקרא כב, יד) ונתן לכהן את הקדש דבר הראוי להיות קדש פרט לאוכל תרומת חמץ בפסח שפטור מן התשלומים ומדמי עצים דברי ר' אליעזר בן יעקב ור"א חסמא מחייב אמר לו ר"א בן יעקב לר"א חסמא וכי מה הנאה יש לו בה אמר לו ר"א חסמא לר"א בן יעקב וכי מה הנאה יש לו לאוכל תרומה טמאה בשאר ימות השנה שמשלם

holds good when one incurs 'death at the hands of heaven', which is the penalty for eating terumah deliberately. According to this, the first clause, UNWITTINGLY, must now mean that the eater knew neither that it was terumah nor that it was leaven; for if he knew that it was leaven he is liable to kareth, which free him from payment. [liability for] its value as fuel: this is the view of R'Eliezer B'Jacob; but R'Eleazar His declares him liable.

אמר לו לא אם אמרת בתרומה טמאה בשאר ימות השנה שאע"פ שאין לו בה היתר אכילה יש לו בה היתר הסקה תאמר בזו שאין לו בה לא היתר אכילה ולא היתר הסקה אמר לו אף בזו יש לו בה היתר הסקה שאם רצה הכהן מריצה לפני כלבו או מסיקה תחת תבשילו

Said R'Eliezer B'Jacob to R'Eleazar Hisma: Yet what benefit has he [the priest] therein? R'Eleazar Hisma replied to R'Eliezer B'Jacob: And what benefit has he [therein] that he who eats unclean terumah during the rest of the year, must pay? Not so, answered he: if you speak of unclean terumah during the rest of the year, [that is] because though he [the priest] does not enjoy the right to eat it, yet he enjoys right to use it as fuel; will you say [the same] of this, in which he does not enjoy the right of eating or the right to use it as fuel? Said he to him, In this too he has the right to use it as fuel, for if the priest wishe can place it before his dog or burn it under his pot.