Pesachim

or anoints [therewith]; whether it was defiled or undefiled terumah, he must pay a fifth and a fifth of the fifth.1 The scholars asked: When he repays, does he repay according to quantity2 or according to value?3 Where it was originally worth four zuz while subsequently it was worth a zuz,4 there is no question, for he must certainly repay on the original [price]. according to its value,5 because it is no worse than a robber, for we learned: All robbers repay as at the time of the robbery.6 The question arises where it was originally worth a zuz while subsequently it was worth four. What then? Must he repay according to quantity, for he [the priest] can say, He ate a griwa,7 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’? Because he ate something for which buyers are not eager,8 and he pays [with] something for which buyers are eager.9 We learned:HE WHO EATS TERUMAH OF LEAVEN ON PASSOVER UNWITTINGLY, MUST PAY [TO THE PRIEST] THE PRINCIPAL PLUS A FIFTH. 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. But if [the author is] R. Jose the Galilean, why is he free from payment and from [liability for] its value as fuel?10 — 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.11 This12 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 liable. Said R. Akiba to R. Johanan b. Nuri: What benefit then has he [the priest] therein?13 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?14 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 as fuel.15 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? 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.16 When is this said?17 When he separates terumah and it because leaven. But if he separates terumah of leaven [on Passover], all agree [that] it is not holy.18 Another [Baraitha] taught: [And if a man eat of the holy things unwittingly, then he shall put the fifth part thereof unto it,] and shall give unto the priest the holy thing;19 [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 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 frees him from payment. [liability for] its value as fuel: this is the view of R. Eliezer b. Jacob; but R. Eleazar Hisma declares him liable. 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 the 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 wishes, he can place it before his dog or burn it under his pot. explained in the text. it, all agree that he must pay. The text is in disorder, cf. Rashi and Tosef. Pes. I. below have the same literal meanings. given below.