Pesachim

If he deliberately transgressed in respect of a trespass-offering,1 [he is punished] by death? It is Rabbi. For it was taught: If he deliberately transgressed in respect of a trespass-offering, — Rabbi said: [He is punished] by death; while the Sages maintain: By a warning.2 What is Rabbi's reason? — Said R. Abbahu: He derives identity of law from the fact that ‘sin’ is written here and in the case of terumah:3 just as terumah involves death, so trespass involves death. And from that [it also follows]: just as terumah [involves punishment] for as much as an olive, so trespass [involves punishment] for as much as an olive.4 Now R. Papa demurred:5 How do you know that Rabbi holds as the Rabbis;6 perhaps he agrees with Abba Saul, who said: If it possesses the worth of a perutah, even if it does not contain as much as an olive?7 But surely it was R. Papa who said [that] Abba Saul requires both? Hence this proves that he retracted. Mar the son of Rabina said, This is what he8 means: No: if you say thus of other precepts — where the unintentional is not treated as intentional, for if he intended cutting what was detached but cut what is attached, he is not culpable;9 will you say [the same] in the case of trespass, where if he intended to warn himself with wool shearings of hullin but warmed himself with the wool shearings of a burnt-offering he is liable to a trespass-offering? R. Nahman b. Isaac said: He means this: If you say thus in the case of other precepts, that is because he who is not engaged therein is not declared culpable like he who is engaged therein, for if he intended picking up that which was detached but he plucked10 that which is attached [instead], he is not culpable;11 will you say [the same] of trespass, where if he stretched out his hand to take a vessel and [incidentally] anointed his hand with holy oil, 12 he is liable for trespass? The Master said: ‘When is this said? When he separates terumah and it became leaven. But if he separates terumah of leaven on Passover, all agree that it is not holy.’ Whence do we know this? — Said R. Nahman b. Isaac, Scripture saith, [The firstfruits of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thy oil ...] shalt thou give to him:13 but not for its light.14 R. Huna son of R. Joshua objected: One must not separate terumah from unclean [produce] for clean; yet if he separates [thus] unwittingly, his terumah is valid. Yet why? Let us say, ‘for him, but not for his light’? — There is no difficulty: There it enjoyed a time of fitness,15 whereas here16 it did not enjoy a time of fitness.17 And how is it conceivable that it had no time of fitness? E.g. if it became leaven whilst attached [to the soil].18 But if it became leaven when detached,19 would it indeed be holy?20 — Yes, he replied: ‘the sentence is by the decree of the watchers, and the matter by the word of the holy ones’;21 and thus do they rule22 in the academy in accordance with my view. When R. Huna the son of R. Joshua came,23 is flagellated. Terumah: Lest they bear sin for it, and die therefor (Ibid. XXII, 9). case he is not liable to a sin-offering, which is only due when a man sins in ignorance, i.e., where he intended to do what he did, but did not know that it was forbidden. in a state in which it cannot be eaten, as here, it does not become terumah.