Pesachim 32a — the Talmud in English

Whether one who eats

teruma,

whether one who drinks

teruma,

or whether one who anoints himself

with teruma, he is liable to pay the principal and an additional fifth! Drinking is included in eating, and anointing is like drinking, as it is written: “Let it enter my innermost being like water, and my bones like oil.”

The law requiring payment for teruma applies specifically to one of these three forms of use. But if one used the teruma in some other manner, he is like a robber or one who caused damage. He pays only the principal, as does an ordinary robber or one who causes damage; he is not liable to pay an additional fifth.

Whether one

eats

impure teruma, or whether one

eats

pure teruma,

he

pays the principal and

основной долг и

an additional fifth.

And if he subsequently ate the additional fifth after designating it as payment for teruma, he also pays

an additional fifth

of that

additional fifth!

Since the payment itself becomes teruma, one who eats it is considered to have eaten the teruma itself.

They raise the following question:

one who inadvertently eats teruma,

when he pays,

does he

pay according to measure, or does he pay according to value?

Do we say that since the Torah insists that he pay specifically with produce and not with money, this is not like payment for robbery? Rather, his obligation is to place other teruma in place of the teruma that he ate. Therefore, he must designate other teruma equal in measure to the teruma that he ate; it is not sufficient for him to pay produce equal in value to the teruma that he ate?

Or perhaps, although the Torah insists that payment be made specifically with produce, his obligation is nevertheless determined according to the value of the teruma and not according to its measure?

And we explain:

Whenever initially

at the time he ate it,

the teruma was worth

the teruma

four zuz, and ultimately

at the time of payment,

the measure of this produce is worth

this measure of produce

one zuz, you need not raise the question. He certainly pays as it was initially, according to

the

value

that the produce was worth when he ate it.

For

this

is no less than the case of a robber. And

with regard to a robber,

we learned: “All robbers pay according to the value at the time of the robbery”!

As it is written: “He shall return the stolen item that he stole.” And we derive: “Like that which he stole.” If the stolen item is no longer intact and he must pay its value, he pays according to what it was worth at the time of the robbery, even if it subsequently increased or decreased in value.

The same applies to one who inadvertently eats teruma. Even if, with regard to the obligation to pay for teruma, he achieves atonement by giving the measure of produce that he ate, the teruma is nevertheless the property of the koen. In addition to his obligation of atonement, he is liable under the law of robbery to pay the value of what he robbed.

The question arises for you

in a case

where initially

when he ate it,

the teruma was worth

the teruma

one zuz, but ultimately,

at the time of payment,

it is worth four zuz. What

is its law? Does he

pay according to measure,

because we say to him:

You ate one measure

a certain measure

and you pay one measure

you

pay!

Even though it is now worth more than the value of the teruma that he ate, the Torah insists on the measure?

Or perhaps he pays according to value.

And since produce

worth one zuz was eaten,

produce

worth one zuz is paid!

Even though it does not contain the same measure that he ate, and although he must pay specifically with produce, the assessment is according to value.

Rav Yosef said: Consider this proof: If one ate dried figs

teruma inadvertently,

and paid him

the koen

dates, may blessing come upon him!

Dates are more valuable than dried figs and have a higher monetary value. It follows that he paid more than his obligation.

Granted, if you say that he pays according to measure, for this reason

therefore

“May blessing come upon him.”

For

this

he ate one measure of dried figs worth one zuz,

and he became obligated to pay that measure.

Yet he gives one measure of dates worth four zuz!

Thus, he paid more than he was obligated to pay.

But if you say

“He pays according to value,” why should blessing come upon him?

For when he pays with dates, he does not pay the same measure of dried figs that he ate, but a smaller measure. And if dried figs

worth

the value of

one zuz were eaten,

dates

worth

the value of

one zuz are paid!

It follows that he does not pay more than his obligation.

Abaye said: Actually, he pays according to value. Why, then, should blessing come upon him? -

Because

he ate

dried figs, which are

a commodity for which buyers do not hasten to purchase, and he pays

dates, which are

a commodity for which buyers do hasten to purchase!

Although their values are equal, dates are nevertheless a superior form of payment. By law, it would have been sufficient for him to pay with dried figs, which are inferior.

And we further prove this:

we learned

in the Mishna:

One who inadvertently eats teruma that is leavened bread on Passover pays the principal and an additional fifth!

Granted, if you say that he pays according to measure, this is understandable

he is liable even for eating teruma from which it is forbidden to derive benefit.

But if you say that he pays according to value,

what does he have to pay? Is

leavened bread on Passover something that has monetary value?

It is forbidden to derive benefit from it, and objects from which benefit is forbidden have no monetary value at all.

And we reject this:

No,

it does have monetary value. And

this

Mishna

is the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who says: “On Passover, it is permitted to derive benefit from leavened bread!”

It is fit to be used as fuel beneath his cooking pot, and the teruma was given to the koen even for this benefit, as it is written: “Behold, I have given you the charge of My terumot.” This applies both to pure teruma and to impure teruma, and impure teruma is designated for use as fuel. Therefore, if one eats teruma that is leavened bread, he pays according to the value of that benefit.

And we ask:

If so, consider the latter clause.

For the latter clause of the Mishna states: If one ate teruma that is leavened bread on Passover

intentionally,

he

is completely exempt from payment

—

And

even

from the value

of the benefit of using it as fuel, which is equal to the value of

firewood,

he is exempt!

Granted, if on Passover it is forbidden to derive benefit from leavened bread, this teruma has no value at all. Since one who acts intentionally is not liable to pay for teruma, and he can be liable only under the law of robbery, he is entirely exempt.

But

if

according to

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili

this is the view,

why

in the intentional case is he

exempt from payment and from the value of firewood?

The produce is, after all, worth the value of firewood for use as fuel. Because he robbed the koen, he should be liable to pay this amount.

And we answer: The tanna of the Mishna

holds in accordance with Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana.

One does not impose monetary payment together with liability for karet, or liability for death at the hands of Heaven.

For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana treated Yom Kippur like Shabbat with regard to payment!

For we have established that whenever one performs an act that entails both liability for death and monetary liability, he is punished only with the more severe punishment, namely, death. This is the principle that one is held liable for the greater of two punishments. Thus, one who burns another person’s grain pile on Shabbat, since he becomes liable for death, is exempt from paying for the damage.

Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana added that one who burns another person’s grain pile on Yom Kippur is also exempt from payment. Although performing prohibited labor on Yom Kippur entails only karet and not liability for death, karet also exempts him from payment.

The same applies to a non-koen who intentionally eats teruma. Since he incurs liability for death at the hands of Heaven for this transgression, he is exempt from payment for robbery, based on the principle that one is held liable for the greater of two punishments.

The tanna of the Mishna likewise holds this view. Therefore, one who inadvertently eats teruma that is leavened bread [acting inadvertently both with regard to the prohibition of leavened bread and with regard to the prohibition against a non-koen eating teruma] is liable to pay for the teruma. But if he acted intentionally with regard to the teruma [even if he acted inadvertently with regard to the prohibition of leavened bread], he is exempt from payment.

And we conclude: This question—whether he pays according to measure or according to value—

as

a dispute among

tannaim

is taught.

For it was taught in a beraita:

One who eats teruma that is leavened bread on Passover

whether inadvertently or intentionally,

is exempt from payment,

even

from the value of firewood -

these are the words of Rabbi Akiva.

But Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri obligates him

to pay.

Rabbi Akiva said to Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri: What benefit does the koen have from it

the teruma that is leavened bread on Passover? Since it is fit for nothing, it has no value. And since he is obligated to pay according to value, he has nothing to pay.

Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri said to Rabbi Akiva: What benefit does the koen have

from impure teruma? Nevertheless, we find

that a

non-koen who

eats impure teruma throughout the rest of the year

that he

pays

other produce in exchange for it! Evidently, the law requiring payment for teruma applies even when one eats teruma that has no monetary value. He pays produce equal in measure to the teruma that he ate, and not according to its value.

Rabbi Akiva

said to him:

There is no

proof from impure teruma, because

if you say that with regard to

one who eats

impure teruma throughout the rest of the year, who

pays

even though the koen has no

for the koen

permission to eat it,

this is only because

the koen has

for the koen

permission to use it as fuel.

Therefore, he pays according to the value of produce fit to be used as fuel, which is the value of firewood. But can

you say

the same

in this case

with teruma that is leavened bread,

which

is forbidden to derive benefit from, and

the koen has no

for the koen

permission to eat it or permission to use it as fuel?!

It has no value at all.

What is this comparable to? -

To teruma of strawberries and grapes that became impure,

which provides no benefit, because

the koen has neither permission to eat it nor permission to use it as fuel.

They are liquids, and it is impossible to use them as fuel. Since they have no value, one who eats them is entirely exempt.

[Not actual liquid. The discussion concerns produce that has not yet been pressed, as is evident below. Rather, the meaning is that it is moist and unfit to be used as fuel.

Rashash.]

Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, who obligates payment even in this case, holds that “he pays according to measure.”

Thus, they explicitly disagree about the very question that we raised above.

And the beraita concludes:

When does this apply

to a case in which teruma can exist as leavened bread on Passover?

When one designated teruma

and afterward

it became leavened

or when he designated it before Passover.

But

the one who

designates teruma

on Passover, after it had become

leavened bread, according to everyone it does not acquire sanctity,

and the status of teruma does not apply to it at all.

Even according to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who holds that it is permitted to derive benefit from leavened bread on Passover, the sanctity of teruma does not apply to something unfit for eating. The reason will be explained below.

Another beraita was taught:

It is written concerning one who eats teruma:

“He shall give the sacred portion to the koen.”

And we derive that specifically one who eats

something fit to become sacred

.

This excludes

the one who

eats teruma on Passover, which

he

is exempt from payment!

He is liable only where, if he gives the koen produce resembling the teruma that he ate, the payment-produce will become teruma. But if he ate teruma that is leavened bread on Passover, he cannot pay with produce resembling that teruma, since the sanctity of teruma does not apply to leavened bread on Passover, as stated above.

And

even

from the value of firewood

he is exempt, since he cannot be held liable even under the law of robbery. Leavened bread has no monetary value. -

These are the words of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov.

But Rabbi Elazar Ḥisma obligates

one who eats teruma that is leavened bread on Passover to make payment.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov said to Rabbi Elazar Ḥisma:

Even if you do not accept the above exposition, he is nevertheless exempt for another reason. For

what benefit does the koen have

for the koen

from it

in the teruma that is leavened bread? Since it is fit for nothing, it has no value, and he has nothing to pay.

Rabbi Eleazar Hisma said to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov: And what benefit does one who eats impure teruma have during the rest of the year?

Even so, he pays its equivalent. And the same law applies to one who eats leavened teruma on Passover.

He said to him

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov:

No,

it is not proof from there. Because

if you say regarding

one who eats

impure teruma during the rest of the year, that even though he has no

priest

permission to eat it,

he nevertheless pays, this is only because he has, at the very least, permission to use it as fuel. But can you

say

so

even in this case

[in leavened teruma],

that he has neither permission to eat it nor permission to use it as fuel?!

And since it has no monetary value at all, he has nothing to pay.

He said to him

Rabbi

Eleazar Hisma: even with

leavened teruma

he has

the priest

permission to use it as fuel.

For leaven on Passover is permitted for benefit, in accordance with Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. And although he is obligated to destroy it, he may derive benefit from it while destroying it.

For

behold,

if the priest wishes,

he destroys it by means of a

shovel before his dog.

Or he uses it as fuel beneath his cooking pot.