Pesachim 32b — the Talmud in English

Abaye said: Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, Rabbi Akiva, and Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri all hold: leavened bread on Passover is forbidden for any benefit!

For Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov and Rabbi Akiva exempted one who unwittingly ate leavened teruma on Passover from making restitution and from paying the value of the wood, because it has no monetary value. This proves that it is forbidden for any benefit and is fit for nothing.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, who obligates payment, also agrees that it is forbidden for any benefit. Rather,

they disagree on this point.

Rabbi Akiva holds:

one who unwittingly eats teruma

pays according to its monetary value;

and whenever teruma has no monetary value, there is no obligation of restitution.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri holds: one pays according to the measure

!

he pays

even for teruma that has no monetary value, because this payment comes only to atone for the sin of eating teruma.

The Gemara discusses this:

It is obvious

that all these Tannaim hold this way. What, then, is Abaye teaching us?

And we answer:

Lest you say that Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri also holds like Rabbi Akiva

in what

he said:

“According to

its monetary value he pays.”

And there,

in the case of leavened teruma,

the reason that he obligates him

in payment is

that he holds like Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who said:

“Leavened bread on Passover is permitted for any benefit,”

so the leaven does indeed have monetary value.

Abaye teaches us

that this is not the reason Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri obligates him. Rather, it is because he holds: “He pays according to the measure.”

We raise the matter again:

But say

that

this too

is the reason: Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri holds like Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. From where, then, does Abaye know that he holds: “He pays according to the measure”?

And we answer: This cannot be said.

If so, Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri should have replied to Rabbi Akiva

who asked him, “What benefit does he have from it?”—and answered him that leaven on Passover is permitted for any benefit—just

as Rabbi Elazar Ḥisma replied to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov!

Since he did not answer him this way, we conclude that this is not the reason he obligates payment.

The Sages taught:

A non-kohen

who eats an olive-bulk of teruma

unwittingly

pays the principal and an additional fifth.

This amount is sufficient to make him liable, just as with all prohibitions involving eating in the Torah, whose measure is an olive-bulk.

Abba Shaul says: He is not liable until there is

in the teruma

the value of a peruta, the smallest coin of significant monetary value.

And we explain:

What is the reason of the first Tanna?

It is

because the verse says

with regard to this law:

“And if a person eats sacred food unwittingly.”

And

the measure of

eating

is

an olive-bulk.

And what is Abba Shaul’s reason

for obligating him only when it has the value of a peruta? It is

because the verse says:

“And he shall give the sacred food to the kohen.”

And

“giving”

does not apply to anything worth less than a peruta.

The Gemara asks:

And the other one,

Abba Shaul,

also

has what to learn from

that

,

is written:

“For he

eats,”

which indicates that its measure is an olive-bulk?

And we answer:

That “he eats” did not come for this purpose. Rather, it comes to exclude: “He eats”—

за исключением наносящего ущерб

to exclude one who causes damage—

is what it comes to teach.

This obligation applies only to one who eats teruma. But one who damages teruma owes the kohen only the principal, as in the case of one who damages ordinary non-sacred produce.

The Gemara asks further:

And the first Tanna

also has what to learn from

that

which

is written:

“And he shall give,”

which indicates that its measure is a peruta.

And we answer:

That “and he shall give” did not come for this purpose. Rather,

оно необходимо ему для толкования: обязанность возникает только у того, кто съел

it is needed to derive

that specifically one who eats

something fit to become sacred

becomes liable. But something that cannot receive the sanctity of teruma, such as leaven on Passover, is not subject to the law of restitution for teruma. And “he gave,” which is written at the beginning of the verse, was written because of its latter part.

The Sages taught: One who eats less than an olive-bulk of teruma

is not liable under the law of restitution for teruma; rather, he is liable only because of robbery. Therefore, he

pays the principal, but does not pay the additional fifth.

The Gemara asks:

What are the circumstances?

If it does not have the value of a peruta, he should not even pay the principal!

After all, even a robber is not liable for less than a peruta.

And if it does have

in the teruma

the value of a peruta,

even though it does not contain an olive-bulk—for example, during years of famine, when produce is very expensive—

he should also pay the additional fifth,

as required for restitution for teruma.

And we answer:

Actually,

the case is

one in which it has the value of a

peruta. And even so, since it does not contain an olive-bulk,

there is no obligation of restitution for teruma, because “eating” is written with regard to it. He is liable only under the general law of robbery. Therefore, he

pays the principal, but does not pay the additional fifth.

The Sages said before Rav Pappa: This

beraita

is not in accordance with Abba Shaul,

что это по

for if it were in accordance with Abba Shaul, he said

that liability depends on the value of a peruta. And

since it has

in the teruma

the value of a peruta,

he should pay the principal and the additional fifth for eating it,

even though it does not contain an olive-bulk.

Rav Pappa said to them: Even if you say

that it is in accordance with

Abba Shaul, it is still not difficult.

Abba

תרuma

требуются оба условия!

and he requires both!

An olive-bulk is required because “he eats” is written, and a peruta is required because “and he shall give” is written.

And we object:

Does Abba Shaul require both,

an olive-bulk and a peruta?

But we learned in a Mishna: Abba Shaul says:

One who eats

the

teruma

that has the value of a peruta is liable for restitution. And one who eats

that

which does not have the value of a peruta is not liable for restitution.

The Rabbis said to him,

the Sages:

They said

the measure of

the value of a peruta only with regard to sacrilege, the misuse of consecrated property.

There is no liability for sacrilege for less than a peruta, because “eating” is not written with regard to it.

But with

regard to the obligation of restitution for

teruma, he is not liable until it contains an olive-bulk.

Since the Sages replied to him, “until it contains an olive-bulk,” this implies that they came to be lenient. And Abba Shaul does not require an olive-bulk; a peruta is sufficient for him. For

if it were the case

that Abba Shaul came to be lenient, and made one liable only when there were both an olive-bulk and a peruta, while the Sages told him that an olive-bulk is sufficient, they should not have answered him in this wording. Rather, they should have answered him:

“Since it contains an olive-bulk”

is what they should have said

to him.

And we conclude:

This is a conclusive refutation

of Rav Pappa’s statement!

And Rav Pappa retracted his position

and returned to say that according to Abba Shaul an olive-bulk is not required; a peruta is sufficient.

As it was taught:

It is written with regard to sacrilege: “When a person commits sacrilege

and sins unwittingly

with regard to the sacred property of the Lord.”

This excludes

one who committed sacrilege

intentionally,

who is not liable to bring the sacrilege-offering.

And why does the verse need to exclude him?

Is it not

by

an

a-fortiori inference

that he is exempt from an offering?

освобождён от жертвоприношения.

If, with regard to the other mitzvot

of the Torah,

for which one who violates them intentionally is liable to receive karet,

and even so,

the verse exempts

the intentional violator

from an offering,

then

sacrilege, for which there is no karet

for intentional violation—

is it not obvious that it exempts

the intentional violator

from an offering?

No,

this is not an a-fortiori inference, because one can refute it:

If you say that with regard to the other mitzvot,

for which one does not bring an offering for intentional violation, this is because they are lenient,

as the Torah did not make one liable

the person who violates them

to receive death

at the hands of Heaven, but only karet. But can you

say this also

и о

with regard to sacrilege committed intentionally,

умышленно,

for which one is liable to receive death

at the hands of Heaven? Perhaps death at the hands of Heaven is more severe than karet. Since sacrilege is more severe than the other mitzvot, perhaps one brings an offering even for intentional violation.

Therefore,

the verse states

with regard to sacrilege:

“Unwittingly,” excluding an intentional violator

who is exempt from an offering.

And Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin:

The words of this Tanna are difficult.

At first,

he made an a-fortiori inference from the other mitzvot to sacrilege. This indicates that he holds that

karet is more powerful for him

—the karet that applies to the other mitzvot—than death at the hands of Heaven, which applies to sacrilege.

But at the end,

he says that sacrilege is more severe. This indicates that

death is more powerful for him,

death at the hands of Heaven, than karet.

And he said to him,

Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin: Karet is always more severe than death at the hands of Heaven. As for the refutation of the a-fortiori inference, and the statement that sacrilege is more severe than the other mitzvot,

this is what he means: “It is not so if you say that with regard to the other

mitzvot

which are prohibitions, one does not bring an offering for intentional violation,

because

they are lenient in this respect, since

the Torah did not make

the one who violates

them

liable even to

death,

the less severe form,

if

he ate from them

less than an olive-bulk. But can you

скажешь это также

say this also

מעילה, более строгой,

with regard to sacrilege, which is more severe, in that

что

the one who violates it is liable

её нарушителя

to death

even

for less than an olive-bulk?!

And

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to him:

May you be at ease,

because

you have put my mind at ease!

And

Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin said to him:

What relief

have you gained from my words? The answer I gave is not at all clear,

for

that

Rabba and Rav Sheshet have attacked with a club,

that is, they refuted it.