REPAYMENT WITH ANOTHER TYPE (Yerushalmi Terumos Perek 6 Halachah 3 Daf 34a)
îùðä [ãó ñà òîåã á (òåæ åäãø)] øáé àìéòæø àåîø îùìîéï îîéï òì îéï ùàéðå îéðå áìáã ùéùìí îï äéôä òì äøò
(Mishnah) (R. Eliezer): One may repay from one type for another (e.g. wheat for barley), as long as it is from a superior for an inferior type.
åøáé ò÷éáä àåîø àéï îùìîéï àìà îîéï òì îéðå.
(R. Akiva): One may only repay with the same type.
ìôéëê àí àëì ÷éùåàéï ùì òøá ùáéòéú éîúéï ì÷éùåàéï ùì îåöàé ùáéòéú åéùìí îäï îî÷åí ùøáé ìéòæø îé÷ì îùí ø''ò îçîéø ùðàîø åðúï ìëäï àú ä÷åãù
Therefore, if he ate Terumah cucumbers of the eve of the Shemita year, he should wait for the cucumbers of the year after Shemita and repay with them (as one cannot use Shemita produce for transactions). The same source that made R. Eliezer lenient, made R. Akiva stringent, as the pasuk states (Vayikra 22:14), "And he will give to the Kohen the Holy item''...
ëì ùäåà øàåé ìòùåú ÷åãù ã''ø àìéòæø
(R. Eliezer): Anything that can become holy (can be used for repayment).
åø''ò àåîø åðúï ìëäï àú ä÷åãù ÷åãù ùàëì:
(R. Akiva): (It means) the same type of holy thing that he had eaten.
âîøà äà ëéöã àëì éø÷ åùéìí âøåâøåú âøåâøåú åùéìí úîøéí úáåà ìå áøëä
(Gemara)(Tosefta): (Explaining R. Eliezer) How is this? If he ate a vegetable and paid with dried figs or if he ate dried figs and repaid with dates, he should be blessed.
àëì áéëåøéí îäå îùìí
If a person ate Bikurim, with what may he repay? (The law of repayment of the principal and the fifth applies, since the Torah refers to Bikurim as Terumah. According to R. Eliezer, when one repays Terumah, it can be done with a different type. If so, could one repay Bikurim with a type that is not one of the 7 species?)
àëì òðáéí îùìí ééï æéúéí îùìí ùîï àëì çìä îäå ùéùìí îôéøåú ùìà äáéàå ùìéù ùëï ôéøåú ùìà äáéàå ùìéù çééáéï áçìä
(According to R. Akiva) If he ate grapes, may he pay with wine? If he ate olives, may he pay with oil? If he ate Challah, may he pay with produce that isn't a third grown, since they are obligated in Challah (even though they are not obligated in Terumah)?
àëì áéëåøéí îäå ùéùìí áîçåáø ì÷ø÷ò ùëï äáéëåøéí ð÷ðéï áîçåáø ì÷ø÷ò
If he ate Bikurim, may he pay with produce attached to the ground, since they can be acquired by the Kohen when attached to the ground (even though they can only become Terumah when detached)? (The Gemara leaves these questions unanswered.)
ø' àáéï áùí øáðï ãúîï æàú àåîøú ùàéï îùìîéï îôéøåú çåöä ìàøõ
(R. Avin citing the Rabbanan of Bavel): (In our Mishnah, R. Akiva said that if he ate Terumah cucumbers of the eve of the Shemita year, he should wait for the cucumbers of the year after Shemita and repay with them (even though he could have paid immediately with the produce of Chutz LaAretz).) This shows that one may not repay with the produce of Chutz LaAretz.
àôéìå úéîà îùìîéï îúðéúéï òã ùìà äúéø øáé ìäáéà éø÷ îçåöä ìàøõ ìàøõ
Rebuttal: Perhaps one may, and the Mishnah is discussing the period before Rebbi permitted bringing the produce of Chutz LaAretz into Eretz Yisrael.
[ãó ìã òîåã á] [ãó ñá òîåã à (òåæ åäãø)] ìà àîø àìà ÷éùåàéï ãáø ùäåà ôéøåú àéñåø àáì ãáø ùäåà ôéøåú äéúø ìà
Question: When R. Akiva prohibited paying with Shemita produce, was that only referring to cucumbers, since their Sefichin are prohibited; but if he ate fruits, where there is no prohibition of Sefichin, would he be able to pay with Shemita fruits?
[ìà àôéìå ôéøåú äéúø ðîé] ùàí àú àîø ëï ìà ðîöà ìå÷ç ìå ÷åøãí îãîé ùáéòéú:
Answer: The prohibition even applies to fruits, otherwise it would be like (paying a debt with Shemita fruits and) buying an axe with Shemita money.
ONE WHO ATE TERUMAH INTENTIONALLY (Yerushalmi Terumos Perek 7 Halachah 1 Daf 34b)
îùðä äàåëì úøåîä îæéã îùìí àú ä÷øï åàéðå îùìí àú äçåîù äúùìåîéï çåìéï àí øöä äëäï ìîçåì îåçì:
(Mishnah): If a person intentionally ate Terumah, he pays the principal but not the fifth. The payment is Chulin, so if the Kohen wishes to waive the repayment, he may do so.
âîøà äàåëì úøåîä îæéã ëå'. úîï úðéðï àìå äï äìå÷éï åäúðéðï àìå ðòøåú äëà àú àîø ìå÷ä åäëà àú àîø îùìí
(Gemara)(Mishnah in Makos): The following incur lashes...(a non-Kohen who eats Terumah). But there is a Mishnah (in Maseches Kesuvos 3:1) that teaches, "There is a fine for relations with the following Naaros...?
àîø øáé éåçðï ìöããéï äéà îúðéúà àí äúøå áå ìå÷ä àí ìà äúøå áå îùìí
Answer #1 (R. Yochanan): The Mishnayos discuss different cases. If he was warned, he receives lashes; if not, he pays.
ñáø øáé éåçðï îéîø áî÷åí îëåú åúùìåîéï (îùìí åàéðå ìå÷ä)[ìå÷ä åàéðå îùìí]
(R. Yochanan): When there is (liability for) lashes and payment, he receives lashes and he doesn't pay.
åéì÷ä åéùìí
Question: Why not incurs lashes and also pay?
øùòúå øùòä àçú àúä îçééáå åàé àúä îçééáå ùúé øùòéåú
Answer: The pasuk says (Devarim 25:2), "(according to) his evil'' - you can find him liable for one evil (i.e. one punishment) but not two.
åéùìí åìà éì÷ä
Question: So have him pay rather than receive lashes?
[ãó ñá òîåã á (òåæ åäãø)] áîçééáé á' øùòåú äëúåá îãáø åäôéìå äùåôè åäëäå ìôðéå ëãé øùòúå áîñôø
Answer: The pasuk is referring to one who is liable for two evils, as the pasuk states (ibid), "that the judge shall make him lean over and give him lashes in front of him, according to his evil, in number''.
ø''ù áï ì÷éù àîø àôéìå ìà äúøå áå àéðå îùìí îàçø ùàéìå äúøå áå äéä ìå÷ä
(R. Shimon ben Lakish): Even if he wasn't warned, he doesn't pay, since if he were warned, he would receive lashes.
îúðé' ôìéâà òì ø''ù áï ì÷éù àìå ðòøåú ùéù ìäï ÷ðñ åàéìå äúøå áéä àéðå ìå÷ä
Question (against R. Shimon ben Lakish): The Mishnah (in Kesuvos) taught - "There is a fine for relations with the following Naaros''; but if he was warned, he wouldn't receive lashes?!
ñáø ø''ù áï ì÷éù ëø''î ãø''î àîø ìå÷ä åîùìí
Answer: He follows R. Meir, who said that one receives lashes and pays.
ø' àáäå áùí øùá''ì îï äîåöéà ùí øò ìîã ø''î åòðùå àåúå îîåï åéñøå àåúå îì÷åú
(R. Avahu citing Reish Lakish): R. Meir learns from 'Motzi Shem Ra' - (Devarim 22:19,18), "And punish him...'' is a monetary fine. "...And afflict him'' is lashes.
åøáðï àîøéï ìçéãåùå éöà äîåöéà ùí øò ãáø ùäåà éåöà áçéãåùå àéï ìîéãéï îîðå
(Rabbanan): (Normally, one does not get lashes and pay money) but Motzi Shem Ra teaches a Chidush. When something teaches a Chidush, we don't learn from it.
ìôé ùáëì î÷åí àéï àãí îúçééá áãéáåøå åëàï àãí îúçééá áãéáåøå [ãó ìä òîåã à] åëùí ùàéï ìîéãéï îîðå ìãáø àçø ëê àéï ìîéãéï îîðå ìà ìòåðùéï åìà ìîëåú
Everywhere else, one is not liable for his speech, and here he is liable for his speech. Therefore, just as you can't learn from it another matter, you can't learn from it (monetary) punishment or lashes
åìà ëï àîø øáé àáäå áùí ø''ù áï ì÷éù áîæéã áçìá áùåââ á÷øáï îúøéï áå åìå÷ä åîáéà ÷øáï åäëà éì÷ä åéùìí
Question: Didn't R. Abahu say in the name of R. Yochanan that if a person was intentional about Chelev and inadvertent about the Korban, we warn him, and he receives lashes and brings a Korban? And here, he should receive lashes and pay!
ø' áåï áø çééà áùí øáé ùîåàì áø éöç÷ ùðé ãáøéí îñåøéï ìáéú ãéï àú úåôñ àçã îäï éöà ãáø ùäåà îñåø ìùîéí
Answer (R. Bun bar Chiyah citing R. Shmuel bar Yitzchak): "According to his evil'' teaches that when there are two matters given over to Beis Din, you enforce (only) one of them. This excludes something given over to Heaven. (Therefore, Beis Din give lashes; the obligation of Korban is to Heaven.)
äëì îåãéí ùàéï îîåï àöì îéúä ãëúéá åîëä ðôù áäîä éùìîðä åîëä àãí éåîú [ãó ñâ òîåã à (òåæ åäãø)] îä îëä áäîä ìà çì÷úä áä áéï ùåââ áéï îæéã ìôèåø îîåï àó îëä àãí ìà úçìå÷ áå áéï ùåââ áéï îæéã ìôèåø
All agree that there is no (obligation to pay) when there is the death penalty. The pasuk states (Vayikra 24:21), "One who smites an animal will pay for it and one who smites a person shall be put to death'' - just as one who smites an animal, you do not distinguish between inadvertent and intentional to obligate money (and in every case he pays); so one who smites a person, you do not distinguish between inadvertent and intentional to exempt money (and in every case, he's exempt).
áîä ôìéâéï áîîåï àöì îëåú ø''é àîø àéï îîåï àöì îéúä åéù îîåï àöì îëåú åø''ù áï ì÷éù àîø ëùí ùàéï îîåï àöì îéúä ëê àéï îîåï àöì îëåú
So what do (R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish) disagree about? The obligation to pay together with lashes. R. Yochanan says that there is no money when there is a death penalty, but there is money when there are lashes. R. Shimon ben Lakish says that just as there is no money where there is a death penalty, so too there is no money when there are lashes.
øáé àéîé ááìééà áùí øáðï ãúîï èòîà ãøùá''ì øùò øùò ðàîø øùò áîçåééáé îéúä åðàîø øùò áîçåééáé îëåú îä øùò ùðàîø áîçåééáé îéúä àéï îîåï àöì îéúä àó øùò ùðàîø áîçåééáé îëåú àéï îîåï àöì îëåú
(R. Imi of Bavel citing the Rabbanan of Bavel): R. Shimon ben Lakish learns a Gezeirah Shavah on the word "Rasha'' (evil). It says "Rasha'' about those who are liable the death penalty ((Bamidbar 35:31), "...who is guilty of death...'', and it also says it about those who are liable to lashes (Devarim 25:2), "...if the guilty one has lashes...'' Just as in the former, there's no money; so too in the latter there's no money.
ðúï áø äåùòéä àîø ëàï áðòøä ëàï ááåâøú ðòøä éù ìä ÷ðñ åàéï ìä îëø áåâøú àéï ìä ìà ÷ðñ åìà îëø åàéï ìä áåùú åôâí
Answer #2 (Nasan bar Hoshayah): (To the contradiction between our Mishnah and the Mishnah in Makos) - Our Mishnah discusses a Na'arah; there (the Mishnah in Makos) discusses a Bogeres. A Na'arah has a fine, and there are no lashes. A Bogeres has lashes, but no fine, and no Boshes (payment for embarrassment) and Pegam (payment for depreciation).
øáðï ã÷éñøéï àîøé úéôúø ùôéúúä àå ùîçìä ìå ñáø ðúï áø äåùòéä áî÷åí îëåú åúùìåîéï îùìí åàéðå ìå÷ä
Answer #3 (Rabbanan of Kisarin): The case (that he receives lashed is when) he enticed her or she waived the Boshes and Pegam. Nasan bar Hoshayah holds that in a case of lashes and money, he pays and he doesn't receive lashes.
åéì÷ä åéùìí
Question: He should receive lashes and pay?
ëãé øùòúå øùòä àçú àúä îçééáå åàé àúä îçééáå ùúé øùòéåú
Answer: "According to his evil'' - you obligate him for one evil, not two evils.
îï òãéí æåîîéï îä òãéí æåîîéï îùìîéï åàéðï ìå÷éï àó äëà îùìí åàéðå ìå÷ä
Question: He should pay and not receive lashes, like false witnesses? Just as you say there that false witnesses pay and receive lashes, here he should pay and not receive lashes?!
[ãó ñâ òîåã á (òåæ åäãø)] àîø øáé ðúï èòîà ãðúï áø äåùòéä åäôéìå äùåôè åäëäå ìôðéå àú ùîëåúéå éåöàåú áå éãé øùòå éöà æä ùàåîø ìå òîåã åùìí
Answer (R. Nasan): Nasan bar Hoshiyah expounded (Devarim 25:2), "...that the judge shall make him lean over and give him lashes in front of him'' - one whose lashes fulfil (all of the punishment for) the evil that he did; that excludes this one, that we tell him to go and pay.
îúðé' ôìéâà òì ø''ù áï ì÷éù åäúðéðï äàåëì úøåîä ùåââ
Question: Our Mishnah disagrees with R. Shimon ben Lakish - If a non-Kohen inadvertently ate Terumah (he pays the principal and the extra fifth, even though if he would have been warned, he would have received lashes)?
ôúø ìä ëø''î ãø''î àîø ìå÷ä åîùìí
Answer: The Mishnah is like R. Meir, that when there are two obligations, he receives lashes and pays.
åäà úðéðï äàåëì [ãó ìä òîåã á] úøåîä îæéã
Question: Our Mishnah taught that if a non-Kohen intentionally ate Terumah (he pays the principal but not the fifth)...
òì ãòúéä ãðúï áø äåùòéä ãå àîø îùìí åàéðå ìå÷ä ðéçà òì ãòúéä ãøáé éåçðï ãå àîø àí äúøå áå ìå÷ä åàí ìà äúøå áå îùìí ôúø ìä áîæéã áìà äúøàä
According to Nasan bar Hoshiya, who said that he pays but does not receive lashes, it is fine. And according to R. Yochanan, who said that if he was warned he receives lashes and if not, he pays; he explains that the person acted intentionally, but without warning.
òì ãòúéä ãøùá''ì ìà ùðééà äéà îæéã äéà ùåââ äéà äúøå áå äéà ìà äúøå áå
But according to R. Shimon ben Lakish, there's no difference between intentional and inadvertent and whether or not they warned him (as he is always exempt)?
ñáø ø''ù áï ì÷éù ëø''î ãàîø ø''î ìå÷ä åîùìí
Answer: R. Shimon ben Lakish says that it follows R. Meir, who says that he receives lashes and pays.
à''ø çðéðà ÷åîé øáé îðà åàéï éñáåø ø''ù áï ì÷éù ëì îúðé' ãø''î ÷øééà ãø''î åäà ëúéá åàéù ëé éàëì ÷åãù áùââä åâå'
Question (R. Chanina to R. Mana): Even if Reish Lakish holds that all of these Mishnayos are like R. Meir, will he say that the pasuk is like R. Meir?! (Vayikra 22:14), "And if a man inadvertently eats what is holy'' (he pays and adds a fifth)
àìà îéñáø ñáø øùá''ì ùäçåîù ÷øáï
Answer #2: Rather, Reish Lakish holds that the extra fifth is (like) a Korban (i.e. for the sake of atonement, and not for the sake of payment. It's like an obligation to Heaven. We said earlier that 'according to his evil' applies only to punishments of Beis Din.)
åàôéìå éñáåø ùäçåîù ÷øáï ÷øï ÷øáï
Objection: Even if Reish Lakish holds that fifth is like a Korban, will he say that the principal is a Korban?! (Surely the principal is not for atonement?!)