(R. Yudan bar Shalom): (Answering the Gemara's objection at the end of Chulin 90-2) There's a Mishnah (earlier in Perek 6, Mishnah 1) that teaches that even the principal is a fine...) 'He must pay from Chulin (i.e. produce that has been tithed) rather than Terumah and that produce or payment becomes Terumah.'

If he paid what he ate (Terumah), it would be proper (to say that he pays like a thief. Since he does not, this shows that the principal is also a fine.)

Source #2 (Mishnah): If he ate Tamei Terumah (inadvertently) he pays Tahor Chulin. If he paid Tamei Chulin, he fulfilled his obligation.

Isn't he liable (only) the value of firewood (as what he ate was destined to be burned)?! This shows that principal is also a fine.

Question: Just as you say that the principal is a fine, also the extra fifth is a fine! (It's also paid with Chulin that becomes Terumah. Why doesn't one who ate intentionally pay the fifth?)

Answer #3: R. Shimon ben Lakish follows his reasoning elsewhere - he said that everything has been included in the prohibition (Shemos 20:13), "You shall not bear false witness against your fellow'', but the Torah singled out (Devarim 19:19), "And you shall do to him {the false witness} as he intended to do to his brother'', to obligate payment.

Here, everything was included in "Any non-Kohen shall not eat Holy items'', but the Torah singled out (Vayikra 22:14), "And if a man unintentionally eats what is holy'', to obligate payment.

Support (Baraisa): The Chachamim agree with R. Meir, that if one steals another person's Chelev (and ate it), he incurs lashes and pays, as one who eats Chelev incurs lashes.

And the Chachamim agree to R. Meir that if one steals another person's Terumah (and ate it), he incurs lashes and pays, as one who eats Terumah incurs lashes.

Support (Baraisa): The Chachamim agree to R. Meir that if one muzzles another's cow, he pays six Kav for a cow (which is what it would have eaten), and four Kav for a donkey, as one who muzzles his cow incurs lashes.

(R. Yosi): We also find that one who intentionally benefits from Hekdesh, who is liable to death from Heaven, receives lashes and pays. If one stole Terumah (that was consecrated to) Hekdesh and ate it, he receives lashes for Meilah and pays for the theft, since he caused a loss of money.

Question (R. Mana to R. Yosi): If so, one who had relations with his young sister should receive lashes and pay, since for his adult sister he receives lashes?

R. Mana retracted and said - concerning his sister, he incurs death (from Heaven) and payment at the same time; but here, as soon as he muzzles, he transgresses and incurs lashes, but the payment is for what follows.

Question (R. Zeira to R. Mana): If one burns his friend's haystack (on Shabbos), he incurs the death penalty from the first stalk, but the payment is for what follows (so he should pay)?!

Rather, for each stalk, if they warned him, he would incur the death penalty (so he doesn't pay it); here also, for each action of muzzling, he can be warned for lashes (so why does he pay)?

Answer (R. Yosi b'R. Bun): Two Amoraim disagreed in answering this - One said that he muzzles (an animal working with) Terumah and Kodshim. (Since the owner is obligated to muzzle it, there are no lashes for this, so he pays).

The other said that he muzzles through a Shali'ach. The Shali'ach receives lashes, and the owner is exempt (since Ein Shali'ach l'Devar Aveirah - there is no agency when the agent is sent to transgress). We learn this from (Vayikra 17:4), "this (act) shall be counted for that man as blood; he has shed blood'' - that man, but not his agent.

If a person was inadvertent over something being Terumah but intentional about it being Chametz (on Pesach); or (if a Nazir drank Terumah wine and he was) inadvertent about Terumah but intentional about Nazir; or (if a person ate Terumah on Yom Kippur and was) inadvertent about Terumah but intentional about Yom Kippur - if you consider it as two matters, it is fine; but as one matter, it's a dispute between R. Yochanan and R. Shimon ben Lakish. (R. Yochanan holds that when he receives lashes, he doesn't pay. Reish Lakish holds that he receives lashes and pays, as payment for Terumah is like a Korban.)

(Mishnah): The only difference between Shabbos and Yom Kippur is that for this (Shabbos), one who was intentional is punished (killed) through man, and this (Yom Kippur), one who was intentional is punished with Kares.

Inference: Regarding payment, they are the same (one is exempt for both).

The Mishnah is like R. Nechuniya ben Hakanah, who taught that Yom Kippur is like Shabbos for payment. R. Shimon ben Menasiya says that those that incur Kares are like those that incur the death penalty.

Question: What's the difference between them?

Answer #1 (R. Acha citing R. Avina): (One who rapes or seduces) a Naa'rah who is a Nidah.

Answer #2 (R. Mana): They even disagree about one's wife's sister.

According to R. Nechuniya ben Hakanah, just as Shabbos has no Heter (permission) after its Isur (prohibition), also Yom Kippur has no Heter after its Isur. These, since there is a Heter after its Isur (Nidah through immersion, and his wife's sister after his wife's death), he pays.

According to R. Shimon ben Menasiya, just like Shabbos has Kares, also Yom Kippur has Kares. As for these, since they don't have Kares, he doesn't pay.

Question (R. Yudah bar Pazi): (If one did an Aveirah for which he is liable) lashes and Kares, what do these Tana'im say?

(R. Yosi): This needs Rabbanan to answer!

(R. Yona): Why not learn from R. Shimon ben Yochai's Baraisa - R. Tarfon says - It says Kares about Shabbos, and it says Kares about Yom Kippur. Just as Kares said about Shabbos, there are no lashes in a place of Kares (since one can be killed for Melachah on Shabbos, one cannot be lashed for it), also Kares said about Yom Kippur, there are no lashes in a place of Kares.

(R. Mana to R. Yosi): It's a question according to Reish Lakish, but according to R. Yochanan, just like there are lashes in a place of the death penalty, all the more so there are lashes in a place of Kares.

(R. Yosi to R. Mana): It's a question even according to R. Yochanan - as they disagreed about one who slaughters a mother and calf for idolatry on the same day ...

(R. Yochanan): If they warned him for slaughtering the mother and calf on the same day, he receives lashes. If they warned him for the idolatry, he is stoned.

(Reish Lakish): Even if they warned him for the mother and calf on the same day, he doesn't receive lashes; since had they warned him due to idolatry, he would be stoned.

Rejection (R. Mana to R. Yosi): There, there are two matters; but here it is one matter (e.g. there are lashes and Kares for eating Chelev or blood).

Question: If one was inadvertent about an Aveirah with lashes, in Terumos, Reish Lakish exempts him from paying for the Aveirah, even though he doesn't receive lashes; R. Yochanan disagrees.) According to Reish Lakish, what is the difference between these Tana'im (R. Nechunyah and R. Shimon ben Menasiya), who exempt Chayavei Kerisos from payment, and Rabanan? (In any case he doesn't pay, as there's a negative commandment with the Kares!) (Note: This entry follows the explanation of Rav Chaim Kanievsky shlita in Megillah 1:6.)

Answer: They argue about negative commandments without Kares.

Explanation #1 (R. Yudan): They argue about one who had relations with a Mamzeres (a negative commandment without Kares).

Explanation #2 (R. Chananyah): They argue about one who burned another person's haystack on Yom Tov.

According to these Tana'im (R. Nechuniya and R. Shimon), since there is no Kares, he pays. According to (the other) Rabbanan, since there are lashes, he doesn't pay.

Question: If so, the Mishnah (earlier Chulin 90-2(b) in Maseches Makos) of 'these Na'aros have a fine...' is unlike Rabbanan?

Answer (R. Matanyah): It's the case of a Mamzer who had relations with a Mamzeres. (Such a relationship is not prohibited, but he pays the fine for raping).

Question: (Why is there a fine for) 'brother's wife' - isn't she his Yevamah?! (It is a Mitzvah to have relations with her, even against her will! We must say that his brother died. If not, she is an Arusah, and he would incur death! And certainly he had no children, because his widow was virgin.)

Answer: The case is, his brother had children (from another wife) and betrothed a woman, and he died, and his brother came and raped (or seduced) her.