Question: Is payment according to the volume of what he ate or its value?

If it was originally worth four [Zuz when he ate it] and now [the same volume] is worth one, surely he pays four - he is no less liable than a thief;

(Mishnah): All thieves pay the value at the time of the theft.

The question is when it was originally worth one and now it is worth four:

Perhaps he pays according to the volume, just like he ate;

Or, since he only ate the value of one Zuz, he need not pay more!

Answer (Rav Yosef - Beraisa): If a Zar ate dry figs [of Terumah, b'Shogeg] and paid with dates, he will be blessed!

We understand this if he pays according to volume - he is blessed for choosing to give dates because they are worth four times as much!

But if he pays according to the value, why is he blessed? [In any case] he pays the value of what he ate!

Rejection: Really, he pays according to the value - he is blessed because he paid with something that people are more eager to buy than what he ate.

Answer #2 (Mishnah): If a Zar ate Chametz of Terumah on Pesach b'Shogeg, he pays Keren v'Chomesh.

We understand this if he pays according to volume - but if he pays according to the value, Chametz during Pesach is worthless (it is Asur b'Hana'ah)!

Rejection: Our Mishnah is like R. Yosi ha'Gelili, who permits benefit from Chametz b'Pesach.

Question (Seifa): If he ate b'Mezid he is exempt from payment, even from its fuel value.

If the Mishnah is R. Yosi ha'Gelili, why is he exempt - it has value!

Answer: The Tana holds like R. Nechunya ben Hakanah:

(Beraisa - R. Nechunya ben Hakanah): One is exempt from paying [for damage done while performing Melachah] on Yom Kipur, just like he is exempt on Shabbos.

Tana'im argue about this:

(Beraisa #1 - R. Akiva): If a Zar ate Chametz of Terumah on Pesach [whether Shogeg or Mezid] he is exempt from payment, even from its fuel value [because one pays according to the value];

R. Yochanan ben Nuri obligates [because one pays according to the volume].

R. Akiva: What benefit can one get from it?!

R. Yochanan ben Nuri: One cannot benefit from Tamei Terumah at any time, nevertheless one pays for eating it!

R. Akiva: Tamei Terumah is different - even though one may not eat it, one may benefit from burning it - but Chametz b'Pesach is Asur b'Hana'ah - it is like Tamei Terumah of strawberries and grapes, which may not be eaten and do not burn! (Rashi - it may not be used for Ziluf, on account of Takalah; see Matzpas Eisan.)

This applies to one who separated Terumah and then it became Chametz [or separated Chametz to be Terumah before Pesach] - but all agree that on Pesach, if one separated Chametz to be Terumah, it does not take effect.

(Beraisa #2 -R. Eliezer ben Yakov): "V'Nosan la'Kohen Es ha'Kodesh" - something fitting to be Kodesh - this excludes one who ate Chametz of Terumah on Pesach [since if he would pay what he ate, it could not become Terumah], he is exempt from payment, even from its fuel value;

R. Eliezer Chisma obligates.

R. Eliezer ben Yakov. What benefit can one get from it?!

R. Eliezer Chisma: One cannot benefit from Tamei Terumah at any time, nevertheless one pays for eating it!

R. Eliezer ben Yakov: Tamei Terumah is different - even though one may not eat it, one may benefit from burning it - but Chametz b'Pesach is Asur b'Hana'ah!

R. Eliezer Chisma: One may also benefit from Chametz - he can feed it to his dog, or use it for fuel (it is Mutar b'Hana'ah)!

(Abaye): R. Eliezer ben Yakov, R. Akiva and R. Yochanan ben Nuri all forbid Hana'ah from Chametz b'Pesach - they argue about the following:

R. Akiva holds that one pays according to value; R. Yochanan ben Nuri holds that one pays according to volume.

Objection: This is obvious!

Answer: One might have thought that R. Yochanan ben Nuri also holds that one pays according to value, and he is Mechayev because he permits Hana'ah like R. Yosi ha'Gelili - Abaye teaches that this is not so.

Suggestion: Perhaps it is so!

Rejection: If so, he would have answered R. Akiva the way R. Eliezer Chisma answered R. Eliezer ben Yakov (one may also benefit from Chametz...)!

(Beraisa): If a Zar ate a k'Zayis of Terumah [b'Shogeg], he pays Keren v'Chomesh;

Aba Sha'ul says, he pays only if he ate the value of a Perutah (see note 19 in Appendix).

Question: What is the reason for the first Tana?

Answer: It says "V'Ish Ki Yochal Kodesh bi'Shgagah" - the Shi'ur of 'Achilah' (eating) is a k'Zayis.

Question: What is Aba Sha'ul's reason?

Answer: It says "V'Nosan [la'Kohen Es ha'Kodesh]" - the Shi'ur of 'Nesinah' (giving) is a Perutah.

Question: Why doesn't Aba Sha'ul learn from Yochal that it also must be a k'Zayis?

Answer: He expounds "Yochal" to exclude one who damages.

Question: Why doesn't the first Tana learn from "V'Nosan" that it also must be worth a Perutah?

Answer: He expounds it to require something fitting to be Kodesh (this excludes Chametz during Pesach).

(Beraisa): If a Zar ate less than a k'Zayis of Terumah [b'Shogeg], he pays Keren but not Chomesh.

Question: What is the case?

If it is worth less than a Perutah, he should also be exempt from Keren;

If it is worth [at least] a Perutah, he should also be liable to pay Chomesh!

Answer: Even though it is worth a Perutah, since it is less than a k'Zayis he is exempt from Chomesh.

Rabanan: This is unlike Aba Sha'ul - he would say that since it is worth a Perutah, even though it is less than a k'Zayis he must pay Chomesh!

Rejection (Rav Papa): It is even like Aba Sha'ul - Aba Sha'ul requires both [a Perutah and a k'Zayis].

Objection: He does not require both!

(Beraisa - Aba Sha'ul): If it is worth a Perutah, one must pay for it; if not, not.

Chachamim: A Perutah is the Shi'ur only for Me'ilah, but one is not liable for Terumah unless he ate a k'Zayis!

Summation of question: If Aba Sha'ul requires both, Chachamim should have said 'one is liable since he ate a k'Zayis!'

Rav Papa is refuted.

Rav Papa himself retracted [as we see from his question below]:

(Beraisa): [Regarding Me'ilah it says] "V'Chot'ah bi'Shgagah" - this excludes Mezid.

Suggestion: A Kal va'Chomer should teach this - a Mezid who transgressed Chayavei Kerisos is exempt [from a Korban] - all the more so Mezid should be exempt from Me'ilah, which has no Kares!

Rejection: You cannot learn from other Aveiros which have no Chiyuv Misah to Me'ilah, for which one is Chayav Misah [bi'Yedei Shomayim].

Therefore, it says "V'Chot'ah bi'Shgagah" to exclude Mezid.

Question (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): At first, the Tana holds that Kares is more stringent than Misah [biYedei Shomayim] - later he holds that Misah is more stringent!

Answer #1 (R. Chiya bar Avin): No - the rejection is, you cannot learn from other Aveiros, which have no Chiyuv Misah for less than a k'Zayis, to Me'ilah, for which one is Chayav Misah for less than a k'Zayis.

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak: You should have serenity, for you comforted me [by answering the difficulty].