Query (R' Yosa): If one benefits from hekdesh less than the value of a peruta, is he liable to pay?

Answer - Version #1: - Learn from the following - (Vayikra 5,16), "Ve'es - And that with which he sinned from the sanctified items he shall pay'' - this excludes benefitting less than the value of a peruta.

Answer - Version #2: This includes a liablility to pay [even if the benefit was less than the value of a peruta].

Clarification: (They in fact do not disagree) - The one who excludes less than the value of a peruta is referring to an exemption from bring an offering. The one who includes it is including payment - just as over there, for intentionally benefitting from less than the value of a peruta, although one does not pay chomesh or bring a guilt offering, he must pay to the tribe; so too here.

(Chevraya to R' Yosa): Is it not our Mishnah (that if he intentionally ate less than the value of a peruta he does not pay)? - One who ate Chametz of Terumah on Pesach - if he was Shogeg (inadvertent) he must pay the principal and the chomesh (additional fifth of the value). If it was Mezid (intentional) he is exempt from payment and from the value of the firewood.

(R' Yosa responds): There it is not fitting to become a peruta (as Chametz on Pesach has no value at all and cannot combine with more to become the value of a peruta); but here, it is fitting to become a peruta (it can combine with more to become a peruta).

One who consumed Terumah unaware that it was Terumah (and the Terumah was prohibited for another reason as well) -

If (the Terumah was Chametz and he) knew that it was Chametz,

If (the Terumah was wine and the person drinking it was a Nazir and) he was unaware that it was Terumah but knew that he was a Nazir (and prohibited to drink wine),

If (he ate the Terumah on Yom Kipur and) he was unaware that it was Terumah but he knew that it was Yom Kippur,

If in these 3 cases they are viewed as two separate things with two negative prohibitions he will receive lashes (for the intentional prohibition) and be required to pay (for the inadvertent consumption of Terumah)

If they are viewed as one, it is a dispute between R' Yochanan and R''SBL. (According to R''Y he would receive lashes but would not pay; according to R''SBL he receives lashes and pays - this dispute can be found in Maseches Terumos Perek 7, Halacha 1).