(Mishnah): A non-Kohen who inadvertently ate Terumah pays the principal plus a fifth. This applies whether he ate, drank or anointed himself with it, whether it was Tahor or Tameh. He must pay a fifth and a fifth of that fifth if he inadvertently ate the fifth that he had separated.

He must pay from Chulin (i.e produce that has been tithed) rather than Terumah and that produce or payment becomes Terumah. If the Kohen wishes to waive the repayment, he may not do so.

If the daughter of a Yisrael ate Terumah and then married a Kohen, if she ate Terumah that had not yet been acquired by another Kohen, she pays the principal and extra fifth to herself. If it had already been acquired by another Kohen, she pays the principal to that Kohen and the fifth to herself. This is because Chazal said that one who inadvertently ate Terumah pays the principal to the owner and the extra fifth to whoever they wish.

(Gemara): 'A non-Kohen who inadvertently ate Terumah'. The pasuk states (Vayikra 22:14), "And if a man unintentionally eats what is holy, he shall add a fifth of it (to it)'' - it should be a fifth, when it is with the principal (meaning that it is a quarter of the value of the principal).

Question: Didn't R. Abahu say from R. Yochanan - If a person knew that Chelev (forbidden fats) are prohibited (and are punishable with Kares), but he was unaware that if eaten inadvertently, a Korban must be brought; if they warned him he is given lashes, but he must also bring a Korban. So why not say here also that if he knew of the prohibition to eat Terumah but was unaware of the extra fifth additional payment, if they warned him, he is given lashes and must pay the extra fifth.

(R. Zeira): It's a decree of the pasuk, as it says (Vayikra 22:14), "And if a man inadvertently eats what is holy'' - that his eating must have been inadvertent (in all ways). If he was unsure if it was Terumah but he intentionally ate it, it is like inadvertently eating certain Terumah.

(R. Yosi): This shows that if a person had meat in front of him and it is unclear whether it is Chelev (forbidden fats) or Shuman (permitted fats), if he ate it intentionally, he is considered inadvertent and brings a Korban.

If a person said, "I am separating from a K'zayis (an olive's amount) but not from a half an olive'' (He ate a K'zayis, but he said afterwards that he wouldn't have eaten it had he known that it was a full K'zayis)...

(R. Bun bar Chiya): It's as if he ate half a Zayis inadvertently and half a Zayis intentionally (and he is exempt from a Korban).

Question: And if R. Bun bar Chiya follows R. Shimon ben Lakish that (it's permitted according to the Torah to eat part of the amount that makes a person liable - known as 'Chatzi Shiur') if he ate half a Zayis size in one act of inadvertency, he is exempt; so here, he should be exempt if he ate less than two half Zaysim. (So even if he ate a full Zayis size of Terumah, he should still be exempt from the extra fifth even if he had knowledge of the prohibited Terumah throughout most of the Zayis amount, since during that part of the eating, he wasn't transgressing a Torah prohibition?)

R. Shimon ben Lakish agrees concerning items which have a prohibition to derive benefit, that Chatzi Shiur is prohibited by the Torah. He also agrees that Chatzi Shiur is prohibited by the Torah to eat on Yom Kippur. And he also agrees that if, when he eats the Chatzi Shiur, he is intending to continue to eat the full Shiur, that it is prohibited by the Torah.

(R. Abahu citing R. Yochanan): One who gulps vinegar of Terumah incurs lashes.

(R. Abahu citing R. Yochanan): One who chews wheat of Terumah incurs lashes.

(Baraisa): One who chews wheat of Terumah pays the principal but not the extra fifth. Rebbi says that he must also may the fifth.

(R. Yirmiyah citing R. Imi): The Chachamim agree to Rebbi that if he gulps vinegar of Terumah after he used it as a dip for his meal, that he pays the principal and the fifth, as the vinegar 'settles his spirit' (when he drinks it after using it as a dip).

(Baraisa): If one ate Tamei Terumah, he pays with Tahor Chulin. If he paid with Tamei Chulin, he fulfils his obligation.

(R. Noson): Sumchus said that if he did so inadvertently, the payment is valid; if he intentionally paid with Tamei Chulin, it is invalid.

(Mishnah earlier in the 2nd Perek): One may not separate from Tamei for Tahor.

(Baraisa citing R. Yosi): If he separated from Tamei for Tahor, whether inadvertently or intentionally, it is valid.

The individual opinion here (Sumchos) is like the anonymous opinion there (in the Mishnah in 2nd Perek) and the individual opinion there (R. Yosi) is like anonymous opinion here (in the Baraisa ((o) above) that does not differentiate between inadvertent and intentional). If so, what should the ruling be? (The Gemara leaves this question unanswered.)

(R. Zeira citing R. Chanina): Payments for Terumah are like Terumah itself, but growths of payments are Chulin. Growths of actual Terumah are like Chulin in all aspects, but they may not be eaten by non-Kohanim.

(R. Yosi): We also deduced these two Halachos from our Mishnah... Payments for Terumah are like Terumah itself - the Mishnah said, "He must pay from Chulin rather than Terumah and that produce or payment becomes Terumah.''

"But growths of payments are Chulin'' - as the Mishnah teaches, "The growths of Terumah are Terumah'' - implying that the growths of payments are Chulin.

"Growths of actual Terumah are like Chulin in all aspects'' - as the Mishnah teaches (later, in the 9th Perek), "(Growths from Terumah seeds) are obligated in Leket, Shichechah and Pe'ah and poor Yisraelim and Kohanim may collect them'',

"...But they are prohibited to non-Kohanim'', as the Mishnah teaches, "but poor Yisraelim sell theirs to poor Kohanim for the price of Terumah and the money then belongs to them (the Yisraelim).