1)

IS THE PRINCIPAL ALSO A FINE? (Yerushalmi Terumos Perek 7 Halachah 1 Daf 35b)

àîø ø' éåãï áø ùìåí îúðé' àîøä ùä÷øï ÷ðñ ãúðéðï àéðå îùìí úøåîä àìà çåìéï îúå÷ðéí åäï ðòùéï úøåîä

(a)

(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.'

àìå îîä ùàëì äéä îùìí éàåú

1.

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.)

[ãó ñã òîåã à (òåæ åäãø)] åúðé ëï àëì úøåîä èîàä îùìí çåìéï èäåøéí åàí ùéìí çåìéï èîàéí éöà

(b)

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

åìà ãîé òöéí äåà çééá ìå äãà àîøä ùä÷øï ÷ðñ

1.

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.

åëîä ãúéîø ÷øï ÷ðñ åãëååúä çåîù ÷ðñ

(c)

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?)

àìà øùá''ì ëãòúéä ëîä ãø''ù áï ì÷éù àîø úîï äëì äéä áëìì ìà úòðä áøòê òã ù÷ø åéöà æä åòùéúí ìå ëàùø æîí ìòùåú ìàçéå ìçééáå îîåï

(d)

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.

åäëà äëì äéä áëìì åëì æø ìà éàëì ÷åãù éöà åàéù ëé éàëì ÷åãù áùââä ìçééáå îîåï

1.

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.

åäúðé îåãéï çëîéí ìø''î áâåðá çìáå ùì çáéøå ùäåà ìå÷ä åîùìí ùëï äàåëì çìá ìå÷ä

(e)

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.

îåãéí çëîéí ìø''î áâåðá úøåîú çáéøå ùäåà ìå÷ä åîùìí ùëï äàåëì úøåîúå ìå÷ä

1.

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.

åäúðé îåãéí çëîéí ìø''î áçåñí ôøúå ùì çáéøå ùäåà ìå÷ä åîùìí ùùú ÷áéï ìôøä åàøáòä ÷áéï ìçîåø ùëï äçåñí ôøúå ìå÷ä

(f)

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.

2)

LASHES AND PAYMENT FOR BENEFITTING FROM HEKDESH (Yerushalmi Terumos Perek 7 Halachah 1 Daf 35b)

à''ø éåñé ùëï áîçåééáé îéúåú [ãó ñã òîåã á (òåæ åäãø)] âðá úøåîú ä÷ãù åàëìä ìå÷ä åîùìí î''î äôñéã îîåï

(a)

(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.

à''ø îðà ÷åîé ø' éåñé îòúä äáà òì àçåúå (áåâøú)[÷èðä] éì÷ä [ãó ìå òîåã à] åéùìí ùëï äáà òì àçåú (÷èðä)[áåâøú] ìå÷ä

(b)

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?

çæø øáé îðà åàîø úîï çì òìéå îéúä åúùìåîéï ëàçú áøí äëà îçñéîä äøàùåðä ðúçééá îì÷åú åîëàï åàéìê ìúùìåîéï

(c)

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.

äúéá ø''æ ÷åîé ø' îðà äîöéú âãéùå ùì çáéøå îùéáåìú äøàùåðä ðúçééá îéúä îëàï åàéìê ìúùìåîéï åìéú àú àîø äëéï

(d)

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)?!

àìà òì ëì ùéáåìú åùéáåìú éù áä äúøééú îëåú åäúøééú úùìåîéï åàåó äëà òì ëì çñéîä éù áä äúøééú îëåú åäúøééú úùìåîéï

1.

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)?

à''ø éåñé á''ø áåï úøéï àîåøàéï çã àîø áçåñí áúøåîä åáîå÷ãùéí

(e)

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).

[ãó ñä òîåã à (òåæ åäãø)] åçøðä àîø áçåñí ò''é ùìéç ùìéç ìå÷ä åäåà ôèåø ãí éçùá ìàéù ääåà åìà ìùåìçéå

1.

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.

(áîæéã áúøåîä áùåââ áçåîù áîæéã áúøåîä åùåââ áðæéø îæéã áúøåîä åùåââ áéä''ë)[ùåââ áúøåîä åîæéã äçîõ ùåââ áúøåîä åîæéã áðæéø ùåââ áúøåîä åîæéã áéä''ë] àéï ðôúøéðä áùðé ãáøéí ðéçà àéï ðôúøéðä áãáø àçã îçìå÷ú ø''é åøùá''ì

(f)

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.)

úîï úðéðï àéï áéï ùáú ìéä''ë àìà ùæä æãåðå áéãé àãí åæä æãåðå áäéëøú

(g)

(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.

äà áúùìåîéï æä åæä ùåéï

1.

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

îúðéúà ãø' ðçåðéà áï ä÷ðä ãúðé ø' ðçåðéà áï ä÷ðä àåîø éåí äëéôåøéí ëùáú ìúùìåîéï åø''ù áï îðñéà àåîø ëîçåééáé ëøéúåú ëê îçåééáé îéúåú á''ã

(h)

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.

îä áéðéäï

(i)

Question: What's the difference between them?

ø' àçà áùí ø' àáéðà àîø ðòøä ðãä áéðéäï

(j)

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

[ãó ñä òîåã á (òåæ åäãø)] à''ø îðà àó àçåú àùúå áéðéäï

(k)

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

òì ãòúéä ãø' ðçåðéà áï ä÷ðä îä ùáú àéï ìä äéúø àçø àéñåøä åéä''ë àéï ìå äéúø àçø àéñåøå åæå äåàéì åéù ìä äéúø àçø àéñåøä îùìí

1.

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.

[ãó ìå òîåã á] åø''ù áï îðñéà àîø ùáú éù áä ëøú åéä''ë éù áå ëøú åæå äåàéì åéù áä ëøú àéðå îùìí

2.

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.

ø' éåãä áø ôæé áòé ìååéï åëøéúåú îä àîøéï áä àéìéï úðéé

(l)

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

à''ø éåñé öøéëä ìøáðï

(m)

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

à''ø éåðä åìîä ìà ùîò ìä îï äãà ãúðé ø''ù áï éåçé ø' èøôåï àåîø ðàîø ëøú áùáú åðàîø ëøú áéä''ë îä ëøú äàîåøä àöì ùáú àéï îîåï àöì îéúä àó ëøú äàîåøä áéä''ë àéï îîåï àöì ëøú

(n)

(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.

à''ø îðà ÷åîé ø' éåñé îä öøéëéï ìéä ëøùá''ì áøí ëø' éåçðï àí îëåú àöì îéúä éù ìå ìà ëì ùëï îîåï àöì îëåú

(o)

(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.

à''ì åàó ëø''é öøéëä ìéä àéúôìâåï äùåçè àåúå åàú áðå ìùåí ò''æ

(p)

(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 ...

ø''é àîø àí äúøå áå ìùåí àåúå åàú áðå ìå÷ä ìùåí ò''æ ðñ÷ì

1.

(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.

øùá''ì àåîø àôé' äúøå áå îùåí àåúå åàú áðå àéðå ìå÷ä îàçø ùàìå äúøå áå îùåí ò''æ äéä ðñ÷ì

2.

(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.

[ãó ñå òîåã à (òåæ åäãø)] äëà ùðé ãáøéí åäëà ãáø àçã

(q)

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).

òì ãòúéä ãøùá''ì îä áéï àéìéï úðéé ìàéìéï øáðï

(r)

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.)

ììååéï åìà ìëøéúåú

(s)

Answer: They argue about negative commandments without Kares.

à''ø éåãï øùá''ì ãå àîø ëø''î ãå àîø ìå÷ä åîùìí

(t)

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

àîø ø' çððéà äîöéú âãéùå ùì çáéøå áé''è áéðéäï

(u)

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

àéìéï úðéé ñáøéï îéîø äåàéì åàéï áäï ëøú îùìí åàéìéï øáðï ñáøéï îéîø äåàéì åéù áä îëåú àéðå îùìí

(v)

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.

îòúä àìå ðòøåú ãìà ëøáðï

(w)

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

à''ø îúðéä (ááà)[áîîæø ùáà] òì äîîæøú (áéðéäï)

(x)

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).

åàùú àçéå ìàå éáéîúå äéà

(y)

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.)

úéôúø ùîú àçéå åäéå ìå áðéí åàéøù àùä åîú åáà àçéå åàðñä:

(z)

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.