POINT BY POINT OUTLINE OF THE DAF
prepared by Rabbi Pesach Feldman of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
1) HOW DOES ONE PAY FOR TERUMAH?
(a) Question: Is payment according to the volume of what he ate or its value?
(b) 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;
1. (Mishnah): All thieves pay the value at the time of the theft.
(c) The question is when it was originally worth one and now it is worth four;
1. Perhaps he pays according to the volume, just like he ate;
2. Or, since he ate the value of only one Zuz, he need not pay more!
(d) Answer (Rav Yosef - Beraisa): If a Zar ate dry figs [of Terumah, b'Shogeg] and paid with dates, he will be blessed!
1. Granted, if he pays according to volume, he is blessed for choosing to give dates because they are worth four times as much.
2. However, if he pays according to the value, why is he blessed? [In any case] he pays the value of what he ate!
(e) 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.
(f) Answer #2 (Mishnah): If a Zar ate Chametz of Terumah on Pesach b'Shogeg, he pays Keren v'Chomesh.
1. We understand this if he pays according to volume. However, if he pays according to the value, Chametz during Pesach is worthless! (It is Asur b'Hana'ah.)
(g) Rejection: Our Mishnah is like R. Yosi ha'Gelili, who permits benefit from Chametz b'Pesach.
(h) Question (Seifa): If he ate b'Mezid he is exempt from payment, even from its fuel value.
1. If the Mishnah is R. Yosi ha'Gelili, why is he exempt? It has value!
(i) Answer: The Tana holds like R. Nechunya ben Hakanah:
1. (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.
(j) Tana'im argue about this;
1. (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];
2. R. Yochanan ben Nuri obligates [because one pays according to the volume].
3. R. Akiva: What benefit can one get from it?!
4. R. Yochanan ben Nuri: One can never benefit from Tamei Terumah, yet one pays for eating it!
5. R. Akiva: Tamei Terumah is different. One may not eat it, but he may benefit from burning it. 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 - one may not use it for Ziluf, due to Takalah. See Matzpas Eisan.)
6. This applies to one who separated Terumah and then it became Chametz [or separated Chametz to be Terumah before Pesach]. All agree that on Pesach, if one separated Chametz to be Terumah, it does not take effect.
(k) (Beraisa #2 -R. Eliezer ben Yakov): "V'Nasan la'Kohen Es ha'Kodesh" refers to something proper 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;
(l) R. Eliezer Chisma obligates.
1. R. Eliezer ben Yakov: What benefit can one get from it?!
2. R. Eliezer Chisma: One can never benefit from Tamei Terumah, yet one pays for eating it!
3. R. Eliezer ben Yakov: Tamei Terumah is different. Even though one may not eat it, one may benefit from burning it. Chametz b'Pesach is Asur b'Hana'ah!
4. R. Eliezer Chisma: One may benefit also from Chametz. He can feed it to his dog, or use it for fuel. (It is Mutar b'Hana'ah.)
(m) (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:
1. R. Akiva holds that one pays according to value; R. Yochanan ben Nuri holds that one pays according to volume.
2. Objection: This is obvious!
3. Answer: One might have thought that also R. Yochanan ben Nuri 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.
4. Suggestion: Perhaps it is so!
5. 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...)!
2) THE SHI'UR TO BE LIABLE FOR TERUMAH
(a) (Beraisa): If a Zar ate a k'Zayis of Terumah [b'Shogeg], he pays Keren v'Chomesh;
(b) Aba Sha'ul says, he pays only if he ate the value of a Perutah. (See note in 19 Appendix.)
(c) Question: What is the reason for the first Tana?
(d) Answer: It says "v'Ish Ki Yochal Kodesh bi'Shgagah" - the Shi'ur of 'Achilah' (eating) is a k'Zayis.
(e) Question: What is Aba Sha'ul's reason?
(f) Answer: It says "v'Nasan [la'Kohen Es ha'Kodesh]." The Shi'ur of 'Nesinah' (giving) is a Perutah.
(g) Question: Why doesn't Aba Sha'ul learn from "Yochal" that it must also be a k'Zayis?
(h) Answer: He expounds "Yochal" to exclude one who damages.
(i) Question: Why doesn't the first Tana learn from "v'Nasan" that it must also be worth a Perutah?
(j) Answer: He expounds it to require something proper to be Kodesh (this excludes Chametz during Pesach).
(k) (Beraisa): If a Zar ate less than a k'Zayis of Terumah [b'Shogeg], he pays Keren but not Chomesh.
(l) Question: What is the case?
1. If it is worth less than a Perutah, he should be exempt also from Keren;
2. If it is worth [at least] a Perutah, he should be liable to pay also Chomesh!
(m) Answer: Even though it is worth a Perutah, since it is less than a k'Zayis he is exempt from Chomesh.
(n) 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!
(o) Rejection (Rav Papa): It is even like Aba Sha'ul. Aba Sha'ul requires both [a Perutah and a k'Zayis].
(p) Objection: He does not require both!
1. (Beraisa - Aba Sha'ul): If it is worth a Perutah, one must pay for it. If not, he need not.
2. Chachamim: A Perutah is the Shi'ur only for Me'ilah, but one is not liable for Terumah unless he ate a k'Zayis!
3. Summation of question: If Aba Sha'ul requires both, Chachamim should have said 'one is liable since he ate a k'Zayis!'
(q) Rav Papa is refuted.
(r) Rav Papa himself retracted. (This is clear from his question below, 33a);
1. (Beraisa): [Regarding Me'ilah it says] "v'Chat'ah bi'Shgagah", to exclude Mezid.
2. 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!
3. Rejection: You cannot learn from other Aveiros (Chayavei Kerisos) which have no Chiyuv Misah, to Me'ilah, for which one is Chayav Misah [bi'Yedei Shamayim].
4. Therefore, it says "V'Chat'ah bi'Shgagah" to exclude Mezid.
5. Question (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): At first, the Tana holds that Kares is more stringent than Misah [biYedei Shamayim]. Later he holds that Misah is more stringent!
6. 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.
7. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak: You should have serenity, for you comforted me [through answering the difficulty].