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 only ate the value of 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.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!
2.But 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 - but 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 cannot benefit from Tamei Terumah at any time, nevertheless one pays for eating it!
5.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.)
6.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.
(k)(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;
(l)R. Eliezer Chisma obligates.
(m)R. Eliezer ben Yakov. What benefit can one get from it?!
(n)R. Eliezer Chisma: One cannot benefit from Tamei Terumah at any time, nevertheless one pays for eating it!
(o)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!
(p)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)!
(q)(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 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.
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 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'Nosan [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 also must 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'Nosan" that it also must be worth a Perutah?
(j)Answer: He expounds it to require something fitting 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 also be exempt from Keren;
2.If it is worth [at least] a Perutah, he should also be liable to pay 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, 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 [as we see from his question below]:
1.(Beraisa): [Regarding Me'ilah it says] "V'Chot'ah bi'Shgagah" - this excludes 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 which have no Chiyuv Misah to Me'ilah, for which one is Chayav Misah [bi'Yedei Shomayim].
4.Therefore, it says "V'Chot'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 Shomayim] - 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 [by answering the difficulty].