1)

WORKERS OR GUESTS WHO ATE TERUMAH (Yerushalmi Terumos Perek 6 Halachah 2 Daf 32b)

משנה המאכיל את פועליו ואת אורחיו תרומה הוא משלם את הקרן והן משלמין את החומש דברי ר' מאיר

(a)

(Mishnah) (R. Meir): One who fed his workers or guests Terumah - he pays the principal and they pay the fifth.

וחכמים אומרים הן משלמין את הקרן ואת החומש והוא משלם להן דמי סעודתן.

(b)

(Chachamim): They pay both and he pays them the value of their meal.

הגונב תרומה ולא אכלה משלם תשלומי כפל דמי תרומה אכלה משלם שני קרנים וחומש קרן וחומש מן החולין וקרן דמי תרומה

(c)

One who stole Terumah but didn't eat it pays Kefel (double payment for theft) of the Terumah. If he ate it, he pays Kefel plus a fifth - one principal and the fifth from Chulin and one principal from Terumah money.

גנב תרומת הקדש ואכלה משלם שני חומשים וקרן שאין בהקדש תשלומי כפל.

(d)

If he stole Terumah of Hekdesh and ate it, he pays two fifths and the principal, since one doesn't pay Kefel to Hekdesh.

אין משלמין מן הלקט ומן השכחה ומן הפיאה ומן ההפקר ולא ממעשר ראשון שנטלה תרומתו ולא ממעשר שני והקדש שנפדו שאין הקדש פודה את הקדש דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים מתירין באלו:

(e)

One may not repay from Leket, Shichechah, Pe'ah or Hefker nor from Maaser Rishon that hasn't had its Terumah taken, nor from Maaser Sheni or Hekdesh that wasn't redeemed, since Hekdesh cannot redeem Hekdesh. These are the words of R. Meir, but the Chachamim allow repayment with these (unredeemed Maaser Sheni and Hekdesh).

[דף לג עמוד א] גמרא הא רבי מאיר אמר משלמין ורבנן אמרי משלמין מה ביניהון

(f)

(Gemara) Question: Both R. Meir and the Chachamim require him to pay the principal. So what is the difference between them?

אמר רבי יוחנן עיקר סעודה ביניהן רבי מאיר אמר עיקר סעודה לבעל הבית ורבנן אמרי עיקר סעודה לפועלין

(g)

Answer (R. Yochanan): Who must prepare the food - R. Meir said that the Baal HaBayis (employer/owner) must pay with actual food; the Chachamim said that workers prepare it (and he can pay them with money).

רבי שמעון בן לקיש אמר טפילה ביניהן רבי מאיר אמר טפילה לבעל הבית ורבנן אמרי טפילה לפועלין

(h)

Answer #2 (R. Shimon ben Lakish): No; (the Baal HaBayis must prepare the food and) they disagree over who must go and buy Chulin with the Terumah payment. R. Meir says that the Baal HaBayis must do so and Rabbanan say that the workers must do so.

רבי אבהו בשם רבי שמעון בן לקיש הא למה זה דומה למוכר חפץ לחבירו ונמצא שאינו שלו שהוא חייב להעמיד לו מקחו

(i)

(R. Abahu citing R. Shimon ben Lakish): This is comparable to one who sells an object to his friend, who discovers that it didn't belong to the seller. The seller must now replace the object (rather than return the money). (Here also, if he agreed to feed them a meal and it's found to be Terumah, he must replace the meal rather than merely pay.)

אילו כרבי שמעון בן לקיש איתאמרת ניחא ואין כר' יוחנן אמר עיקר סעודתו ביניהן ואת אמרת הכי

(j)

Question: According to R. Shimon ben Lakish, the comparison is fine; but according to R. Yochanan (who says that that dispute between R. Meir and Chachamim is as to whether the meal must be prepared by the Baal HaBayis, (if the Chachamim require it to be prepared by the workers and the Baal HaBayis must merely pay for it,) what's the comparison to the seller?

כרבי מאיר איתאמרת

(k)

Answer: That statement was said according to R. Meir.

רבי אבהו בשם ר' יוסי בן חנינא שבח סעודה ביניהן בשפסק עמהן להאכילן דבשני חולין והאכילן דבשני תרומה

(l)

(R. Abahu citing R. Yosi ben Chanina): According to R. Meir, he only pays the value of stolen Terumah; according to the Chachamim, the workers pay the Kohen and the owner pays them the value of the excess cost of providing Chulin rather than Terumah (which is cheaper). Therefore, if he agreed to feed them honey cakes of Chulin, he must pay them the difference in the value of honey cakes of Chulin over those of Terumah.

ולא כבר [דף לג עמוד ב] אכלו

(m)

Question: (According to R. Yochanan's understanding of R. Meir), if he already went to the effort of preparing the food for them and feeding them, he should only need to pay them money?

כמאן דאמר טבלים נפשו של אדם חתה מהן.

(n)

Answer: Since a person is disgusted by eating a prohibited item, the effort to prepare that meal is not taken into account.

אמר ר' ינאי לצדדין היא מתני' יש בו כזית ואין בו שוה פרוטה משלם (להקדש)[לשבט] יש בו שוה פרוטה ואין בו כזית משלם (לשבט)[להקדש]

(o)

(R. Yannai): (When the Mishnah taught that if he stole Terumah of Hekdesh and ate it, he pays two fifths etc.) He doesn't pay both fifths at the same time; rather, he sometimes pays a fifth to Hekdesh and sometimes to the Kohen. When he ate a K'Zayis that was not worth a Peruta, he pays the fifth to the Kohen (as to the Kohen, it is dependent on eating a K'Zayis rather than being worth a Peruta). When he ate less than a K'Zayis that was worth a Peruta, he pays the fifth to Hekdesh.

יש בו כזית ויש בו שוה פרוטה שמעון בר ווא בשם ר' יוחנן משלם להקדש ר' יוחנן אמר משלם לשבט.

(p)

If there was a K'Zayis and it was worth a Peruta, Shimon bar Vava citing R. Yochanan said that he pays Hekdesh and R. Yochanan said that he pays the tribe.

א"ר זעירא גזירת הכתוב היא ואיש כי יאכל קודש בשגגה למקום שהקרן מהלך שם החומש מהלך

(q)

(R. Zeira): It is an explicit pasuk (Vayikra 22:14), "And if a man unintentionally eats what is holy" - the fifths goes to the same place as the principal.

כהנא אמר משלם שני חומשין חומש לשבט וחומש להקדש שאין בו בהקדש תשלומי כפל שנאמר ישלם שנים לרעהו ולא להקדש.

(r)

(Kahana): (Disagreeing with R. Yannai) He actually pays two fifths - one to the tribe and one to Hekdesh, as Kefel (double payment for theft) is not given to Hekdesh, as the pasuk states (Shemos 22:8), "...he shall pay two to his fellow" - (to his fellow but) not to Hekdesh.

ר"ש בן לקיש אמר להן על תרתין אחרייתא למה מפני שיש בהן זיקת תרומה ומעשרות

(s)

(R. Shimon ben Lakish): (Explaining the end of the Mishnah (above (e)) that said. "the Chachamim allow repayment with these" - these refers to the last two in the list, namely, Maaser Sheni and Hekdesh that weren't redeemed. It's because they had been suitable to make into Terumah before they were made into Maaser or Hekdesh, which is not the case with the others in the list.

ולקט ושכחה [פאה] אין בהן זיקת תרומה ומעשרות

(t)

Question: Were Leket, Shichechah and Peah not suitable to become Terumah before they became gifts to the poor (after they were harvested)? (All of them, including Peah, can become gifts to the poor after the harvesting.)

אלא (בנשיכת פיאה)[בנשירתו לקט] ובקמת פיאה אנן קיימין

(u)

Rebuttal: It's referring to Leket that fell during harvesting and Shichechah that occurred during harvesting (that therefore never came to his hand).

[דף לד עמוד א] לית הדא פשטה שאילתיה דחילפיי דחילפיי שאל לקט בנשיכה מהו שיקדש

(v)

Can't this answer Chilfai's question - When does produce become Leket - when it has been harvested but before it lands on the ground or only after it lands? From here have answered that it is as soon as it's cut!

]א"ל] רבי יוחנן )א"ל( והא תנינן לקט אית לך מימר פיאה (בלקט)[כלקט]

(w)

Answer (R. Yochanan): The Mishnah itself answers the question - since Leket and Peah are taught together, it indicates that they are similar cases - so that since the Peah is attached, so to the produce become Leket as it is harvested (without reaching the ground).

רבי יוחנן (א"ל)[אמר] על כולהן:

(x)

(R. Yochanan): (Disagreeing with Reish Lakish earlier) When the Chachamim allowed repayment, they were allowing all of the Mishnah's list (even Leket and Shichechah, and not just Maaser Sheni and Hekdesh that weren't redeemed).

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF