(a)A Zar (a non-Kohen) is Chayav Keren v'Chomesh for eating Terumah b'Shogeg, from the Pasuk "v'Ish Ki Yochal Kodesh bi'Shegagah". Will he be Chayav if he ...
1. ... drinks it?
2. ... anoints himself with it?
(b)Will he be Chayav if he eats Terumah Temei'ah?
(c)He is even Chayav 'Chumsha d'Chumsha'. What does this mean, and what is the Chidush?
(a)A Zar is Chayav for ...
1. ... drinking Terumah b'Shogeg, just as he is for eating it - because 'Shesi'ah bi'Chelal Achilah'.
2. ... anointing Terumah - because of the principle 'Sichah ki'Shesiyah'.
(b)He is even Chayav for eating Terumah Temei'ah b'Shogeg.
(c)'Chumsha d'Chumsha' - means that, if he then eats the Chomesh b'Shogeg, he will have to pay its value to the Kohen plus a fifth. The Chidush is that the Chomesh that he designates, adopts the Din of Terumah.
(a)Assuming that one holds 'Le'fi Midah Meshalem', does it follow that he may pay the same volume of fruit as he ate, even though it has now gone down in value?
(b)How then, might the She'eilah affect the amount that he pays?
(a)Even if we hold 'Le'fi Midah Meshalem', it does not follow that he may pay the same volume of fruit as he ate, even if its value has decreased, because the Din there would be no different than that of a thief, who pays what the article was worth when it was stolen.
(b)The She'eilah will affect the amount that he pays in the reverse case, when the value of the fruit has increased from the time it was stolen - If we hold 'Le'fi Midah Meshalem', then he will be obligated to pay the equivalent volume, even though it is worth more than what he ate; whereas if we hold 'Lefi Damim Meshalem' - he will not be obligated to pay more than he originally ate (which would mean paying less volume).
(a)The Beraisa says that if a Zar ate dried figs of Terumah b'Shogeg, and paid with dates, he deserves to be blessed. How does the Gemara try to prove from here that 'Le'fi Midah Meshalem'?
(b)How does the Gemara refute that, and explain the Beraisa even if 'Le'fi Damim Meshalem'?
(a)If the Tana of the Beraisa held 'Lefi Damim Meshalem' - then why would a Zar who ate dried figs of Terumah b'Shogeg, and paid with dates (who is not paying any more value than what he ate) deserve to be blessed? Whereas if he held 'Lefi Midah Meshalem', his blessing will be well-earned, since volume for volume, dates are more valuable than dried-figs.
(b)Even if the Tana were to hold 'Lefi Damim Meshalem', answers the Gemara, he would still deserve to be blessed - because he ate dried figs, which are not easily marketable, and he paid dates, which are.
(a)Earlier, we established that the Tana of our Mishnah holds in the Reisha ('ha'Ochel Terumas Chametz ba'Pesach, b'Shogeg, Meshalem Keren v'Chomesh') 'Le'fi Midah Meshalem, and in the Seifa ('be'Meizid, Patur' ...), 'Le'fi Damim Meshalem'. The Tana could also hold 'Le'fi Damim Meshalem' - even in the Reisha, by establishing him like Rebbi Yosi Hagelili. What does this mean? What does Rebbi Yosi Hagelili say?
(b)And how would we then have to establish the Seifa, seeing as Chametz is Mutar b'Hana'ah? Why would he then be Patur from paying?
(c)How will we now interpret 'be'Shogeg' in the Reisha, by Terumah, by Chametz or by both?
(a)The Tana who says 'ha'Ochel Terumas Chametz ba'Pesach, b'Shogeg, Meshalem Keren v'Chomesh' - could even hold 'Le'fi Damim Meshalem' if he were to hold like Rebbi Yosi Hagelilil, who holds that Chametz on Pesach is Mutar b'Hana'ah , in which case, it does have a value.
(b)Nevertheless, one would still be Patur in the Seifa, when he ate it b'Meizid - if he held like Rebbi Nechunya ben Ha'kanah, in whose opinion someone who performs an act for which he is Chayav both Kares (or Chayav Misah Bi'yedei Shamayim) and payment, is only Chayav Kares, and Patur from paying. Here too, since he ate Terumah on purpose, he is Chayav Misah b'Yedei Shamayim, and is therefore Patur from paying.
(c)According to this, 'be'Shogeg' in the Reisha pertains both to Terumah and to Chametz - because if he was Meizid by Terumah, there would be no Chomesh to pay, and if he was Meizid by Chametz, he would be Patur from paying altogether (like Rebbi Nechunyah ben Ha'kanah).
(a)Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri obligates a Zar who eats Terumas Chametz on Pesach b'Shogeg to pay, like we learnt in our Mishnah. Rebbi Akiva exempts him from paying. Why is that? Why should he be less Chayav to pay than he is during the rest of the year, when Terumah Temei'ah is also forbidden
(b)Why does Rebbi Akiva compare it to someone who eats Terumah Temei'ah of berries or grapes?
(c)Does the Terumas Chametz mentioned in a. also pertain to fruit that he separated on Pesach after it was already Chametz?
(a)Rebbi Akiva exempts a Zar who ate Terumas Chametz on Pesach b'Shogeg from paying - because 'what Hana'ah would the Kohen have had from it anyway'? During the rest of the year, this is no argument, says Rebbi Akiva, since the Terumah Temei'ah, although Asur ba'Achilah, is Mutar b'Hana'ah (e.g. to use as fuel).
(b)Rebbi Akiva therefore compares Terumas Chametz on Pesach to Terumah Temei'ah of berries and grapes, which, like Terumas Chametz on Pesach, has no use to the Kohen at all, since berries and grapes are neither fit to eat nor to be used as fuel (since we are afraid that if he retains them, he will also come to use them - 'Chaishinan li'Takalah', as we learnt above on Daf 20b).
(c)The Terumas Chametz mentioned in a. is confined to fruit that was separated before it became Chametz on Pesach - because once it becomes Chametz, Terumah will not take effect - even according to Rebbi Yosi Hagelili, as we shall see later.
(a)What did Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri counter when Rebbi Akiva asked him why a Zar who eats Terumas Chametz on Pesach should be Chayav, because 'what benefit could the Kohen have possibly derived from it'?
(b)How does Abaye derive from here that Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri agrees with Rebbi Akiva that Chametz is Asur b'Hana'ah, only he holds 'L'fi Midah Meshalem', and not like Rebbi Elazar Chisma, who gave a different answer when Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov asked him the same question?
(c)What was Rebbi Elazar Chisma's answer?
(d)Like which Tana does he hold?
(a)When Rebbi Akiva asked Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri why a Zar who ate Terumas Chametz on Pesach should be Chayav, because 'what benefit could the Kohen have possibly have derived from it' - he replied 'And what benefit would the Kohen have derived when a Zar ate Terumah Temei'ah during the rest of the year (and yet the Torah obligates the Zar to pay').
(b)If Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri held like Rebbi Elazar Chisma, then he should have answered Rebbi Akiva in the same way as Rebbi Elazar Chisma answered Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov. From the fact that he did not, it is clear that, in his opinion, Chametz on Pesach is not Mutar b'Hana'ah, and that he is Chayav to pay because he holds 'L'fi Midah Meshalem'.
(c)Rebbi Elazar Chisma answered that even Chametz on Pesach was Mutar b'Hana'ah, and that he could give it to his dog or use it as fuel.
(d)Rebbi Elazar Chisma holds like Rebbi Yosi Hagelili, that Chametz on Pesach is Mutar b'Hana'ah.
(a)The Tana Kama of the Beraisa obligates a Zar to pay the principle plus a fifth for eating a k'Zayis of Terumah b'Shogeg. What does Aba Shaul hold?
(b)Aba Shaul derives his opinion from the Pasuk in Emor "v'Nasan la'Kohen es ha'Kodesh". What does the Tana Kama learn from "v'Nasan"?
(c)The Tana Kama, on the other hand, learns from the word "Yochal". What does Aba Shaul learn from there?
(a)According to Aba Shaul, the Shi'ur to be Chayav for eating Terumah b'Shogeg is not a k'Zayis, but the value of a Perutah.
(b)The Tana Kama learns from "v'Nasan" - 'Davar ha'Ra'uy Liheyos Kodesh': to teach us that payment for eating Terumah b'Shogeg must be in a kind that is fit to become Terumah.
(c)Aba Shaul learn from "Yochal" - that one is only Chayav the Chomesh for eating Terumah, but not for damaging it.
(a)The Beraisa exempts a Zar who eats less than a k'Zayis of Terumah from paying the extra fifth. Does this speak even if it was worth a Perutah, or not?
(b)The Rabanan of Rav Papa maintained that this Beraisa could not possibly hold like Aba Shaul (according to whom the criterion for the Chomesh is a Shaveh perutah). How did Rav Papa attempt to justify the Beraisa even according to Aba Shaul?
(c)What forced Rav Papa to retract from this point of view?
(d)Even the Rabanan of Aba Shaul concede that the Shi'ur for Me'ilah is the value of a Perutah, and not a k'Zayis. Why is that?
(a)The Beraisa exempts a Zar who eats less than a k'Zayis of Terumah from paying the extra fifth - even if it is worth a Perutah.
(b)Rav Papa attempts to justify the Beraisa even according to Aba Shaul - by saying that Aba Shaul actually required a Shaveh Perutah as well as a k'Zayis. That is why the Beraisa exempts a Zar who ate less than a k'Zayis of Terumah from paying the extra fifth - even if it was worth a Perutah.
(c)Rav Papa was forced to retract from this point of view - when they quoted him a Beraisa where Aba Shaul explicitly stated that the only criterion (with regard to the Shi'ur of Terumah) is whether it is worth a Shaveh Perutah or not.
(d)Even the Rabanan of Aba Shaul concede that the Shi'ur for Me'ilah is the value of a Perutah, and not a k'Zayis - because the Torah does not use an expression of Achilah by Me'ilah.
(a)What do we learn from the Pasuk in Vayikra "v'Chat'ah bi'Shegagah" (by Me'ilah)?
(b)The Beraisa suggests that we could have learned this from a 'Kal va'Chomer'. Which 'Kal va'Chomer'?
(c)The Gemara answers this by referring to the Chumra by Me'ilah of Mi'sah b'Yedei Shamayim. But only a moment ago we presumed Kares to be more stringent than Misah? How do we establish the Kashya (thereby justifying the need for the Pasuk)? Which case of Mi'sah is the Beraisa referring to?
(a)We learn from the Pasuk in Vayikra "v'Chat'ah bi'Shegagah" - that the Chiyuv of Me'ilah (to pay an extra fifth and bring a Korban Me'ilah) is confined to Shogeg, but does not apply to Meizid.
(b)If other Mitzvos (sins) for which one is Chayav Kares (a Korban Chatas is only brought for those sins which carry a Chiyuv Kares), someone who transgressed b'Meizid is Patur, Me'ilah, which does not carry a Chiyuv Kares, should certainly be Patur if transgressed b'Meizid.
(c)When the Gemara asks that Me'ilah is more stringent because it carries a Chiyuv of Misah b'Yedei Shamayim, it is referring, not to the regular case of someone who eats more than a k'Zayis (since there, Kares is more stringent, as we explained) but to less than a k'Zayis, where Me'ilah has this distinction over and above all other Isurim, where only someone who eats more than a k'Zayis is Chayav.