פירוש על תרומות 6:7

האוכל תרומה שוגג משלם קרן וחומש – as it is written (Leviticus 22:14): “but if a man eats a sacred donation unwittingly, he shall pay the priest for the sacred donation, adding one-fifth of its value.” And the one-fifth is one quarter of what he ate, as for example, if he ate heave-offering that was worth a Denar, he pays a Deinar and one-quarter, which are amidst all, five-fourths Denar, it is found that the principle with its fifth is five, and all the added-fifths mentioned in the Torah are such.

Introduction Terumah can be eaten only by priests (Leviticus 22:10, according to how the rabbis understood the verse). According to the rabbis, one who eats terumah intentionally is liable for death at the hands of heaven. Our mishnah deals with the consequences of eating terumah unwittingly.

אחד השותה – [who drinks] wine.

One who eats terumah unwittingly must repay its value plus a fifth, whether he eats it or drinks it, or anoints himself with it, or whether the terumah is clean or unclean. One who unwittingly eats, drinks or anoints himself with terumah must pay back the amount he ate plus an added fifth. The fifth in rabbinic literature is what we would call a fourth. It is a fifth of the total amount at the end. Thus if he eats 100 seahs of terumah, he must pay back 125: 100 is the principal and 25 is the 1/5 of the total amount 125.

ואחד הסך – [who anoints] with oil. For drinking is included within eating, as it is written (Deuteronomy 14:26): “[and spend the money on anything you want -] cattle, sheep, wine, or any other intoxicant,” and it is written afterwards (ibid.,) “and you shall feast there.” And anointing is like drinking, as it is written (Psalms 109:18): “May it enter his body like water, his bones like oil.”

[If he eats the added fifth] he must pay its fifth, and a fifth of that fifth. If he sets aside an extra fifth to pay back the priest, and then he unwittingly eats that as well, he must pay back an added fifth of the fifth. This section teaches us that the added fifth has the status of terumah, just as the principle that he pays back has the status of terumah, as we see below.

וחומש חומשה – for if he ate heave-offering and paid the principal and added-fifth, and went back and ate the payment of the fifth, he adds a fifth on that same fifth.

He may not repay with terumah, but rather with tithed hullin, which becomes terumah. It would seem obvious that he can’t pay back with other terumah because that would be cheating the priest (like paying old taxes with new ones). When he pays back he must use hullin from which tithes have been properly separated.

אינו משלם תרומה – for the heave-offering is for the Kohen, and the payments of what he ate are an obligation upon hi, and he is not able to pays his obligation from another place.

And whatever may be repaid in its place also becomes terumah and if the priest wishes to forego [the fine], he cannot do so. As we learned above in section two, that which he pays back to the priest becomes terumah. This is true even if the priest forgives him the fine. That which he must pay back becomes terumah regardless of whether the priest wants it to or not. It seems that what this section transforms the payment from being restitution to the priest into an obligation upon the person who ate the terumah to make up for his transgression. In a sense, we might say that the payment allows him to receive atonement for his albeit unwitting sin. As such, unlike a normal debt, the priest cannot forgive the debtor his obligation. This is also evident in section one, which states that he must repay even if the terumah was unclean. Unclean terumah cannot be used and therefore he hasn’t really damaged any priest. Nevertheless, he must pay back the amount he used because the issue at stake is atonement and not restitution for a loss.

אלא חולין מתקונים – tha they separated from them heave-offerings and tithes, for the All-Merciful stated (Leviticus 22:14): “He shall pay the priest for the sacred donation,” that things which is appropriate to me holy. And the added fifth also needs to come from designated unconsecrated produce , as it is written (Leviticus 22:14): “adding one-fifth of its value,” teaching that its added fifth is like it.

והן נעשין תרומה – those designated unconsecrated produce.

והתשלומין תרומה – if he went back and inadvertently ate that unconsecrated produce that had been paid, what he goes back and pays in their place, they also become heave-offering.

אינו מוחל – for since the decree of the Biblical verse is that he is liable to pay the appropriate thing to become holy and is not able to exempt himself with money, the matter is not dependent upon the owners.

בת ישראל – [the daughter of an Israelite] who separated heave-offering, but did not give it to the Kohen and inadvertently ate it [herself].

Introduction When an Israelite woman is married to a priest, she can eat terumah. Our mishnah deals with a woman who ate terumah before she was married to a priest and then was married to a priest.

ואח"כ נשאת לכהן – and behold she is worthy to consume heave-offering/Terumah for the wife of a Kohen eats heave-offering/Terumah.

A daughter of an Israelite ate terumah and afterwards married a priest:
If the terumah she ate had not yet been acquired by another priest she can repay to herself the value and the fifth. If she ate the terumah before she had given it to a priest and then she was married to a priest she can just give the repayment and the one-fifth to herself. Note that she still has to give it to herself, because as we explained in yesterday’s mishnah, there is an element of atonement in paying back the terumah and the added one-fifth. Even if no restitution must be made, the amounts must be given for atonement to be effected.

משלמת קרן וחומש לעצמה – behold if that selfsame heave-offering that she ate now in its natural form, she would not be liable to give to a Kohen for she has become a Kohenet through her marriage. Therefore, now, the payments are hers.

But if a priest had already acquired the terumah she had eaten, she must repay the value to the owners, but [she can repay] the fifth to herself, because they said that he who eats terumah unwittingly, pays the value to the owners and the fifth to whoever he wants. But if a priest had already acquired the terumah before she ate it, then she has taken away from a priest and she must make restitution to him. The mishnah rules that she has to pay back only the principle, the exact amount that she took. The extra fifth she can pay back to whomever she wants and therefore she can pay back to herself.

משלמת קרן לבעלים – according to the law of steal from one’s colleague, but the added fifth is detained for herself.

הוא משלם את הקרן – he value of the heave-offering, according to the law of theft for he has become a thief regarding it.

Introduction This mishnah deals with a person who accidentally feeds his workers or his guests terumah.

והן משלמין את החומש – the transgression of their eating inadvertently, but they do not pay the added firth, but rather eat and drink and anoint himself , but the person who damages the heave-offering does not pay the added fifth, as it is written (Leviticus 22:14): “But if a man eats of a sacred donation unwittingly, [he shall pay the priest for the sacred donation, adding one-fifth of its value], excluding the one who causes damage.

If one gives his workmen or his guests terumah to eat he must repay the principal and they must pay the fifth, the words of Rabbi Meir. According to Rabbi Meir, the person who gave them the terumah pays the principal, the amount that the terumah was actually worth. Since these were his guests or workers, people whom he had an obligation to feed, he has benefited by fulfilling this duty. Therefore, he has to pay back the amount that they ate to the kohen. On the other hand, they were the ones who actually ate the terumah, and therefore, they are the ones who pay back the added fifth.

הן משלמין קרן וחומש – properly designated unconsecrated produce, and they should make it Terumah, and he pays them the value of the unconsecrated produce that he would have had to feed them. But there is a difference between them, for the person who feeds does not pay anything ought the value of the heave-offering, but according to the Rabbis, he pays the value of the unconsecrated produce.

But the sages say: they must pay both the value and the fifth, and he must pay them for the price of their meal. The sages hold that since they were the ones who ate the food, they have to pay back the terumah to the priest, both the principal and the added fifth. However, since he gave them food that they shouldn’t have eaten, meaning he did not fulfill his duty, he has to pay them back the value of the food they ate. In this case, since they ate terumah which has lower value then regular produce, he will end up paying them back less than the amount that they will have to pay.

דמי תרומה – for its value is not expensive like unconsecrated produce.

Introduction A thief is obligated to pay back double the amount that he stole. Our mishnah deals with a person who steals terumah.

וחומש מן החולין – and they are made heave-offering, like the law of all who eat heave-offering inadvertently.

If one stole terumah but did not eat it, he must return double-payment at the price of terumah. As we have stated many times, terumah was cheaper than regular produce because terumah has less of a market. If one steals terumah he needs to pay back only twice the amount that he stole, which is the value of terumah.

וקרן דמי תרומה – because of the double [fine] to the thief.

If he ate it, he must pay twice the value plus a fifth, one principal value and a fifth at the price of hullin, and the other principal at the price of terumah. However, if he ate it, our problem becomes more complex. He must still pay back twice the value, but one of those amounts is the amount that the produce would have been worth if it was hullin, non-sacred produce, because whenever a person eats terumah (that is a person who is not supposed to eat terumah) he must pay back the value in hullin. The second value he can pay back at the cheaper terumah price because that is the value of the produce which he actually stole. He must also pay back an added fifth as a penalty for eating terumah, but he doesn’t need to pay back two fifths.

תרומת הקדש – that the Kohen dedicated for Temple repair.

If one stole terumah of dedicated property and ate it, he must repay two fifths and the principal value, for the laws of double-payment do not apply to dedicated property. In this case a person steals terumah that a priest had dedicated to the Temple. When he eats it, he transgresses two prohibitions eating terumah and benefiting from sanctified property. For each of these transgressions he brings an added fifth, so he brings two added fifths. However, the laws of double-payment for theft do not apply here, because these laws only apply when one steals something from another person, and not when one steals from Temple property (see Bava Metzia 4:9). It turns out that in this case the person pays back one principal and two fifths.

שני חומשים – one because he at heave-offering, and one because he benefited from that which was dedicated to the Temple, but there is no double payment for dedication to the Temple, as it is written (Exodus 22:8): “he whom God declares guilty shall pay double to the other,” but not to the Temple.

מן הלקט ומן השכחה ומן הפאה – because they do not have in them the obligation [to pay] heave-offering/Terumah and tithes, therefore, they are not within the general thing that is appropriate to become holy, and they are not similar to designated unconsecrated produce for these were appropriate to being holy prior to being designated/fixed, but gleanings and that which was forgotten and the corner [of the field] did not appear to be holy.

Introduction This mishnah teaches that when one makes repayment for having accidentally eaten terumah, there are certain things that he cannot use for repayment.

ומן ההפקר – for after he took possession of it.

They may not make repayment from gleanings, from forgotten sheaf, from peah or ownerless property. None of the things listed in this section were ever liable to have terumah separated from them (see above chapter one, mishnah five). Hence, one cannot use them to repay terumah that one accidentally ate.

ולא ממעשר ראשון שנטלה תרומתו – for even though that now, they are like designated/fixed unconsecrated produce, since it precedes taking its heave-offering it was not appropriate, it is also not not appropriate.

Nor from first tithe from which terumah has been taken, nor from second tithe or dedicated produce which have been redeemed, because one dedicated thing ( cannot be used to redeem another dedicated thing (, the words of Rabbi Meir. Tithe from which terumah has been removed, and second tithe and dedicated produce which were redeemed (meaning they were exchanged for money) are all things that used to be holy (kadosh) and are now no longer kadosh. According to Rabbi Meir one cannot use something that was kadosh, even if it is no longer kadosh, to redeem another thing that is kadosh. This is true even though these things were once liable to have terumah taken from them because they came from produce that was initially liable for terumah.

שאין הקדש פודה הקדש – and these are important like that something dedicated to the Temple prior to their being redeemed, and a person cannot exempt himself with the money belonging to “On High.” And Rabbi Meir holds that Second Tithe is the money of “On High,” and since it is prior to their being redeemed they were not appropriate, further, it is not appropriate after they are redeemed.

But the sages permit [payment] with these. The sages allow one to use the things in section two because they come from produce that was originally liable for terumah, unlike the list in section one that was never liable.

וחכמים מתירין באלו – with Second Tithe and that dedicated to the Temple which was redeemed. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

שישלם מן היפה על הרע – as for example, that he ate dried figs, and according to the measure that he consumed dried figs, he should pay dates, and not according to the value, for since that he consumed a Zuz’s worth, that he pays back a Zuz – what difference does it make to him if he should pay from greater choice for less choice. And here are those who state that even according to the value, we are able to say that if he ate something that purchasers don’t jump to buy, he should pay with something that purchasers jump to buy. and are not worthy for eating, but another species he is not able [to pay]; he must wait until the aftermath of the Sabbatical year and pay from cucumbers from the aftermath of the Seventh Year, but from the Seventh Year [itself] are forbidden to pay his liability, for that is similar to doing business [which is prohibited on the Sabbatical year].

Introduction In this mishnah Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Eliezer debate whether one can pay back terumah with a different kind of produce from that which he ate.

לפיכך – he cannot pay from another species; if he ate cucumbers of heave-offering of the eve of the Sabbatical year, and there are no cucumbers of that year found any longer, for they have become hard,

Rabbi Eliezer says: they may make repayment from one kind for another, provided that it is from a superior kind for an inferior kind. According to Rabbi Eliezer if one ate, for instance, barley that was terumah, one could make compensation with wheat, considered to be superior to barley. Rabbi Eliezer does not care that these are from different species.

Rabbi Akiva says: they may make repayment only from the same kind. Hence if a man ate cucumbers grown a year before the seventh year, he must wait for those grown after the termination of the seventh year and repay with them. Rabbi Akiva says that he must pay back with the same species that he ate. This will pose a problem for paying back vegetables that he ate towards the end of the sixth year. The year of the sabbatical cycle for vegetables is determined by the year in which they were picked. If he eats sixth year cucumbers he will not be able to pay back with seventh year cucumbers because seventh year produce is exempt from terumah. Since he can’t make compensation with anything but cucumbers and only seventh year cucumbers are available, he will have to wait until the eighth year to make compensation. In contrast, Rabbi Eliezer holds that he could just pay back with another species.

The same source which causes Rabbi Eliezer to be lenient causes Rabbi Akiva to be stringent, for it says: “And he shall give the priest the holy thing (” (Leviticus 22:14), [implying,] whatever is liable to become “kodesh,” the words of Rabbi Eliezer. But Rabbi Akiva says: “And he shall give the priest the holy thing (,” [implying] the same kind of holy thing which he ate. The dispute between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Eliezer is actually based on different midrashic interpretations of the same verse. We should first of all note that this verse is curious its wording piques our interpretive imaginations. The curious thing about the verse is that it is referring to a person making compensation for eating a holy thing, and yet it calls that which he makes compensation with “holy.” This is curious because it would seem that he is making payment with non-holy produce for having eaten something holy. Rabbi Eliezer takes this strange wording to mean that whatever he makes compensation with becomes holy, even if it is not the same species that he ate. Rabbi Akiva interprets the verse to mean that he must make compensation with the same species of produce that he ate in the first place.