Раввин Элиэзер говорит: можно заплатить от одного вида за другой вид, при условии, что он от высшего [продукта] за более низкий [продукт]. Раввин Акива говорит: за свой вид можно платить только от одного вида. Следовательно, если человек ел огурцы до субботнего года, он должен дождаться огурцов после субботнего года и заплатить за них. С того места, где рабби Элиэзер снисходителен (получает свою снисходительность), оттуда строг рабби Акива, потому что там говорится: «И он даст священнику Кодеш » (Левит 22:14). [Это подразумевает] все, что подходит для того, чтобы быть Кодеш , слова раввина Элиэзера. Но рабби Акива говорит: «И он даст священнику Кодеш » [подразумевает] Кодеш, который он ел.
Bartenura on Mishnah Terumot
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].
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Terumot
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Terumot
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,
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Terumot
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Terumot
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Terumot
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.
