משנה: הָאוֹכֵל תְּרוּמַת חָמֵץ בַּפֶּסַח בְּשׁוֹגֵג מְשַׁלֵם קֶרֶן וָחֹמֶשׁ. בְּמֵזִיד פָּטוּר מִתַּשְׁלוּמִים וּמִדְּמֵי עֵצִים׃ MISHNAH: Somebody who eats leavened heave on Passover, if in error pays its value and a fifth146A Non-Cohen who eats sanctified heave (which either was dedicated leavened before Passover or was dedicated unleavened but became leavened by itself on Passover) has to pay restitution to the priests together with a biblically ordained surcharge; Terumot 6:1" href="/Mishnah_Terumot.6.1">Mishnah Terumot 6:1 Note 1., if intentionally is not liable for restitution even as value of wood147Intentional desecration of heave (e. g., used as food by a Non-Cohen) is too great a sin to be forgiven for just a monetary fine (Terumot 7:1" href="/Mishnah_Terumot.7.1">Mishnah Terumot 7:1 Note 2). Also, while the restitution money and the fine for inadvertent consumption are sancta, the restitution for intentionally consumed heave is profane (loc. cit.) and therefore has to follow the rules of civil debts. Since leavened matter on Passover is forbidden for usufruct, it has no monetary value, not even as fuel to be burned..
הלכה: תַּנֵּי. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹצָדָק. מַתְנִיתָא בְּשֶׁהִפְרִישָׁהּ מַצָּה וְנִתְחַמְּצָה. אֲבָל אִם הִפְרִישָׁהּ חָמֵץ לֹא בְדָא. הִפְרִישׁ מַצָּה עַל חָמֵץ. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעוּרָה. כָּל־תְּרוּמָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ מַתֶּרֶת אֶת הַשְּׁיֵרִים לַאֲכִילָה אֵינָהּ תְּרוּמָה. [אֲפִילוּ] הִפְרִישׁ חָמֵץ עַל מַצָּה. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעוּרָה. מֵאַחַר שֶׁאִילּוּ מִינָהּ עָלֶיהָ אֵינָהּ תְּרוּמָה. וַאֲפִילוּ הֵימִינָהּ לְמָקוֹם אַחֵר אֵינָהּ תְּרוּמָה. HALAKHAH: It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar148This name tradition raises serious questions. While it is likely that the young R. Simeon ben Josadaq (of the generation of transition from Tannaim to Amoraim) knew the very old R. Simeon ben Eleazar (a 5th generation Tanna), it is most unlikely that the latter would formulate a tradition in the former’s name. Also this would be the only statement of R. Simeon ben Josadaq in the Talmudim not transmitted by his student R. Joḥanan. says in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Josadaq: Our Mishnah if he separated it as unleavened and it became leavened149On Passover (Pesachim.32a">Babli 32a). It seems that the Yerushalmi agrees with the Babli that leavened heave dedicated before Passover is included though it should have been burned if not consumed by the 14th of Nisan.. But if he separated it leavened, it does not apply150Giving leavened heave on Passover is impossible. Since leavened matter is forbidden for usufruct, giving leavened heave is giving nothing; nothing cannot be heave.. If he separated unleavened for leavened? Rebbi Zeˋira said, any heave which does not permit the remainder as food is no heave151Since leavened matter may not be eaten on Passover, and is worthless; giving heave for it does not change its status. But heave is given in order to make the remainder of the food available for profane use.. [Even]152Unnecessary addition by the corrector. if he separated leavened for unleavened? Rebbi Zeˋira said, since if he gave from its kind it would not be heave, and even if he gives from this kind for another place it is not heave153Since leavened matter cannot be used for leavened matter (Pesachim 2:3:2" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Pesachim.2.3.2">Note 150) it cannot be used in this capacity for any other matter..
(עִירֵס) אַרְבָּעַת רְבָעִים בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן וְחִימְּצָן. וְאַרְבָּעַת רְבָעִים בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן וְעִירְבָן. אִם הִתְרוּ בוֹ מִשּׁוּם הָאוֹכֵל טֵבֵל. אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. מִשׁוּם הָאוֹכֵל חָמֵץ בַּפֶּסַח. לוֹקֶה. אִיסּוּר חָמוּר חָל עַל אִיסּוּר קַל. וְאֵין אִיסּוּר קַל חָל עַל אִיסּוּר חָמוּר. אֲבָל אִם עִירְבָן וְאַחַר כָּךְ חִימְּצָן. אִם הִתְרוּ בוֹ מִשּׁוּם הָאוֹכֵל טֵבֵל. לוֹקֶה. מִשׁוּם הָאוֹכֵל חָמֵץ בַּפֶּסַח. לוֹקֶה. אִיסּוּר חָמוּר חָל עַל אִיסּוּר קַל. וְאֵין אִיסּוּר קַל חָל עַל אִיסּוּר חָמוּר. (If he beat)154The word was unnecessarily deleted by the corrector, who apparently did not understand it although it appears in both Talmudim. four quarters for themselves and made them leavened, and another four quarters for themselves, and mixed them155A dough made of at least 5/4 qab of flour (of the kinds enumerated in Pesachim 2:4:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Pesachim.2.4.1">Mishnah 4) is subject to ḥallah (cf. Introduction to Tractate Ḥallah). Before ḥallah is removed, bread baked from the dough is ṭevel and forbidden as food. If the dough becomes leavened on Passover it becomes forbidden for usufruct and its consumption is a deadly sin. Therefore even if later it is mixed with another qab of new flour, there is no ṭevel since the first qab forbidden for usufruct cannot become ṭevel, and the second qab is less than the minimum quantity triggering the obligation of ḥallah. Clearly the mixture if forbidden as food and for usufruct because of the laws of Passover.. If one warned him156No criminal prosecution is possible unless the perpetrator was warned by two witnesses that his intended act would be criminal, and only if the nature of the crime was spelled out. because of eating ṭevel, he is not flogged, because of one who eats leavened matter on Passover, he is flogged. A severe prohibition falls upon a minor prohibition but a minor prohibition does not fall on a severe prohibition157Cf. Pesachim.35b">Babli 35b (last line), Chullin.101a">Ḥulin 101a.. But if he mixed them158Then the mixture is forbidden as ṭevel; if later it also becomes forbidden both as food and for usufruct as leavened on Passover, the prohibition of ṭevel is not removed. and afterwards made them leavened, if one warned him because of eating ṭevel. he is flogged, because of one who eats leavened matter on Passover, he is flogged. A severe prohibition falls upon a minor prohibition but a minor prohibition does not fall on a severe prohibition.
עָשָׂה כְרִי וְהִשְׁתַּחֲווֶה לוֹ וּמִירְחוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ אֲכָלוֹ. אִם הִתְרוּ בוֹ מִשּׁוּם אוֹכֵל טֵבֵל. אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. מִשׁוּם הָאוֹכֵל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. לוֹקֶה. אִיסּוּר חָמוּר חָל עַל אִיסּוּר קַל. וְאֵין אִיסּוּר קַל חָל עַל אִיסּוּר חָמוּר. [אֲבָל אִם מִירְחוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לוֹ. אִם הִתְרוּ בוֹ מִשּׁוּם אוֹכֵל טֵבֵל. לוֹקֶה. מִשׁוּם עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. לוֹקֶה. אִיסּוּר חָמוּר חָל עַל אִיסּוּר קַל. וְאֵין אִיסּוּר קַל חָל עַל אִיסּוּר חָמוּר.] If he made a grain heap and worshipped it159It becomes forbidden for usufruct as object of pagan worship (Deuteronomy.7.26">Deut. 7:26)., then smoothed it160If it were not forbidden as object of pagan worship, the completion of threshing by storage of the grain in a smooth heap causes the obligation of tithes; the heave of the tithe included in the tithe would make the entire heap ṭevel (Mishnah Maˋserot1:6). But since worshipped grain is not food, it cannot become subject to tithe., and then ate from it: if one warned him because of eating ṭevel, he is not flogged, because of one who eats idolatrical food, he is flogged. A severe prohibition falls upon a minor prohibition but a minor prohibition does not fall on a severe prohibition. [But if he smoothed it161And now it becomes ṭevel as food. (Corrector’s addition.) and then worshipped it, if one warned him because of eating ṭevel, he is flogged, because of idolatrical food, he is flogged. A severe prohibition falls upon a minor prohibition but a minor prohibition does not fall on a severe prohibition.]
רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִייָה בָעֵי. הָאוֹכֵל תְּרוּמַת חָמֵץ בַּפֶּסַח לְמִי הוּא מְשַׁלֵּם. תַּפְלוּגְתָא דְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וּדְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. דְּאִיתְפַּלְּגוֹן. הַגּוֹזֵל תְּרוּמָה מֵאֲבִי אִמּוֹ כֹהֵן. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. מְשַׁלֵּם לַשֵּׁבֶט. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. מְשַׁלֵּם לְעַצְמוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. מִסְתַּבְּרָא יוֹדֶה רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בַּחוֹמֶשׁ שֶׁהוּא מְשַׁלֵּם לַשֵּׁבֶט. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אוּף אֲנָא סָבַר כֵּן. שֶׁכֵּן תְּרוּמָה טְמֵיאָה אֲפָרָהּ לַשֵּׁבֶט. אָתָא רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי אָחָא. אֲפִילוּ עָלֶיהָ פְלִיגִין. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: He who eats leavened heave on Passover162Where the Mishnah requires restitution even though it is prohibited for usufruct., to whom does he pay? It is a disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, since the disagreed: One who robbed heave from his mother’s father who was a Cohen163When the grandfather dies and the grandson from an Israel father is the only heir., Rebbi Joḥanan said, he pays to the tribe164Even though he is the legal heir of the Cohen, and if he had not stolen the heave he would have inherited it and could sell to a Cohen, he is forced to give it away but he has the right to choose the recipient.; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he pays to himself165He must separate heave, which becomes a sanctum and is forbidden to any layman, including himself. He may then sell the heave to a Cohen who will offer little money since there are very few competitors for heave food.. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: It is reasonable that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agree with Rebbi Joḥanan about the fifth that he has to pay it to the tribe166Since the additional fifth is a fine, it is unreasonable to assume that he may have usufruct from it other than the goodwill which he gets from the recipient of his heave.. He told him, I also do agree with this, since impure heave is forbidden to the tribe167Since impure heave may only be used as fuel it is of little value; nevertheless illegitimate use triggers the obligation of paying the fine.. There came Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Even in this case they disagree167*Since for R. Simeon ben Laqish the Mishnah is purely rabbinic..
רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בָעֵי. הַנֶּהֱנֶה מִן הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ פָּחוּת מִשָּׁוֶה פְרוּטָה. [מָהוּ שֶׁיְּהֵא חַייָב בַּתַּשְׁלוּמִין. (אָמַר לֵיהּ.) נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. וְאֵ֣ת אֲשֶׁר֩ חָטָ֨א מִן־הַקּוֹדֶשׁ יְשַׁלֵּ֗ם. פְּרָט לְפָחוּת מִשָּׁוֶה פְרוּטָה. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. לְרַבּוֹת (מָאן דְּאָמַר פְּרָט) [לַתַּשְׁלוּמִין. מָאן דְּאָמַר. פְּרָט. לְפָחוּת מִשָּׁוֶה פְרוּטָה לַתַּשְׁלוּמִין] לְקָרְבָּן. מָאן דְּאָמַר. לְרַבּוֹת. בַּתַּשְׁלוּמִין. כְּמָה דְתֵימַר תַּמָּן. פָּחוּת מִשָּׁוֶה פְרוּטָה מֵזִיד. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם חוֹמֶשׁ וְאָשָׁם יְשַׁלֵּם לַשֵׁבֶט. וְאָמַר אוֹף הָכָא כֵן. אָֽמְרִין חֲבֵרַייָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. וְלָאו מַתְנִיתָא הִיא. הָאוֹכֵל תְּרוּמַת חָמֵץ בַּפֶּסַח. שׁוֹגֵג מְשַׁלֵם קֶרֶן וָחוֹמֶשׁ. מֵזִיד פָּטוּר מִן הַתַּשְׁלוּמִין וּמִדְּמֵי הָעֵצִים׃ אָמַר לוֹן. תַּמָּן אֵינוֹ רָאוּי לְהַשְׁלִים עָלֶיהָ. בְּרַם הָכָא רָאוּי הוּא לְהַשְׁלִים עָלֶיהָ. Rebbi Yose asked, if somebody benefited from Temple property less than the value of a perutah168Which therefore cannot be claimed in court and there is no coin with which to pay., is he liable for reimbursement? (He said to him.)169Addition by the corrector; to be deleted. Let us hear from the following: What he appropriated from sancta he has to repay170Leviticus.5.16">Lev. 5:16. This seems to exclude amounts smaller than the smallest coin in circulation since such an amount cannot be paid., except what is less than the value of a perutah. There are Tannaim who state, to add. (He who said except, for) [he who said “except what is less than the value of a perutah” for reimbursement171Leviticus.1.1-5.26">Sifra Ḥovah (Wayyiqra II) Parashah11(7). The argument there is based on the expression from sancta, even a minute part. and] sacrifice. He who said “to add”, for reimbursement172While is cannot be paid for in coin, it can be restituted in kind. Everybody agrees that no sacrifice as prescribed in 5:15 is due in this case. (The scribe’s text, in parentheses, is preferable.). As you are saying there172*Appropriating less than the value of a perutah from sancta does not trigger the obligation to pay an additional fifth since no amount less that a perutah can be invoiced., intentionally less than the value of a perutah, even though he does not pay the fifth and a reparation sacrifice he has to pay to the tribe, one says the same here. The colleagues said before Rebbi Yose, is that not a Mishnah? “Somebody who eats leavened heave on Passover, if in error pays its value and a fifth146A Non-Cohen who eats sanctified heave (which either was dedicated leavened before Passover or was dedicated unleavened but became leavened by itself on Passover) has to pay restitution to the priests together with a biblically ordained surcharge; Terumot 6:1" href="/Mishnah_Terumot.6.1">Mishnah Terumot 6:1 Note 1., if intentionally he is not liable for restitution even as value of wood147Intentional desecration of heave (e. g., used as food by a Non-Cohen) is too great a sin to be forgiven for just a monetary fine (Terumot 7:1" href="/Mishnah_Terumot.7.1">Mishnah Terumot 7:1 Note 2). Also, while the restitution money and the fine for inadvertent consumption are sancta, the restitution for intentionally consumed heave is profane (loc. cit.) and therefore has to follow the rules of civil debts. Since leavened matter on Passover is forbidden for usufruct, it has no monetary value, not even as fuel to be burned.”? He told them, there it is impossible to complete173Since leavened matter on Passover is worthless, rules about it cannot be invoked in discussions about money’s worth., but here it is possible to complete.
שׁוֹגֵג בִּתְרוּמָה וּמֵזִיד בְּחָמֵץ. שׁוֹגֵג בִּתְרוּמָה וּמֵזִיד בְּנָזִיר. שׁוֹגֵג בִּתְרוּמָה וּמֵזִיד בְּיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים. אִין תִּפְתְּרִינָּהּ לִשְׁנֵי דְבָרִים. נִיחָא. וְאִין תִּיפְתְּרִינָּהּ לְדָבָר אֶחָד. מַחֲלוֹקֶת רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. In error for heave and intentional for leavened matter, in error for heave and intentional for nazir, in error for heave and intentional for the Day of Atonement. If one explains it with two things, it is fine. If one explains it for one, this is the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish174This text is copied from Ketubot 3:1:2-19" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Ketubot.3.1.2-19">Ketubot 3:1 (after Pesachim 2:1:6" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Pesachim.2.1.6">Note 33); there is a somewhat defective copy in Terumot 7:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Terumot.7.1">Terumot 7:1, Notes 47–51.
The disagreement between R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish referred to here is not the one quoted earlier, but the one discussed in Ketubot and Terumot, whether a criminal conviction precludes monetary claims arising from the same case or not. If one holds that with one action two different laws have been broken, each infraction is punished according to its separate rules and everybody agrees that for heave he has to pay. But if one holds that for one action there can be only one punishment, he has to pay only following R. Joḥanan..