ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafPesachim 32
(a) A Zar is Chayav for ...
1. ... drinking Terumah be'Shogeg, just as he is for eating it - because
'Shesi'ah bi'Chelal Achilah'.
(b) He is even Chayav for eating Terumah *Temei'ah* be'Shogeg.
2. ... anointing Terumah - because of the principle 'Sichah ki'Shesiyah'.
(c) 'Chumsha de'Chumsha' - means that, if he then eats the Chomesh
be'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) 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 Sha'aleh 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) If the Tana of the Beraisa held 'Lefi Damim Meshalem' - then why would a
Zar who ate dried figs of Terumah be'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) The Tana who says 'ha'Ochel Terumas Chametz ba'Pesach, be'Shogeg,
Meshalem Keren ve'Chomesh' - could even hold 'Le'fi Damim Meshalem' if he
were to hold like Rebbi Yossi Hagelilil, who holds that Chametz on Pesach is
Mutar be'Hana'ah , in which case, it does have a value.
(b) Nevertheless, one would still be Patur in the Seifa, when he ate it
be'Mezid - 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
bi'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 Mezid by Terumah, there would be no
Chomesh to pay, and if he was Mezid by Chametz, he would be Patur from
paying altogether (like Rebbi Nechunyah ben Ha'kanah).
(a) Rebbi Akiva exempts a Zar who ate Terumas Chametz on Pesach be'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 be'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
(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 Yossi
Hagelili, as we shall see later.
(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 Ya'akov. From the fact that he did not, it is clear that,
in his opinion, Chametz on Pesach is not Mutar be'Hana'ah, and that he is
Chayav to pay because he holds 'Le'fi Midah Meshalem'.
(c) Rebbi Elazar Chisma answered that even Chametz on Pesach was Mutar
be'Hana'ah, and that he could give it to his dog or use it as fuel.
(d) Rebbi Elazar Chisma holds like Rebbi Yossi Hagelili, that Chametz on
Pesach is Mutar be'Hana'ah.
(a) According to Aba Shaul, the Shiur to be Chayav for eating Terumah
be'Shogeg is not a k'Zayis, but the value of a Perutah.
(b) The Tana Kama learns from "ve'Nasan" - 'Davar ha'Ra'uy Liheyos Kodesh':
to teach us that payment for eating Terumah be'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 - 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 Shiur of Terumah) is whether it is worth a
Shaveh Perutah or not.
(d) Even the Rabbanan of Aba Shaul concede that the Shiur 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) We learn from the Pasuk in Vayikra "ve'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 Mezid.
(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 be'Mezid is Patur, Me'ilah, which does not carry a Chiyuv
Kares, should certainly be Patur if transgressed be'Mezid.
(c) When the Gemara asks that Me'ilah is more stringent because it carries a
Chiyuv of Misah bi'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.