(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Pesachim 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'.
2. ... anointing Terumah - because of the principle 'Sichah ki'Shesiyah'.
(b) He is even Chayav for eating Terumah *Temei'ah* be'Shogeg.

(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 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 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.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,