## Pesachim Daf 32a

###### Pesachim 32a:1
[Pesachim 32a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/32a:1)

וְאֶחָד הַסָּךְ, אֶחָד תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה וְאֶחָד תְּרוּמָה טְהוֹרָה — מְשַׁלֵּם חוֹמֶשׁ וְחוּמְשָׁא דְחוּמְשָׁא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** even with regard to **one who anoints** himself with the *teruma* oil, **both** in a case of **ritually impure *teruma* as well as** in a case of **ritually pure *teruma*, he must pay** an additional **fifth** if he unwittingly consumes this *teruma*. If he unwittingly consumes this fifth then he must pay **an** additional **fifth of the fifth.** The original fifth has a status comparable to *teruma* itself, and therefore one is required to pay an additional fifth for consuming it.


###### Pesachim 32a:2
[Pesachim 32a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/32a:2)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: כְּשֶׁהוּא מְשַׁלֵּם, לְפִי מִדָּה מְשַׁלֵּם אוֹ לְפִי דָמִים מְשַׁלֵּם? כׇּל הֵיכָא דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא שָׁוְיָא אַרְבְּעָה זוּזֵי וּלְבַסּוֹף שָׁוְיָא זוּזָא — לָא תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ, דְּוַדַּאי כִּדְמֵעִיקָּרָא מְשַׁלֵּם לְפִי דָּמִים, דְּלָא גָּרַע מִגַּזְלָן. דִּתְנַן: כׇּל הַגַּזְלָנִין מְשַׁלְּמִין כִּשְׁעַת הַגְּזֵלָה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A dilemma was raised before** the Sages with regard to the laws of *teruma*: **When he pays** for this *teruma*, **does he pay according to the measure** of the *teruma* **or according to its monetary** value? The Gemara explains the question in greater detail: **Anywhere that** the *teruma* **is worth four *zuz* at the outset,** i.e., at the time he consumed the *teruma*, **and is worth** only **one *zuz* at the end,** at the time of payment, **do not raise a dilemma,** for in that case **he is certainly** required **to pay according to the monetary** value **at the outset.** The rationale behind this ruling is **that he is no worse than a thief,** and therefore the law in this case is the same as if he had stolen property from another person. **As we learned** in a mishna: **All thieves must repay** what they have stolen according to the value of the stolen object **at the time it was stolen,** even if its value subsequently goes down.


###### Pesachim 32a:3
[Pesachim 32a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/32a:3)

כִּי תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא שָׁוְיָא זוּזָא וּלְבַסּוֹף שָׁוְיָא אַרְבְּעָה, מַאי? לְפִי מִדָּה מְשַׁלֵּם, דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: גְּרִיוָא אֲכַל — גְּרִיוָא מְשַׁלֵּם. אוֹ דִילְמָא לְפִי דָמִים מְשַׁלֵּם: בְּזוּזָא אֲכַל — בְּזוּזָא מְשַׁלֵּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**You can raise the dilemma,** however, with regard to a case **where it was worth one *zuz* at the outset,** when it was consumed, **and at the end,** at the time of the payment, **it was worth four *zuz*. What** is the ruling in that case? Does **he pay according to the measure** of *teruma*, **as the** treasurer of the consecrated property can **say to him: You ate a *se’a* and you** must **pay a *se’a*,** even if the value of the *teruma* has increased, **or perhaps he** must repay **according to the monetary** value, and if **he ate a *zuz*** worth of *teruma* then **he** must **pay a *zuz*?**


###### Pesachim 32a:4
[Pesachim 32a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/32a:4)

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף, תָּא שְׁמַע: אָכַל גְּרוֹגְרוֹת וְשִׁילֵּם לוֹ תְּמָרִים תָּבֹא עָלָיו בְּרָכָה. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא לְפִי מִדָּה מְשַׁלֵּם — אַמְּטוּ לְהָכִי תָּבֹא עָלָיו בְּרָכָה, דְּאָכֵיל גְּרִיוָא דִגְרוֹגְרוֹת דְּשָׁוְיָא זוּזָא, וְקָא יָהֵיב גְּרִיוָא דִתְמָרִים דְּשָׁוְיָא אַרְבְּעָה. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ לְפִי דָמִים מְשַׁלֵּם — אַמַּאי תָּבֹא עָלָיו בְּרָכָה? בְּזוּזָא אֲכַל — בְּזוּזָא קָא מְשַׁלֵּם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef said: Come** and **hear** an answer to this question from what was taught in a *baraita*: **One who ate dried figs** that were *teruma* **and paid** the priest **with dates,** may **a blessing rest upon him,** as dates are worth more than dried figs. **Granted, if you say that one** must **repay according to the measure** of *teruma* he ate, it is **due to this** that **a blessing** should **rest upon him, as he ate a *se’a* of dried figs that are worth one *zuz* and gave** in return **a *se’a* of dates worth four *zuz*. However, if you say that** he must **repay according to the monetary** value of the *teruma*, then why **should a blessing rest upon him? He ate a *zuz* worth** of *teruma* **and he paid a *zuz* worth** as compensation; what is laudatory about his payment?


###### Pesachim 32a:5
[Pesachim 32a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/32a:5)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לְעוֹלָם לְפִי דָמִים מְשַׁלֵּם, וְאַמַּאי תָּבֹא עָלָיו בְּרָכָה? דַּאֲכַל מִידֵּי דְּלָא קָפֵיץ עֲלֵיהּ זָבֹינֵיהּ, וְקָא מְשַׁלֵּם מִידֵּי דְּקָפֵיץ עֲלֵיהּ זָבֹינֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said: Actually,** one can explain that **he** must **repay according to the monetary** value of the *teruma*, **and why** is it stated that a **blessing** should **rest upon him?** This is **because he ate an item that buyers don’t jump at,** i.e., it is undesirable to buyers, **but paid with an item that buyers jump at.** Consequently, although the produce he gives is worth no more than the produce he ate, the priest still prefers this type of payment, as he can more easily resell this produce.


###### Pesachim 32a:6
[Pesachim 32a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/32a:6)

תְּנַן: הָאוֹכֵל תְּרוּמַת חָמֵץ בַּפֶּסַח, בְּשׁוֹגֵג מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וָחוֹמֶשׁ. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא לְפִי מִדָּה מְשַׁלֵּם — שַׁפִּיר. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ לְפִי דָמִים מְשַׁלֵּם, חָמֵץ בַּפֶּסַח בַּר דָּמִים הוּא? אִין, הָא מַנִּי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי הִיא, דְּאָמַר חָמֵץ בַּפֶּסַח מוּתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara seeks proof with regard to this dispute: **We learned** in the mishna: **One who unwittingly eats *teruma* of leavened bread on Passover** must **pay the principal and an** additional **fifth. Granted, if you say that he** must **pay according to the measure** of *teruma* that he ate, **it is well.** As he ate a *se’a* of *teruma* he must also repay a *se’a*. **However, if you say** that **he** must **pay according to the monetary** value of the *teruma*, this is difficult, for **is leavened bread on Passover of** any **monetary** value? Certainly it is not worth anything, given that it is forbidden to benefit from this food. The Gemara answers: **Yes,** this leavened bread does indeed have monetary value. In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** mishna? **It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who said** that **it is permissible to** derive **benefit from leavened bread on Passover.**


###### Pesachim 32a:7
[Pesachim 32a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/32a:7)

אִי הָכִי, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: בְּמֵזִיד פָּטוּר מִן הַתַּשְׁלוּמִין וּמִדְּמֵי עֵצִים, אִי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, אַמַּאי פָּטוּר מִן הַתַּשְׁלוּמִין וּמִדְּמֵי עֵצִים?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges this suggestion: **If that is so,** then **say the latter clause** of the mishna, where it is stated: **If** he consumes the *teruma* **intentionally, then he is exempt from payment and from** paying the priest **for its monetary** value as **wood.** But **if** this follows the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei HaGelili,** then **why** is he **exempt from payment** to the priest for the value of the *teruma* **and for its monetary** value **in wood?** Although he is exempt from paying the additional fifth as he acted intentionally, he nonetheless should be required to compensate the priest for the financial loss he caused him, as in any other case of theft.


###### Pesachim 32a:8
[Pesachim 32a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/32a:8)

סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי נְחוּנְיָא בֶּן הַקָּנָה. דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי נְחוּנְיָא בֶּן הַקָּנָה הָיָה עוֹשֶׂה אֶת יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים כַּשַּׁבָּת לְתַשְׁלוּמִין וְכוּ׳.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **He holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana, as it was taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana rendered** the status of **Yom Kippur the same as** that of **Shabbat with regard to payment.** In his opinion, not only a person who committed a transgression punishable by a court-administered capital punishment, like one who desecrated Shabbat, is exempt from monetary payment incurred at the time of the transgression. Even one who is deserving of a divinely administered capital punishment, such as one who desecrates Yom Kippur and is punished with *karet*, is exempt from monetary payment for property he damaged in the course of such an act. Therefore, since one who consumes another person’s leavened bread during Passover is deserving of *karet*, he is exempt from monetary payment incurred by this act.


###### Pesachim 32a:9
[Pesachim 32a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/32a:9)

כְּתַנָּאֵי: הָאוֹכֵל תְּרוּמַת חָמֵץ בַּפֶּסַח — פָּטוּר מִן הַתַּשְׁלוּמִין וּמִדְּמֵי עֵצִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי מְחַיֵּיב. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי: וְכִי מָה הֲנָאָה יֵשׁ לוֹ בָּהּ? אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: וּמָה הֲנָאָה יֵשׁ לָאוֹכֵל תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה בִּשְׁאָר כׇּל יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה, שֶׁמְּשַׁלֵּם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: The question of whether one must repay according to the measurement or the monetary value of the *teruma* is **like** a dispute between ***tanna’im*,** as it was taught in the *Tosefta*: **If one eats *teruma* of leavened bread on Passover,** whether intentionally or unwittingly, then **he is exempt from payment and** for **its monetary** value **in wood;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Akiva.** Whereas **Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri deems** him **liable** to pay. **Rabbi Akiva said to Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri: What benefit** can **he derive from this?** What benefit could the priest have derived from this *teruma* as it is prohibited to benefit from this *teruma* and the *teruma* is therefore worthless? **Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri said to Rabbi Akiva: What benefit** can **one derive from eating ritually impure *teruma* on the rest of the days of the year,** and yet nevertheless the non-priest is still obligated to **pay** for what he has taken. Despite the fact that a priest may not eat impure *teruma*, a non-priest must reimburse the priest for the principal of the *teruma* and add an additional fifth if he eats it.


###### Pesachim 32a:10
[Pesachim 32a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/32a:10)

אָמַר לוֹ: לֹא! אִם אָמַרְתָּ בִּתְרוּמָה טְמֵאָה בִּשְׁאָר יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה, שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָּהּ הֶיתֵּר אֲכִילָה, יֵשׁ לוֹ בָּהּ הֶיתֵּר הַסָּקָה, תֹּאמַר בָּזֶה — שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָּהּ לֹא הֶיתֵּר אֲכִילָה וְלֹא הֶיתֵּר הַסָּקָה! הָא לְמָה זֶה דּוֹמֶה — לִתְרוּמַת תּוּתִים וַעֲנָבִים שֶׁנִּטְמְאָה, שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָּהּ לֹא הֶיתֵּר אֲכִילָה וְלֹא הֶיתֵּר הַסָּקָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Akiva **said to him: No,** a distinction can be made between these two cases: **If you say** that he is obligated to pay **in** a case of **ritually impure *teruma* on the rest of the days of the year, that although it is not permissible to eat it,** the priest **is** nevertheless **permitted to burn it** and derive benefit from the heat generated as a result of this burning, **shall you** also **say** the same **with regard to this,** *teruma* of leavened bread during Passover, **that is not permitted to be eaten or burned? Rather, to what may this be compared?** It is similar **to *teruma* of berries and grapes that became ritually impure, which is not permitted to be eaten or burned,** as berries and grapes are unfit for firewood.


###### Pesachim 32a:11
[Pesachim 32a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/32a:11)

בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בְּמַפְרִישׁ תְּרוּמָה וְהֶחֱמִיצָה, אֲבָל מַפְרִישׁ תְּרוּמַת חָמֵץ — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אֵינָהּ קְדוֹשָׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *Tosefta* adds: **In what** case **is this statement said,** that these *tanna’im* disagree about the reimbursement for *teruma*? It was said with regard to a case where **he separated *teruma*** in a permitted manner **and it became leavened** during Passover. **However, if he separated the *teruma* from leavened bread during Passover,** then **everyone agrees that it is not consecrated,** as it is worthless.


###### Pesachim 32a:12
[Pesachim 32a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/32a:12)

תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״וְנָתַן לַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַקֹּדֶשׁ״ — דָּבָר הָרָאוּי לִהְיוֹת קֹדֶשׁ. פְּרָט לָאוֹכֵל תְּרוּמַת חָמֵץ בַּפֶּסַח, שֶׁפָּטוּר מִן הַתַּשְׁלוּמִים וּמִדְּמֵי עֵצִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב. וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר חַסָּמָא מְחַיֵּיב. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר חַסָּמָא: וְכִי מָה הֲנָאָה יֵשׁ לוֹ בָּהּ? אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר חַסָּמָא לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב: וְכִי מָה הֲנָאָה יֵשׁ לוֹ לָאוֹכֵל תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה בִּשְׁאָר יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה, שֶׁמְּשַׁלֵּם?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It was taught** in **another** *baraita*: With regard to the verse “And if a man eats a sacred thing in error, then he shall add a fifth part in addition to it, **and shall give to the priest the sacred item”** (Leviticus 22:14), the Sages expound as follows: He must give the priest **an item that is fit to be consecrated, to the exclusion of one who eats *teruma* of leavened bread on Passover, who is exempt from payment** of the *teruma* and even from paying **its monetary** value **as wood;** this is the statement of **Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov. Rabbi Elazar Ḥisma deems** him **liable** to reimburse the priest for these items. **Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov said to Rabbi Elazar Ḥisma: What benefit can** the priest **derive from this** *teruma* of leavened bread, as it is prohibited to benefit from it? **Rabbi Elazar Ḥisma said to Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov: What benefit can one derive from eating ritually impure *teruma* on the rest of the days of the year,** and yet a non-priest who eats it must **pay** the priest.


###### Pesachim 32a:13
[Pesachim 32a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/32a:13)

אָמַר לוֹ: לֹא! אִם אָמַרְתָּ בִּתְרוּמָה טְמֵאָה בִּשְׁאָר יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה, שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָּהּ הֶיתֵּר אֲכִילָה יֵשׁ לוֹ בָּהּ הֶיתֵּר הַסָּקָה, תֹּאמַר בָּזוֹ — שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָּהּ לֹא הֶיתֵּר אֲכִילָה וְלֹא הֶיתֵּר הַסָּקָה! אָמַר לוֹ: אַף בְּזוֹ יֵשׁ לוֹ בָּהּ הֶיתֵּר הַסָּקָה, שֶׁאִם רָצָה הַכֹּהֵן — מְרִיצָהּ לִפְנֵי כַּלְבּוֹ, אוֹ מַסִּיקָהּ תַּחַת תַּבְשִׁילוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov **said to him: No,** a distinction can be made between these two cases: **If you say** he is obligated to pay **in** a case of **ritually impure *teruma* on the rest of the days of year, that although it is not permissible to eat it,** the priest **is** nonetheless **permitted to burn it** and derive benefit from the heat generated as a result of this burning, **shall you say** the same **with regard to this,** *teruma* of leavened bread during Passover, **that is not permitted to be eaten or burned?** Rabbi Elazar Ḥisma **said to him: Even** *teruma* of leavened bread on Passover **is permitted to be burned, for if the priest wishes, he may throw it before his dog or burn it under his food,** for Rabbi Elazar Ḥisma agrees with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili that one may derive benefit from leavened bread during Passover.