## Pesachim Daf 32b

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

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי כּוּלְּהוּ סְבִירָא לְהוּ חָמֵץ בַּפֶּסַח אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה, וּבְהָא פְּלִיגִי, דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר: לְפִי דָמִים מְשַׁלֵּם, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי סָבַר: לְפִי מִדָּה מְשַׁלֵּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, Rabbi Akiva, and Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri all hold** that **it is forbidden to** derive **benefit from leavened bread during Passover. And they disagree with regard to the following** issue: **Rabbi Akiva holds** that **one pays according to the monetary** value, and therefore he need not pay anything for consuming *teruma* of leavened bread during Passover. **And Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri holds** that **one pays according to the measure** of *teruma* that he consumed, such that even if he ate *teruma* of leavened bread on Passover he must repay this amount.


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

פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי נָמֵי כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר לְפִי דָמִים מְשַׁלֵּם. וְהָתָם הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּקָא מְחַיֵּיב — מִשּׁוּם דְּסָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, דְּאָמַר: חָמֵץ בַּפֶּסַח מוּתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Isn’t this **obvious?** There does not seem to be another way to explain these opinions. The Gemara rejects this question: This statement is necessary **lest you say** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri also holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva** that states that **one** must **pay according to the monetary** value of the *teruma*. **And there,** in the case of leavened bread, **this is the reason that** Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri **deems him liable** to pay for the *teruma* **because he holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who said: It is permissible to** derive **benefit from leavened bread during Passover.** Therefore, **he teaches us** that Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri agrees that one may not derive benefit from leavened bread during Passover.


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

וְאֵימָא הָכִי נָמֵי? אִם כֵּן, נַהְדַּר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא כִּי הֵיכִי דְּמַהְדַּר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר חַסָּמָא לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **And say it is indeed so,** that Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri accepts Rabbi Yosei HaGelili’s position. The Gemara rejects this possibility: **If this was** the case, then **Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri should have responded to Rabbi Akiva in the same way** that **Rabbi Elazar Ḥisma responded to Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov,** by saying that this leavened bread may be fed to a dog thus deriving benefit from it. Since he did not offer this answer, it is clear that he agrees that deriving benefit from leavened bread during Passover is forbidden.


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

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הָאוֹכֵל כְּזַיִת תְּרוּמָה מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וָחוֹמֶשׁ, אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר: עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא בּוֹ שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה. מַאי טַעְמָא דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא — אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְאִישׁ כִּי יֹאכַל קֹדֶשׁ בִּשְׁגָגָה״, וַאֲכִילָה בִּכְזַיִת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
After mentioning cases where a person damages *teruma*, the Gemara continues with a discussion of this topic. **The Rabbis taught:** A non-priest **who eats an olive-bulk of *teruma*** must **pay the principal** value of the *teruma* itself **and an** additional **fifth. Abba Shaul says:** He is not required to pay **unless** the *teruma* he ate is **worth a *peruta*.** The Gemara explains: **What is the reason for** the opinion of **the first *tanna*?** It is because **the verse states: “And if a man eats a sacred item in error,** then he shall add a fifth part in addition to it, and he shall give to the priest the sacred item” (Leviticus 22:14). The minimal amount that is halakhically considered **eating is an olive-bulk.**


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

וְאַבָּא שָׁאוּל, מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְנָתַן״, וְאֵין נְתִינָה פָּחוֹת מִשָּׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה. וְאִידַּךְ נָמֵי, הָא כְּתִיב ״יֹאכַל״! הָהוּא, פְּרָט לְמַזִּיק הוּא דַּאֲתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And what is the reason for** the opinion of **Abba Shaul? The verse states: “And he shall give,” and** giving **less than the value of a *peruta* is not** legally considered to be **giving.** The Gemara asks: **And** according to **the other** one, Abba Shaul, **too, isn’t it written: “Eats,”** implying that there must be at least an olive-bulk portion? The Gemara answers: **That** verse **comes to exclude one who damages** *teruma* without deriving benefit from it, such that he is exempt from the requirement to add an additional fifth. This is derived from the fact that the verse specifies that only one who eats is required to add a fifth.


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

וְתַנָּא קַמָּא, הָכְתִיב ״וְנָתַן״! הַהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְדָבָר הָרָאוּי לִהְיוֹת קֹדֶשׁ (פְּרָט לָאוֹכֵל תְּרוּמַת חָמֵץ בַּפֶּסַח).

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** according to **the first *tanna*,** one can ask: **Isn’t it written “And he shall give”?** The Gemara answers: **That** phrase **is necessary** to teach the requirement that *teruma* must be **an item that is fit to be consecrated,** as an item cannot become *teruma* unless it is has some value. This is meant **to exclude one who eats *teruma* of leavened bread on Passover,** since it is worthless and therefore cannot be designated as *teruma*.


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

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הָאוֹכֵל תְּרוּמָה פָּחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת — מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַחוֹמֶשׁ. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִי דְּלֵית בֵּיהּ שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה — קֶרֶן נָמֵי לָא לִישַׁלֵּם, וְאִי דְּאִית בֵּהּ שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה — חוֹמֶשׁ נָמֵי לִישַׁלֵּם! לְעוֹלָם דְּאִית בֵּהּ שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה, וַאֲפִילּוּ הָכִי, כֵּיוָן דְּלֵית בֵּיהּ כְּזַיִת — מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַחוֹמֶשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: **One who eats less than an olive-bulk of *teruma* must pay the principal, but is not** required **to pay the** additional **fifth.** The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances** of this case? **If there was not the value of a *peruta*** of *teruma*, then **he should also not** be required to **pay for the principal** either, because that is less than the amount for which one is obligated to pay. **But if there was the value of a *peruta*** of *teruma*, then **he should** be required to **pay the** additional **fifth as well.** The Gemara explains the case: **Actually,** it should be understood **that there was the value of a *peruta*** of *teruma*, **and nonetheless, since** the food **was not** at least **an olive-bulk, he is** required **to pay** only **the principal, but he does not pay the** additional **fifth.**


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

אַמְרוּהָ רַבָּנַן קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא הָא דְּלָא כְּאַבָּא שָׁאוּל, דְּאִי כְּאַבָּא שָׁאוּל, הָאָמַר: כֵּיוָן שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה, אַף עַל גַּב דְּלֵית בֵּיהּ כְּזַיִת. אָמַר לְהוּ רַב פָּפָּא: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא אַבָּא שָׁאוּל, אַבָּא שָׁאוּל תַּרְתֵּי בָּעֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages said before Rav Pappa** that **this** *halakha* **is not in accordance with** the opinion of **Abba Shaul. As, if it were in accordance with** the opinion of **Abba Shaul, didn’t he say:** One is obligated to pay **because there is the value of a *peruta*, even if it is not** at least **an olive-bulk? Rav Pappa said to them:** This is no proof, as **even** if **you say** that this *halakha* is in accordance with the opinion of **Abba Shaul, Abba Shaul requires two** conditions: That the *teruma* be at least an olive-bulk in volume, and that it be worth at least a *peruta*.


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

וּמִי בָּעֵי אַבָּא שָׁאוּל תַּרְתֵּי? וְהָא תְּנַן, אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר: אֶת שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה — חַיָּיב בְּתַשְׁלוּמִין, אֶת שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה — אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב בְּתַשְׁלוּמִין. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: לֹא אָמְרוּ שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה אֶלָּא לְעִנְיַן מְעִילָה בִּלְבַד, אֲבָל לִתְרוּמָה — אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא בּוֹ כְּזַיִת. וְאִם אִיתָא, ״כֵּיוָן שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ כְּזַיִת״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ. תְּיוּבְתָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Does Abba Shaul** actually **require two** conditions? **Didn’t we learn** in the mishna that **Abba Shaul says:** For **that** food **which is** at least **the value of a *peruta*** of *teruma*, **one is liable to** pay **compensation** to the priest, but for **that** food **which does not contain the value of a *peruta*** of *teruma*, **he is not liable to** pay **compensation** to the priest? The Rabbis **said to** Abba Shaul: **They said** that the item must be **worth a *peruta* only with regard to misuse** of consecrated items; **however, with regard to *teruma*, one is liable** to reimburse the priest **only when he eats an olive-bulk** or more. **And if it is so,** that Abba Shaul requires both conditions, and this is a case where there is an olive-bulk, then the Rabbis should have worded their objection differently. **They should** have said: **Since it is** at least **an olive-bulk,** he is liable to pay, even though it is not worth a *peruta*. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, this is **a conclusive refutation,** and Rav Pappa’s position is rejected.


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

וְאַף רַב פָּפָּא הֲדַר בֵּיהּ, דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְחָטְאָה בִּשְׁגָגָה״ — פְּרָט לְמֵזִיד. וַהֲלֹא דִּין הוּא: וּמָה שְׁאָר מִצְוֹת שֶׁחַיָּיב בָּהֶן כָּרֵת — פּוֹטֵר בָּהֶן אֶת הַמֵּזִיד, מְעִילָה שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ כָּרֵת — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁפָּטַר אֶת הַמֵּזִיד?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes that **Rav Pappa** himself **also retracted** this explanation. **As it was taught** in a *baraita* with regard to the verse: “If any one commits a trespass, and sins through error, in the sacred items of the Lord, then he shall bring his guilt-offering to the Lord, a ram without blemish from the flock, according to your valuation in silver shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary, for a guilt-offering” (Leviticus 5:15), the *baraita* explains: The phrase **“and sins through error” excludes one who** sins **intentionally** through misuse of consecrated property. Could this **not** be derived through **an *a fortiori* inference,** as follows: **Just as** with regard to **other mitzvot for which one is liable** to receive ***karet*** the verse **exempts one** from bringing an offering when the transgression was committed **intentionally, is it not right that** with regard to **misuse** of consecrated property, **which does not** incur the punishment of ***karet*,** it should **exempt one who acts intentionally?**


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

לֹא! אִם אָמַרְתָּ בִּשְׁאָר מִצְוֹת שֶׁכֵּן לֹא חִיֵּיב בָּהֶן מִיתָה, תֹּאמַר בִּמְעִילָה, שֶׁחִיֵּיב בָּהּ מִיתָה! תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בִּשְׁגָגָה״ — פְּרָט לְמֵזִיד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* rejects this claim: **No, if you say that** this is true with regard to **the rest of the mitzvot,** even those for which one is liable to receive *karet*, for which **one is not liable** to receive the **death** penalty if he violates them, **shall you** also **say that** this is the case with regard to **misuse** of consecrated items, for which **one is liable** to receive the **death** penalty, as this offense is punishable by death at the hand of Heaven? Since one cannot logically deduce this principle, **the verse states “through error”** to **exclude one** who acted **intentionally.**


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

וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק לְרַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין: הַאי תַּנָּא מֵעִיקָּרָא אַלִּימָא לֵיהּ כָּרֵת, וּלְבַסּוֹף אַלִּימָא לֵיהּ מִיתָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin** in wonderment with regard to this *baraita*: **This *tanna* initially** considers the punishment of ***karet* to be stronger** by assuming that misuse of consecrated property was less severe because it was not punished by *karet*, **and subsequently** he considers the punishment of **death** at the hand of Heaven **to be stronger** by stating that one cannot deduce this principle from other sins whose punishment is not death at the hand of Heaven.


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

וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ, הָכִי קָאָמַר: לֹא! אִם אָמַרְתָּ בִּשְׁאָר מִצְוֹת — שֶׁכֵּן לֹא חִיֵּיב בָּהֶן מִיתָה בְּפָחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת, תֹּאמַר בִּמְעִילָה — שֶׁחִיֵּיב בָּהּ מִיתָה בְּפָחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת. וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ: תָּנוּחַ דַּעְתְּךָ שֶׁהִנַּחְתָּ אֶת דַּעְתִּי. וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי נִיחוּתָא, דְּרַבָּה וְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת שָׁדוּ בֵּיהּ נַרְגָּא: מַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ דְּאָמַר

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin **said to him** that it is possible to maintain the accepted position that *karet* is more stringent by explaining **that this is** what **he is saying: No,** these are incomparable for the following reason: **If you say** that one is exempt from an offering when he violates **the rest of the mitzvot, for** which **one is not liable to** receive **death** at the hand of Heaven if he eats **less than an olive-bulk** of a forbidden substance, **shall you** also **say** that this is the case **with regard to misuse** of consecrated property, **for** which **one is liable to** receive **death** at the hand of Heaven if he eats **less than an olive-bulk?** Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak **said to him: May your mind be settled, as you have settled my mind** and put it at ease by answering this question that was troubling me. Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin **said to him: What is settling** about this explanation? **Rabba and Rav Sheshet threw an axe at** my answer; i.e., they reject my explanation, as follows: **Who did you hear that said**