## Pesachim Daf 33a

###### Pesachim 33a:1
[Pesachim 33a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/33a:1)

הֵזִיד בִּמְעִילָה בְּמִיתָה — רַבִּי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: הֵזִיד בִּמְעִילָה, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: בְּמִיתָה, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: בָּאַזְהָרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
that **one who intentionally misuses** consecrated items is liable **to** receive **death** at the hand of Heaven? It is **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi. **As it was taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to **one who intentionally misuses** consecrated items, **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says** that he is liable to receive **death** at the hand of Heaven. **The Rabbis say:** he violates **a warning,** a standard prohibition, and is flogged.


###### Pesachim 33a:2
[Pesachim 33a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/33a:2)

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי? אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: גָּמַר ״חֵטְא״ ״חֵטְא״ מִתְּרוּמָה. מָה תְּרוּמָה בְּמִיתָה — אַף מְעִילָה בְּמִיתָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is the reason for** the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi? From where does he derive his opinion? **Rabbi Abbahu said: He derives** it by means of a verbal analogy between the word **sin** stated with regard to misuse of consecrated items and the word **sin** stated **with regard to *teruma*.** With regard to misuse of consecrated items, the verse states: “If any one commits a trespass, and sins through error, in the sacred items of the Lord” (Leviticus 5:15); with regard to *teruma*, the verse states: “Lest they bear sin for it, and die due to it, if they profane it” (Leviticus 22:9). Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi makes the following comparison: **Just as** eating ***teruma*** is punishable by the **death** penalty, **so too, misusing** consecrated items is punishable by the **death** penalty.


###### Pesachim 33a:3
[Pesachim 33a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/33a:3)

וּמִינַּהּ: מָה תְּרוּמָה בִּכְזַיִת אַף מְעִילָה בִּכְזַיִת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**From this** verbal analogy, the comparison between *teruma* and misuse of consecrated property can be extended to other issues as well: **Just as one** is punished only for eating at least **an olive-bulk of *teruma*, so too,** one is punished for **misusing** consecrated items only if there is at least **an olive-bulk** of consecrated items. This indicates that the *baraita* cannot be explained in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul, who requires that the item be worth at least a *peruta*.


###### Pesachim 33a:4
[Pesachim 33a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/33a:4)

וּמַתְקִיף לַהּ רַב פָּפָּא: מִמַּאי דְּרַבִּי כְּרַבָּנַן סְבִירָא לֵיהּ? דִּילְמָא כְּאַבָּא שָׁאוּל סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר: יֵשׁ בָּהּ שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה — אַף עַל גַּב דְּלֵית בַּהּ כְּזַיִת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa strongly objects to** Rav Sheshet and Rabba’s rejection of the explanation of the *baraita*: **From where** do you know that **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **holds in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis** that one is only punished after eating an olive-bulk of *teruma*? **Perhaps he holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Abba Shaul, who said** one is liable for eating *teruma* provided the food **contains the value of a *peruta* of *teruma*, even if it is less than an olive-bulk.** As the *halakhot* of misuse of consecrated items are derived from *teruma*, one is liable for eating both *teruma* and consecrated items only if the object is worth at least a *peruta*. As such, Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin’s explanation of the *baraita* should not be rejected.


###### Pesachim 33a:5
[Pesachim 33a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/33a:5)

וְהָא רַב פָּפָּא הוּא דְּאָמַר דְּאַבָּא שָׁאוּל תַּרְתֵּי בָּעֵי, אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: הֲדַר בֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to the issue mentioned previously, the Gemara asks: **But isn’t Rav Pappa the one who said** that **Abba Shaul said** that it **requires two** conditions, that the object be worth a *peruta* and that it be an olive-bulk in volume? **Rather, learn from this** that Rav Pappa **retracted** his statement with regard to Abba Shaul’s opinion.


###### Pesachim 33a:6
[Pesachim 33a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/33a:6)

מָר בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבְנָא אָמַר, הָכִי קָאָמַר: לֹא! אִם אָמַרְתָּ בִּשְׁאָר מִצְוֹת — שֶׁלֹּא עָשָׂה בָּהֶן שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּוֵּין כְּמִתְכַּוֵּין, שֶׁאִם נִתְכַּוֵּין לַחְתּוֹךְ אֶת הַתָּלוּשׁ וְחָתַךְ אֶת הַמְחוּבָּר — שֶׁפָּטוּר, תֹּאמַר בִּמְעִילָה, שֶׁאִם נִתְכַּוֵּין לְהִתְחַמֵּם בְּגִיזֵּי חוּלִּין וְנִתְחַמֵּם בְּגִיזֵּי עוֹלָה — שֶׁמָּעַל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Mar, son of Rabbana, said** the following to resolve the difficulty in the *baraita*: **This is** what **it is saying: No, if you say** that one is exempt from an offering **with regard to the rest of the mitzvot, where acting without intent is not treated** as though one acted **with intent,** i.e., **if one intended to cut** something that is **detached** from the ground on Shabbat, which is not prohibited by Torah law, **and** mistakenly **cut** something that is **attached** to the ground, then **he is exempt** because he acted without intent; **shall you** also **say** the same **with regard to misuse** of consecrated items, about which the *halakha* is stringent, such **that if one intended to warm himself with non-sacred** wool **shearings,** and owing to an error or lack of information **he warmed himself with shearings from a burnt-offering,** then **he has misused** consecrated property? Thus, misuse of consecrated property is more stringent than other commandments, in that one violates it even when acting without intent, and one cannot deduce the *halakha* in the case of misuse of consecrated property from the *halakha* in the case of the rest of the mitzvot.


###### Pesachim 33a:7
[Pesachim 33a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/33a:7)

רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אָמַר, הָכִי קָאָמַר: לֹא! אִם אָמַרְתָּ בִּשְׁאָר מִצְוֹת, שֶׁכֵּן לֹא מִתְחַיֵּיב בָּהֶן שֶׁאֵין מִתְעַסֵּק כְּמִתְעַסֵּק, שֶׁאִם נִתְכַּוֵּין לְהַגְבִּיהַּ אֶת הַתָּלוּשׁ, וְחָתַךְ אֶת הַמְחוּבָּר — שֶׁפָּטוּר. תֹּאמַר בִּמְעִילָה, שֶׁאִם הוֹשִׁיט יָדוֹ לִכְלִי לִיטּוֹל חֵפֶץ וְסָךְ יָדוֹ בְּשֶׁמֶן שֶׁל קוֹדֶשׁ — שֶׁמָּעַל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said** that the *baraita* should be understood differently, and **this is** what **it is saying: No, if you say** this leniency **with regard to rest of the mitzvot, where one who is acting unawares is not liable** in the same way **as** one who **is acting aware** of his actions, such as in a case where one intended to perform a permitted act and mistakenly performed a prohibited one, i.e., **if one intended to lift** something that is **detached** from the ground, but his knife happened to **cut** something that is **attached** to the ground, in violation of the act of harvesting on Shabbat, then **he is exempt; shall you** also **say** the same **with regard to misuse** of consecrated items, **where if one places his hand in a vessel to take an object** and unknowingly **places his hand in consecrated oil** then **he has misused** consecrated items? Therefore, misuse of consecrated items is more stringent than other commandments, as one commits the sin of misusing consecrated property even if he uses the consecrated object while attempting to perform a different action and is unaware that he is performing a prohibited act.


###### Pesachim 33a:8
[Pesachim 33a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/33a:8)

אָמַר מָר: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בְּמַפְרִישׁ תְּרוּמָה וְהֶחְמִיצָה, אֲבָל הִפְרִישׁ חָמֵץ תְּרוּמָה — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אֵינָהּ קְדוֹשָׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Master said** above in the *baraita*: **In what** case **is this statement said** that the *tanna’im* disagree with regard to the obligation to pay for *teruma* of leavened bread? It is said with regard to a case where **one separated *teruma*** in a permitted manner **and it became leavened** during Passover. **However, if he separated *teruma* from leavened bread** during Passover, **everyone agrees that it is not consecrated** since it is worthless.


###### Pesachim 33a:9
[Pesachim 33a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/33a:9)

מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק, אָמַר קְרָא: ״תִּתֵּן לוֹ״ — וְלֹא לְאוּרוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **From where are these matters** derived, that a worthless item cannot be designated as *teruma*? **Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said** that **the verse states:** “The first fruits of your grain, your wine, your oil, and the first of the fleece of your sheep, **shall you give to him”** (Deuteronomy 18:4), **and not to his fire.** One must give the priest something that he can use for any purpose, and not something that the priest will be forced to burn as fuel. Even those who permit one to derive benefit from leavened bread during Passover agree that it may not be eaten, and therefore leavened bread cannot be consecrated as *teruma* in this case.


###### Pesachim 33a:10
[Pesachim 33a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/33a:10)

מֵתִיב רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: אֵין תּוֹרְמִין מִן הַטְּמֵאָה לַטְּהוֹרָה, וְאִם תָּרַם בְּשׁוֹגֵג — תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה. וְאַמַּאי? לֵימָא: ״לוֹ״ וְלֹא לְאוּרוֹ! לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָתָם הָיְתָה לוֹ שְׁעַת הַכּוֹשֶׁר, הָכָא לֹא הָיְתָה לוֹ שְׁעַת הַכּוֹשֶׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, raised an objection** based on that which was taught in a mishna: **One may not separate** *teruma* **from ritually impure** produce **for ritually pure** produce, **but if one unwittingly separated** it in this manner then **his *teruma* is** valid ***teruma*. And why** should this be valid *teruma*? **Let** the priest **say:** The verse requires that the *teruma* be given **“to him” and not to his fire,** and this ritually impure *teruma* must be burned. In that case, why should this produce actually become *teruma*? The Gemara answers: This is **not difficult. There,** in the case of impure *teruma*, **it had a period of fitness,** and it could have been given as *teruma* before it became impure. **Here,** in the case of leavened bread, **it did not** ever **have a period of fitness,** and therefore it cannot be consecrated as *teruma*.


###### Pesachim 33a:11
[Pesachim 33a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/33a:11)

וּדְלֹא הָיְתָה לוֹ שְׁעַת הַכּוֹשֶׁר, הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? כְּגוֹן דְּאַחְמֵיץ בִּמְחוּבָּר. אֲבָל אַחְמֵיץ בְּתָלוּשׁ — הָכִי נָמֵי דְּקָדְשָׁה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין, ״בִּגְזֵירַת עִירִין פִּתְגָמָא וּבְמֵאמַר קַדִּישִׁין שְׁאֵילְתָא״, וְכֵן מוֹרִין בְּבֵי מִדְרְשָׁא כְּווֹתִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances** in **which** this leavened bread **did not have a period of fitness** even on Passover? This could have happened only in a case **where it** became **leavened** while it was still **attached** to the ground and could not yet become *teruma*. **However,** if **it** became **leavened** after being **detached** from the ground, then can this leavened bread **indeed become consecrated** as *teruma*, even though the *baraita* indicates that no leavened bread can be designated as *teruma* during Passover? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzhak **said to** Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua: **Yes,** this is indeed the case despite this puzzling limitation, and the biblical expression can be applied homiletically: **“The matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the sentence by the word of the sacred ones”** (Daniel 4:14). The Sages, who are compared to celestial beings, agree with my statement. **And so too, in the study hall, they teach in accordance with my** opinion, despite the puzzling nature of this ruling.


###### Pesachim 33a:12
[Pesachim 33a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/33a:12)

כִּי אֲתָא רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**When Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, came,**