MISHNAH: If somebody eats heave in error, he pays principal and fifth¹. 22:14: “Anybody who ate sanctified food in error must add its fifth to it and give the holy food to the Cohen.” In the Yerushalmi (6:1) and the Sifra [Wayyiqra pereq 20(8); Emor pereq 6(4)], its fifth is interpreted to mean that the addition must be one fifth of the restitution, or one fourth of the principal. In the Babli (Baba Meẓi‘a 54a) this is the opinion of R. Oshaia, whereas R. Jonathan refers its fifth to the principal. The latter opinion is never found in the Yerushalmi. There will be a discussion in the Halakhah whether the expression “give the holy food to the Cohen” means that the designation as reparation makes holy or only its delivery.; whether he eats, drinks, or anoints², whether the heave be pure or impure, he pays. The fifth and the fifth of the fifths³ he does not pay in heave but in totally profane food which is turned into heave. All payments become heave. Although the Cohen may want to forgive this, he has no right to forgive. If an Israel woman ate heave and then was married to a Cohen, ate the heave before a Cohen had acquired it, she pays principal and fifth to herself⁵⁴, but if she ate heave which a Cohen had acquired, she pays principal to its owner and the fifth to herself since they said, he who eats heave in error pays the principal to its owner and the fifth to a person of his choice.

footnotes: ¹ Lev ² Since the food enters his body, whether through the mouth or through the skin. ³ If he dedicated the fifth and then inadvertently ate this fifth, since it had become heave as stated in the next sentence, it is subject to the rule of the fifth and he must restitute both the fifth and an additional fifth (1/16 of the original amount.) ⁵⁴ Heave is eaten not only by a Cohen but also by his family (wife, children, slaves.)

HALAKHAH: “If somebody eats heave in error,” etc. It is written (Lev. 22:14): “Anybody who ate sanctified food in error must add its fifth.” That it and its fifth make five⁴.

footnotes: ⁴ Cf. Note 1. It is clear that the main inference is from the word עליו not quoted here.

Did not Rabbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan⁵ 11:5 (13b), Baba Qamma 7:2 (5d). Šebuot 3:1 (34b), Ketubot 3:1 (27c), except Terumot 7:1 (44c) in the name of R. Simeon ben Laqish, and here in the Rome ms. which reads תני. The parallel discussion in the Babli is Šabbat 69a.: If he is in error about fat but intentional about a sacrifice, he can be warned, is whipped, and brings a sacrifice⁶ Chapter 8, Note 9, a criminal court can impose biblical sanctions only if criminal intent is proven by two witnesses. This means that two witnesses testify that the alleged criminal was warned about the criminality of the act he seems intent to commit. The situation here is that the perpetrator knew that eating fat (those fatty parts of domesticated animals which in a sacrifice have to be burned on the altar) was forbidden but did not know what the punishment would be. In the Babli, R. Joḥanan holds that if he knew that eating fat was forbidden but not that it was a deadly sin he committed an intentional sin but an unintentional deadly sin, just as described here by R. Abbahu. If duly warned, he can be punished for eating fat as a misdemeanor but in addition he has to bring a sacrifice for the aspect of deadly sin of which he was oblivious, as asserted here also. R. Simeon ben Laqish does not permit a sacrifice unless the person was ignorant of the fact that the act was punishable.. Say also here, if he has intention about heave but is inadvertent about the fifth, one should warn him and he should be whipped and bring a fifth⁷. Rebbi Zeїra said, it is a decision of the verse, “if somebody eats heave in error,” that all his eating should be in error⁸. If he is intentional in doubt it is as if he is unintentional in his certainty⁹. Rebbi Yose said, this means that if somebody forgot after he knew, he is guilty unintentionally¹⁰. 5:4: “Or a person who swears, by expression of his lips, to his advantage or detriment, about anything a person is apt to swear, then he forgot, but later remembered that he had incurred guilt about one of these.”.

footnotes: ⁵ This is the attribution in all parallels in the Yerushalmi: Šabbat ⁶ Unintentional deadly sins are atoned for, in general, by sacrifices or, as in the case of heave, by specified payments. Intentional sins cannot simply be atoned for; the guilt is eliminated either by punishment through a criminal court or by Divine justice (assuming the intentional sinner does not sincerely repent, otherwise repentance and the Day of Atonement will induce Divine mercy to wipe the slate clean.)As explained in Kilaim ⁷ Why is eating heave by an unauthorized person, which also is a deadly sin, not treated similarly, with the payment of the fifth being the equivalent of a sacrifice? ⁸ He must not have known at all that his eating was punishable. ⁹ R. Zeїra admits only two cases, if he intended to eat but was not sure that he ate heave, or if he ate certain heave but was oblivious of this fact all the time he was eating. ¹⁰ This is described as the quintessential unintentional sin; Lev

If somebody said, I would not touch the volume of an olive, but I will touch half the volume of an olive, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, he is like a person who eats half the volume of an olive unintentionally and half the volume of an olive intentionally¹¹ 73b, R. Simeon ben Laqish states that less than the established minimum in any case is not forbidden by the Torah, but R. Joḥanan holds that everything forbidden is forbidden in any quantity; it simply cannot be prosecuted if the quantity is minimal. In Šabbat 12:6 (13d), this position is ascribed to Rabban Gamliel and the question about two olive halves is not answered.. Would Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya hold with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he ate half the volume of an olive during one forgetting spell¹² 12:6 (13:d), Babli Šabbat 105a., he is free from punishment. So here, if he ate two times half the volume of an olive minus something, he is free from punishment. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees in the case of prohibitions of usufruct¹³ usufruct is forbidden, such as grain growing in a vineyard or food from an idolatrous sacrifice, half a measure must be forbidden because its use would be usufruct., Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees in the case of the Day of Atonement¹⁴, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees in case he would complete it in the future¹⁵.

footnotes: ¹¹ Everybody agrees that for any prohibition regarding solid foods, no punishment by an earthly court can be imposed if the quantity consumed was less than the volume of an olive. In Babli Yoma ¹² As far as sacrifices in atonement of unintentional sins are concerned, acts committed during separate forgetting spells cannot be combined if half a measure is not sinful; cf. Šabbat ¹³ If all ¹⁴ In the Babli, R. Simeon ben Laqish only holds that less than a measure, in that case less than the volume of an average dried fig, is forbidden by rabbinic decree. This contradicts the Yerushalmi since a rabbinic prohibition can never lead to an obligatory sacrifice. ¹⁵ The forbidden material is activated by its own kind; cf. end of Halakhah 5:7.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan¹⁶14:4 (14d), Yoma 8:3 (45a); cf. Babli Yoma 80b–81a. In the parallels, the statement about payment of principal only is asserted both for vinegar and a wheat grain.: He who swallows heave vinegar is whipped¹⁷. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who chews a wheat grain of heave is whipped. It was stated: He who chews a wheat grain of heave pays the principal but not the fifth; Rebbi says, I am saying that he pays principal and fifth¹⁸. 22:14. Therefore, one has to pay for the value of what he took, as anybody must who took another’s property illegally, since even his own heave is not his property but a Cohen’s. The baraita here deals with raw wheat kernels which are not a health hazard; it is simply asserted that the fifth applies only to what is considered eating by a majority of the population.. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ammi: The Sages agree with Rebbi about him who swallows heave vinegar after such ṭevel, that he pays principal and fifth because vinegar refreshes the spirit¹⁹ vinegar, which also is sinful but not subject to the fifth, and then added some more heave vinegar, that makes vinegar food as a folk medicine..

footnotes: ¹⁶ This paragraph is also in Šabbat ¹⁷ If he did it after due warning by two witnesses. The statement implies that drinking a fluid which most people do not use is still called drinking in the legal sense. ¹⁸ In the Babli, a parallel statement by R. Jeremiah in the name of R. Joḥanan speaks about chewing raw barley grains. This is considered a health hazard and therefore not included in the notion of eating in the sense of Lev ¹⁹ If the person first drank ṭevel

It was stated²⁰ 3:1 (27b). In the Babli (Yebamot 90a, Giṭṭin 54a) the text is quoted in somewhat enlarged form but rejected (since impure heave is paid for as if it were fuel for principal and fifth, cf. Halakhah 5:8, Tosephta 7:2) and reformulated to speak of pure heave; that changed text is in Tosephta 7:7.: If someone ate impure heave, he has to pay in pure profane food, but if he paid in impure profane, he discharged his obligation. Rebbi Nathan says, Symmachos says, if inadvertently, what he did is done, intentionally, he did not do anything²¹ as speaking of pure heave, inapplicable today. These decrees mostly are rejected as minority opinions in the Yerushalmi; there is no need for reformulation.. There, we have stated²²: “One does not give heave from impure produce for pure.” It was stated in the name of Rebbi Yose²³, “if he gave heave from impure produce for pure, whether inadvertently or intentionally, what he did is done.” It turns out that the single opinion²⁴ here is like the anonymous one there, and the single there like the anonymous here.

footnotes: ²⁰ The same statement also in Halakhah 7:1 (44c), Ketubot ²¹ All traditions of Symmachos are R. Meïr’s. The invalidation of payment with impure produce is a fine imposed by the court. Since the Babli accepts R. Meïr’s decrees as a matter of principle, they have to reformulate the baraita ²² Mishnah 2:2. ²³ Tosephta 3:19. ²⁴ Symmachos (R. Meïr); the single opinion there is R. Yose. Since the subjects are different, there is no contradiction involved.

How is this²⁵? Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: The replacements of heave are like heave in every respect except that what grows from them²⁶ is profane. The growth from heave is like profane in every respect²⁷ except that it is forbidden for outsiders. Rebbi Yose said, we have stated all three: The replacements of heave are like heave in every respect as we have stated, “he does not pay in heave but in totally profane food which is turned into heave.” Except that what grows from them is profane as we have stated²⁸, “the growth from heave,” which implies that what grows from replacement is profane. The growth from heave is like profane in all respects, as we have stated, “²⁹ it is subject to gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah; Israel poor and Cohanim poor collect it,” except that it is forbidden to outsiders as we have stated, “Israel poor sell theirs to Cohanim for the price of heave but the money is theirs³⁰.”

footnotes: ²⁵ Here starts the discussion of the Mishnah, that the replacement for heave and the fifth become subject to the laws of heave. ²⁶ If accidentally or inadvertently used as seeds. ²⁷ It is not subject to any purity requirements. ²⁸ Mishnah 9:4: “The growth from heave is heave, the growth from the growth is profane.” It is clear from Mishnah 9:2 quoted next, that in most aspects, the growth from heave is like profane produce; it is like heave in that it is forbidden for non-Cohanim. Replacement for heave is not mentioned in that Mishnah. ²⁹ Mishnah 9:2. ³⁰ In contrast to heave which is not the private property of the owner.

It was stated: One does not use the complement of heave³¹ notes, it is impossible that this baraita deal with replacement of heave in the sense of this Halakhah, since the Mishnah stated clearly that even “the fifth of the fifth” comes under the rules of heave. One has to assume, with R. M. Margalit, that one deals with the complement of heave, if the heave given turns out to be less than 1/60 of the harvest, and the farmer has to add the difference; cf. Tosephta 8:2. Since heave has no biblical minimum, that complement is only rabbinic heave and is not covered by Lev. 22:14. But since the name of heave has been pronounced over it, it is not profane to be used for payment and cannot become ḥallah. for payment of principal and fifth and for them one does not pay principal and fifth, it is not subject to ḥallah, and hands and the ṭevul yom do not make it unusable in the way they do not make profane unusable³² makes heave unusable by his touch (Chapter 5, Note 68), the same is true for unwashed hands which are always considered impure in the second degree. Profane food cannot become impure by touch of impurity of second degree in contrast to heave. There is one opinion in Soṭa 5:2 (fol. 20a; Babli Pesaḥim 18a) that R. Aqiba asserts the possibility of third degree impurity for profane food, but it is clearly stated there that this is not acceptable practice.. Even Rebbi Simeon and Rebbi Yose agree with this³³ 46b–47a, R. Yose and R. Simeon free from ḥallah profane dough made to rise by heave (or dema‘) sour dough (since the action of the sour dough shows it is not insignificant even if less than 1% in volume). Similarly, in Mishnah Ṭevul Yom 3:4, R. Yose and R. Simeon declare that such a dough will become unusable by the touch of a ṭevul yom(and presumably also of unwashed hands). In both cases, the anonymous majority declares the dough to be profane..

footnotes: ³¹ As Sefer Nir ³² The syntax of this sentence is garbled. The ṭevul yom ³³ It is not clear what the reference is. In Babli Niddah

“Although the Cohen may want to forgive this, he has no right to forgive.³⁴” That is, if he did not yet separate. If he separated and after that ate³⁵, the disagreement of Rebbi and Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon, as it is stated: “(Lev. 22:14) ‘He shall give the holy food to the Cohen,’ his delivery sanctifies it so that he cannot eat it because it is heave. Also the separation sanctifies it so that he should be liable for principal and fifth, the words of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon. Also the separation sanctifies it so that he should be liable for principal and fifth preventing him from eating it because it is heave.³⁶ 6(7): “I could think that the separation [taking the payment out of some profane food] sanctifies it so that one would be obligated for principal and fifth; the verse says ‘He shall give the holy food to the Cohen,’ his delivery sanctifies it so that one [any non-Cohen] will be liable for principal and fifth, but the separation does not sanctify it so that he should be liable for principal and fifth, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, also the separation sanctifies it so that he should be liable for principal and fifth.””

footnotes: ³⁴ Quote from the Mishnah. ³⁵ Not from the heave but the replacement of the heave. ³⁶ The text is garbled in both mss.; the position of R. Eleazar is quoted twice, that of Rebbi is missing. It is probable that the original text was similar to Sifra Emor Pereq

If he [the Cohen] forgave and after that he [the Israel owner] ate, there is disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish since they disagreed: If he robbed heave from his maternal grandfather, a Cohen, Rebbi Joḥanan said, he has to pay to the tribe, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he pays to himself³⁷ 2:3 (29a).. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish answered Rebbi Joḥanan thus: According to you, who says he has to pay to the tribe, did we not state: “If he stole heave of the Sanctuary, he has to pay two fifths and the principal³⁸. 22:14) and of property of the Sanctuary (Lev. 5:16). The two obligations are independent of one another and computed on the same basis..” Should he not pay three³⁹ 5:16). The heave can become property of the Sanctuary only if the Cohen dedicated it. Therefore, if the Cohen may forgive repayment, the thief cannot be forced to swear and there never can be three fifths. But according to R. Joḥanan, the tribe should be able to force the thief to swear in court and the Tanna should have noticed the possibility of a third fifth.? Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Torah said, it takes him out of his robbery. Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Ammi: Two things you say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan but you do not say why. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it takes him out of his robbery but you do not say why. It is so, “he shall give the holy food to the Cohen;” once he gave it, it stopped being his robbery⁴⁰. You say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, at the place of its slaughter should be its burning⁴¹. 19) must be slaughtered on the stake; its carcass cannot be moved.. You do not say why. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, Num. 19:5: “On its excrement shall be its burning.” How do you understand this? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ammi: At the place of its exit from life shall be its burning⁴² 113, in opposition to R. Joḥanan who requires the carcass to be moved in case it was slaughtered at a place from which the Temple doors are not visible; cf. also Sifry Ḥuqqat 124..

footnotes: ³⁷ The robber has to repay the robbery, not double the value he took as is the rule for the thief. It is assumed that the grandfather died after he forgave the grandson for the robbery and the grandson is the only heir. According to R. Joḥanan, the grandfather could not forgive and the grandson cannot inherit; therefore, the restitution has to be made to a Cohen. According the R. Simeon ben Laqish, the grandfather can forgive and the grandson can pay the principal to himself as heir, then sell the heave to a Cohen and pocket the money.The statement is also in Pesaḥim ³⁸ Mishnah 6:4. Stealing and robbing from the Sanctuary have the same status; there is no double restitution. A fifth is required for illicit use of heave (Lev ³⁹ This is only a potentiality, not a certainty. If he denied stealing under oath, another fifth is due (Lev. ⁴⁰ Since robbery and sanctity are incompatible, once it is holy it is not subject to the laws of robbery and the third fifth claimed by R. Simeon ben Laqish is not applicable. ⁴¹ The red cow whose ashes cleanse from the impurity of the dead (Num ⁴² The entire statement is R. Hoshaia’s in Babli Zebaḥim

Rebbi Joḥanan follows Rebbi⁴³, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon⁴⁴. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, even if Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish would hold with Rebbi, but only for something he is obligated to give to a Cohen; but for something he is not obligated to give to a Cohen⁴⁵, even Rebbi will agree since that is a Mishnah⁴⁶ 1:6. The Babli (Bekhorot 12b) holds that the rules for first-borns depend on special expressions in the appropriate verses and are not derived from general principles, against the Yerushalmi. (Num. 18:15) “You should certainly redeem the human firstborn, and the firstborn of the impure animal you shall redeem.” For R. Eliezer, “certainly” refers to both cases, for the Sages only to the human firstborn. The redemption for a donkey is a lamb (Ex. 13:13), for a human it is 5 šeqel(Num. 3:47).: “If he separated the redemption of a first-born donkey and then it died, Rebbi Eliezer says one is responsible for alienation⁴⁷ as for the five tetradrachmas of the [human] first-born; but the Sages say, he is not responsible for alienation, as for Second Tithe.⁴⁸” Rebbi Eliezer will agree about first-born donkeys he inherited from the estate of his maternal grandfather, a Cohen, that he sanctified it when he separated it⁴⁹.

footnotes: ⁴³ This refers to the disagreement discussed in the previous paragraph. Since only handing the restitution to the Cohen turns it into heave, the Israel grandson of a Cohen cannot make restitution until he gives it to some Cohen. ⁴⁴ Since separation already sanctifies, when the restitution was set apart before the death of the grandfather it is now legal heave in the hand of the Israel grandson. ⁴⁵ In our case, he inherits it legally from his Cohen grandfather. ⁴⁶ Bekhorot ⁴⁷ If the lamb was designated for the redemption and then either stolen or lost, the owner must give another lamb as replacement. If the young donkey dies before the lamb is delivered, it is holy and must be buried but the lamb is not given to the Cohen. ⁴⁸ If the lamb is lost, the owner has fulfilled his duty and the donkey is his. If the young donkey dies before the lamb is delivered, it is a profane carcass and the lamb must be delivered to the Cohen. ⁴⁹ Since the Cohen may give the lamb to himself; in that case, separation is all that is needed.

One who ate the heave of a Fellow has to pay the Fellow, one who ate the heave of a vulgar person has to pay the vulgar person⁵⁰. Does he then not deliver his pure food to a vulgar person? How does he do it, he gives both to a Cohen Fellow, takes the price of one of them and gives that to the vulgar Cohen⁵¹. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, this follows him who says, its separation sanctifies. But for him who says, the delivery sanctifies, does it not need acquisition in any case⁵²? He said to them, he operates through the services of a third person⁵³.

footnotes: ⁵⁰ The notions of Fellow and vulgar person are explained in the Introduction to Demay. The vulgar person is unable to keep his food in purity; giving him pure food, as required by the Mishnah, would be forbidden waste. ⁵¹ The amoraic text here has a parallel in Tosephta 7:5: “He who eats heave of a vulgar [Cohen], pays principal and fifth to a Cohen Fellow; the Fellow takes money and indemnifies the vulgar [Cohen]. ⁵² If there is no sanctification without delivery then there is no repayment without delivery and the Cohen Fellow should not be able to acquire heave that is not due him. ⁵³ The Cohen Fellow does not acquire the heave for himself but for the vulgar Cohen. He can do that since it is for the vulgar’s benefit. Then he has to buy the heave for himself from what he had acquired for the third person. Since this is a formal institution, the vulgar’s consent is implied.

If she did not manage to pay before she was divorced⁵⁵? Come and see, if she had so many tithes, would they not be hers⁵⁶? There tithes are defined but here the heave is still undefined⁵⁷. What compares to this? First-born of donkeys⁵⁸. It seems that one refers to the opinion of the Sages (Note 48) that the lamb is the Cohen’s property upon designation, before delivery. In this case, the heave would remain hers if designated before the divorce..

footnotes: ⁵⁵ If she has no children, she reverted to the status of Israel and is forbidden to eat heave. ⁵⁶ If she got heave or Heave of the Tithe as a Cohen’s wife, it remains her property even if she cannot eat it now but must sell it to somebody who can. ⁵⁷ Since she did not pay, the heave is not designated yet and undetermined things cannot be acquired. ⁵⁸ It is difficult to know what is meant since there is no Yerushalmi to Bekhorot

MISHNAH: If one serves heave to his workers or his guests, he pays the principal and they pay the fifth⁵⁹, the word of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, they pay principal and fifth and he pays them the price of their meal⁶⁰. He who steals heave but does not eat it pays double restitution for the value of heave⁶⁴. If he ate it, he pays twice the principal and a fifth. The principal and the fifth from profane food⁶⁵ and a principal the value of heave. If he stole heave of the Sanctuary and ate it, he pays two fifths and the principal³⁸. 22:14) and of property of the Sanctuary (Lev. 5:16). The two obligations are independent of one another and computed on the same basis. since double restitution does not apply to the Sanctuary⁶⁶. One does not pay with gleanings, forgotten sheaves, peah, and abandoned property⁷², nor with First Tithe whose heave was taken, nor with Second Tithe⁷³, nor with dedicated food that was redeemed, for dedicated food cannot redeem dedicated food, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages permit the latter.

footnotes: ⁵⁹ He pays the principal since he robbed the Cohen of his heave. They pay the fifth since they ate heave inadvertently and the fine of eating heave inadvertently is the payment of the fifth. ⁶⁰ The Sages hold that the person who eats heave inadvertently has to pay principal and fifth. The host, in addition to the grave sin he incurred by leading innocent people into sin, is fined by having to pay his workers the price of their meal as if it had been profane food, while they pay only 5/4of the price of heave, which probably is much less. ⁶⁴ Since this is what he stole. ⁶⁵ Restitution for the heave, following Mishnah 1. ³⁸ Mishnah 6:4. Stealing and robbing from the Sanctuary have the same status; there is no double restitution. A fifth is required for illicit use of heave (Lev ⁶⁶ The reason is given at the end of the Halakhah. ⁷² All these are exempt from heave; while they are permitted for profane use they are not profane since they are God’s gift to the poor. ⁷³ R. Meïr holds that Second Heave is Heaven’s property given to the farmer. Since it can never become heave, it is excluded as payment. The Sages consider Second Tithe and dedicated property after redemption, and First Tithe whose heave was taken, as totally profane since their sanctity has been transferred to the money of redemption.

HALAKHAH: Now Rebbi Meïr says, they pay, and the Sages say, they pay, what is between them? Rebbi Joḥanan said, the meal itself is between them. Rebbi Meïr said, the meal is the resposibility of the employer, but the rabbis say, the meal is the resposibility of the workers⁶¹. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the exertion is between them. Rebbi Meïr said, the exertion is the resposibility of the employer, but the rabbis say, the exertion is the resposibility of the workers⁶². Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: To what can this be compared, to one who sells something to another person, but it turns out that it was not his [to sell]. Does he not have to replace his buy? If you hold with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, this is fine. But if you hold with Rebbi Joḥanan, who said, the meal itself is between them, and you say so? He said following Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The value of the meal is between them. If he promised them to feed them profane honey-cakes but he fed them heave honey-cakes. Did they not eat already? This follows him who says, a person’s soul is afraid of ṭevel⁶³.

footnotes: ⁶¹ The responsibility vis-à-vis the Cohen is either on the person who actually ate the Cohen’s property or on the person who caused the trouble. ⁶² Since the Cohen is not compensated by money but by fully profane food, whose resposibility is it to procure the fully profane food in the correct amount? ⁶³ The workers are overcompensated to account for the mental anguish caused them by their employer.

Rebbi Yannai said, the Mishnah is split⁶⁷. If there is the size of an olive but it is not worth a peruṭah⁶⁸, a small Hasmonean coin, ⅙ or ⅛ of an as. Theft of less than a peruṭah is not prosecutable and does not entitle the injured person to ask for restitution. In the case under consideration, there was sin but no monetary restitution is possible; there is no principal but the fifth has to be paid. But Lev. 22:14 ends: He hands over the consecrated food to the Cohen. Since “handing over” implies something substantial, it must be the value of at least a peruṭah. This means that in this case, restitution to the Cohen is excluded; the recipient must be the Sanctuary even though legally no larceny has occured., he pays to the Sanctuary. If it is worth a peruṭah but is not the size of an olive, he pays to the tribe. If it is the size of an olive and is worth a peruṭah, Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, he pays to the Sanctuary⁶⁹. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he pays to the tribe⁷⁰. Rebbi Zeïra said, it is a decision of the verse (Lev. 22:14): “If somebody should eat consecrated food in error,” where the principal goes, there the fifth has to go. Cahana said, he pays two fifths, one to the tribe⁷¹ and one to the Sanctuary.

footnotes: ⁶⁷ The entire argument refers only to the last case, heave stolen from the sanctuary. ⁶⁸ A peruṭah ⁶⁹ Both the principal and the fifth. ⁷⁰ For use of heave. The other fifth, for use of consecrated things, must go to the Sanctuary. R. Zeïra disagrees since the argument from the verse applies only to the payment of the fine for heave. ⁷¹ Since the principal and the fifth for heave has to be profane food. The question of the second fifth, fine for illicit use of consecrated food, is not addressed here.

“Since double restitution does not apply to the Sanctuary”. For it was said (Ex. 22:8): “He should restitute double to his neighbor,” but not to the Sanctuary.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it refers to the last two⁷⁴. Why? Because these have affinity to heave and tithes. Do gleanings and forgotten sheaves never have affinity to heave and tithes⁷⁵, which should be given as standing grain. But since the obligation of peah remains on the cut grain if peah was not left standing at harvest time (cf. Peah, Chapter 1, Note 275), even peah cannot be excluded from any possibility of heave. One has to assume that the addition of “and tithes” is a mnemonic device.? But we deal with growth of⁷⁶”. The reading of the Venice print, נשיכת פיאה “the biting of peah”, is difficult to accept (for the meaning of “biting” cf. Demay 6:6, Note 140); that of the Rome ms., נשכחת פיאה “finding (Babylonian Aramaic) peah”, is certainly a scribal error. R. E. Fulda’s emendation נשירת פיאה “what falls down from peah” is unsupported and irrelevant. peah and standing peah. Does this not simply answer Hilfai’s question, since Hilfai asked: Do gleanings become sanctified in the act of falling down⁷⁷ 7:3, Note 52. The idea is that if gleanings may be subject to heave, a stalk cannot become gleanings automatically by falling down.? Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, but did we not state “gleanings”⁷⁸ postulated by R. Simeon ben Laqish.? How can you have peah from gleanings? Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, about everything⁷⁹ only if given from sheaves or stacks, rather than standing grain. In this case, a qualifying “the latter” is acceptable..

footnotes: ⁷⁴ The two items the Sages discuss are First Tithe and {Second Tithe or consecrated food). The second set is taken as a unit because its items can become profane by redemption and they are taken from produce for which heave had been taken. ⁷⁵ While the obligation of heave starts only with the collection of the grain kernels after threshing, it is possible to give heave from cut grain on the field. The only gift to the poor from grain never potentially heave is peah ⁷⁶ The text given is the reading of the Leyden ms.; it is interpreted from Arabic נשא “to rise, to grow”, as a synonym for the second term, “standing peah ⁷⁷ Explained in Peah ⁷⁸ The Mishnah expicitly excludes the restriction to peah ⁷⁹ In this case, it is difficult to understand the addition of “the latter” to the statement of the Sages. The statement at its face value also would imply that R. Joḥanan rejects any connection between the possibility of heave and the availability for restitution of heave. If R. Joḥanan accepts such a connection, he can include peah

MISHNAH: Rebbi Eliezer says, one repays from one kind for another kind which is not the same, on condition that he repay with better quality for worse, but Rebbi Aqiba says, one only repays from one kind for its own. Therefore, if one ate green melon of the year before the Sabbatical, he should wait for green melons of the year following the Sabbatical and repay from them⁸⁰. From the verse which Rebbi Eliezer reads to be lenient, from there Rebbi Aqiba is restrictive, since it is said (Lev. 22:14): “He hands over the consecrated food to the Cohen,” anything that may be consecrated, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. But Rebbi Aqiba says, “he hands over the consecrated food to the Cohen,” the consecrated food he himself ate.

footnotes: ⁸⁰ Sabbatical produce is all consecrated and cannot be used, even for those kinds that legally can be tended on private plots, or spontaneous growth which is forbidden by rabbinic decree.

HALAKHAH: How is this? If he ate vegetable and repaid a dried fig, a dried fig and repaid dates, a blessing should come to him⁸¹ 6(6): “From where that one only repays from one kind for its own? The verse says ‘he hands over the consecrated food to the Cohen,’ therefore, if one ate green melon of the year before the Sabbatical, he should wait for green melons of the year following the Sabbatical and repay from them, the words of R. Aqiba. Rebbi Eliezer says, one repays from one kind for another kind which is not the same, on condition that he repay with better quality for worse. How is this? If he ate a dried fig and repaid dates, a blessing should come to him.” This is partially quoted in Babli Eruvin 29b, Pesaḥim 32a, in a discussion about whether heave has to be repaid by value or by volume.. If he ate first fruits⁸²2:1., what can he repay? If he ate grapes, he repays wine, olives he repays oil. If he ate ḥallah, may he repay with produce not yet one-third ripe since produce not yet one-third ripe is subject to ḥallah⁸³ 1:3) which states that flour made from unripe grain is free from tithes but subject to ḥallah; R. Eliezer dissents and frees it from ḥallah. In matters of repayment, ḥallah follows the rules of heave (Mishnah Ḥallah 1:9).? If he ate first fruits, may he repay with what is still connected to the ground since first fruits acquire their status while connected to the ground?

footnotes: ⁸¹ This follows R. Eliezer as is clear from Sifra Emor Pereq ⁸² They are subject to the rules of repayment of heave, Mishnah Bikkurim ⁸³ This question follows R. Aqiba since in the Mishnah (Ḥallah

⁸⁴ Rabbi Abin in the name of the rabbis from there: This means that one may not repay with produce from outside the Land⁸⁵. Even if you say one may repay, our Mishnah is from before Rebbi permitted the import of vegetables from outside the Land⁸⁶ 6:4.. He mentioned only green melons which are forbidden produce. But not permitted produce⁸⁷, because if you say so, does it not turn out that he buys himself an axe from Sabbatical money⁸⁸?

footnotes: ⁸⁴ Here starts the discussion of Mishnah 7. ⁸⁵ If one cannot repay during the Sabbatical, this means that no non-Sabbatical fruit is available. Since the only permitted use of Sabbatical produce is consumption, one may not pay his debts with Sabbatical fruit. ⁸⁶ Mishnah Ševi‘it ⁸⁷ For example fruits from trees which do not require yearly trimming and fertilizing. ⁸⁸ By liquidating his debts with Sabbatical produce.