Talmud zu Wajikra 22:14

MISHNAH: If somebody eats heave in error, he pays principal and fifth¹Lev. 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 anoints²Since the food enters his body, whether through the mouth or through the skin., whether the heave be pure or impure, he pays. The fifth and the fifth of the fifths³If 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.) 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 herself⁵⁴Heave is eaten not only by a Cohen but also by his family (wife, children, slaves.), 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.

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 five⁴Cf. Note 1. It is clear that the main inference is from the word עליו not quoted here..

“Although the Cohen may want to forgive this, he has no right to forgive.³⁴Quote from the Mishnah.” That is, if he did not yet separate. If he separated and after that ate³⁵Not from the heave but the replacement of the heave., 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.³⁶The 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 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.””

Rebbi Ḥinena said before Rebbi Mana: Even if Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish thought the entire Mishnaiot were Rebbi Meïr’s, does the verse agree with Rebbi Meïr? Is it not written (Lev. 22:14): “If a person ate consecrated food in error”? But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish must hold that the fifth is a sacrifice. But even if he holds that the fifth is a sacrifice, can the principal be a sacrifice? Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom said, the Mishnah declares that the principal is a fine, as we have stated: “He does not pay in heave but in totally profane food which is turned into heave.” If he had to pay from what he ate, it would be fine. And it was stated: “If he ate impure heave, he has to pay in pure profane food, but if he paid in impure profane, he discharged his obligation.” Does he not owe him the price of wood? That shows that the principal is a fine and since the principal is a fine, the fifth also is a fine. But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion. Just as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, there, everybody was under the obligation of (Ex. 20:16) “Do not become a false witness against your neighbor”, but this one was treated separately, (Deut. 19:19) “do to him what he intended to do to his brother”, to pay money; also here, everybody was under the obligation of (Lev. 22:10) “no outsider shall eat holy [food],” but this one was treated separately, (Lev. 22:14) “if somebody should eat holy [food] in error,” to pay money.

MISHNAH: The daughter of a Cohen married to an Israel⁷⁴She used to eat heave when unmarried. Once she is married outside the tribe, heave is forbidden to her (Lev. 22:12). However, if the marriage is dissolved without issue, she returns to eat heave (v. 13). This implies that even in her marriage she is not a stranger in the sense of v. 13; the obligation of payment of a fifth (v. 14) cannot apply to her. It is clear that one has returned to the case of eating heave in error, not intentionally. who afterwards ate heave pays the principal but does not pay the fifth; her death is by burning⁷⁵If she commits adultery, Lev. 21:9.. If she married one of the ineligible⁷⁶A castrate, bastard, Ammonite or Moabite (Deut. 23:2–4), or a Cohen after she had been divorced (Lev. 21:7). In these cases, even if her marriage is dissolved, she may never return to eating heave since she is desecrated. R. Meïr holds that she is now a stranger to her former tribe., she pays principal and fifth and her death is by strangulation⁷⁷The normal penalty for adultery, which applies to the adulterer in all cases., the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say⁷⁸Since in Lev. 21:9 she is characterized as “daughter of a Cohen man,” and this she remains [Sifra Emor Parašah 5(7), Babli Sanhedrin 51a]. The involved formulation is taken to include also illegitimate offspring of a Cohen [Sifra Emor Pereq 1(16)]. In Babli Keritut 6a, the opinion of the Sages is traced to R. Jehudah., both pay principal but not the fifth and their deaths are by burning.
He who feeds his minor children or his slaves, adult or minor, he who eats heave from outside the Land, and he who eats less than the volume of an olive of heave pays the principal but not the fifth⁸⁸Lev. 22:14: “If a man ate in error from the holy [food], then he has to add a fifth and hand over the holy [food] to the Cohen.” In the first cases of the Mishnah, he himself does not eat; therefore, he is not covered by the verse. But minors and slaves are not responsible; they cannot be asked to pay. Heave from outside the Land is of questionable holiness. Less than the volume of an olive may be nibbling; it is not eating.. The payment is profane and if the Cohen wants to forgive it, he may forgive.
This is the principle: In every case one pays the principal and the fifth, the payment is heave and although the Cohen may want to forgive, he may not forgive. In every case one pays the principal but not the fifth, the payment is profane and if the Cohen wants to forgive, he may do so.

Rebbi Yannai said, the Mishnah is split⁶⁷The entire argument refers only to the last case, heave stolen from the sanctuary.. If there is the size of an olive but it is not worth a peruṭah⁶⁸A peruṭah, 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 Sanctuary⁶⁹Both the principal and the fifth.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he pays to the tribe⁷⁰For 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.. 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 tribe⁷¹Since 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. and one to the Sanctuary.

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 them⁸⁰Sabbatical 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.. 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.