Talmud su Levitico 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.””