משנה: הַמַּאֲכִיל אֶת פּוֹעֲלָיו וְאֶת אוֹרְחָיו תְּרוּמָה הוּא מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְהֵן מְשַׁלְּמִין אֶת הַחוֹמֶשׁ דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים הֵן מְשַׁלְּמִין קֶרֶן וְחוֹמֶשׁ וְהוּא מְשַׁלֵּם לָהֶן דְּמֵי סְעוּדָתָן. הַגּוֹנֵב תְּרוּמָה וְלֹא אֲכָלָהּ מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל דְּמֵי תְרוּמָה. אֲכָלָהּ מְשַׁלֵּם שְׁנֵי קַרְנַיִם וְחוֹמֶשׁ. קֶרֶן וְחוֹמֶשׁ מִן הַחוּלִין וְקֶרֶן דְּמֵי תְרוּמָה. גָּנַב תְּרוּמַת הֶקְדֵּשׁ וַאֲכָלָהּ מְשַׁלֵּם שְׁנֵי חוֹמְשִׁין וְקֶרֶן שֶׁאֵין בְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל. אֵין מְשַׁלְּמִין מִן הַלֶּקֶט וּמִן הַשִּׁכְחָה וּמִן הַפֵּיאָה וּמִן הַהֶבְקֵר וְלֹא מִמַּעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁנִּיטְּלָה תְרוּמָתוֹ וְלֹא מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁנִּפְדּוּ שֶׁאֵין הֶקְדֵּשׁ פּוֹדֶה אֶת הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים מִתִּירִין בְּאֵלּוּ. MISHNAH: If one serves heave to his workers or his guests, he pays the principal and they pay the fifth59He 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., the word of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, they pay principal and fifth and he pays them the price of their meal60The 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..
He who steals heave but does not eat it pays double restitution for the value of heave64Since this is what he stole.. If he ate it, he pays twice the principal and a fifth. The principal and the fifth from profane food65Restitution for the heave, following Mishnah 1. and a principal the value of heave. If he stole heave of the Sanctuary and ate it, he pays two fifths and the principal38Mishnah 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 (Leviticus.22.14">Lev. 22:14) and of property of the Sanctuary (Leviticus.5.16">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 Sanctuary66The reason is given at the end of the Halakhah..
One does not pay with gleanings, forgotten sheaves, peah, and abandoned property72All 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., nor with First Tithe whose heave was taken, nor with Second Tithe73R. 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., 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.
הלכה: הָא רִבִּי מֵאִיר אָמַר מְשַׁלְּמִין וְרַבָּנִין אָֽמְרִין מְשַׁלְּמִין. מַה בֵּינֵיהוֹן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן עִיקַּר סְעוּדָה בֵּינֵיהוֹן. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אָמַר עִיקַּר סְעוּדָה לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת. וְרַבָּנִין אֹמְרִין עִיקַּר סְעוּדָה לְפוֹעֲלִין. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר טְפֵילָה בֵּינֵיהוֹן. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר טְפֵילָה לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת. וְרַבָּנִין אָמְרִין טְפֵילָה לְפוֹעֲלִין. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ הָא לְמָה זֶה דוֹמֶה לְמוֹכֵר חֵפֶץ לַחֲבֵירוֹ וְנִמְצָא שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ שֶׁהוּא חַייָב לְהַעֲמִיד לוֹ מִקְחוֹ. אִילּוּ כְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֵֶּן לָקִישׁ אִית אָֽמְרָת נִיחָא. וְאִין כְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר עִיקַּר סְעוּדָּתוֹ בֵּינֵיהוֹן וְאַתְּ אָמַר הָכֵין. כְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר אַתְּ אָמַר. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָא שֶׁבַח סְעוּדָה בֵּינֵיהוֹן בְשֶׁפָּסַק עִמָּהֶן לְהַאֲכִילָן דֻּבְשְׁנֵי חוּלִין וְהֶאֱכִילָן דֻּבְשְׁנֵי תְרוּמָה. וְלֹא כְּבָר אָכְלוּ. כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר טְבָלִים נַפְשׁוֹ שֶׁל אַדַם חַתָּה מֵהֶן. 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 workers61The 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.. 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 workers62Since 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?. 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 ṭevel63The workers are overcompensated to account for the mental anguish caused them by their employer..
אָמַר רִבִּי יַנַּאי לִצְדָדִין הִיא מַתְנִיתָא יֵשׁ בּוֹ כְזַיִת וְאֵין בּוֹ שָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה מְשַׁלֵּם לְקֹדֶשׁ. יֵשׁ בּוֹ שָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה וְאֵין בּוֹ כְזַיִת מְשַׁלֵּם לְשֵׁבֶט. יֵשׁ בּוֹ כְזַיִת וְיֵשׁ בּוֹ שָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה. שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר ווָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מְשַׁלֵּם לְקֹדֶשׁ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר מְשַׁלֵּם לְשֵׁבֶט. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא גְּזֵירַת הַכָּתוּב הִיא וְאִישׁ כִּי יֹאכַל קוֹדֶשׁ בִּשְׁגָגָה לְמָקוֹם שֶׁהַקֶּרֶן מְהַלֶּךְ שָׁם הַחוֹמֶשׁ מְהַלֵּךְ. כַּהֲנָא אָמַר מְשַׁלֵּם שְׁנֵי חוֹמְשִׁין חוֹמֶשׁ לְשֵׁבֶט וְחוֹמֶשׁ לְהֶקְדֵּשׁ. 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 Leviticus.22.14">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 (Leviticus.22.14">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.
שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ בְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר יְשַׁלֵּם שְׁנַיִם לְרֵעֵהוּ וְלֹא לְהֶקְדֵּשׁ. “Since double restitution does not apply to the Sanctuary”. For it was said (Exodus.22.8">Ex. 22:8): “He should restitute double to his neighbor,” but not to the Sanctuary.
רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר לָהֶן עַל תַּרְתֵּין אֲחַרִייָתָא לָמָּה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן זִיקַת תְּרוּמָה וּמַעְשְׂרוֹת. וְלֶקֶט וְשִׁכְחָה אֵין בָּהֶן זִיקַת תְּרוּמָה וּמַעְשְׂרוֹת. אֶלָּא בִּנְשִׁיכַת פֵּיאָה וּבְקָמַת פֵּיאָה אֲנָן קַייָמִן. לֵית הָדָא פָּֽשְׁטָה שִׁאִילְתֵּיהּ דְּחִילְפַיי דְּחִילְפַיי שְׁאַל לֶקֶט בִּנְשִׁירָה מַהוּ שֶׁיְּקַדֵּשׁ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר לֵיהּ וְהָא תַנִּינָן לֶקֶט. אִית לָךְ מִימַר פֵּיאָה כְּלֶקֶט. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר לֵיהּ עַל כּוּלְּהוֹן. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it refers to the last two74The 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.. Why? Because these have affinity to heave and tithes. Do gleanings and forgotten sheaves never have affinity to heave and tithes75While 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, 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 1:5:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Peah.1.5.1">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 of76The 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”. 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 down77Explained in Peah 7:3:2" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Peah.7.3.2">Peah 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”78The Mishnah expicitly excludes the restriction to peah postulated by R. Simeon ben Laqish.? How can you have peah from gleanings? Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, about everything79In 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 only if given from sheaves or stacks, rather than standing grain. In this case, a qualifying “the latter” is acceptable..