(Mishnah) (R. Meir): One who fed his workers or guests Terumah - he pays the principal and they pay the fifth.

(Chachamim): They pay both and he pays them the value of their meal.

One who stole Terumah but didn't eat it pays Kefel (double payment for theft) of the Terumah. If he ate it, he pays Kefel plus a fifth - one principal and the fifth from Chulin and one principal from Terumah money.

If he stole Terumah of Hekdesh and ate it, he pays two fifths and the principal, since one doesn't pay Kefel to Hekdesh.

One may not repay from Leket, Shichechah, Pe'ah or Hefker nor from Maaser Rishon that hasn't had its Terumah taken, nor from Maaser Sheni or Hekdesh that wasn't redeemed, since Hekdesh cannot redeem Hekdesh. These are the words of R. Meir, but the Chachamim allow repayment with these (unredeemed Maaser Sheni and Hekdesh).

(Gemara) Question: Both R. Meir and the Chachamim require him to pay the principal. So what is the difference between them?

Answer (R. Yochanan): Who must prepare the food - R. Meir said that the Baal HaBayis (employer/owner) must pay with actual food; the Chachamim said that workers prepare it (and he can pay them with money).

Answer #2 (R. Shimon ben Lakish): No; (the Baal HaBayis must prepare the food and) they disagree over who must go and buy Chulin with the Terumah payment. R. Meir says that the Baal HaBayis must do so and Rabbanan say that the workers must do so.

(R. Abahu citing R. Shimon ben Lakish): This is comparable to one who sells an object to his friend, who discovers that it didn't belong to the seller. The seller must now replace the object (rather than return the money). (Here also, if he agreed to feed them a meal and it's found to be Terumah, he must replace the meal rather than merely pay.)

Question: According to R. Shimon ben Lakish, the comparison is fine; but according to R. Yochanan (who says that that dispute between R. Meir and Chachamim is as to whether the meal must be prepared by the Baal HaBayis, (if the Chachamim require it to be prepared by the workers and the Baal HaBayis must merely pay for it,) what's the comparison to the seller?

Answer: That statement was said according to R. Meir.

(R. Abahu citing R. Yosi ben Chanina): According to R. Meir, he only pays the value of stolen Terumah; according to the Chachamim, the workers pay the Kohen and the owner pays them the value of the excess cost of providing Chulin rather than Terumah (which is cheaper). Therefore, if he agreed to feed them honey cakes of Chulin, he must pay them the difference in the value of honey cakes of Chulin over those of Terumah.

Question: (According to R. Yochanan's understanding of R. Meir), if he already went to the effort of preparing the food for them and feeding them, he should only need to pay them money?

Answer: Since a person is disgusted by eating a prohibited item, the effort to prepare that meal is not taken into account.

(R. Yannai): (When the Mishnah taught that if he stole Terumah of Hekdesh and ate it, he pays two fifths etc.) He doesn't pay both fifths at the same time; rather, he sometimes pays a fifth to Hekdesh and sometimes to the Kohen. When he ate a K'Zayis that was not worth a Peruta, he pays the fifth to the Kohen (as to the Kohen, it is dependent on eating a K'Zayis rather than being worth a Peruta). When he ate less than a K'Zayis that was worth a Peruta, he pays the fifth to Hekdesh.

If there was a K'Zayis and it was worth a Peruta, Shimon bar Vava citing R. Yochanan said that he pays Hekdesh and R. Yochanan said that he pays the tribe.

(R. Zeira): It is an explicit pasuk (Vayikra 22:14), "And if a man unintentionally eats what is holy'' - the fifths goes to the same place as the principal.

(Kahana): (Disagreeing with R. Yannai) He actually pays two fifths - one to the tribe and one to Hekdesh, as Kefel (double payment for theft) is not given to Hekdesh, as the pasuk states (Shemos 22:8), "...he shall pay two to his fellow'' - (to his fellow but) not to Hekdesh.

(R. Shimon ben Lakish): (Explaining the end of the Mishnah (above (e)) that said. "the Chachamim allow repayment with these'' - these refers to the last two in the list, namely, Maaser Sheni and Hekdesh that weren't redeemed. It's because they had been suitable to make into Terumah before they were made into Maaser or Hekdesh, which is not the case with the others in the list.

Question: Were Leket, Shichechah and Peah not suitable to become Terumah before they became gifts to the poor (after they were harvested)? (All of them, including Peah, can become gifts to the poor after the harvesting.)

Rebuttal: It's referring to Leket that fell during harvesting and Shichechah that occurred during harvesting (that therefore never came to his hand).

Can't this answer Chilfai's question - When does produce become Leket - when it has been harvested but before it lands on the ground or only after it lands? From here have answered that it is as soon as it's cut!

Answer (R. Yochanan): The Mishnah itself answers the question - since Leket and Peah are taught together, it indicates that they are similar cases - so that since the Peah is attached, so to the produce become Leket as it is harvested (without reaching the ground).

(R. Yochanan): (Disagreeing with Reish Lakish earlier) When the Chachamim allowed repayment, they were allowing all of the Mishnah's list (even Leket and Shichechah, and not just Maaser Sheni and Hekdesh that weren't redeemed).