(Mishnah) (R. Eliezer): One may repay from one type for another (e.g. wheat for barley), as long as it is from a superior for an inferior type.

(R. Akiva): One may only repay with the same type.

Therefore, if he ate Terumah cucumbers of the eve of the Shemita year, he should wait for the cucumbers of the year after Shemita and repay with them (as one cannot use Shemita produce for transactions). The same source that made R. Eliezer lenient, made R. Akiva stringent, as the pasuk states (Vayikra 22:14), "And he will give to the Kohen the Holy item''...

(R. Eliezer): Anything that can become holy (can be used for repayment).

(R. Akiva): (It means) the same type of holy thing that he had eaten.

(Gemara)(Tosefta): (Explaining R. Eliezer) How is this? If he ate a vegetable and paid with dried figs or if he ate dried figs and repaid with dates, he should be blessed.

If a person ate Bikurim, with what may he repay? (The law of repayment of the principal and the fifth applies, since the Torah refers to Bikurim as Terumah. According to R. Eliezer, when one repays Terumah, it can be done with a different type. If so, could one repay Bikurim with a type that is not one of the 7 species?)

(According to R. Akiva) If he ate grapes, may he pay with wine? If he ate olives, may he pay with oil? If he ate Challah, may he pay with produce that isn't a third grown, since they are obligated in Challah (even though they are not obligated in Terumah)?

If he ate Bikurim, may he pay with produce attached to the ground, since they can be acquired by the Kohen when attached to the ground (even though they can only become Terumah when detached)? (The Gemara leaves these questions unanswered.)

(R. Avin citing the Rabbanan of Bavel): (In our Mishnah, R. Akiva said that if he ate Terumah cucumbers of the eve of the Shemita year, he should wait for the cucumbers of the year after Shemita and repay with them (even though he could have paid immediately with the produce of Chutz LaAretz).) This shows that one may not repay with the produce of Chutz LaAretz.

Rebuttal: Perhaps one may, and the Mishnah is discussing the period before Rebbi permitted bringing the produce of Chutz LaAretz into Eretz Yisrael.

Question: When R. Akiva prohibited paying with Shemita produce, was that only referring to cucumbers, since their Sefichin are prohibited; but if he ate fruits, where there is no prohibition of Sefichin, would he be able to pay with Shemita fruits?

Answer: The prohibition even applies to fruits, otherwise it would be like (paying a debt with Shemita fruits and) buying an axe with Shemita money.

(Mishnah): If a person intentionally ate Terumah, he pays the principal but not the fifth. The payment is Chulin, so if the Kohen wishes to waive the repayment, he may do so.

(Gemara)(Mishnah in Makos): The following incur lashes...(a non-Kohen who eats Terumah). But there is a Mishnah (in Maseches Kesuvos 3:1) that teaches, "There is a fine for relations with the following Naaros...?

Answer #1 (R. Yochanan): The Mishnayos discuss different cases. If he was warned, he receives lashes; if not, he pays.

(R. Yochanan): When there is (liability for) lashes and payment, he receives lashes and he doesn't pay.

Question: Why not incurs lashes and also pay?

Answer: The pasuk says (Devarim 25:2), "(according to) his evil'' - you can find him liable for one evil (i.e. one punishment) but not two.

Question: So have him pay rather than receive lashes?

Answer: The pasuk is referring to one who is liable for two evils, as the pasuk states (ibid), "that the judge shall make him lean over and give him lashes in front of him, according to his evil, in number''.

(R. Shimon ben Lakish): Even if he wasn't warned, he doesn't pay, since if he were warned, he would receive lashes.

Question (against R. Shimon ben Lakish): The Mishnah (in Kesuvos) taught - "There is a fine for relations with the following Naaros''; but if he was warned, he wouldn't receive lashes?!

Answer: He follows R. Meir, who said that one receives lashes and pays.

(R. Avahu citing Reish Lakish): R. Meir learns from 'Motzi Shem Ra' - (Devarim 22:19,18), "And punish him...'' is a monetary fine. "...And afflict him'' is lashes.

(Rabbanan): (Normally, one does not get lashes and pay money) but Motzi Shem Ra teaches a Chidush. When something teaches a Chidush, we don't learn from it.

Everywhere else, one is not liable for his speech, and here he is liable for his speech. Therefore, just as you can't learn from it another matter, you can't learn from it (monetary) punishment or lashes

Question: Didn't R. Abahu say in the name of R. Yochanan that if a person was intentional about Chelev and inadvertent about the Korban, we warn him, and he receives lashes and brings a Korban? And here, he should receive lashes and pay!

Answer (R. Bun bar Chiyah citing R. Shmuel bar Yitzchak): "According to his evil'' teaches that when there are two matters given over to Beis Din, you enforce (only) one of them. This excludes something given over to Heaven. (Therefore, Beis Din give lashes; the obligation of Korban is to Heaven.)

All agree that there is no (obligation to pay) when there is the death penalty. The pasuk states (Vayikra 24:21), "One who smites an animal will pay for it and one who smites a person shall be put to death'' - just as one who smites an animal, you do not distinguish between inadvertent and intentional to obligate money (and in every case he pays); so one who smites a person, you do not distinguish between inadvertent and intentional to exempt money (and in every case, he's exempt).

So what do (R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish) disagree about? The obligation to pay together with lashes. R. Yochanan says that there is no money when there is a death penalty, but there is money when there are lashes. R. Shimon ben Lakish says that just as there is no money where there is a death penalty, so too there is no money when there are lashes.

(R. Imi of Bavel citing the Rabbanan of Bavel): R. Shimon ben Lakish learns a Gezeirah Shavah on the word "Rasha'' (evil). It says "Rasha'' about those who are liable the death penalty ((Bamidbar 35:31), "...who is guilty of death...'', and it also says it about those who are liable to lashes (Devarim 25:2), "...if the guilty one has lashes...'' Just as in the former, there's no money; so too in the latter there's no money.

Answer #2 (Nasan bar Hoshayah): (To the contradiction between our Mishnah and the Mishnah in Makos) - Our Mishnah discusses a Na'arah; there (the Mishnah in Makos) discusses a Bogeres. A Na'arah has a fine, and there are no lashes. A Bogeres has lashes, but no fine, and no Boshes (payment for embarrassment) and Pegam (payment for depreciation).

Answer #3 (Rabbanan of Kisarin): The case (that he receives lashed is when) he enticed her or she waived the Boshes and Pegam. Nasan bar Hoshayah holds that in a case of lashes and money, he pays and he doesn't receive lashes.

Question: He should receive lashes and pay?

Answer: "According to his evil'' - you obligate him for one evil, not two evils.

Question: He should pay and not receive lashes, like false witnesses? Just as you say there that false witnesses pay and receive lashes, here he should pay and not receive lashes?!

Answer (R. Nasan): Nasan bar Hoshiyah expounded (Devarim 25:2), "...that the judge shall make him lean over and give him lashes in front of him'' - one whose lashes fulfil (all of the punishment for) the evil that he did; that excludes this one, that we tell him to go and pay.

Question: Our Mishnah disagrees with R. Shimon ben Lakish - If a non-Kohen inadvertently ate Terumah (he pays the principal and the extra fifth, even though if he would have been warned, he would have received lashes)?

Answer: The Mishnah is like R. Meir, that when there are two obligations, he receives lashes and pays.

Question: Our Mishnah taught that if a non-Kohen intentionally ate Terumah (he pays the principal but not the fifth)...

According to Nasan bar Hoshiya, who said that he pays but does not receive lashes, it is fine. And according to R. Yochanan, who said that if he was warned he receives lashes and if not, he pays; he explains that the person acted intentionally, but without warning.

But according to R. Shimon ben Lakish, there's no difference between intentional and inadvertent and whether or not they warned him (as he is always exempt)?

Answer: R. Shimon ben Lakish says that it follows R. Meir, who says that he receives lashes and pays.

Question (R. Chanina to R. Mana): Even if Reish Lakish holds that all of these Mishnayos are like R. Meir, will he say that the pasuk is like R. Meir?! (Vayikra 22:14), "And if a man inadvertently eats what is holy'' (he pays and adds a fifth)

Answer #2: Rather, Reish Lakish holds that the extra fifth is (like) a Korban (i.e. for the sake of atonement, and not for the sake of payment. It's like an obligation to Heaven. We said earlier that 'according to his evil' applies only to punishments of Beis Din.)

Objection: Even if Reish Lakish holds that fifth is like a Korban, will he say that the principal is a Korban?! (Surely the principal is not for atonement?!)