(Mishnah) (R. Meir): If the daughter of a Kohen married a Yisrael and then ate Terumah, she pays the principal but not the fifth and her death penalty (for adultery) is burning. If she married any of those who are disqualified from marrying her, she pays the principal and the fifth and her death penalty (for adultery) is strangulation.

(Chachamim): In both cases she pays the principal but not the fifth and her death penalty is burning.

One who fed his children or slaves Terumah, whether they are adults or minors; one who ate the Terumah of Chutz LaAretz and one who ate less than an olive's amount of Terumah - he pays the principal but not the fifth and the payments are Chulin. Therefore, if the Kohen wishes to waive the payment, he may do so.

This is the general rule - whoever pays the principal and the fifth, his payment becomes Terumah and the Kohen cannot waive it. Whoever pays only the principal but not the fifth, his payment remains Chulin and the Kohen may waive it.

(Gemara): When the Mishnah taught that her death is with burning, it's referring to adultery when married to a Yisrael.

Question: What's R. Meir's source for differentiating in the death penalty between whether she was married to one who is Kasher or Pasul?

Answer: The pasuk states (Vayikra 21:9), "(If a Kohen's daughter) becomes desecrated through adultery, (she desecrates her father; she shall be burned in fire)'' - one who was suitable to return to her father's house is burned; one who was not suitable (such as if she is married to a Pasul) is not burned (but is rather given strangulation).

Question: If she was married to a Kasher and was adulterous, can she return to her father's house?

Rather, R. Meir's source is - 'becomes desecrated through adultery' - when her adultery desecrates her; rather than her marriage desecrating her.

What's Rabbanan's source? The pasuk states, "(If) a Kohen's daughter'' - it's an inclusion - the pasuk applies even if she was married to a Pasul.

Question: If so, it should apply even if she was a Chalalah (if her Kohen father was prohibited to marry her mother - because of the laws of Kehuna) and she was born through that relationship)?

Answer (R. Chinana bar Papa to R. Zeira): (A Baraisa teaches that) R. Yishmael learned from the phrase "she desecrates her father'' - it applies to one whose desecration comes from herself, rather than her father.

(R. Chanina): The text I have in that Baraisa is that according to R. Yishmael, even if she was born as a Chalalah, death through burning applies to her.

Question: (The Mishnah taught that if the daughter of a Kohen married a Yisrael and ate Terumah, she pays only the principal.) But doesn't the Mishnah (at the beginning of the next Perek teach that if a Kohen's wife was eating Terumah and she was told that her husband had died, she may no longer eat Terumah, like a Kohen's daughter who is married to a Yisrael.) R. Eliezer obligates her to pay the principal and the extra fifth and R. Yehoshua exempts (which implies that she doesn't pay at all). Our Mishnah is therefore like neither opinion?!

It was suggested that R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua disagree over the fifth, but as for the principal, even R. Yehoshua requires it.

It was also suggested that they disagree over the past (if it the Terumah was already eaten), but over future Terumah, even R. Yehoshua agrees that the principal must be paid.

(The Mishnah taught that if a master fed his slave Terumah, the master pays only the principal.) If the slave was freed before the principal was paid, the (former) slave pays the principal and the fifth. If the slave had property that didn't belong to the master, he must use them to pay. How is this explained? If Reuven stole from Shimon and fed it to Levi (Reuven must pay the value of the Terumah he stole from Shimon and Levi must pay the principal and fifth; and when Levi pays it), Reuven becomes exempt from the theft payment.

Question: Isn't that case a dispute between R. Chiya the Great and R. Yannai...?

If Reuven stole Shimon's garment and sold or gave it to Levi...

(R. Elazar citing R. Chiya the Great): We may extract it from the first (Reuven) but not the second (Levi).

(R. Yochanan citing R. Yannai): We may even extract it from the second (Levi). (So how could we say that we take the principal and fifth from the slave and thereby exempt the master?)

Answer: Even R. Chiya the Great agrees that since he must pay the principal and fifth for the eating of the Terumah, there is no longer an obligation to pay for the theft.

(Mishnah): If there were two boxes, one containing Terumah and the other containing Chulin and a Se'ah of Terumah fell into one of them and it is not known which; I say that it fell into the Terumah.

But if it is not known which box is Terumah and which is Chulin and he ate one of them, he is exempt, but the other box must now be treated as Terumah but is obligated in Challah. These are the words of R. Meir, but R. Yosi exempts it from Challah.

If another person then ate from the second box, he is also exempt (from the fifth), but if one person ate from both, he repays the principal according to the smaller of the two.

If one of these boxes fell into Chulin, it does not prohibit the mixture and the second box is viewed as Terumah but is obligated in Challah. These are the words of R. Meir, but R. Yosi exempts it from Challah.

If the second box now falls elsewhere, it does not prohibit the mixture. If both fell into the same place, it prohibits according to the amount of the smaller of the two.

If one planted the seeds of one of the boxes, he is exempt (from uprooting it, since it is only doubtful Terumah) and the second must be viewed as Terumah and it's obligated in Challah. These are the words of R. Meir. R. Yosi exempts it from Challah.

If another person planted the seeds of the other box, he is also exempt. If one person planted the seeds of both boxes, if it was the type of seed that rots, the growths are permitted; if it's of a type that doesn't rot, they are prohibited.

(Gemara)(Baraisa): If one box contained Tamei Chulin and one contain Tahor Chulin, we assume that the Terumah fell into the Tamei Chulin.

If one box was already Dimua and the other was not, we assume that the Terumah fell into the Dimua.

If one box contained enough produce to annul the Terumah and the other did not, we assume that the Terumah fell into the one that contained enough.

(R. Shimon ben Lakish citing Bar Kapara): This last law applies only if there would have been a majority of Chulin, had the Terumah fallen into the other box.

(R. Yochanan): It applies even if there was not a majority.

Question: The opinion of R. Shimon ben Lakish has switched - there (earlier in Perek 4 Mishnah 7 - Chulin 80€) he said that if there were 20 figs and a fig of Terumah fell and was lost inside them and then one of the 21 was lost, the Terumah is annulled in the majority. (R. Yochanan said that all of them became prohibited when it fell and they cannot be permitted.) But here he is more stringent than R. Yochanan, requiring the second box to contain a majority...?

Answer: There was his own opinion; here, he was speaking in the name of Bar Kapara.

Question: The opinion of R. Yochanan has switched - there he said that they are all prohibited; here he said that a majority is not required?

Answer: Here, there's the assumption that it fell into the box that contained enough produce to annul.