Question (against Reish Lakish - Mishnah): [A Zar] who eats Terumah b'Mezid, he pays the principal, but he does not pay the Chomesh.

According to Nasan bar Hoshayah, who says that he pays, this is fine.

According to R. Yochanan, who says that if he was warned, he is lashed; if he was not warned, he pays - he explains that he was Mezid without warning.

According to Reish Lakish, there is no difference - Shogeg and Mezid are the same. Whether he was warned or was not warned, it is the same (he is always exempt! (ACHIEZER 1:21 - the Bavli holds that one is liable money from when he took it, before he is Chayav lashes for eating it. The Yerushalmi holds that picking it up in order to eat it is a need of eating it, and liability for lashes begins then.)

Answer #1: He explains [that the Mishnah is] like R. Meir. R. Meir holds that one is lashed and pays.

Objection (R. Chaninah, in front of R. Mana): Even if Reish Lakish holds that all of these Mishnayos are like R. Meir, will he say that the verse is like R. Meir?! "Ish Ki Yochal Kodesh bi'Shegagah" (he pays and adds a Chomesh)!

Answer #2: Rather, Reish Lakish holds that Chomesh is [like a] Korban (i.e. for the sake of atonement, and not for the sake of payment. It is like a Chiyuv to Shamayim. We said above that Kedei Rish'aso applies only to punishments of Beis Din.)

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

Answer (R. Yudan bar Shalom): A Mishnah teaches that [even] principal is a fine (like a Korban);

Source #1 (Mishnah): [If a Zar ate Terumah b'Shogeg,] he does not pay Terumah, rather, tithed Chulin, and it becomes Terumah.

If he paid what he ate (Terumah), it would be proper [to say that he pays like a thief. Since he does not, this shows that also principal is a fine.]

Source #2 (Mishnah): [If a Zar] ate Tamei Terumah [b'Shogeg,] he pays Tahor Chulin. If he paid Tamei Chulin, he was Yotzei;

Is he not liable [only] the value of firewood (what he ate was destined to be burned)?! This shows that [also] principal is a fine.

Question: Just like you say that principal is a fine, also Chomesh is a fine! (Also it is paid with Chulin that becomes Terumah. Why doesn't one who ate b'Mezid pay Chomesh?)

Answer #3: Reish Lakish holds like he taught elsewhere. He said there, all [false testimony] was included in "Lo Sa'aneh v'Re'acha Ed Shaker." "V'Asisem Lo Ka'asher Zamam La'asos l'Achiv" left the Klal. Was this not to obligate money?!

And here, everything (both Shogeg and Mezid) was in the Klal "v'Chol Zar Lo Yochal Kodesh." "V'Ish Ki Yochal Kodesh bi'Shegagah" left [the Klal,] to teach that he pays money.

Support (Beraisa): Chachamim [who say that Edim Zomemin pay, and are not lashed] agree to R. Meir about one who steals another's Terumah and ate it, that he is lashed and pays, for [a Zar] who eats Terumah b'Mezid is lashed [and he was already obligated to pay money for stealing it. RIDVAZ - Chachamim apply Kedei Rish'aso only when you cannot have one Chiyuv without the other.]

Support (Beraisa): Chachamim agree to R. Meir about one who steals another's Chelev and ate it, that he is lashed and pays, for one who eats his Chelev is lashed.

Support (Beraisa): Chachamim agree to R. Meir about one who muzzles another's cow. He pays six Kabim for a cow (this is what it would have ate), and four Kabim for a donkey, for one who muzzles his cow is lashed.

(R. Yosi): For so we find regarding a Chiyuv Misah. (Even though Beis Din cannot force one to pay, due to Kam Lei bid'Rabah Minei, bi'Ydei Shamayim he is liable to pay. If one paid his mother to have Bi'ah with her, even though he is Chayav Misah, the money is considered an Esnan.)

Question: If one stole Terumas Hekdesh (the owner was Makdish it to Bedek ha'Bayis), he is lashed and pays. (You cannot say that he owes money from when he stole it, for "Re'ehu" excludes Hekdesh!)

Answer: ("Re'ehu" excludes Hekdesh from the law of Kefel, but he pays principal, for) in any case he caused a loss [to Hekdesh. We explained this and R. Yosi's teaching like R. SHLOMO SIRILIYO, Terumos 7:1.]

Question (R. Mana, to R. Yosi): If so, one who had Bi'ah with his minor sister should be lashed and pay, for one who had Bi'ah with his Bogeres sister is lashed!

Retraction (R. Mana): (This is different.) Regarding his sister, [Chiyuv for] payment and Misah [bi'Ydei Shamayim] come at once. However, here, once he muzzled he was liable lashes. From now and onwards he is liable to pay [for what the cow would have eaten in that time].

Question (R. Ze'ira, to R. Mana): One who burns his colleague's stack on Shabbos, he is liable for the first sheaf he is Chayav Misah. He should pay from now and onwards. However, we do not say so!

[You must say that] for each sheaf, if they warned him, he would be Chayav Misah [so he does not pay for it]. And here, for each [action in a state of] muzzling, he can be warned for lashes! (Why does he pay?)

Answer (R. Yosi bei R. Bun): Two Amora'im [gave answers to this]. One said that he muzzles [an animal working with] Terumah and Kodshim (he is obligated to do so. There are no lashes for this, so he pays);

And the other said that he muzzles through a Shali'ach. The Shali'ach is lashed, and he is exempt (for Ein Shali'ach l'Devar Aveirah). We learn from "Dam Yechashev la'Ish ha'Hu."

[If one ate Chametz Terumah during Pesach, and] he was Shogeg about Terumah and Mezid about Chametz, or [a Nazir drank Terumah wine, and] he was Shogeg about Terumah and Mezid about Nazir, or [he ate Terumah on Yom Kipur, and] he was Shogeg about Terumah and Mezid about Yom Kipur - if you consider it like two matters, this is fine (all agree that he is lashed and pays. Lashes for one Aveirah do not exempt from payment for another Aveirah);

If you consider it like one matter, R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue about this (R. Yochanan holds that when he is lashed, he does not pay. Reish Lakish holds that he is lashed and pays, for payment for Terumah is like a Korban.)