דין ארבע מיתות לא בטלו מי שנתחייב סקילה או נופל מן הגג או חיה דורסתו ומי שנתחייב שריפה או נופל בדליקה או נחש מכישו ומי שנתחייב הריגה או נמסר למלכות או ליסטים באין עליו ומי שנתחייב חנק או טובע בנהר או מת בסרונכי אלא איפוך אריא וגנבי בידי שמים צינים ופחים בידי אדם
the punishment of the four death penalties was not abolished. How so? One who was liable to be executed by stoning either falls from the roof or a beast tramples him. That is similar to stoning, which involves being pushed off an elevated place and then stoned. And one who was liable to be executed by burning either falls into a conflagration or a snake bites him, which creates a burning sensation. And one who was liable to be executed by decapitation is either handed over to the ruling monarchy for execution by sword, or bandits attack and kill him. And one who was liable to be executed by strangulation either drowns in a river, or dies of diphtheria [serunki]. Rather, reverse the order of the previous statement: A lion and thieves are cases of harm at the hand of Heaven, while cold and heat are cases of harm at the hands of man.
רבא אמר טעמא דרבי נחוניא בן הקנה מהכא (ויקרא כ, ד) ואם העלם יעלימו עם הארץ את עיניהם מן האיש ההוא בתתו מזרעו למולך ושמתי אני את פני באיש ההוא ובמשפחתו והכרתי אותו אמרה תורה כרת שלי כמיתה שלכם מה מיתה שלכם פטור מן התשלומין אף כרת שלי פטור מן התשלומין
Rava said an additional explanation: The rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana is from here. It is written that one who gives his children to Molech is liable to be executed by stoning: “And if the people of the land do at all hide their eyes from that man, when he gives of his seed to Molech, and do not put him to death; then I will set My face against that man and against his family, and will cut him off [vehikhrati]” (Leviticus 20:4–5). Through the juxtaposition in this verse the Torah said: My karet is like your death penalty; just as one who is liable to receive your death penalty is exempt from the associated payments, so too, one who is liable to receive My karet is exempt from the associated payments.
מאי איכא בין רבא לאביי איכא בינייהו זר שאכל תרומה לאביי פטור ולרבא חייב
The Gemara asks: What practical difference is there between the opinions of Rava and Abaye with regard to the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana? The Gemara answers: There is a difference between them with regard to a non-priest who intentionally ate teruma. According to Abaye he is exempt from paying the priest the value of the teruma, as a non-priest who ate teruma is liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven. Abaye maintains that the legal status of all forms of death at the hand of Heaven is equivalent to that of death at the hands of man, and therefore, one is exempt from payment. And according to Rava, who derives the rationale from the juxtaposition between karet and death at the hands of man, since a non-priest who ate teruma is not liable to receive karet, he is liable to pay the priest for the teruma that he ate.
ולאביי פטור והאמר רב חסדא מודה ר' נחוניא בן הקנה בגונב חלבו של חבירו ואכלו שהוא חייב שכבר נתחייב בגניבה קודם שבא לידי איסור חלב אלמא דמעידנא דאגביה קנייה מתחייב בנפשו לא הוה עד דאכיל ליה הכא נמי בעידנא דאגביה קנייה מתחייב בנפשו לא הוי עד דאכיל ליה הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שתחב לו חבירו לתוך פיו
The Gemara asks: And according to Abaye, is a non-priest actually exempt from payment for the teruma? But didn’t Rav Ḥisda say that Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana concedes with regard to one who steals another’s forbidden fat and eats it that he is obligated to pay for the fat, even though he is liable to receive karet, as he was already liable for theft before he came to violate the prohibition against eating forbidden fat? Apparently, from the moment he lifts the fat to steal it he acquired it, and he bears responsibility to repay it, but he is liable to receive the death penalty only when he eats it. Here, too, with regard to a non-priest who ate teruma, at the moment he lifts the teruma he acquired it and is responsible to repay it, and he is liable to receive the death penalty only when he eats it. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? It is a case where another inserted the teruma into his mouth. In that case, acquisition and liability to receive the death penalty are simultaneous.
סוף סוף כיון דלעסיה קנייה מתחייב בנפשו לא הוי עד דבלעה כגון שתחב לו לתוך בית הבליעה היכי דמי אי דמצי לאהדורה ניהדר אי לא מצי לאהדורה אמאי חייב לא צריכא דמצי לאהדורה ע"י הדחק
The Gemara asks: Ultimately, once he chewed the teruma he acquired it and is liable to pay, and he is liable to receive the death penalty only when he swallows it. Since the two are not simultaneous, he should be liable to pay. The Gemara answers: It is a case where another inserted it into the pharynx, so the liability for payment and liability for the death penalty were both achieved through swallowing. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If it is possible to retrieve the teruma by removing it without ruining it, let him retrieve it. If one does so, he would not be liable to pay. If he fails to do so, liability or payment precedes liability for the death penalty. If it is not possible to retrieve the teruma, why is he liable? He did nothing; another person inserted the food in his throat. The Gemara answers: It is necessary only in a situation where it is possible to retrieve the teruma under duress, with great effort.
רב פפא אמר כגון שתחב לו חבירו משקין של תרומה לתוך פיו רב אשי אמר בזר שאכל תרומה משלו
Rav Pappa said: It is referring to a case where another inserted liquids of teruma into his mouth. As soon as the liquid enters his mouth, it is ruined. Therefore, the acquisition and his enjoyment are simultaneous. Rav Ashi said: It is referring to a non-priest who partook of his own teruma, e.g., if the non-priest inherited teruma from a priest, or acquired ownership from a priest. In that case, he did not steal the teruma and there is no payment for it, but he is liable to receive the death penalty for eating teruma,