ונתן לכהן את הקדש דבר הראוי להיות קדש שאין פורע לו מעות אלא פירות של חולין והם נעשים תרומה לשון רש"י (רש"י על ויקרא כ״ב:י״ד) והנה טעם הכתוב כי יאכל קדש ויסף חמישיתו על הקדש ההוא ונתן לכהן את הקדש הזה שהוא הקרן והחומש ומפני שקראו קדש למדנו שהוא נעשה כתרומה בדבר הראוי לכך וזהו הנכון בפשוטו ומדרשו וכך כתב ר"א (אבן עזרא על ויקרא כ״ב:י״ד) ונתן לכהן את הקדש טעמו "עם הקדש" או שתהיה מלת "ונתן" מושכת עצמה ואחרת עמה וכן הוא אומר ויסף חמישיתו עליו ונתן לכהן ונתן את הקדש ולפי דעתי אין צורך בעבור מלת "עליו": AND IF A MAN EAT OF THE HOLY THING103Here referring to terumah (the heave-offering) which is given to the priest from the produce of the Land. THROUGH ERROR, THEN HE SHALL ADD ITS FIFTH PART UNTO IT, AND SHALL GIVE UNTO THE PRIEST THE HOLY THING. “He must give him a thing which is capable of becoming holy [like the original holy food of the priest that he ate, thus teaching] that he is not to pay him money, but fruits of a non-holy status, which then become terumah (a heave-offering).” This is Rashi’s language. Thus the explanation of the verse is as follows: “A man that eats the holy thing [i.e., the heave-offering which belongs to the priest], must add the fifth of that holy thing to it, and give to the priest this holy thing which is its original value and the added fifth.” And since Scripture called it [the restitution] kodesh (holy thing), we deduce that it becomes as the original heave-offering [which he ate in error, and that it must therefore be] something which is capable of so becoming [namely fruits, but not money]. This is the correct explanation according to both the plain meaning of Scripture and the [Rabbinical] interpretation thereof. So also did Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra comment: “And he shall give unto the priests ‘eth’ the holy thing, means ‘with’ the holy thing [i.e., he is to give the priest its original value with the added fifth, all in fruits]. Or it may that the word v’nathan (and he shall give) draws along with it a similar word, and the sense of the verse is thus: ‘then he shall add its fifth part to it and shall give unto the priest, and he shall give unto the priest the holy thing.’ But in my opinion [so continues Ibn Ezra], there is no need [for both interpretations] because of the word alav (to it).”104In other words, since Scripture states, then he shall add its fifth part ‘to it,’ it implies already that it is in addition to the original value of the heave-offering he ate which he must return to the priest. There is therefore no need any longer to interpret and he shall give unto the priest ‘eth’ the holy thing as meaning “with” the holy thing, since this has already been mentioned above in the preceding verse, and instead we interpret the word eth in its normal way, namely, the mark of the accusative case. By the same token of reasoning, the second interpretation mentioned in the text [that the word v’nathan draws along with it a similar word] also becomes unnecessary, since the word alav (to it) clearly indicates that he is to give both the original value and the added fifth to the priest.