The sugya is Gittin 53a–54b and is appended to the Mishnah (Gittin 5: 4) in which the rule is given that there are three instances of damage to property in which the perpetrator is only liable if he did the damage intentionally (mezid), not if he did it unintentionally (shogeg). The three instances are: (1) contamination of terumah (the tithe given to the priest, which cannot be eaten if unclean); (2) mixing terumah with ordinary, non-sacred food (ḥullin), i.e. mixing some terumah in a neighbour's ḥullin with the result that the mixture can only be eaten by priests and hence loses a good deal of its market value; (3) ‘stirring’, i.e. stirring a neighbour's wine as a libation to idols, the wine thus being rendered unfit for use (according to others, see Gittin 52b–53a, ‘stirring’ means mixing wine that has been ‘ stirred’ as a libation with the wine of a neighbour so as to render the whole forbidden). These three are examples of indiscernible damage. The property remains, to the eye of the beholder, as it was before and yet damage has been done to it. The question discussed is whether there is compensation in law for such indiscernible damage, since it is possible to argue that the law only demands compensation for damage that can be discerned as such. The authorities who hold that there is compensation even for indiscernible damage are said to hold that heyzek she-eyno nikar shemah heyzak, literally ‘ damage that is indiscernible has the name of damage’, i.e. falls under the heading of damage and requires therefore to be compensated for in law.