Reference for Gittin 109:16

ורב יהודה אמר דבר תורה בין נודעה בין לא נודעה מכפרת מאי טעמא יאוש כדי קני

And suppose she does? She would only be like a child eating forbidden meat?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Nebelah, v, Glos. And according to some authorities the Beth din do not step in to prevent this, v. Yeb. 114a. ');">¹³</span> — It is a precaution against the possibility of a deaf-mute priest giving <i>terumah</i> to a wife in possession of her faculties. But allow him at least to give her <i>terumah</i> which is such only by the rule of the Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The marriage, valid in rabbinical law, should be recognised in regard to such terumah. ');">¹⁴</span> — This is a precaution against the risk of her eating <i>terumah</i> which is such according to the Torah. AND THAT IF A BEAM WRONGFULLY APPROPRIATED HAS BEEN BUILT INTO A PALACE. The Rabbis taught: If a man wrongfully takes a beam and builds it into a palace, Beth Shammai say that he must demolish the whole palace and restore the beam to its owner. Beth Hillel, however, say that the latter can claim only the money value of the beam, so as not to place obstacles in the way of penitents.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As if they had to destroy the whole building they would not offer to make restitution. ');">¹⁵</span> THAT A SIN OFFERING WHICH HAS BEEN WRONGFULLY OBTAINED. 'Ulla said: According to the rule of the Torah, whether the [fact is generally] known or not, [the offering] does not make expiation, the reason being that Renunciation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ye'ush. The abandonment by the owner of the hope of recovery. ');">¹⁶</span> does not of itself confer ownership [on the robber].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Unless there has also been a change of ownership from the robber to a third party. ');">¹⁷</span> Why then was it laid down that if [the fact is] not known the offering is expiatory? — So that the priests should not be grieved.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When they find out that they have eaten from a non-sacred animal that has been killed within the temple precincts, the flesh of which was forbidden, v. B.K. 67a. ');">¹⁸</span> Said the Rabbis to 'Ulla: But our Mishnah says TO PREVENT LOSS TO THE ALTAR? — He replied to them: When the priests are grieved the altar is not attended to. Rab Judah, however, said: According to the rule of the Torah, whether the fact [of its having been wrongfully acquired] is known or not known, the offering is expiatory, the reason being that Renunciation does of itself confer ownership [on the robber].

Jastrow