Gittin 107

ואין מונין לשבתות

, but they do not reckon from Sabbaths. An alternative reason is that Israel are suspect with regard to the Sabbatical year but not with regard to Sabbath. Why give an alternative reason? — What he meant was this. Should you object that it sometimes happens that the thirtieth day [before the New Year of the Sabbatical year]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a tree was planted more than thirty days before the entry of the Sabbatical year, that period was counted as one of the years of 'uncircumcision'. Hence if the thirtieth day before the Sabbatical year fell on a Sabbath, and he planted on it, this would be remembered and might be taken as a precedent. How then can you say that the Jews do not reckon from Sabbaths? ');">¹</span>

דבר אחר נחשדו ישראל על השביעית ולא נחשדו על השבתות

falls on Sabbath, so that if he plants on that day he has a year [before the New Year], but otherwise not, then I give you an alternative reason that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'come and hear'. ');">²</span>

מאי דבר אחר ה"ק וכי תימא שבת נמי זימנין דמיקלע יום ל' בשבת דאי נטע ההוא יומא הוא דסלקא ליה שתא ואי לא לא סלקא ליה שתא

Israel are suspect with regard to the Sabbatical year but not with regard to Sabbath.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [So that there is a special reason for R. Meir's ruling in the case of planting in the Sabbatical year and it cannot be contrasted with his ruling in the case of cooking on Sabbath.] ');">³</span>

ת"ש דבר אחר נחשדו ישראל על השביעית ולא נחשדו על השבתות

Between the statements of R. Judah there is also no contradiction, since in the district of R. Judah the Sabbatical year was regarded as very important.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore in this particular case he sees no need to impose a fine for unwittingly breaking it. ');">⁴</span>

דרבי יהודה אדרבי יהודה לא קשיא באתריה דרבי יהודה חמירא להו שביעית

For [when] a certain man there called after another, 'You are a stranger<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., proselyte. ');">⁵</span>

דההוא דאמר ליה לחבירו דייר בר דיירתא אמר ליה אנא לא אכלי פירי דשביעית כוותך

and your mother was a stranger,' he retorted, 'I do not eat fruit of the Sabbatical year like you.

תא שמע אכל תרומה טמאה משלם חולין טהורין שילם חולין טמאים מהו אמר סומכוס משום ר"מ בשוגג תשלומיו תשלומין במזיד אין תשלומיו תשלומין וחכ"א אחד זה ואחד זה תשלומיו תשלומין וחוזר ומשלם חולין טהורים

Come and hear [a proof that R. Meir does not impose a fine for innocently breaking a Rabbinical rule]: 'If a layman [inadvertently] ate <i>terumah</i>, even unclean, he must make restitution with [ritually] clean non-sacred food. If he pays unclean non-sacred food, what is the law? Symmachus said in the name of R. Meir that if [he paid it] unknowingly this is accounted restitution,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It receives the character of unclean terumah. ');">⁶</span>

והוינן בה במזיד אמאי אין תשלומיו תשלומין תבא עליו ברכה דאכיל מיניה מידי דלא חזי ליה בימי טומאתו וקא משלם ליה מידי דחזי ליה בימי טומאתו

but if deliberately it is not so accounted, whereas the Sages said that in either case it is accounted restitution, but he has still to pay clean non-sacred food.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a fine, but this does not become terumah; v. Yeb. 90a. ');">⁷</span>

ואמר רבא ואמרי לה כדי חסורי מחסרא והכי קתני אכל תרומה טמאה משלם כל דהו אכל תרומה טהורה משלם חולין טהורים שילם חולין טמאין מהו סומכוס אומר משום ר"מ בשוגג תשלומיו תשלומין במזיד אין תשלומיו תשלומין וחכ"א אחד זה ואחד זה תשלומיו תשלומין וחוזר ומשלם חולין טהורין

We were puzzled over this to know why [according to Symmachus] his restitution is not complete. Surely he deserves thanks<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'may blessing come upon him.' ');">⁸</span>

ואמר רב אחא בריה דרב איקא הכא בקנסו שוגג אטו מזיד איכא בינייהו (דר"מ סבר לא קנסו שוגג אטו מזיד וחכ"א קנסו)

for eating something which a priest cannot eat even when he is unclean<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Unclean terumah could in no circumstances be eaten, but it could only be used as food for cattle or for fuel. ');">⁹</span>

הכי השתא התם גברא לשלומי קא מיכוין אנן ניקום וליקנסיה

and repaying him with something which he can eat at least when he is unclean!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., unclean non-sacred food. ');">¹⁰</span>

ת"ש דם שנטמא וזרקו בשוגג הורצה במזיד לא הורצה

Thereupon Raba, or as some say Kadi,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or, 'an unknown authority'; v. B.K. (Sonc. ed.) p. 3, n. 3. ');">¹¹</span>

אמר לך ר"מ הכי השתא התם גברא לכפורי קא מכוין אנן ניקום ונקנסיה

said that there is a lacuna, and we should read thus: 'If one ate unclean <i>terumah</i>, he repays in anything.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., clean or unclean non-sacred food. Although, as stated supra p. 243 n. 6, the food receives the character of terumah, he nevertheless had the intention to repay him food which he could eat at all times (Rashi). ');">¹²</span>

תא שמע המעשר בשבת בשוגג יאכל במזיד לא יאכל הכי השתא התם גברא לתקוני קא מיכוין אנן ליקום וליקנסיה

If he ate clean <i>terumah</i> he repays clean non-sacred food. If he repaid unclean non-sacred food, what is the law? Symmachus said in the name of R. Meir that if [he repaid] without knowing, this is accounted a full restitution, but if deliberately it is not accounted a full restitution, whereas the Sages say that in either case it is full restitution, but he has still to pay him clean non-sacred food.' On this R. Aha son of R. Ika said that [R. Meir and the Sages] differ here on the question whether the innocent [act should be penalised on account of the presumptuous, R. Meir holding that the innocent act is not penalised on account of the presumptuous one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore if he repaid without knowing that it was unclean he is not penalised by having to pay again. ');">¹³</span>

תא שמע המטביל כלים בשבת בשוגג ישתמש בהן במזיד לא ישתמש בהן הכי השתא התם גברא לטהורי מאני קא מיכוין אנן ליקום וליקנסיה

and the Sages holding that it is!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [This proves that R. Meir does not penalise the innocent for the presumptuous where the breach of a rabbinical law is concerned. Here the transgression involved is rabbinical, since according to the Torah he has discharged his liability by repaying the amount he had eaten. V. Yeb. 90a.] ');">¹⁴</span>

ורמי דר' יהודה אדרבי יהודה בדרבנן דתניא

— Is this reasoning sound?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'how so'. i.e., can we ascribe this to R. Meir as a general principle, seeing that here there is a special reason, namely that here etc. ');">¹⁵</span> Here the man wants to pay, and shall we get up and fine him? Come and hear: 'If the blood [of a sacrifice] has become unclean and was yet sprinkled on the altar, if it was done without knowing then the sacrifice has been accepted [for the bringer of the sacrifice], but if deliberately, the sacrifice has not been accepted'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the Rabbis ordained that the flesh may not be eaten, though expiration has been made for the bringer of the sacrifice. ');">¹⁶</span> — R. Meir can reply: Is there any comparison? There the man<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the priest. ');">¹⁷</span> really desires to make atonement,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he desires to do a meritorious action, which is not the case with one who mixes terumah with other food, etc. Hence we do not penalise his error. ');">¹⁸</span> and shall we get up and penalise him? Come and hear: 'If a man separates tithe on Sabbath,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This was forbidden by the Rabbis but not by the Torah, v. Bezah 36a. ');">¹⁹</span> if inadver tently, the food may be eaten, but if deliberately, it may not be eaten'? — Is there any comparison? There the man is trying to do his duty, and shall we get up and penalise him? Come and hear: 'If a man dips vessels<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For ritual purification. This also was forbidden by the Rabbis on Sabbath; v. Bezah, 18a. ');">²⁰</span> on Sabbath, if inadvertently they may be used, but if deliberately they may not be used'? — Is there any comparison? There the man is desirous of purifying his vessels, and shall we get up and fine him? A contradiction was also pointed out between two statements of R. Judah with regard to rules of the Rabbis. For it has been taught: