Yevamot 179

Chapter 179

א ואוכלת בגינו תרומה בתרומה דרבנן ת"ש אכל תרומה טמאה משלם חולין טהורים שילם חולין טמאים סומכוס אומר משום ר' מאיר בשוגג תשלומיו תשלומין במזיד אין תשלומיו תשלומין וחכמים אומרים אחד זה ואחד זה תשלומיו תשלומין וחוזר ומשלם חולין טהורין

1 'And she may eat terumah by virtue of his rights'!1 — Only Rabbinical terumah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That which is given from fruits of the trees, which is Pentateuchally permitted to non-priests. since the law of terumah is Pentateuchally applicable to corn only. ');">2 Come and hear: If a man ate3 levitically unclean terumah, he must pay compensation in clean unconsecrated produce.4

ב והוינן בה במזיד אין תשלומיו תשלומין תבא עליו ברכה דאכל מיניה מידי דלא קחזי ליה בימי טומאתו וקא משלם מידי דקחזי ליה בימי טומאתו

2 If he paid unconsecrated produce that was levitically unclean, his compensation, said Symmachus in the name of R. Meir, is valid5 if it was paid in error,6 and invalid if paid wilfully.7 The Sages. however, said: Whether in one case or in the other8

ג ואמר רבא ואמרי לה כדי חסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני אכל תרומה טמאה משלם כל דהו אכל תרומה טהורה משלם חולין טהורין שילם חולין טמאים סומכוס אומר משום ר' מאיר בשוגג תשלומיו תשלומין במזיד אין תשלומיו תשלומין וחכ"א בין בשוגג בין במזיד תשלומיו תשלומין וחוזר ומשלם חולין טהורין

3 his compensation is valid, but he must again pay compensation in clean unconsecrated produce.9 And when, in considering this ruling, the objection was raised, 'Why should not his compensation be valid if he paid it wilfully? A blessing should come upon him! For he has eaten such of the priest's produce10 as is not fit for him in the days of his uncleanness11 and paid him compensation in something12

ד והא הכא דמדאורייתא תשלומי מעליא הוי דאי מקדש בהו כהן אשה תפסו לה קידושי ואמור רבנן אין תשלומיו תשלומין וקשרינן אשת איש לעלמא

4 that is fit for him in the days of his uncleanness',13 Raba, others say, Kadi, replied: [Some words are] missing from the text, the correct reading being the following: 'If a man ate levitically unclean terumah he may pay compensation In any produce;14 if he ate levitically clean terumah, he must pay compensation in clean unconsecrated produce; if, however, he made compensation in unconsecrated produce that was levitically unclean, his compensation, said Symmachus in the name of R. Meir, is valid if it was made in error,15 and his compensation is invalid if it was made wilfully. But the Sages said: His compensation is valid whether he has acted in error or wilfully, but he must again pay compensation in clean unconsecrated produce'. Now here, surely. the compensation is Pentateuchally valid,16

ה מאי אין תשלומיו תשלומין דקאמר רבי מאיר דבעי למיהדר שלומי חולין טהורין אי הכי סומכוס היינו רבנן

5 for were a priest to betroth a wife17 with it her betrothal would be valid, and yet the Rabbis18 ruled that 'his compensation is invalid',19 and thus20

ו אמר רב אחא בריה דרב איקא קנסו שוגג אטו מזיד איכא בינייהו

6 a married woman21 is permitted to [marry any one in] the world!22 — This was meant by the expression,23 'his compensation is invalid' which R. Meir used: That he must pay compensation again in clean unconsecrated produce.24

ז תא שמע דם שנטמא וזרקו בשוגג הורצה במזיד לא הורצה

7 If so, then Symmachus25 holds the same view as the Rabbis! — R. Aha son of R. Ika replied: The difference between them is on the question whether one who has acted unwittingly is to be penalized as a preventive measure against one acting wilfully.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to the Rabbis, an unwitting sin is made punishable in order to prevent thereby a wilful one; hence their ruling that whether the payment of the compensation mentioned was made unwittingly or wilfully a second payment of compensation must be made. According to R. Meir, however, the inadvertent sinner is not to suffer for the sake of the wilful one; hence his ruling that a second payment of compensation is due only in the case of a wilful action. ');">26 Come and hear: If [sacrificial] blood became levitically unclean and was then sprinkled [upon the altar], it is accepted<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the owner obtains atonement and the flesh of the sacrifice may be eaten. [H] of the same rt. [H] as that of [H] and it shall be accepted in Lev. I, 4, q.v. ');">27 if [the sprinkling was performed] unwittingly, but it is not accepted [if it was performed] wilfully.28

ח והא הכא דמדאורייתא ארצויי מרצה דתניא על מה הציץ מרצה על הדם ועל הבשר ועל החלב שנטמא בין בשוגג בין במזיד בין באונס בין ברצון בין ביחיד בין בצבור ואמרי רבנן לא הורצה וקא הדר מעייל חולין לעזרה

8 Now, according to Pentateuchal law, it is here undoubtedly accepted, for it was taught. 'In respect of what [errors] does the High Priest's front-plate29 procure acceptance?30 In respect of the sacrificial blood, flesh or fat that became unclean whether [this was brought about] by one acting in error or wilfully, under compulsion or willingly, and whether [this occurred with the sacrifice] of an individual or with [that of the] congregation',31 and yet the Rabbis ruled that 'it is not accepted'32

ט אמר רבי יוסי בר חנינא מאי לא הורצה דקאמר להתיר בשר באכילה אבל בעלים נתכפרו בו

9 so that an unconsecrated beast is brought<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'brought again', i.e., the second sacrifice which the Rabbis ordained to be brought in addition to the first whose blood became unclean, remains Pentateuchally an unconsecrated beast, since, according to Pentateuchal law, no second sacrifice is required. ');">33 into the Temple court!34 — R. Jose b. Hanina replied: The expression, 'it is not accepted' was used35 in respect of permitting the flesh to be eaten;36

י סוף סוף קמתעקרא אכילת בשר וכתיב (שמות כט, לג) ואכלו אתם אשר כפר בהם מלמד שהכהנים אוכלים ובעלים מתכפרים א"ל שב ואל תעשה שאני

10 the owner, however, obtains atonement through it.37 After all, however, the law of eating the flesh [of the sacrifice] would he uprooted, whereas it is written in the Scriptures. And they shall eat those things wherewith atonement was made38 which teaches that the priests eat [the sacrificial meat] and the owner obtains thereby atonement! — The other replied: With an abstention from the performance of an act39 it is different.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the case of turning consecrated terumah into unconsecrated produce. The former (v. supra n. 1) involving no action may well be within the jurisdiction of the Rabbis, but not the latter which involves an act uprooting a Pentateuchal law. ');">40

Previous Chapter Next Chapter