Yevamot 90a — the Talmud in English

Rav Hisda further raised an objection to Rabba from the continuation of the beraita, where we learned:

and she eats teruma on his account.

And if a court may not stipulate so as to uproot a matter from the Torah, then since by Torah law she is a zarah and may not eat, the Sages did not have the power to uproot the Torah law and permit her to eat teruma!?

Rabba rejected this: Indeed, she does not eat teruma by Torah law, and when they said “and she eats teruma on his account,” they meant

rabbinic teruma,

such as teruma from produce that grew in an unperforated flowerpot, which by Torah law is not teruma, and non-kohanim are permitted to eat it.

A. A non-kohen who eats teruma inadvertently must set aside ordinary produce for the payment of teruma, according to what he ate, and it becomes teruma, and he gives it to the kohen from whom he ate. These fruits are called “payment for teruma.” But if he ate teruma intentionally, he pays the kohen even money [the view of most of the early authorities. However, Maimonides, in Chapter 10 of Terumot, disagrees].

B. If the teruma belonged to the non-kohen, such as when a non-kohen inherited teruma from his mother’s father, who was a kohen, and ate it, he sets aside ordinary produce as payment for teruma, takes it for himself, and sells it to a kohen at the value of teruma.

C. The Gemara was uncertain in Pesahim [32a] according to what he sets aside the produce for payment of teruma: whether according to the monetary value of the teruma that he ate, which is called “he pays according to the money,” or according to the quantity of teruma that he ate—for if he ate a kav, he pays a kav—which is called “he pays according to the measure.” And in the Gemara there it is explained that the practical difference in this uncertainty is when the value of the teruma changed from the day he ate it until the day he came to pay, and the early authorities disagreed as to what the halakha is.

Ta shma,

Rav Hisda brought an additional proof that the Sages can uproot a matter from the Torah:

From that which was taught in a beraita:

If he ate

a non-kohen

impure teruma

inadvertently, he

pays with pure ordinary produce.

And they become teruma, and are given to the kohen from whom he ate the teruma [and later in the Gemara it is explained that this is not the law, for why should he pay with pure ordinary produce].

If he nevertheless

paid with impure ordinary produce—

Sumakhos says in the name of Rabbi Meir:

If he paid

inadvertently

with impure ordinary produce, believing that it was pure, then

his payment is payment.

But if he paid with impure ordinary produce

intentionally,

knowing that it was impure—

his payment is not payment

at all, because of the penalty. And he returns and pays with other ordinary produce, and it becomes teruma [this is what we initially thought].

And the Sages say: In both this case and that case, his payment is payment,

and it becomes teruma and the property of the kohen. And if the kohen betrothed a woman with it, she is betrothed.

And he returns and pays with pure ordinary produce,

because of the penalty, and it does not become teruma [Rashi, Gittin 54a].

And we raised the matter

concerning the words of Sumakhos: Why, if he paid with impure ordinary produce

intentionally—

knowing that the ordinary produce was impure—

is his payment not payment,

and because we penalize him?

But even though he knows that it is impure, what “intentional” action is there here? For he intended to make a proper payment, and

may blessing come upon him!

For

the Israelite

ate from it [

from the kohen]

something that is not fit for him

even

during his period of impurity [

he ate impure teruma, which is not fit for a kohen to eat even during his period of impurity], for impure teruma is forbidden to eat.

And yet he pays

the kohen with impure ordinary produce, which is

something that is fit for him during his period of impurity [

impure ordinary produce is fit for him during his period of impurity, but during his period of purity it is not fit for him, since he does not wish to become impure].

And Rava said

to explain,

and some say it was merely [

this is the name of the sage who explained it]:

A deficiency must be supplied, and this is what it teaches:

If he ate impure teruma—

he pays with anything whatsoever.

Whether impure ordinary produce or pure ordinary produce.

But

if he ate pure teruma—

he pays with pure ordinary produce.

And if

he paid with impure ordinary produce

for the pure teruma that he ate—

Sumakhos says in the name of Rabbi Meir: If inadvertently—

his payment is payment.

Intentionally—

his payment is not payment.

And the Sages say: Whether inadvertently or intentionally—

his payment is payment.

And he returns and pays with pure ordinary produce.

And Rav Hisda proves:

But here,

when he ate pure teruma,

for by Torah law it is a proper payment,

even when he pays with impure ordinary produce.

And it follows

that

by Torah law,

if he betroths with them [

with the payment that he received], the

kohen betroths a woman with them—

the betrothal takes effect for her,

for they belong to him.

And

nevertheless

the Sages said,

according to Sumakhos in the name of Rabbi Meir, that if he paid intentionally,

his payment is not payment, and

by this

we release a married woman to everyone [

and we permit a married woman to the entire world].

And this is an uprooting of a matter from the Torah!? Rabba rejected this:

What is the meaning of “

intentionally

his payment is not payment,” which Rabbi Meir says—

А

The intention is not that they do not become the property of the kohen.

Rather,

that the Israelite must

return and

pay again

additional

pure ordinary produce [

he must return and pay additional pure ordinary produce].

And we are astonished:

If so, Sumakhos—

that is the Sages!

For they too said, “His payment is payment, and he returns and pays with pure ordinary produce”!?

He said,

he explained,

Rav Aha, son of Rav Ika:

There is no dispute between Sumakhos and the Sages as to whether his payment is entirely payment or not.

Rather, everyone agrees that he returns and pays with pure ordinary produce, and they disagreed only as to whether they imposed this penalty even when he acted inadvertently.

According to Sumakhos in the name of Rabbi Meir, they imposed the penalty only when he acted intentionally.

But according to the Sages, they imposed this penalty even when he acted inadvertently—and

they penalized inadvertence on account of intentional action—

this is the difference between them,

between Rabbi Meir and the Sages.

Rav Hisda further raised an objection to Rabba, who holds that the Sages do not have the power to uproot a matter from the Torah:

Ta shma,

from that which was taught in a beraita:

The blood

of a sacrifice

that became impure, and he sprinkled it

on the altar

inadvertently —

it is accepted [

on account of “for acceptance for them before the Lord”; and if this was a sin-offering, his sin was atoned for, and he does not bring another sacrifice].

And if he sprinkled the impure blood

intentionally—

it is not accepted,

and he is obligated to bring another sacrifice in order to achieve atonement.

But here, by Torah law, it is surely accepted,

the impure blood that was sprinkled on the altar through the tzitz of the High Kohen, which effects acceptance for impurity of sacrifices—

For it was taught: For what does the tzitz effect acceptance?—

For the blood, and for the flesh, and for the fats [

the sacrificial portions]

that became impure, whether inadvertently or intentionally, whether under compulsion or willingly,

whether in an individual offering or in a communal offering —

and

nevertheless

the Sages say: It is not accepted,

but he must bring another sacrifice.

And

it follows that he

returns [

he returns] and

brings ordinary property into the Temple courtyard,

if this is a sin-offering or a guilt-offering, for a person cannot designate it as a sacrifice unless he sinned and is obligated to bring it, and not after his atonement has been achieved!

Thus, the Sages have the power to uproot a matter from the Torah!?

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Hanina, said: What is the meaning of “it is not accepted,” which he says—

to permit the flesh to be eaten [

for the sprinkling of the blood ordinarily permits it to be eaten].

But as for the owners—

they achieved atonement through it,

and he does not need to bring another sacrifice, and there is no ordinary property in the Temple courtyard here.

And we are still astonished:

Ultimately, the eating of the flesh has been uprooted [

the mitzva of eating sacrificial flesh has been uprooted].

And

behold,

it is written

in the Torah as a positive mitzva to eat the sacrifices:

“And they shall eat them through whom atonement was effected,”

the verse teaches

that

the kohanim eat, and the owners achieve atonement.

And if you say that the flesh should not be eaten, you have uprooted a mitzva from the Torah!?

He said to him,

Rabba to Rav Hisda:

Remaining seated and doing nothing is different.

For it is not an uprooting. And for example, eating meat, concerning which the Sages said, “Sit and do nothing”—it is not an uprooting.