Parallel
יבמות 90
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
'And she may eat terumah by virtue of his rights'! — Only Rabbinical terumah. Come and hear: If a man ate levitically unclean terumah, he must pay compensation in clean unconsecrated produce. If he paid unconsecrated produce that was levitically unclean, his compensation, said Symmachus in the name of R. Meir, is valid if it was paid in error, and invalid if paid wilfully. The Sages. however, said: Whether in one case or in the other his compensation is valid, but he must again pay compensation in clean unconsecrated produce. 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 produce as is not fit for him in the days of his uncleanness and paid him compensation in something that is fit for him in the days of his uncleanness', 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; 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, 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, for were a priest to betroth a wife with it her betrothal would be valid, and yet the Rabbis ruled that 'his compensation is invalid', and thus a married woman is permitted to [marry any one in] the world! — This was meant by the expression, 'his compensation is invalid' which R. Meir used: That he must pay compensation again in clean unconsecrated produce. If so, then Symmachus 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. Come and hear: If [sacrificial] blood became levitically unclean and was then sprinkled [upon the altar], it is accepted if [the sprinkling was performed] unwittingly, but it is not accepted [if it was performed] wilfully. 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-plate procure acceptance? 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', and yet the Rabbis ruled that 'it is not accepted' so that an unconsecrated beast is brought into the Temple court! — R. Jose b. Hanina replied: The expression, 'it is not accepted' was used in respect of permitting the flesh to be eaten; the owner, however, obtains atonement through it. 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 made 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 act it is different.
—
He, [on hearing the last reply] said to him: It was my intention to raise objections against your view from [the Rabbinical laws which relate to] the uncircumcised, sprinkling, the knife [of circumcision], the linen cloak with zizith, the lambs of Pentecost, the shofar and the lulab; now, however, that you taught us that abstention from the performance of an act is not regarded as an abrogation [of the law, I have nothing to say since] all these are also cases of abstention. Come and hear: Unto him ye shall hearken, even if he tells you. 'Transgress any of all the commandments of the Torah' as in the case, for instance, of Elijah on Mount Carmel, obey him in every respect in accordance with the needs of the hour! — There it is different, for it is written, 'Unto him shall ye hearken'. Then let [Rabbinic law] be deduced from it! — The safeguarding of a cause is different. Come and hear: If he annulled [his letter of divorce] it is annulled: so Rabbi. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, however, said: He may neither annul it nor add a single condition to it, since, otherwise, of what avail is the authority of the Beth din. Now, though here, the letter of divorce may be annulled in accordance with Pentateuchal law, we allow a married woman, owing to the power of Beth din, to marry anyone in the world! — Anyone who betroths [a woman] does so in implicit compliance with the ordinances of the Rabbis, and the Rabbis have [in this case] cancelled the [original] betrothal. Said Rabina to R. Ashi: This is a quite satisfactory explanation where betrothal was effected by means of money; what, however. can be said [in a case where betrothal was effected] by cohabitation! — The Rabbis have assigned to such a cohabitation the character of mere prostitution. Come and hear: R. Eleazar b. Jacob stated, 'I heard that even without any Pentateuchal [authority for their rulings]. Beth din may administer flogging and [death] penalties; not, however, for the purpose of transgressing the words of the Torah but in order to make a fence for the Torah. And it once happened that a man rode on horseback on the Sabbath in the days of the Greeks, and he was brought before Beth din and was stoned; not because he deserved this penalty, but because the exigencies of the hour demanded it. And another incident occurred with a man who had intercourse with his wife under a fig tree, and he was brought before Beth din and flogged; not because he deserved such a penalty, but because the exigencies of the hour demanded it! To safeguard a cause is different. NEITHER OF THEM MAY DEFILE HIMSELF FOR HER. Whence is this derived? — From what is written in Scripture. Except for his kin that is near unto him, and a Master stated that 'his kin' means his wife; while it was also written, The husband shall not defile himself, among his people, to prof- ane himself; [implying that] there is a husband, then, who may, and there is a husband who may not defile himself; how, then [are these contradictory laws to be reconciled]? He may defile himself for his lawful wife but he may not defile himself for his unlawful wife. NEITHER OF THEM HAS A CLAIM UPON ANYTHING SHE MAY FIND etc. [because] what is the reason why the Rabbis ruled that a wife's finds belong to her husband? In order that he may bear no hatred against her; but, here, let him bear against her ever so much hatred! OR MAKE WITH HER HANDS, [because] for what reason did the Rabbis rule that the work of her hands belonged to her husband? Because she receives from him her maintenance; but here, since she receives no maintenance, her handiwork does not belong to him. OR TO THE RIGHT OF INVALIDATING HER VOWS, [since] what is the reason why the All Merciful said that a husband may annul [his wife's vows]? In order that she may not become repulsive; here, however, let her become ever so repulsive! IF SHE WAS THE DAUGHTER OF AN ISRAELITE, SHE BECOMES DISQUALIFIED FROM MARRYING A PRIEST etc.
—