Gittin

, 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]  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  Israel are suspect with regard to the Sabbatical year but not with regard to Sabbath.  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.  For [when] a certain man there called after another, 'You are a stranger  and your mother was a stranger,' he retorted, 'I do not eat fruit of the Sabbatical year like you. Come and hear [a proof that R. Meir does not impose a fine for innocently breaking a Rabbinical rule]: 'If a layman [inadvertently] ate terumah, 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,  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.'  We were puzzled over this to know why [according to Symmachus] his restitution is not complete. Surely he deserves thanks  for eating something which a priest cannot eat even when he is unclean  and repaying him with something which he can eat at least when he is unclean!  Thereupon Raba, or as some say Kadi,  said that there is a lacuna, and we should read thus: 'If one ate unclean terumah, he repays in anything.  If he ate clean terumah 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  and the Sages holding that it is!  — Is this reasoning sound?  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'?  — R. Meir can reply: Is there any comparison? There the man  really desires to make atonement,  and shall we get up and penalise him? Come and hear: 'If a man separates tithe on Sabbath,  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  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: