Yevamot

'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.