## Gittin Daf 54a

###### Gittin 54a:1
[Gittin 54a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/54a:1)

וְאֵין מוֹנִין לְשַׁבָּתוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But they do not count from Shabbat,** as there is no significance to the day of the week on which the tree was planted, and consequently no one remembers that the tree was planted on Shabbat.


###### Gittin 54a:2
[Gittin 54a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/54a:2)

דָּבָר אַחֵר: נֶחְשְׁדוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל הַשְּׁבִיעִית, וְלֹא נֶחְשְׁדוּ עַל הַשַּׁבָּתוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Alternatively,** the difference between Shabbat and the Sabbatical Year can be explained as follows: **Jews are suspected of** desecrating **the Sabbatical** Year, **but they are not suspected of** desecrating **Shabbat.** Therefore, Rabbi Meir imposes a penalty for the unintentional desecration of the Sabbatical Year, but he imposes no such penalty for the unintentional desecration of Shabbat.


###### Gittin 54a:3
[Gittin 54a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/54a:3)

מַאי ״דָּבָר אַחֵר״? הָכִי קָאָמַר: וְכִי תֵּימָא שַׁבָּת נָמֵי, זִימְנִין דְּמִיקְּלַע יוֹם שְׁלֹשִׁים – בְּשַׁבָּת, דְּאִי נָטַע הַהוּא יוֹמָא הוּא דְּסָלְקָא לֵיהּ שַׁתָּא, וְאִי לָא – לָא סָלְקָא לֵיהּ שַׁתָּא,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** is the point of Rabbi Meir adding the second reason, introduced with the term **alternatively?** The Gemara answers: **This is what** Rabbi Meir **is saying: And if you would say** to contest the first reason: Jews **also** count from **Shabbat,** and unless the tree is uprooted, people will remember that it was planted on Shabbat, as at **times the thirtieth day** before Rosh HaShana **falls on Shabbat. As, if he planted** the tree **on that day,** the time from when he planted it **counts for him as** a full **year** with regard to the prohibition of fruit that grows during the first three years after the tree was planted. **And if** he did **not** plant it on that Shabbat, but rather on the next day, the twenty-ninth day before Rosh HaShana, **it does not count for him as** a full **year.** In such a case people will remember that the tree was planted on Shabbat, and they might come to think that planting a tree on Shabbat is permitted.


###### Gittin 54a:4
[Gittin 54a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/54a:4)

תָּא שְׁמַע דָּבָר אַחֵר: נֶחְשְׁדוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל הַשְּׁבִיעִית, וְלֹא נֶחְשְׁדוּ עַל הַשַּׁבָּתוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Consequently, Rabbi Meir adds: **Come** and **hear** that **alternatively,** the difference between Shabbat and the Sabbatical Year can be explained as follows: **Jews are suspected of** desecrating **the Sabbatical** Year, **but they are not suspected of** desecrating **Shabbat.** Therefore, Rabbi Meir imposes a penalty for the unintentional desecration of the Sabbatical Year, but not for the unintentional desecration of Shabbat.


###### Gittin 54a:5
[Gittin 54a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/54a:5)

דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אַדְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה לָא קַשְׁיָא – בְּאַתְרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה חֲמִירָא לְהוּ שְׁבִיעִית.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues: And there is also **no contradiction** between one statement **of Rabbi Yehuda** with regard to the Sabbatical Year **and** the other statement **of Rabbi Yehuda** with regard to Shabbat. This is because **in Rabbi Yehuda’s place** the prohibition against desecrating **the Sabbatical** Year **was** regarded **by them** as a most **serious** one, and therefore there was no need to impose a penalty for its unintentional desecration, although it is a Torah law.


###### Gittin 54a:6
[Gittin 54a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/54a:6)

דְּהָהוּא דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ לַחֲבֵירוֹ: דַּיָּיר בַּר דַּיָּירְתָּא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא לָא אָכְלִי פֵּירֵי דִשְׁבִיעִית כְּווֹתָךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara adduces proof that this is true: It once happened **that** there was **a certain** person **who said to another** to insult him: **Convert [*dayyar*], son of a convert.** In anger the second person **said to** the first in response: At least **I don’t eat produce of the Sabbatical** Year **as you** do. This indicates that the Sabbatical Year was treated in that place as a very serious prohibition; therefore, Rabbi Yehuda deemed it unnecessary to impose a penalty for its unintentional desecration.


###### Gittin 54a:7
[Gittin 54a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/54a:7)

תָּא שְׁמַע: אָכַל תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה – מְשַׁלֵּם חוּלִּין טְהוֹרִין. שִׁילֵּם חוּלִּין טְמֵאִים, מַהוּ? אָמַר סוֹמְכוֹס מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי מֵאִיר: בְּשׁוֹגֵג – תַּשְׁלוּמָיו תַּשְׁלוּמִין, בְּמֵזִיד – אֵין תַּשְׁלוּמָיו תַּשְׁלוּמִין. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה תַּשְׁלוּמָיו תַּשְׁלוּמִין, וְחוֹזֵר וּמְשַׁלֵּם חוּלִּין טְהוֹרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara proceeds to discuss another apparent contradiction between rulings of Rabbi Meir with regard to penalties imposed for the unintentional transgression of a rabbinic law: **Come** and **hear** what was taught in a *baraita* (*Tosefta*, *Terumot* 7:7): If **one partook of *teruma*,**which is the property of a priest, and it was ritually **impure, he pays** restitution with ritually **pure, non-sacred** produce. **What is** the *halakha* if **he paid** restitution with ritually **impure, non-sacred** produce? **Sumakhos said in the name of Rabbi Meir:** If he paid restitution with ritually impure, non-sacred produce **unintentionally, his payment is valid.** But if he did so **intentionally, his payment is not valid. And the Rabbis say:** Although **both** in **this** case **and** in **that** case **his payment is valid,** the Sages imposed a penalty and said that **he returns and pays** restitution a second time with ritually **pure, non-sacred** produce.


###### Gittin 54a:8
[Gittin 54a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/54a:8)

וְהָוֵינַן בַּהּ: בְּמֵזִיד – אַמַּאי אֵין תַּשְׁלוּמָיו תַּשְׁלוּמִין? תָּבֹא עָלָיו בְּרָכָה – דְּאָכֵיל מִינֵּיהּ מִידֵּי דְּלָא חֲזֵי לֵיהּ בִּימֵי טוּמְאָתוֹ, וְקָא מְשַׁלֵּם לֵיהּ מִידֵּי דַּחֲזֵי לֵיהּ בִּימֵי טוּמְאָתוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And we discussed** the following question concerning the opinion of Rabbi Meir: In the case where he paid restitution with ritually impure, non-sacred produce **intentionally, why is his payment not valid?** On the contrary, **blessing should come upon him, as he partook of something that is not fit for** the priest to partake of even **during the days of his impurity,** since it is prohibited for a priest to partake of impure *teruma*, whether he himself is pure or impure, **and he pays** restitution **to him with something,** i.e., impure, non-sacred produce, **which is** at least **fit for him** to partake of **during the days of his impurity.**


###### Gittin 54a:9
[Gittin 54a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/54a:9)

וְאָמַר רָבָא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ כְּדִי: חַסּוֹרֵי מְחַסְּרָא, וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: אָכַל תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה – מְשַׁלֵּם כָּל דְּהוּ. אָכַל תְּרוּמָה טְהוֹרָה – מְשַׁלֵּם חוּלִּין טְהוֹרִים. שִׁילֵּם חוּלִּין טְמֵאִין, מַהוּ? סוֹמְכוֹס אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי מֵאִיר: בְּשׁוֹגֵג – תַּשְׁלוּמָיו תַּשְׁלוּמִין, בְּמֵזִיד – אֵין תַּשְׁלוּמָיו תַּשְׁלוּמִין. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה – תַּשְׁלוּמָיו תַּשְׁלוּמִין, וְחוֹזֵר וּמְשַׁלֵּם חוּלִּין טְהוֹרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rava said, and some say it** is **unattributed:** The *baraita* **is incomplete and this is what it is teaching:** If **one partook of** ritually **impure *teruma*, he can pay** restitution with **anything,** even impure, non-sacred produce. If **he partook of** ritually **pure *teruma*, he pays** restitution with ritually **pure, non-sacred** produce. The *baraita* continues: **What is** the *halakha* if **he paid** restitution for ritually pure *teruma* with ritually **impure, non-sacred** produce? There is a tannaitic dispute about this. **Sumakhos said in the name of Rabbi Meir:** If he paid restitution with ritually impure, non-sacred produce **unintentionally, his payment is valid.** But if he did so **intentionally, his payment is not valid. And the Rabbis say: Both** in **this** case **and** in **that** case, **his payment is valid,** but the Sages imposed a penalty and said that **he returns and pays** restitution a second time with ritually **pure, non-sacred** produce.


###### Gittin 54a:10
[Gittin 54a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/54a:10)

וְאָמַר רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא: הָכָא בְּקָנְסוּ שׁוֹגֵג אַטּוּ מֵזִיד אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ (דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: לֹא קָנְסוּ שׁוֹגֵג אַטּוּ מֵזִיד, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: קָנְסוּ)!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, said: Here,** the practical difference **between** Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis relates to the question of whether or not the Sages **penalized an unintentional** offender **due to an intentional** offender. **Rabbi Meir holds** that **they did not penalize an unintentional** offender **due to an intentional** offender, **and the Rabbis say** that **they penalized him.** Consequently, Rabbi Meir does not impose a penalty for an unintentional transgression of a rabbinic law, as by Torah law one can pay restitution to a priest with anything if he partakes of *teruma*. This contradicts what was stated previously, that in the case of a violation of rabbinic law, Rabbi Meir imposes a penalty even for an unintentional offense.


###### Gittin 54a:11
[Gittin 54a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/54a:11)

הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם – גַּבְרָא לְשַׁלּוֹמֵי קָא מִיכַּוֵּין, אֲנַן נֵיקוּם וְלִיקְנְסֵיהּ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **How can** these cases **be compared? There, the man intends to pay; should we arise and penalize him?** It is specifically with regard to this case that Rabbi Meir holds that no penalty is imposed, as his mistake was made in the course of performing a laudatory action. By contrast, in cases where one rendered another’s produce impure and the like, there is a penalty, as the mistake was made while performing an action he should not have been performing.


###### Gittin 54a:12
[Gittin 54a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/54a:12)

תָּא שְׁמַע: דָּם שֶׁנִּטְמָא, וּזְרָקוֹ; בְּשׁוֹגֵג – הוּרְצָה, בְּמֵזִיד – לֹא הוּרְצָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara tries to bring proof concerning the previously stated opinion of Rabbi Meir that a penalty is imposed in a case of an unintentional transgression of a rabbinical law: **Come** and **hear** what was taught in a *baraita*: In the case of **blood** of an offering **that became impure and** a priest **sprinkled it** on the altar, if he did so **unintentionally,** the offering is **accepted** and achieves atonement for the owner of the offering. If he sprinkled the blood **intentionally,** the offering **is not accepted.** In any event, the *tanna* of this *baraita* did not penalize the unintentional offender due to an intentional offender, and this sprinkling of blood is prohibited by rabbinic law.


###### Gittin 54a:13
[Gittin 54a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/54a:13)

אָמַר לָךְ רַבִּי מֵאִיר: הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם – גַּבְרָא לְכַפּוֹרֵי קָא מְכַוֵּין, אֲנַן נֵיקוּם וְנִקְנְסֵיהּ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rabbi Meir** could have **said to you: How can** these cases **be compared? There, the person intends to** do a mitzva and **atone; should we arise and penalize him?** Here too, the mistake was made while performing a laudatory act. In such a case, even Rabbi Meir agrees that an unintentional offender is not penalized due to an intentional offender.


###### Gittin 54a:14
[Gittin 54a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/54a:14)

תָּא שְׁמַע: הַמְעַשֵּׂר בַּשַּׁבָּת; בְּשׁוֹגֵג – יֹאכַל, בְּמֵזִיד – לֹא יֹאכַל. הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם – גַּבְרָא לְתַקּוֹנֵי קָא מִיכַּוֵּין, אֲנַן לֵיקוּם וְלִיקְנְסֵיהּ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara attempts to adduce further proof: **Come** and **hear** what was taught in a mishna (*Terumot* 2:3): With regard to **one who tithes** produce **on Shabbat,** which is prohibited by rabbinic law because it appears as though he were repairing an article that requires repair, if he did this **unintentionally, he may consume** the produce, as it has been tithed and rendered fit for consumption. But if he did this **intentionally, he may not consume** it. Apparently, the Sages did not penalize the unintentional offender due to an intentional offender, although tithing produce on Shabbat is prohibited by rabbinic law. The Gemara answers: **How can** these cases **be compared? There, the man intends to** do a worthy deed and **repair** the produce by tithing it; **should we arise and penalize him?** As above, Rabbi Meir would agree that in such a case the unintentional offender is not penalized.


###### Gittin 54a:15
[Gittin 54a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/54a:15)

תָּא שְׁמַע: הַמַּטְבִּיל כֵּלִים בַּשַּׁבָּת; בְּשׁוֹגֵג – יִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן, בְּמֵזִיד – לֹא יִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן! הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם – גַּבְרָא לְטַהוֹרֵי מָאנֵי קָא מִיכַּוֵּין, אֲנַן לֵיקוּם וְלִיקְנְסֵיהּ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara brings yet another proof: **Come** and **hear** what was taught in that same mishna (*Terumot* 2:3): With regard to **one who immerses utensils** in a ritual bath **on Shabbat,** which is also prohibited by the Sages because it appears as if he were repairing an article that requires repair, if he immerses them **unintentionally, he may use them.** But if he immerses them **intentionally, he may not use them.** Here too the Sages did not penalize the unintentional offender due to an intentional offender. The Gemara answers as before: **How can** these cases **be compared? There, the man intends to** do a praiseworthy act and **purify the utensils; should we arise and penalize him?** The same distinction stated previously applies in this mishna as well.


###### Gittin 54a:16
[Gittin 54a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/54a:16)

וְרָמֵי דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אַדְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה – בִּדְרַבָּנַן, דְּתַנְיָא:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara discusses the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda: **And they raised a contradiction between** one statement **of Rabbi Yehuda and** another statement **of Rabbi Yehuda** with regard to matters that are prohibited only **by rabbinic law. As it is taught** in a *baraita*: