## Yevamot Daf 90a

###### Yevamot 90a:1
[Yevamot 90a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/90a:1)

וְאוֹכֶלֶת בְּגִינוֹ תְּרוּמָה. בִּתְרוּמָה דְּרַבָּנַן. תָּא שְׁמַע: אָכַל תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה — מְשַׁלֵּם חוּלִּין טְהוֹרִים. שִׁילֵּם חוּלִּין טְמֵאִים, 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:**
It was further taught: **And she eats *teruma* on his account.** The Gemara explains: This is referring to ***teruma*** that applies **by rabbinic** law, not by Torah law. The Gemara attempts to offer a proof for this claim. **Come** and **hear** a *baraita*: If a non-priest **ate ritually impure *teruma*** of a priest, he must **pay** him with **ritually pure, non-sacred** produce. In a case where he **paid** with **impure, non-sacred** food, **Sumakhos says in the name of Rabbi Meir** that if he did so **unwittingly, his payment is** considered **payment,** but if he acted **intentionally, his payment is not payment** at all. **And the Rabbis say: Both** in **this** case **and that** one **his payment is** a valid **payment,** and the food has the sanctity of *teruma*, although it is ritually impure, **and** he must also **go back and pay** him again with **pure, non-sacred** food.


###### Yevamot 90a:2
[Yevamot 90a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/90a:2)

וְהָוֵינַן בַּהּ: בְּמֵזִיד אֵין תַּשְׁלוּמָיו תַּשְׁלוּמִין? תָּבֹא עָלָיו בְּרָכָה, דַּאֲכַל מִינֵּיהּ מִידֵּי דְּלָא (קָ)חֲזֵי לֵיהּ בִּימֵי טוּמְאָתוֹ, וְקָא מְשַׁלֵּם מִידֵּי דְּ(קָ)חֲזֵי לֵיהּ בִּימֵי טוּמְאָתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And we discussed** this *baraita* with regard to the following question: Why is it that according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, when the non-priest pays the priest with ritually impure, ordinary food **intentionally, his payment** is **not** considered **payment?** On the contrary, the non-priest **should be blessed, as he ate something of his that is not fit for him** even **during** the priest’s **days of impurity,** as impure *teruma* must be burned, **and he pays** him with impure, ordinary food, which is **something that is fit for him during his days of impurity.** Admittedly, once he gives it to him, the produce becomes impure *teruma*, but at the time of his payment the food was available to be eaten.


###### Yevamot 90a:3
[Yevamot 90a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/90a:3)

וְאָמַר רָבָא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ כְּדִי: חַסּוֹרֵי מִיחַסְּרָא וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: אָכַל תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה — מְשַׁלֵּם כָּל דְּהוּ. אָכַל תְּרוּמָה טְהוֹרָה — מְשַׁלֵּם חוּלִּין טְהוֹרִין, שִׁילֵּם חוּלִּין טְמֵאִים — סוֹמְכוֹס אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי מֵאִיר: בְּשׁוֹגֵג — תַּשְׁלוּמָיו תַּשְׁלוּמִין, בְּמֵזִיד — אֵין תַּשְׁלוּמָיו תַּשְׁלוּמִין. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: בֵּין בְּשׁוֹגֵג בֵּין בְּמֵזִיד — תַּשְׁלוּמָיו תַּשְׁלוּמִין, וְחוֹזֵר וּמְשַׁלֵּם חוּלִּין טְהוֹרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rava said, and some say** this statement **unattributed** to any particular Sage: The *baraita* **is incomplete, and this is** what it is **teaching:** If he **ate ritually impure *teruma*, he pays** with **anything,** even impure, non-sacred produce. If he **ate pure *teruma* he pays** with **pure, non-sacred** food, and if he **paid** with **impure, non-sacred** produce, the Sages disagreed about this case: **Sumakhos says in the name of Rabbi Meir:** If done **unwittingly, his payment is payment;** if **intentionally, his payment is not payment. And the Rabbis say: Whether unwittingly or intentionally, his payment is payment, and** he must **go back and pay** with **pure, non-sacred** produce.


###### Yevamot 90a:4
[Yevamot 90a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/90a:4)

וְהָא הָכָא, דְּמִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא תַּשְׁלוּמֵי מְעַלְּיָא הָוֵי, דְּאִי מְקַדֵּשׁ בְּהוּ כֹּהֵן אִשָּׁה — תָּפְסוּ לַהּ קִידּוּשֵׁי, וַאֲמוּר רַבָּנַן אֵין תַּשְׁלוּמָיו תַּשְׁלוּמִין, וְקָשָׁרֵינַן אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ לְעָלְמָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara returns to the issue at hand, whether the court can stipulate to uproot something prohibited by Torah law. **And here** it is a case **where by Torah** law the produce he gave him **is proper payment,** and is fully owned by the priest, to the extent **that if a priest betroths a woman with them,** the **betrothal with her is valid. And** yet **the Sages said,** i.e., it is a rabbinic law, according to Sumakhos in the name of Rabbi Meir, that **his payment is not payment. And** this means that **we permit a married woman to all** men, as she is betrothed by Torah law but in practice she is treated as an unmarried woman. Evidently, a rabbinical prohibition overrides a betrothal that is effective by Torah law.


###### Yevamot 90a:5
[Yevamot 90a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/90a:5)

מַאי אֵין תַּשְׁלוּמָיו תַּשְׁלוּמִין דְּקָאָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר — דְּבָעֵי לְמֶיהְדַּר שַׁלּוֹמֵי חוּלִּין טְהוֹרִין. אִי הָכִי, סוֹמְכוֹס הַיְינוּ רַבָּנַן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **What is** the meaning of the phrase: **His payment is not payment, that Rabbi Meir said?** It means **that he is required to go back and pay** with **ritually pure, non-sacred** produce. However, the food he initially gave is also consecrated. The Gemara asks: **If so,** the opinion of **Sumakhos is** the same as that of **the Rabbis.**


###### Yevamot 90a:6
[Yevamot 90a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/90a:6)

אָמַר רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא: קָנְסוּ שׁוֹגֵג אַטּוּ מֵזִיד אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that **Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, said: The** practical difference **between them** is whether **they decreed** against **an unwitting** sinner **due to an intentional** sinner. According to Sumakhos, if he unwittingly paid with impure, non-sacred produce his payment is valid and the Sages did not penalize him with a second payment, whereas the Rabbis maintain that even if his sin was accidental he must repay the priest, as the Sages issue the decree in a case of a mistaken transgression due to the case of one who sinned intentionally.


###### Yevamot 90a:7
[Yevamot 90a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/90a:7)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further suggests: **Come** and **hear** another proof. With regard to **blood that became ritually impure, and** a priest **sprinkled it** on the altar, the following distinction applies: If he did so **unwittingly,** the offering **is accepted.** If he sprinkled the blood **intentionally,** the offering **is not accepted.**


###### Yevamot 90a:8
[Yevamot 90a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/90a:8)

וְהָא הָכָא, דְּמִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא אַרְצוֹיֵי מְרַצֵּה, דְּתַנְיָא: עַל מָה הַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה — עַל הַדָּם, וְעַל הַבָּשָׂר, וְעַל הַחֵלֶב שֶׁנִּטְמָא, בֵּין בְּשׁוֹגֵג בֵּין בְּמֵזִיד, בֵּין בְּאוֹנֶס בֵּין בְּרָצוֹן, בֵּין בְּיָחִיד בֵּין בְּצִבּוּר. וְאָמְרִי רַבָּנַן: לֹא הוּרְצָה, וְקָא הָדַר מְעַיֵּיל חוּלִּין לָעֲזָרָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And here** it is a case **where by Torah** law the blood **effects acceptance, as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **For what does the** High Priest’s **frontplate effect acceptance? For blood, for meat, and for fat that became impure, whether unwittingly or intentionally, whether by unavoidable accident or willingly, whether** in the case **of an individual** offering **or** an offering **of the community. And the Sages said** that if a priest sprinkled impure blood intentionally the frontplate **does not effect acceptance,** and its owner must bring another offering. The Gemara infers: Since he is not obligated to bring this extra offering by Torah law, in essence he **subsequently brings in a non-sacred** animal **to** the Temple **courtyard.**


###### Yevamot 90a:9
[Yevamot 90a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/90a:9)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא: מַאי ״לֹא הוּרְצָה״ דְּקָאָמַר — לְהַתִּיר בָּשָׂר בַּאֲכִילָה, אֲבָל בְּעָלִים נִתְכַּפְּרוּ בּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said** that there is no proof from here, as **what is** the meaning of the phrase: **Does not effect acceptance, that** the *tanna* of the *baraita* **said?** It means that it does not effect acceptance **in** the sense that it **permits** the meat of the offering **to be eaten. However, the owners** themselves **attain atonement through it,** and they do not have to bring another offering.


###### Yevamot 90a:10
[Yevamot 90a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/90a:10)

סוֹף סוֹף קָמִתְעַקְּרָא אֲכִילַת בָּשָׂר, וּכְתִיב: ״וְאָכְלוּ אֹתָם אֲשֶׁר כֻּפַּר בָּהֶם״, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהַכֹּהֲנִים אוֹכְלִים וּבְעָלִים מִתְכַּפְּרִים! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שֵׁב וְאַל תַּעֲשֶׂה שָׁאנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **Ultimately,** the Torah mitzva of **eating** the **meat** of this offering **is uprooted, and it is written: “And they shall eat those things with which atonement was made”** (Exodus 29:33). This verse **teaches that the priests eat** the offering **and** the **owner** thereby **gains atonement. He said to him:** The case of **sit and refrain from action [*shev ve’al ta’aseh*] is different.** In other words, the Sages can uproot a Torah mitzva by instructing one to sit and **refrain from action,** i.e., to remain passive and do nothing. They cannot, however, uproot a mitzva by telling him to perform an action.