But they do not count - their plantings by weeks; they do not count the days since planting, but rather the years; therefore, it would not be evident after a long time that he had planted on Shabbat.

What is "alternatively" - why did he need to bring another reason?

This is what [Rabbi Meir] is saying: And if you would say [people count from] Shabbat, too - sometimes it is necessary to count [that way], as is taught in a Baraita [Rosh Hashana 9b:13] : "If one plants [...] on the eve of the Sabbatical Year thirty days before Rosh HaShana, a year is counted for him" -- for years [with regard to the prohibition of] orla, since thirty days out of a year are reckoned as a [full] year, "it is permitted to preserve [the plant] during the Sabbatical Year. [However, if one planted] less than thirty days before Rosh HaShana, a year is not counted for him, and it is prohibited to preserve [the new growth] during the Sabbatical Year." Therefore, sometimes the Shabbat on which he planted will be thirty days before Rosh HaShanah, and he can count it as a year; but if he had left out that day [by planting after Shabbat], it would not have sufficed [to constitute] a year. Then, after a while, when people eat of [its] fruit after two years, and say, why are these fruits permitted after [only] two years? He will tell them that the thirty days before Rosh HaShana count as one year, and they will recall that he planted it on Shabbat. Therefore they penalize him.

Come and hear that alternatively, Jews are suspected of desecrating the Sabbatical Year - and one can fear that since the matter is recognizable, people will come to permit planting on the Sabbatical Year.

But they are not suspected [of desecrating] Shabbat - and even if it will be recalled and the matter will become known, no one will come to permit planting on Shabbat.

Dayyar son of a dayyar - a convert son of a convert.

Come and hear - that Rabbi Meir does not penalize unintentional transgressions of a rabbinic law.

If one partook of teruma - unintentionally, and even if it was impure.

He pays pure, non-sacred - later [the gemara] will ask, why should he pay with pure produce? One who ate teruma unintentionally does not pay with money, but rather with produce, and does not pay back teruma, but rather non-sacred produce that has been tithed. It is through the payment that they are made to become teruma [automatically], as is stated: "he shall give the priest the sacred donation" [Leviticus 22:14] -- it is through the giving of it that it becomes sacred. Therefore we require [payment with] something that can be endowed with the appellation "teruma" -- not money. But one who eats it intentionally pays money.

Unintentionally - if he payed, unintentionally, not realizing that [the produce] was impure.

His payment is valid - and he is exempt [by paying] with these; they [automatically] become impure teruma, just like what he ate.

Intentionally, his payment is not valid - and later [the gemara] will ask why.

Both in this case and in that case - [that is, both] unintentionally and intentionally.

His payment is valid - and [the produce] becomes teruma and the property of the priest; if he used it to betroth a woman she would be considered betrothed.

He returns and pays with ritually pure, non-sacred produce - as a penalty; [the second payment] does not [automatically] become teruma.

And we discussed, if intentionally, why is his payment not valid? - Why do we penalize him if he made such a payment intentionally? He did not deliberately make an inferior payment.

As he partook of something - impure teruma, which [the priest] cannot eat while he is impure, because one who eats teruma when his body is impure [deserves] death, even if [the teruma] was impure.

And he pays him - impure non-sacred produce, which is fit for [the priest to eat] during the time which he is impure. Even though in the end it will [automatically] become teruma, and will not be fit for him [to eat], since they are after all impure; nevertheless, he intended to repay him with impure non-sacred produce and did not realize that it would [automatically] become teruma.

He can pay restitution with anything - any non-sacred produce, whether pure or impure.

Unintentionally, his payment is valid - since one who eats teruma unintentionally repays it by measure and not by monetary value. Even though this teruma [that he is paying with] is worse than what he ate, his payment is valid by Torah law. The Rabbis did not penalize him either, since he unintentionally erred in [his form of] repayment.

Intentionally - where he knew that it was impure.

His payment is not valid - since the Rabbis penalized him, since he intended to cause the priest a loss.

And Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, said - in Yevamot in the Chapter "HaIsha Rabbah" [Yevamot 90a:5] as for the one who intentionally [repayed with impure produce], of which Rabbi Meir said that his payment is invalid -- he meant to say that [it is invalid] as far as relieving him of his obligation entirely. That is, he must return and pay with pure non-sacred produce -- just as the Rabbis say. It is [in the case of one who pays with impure produce] unintentionally that he disagrees with the Rabbis; according to Rabbi Meir, we do not penalize the unintentional on account of the intentional. The Rabbis, however, do penalize him. Now, here, we are dealing with a rabbinical prohibition, since by Torah law his payment was valid, since he paid with [an identical] measure. When he paid with impure produce, even intentionally, he violated a rabbinic prohibition -- so Rabbi Meir does not penalize him if he did it unintentionally.

He intends to pay - and [so] is an upstanding person.

Should we arise and penalize him - for his unintentional transgression? On the other hand, one who renders [another’s food] ritually impure, or one who mixes [teruma with another’s non-sacred produce] unintentionally is not involved in doing anything positive.

If [he did so] unintentionally, [the offering] is accepted - because the frontplate [of the High Priest] appeases [God for the ritual impurity after the fact] and renders the meat permitted to be eaten.

If [he did so] intentionally, [the offering] is not accepted - by rabbinic law. This is a penalty, which makes the meat forbidden to be eaten. Nevertheless, the owners [of the offering] attain atonement. This sprinkling is forbidden by rabbinic law, since by Torah law one can sprinkle [the blood] ab initio, since the frontplate appeases.

Should we arise and penalize him - for his unintentional act? It is also the case that [the gemara] could have answered "whose opinion is it? It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda," who does not penalize in [the case of violation of a] rabbinic law, since [the quotation was] not from an unattributed Mishna [which is usually attribute to Rabbi Meir], but rather a baraita in Menachot in the chapter "Hakometz Rabbah" [Menachot 25a]. Nevertheless, [the gemara] preferred to answer "you could even say" that [in such a way that could even be reconciled with the opinion of] Rabbi Meir.