Study Yevamot folio 90A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
It was further taught: And she eats teruma on his account. The Talmud explains: This is referring to teruma that applies by rabbinic law, not by Torah law. The Talmud 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 p
And we discussed this baraita with regard to the following question: Why is it that according to the opinion of R' 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, a
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
The Talmud 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
The Talmud answers: What is the meaning of the phrase: His payment is not payment, that R' 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 Talmud asks: If so, the opinion of Sumakhos is