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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.