Trespass Counts Only When Unwitting, Not by Intent

If he ate today and ate tomorrow, benefited today and benefited tomorrow, benefited today and ate tomorrow, ate today and benefited tomorrow, even from now until three years—from where do we know that they combine with one another? Scripture states "commits a trespass," it included this. The rabbis taught: the consecrated items of gentiles—one does not benefit from them by rabbinic law, and one does not commit trespass with them by Torah law. What is the reason? It is written here, "if a soul commits a trespass and sins," and it is written there, "and you shall bear no sin by reason of it, when you have lifted up the best of it, and you shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel" (Numbers 18:32): the children of Israel commit trespass, and not gentiles. And one is not liable for them on account of piggul, leftover, or impurity, as it is written, "speak to Aaron and to his sons, that they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel and not profane" (Leviticus 22:2); and leftover is derived by "profane," "profane" from impurity, as it is written regarding leftover, "and he who eats it shall bear his iniquity" (Leviticus 19:8); and piggul is derived by "iniquity," "iniquity" from leftover, as it is written regarding piggul, "and if any of the flesh of the sacrifice is at all eaten"; and all of them—the children of Israel and not gentiles. And one does not bring libations [for a gentile's offering], but his offering requires libations; these are the words of Rabbi Ishmael. From where do we know these things? For the rabbis taught: "the native" (Numbers 15:13)—the native brings libations and the gentiles do not bring libations. One might think his burnt-offering should not require libations; Scripture states "thus" (ibid.). Rabbi Yose said: I see [reason] in all of them to be stringent. What is the reason? "To the LORD" is written regarding it. "And it sins unwittingly": excluding the deliberate one. But is this not a logical inference? If with other commandments for which one is liable to karet, Scripture exempted the deliberate one [from a sacrifice], then trespass, for which one is not liable to karet, is it not logical that it exempts the deliberate one? No: if you said so regarding other commandments, where one is not liable to death, will you say so regarding trespass, where one is liable to death? Scripture states "unwittingly," excluding the deliberate one. This teacher initially held karet to be the weightier and ultimately held death to be the weightier. This is what he is saying: no, if you said so regarding other commandments, where one is not liable to death for less than an olive's bulk, will you say so regarding trespass, where one is liable to death for less than an olive's bulk? Mar the son of Ravina said, this is what he is saying: no, if you said so regarding other commandments, where one is not liable when unintentional as when intentional, for if one intended to cut what is detached and cut what is attached he is exempt; will you say so regarding trespass, where if one intended to warm himself with shorn wool of common status and warmed himself with shorn wool of a burnt-offering, he has trespassed? Rav Nachman bar Yitzhak said, this is what he is saying: no, if you said so regarding other commandments, where one is not liable when acting heedlessly as when acting deliberately, for if one intended to lift what is detached and cut what is attached he is exempt; will you say so regarding trespass, where if one intended to reach out his hand to take an object and instead anointed his hand with consecrated oil, he has trespassed?