Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

November 23, 2017 | 讛壮 讘讻住诇讜 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Makkot 18

Study Guide Makkot 18. Opinions are brought regarding whether putting the bikkurim聽beside the alter or reading the text of the bikkurim聽is critical to fulfilling the mitzva.聽 The case of maaser聽sheni mentioned in the mishna is analyzed as it seems to also appear in the previous mishna.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讗诇讗 拽专讗 讬转讬专讗 讛讜讗 诪讻讚讬 讻转讬讘 讜讛讘讗转 砖诐 讜讗讻诇转 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 讘诪拽讜诐 讜讙讜壮 诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 转讜讻诇 诇讗讜讻诇诐 诪讬讛讚专 诪驻专砖 讘讛讜 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪讛 诇讬

Rather, the derivation is that the entire verse beginning: 鈥淵ou may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:17) is a superfluous verse. After all, it is already written: 鈥淎nd there you shall bring your burnt-offerings, and your sacrifices, and your tithes, and the donation of your hand, and your vows, and your gift offerings, and the firstborn of your herd and of your flock, and there you shall eat before the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:6鈥7); all the items that must be eaten within the walls of Jerusalem are enumerated. Let the Merciful One write simply: You may not eat them, in general terms, which would constitute a prohibition for which one would be liable to receive lashes for each of the cases enumerated. Why do I need the Merciful One to again specifically enumerate and detail each of them?

讗诇讗 诇讬讞讜讚讬 诇讛讜 诇讗讜讬 诇讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚

Rather, this repetition serves to designate additional prohibitions for each and every one of the cases enumerated in the later verse (Deuteronomy 12:17). The prohibition is derived not by means of an a fortiori inference; rather, it is derived from the superfluous verse. Rabbi Shimon derives by means of the a fortiori inferences the additional prohibition that is in effect in each of these cases.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讝专 砖讗讻诇 诪谉 讛注讜诇讛 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽讛 讞讜抓 诇讞讜诪讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讜拽讛 讞诪砖 讜诇讬诇拽讬 谞诪讬 诪砖讜诐 讜讝专 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讻讬 拽讚砖 讛诐 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讻讛谞讬诐 讞讝讬 讛讻讗 讚诇讻讛谞讬诐 谞诪讬 诇讗 讞讝讬

搂 With regard to the matter itself, Rava says: With regard to a non-priest who ate the flesh of a burnt-offering before sprinkling its blood, outside the walls, according to Rabbi Shimon he is flogged with five sets of lashes. The Gemara suggests: And let him also be flogged for violating the prohibition: 鈥淎nd a non-priest may not eat, as they are sacred鈥 (Exodus 29:33). The Gemara explains: This matter prohibiting a non-priest from eating consecrated food applies only in a case where the food is fit for consumption by priests. Here, where the food is not fit for consumption by priests either, as it is not permitted for anyone to partake of a burnt-offering, there is no specific prohibition that applies to a non-priest.

讜诇讬诇拽讬 谞诪讬 诪砖讜诐 讜讘砖专 讘砖讚讛 讟专驻讛 诇讗 转讗讻诇讜 讻讬讜谉 砖讬爪讗 讘砖专 讞讜抓 诇诪讞讬爪转讜 谞讗住专 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讘驻谞讬诐 讞讝讬 讛讻讗 讚讘驻谞讬诐 谞诪讬 诇讗 讞讝讬

The Gemara suggests: And let him also be flogged for violating the prohibition: 鈥淎nd any flesh torn of animals in the field you shall not eat鈥 (Exodus 22:30). From the term 鈥渋n the field,鈥 a general halakha is derived: Once the flesh emerged outside its partition and is in the field, e.g., sacrificial meat that was taken outside the Tabernacle curtains that demarcate the courtyard, there is a prohibition, and the flesh is forbidden. The Gemara explains: This matter, the prohibition against eating sacrificial flesh outside the partition of the Temple courtyard, applies only in a case where the flesh is fit for consumption inside the courtyard. Here, in the case of a burnt-offering, where the flesh is not fit for consumption inside the courtyard either, as it is not permitted for anyone to partake of a burnt-offering, there is no specific prohibition that applies to a non-priest partaking of the flesh outside the courtyard.

讜诇讬诇拽讬 谞诪讬 讻讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讻讬 拽讚砖 讛讜讗

The Gemara suggests: And let him also be flogged in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. As Rabbi Eliezer says that when it is stated with regard to leftover flesh and loaves from the inauguration offerings: 鈥淚t shall not be eaten because it is sacred鈥 (Exodus 29:34),

讻诇 砖讘拽讚砖 驻住讜诇 讘讗 讛讻转讜讘 诇讬转谉 诇讗 转注砖讛 注诇 讗讻讬诇转讜 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚拽讜讚诐 驻住讜诇讜 讞讝讬 讛讻讗 讚拽讜讚诐 驻住讜诇讜 谞诪讬 诇讗 讞讝讬

it is derived that with regard to any item that is sacrificial and disqualified for whatever reason, the verse comes to impose a prohibition upon its consumption. The Gemara explains: This matter applies only in a case where before its disqualification it was fit; here, it is a case where before its disqualification it was not fit either, and therefore the prohibition does not apply.

讜诇讬诇拽讬 谞诪讬 讻讗讬讚讱 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讘讻诇讬诇 转讛讬讛 诇讬转谉 诇讗 转注砖讛 注诇 讗讻讬诇转讜 讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜专讘讗 诪讛讗讬 拽专讗 拽讗诪专

The Gemara suggests: And let him also be flogged in accordance with the other statement of Rabbi Eliezer, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: With regard to any item that is included in the mitzva: 鈥淚t shall be burned in its entirety鈥 (Leviticus 6:16), the verse serves to impose a prohibition upon its consumption, as it is written: 鈥淚t shall be burned in its entirety; it shall not be eaten鈥 (Leviticus 6:16). The Gemara explains: Yes, it is indeed so that according to Rabbi Shimon one is flogged for violating this prohibition as well, and Rava is saying that from this verse he is interpreting that it is derived that one is flogged with five sets of lashes according to Rabbi Shimon.

讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘 (住讬诪谉 讻讜讝讗) 讻讛谉 砖讗讻诇 诪讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽讛 诇讜拽讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗讻诇讜 讗转诐 讗砖专 讻驻专 讘讛诐 诇讗讞专 讻驻专讛 讗讬谉 诇驻谞讬 讻驻专讛 诇讗 诇讗讜 讛讘讗 诪讻诇诇 注砖讛 诇讗讜 讛讜讗

Rav Giddel says that Rav says a statement about a priest [kohen] and another statement about a non-priest [zar]. Before proceeding, the Gemara provides a mnemonic for these statements: Kaf, vav, zayin, alef. Rav says: A priest who ate of a sin-offering or a guilt-offering before sprinkling their blood on the altar is flogged. What is the reason that he is flogged? It is as the verse states with regard to the inauguration offerings, whose halakhic status was like that of sin-offerings and guilt-offerings in that it was permitted only for priests to partake of their flesh: 鈥淎nd they shall eat them, that with which they were atoned鈥 (Exodus 29:33), from which it is inferred: After atonement, yes, they may eat the flesh of the offerings; before atonement, no, they may not eat it. And in Rav鈥檚 opinion, the status of a prohibition that stems from a positive mitzva is that of a prohibition, for which one is flogged.

诪转讬讘 专讘讗 讜讻诇 讘讛诪讛 诪驻专住转 驻专住讛 讜砖住注转 砖住注 砖转讬 驻专住讜转 诪注诇转 讙专讛 讘讘讛诪讛 讗转讛 转讗讻诇讜 讗转讛 转讗讻诇讜 讜讗讬谉 讘讛诪讛 讗讞专转 转讗讻诇讜 讜讗讬 讻讚拽讗诪专转 讗转 讝讛 诇讗 转讗讻诇讜 诇诪讛 诇讬

Rava raises an objection based on the verse: 鈥淎nd every beast that splits the hoof and has the hoof cloven in two, and chews the cud among the animals, that, you may eat鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:6), from which a prohibition may be inferred: 鈥淭hat, you may eat,鈥 but there is not any other animal that you may eat. The Torah prohibits eating the flesh of any animal that lacks the indicators that it is a kosher animal. And if it is as you say, that an inference from a positive mitzva entails a prohibition, why do I need the following verse: 鈥淭his you may not eat鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:7), as it was already inferred from the mitzva? Rather, apparently, the status of a prohibition that stems from a positive mitzva is that of a positive mitzva, and one is not liable to receive lashes for its violation.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讛讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘 讝专 砖讗讻诇 诪讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽讛 驻讟讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗讻诇讜 讗转诐 讗砖专 讻驻专 讘讛诐 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚拽专讬谞谉 讘讬讛 讜讗讻诇讜 讗讜转诐 讗砖专 讻驻专 讘讛诐 拽专讬谞谉 讘讬讛 讜讝专 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 拽讚砖 讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 拽专讬谞谉 讘讬讛 讜讗讻诇讜 讗转诐 讗砖专 讻驻专 讘讛诐 诇讗 拽专讬谞谉 讘讬讛 讜讝专 诇讗 讬讗讻诇

Rather, if it was stated, this was stated: Rav Giddel says that Rav says: A non-priest who ate of a sin-offering or a guilt-offering before the sprinkling of their blood is exempt from receiving lashes. What is the reason for this? It is as the verse states: 鈥淎nd they shall eat them, that with which they were atoned鈥and a non-priest may not eat, as they are sacred鈥 (Exodus 29:33), and it is expounded as follows: Anywhere that we read concerning it: 鈥淎nd they shall eat them, that with which they were atoned,鈥 we read concerning it: 鈥淎nd a non-priest may not eat sacrificial food.鈥 But anywhere that we do not read concerning it: 鈥淎nd they shall eat them, that with which they were atoned,鈥 e.g., in this case, where it is prohibited for priests to partake of the flesh of the offerings before the sprinkling of their blood, we do not read concerning it: 鈥淎nd a non-priest may not eat.鈥

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讛讜砖注讬讛 讘讻讜专讬诐 讛谞讞讛 诪注讻讘转 讘讛谉 拽专讬讬讛 讗讬谉 诪注讻讘转 讘讛谉

搂 The Gemara resumes the discussion of the halakha that was mentioned in the mishna with regard to the Torah verses that one recites when he brings his first fruits to the Temple. Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi Hoshaya says: With regard to first fruits, the lack of placement alongside the altar invalidates them, and they may not be eaten by the priest; the lack of recitation of the accompanying Torah verses does not invalidate them.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讻讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讛讜砖注讬讗 讛驻专讬砖 讘讻讜专讬诐 拽讜讚诐 诇讞讙 讜注讘专 注诇讬讛谉 讛讞讙 讬专拽讘讜 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 诪爪讬 诇诪讬拽专讬 注诇讬讛谉 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 拽专讬讬讛 讗讬谉 诪注讻讘转 讘讛谉 讗诪讗讬 讬专拽讘讜

The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Elazar say that? But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Elazar say that Rabbi Hoshaya says: If one set aside first fruits before the festival of Sukkot and the Festival elapsed over them while they remain in his possession, they shall be left to decay, as they cannot be rendered fit for consumption. What, is it not that they cannot be rendered fit due to the fact that he can no longer recite the Torah verses over them, as one may recite the Torah verses only until Sukkot? And if it enters your mind to say that the lack of recitation does not invalidate them, why must they be left to decay?

讻讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讻诇 讛专讗讜讬 诇讘讬诇讛 讗讬谉 讘讬诇讛 诪注讻讘转 讘讜 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 专讗讜讬 诇讘讬诇讛 讘讬诇讛 诪注讻讘转 讘讜

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Elazar holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zeira, as Rabbi Zeira says a principle with regard to a meal-offering that applies in other areas as well: For any measure of flour that is suitable for mixing with oil in a meal-offering, the lack of mixing does not invalidate the meal-offering. Even though there is a mitzva to mix the oil and the flour ab initio, the meal-offering is fit for sacrifice even if the oil and the flour are not mixed. And for any measure of flour that is not suitable for mixing with oil in a meal-offering, the lack of mixing invalidates the meal-offering. Here too, although failure to recite the Torah verses does not invalidate the first fruits for consumption by the priest, that is referring only to when reciting the portion is possible. After Sukkot, when it is no longer possible to recite the portion, failure to recite the Torah verses invalidates the first fruits.

专讘讬 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 诪转谞讬 诇讛 讻讚专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讻讜专讬诐 讛谞讞讛 诪注讻讘转 讘讛谉 拽专讬讬讛 讗讬谉 诪注讻讘转 讘讛谉 讜讛讗 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讗住讬 诪专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讻讜专讬诐 诪讗讬诪转讬 诪讜转专讬谉 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛专讗讜讬谉 诇拽专讬讬讛 诪砖拽专讗 注诇讬讛谉 讜砖讗讬谉 专讗讜讬谉 诇拽专讬讬讛 诪砖专讗讜 驻谞讬 讛讘讬转

Rabbi A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov teaches this halakha that was cited in the name of Rabbi Elazar as the statement that Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says, and as a result, an apparent contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan and another statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan is difficult for him. Rabbi A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov asks: And did Rabbi Yo岣nan say that with regard to first fruits, the lack of placement alongside the altar invalidates them and they may not be eaten; while the lack of recitation of the accompanying Torah verses does not invalidate them? But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Asi raise a dilemma before Rabbi Yo岣nan: With regard to first fruits, from when is it permitted for priests to partake of them? And Rabbi Yo岣nan said to Rabbi Asi: It is permitted for the priest to partake of those first fruits that are fit for recitation of the accompanying Torah verses from when he recites those verses over them, and those first fruits that are not fit for recitation of the Torah verses are permitted once they entered inside the Temple.

拽砖讬讗 拽专讬讬讛 讗拽专讬讬讛 拽砖讬讗 讛谞讞讛 讗讛谞讞讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan apparently holds that first fruits that are not fit for recitation are not invalidated. In addition, he did not mention placement of the first fruits, indicating that the lack of their placement does not invalidate them for consumption by the priest. The Gemara notes: The apparent contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan with regard to recitation and another statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan with regard to recitation is difficult; and the apparent contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan with regard to placement and another statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan with regard to placement is difficult.

拽专讬讬讛 讗拽专讬讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗 专讘谞谉 讛谞讞讛 讗讛谞讞讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛讗 专讘谞谉

The Gemara answers: The apparent contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan with regard to recitation and another statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan with regard to recitation is not difficult, as this statement, that when recitation is impossible, lack of recitation invalidates the first fruits, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon cited in the mishna, and that statement, which states that when recitation is impossible, lack of recitation does not invalidate the first fruits, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. The apparent contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan with regard to placement and another statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan with regard to placement is not difficult either, as this statement, that lack of placement does not invalidate the first fruits, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and that statement, which states that lack of placement invalidates the first fruits, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

诪讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讜讛谞讞转讜 讝讜 转谞讜驻讛 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讝讜 转谞讜驻讛 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讛谞讞讛 诪诪砖 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讛谞讬讞讜 讛专讬 讛谞讞讛 讗诪讜专 讛讗 诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讜讛谞讞转讜 讝讜 转谞讜驻讛

The Gemara asks: What is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda? It is as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says with regard to the verse written in the portion of first fruits: 鈥淎nd you shall place it before the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 26:10), that the reference is not to the placement of the fruits alongside the altar; rather, this is a reference to waving the first fruits. Do you say that this is a reference to waving, or perhaps it is a reference only to actual placement of the first fruits? He explains: When it states earlier: 鈥淎nd the priest shall take the basket from your hand and place it before the altar of the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 26:4), placement alongside the altar is already stated; how do I realize the meaning of the term 鈥淎nd you shall place it鈥? This is a reference to waving.

讜诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讜诇拽讞 讛讻讛谉 讛讟谞讗 诪讬讚讱 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讛讘讻讜专讬诐 砖讟注讜谞讬谉 转谞讜驻讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘

The Gemara clarifies: And who is the tanna who disagrees with Rabbi Yehuda? It is Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse written in the portion of first fruits: 鈥淎nd the priest shall take the basket from your hand鈥 (Deuteronomy 26:4); this verse taught about first fruits that they require waving, this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov?

讗转讬讗 讬讚 讬讚 诪砖诇诪讬诐 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 讜诇拽讞 讛讻讛谉 讛讟谞讗 诪讬讚讱 讜讻转讬讘 讬讚讬讜 转讘讬讗讬谞讛 讗转 讗砖讬 讛壮 诪讛 讻讗谉 讻讛谉 讗祝 诇讛诇谉 讻讛谉 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘注诇讬诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘注诇讬诐 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 诪谞讬讞 讻讛谉 讬讚讬讜 转讞转 讬讚讬 讘注诇讬诐 讜诪谞讬祝

The Gemara explains: The matter is derived by means of a verbal analogy from one instance of the word 鈥渉and鈥 written with regard to first fruits and from another instance of the word 鈥渉and鈥 written with regard to a peace-offering. It is written here, with regard to first fruits: 鈥淎nd the priest shall take the basket from your hand鈥 (Deuteronomy 26:4), and it is written with regard to a peace-offering: 鈥淗e who offers his peace-offering to God鈥his hands shall bring it, the fire of God鈥to raise it as a waving before God鈥 (Leviticus 7:29鈥30). Just as here, in the case of first fruits, it is the priest who takes the basket in his hand and waves it, so too there, in the case of the peace-offering, a priest performs the waving. Just as there, with regard to a peace-offering, it is the owner who performs the waving, as it is written: 鈥淗e who offers鈥is hands shall bring it,鈥 so too here, the owner waves the first fruits. How so; how can the waving be performed by both the priest and the owner? The priest places his hands beneath the hands of the owner and waves the first fruits together with the owner.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讘专 讗讚讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘讻讜专讬诐

Rava bar Adda says that Rabbi Yitz岣k says: With regard to first fruits,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Makkot 18

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Makkot 18

讗诇讗 拽专讗 讬转讬专讗 讛讜讗 诪讻讚讬 讻转讬讘 讜讛讘讗转 砖诐 讜讗讻诇转 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 讘诪拽讜诐 讜讙讜壮 诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 转讜讻诇 诇讗讜讻诇诐 诪讬讛讚专 诪驻专砖 讘讛讜 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪讛 诇讬

Rather, the derivation is that the entire verse beginning: 鈥淵ou may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:17) is a superfluous verse. After all, it is already written: 鈥淎nd there you shall bring your burnt-offerings, and your sacrifices, and your tithes, and the donation of your hand, and your vows, and your gift offerings, and the firstborn of your herd and of your flock, and there you shall eat before the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:6鈥7); all the items that must be eaten within the walls of Jerusalem are enumerated. Let the Merciful One write simply: You may not eat them, in general terms, which would constitute a prohibition for which one would be liable to receive lashes for each of the cases enumerated. Why do I need the Merciful One to again specifically enumerate and detail each of them?

讗诇讗 诇讬讞讜讚讬 诇讛讜 诇讗讜讬 诇讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚

Rather, this repetition serves to designate additional prohibitions for each and every one of the cases enumerated in the later verse (Deuteronomy 12:17). The prohibition is derived not by means of an a fortiori inference; rather, it is derived from the superfluous verse. Rabbi Shimon derives by means of the a fortiori inferences the additional prohibition that is in effect in each of these cases.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讝专 砖讗讻诇 诪谉 讛注讜诇讛 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽讛 讞讜抓 诇讞讜诪讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讜拽讛 讞诪砖 讜诇讬诇拽讬 谞诪讬 诪砖讜诐 讜讝专 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讻讬 拽讚砖 讛诐 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讻讛谞讬诐 讞讝讬 讛讻讗 讚诇讻讛谞讬诐 谞诪讬 诇讗 讞讝讬

搂 With regard to the matter itself, Rava says: With regard to a non-priest who ate the flesh of a burnt-offering before sprinkling its blood, outside the walls, according to Rabbi Shimon he is flogged with five sets of lashes. The Gemara suggests: And let him also be flogged for violating the prohibition: 鈥淎nd a non-priest may not eat, as they are sacred鈥 (Exodus 29:33). The Gemara explains: This matter prohibiting a non-priest from eating consecrated food applies only in a case where the food is fit for consumption by priests. Here, where the food is not fit for consumption by priests either, as it is not permitted for anyone to partake of a burnt-offering, there is no specific prohibition that applies to a non-priest.

讜诇讬诇拽讬 谞诪讬 诪砖讜诐 讜讘砖专 讘砖讚讛 讟专驻讛 诇讗 转讗讻诇讜 讻讬讜谉 砖讬爪讗 讘砖专 讞讜抓 诇诪讞讬爪转讜 谞讗住专 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讘驻谞讬诐 讞讝讬 讛讻讗 讚讘驻谞讬诐 谞诪讬 诇讗 讞讝讬

The Gemara suggests: And let him also be flogged for violating the prohibition: 鈥淎nd any flesh torn of animals in the field you shall not eat鈥 (Exodus 22:30). From the term 鈥渋n the field,鈥 a general halakha is derived: Once the flesh emerged outside its partition and is in the field, e.g., sacrificial meat that was taken outside the Tabernacle curtains that demarcate the courtyard, there is a prohibition, and the flesh is forbidden. The Gemara explains: This matter, the prohibition against eating sacrificial flesh outside the partition of the Temple courtyard, applies only in a case where the flesh is fit for consumption inside the courtyard. Here, in the case of a burnt-offering, where the flesh is not fit for consumption inside the courtyard either, as it is not permitted for anyone to partake of a burnt-offering, there is no specific prohibition that applies to a non-priest partaking of the flesh outside the courtyard.

讜诇讬诇拽讬 谞诪讬 讻讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讻讬 拽讚砖 讛讜讗

The Gemara suggests: And let him also be flogged in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. As Rabbi Eliezer says that when it is stated with regard to leftover flesh and loaves from the inauguration offerings: 鈥淚t shall not be eaten because it is sacred鈥 (Exodus 29:34),

讻诇 砖讘拽讚砖 驻住讜诇 讘讗 讛讻转讜讘 诇讬转谉 诇讗 转注砖讛 注诇 讗讻讬诇转讜 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚拽讜讚诐 驻住讜诇讜 讞讝讬 讛讻讗 讚拽讜讚诐 驻住讜诇讜 谞诪讬 诇讗 讞讝讬

it is derived that with regard to any item that is sacrificial and disqualified for whatever reason, the verse comes to impose a prohibition upon its consumption. The Gemara explains: This matter applies only in a case where before its disqualification it was fit; here, it is a case where before its disqualification it was not fit either, and therefore the prohibition does not apply.

讜诇讬诇拽讬 谞诪讬 讻讗讬讚讱 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讘讻诇讬诇 转讛讬讛 诇讬转谉 诇讗 转注砖讛 注诇 讗讻讬诇转讜 讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜专讘讗 诪讛讗讬 拽专讗 拽讗诪专

The Gemara suggests: And let him also be flogged in accordance with the other statement of Rabbi Eliezer, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: With regard to any item that is included in the mitzva: 鈥淚t shall be burned in its entirety鈥 (Leviticus 6:16), the verse serves to impose a prohibition upon its consumption, as it is written: 鈥淚t shall be burned in its entirety; it shall not be eaten鈥 (Leviticus 6:16). The Gemara explains: Yes, it is indeed so that according to Rabbi Shimon one is flogged for violating this prohibition as well, and Rava is saying that from this verse he is interpreting that it is derived that one is flogged with five sets of lashes according to Rabbi Shimon.

讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘 (住讬诪谉 讻讜讝讗) 讻讛谉 砖讗讻诇 诪讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽讛 诇讜拽讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗讻诇讜 讗转诐 讗砖专 讻驻专 讘讛诐 诇讗讞专 讻驻专讛 讗讬谉 诇驻谞讬 讻驻专讛 诇讗 诇讗讜 讛讘讗 诪讻诇诇 注砖讛 诇讗讜 讛讜讗

Rav Giddel says that Rav says a statement about a priest [kohen] and another statement about a non-priest [zar]. Before proceeding, the Gemara provides a mnemonic for these statements: Kaf, vav, zayin, alef. Rav says: A priest who ate of a sin-offering or a guilt-offering before sprinkling their blood on the altar is flogged. What is the reason that he is flogged? It is as the verse states with regard to the inauguration offerings, whose halakhic status was like that of sin-offerings and guilt-offerings in that it was permitted only for priests to partake of their flesh: 鈥淎nd they shall eat them, that with which they were atoned鈥 (Exodus 29:33), from which it is inferred: After atonement, yes, they may eat the flesh of the offerings; before atonement, no, they may not eat it. And in Rav鈥檚 opinion, the status of a prohibition that stems from a positive mitzva is that of a prohibition, for which one is flogged.

诪转讬讘 专讘讗 讜讻诇 讘讛诪讛 诪驻专住转 驻专住讛 讜砖住注转 砖住注 砖转讬 驻专住讜转 诪注诇转 讙专讛 讘讘讛诪讛 讗转讛 转讗讻诇讜 讗转讛 转讗讻诇讜 讜讗讬谉 讘讛诪讛 讗讞专转 转讗讻诇讜 讜讗讬 讻讚拽讗诪专转 讗转 讝讛 诇讗 转讗讻诇讜 诇诪讛 诇讬

Rava raises an objection based on the verse: 鈥淎nd every beast that splits the hoof and has the hoof cloven in two, and chews the cud among the animals, that, you may eat鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:6), from which a prohibition may be inferred: 鈥淭hat, you may eat,鈥 but there is not any other animal that you may eat. The Torah prohibits eating the flesh of any animal that lacks the indicators that it is a kosher animal. And if it is as you say, that an inference from a positive mitzva entails a prohibition, why do I need the following verse: 鈥淭his you may not eat鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:7), as it was already inferred from the mitzva? Rather, apparently, the status of a prohibition that stems from a positive mitzva is that of a positive mitzva, and one is not liable to receive lashes for its violation.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讛讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘 讝专 砖讗讻诇 诪讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽讛 驻讟讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗讻诇讜 讗转诐 讗砖专 讻驻专 讘讛诐 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚拽专讬谞谉 讘讬讛 讜讗讻诇讜 讗讜转诐 讗砖专 讻驻专 讘讛诐 拽专讬谞谉 讘讬讛 讜讝专 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 拽讚砖 讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 拽专讬谞谉 讘讬讛 讜讗讻诇讜 讗转诐 讗砖专 讻驻专 讘讛诐 诇讗 拽专讬谞谉 讘讬讛 讜讝专 诇讗 讬讗讻诇

Rather, if it was stated, this was stated: Rav Giddel says that Rav says: A non-priest who ate of a sin-offering or a guilt-offering before the sprinkling of their blood is exempt from receiving lashes. What is the reason for this? It is as the verse states: 鈥淎nd they shall eat them, that with which they were atoned鈥and a non-priest may not eat, as they are sacred鈥 (Exodus 29:33), and it is expounded as follows: Anywhere that we read concerning it: 鈥淎nd they shall eat them, that with which they were atoned,鈥 we read concerning it: 鈥淎nd a non-priest may not eat sacrificial food.鈥 But anywhere that we do not read concerning it: 鈥淎nd they shall eat them, that with which they were atoned,鈥 e.g., in this case, where it is prohibited for priests to partake of the flesh of the offerings before the sprinkling of their blood, we do not read concerning it: 鈥淎nd a non-priest may not eat.鈥

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讛讜砖注讬讛 讘讻讜专讬诐 讛谞讞讛 诪注讻讘转 讘讛谉 拽专讬讬讛 讗讬谉 诪注讻讘转 讘讛谉

搂 The Gemara resumes the discussion of the halakha that was mentioned in the mishna with regard to the Torah verses that one recites when he brings his first fruits to the Temple. Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi Hoshaya says: With regard to first fruits, the lack of placement alongside the altar invalidates them, and they may not be eaten by the priest; the lack of recitation of the accompanying Torah verses does not invalidate them.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讻讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讛讜砖注讬讗 讛驻专讬砖 讘讻讜专讬诐 拽讜讚诐 诇讞讙 讜注讘专 注诇讬讛谉 讛讞讙 讬专拽讘讜 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 诪爪讬 诇诪讬拽专讬 注诇讬讛谉 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 拽专讬讬讛 讗讬谉 诪注讻讘转 讘讛谉 讗诪讗讬 讬专拽讘讜

The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Elazar say that? But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Elazar say that Rabbi Hoshaya says: If one set aside first fruits before the festival of Sukkot and the Festival elapsed over them while they remain in his possession, they shall be left to decay, as they cannot be rendered fit for consumption. What, is it not that they cannot be rendered fit due to the fact that he can no longer recite the Torah verses over them, as one may recite the Torah verses only until Sukkot? And if it enters your mind to say that the lack of recitation does not invalidate them, why must they be left to decay?

讻讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讻诇 讛专讗讜讬 诇讘讬诇讛 讗讬谉 讘讬诇讛 诪注讻讘转 讘讜 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 专讗讜讬 诇讘讬诇讛 讘讬诇讛 诪注讻讘转 讘讜

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Elazar holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zeira, as Rabbi Zeira says a principle with regard to a meal-offering that applies in other areas as well: For any measure of flour that is suitable for mixing with oil in a meal-offering, the lack of mixing does not invalidate the meal-offering. Even though there is a mitzva to mix the oil and the flour ab initio, the meal-offering is fit for sacrifice even if the oil and the flour are not mixed. And for any measure of flour that is not suitable for mixing with oil in a meal-offering, the lack of mixing invalidates the meal-offering. Here too, although failure to recite the Torah verses does not invalidate the first fruits for consumption by the priest, that is referring only to when reciting the portion is possible. After Sukkot, when it is no longer possible to recite the portion, failure to recite the Torah verses invalidates the first fruits.

专讘讬 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 诪转谞讬 诇讛 讻讚专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讻讜专讬诐 讛谞讞讛 诪注讻讘转 讘讛谉 拽专讬讬讛 讗讬谉 诪注讻讘转 讘讛谉 讜讛讗 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讗住讬 诪专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讻讜专讬诐 诪讗讬诪转讬 诪讜转专讬谉 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛专讗讜讬谉 诇拽专讬讬讛 诪砖拽专讗 注诇讬讛谉 讜砖讗讬谉 专讗讜讬谉 诇拽专讬讬讛 诪砖专讗讜 驻谞讬 讛讘讬转

Rabbi A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov teaches this halakha that was cited in the name of Rabbi Elazar as the statement that Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says, and as a result, an apparent contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan and another statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan is difficult for him. Rabbi A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov asks: And did Rabbi Yo岣nan say that with regard to first fruits, the lack of placement alongside the altar invalidates them and they may not be eaten; while the lack of recitation of the accompanying Torah verses does not invalidate them? But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Asi raise a dilemma before Rabbi Yo岣nan: With regard to first fruits, from when is it permitted for priests to partake of them? And Rabbi Yo岣nan said to Rabbi Asi: It is permitted for the priest to partake of those first fruits that are fit for recitation of the accompanying Torah verses from when he recites those verses over them, and those first fruits that are not fit for recitation of the Torah verses are permitted once they entered inside the Temple.

拽砖讬讗 拽专讬讬讛 讗拽专讬讬讛 拽砖讬讗 讛谞讞讛 讗讛谞讞讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan apparently holds that first fruits that are not fit for recitation are not invalidated. In addition, he did not mention placement of the first fruits, indicating that the lack of their placement does not invalidate them for consumption by the priest. The Gemara notes: The apparent contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan with regard to recitation and another statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan with regard to recitation is difficult; and the apparent contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan with regard to placement and another statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan with regard to placement is difficult.

拽专讬讬讛 讗拽专讬讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗 专讘谞谉 讛谞讞讛 讗讛谞讞讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛讗 专讘谞谉

The Gemara answers: The apparent contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan with regard to recitation and another statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan with regard to recitation is not difficult, as this statement, that when recitation is impossible, lack of recitation invalidates the first fruits, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon cited in the mishna, and that statement, which states that when recitation is impossible, lack of recitation does not invalidate the first fruits, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. The apparent contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan with regard to placement and another statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan with regard to placement is not difficult either, as this statement, that lack of placement does not invalidate the first fruits, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and that statement, which states that lack of placement invalidates the first fruits, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

诪讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讜讛谞讞转讜 讝讜 转谞讜驻讛 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讝讜 转谞讜驻讛 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讛谞讞讛 诪诪砖 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讛谞讬讞讜 讛专讬 讛谞讞讛 讗诪讜专 讛讗 诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讜讛谞讞转讜 讝讜 转谞讜驻讛

The Gemara asks: What is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda? It is as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says with regard to the verse written in the portion of first fruits: 鈥淎nd you shall place it before the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 26:10), that the reference is not to the placement of the fruits alongside the altar; rather, this is a reference to waving the first fruits. Do you say that this is a reference to waving, or perhaps it is a reference only to actual placement of the first fruits? He explains: When it states earlier: 鈥淎nd the priest shall take the basket from your hand and place it before the altar of the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 26:4), placement alongside the altar is already stated; how do I realize the meaning of the term 鈥淎nd you shall place it鈥? This is a reference to waving.

讜诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讜诇拽讞 讛讻讛谉 讛讟谞讗 诪讬讚讱 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讛讘讻讜专讬诐 砖讟注讜谞讬谉 转谞讜驻讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘

The Gemara clarifies: And who is the tanna who disagrees with Rabbi Yehuda? It is Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse written in the portion of first fruits: 鈥淎nd the priest shall take the basket from your hand鈥 (Deuteronomy 26:4); this verse taught about first fruits that they require waving, this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov?

讗转讬讗 讬讚 讬讚 诪砖诇诪讬诐 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 讜诇拽讞 讛讻讛谉 讛讟谞讗 诪讬讚讱 讜讻转讬讘 讬讚讬讜 转讘讬讗讬谞讛 讗转 讗砖讬 讛壮 诪讛 讻讗谉 讻讛谉 讗祝 诇讛诇谉 讻讛谉 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘注诇讬诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘注诇讬诐 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 诪谞讬讞 讻讛谉 讬讚讬讜 转讞转 讬讚讬 讘注诇讬诐 讜诪谞讬祝

The Gemara explains: The matter is derived by means of a verbal analogy from one instance of the word 鈥渉and鈥 written with regard to first fruits and from another instance of the word 鈥渉and鈥 written with regard to a peace-offering. It is written here, with regard to first fruits: 鈥淎nd the priest shall take the basket from your hand鈥 (Deuteronomy 26:4), and it is written with regard to a peace-offering: 鈥淗e who offers his peace-offering to God鈥his hands shall bring it, the fire of God鈥to raise it as a waving before God鈥 (Leviticus 7:29鈥30). Just as here, in the case of first fruits, it is the priest who takes the basket in his hand and waves it, so too there, in the case of the peace-offering, a priest performs the waving. Just as there, with regard to a peace-offering, it is the owner who performs the waving, as it is written: 鈥淗e who offers鈥is hands shall bring it,鈥 so too here, the owner waves the first fruits. How so; how can the waving be performed by both the priest and the owner? The priest places his hands beneath the hands of the owner and waves the first fruits together with the owner.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讘专 讗讚讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘讻讜专讬诐

Rava bar Adda says that Rabbi Yitz岣k says: With regard to first fruits,

Scroll To Top