מכות י״ח

מכות י״ח

אֶלָּא קְרָא יַתִּירָא הוּא, מִכְּדֵי כְּתִיב ״וְהֵבֵאתָ שָׁם וְאָכַלְתָּ לִפְנֵי ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ בַּמָּקוֹם וְגוֹ׳״, לִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא ״לֹא תוּכַל לְאוֹכְלָם״, מִיהְדָּר מְפָרֵשׁ בְּהוּ רַחֲמָנָא לְמָה לִי?

Rather, the derivation is that the entire verse beginning: “You may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain” (Deuteronomy 12:17) is a superfluous verse. After all, it is already written: “And 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” (Deuteronomy 12:6–7); 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?

אֶלָּא לְיַחוֹדֵי לְהוּ לָאוֵי לְכׇל חַד וְחַד.

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.

גּוּפָא, אָמַר רָבָא: זָר שֶׁאָכַל מִן הָעוֹלָה לִפְנֵי זְרִיקָה חוּץ לַחוֹמָה – לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לוֹקֶה חָמֵשׁ. וְלִילְקֵי נָמֵי מִשּׁוּם: ״וְזָר לֹא יֹאכַל כִּי קֹדֶשׁ הֵם״! הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דִּלְכֹהֲנִים חֲזֵי, הָכָא דִּלְכֹהֲנִים נָמֵי לָא חֲזֵי.

§ 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: “And a non-priest may not eat, as they are sacred” (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.

וְלִילְקֵי נָמֵי מִשּׁוּם ״וּבָשָׂר בַּשָּׂדֶה טְרֵפָה לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ״, כֵּיוָן שֶׁיָּצָא בָּשָׂר חוּץ לִמְחִיצָתוֹ – נֶאֱסָר! הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּבִפְנִים חֲזֵי, הָכָא דִּבְפָנִים נָמֵי לָא חֲזֵי.

The Gemara suggests: And let him also be flogged for violating the prohibition: “And any flesh torn of animals in the field you shall not eat” (Exodus 22:30). From the term “in the field,” 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.

וְלִילְקֵי נָמֵי כִּדְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: ״לֹא יֵאָכֵל כִּי קֹדֶשׁ הוּא״,

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: “It shall not be eaten because it is sacred” (Exodus 29:34),

כֹּל שֶׁבַּקֹּדֶשׁ פָּסוּל – בָּא הַכָּתוּב לִיתֵּן לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה עַל אֲכִילָתוֹ! הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּקוֹדֶם פְּסוּלוֹ חֲזֵי, הָכָא דְּקוֹדֶם פְּסוּלוֹ נָמֵי לָא חֲזֵי.

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.

וְלִילְקֵי נָמֵי כְּאִידַּךְ דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: כׇּל שֶׁהוּא בְּ״כָלִיל תִּהְיֶה״ – לִיתֵּן לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה עַל אֲכִילָתוֹ! אִין הָכִי נָמֵי, וְרָבָא – מֵהַאי קְרָא קָאָמַר.

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: “It shall be burned in its entirety” (Leviticus 6:16), the verse serves to impose a prohibition upon its consumption, as it is written: “It shall be burned in its entirety; it shall not be eaten” (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.

אָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל אָמַר רַב: (סִימָן כּוּזָא) כֹּהֵן שֶׁאָכַל מֵחַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם לִפְנֵי זְרִיקָה – לוֹקֶה. מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְאָכְלוּ אֹתָם אֲשֶׁר כֻּפַּר בָּהֶם״, לְאַחַר כַּפָּרָה – אִין, לִפְנֵי כַּפָּרָה – לָא. לָאו הַבָּא מִכְּלַל עֲשֵׂה, – לָאו הוּא.

§ 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: “And they shall eat them, that with which they were atoned” (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’s opinion, the status of a prohibition that stems from a positive mitzva is that of a prohibition, for which one is flogged.

מֵתִיב רָבָא: ״וְכׇל בְּהֵמָה מַפְרֶסֶת פַּרְסָה וְשֹׁסַעַת שֶׁסַע שְׁתֵּי פְרָסוֹת מַעֲלַת גֵּרָה בַּבְּהֵמָה אֹתָהּ תֹּאכֵלוּ״, ״אֹתָהּ תֹּאכֵלוּ״ – וְאֵין בְּהֵמָה אַחֶרֶת תֹּאכֵלוּ. וְאִי כִּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ, ״אֶת זֶה לֹא תֹאכְלוּ״ לְמָה לִי?

Rava raises an objection based on the verse: “And every beast that splits the hoof and has the hoof cloven in two, and chews the cud among the animals, that, you may eat” (Deuteronomy 14:6), from which a prohibition may be inferred: “That, you may eat,” 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: “This you may not eat” (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.

אֶלָּא אִי אִיתְּמַר הָכִי אִיתְּמַר, אָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל אָמַר רַב: זָר שֶׁאָכַל מֵחַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם לִפְנֵי זְרִיקָה – פָּטוּר, מַאי טַעְמָא – דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְאָכְלוּ אֹתָם אֲשֶׁר כֻּפַּר בָּהֶם״, כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּקָרֵינַן בֵּיהּ ״וְאָכְלוּ אוֹתָם אֲשֶׁר כֻּפַּר בָּהֶם״ – קָרֵינַן בֵּיהּ ״וְזָר לֹא יֹאכַל קֹדֶשׁ״, וְכֹל הֵיכָא דְּלָא קָרֵינַן בֵּיהּ ״וְאָכְלוּ אֹתָם אֲשֶׁר כֻּפַּר בָּהֶם״ – לָא קָרֵינַן בֵּיהּ ״וְזָר לֹא יֹאכַל״.

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: “And they shall eat them, that with which they were atoned…and a non-priest may not eat, as they are sacred” (Exodus 29:33), and it is expounded as follows: Anywhere that we read concerning it: “And they shall eat them, that with which they were atoned,” we read concerning it: “And a non-priest may not eat sacrificial food.” But anywhere that we do not read concerning it: “And they shall eat them, that with which they were atoned,” 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: “And a non-priest may not eat.”

אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר רַבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה: בִּכּוּרִים, הַנָּחָה מְעַכֶּבֶת בָּהֶן, קְרִיָּיה אֵין מְעַכֶּבֶת בָּהֶן.

§ 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.

וּמִי אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הָכִי? וְהָא אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר רַבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָא: הִפְרִישׁ בִּכּוּרִים קוֹדֶם לֶחָג, וְעָבַר עֲלֵיהֶן הֶחָג – יֵרָקְבוּ. מַאי לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא מָצֵי לְמִיקְרֵי עֲלֵיהֶן? וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ קְרִיָּיה אֵין מְעַכֶּבֶת בָּהֶן, אַמַּאי יֵרָקְבוּ?

The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Elazar say that? But doesn’t 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?

כִּדְרַבִּי זֵירָא. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: כׇּל הָרָאוּי לְבִילָּה – אֵין בִּילָּה מְעַכֶּבֶת בּוֹ, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לְבִילָּה – בִּילָּה מְעַכֶּבֶת בּוֹ.

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.

רַבִּי אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב מַתְנֵי לַהּ כִּדְרַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וְקַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אַדְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וּמִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בִּכּוּרִים הַנָּחָה מְעַכֶּבֶת בָּהֶן קְרִיָּיה אֵין מְעַכֶּבֶת בָּהֶן? וְהָא בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי אַסִּי מֵרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בִּכּוּרִים מֵאֵימָתַי מוּתָּרִין לְכֹהֲנִים? וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָרְאוּיִן לִקְרִיָּיה – מִשֶּׁקָּרָא עֲלֵיהֶן, וְשֶׁאֵין רְאוּיִן לִקְרִיָּיה – מִשֶּׁרָאוּ פְּנֵי הַבַּיִת.

Rabbi Aḥa bar Ya’akov teaches this halakha that was cited in the name of Rabbi Elazar as the statement that Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says, and as a result, an apparent contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan and another statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan is difficult for him. Rabbi Aḥa bar Ya’akov asks: And did Rabbi Yoḥanan 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’t Rabbi Asi raise a dilemma before Rabbi Yoḥanan: With regard to first fruits, from when is it permitted for priests to partake of them? And Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.

קַשְׁיָא קְרִיָּיה אַקְּרִיָּיה, קַשְׁיָא הַנָּחָה אַהַנָּחָה!

Rabbi Yoḥanan 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 Yoḥanan with regard to recitation and another statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan with regard to recitation is difficult; and the apparent contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan with regard to placement and another statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan with regard to placement is difficult.

קְרִיָּיה אַקְּרִיָּה לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, הָא רַבָּנַן. הַנָּחָה אַהַנָּחָה נָמֵי לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְהָא רַבָּנַן.

The Gemara answers: The apparent contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan with regard to recitation and another statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan 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 Yoḥanan with regard to placement and another statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.

מַאי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה? דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: ״וְהִנַּחְתּוֹ״ – זוֹ תְּנוּפָה. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר זוֹ תְּנוּפָה, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא הַנָּחָה מַמָּשׁ? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״וְהִנִּיחוֹ״ – הֲרֵי הַנָּחָה אָמוּר, הָא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״וְהִנַּחְתּוֹ״ – זוֹ תְּנוּפָה.

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: “And you shall place it before the Lord your God” (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: “And the priest shall take the basket from your hand and place it before the altar of the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 26:4), placement alongside the altar is already stated; how do I realize the meaning of the term “And you shall place it”? This is a reference to waving.

וּמַאן תַּנָּא דִּפְלִיג עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְלָקַח הַכֹּהֵן הַטֶּנֶא מִיָּדֶךָ״ – לִימֵּד עַל הַבִּכּוּרִים שֶׁטְּעוּנִין תְּנוּפָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב. מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב?

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

אָתְיָא ״יָד״ ״יָד״ מִשְּׁלָמִים: כְּתִיב הָכָא ״וְלָקַח הַכֹּהֵן הַטֶּנֶא מִיָּדֶךָ״, וּכְתִיב ״יָדָיו תְּבִיאֶינָה אֵת אִשֵּׁי ה׳״, מָה כָּאן כֹּהֵן – אַף לְהַלָּן כֹּהֵן, מָה לְהַלָּן בְּעָלִים – אַף כָּאן בְּעָלִים. הָא כֵּיצַד? מַנִּיחַ כֹּהֵן יָדָיו תַּחַת יְדֵי בְּעָלִים וּמֵנִיף.

The Gemara explains: The matter is derived by means of a verbal analogy from one instance of the word “hand” written with regard to first fruits and from another instance of the word “hand” written with regard to a peace-offering. It is written here, with regard to first fruits: “And the priest shall take the basket from your hand” (Deuteronomy 26:4), and it is written with regard to a peace-offering: “He who offers his peace-offering to God…his hands shall bring it, the fire of God…to raise it as a waving before God” (Leviticus 7:29–30). 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: “He who offers…his hands shall bring it,” 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.

אָמַר רָבָא בַּר אַדָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: בִּכּוּרִים

§ Rava bar Adda says that Rabbi Yitzḥak says: With regard to first fruits,