משנה: רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר אִשָּׁה בַת גֵּרִים לֹא תִינָּשֵׂא לִכְהוּנָּה עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא אִימָּהּ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל. אֶחָד גֵּרִים וְאֶחָד עֲבָדִים מְשׁוּחְרָרִים וַאֲפִילוּ עַד עֲשָׂרָה דוֹרוֹת עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא אִימָּן מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל. הָאֶפִּיטְרוֹפִּין וְהָעֶבֶד וְהַשָּׁלִיחַ וְהָאִישָּׁה וְטוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְרוֹגֻינוֹס מְבִיאִין וְלֹא קוֹרִין שֶׁאֵינָן יְכוֹלִין לוֹמַר אֲשֶׁר נָתַתָּ לִי יי֨. MISHNAH: Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, a woman, daughter of proselytes, should not marry a Cohen unless her mother is from Israel81The dissenting opinions are in Mishnah Qiddušin 4:8. The discussion in the Halakhah is repeated in Qiddušin 4:6 (fol. 66a).. There is no difference between proselytes and freedmen, even up to ten generations, unless their mothers be from Israel. The guardians82Administrators of orphans’ property; Greek ἐπίτροπος., the slave83A freed slave owning property., the agent84The possibility of agency for the presentation of First Fruits is discussed in Bikkurim 1:5:5-7" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Bikkurim.1.5.5-7">Halakhah 6., the woman85Who brings First Fruits from her private property., the sexless, and the hermaphrodite86They possibly are female. can bring but not make the declaration, since they cannot say (Deuteronomy.26.10">Deut.26:10): “Which You gave me, Eternal.”
הלכה: רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר כו׳. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אָמַר בַּת גֵּר זָכָר כְּבַת חָלָל זָכָר. וְכוּלְּהוֹן מִקְרָא אֶחָד הֵן דּוֹרְשִׁין. כִּי אִם בְּתוּלוֹת מִזֶּרַע בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא אִמּוֹ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל. רִבִּי אֱלִעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר אוֹ אָבִיהָ אוֹ אִמָּהּ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר עַד שֶׁיִּוָּֽלְדוּ בִקְדוּשַּׁת יִשְׂרָאֵל. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר עַד שֶׁיָּבִיאוּ בְּתוּלִים בִּקְדוּשַׁת יִשְׂרָאֵל. תַּנֵּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן גִּיוֹרֶת פְּחוּתָה מִבַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד שֶׁנִּתְגַּייְרָה כְּשֵׁירָה לִכְהוּנָּה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְכָל־הַטַּף בַּנָּשִׁים אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָדְעוּ מִשְׁכַּב זָכָר הַחֲיוּ לָכֶם וּפִנְחָס עַמָּהֶן. וְרַבָּנִין הַחֲיוּ לָכֶם לָעֲבָדִים וְלִשְׁפָחוֹת. HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says,” etc. There, we have stated87Kiddushin 4:6:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kiddushin.4.6.1">Mishnah Qiddušin 4:6.: “Rebbi Jehudah said, the daughter of a male proselyte is like the daughter of a male desecrated one88The child of a Cohen and a woman forbidden by the rules Leviticus.21.7">Lev. 21:7 (a prostitute or a divorcee) cannot be married by a Cohen. Desecration is not removable and is inherited by his descendants...” They all interpret the same verse (Ezekiel.44.22">Ez. 44:22): “Only virgins89Since a widow is forbidden only to the High Priest, the verse describes a woman who was a virgin from the seed of Israel. Since verses in sources other than the Torah cannot be prescriptive, one speaks here about rules the Cohanim accepted over and above the ones spelled out in the Torah. from the seed of the House of Israel.” Rebbi Jehudah says, unless his father be from Israel. Rebbi Eliezer90Ben Jacob. says, either her father or her mother. Rebbi Yose says, unless they are born in the holiness of Israel91Born after the mother became Jewish.. Rebbi Simeon says, unless they grow the hymen92It is generally accepted talmudic medical theory that a girl who was raped when she was less than three years of age will regrow her hymen. in the holiness of Israel. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Simeon93Sifry Num. 157; Yevamot.60b">Babli Yebamot60b, Kiddushin.76b">Qiddušin 76b, Kiddushin.78a">78a.: “A girl which became a proselyte being less than three years and one day of age is acceptable for the priesthood since it was said (Numbers.31.18">Num. 31:18): ‘All the female children unfit for sleeping with a male94Being less than three years of age. you shall let live for yourselves,’ and Phineas was with them.” But the rabbis [say], you shall let live as slaves95This word has slipped in as a routine expression. and slave girls for yourselves.
רִבִּי יָסָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָָנָן. הֲלָכָה כְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְכוֹהֲנִים נָהֲגוּ סִלְסוּל בְּעַצְמָן כְּרִבִּי אֱלִעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב. חַד כֹּהֵן נְסַב בַּת גֵּרִים. אָתָא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ וְאַרְבְּעֵיהּ עַל סַפְסֵילָא. אָמַר לֵיהּ רַב בֵּיבַי לֹא כֵן אַלְפּוֹן רִבִּי הֲלָכָה כְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אָמַר לֵיהּ וְלֹא כֹהֲנִים נָהֲגוּ סִלְסוּל בְּעַצְמָן כְּרִבִּי אֱלִעֶזֶר. אָמַר לֵיהּ וְעַל מִנְהָג לוֹקִין. אָמַר לֵיהּ אִין כָּךְ אַתְּ חֲמִי מְפַייֵס לִי וַאֲנָא מוֹקִים לֵיהּ. מָה דְקַייְמָא אָמַר לֵיהּ הוֹאִיל וְהוּתְּרָה הָרְצוּעָה אַף אֲנִי מוּתָּר בָּהּ. Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Rebbi Yose96In the Yevamot.60b">Babli (Yebamot 60b): R. Jacob bar Idi said practice follows R. Simeon ben Ioḥai but … But the final decision is that practice follows R. Eliezer ben Jacob. but Cohanim are used to increase their dignity following Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob. A Cohen married the daughtor of proselytes. The case came before Rebbi Abbahu who let him kneel before the low bench97Latin subsellium; to have him whipped.. Rav Bevai said to him, did the Rabbi not teach us that practice follows Rebbi Yose? He answered, but are not Cohanim used to increase their dignity following Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob? He retorted, does one whip because of what one is used to do98Since there is no formal prohibition.? He said to him, if you look at it in such a way, you have appeased me and I shall let him get up. After he got up, he said to him, since the lash was withdrawn I am permitted to have her99Since the only restriction enforceable in court is R. Yose’s..
רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידִי [בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי] מַעֲשֶׂה בְּמִשְׁפָּחָה בְדָרוֹם שֶׁהָיוּ קוֹרִין עָלֶיהָ עִרְעֵר. וְשָׁלַח רִבִּי אֶת רוֹמַינוּס לִבְדָקָן וּבָדַק וּמָצָא שֶׁנִּתְגַּייְרָה זְקֵנָתָהּ פְּחוּתָה מִבַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד וְהִכְשִׁירָהּ לִכְהוּנָּה. רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָא אָמַר כְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִכְשִׁירָהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא. הָכָא דְּאָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְשֵׁם רַב אָדָא בַּר אַחֲוָה רִבִּי יוּדָא מַטֵּי בָהּ בְּשֵׁם רִבִּ[י] אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְלָד בּוֹגֶרֶת כָּשֵׁר שֶׁהוּא בְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁבָּא מִכֹּחַ עֲשֵׂה עֲשֵׂה. וְהוּא אִשָּׁה בִבְתוּלֶיהָ יִקָּח. כָּל־לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁבָּא מִכֹּחַ עֲשֵׂה עֲשֵׂה הוּא. וְדִכְװָתָהּ כִּי אִם בְּתוּלָה מֵעַמָּיו יִקַּח אִשָּׁה וְלֹא גִיּוֹרֶת. כָּל־לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁבָּא מִכֹּחַ עֲשֵׂה עֲשֵׂה הוּא. הָתִיב רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָא הֲרֵי דּוֹר שֵׁנִי שֶׁל מִצְרִי הֲרֵי הוּא בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁבָּא מִכֹּחַ עֲשֶׂה עֲשֵׂה הוּא. חָזַר רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָא וְאָמַר לֹא דָמֵי עֲשֵׂה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל לַעֲשֵׂה שֶׁבַּכֹּהֲנִים. עֲשֵׂה שֶׁבְּיִשְׂרָאֵל אָסוּר בַּכֹּל. וַעֲשֵׂה שֶׁבַּכֹּהֲנִים אָסוּר בַּכֹּהֲנִים וּמוּתָּר בִּלְוִיִים וּבְיִשְׂרָאֵל. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: It happened that a family in the South was in bad reputation101That all their girls were forbidden to Cohanim.. Rebbi sent Romanus to investigate them. He investigated and found that a grandmother had been converted at less than three years and a day of age, and he declared them fit for the priesthood. Rav Hoshaia said, he declared them fit following Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Zeïra said, here it is everybody’s opinion since Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rav Ada bar Ahava, Rebbi Judan brings it in the name of Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The child of an adult is fit since it is a prohibition deduced from a positive commandment102A High Priest is directed to marry a woman “in her virginity”. This is interpreted to mean that the bride must be a virgin but not yet an adult since for adults the hymen may get soft by itself and therefore the fact of virginity cannot in all cases be established. But since the prohibition to marry an adult is only a logical consequence of the positive commandment to marry a virgin, it has no standing in penal law and, therefore, the child of woman marrying as an adult cannot be subject to any disability.. (Leviticus.21.13">Lev. 21:13) “But he shall take a wife in her virginity.” Any prohibition deduced from a positive commandment is a positive commandment103The Yevamot.54b">Babli concurs (Yebamot 54b,Yevamot.68a">68a; Pesachim.41b">Pesaḥim 41b, Zevachim.36a">Zebaḥim 36a, Ḥulin 81a.). Analogously, (Leviticus.21.14">Lev. 21:14) “only a virgin from amidst his people he shall take as wife,” not a proselyte104The Yevamot.77b">Babli (Yebamot 77b) and Sifra Emor Pereq 2(6) conclude from the partitive מ in מעמיו that the daughter of a proselyte is acceptable.. Is any prohibition deduced from a positive commandment a positive commandment? Rebbi Hoshaia objected: But the second generation of an Egyptian is a prohibition deduced from a positive commandment105The prohibition of the first two generations of descendants of an Egyptian proselyte is only inferred from the permission to the third generation to marry a Jewish partner, Deuteronomy.23.9">Deut. 23:9. If the previous argument is correct, only male Egyptians should be disabled in the second generation, not women. But the verse makes no gender distinction. The principle enunciated seems to contradict the Torah.! Rebbi Hoshaia turned around and said, a positive commandment for Israel cannot be compared to a positive commandment for Cohanim. A positive commandment for Israel implies a prohibition for everybody. A positive commandment for Cohanim implies a prohibition for Cohanim but a permission for Levites and Israel106Since it is special legislation it cannot imply anything not spelled out explicitly..
שָׁלִיחַ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. בְּשֶׁלְּקָטָן לְשַׁלְּחָן בְּיַד אַחֵר. אֲבָל אִם לַהֲבִיאָם הוּא לֹא יְשַׁלְּחֵם בְּיַד אַחֵר. וְלֹא מְחַסֵּל לָהּ. רִבִּי יוֹנָה מְחַסֵּל לָהּ. רִבִּי זְעִירָה רִבִּי אִמִּי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. בְּשֶׁלְּקָטָן לְשַׁלְּחָן בְּיַד אַחֵר. אֲבָל אִם לְקָטָן לַהֲבִיאָן הוּא לֹא יְשַׁלְּחֵם בְּיַד אַחֵר. שֶׁכָּל־הַבִּיכּוּרִים שֶׁנִּרְאוּ לִיתּוּר בְּקִרְייָה אֵינָן נִיתּוּרִין אֶלָּא בְּקִרְייָה. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא אַף עַל גַּו דְלֹא אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי הָדָא מִילְתָא אָמַר דִּכְװָתָהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא לְרִבִּי יָסָא נְהִיר אַתְּ כַּד אִיתְאֲמָרַת הָדָא דְּרִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. וְאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי חֲנִינָה מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא. הִפְרִישׁ בִּכּוּרָיו וְאַחַר כָּךְ מָכַר שָׂדֵהוּ מֵבִיא וְאֵינוֹ קוֹרֵא. קִייְמוּנָהּ בְּשֶׁנָּתַן דַּעְתּוֹ לִמְסוֹר מִשָּׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה. וְהָתַנִּינָן יָבֵשׁ הַאִילָן נִקְצָץ הָאִילָן עוֹד הִיא כְיָבֵשׁ מִשָּׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה. וְקִרְייָה מְעַכֶּבֶת. אָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק הָרָאוּי לְקִרְייָה אֵין קִרְייָה מְעַכֶּבֶת. לְקָטָן לְשַׁלְּחָם בְּיַד אַחֵר לֹא יְשַׁלְּחֵם בְּיַד אַחֵר שֶׁמָּא יִימָּלֵךְ הוּא לַהֲבִיאָן. “The agent”. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When he gathered in order to send by a third person; but if he gathered to bring them himself he cannot send them by a third person. He did not finish this107He did not explain the reason behind this ruling.; Rebbi Jonah finished this. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Ammi, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: When he gathered in order to send by a third person; but if he gathered to bring them himself he cannot send them by a third person since all First Fruits which could become permitted by making the declaration108In cases where the Mishnah requires making the declaration, First Fruits become permitted to Cohanim in the Temple only after the full biblical ceremony. become permitted only by making the declaration. Rebbi Mana said, even though Rebbi Yose did not say that, he said something similar: Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Assi, do you remember that when the statement of Rebbi Hoshaiah was formulated, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said that a Mishnah disagrees109Bikkurim 1:7:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Bikkurim.1.7.1">Mishnah 1:7. When he designated First Fruits he could make the declaration because the land was his; when he brings he cannot make the declaration since the land is no longer his. In this case the First Fruits should be permanently forbidden to everybody.: “If he designated his First Fruits and then sold his field he brings but does not make the declaration”! We upheld this if he had prior intention to sell110He knew at the moment of designation that he would not be able to make the declaration; then the obligation to make the declaration never started.. But did we not state111Bikkurim 1:6:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Bikkurim.1.6.1">Mishnah 1:6; he brings but does not make the declaration.: “If the tree dried up or was cut down”; that also if earlier it already was almost dry112It is not necessary that at the moment of designation it was 100% clear that he could not make the declaration; it is enough if there was a likelihood that this would be the case.. Does making the declaration prevent113Is the illiterate farmer precluded from ever bringing First Fruits? Cf. Bikkurim 1:5:8" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Bikkurim.1.5.8">Halakhah 1:7 and Bikkurim 3:4:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Bikkurim.3.4.1">Mishnah 3:7.? Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, where making the declaration is possible, making the declaration does not prevent114In the Babli (Baba Batra 81b, Makkot.18b">Makkot 18b) this rule is attributed to R. Zeïra. In general, the omission of a required action does not prevent the validity of the act if it would have been possible to perform it (unless it is a requited חוק or תורה). But if it is impossible to perform then any omission of a required action does prevent.. If he gathered to deliver them through a third person, would he be forbidden to deliver them through a third person because maybe he would change his mind to deliver them himself115This is unreasonable; therefore, the First Fruits were gathered with the intention to deliver without making the declaration; the declaration was never required and cannot prevent.?
רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן הַיּוֹרֵשׁ מֵבִיא וְאֵינוֹ קוֹרֵא. מַה נָן קַייָמִין. אִם בְּיוֹרֵשׁ בְּחַיֵי אָבִיו שְׁלוּחוֹ. וְאִם לְאַחַר מִיתַת אָבִיו שֶׁלּוֹ הֵן. אֶלָּא כִּי נָן קַייָמִין בְּשֶׁהָיָה אָבִיו חוֹלֶה אוֹ מְסוּכָּן. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The heir brings and does not make the declaration. How do we hold? If about an heir during his father’s lifetime, he is his agent116The Mishnah already states that he cannot make the declaration.. But after his father’s death it is his own117He can make the declaration.! But we deal with the case that his father was seriously ill118The father had designated the First Fruits but he died before they were delivered. Then the son cannot make the declaration since he did not designate..
כְּתִיב וִשָׂמַחְתָּ בְּכָל־הַטּוֹב אֲשֶׁר נָתַן לְךָ יי֨ אֱלֹהֶיךָ וּלְבֵיתֶךָ. מְלַמֵּד שֶׁאָדָם מֵבִיא בִיכּוּרִים מִנִּיכְסֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ וְקוֹרֵא. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר לְאַחַר מִיתָה. הָא בְחַיִין לֹא. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר לֹא שַׁנְייָא הִיא בְחַיִין הִיא לְאַחַר מִיתָה. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ כְּדַעְתֵּיהּ. דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר אֵין אָדָם יוֹרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ דְּבַר תּוֹרָה. 119Sifry Deut. #301. The verse is the last in the paragraph about First Fruits.“It is written (Deuteronomy.26.11">Deut. 26:11): ‘You shall enjoy all the good things that the Eternal, your God, gave you and your house.’ This teaches that a person brings First Fruits from his wife’s property120Since a person called “a person’s house” is his wife. The property here is the wife’s separate property, not her dowry which becomes the husband’s property subject to the wife’s claim in case of dissolution of the marriage. and makes the declaration.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, after her death but not during her lifetime. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no difference, during her lifetime and after her death. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, a person does not inherit from his wife as a biblical rule121For R. Simeon ben Laqish, the husband inherits from his wife by rabbinic institution, in exchange for the obligations which the husband takes upon himself in signing the ketubah. This opinion is not mentioned elsewhere; Sifry Num. 137 derives the husband’s inheritance from the verses of the law of inheritance, Numbers.27.6-11">Num. 27:6–11. In the Gittin.47b">Babli, Giṭṭin 47b, the disagreement between R. Simeon ben Laqish and R. Joḥanan is reduced to the question whether buying usufruct, without buying the underlying real estate, transfers property rights since during the marriage the husband has the usufruct also of the wife’s separate property..
רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. הֲנָחָה מְעַכֶּבֶת אֵין קִרְייָה מְעַכֶּבֶת. וְהָא תַנִּינָן הָאוֹכֵל בִּיכּוּרִין עַד שֶׁלֹּא קָרָא עֲלֵיהֶן. רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָה רַב יְהוּדָה בְשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל. דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה הִיא. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בָּעֵי הֵיי דָן רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא שְׁמָעִית אַבָּא תַנֵּי. הֲנָחָה מְעַכֶּבֶת אֵין קִרְייָה מְעַכֶּבֶת רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר קִרְייָה מְעַכֶּבֶת. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. מַה טַעַם אָֽמְרוּ הֲנָחָה מְעַכֶּבֶת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא נוֹהֶגְת בַּכֹּל. רִבִּי תַּנְחוּמָא רִבִּי הוּנָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁשִּׁנָּה עָלֶיהָ. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּא מָרִי תַּרְתֵּיי. חָדָא כְרִבִּי יוּדָה וְחָדָא כְרַבָּנִין. חָדָא כְרִבִּי יוּדָה. דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה אָמַר לְצוֹרֶךְ נִשְׁנֵית מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא נוֹהֶגְת בַּכֹּל. כְּרַבָּנִין דְּהִינּוּן מָרִיין שֶׁלֹא לְצוֹרֶךְ נִשְׁנֵית מִפְּנֵי שֶׁשִּׁנָּה עָלֶיהָ. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Putting down prevents, making the declaration does not prevent122In the Makkot.17a">Babli, Makkot 17a, this is a statement of Rabba bar bar Ḥana in the name of R. Joḥanan. The statement does not disqualify a person who cannot read the declaration; it only applies to persons required to read, cf. Bikkurim 1:5:5" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Bikkurim.1.5.5">Note 113. An action “prevents” if the ceremony becomes invalid if it is omitted.. But did we not state123Makkot 3:3:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Makkot.3.3.1">Mishnah Makkot 3:3; discussed in Makkot.18b">Babli Makkot 18b. A Cohen who eats of First Fruits before the ceremony of dedication is whipped.: “He who eats First Fruits before the declaration was made for them”? Rav Hoshaiah, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: That is Rebbi Aqiba’s124In Makkot.13a">Makkot 13a, the attribution of Makkot 3:3:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Makkot.3.3.1">Mishnah Makkot 3:3 is given in the name of R. Joḥanan.. Rebbi Yose asked, which statement of Rebbi Aqiba? Rebbi Mana said, I heard my father125R. Jonah. state: Putting down prevents, making the declaration does not prevent; Rebbi Aqiba says, making the declaration does prevent. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Why did they say that putting down prevents? Because it applies to everybody. Rebbi Tanḥuma, Rebbi Huna in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Because it is repeated126“Putting down” is mentioned both in Deuteronomy.26.4">Deut. 26:4, as an action of the Cohen, and 26:10, as an action of the farmer.. Rebbi Abba Mari said both127R. Eleazar did not change his mind; he gave two different explanations for two different schools of thought., one following Rebbi Jehudah, the other following the rabbis128The ceremony is described in Bikkurim 3:4:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Bikkurim.3.4.1">Mishnah 3:4. According to the anonymous Tanna, the farmer keeps his basket on his shoulder until he has read the entire declaration (and then hands the basket over to the Cohen who deposits it near the altar.) According to R. Jehudah, only the declaration in Deuteronomy.26.3">Deut. 26:3 is made with the basket on the farmer’s shoulder. Then the farmer holds the basket by its handles, the Cohen puts his hands under the basket and weaves it (as required by the anonymous Bikkurim 2:3:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Bikkurim.2.3.1">Mishnah 2:4). Only after that, the declaration 26:5–10 is made and the basket deposited near the altar. For R. Jehudah, the first “putting down” is into the hands of the Cohen, the second on the floor. For him, both mentions are necessary.
The other sources more or less follow R. Jehudah. Sifry Deut. #300 infers from 26:4, “you shall put it down before the altar of the Eternal, your God”, that in the absence of an altar there cannot be any obligation of First Fruits. In #301 it is inferred from the double mention of “putting down” that there are two, one for the declaration and one for the subsequent prostration.
The late Targum Yerushalmi (Pseudo Jonathan) translates 26:4: “The Cohen shall take the basket from your hand, move it forward and backward, upward and downward, and at the end put it down before the altar of the Eternal, your God.” The first inserted text describes the “weaving” required by R. Jehudah. Verse 10 is translated without addition: “… put it down before the Eternal, your God, and prostrate yourself before the Eternal, your God.”. For Rebbi Judah who said it had to be repeated, because it applies to everybody129For R. Jehudah the two mentions of “putting down” are needed in the description of the ceremony. For him, accepting First Fruits from a person who cannot recite is a rabbinic interpretation, unsupported by the biblical text.. For the rabbis who instruct that it did not need to be repeated, because it was repeated130Since for them there is only one “putting down”; the double mention is for emphasis..