מכות יז - מקורות נלווים

Rabbi Eliezer says: a man need not designate the poor man’s tithe of demai. But the sages say: he must designate it, but he need not separate. One who had designated the terumat maaser of demai, or the poor man’s tithe of produce that had certainly not been tithed, he should not separate them on Shabbat. But if the priest or the poor man regularly ate with him, they may come and eat provided that he informs them.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abba bar Huna in the name of Rav: He who eats his produce without having separated the tithe of the poor commits a deadly sin. What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? Because he knows that it would be a deadly sin, he will separate it. What is the reason of the rabbis? He only has to give a name but does not have to separate it.

You may not partake in your settlements of the tithes of your new grain or wine or oil, or of the firstlings of your herds and flocks, or of any of the votive offerings that you vow, or of your freewill offerings, or of your contributions.

He designates a portion of the produce by means of calling the name upon poor man’s tithe, but he is not required to physically separate that portion and give it to the poor. Rav Yosef suggests: What, is it not that they disagree with regard to this: That one Sage, the Rabbis, holds that produce from which poor man’s tithe was certainly not separated is rendered untithed produce, and therefore, in a case where there is uncertainty whether poor man’s tithe was separated, one is required to separate it; and one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds that produce from which poor man’s tithe was certainly not separated is not rendered untithed produce, and therefore, one need not even designate poor man’s tithe by calling its name upon a portion of the produce? Abaye said to Rav Yosef: If it is so, that this is the point in dispute, rather than disagreeing with regard to a case of uncertainty whether poor man’s tithe was separated, let them disagree with regard to a case of certainty that poor man’s tithe was not separated. Rather, contrary to the previous suggestion, say that everyone agrees that produce from which poor man’s tithe was certainly not separated is rendered untithed produce. And here, it is with regard to this that they disagree: One Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds: Amei ha’aretz are not suspected of refraining from separating poor man’s tithe of demai. Since it is merely a matter of money, and no sanctity is involved, he separates poor man’s tithe, although he does not actually give it to the poor. And the Rabbis hold: Since the matter involves exertion for him, he does not even separate poor man’s tithe. § The mishna teaches: How much does one need to eat from untithed produce and be liable to receive lashes? Rabbi Shimon says: Even if one ate any amount of untithed produce he is liable to receive lashes. And the Rabbis say: He is liable only if he eats an olive-bulk. Rav Beivai says that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: Their dispute is with regard to one who eats one kernel of wheat of untithed produce. But with regard to flour, everyone agrees that one is liable only if he eats an olive-bulk. And Rabbi Yirmeya says that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: Just as there is a dispute with regard to this case of a kernel of wheat, so too, there is a dispute with regard to that case of flour. The Gemara cites proof from that which we learned in the mishna: Rabbi Shimon said to them: Do you not concede to me with regard to one who eats an ant of any size that he is liable to receive lashes? The Rabbis said to Rabbi Shimon: He is flogged for eating an ant of any size due to the fact that it is an intact entity in the form of its creation. Rabbi Shimon said to them: One kernel of wheat is also in the form of its creation. The Gemara infers from Rabbi Shimon’s response: For a kernel of wheat, yes, one is liable; for any amount of flour, no, one is not liable. Apparently, even Rabbi Shimon concedes that one is liable for eating only an olive-bulk of wheat flour, in accordance with the statement that Rav Beivai says that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says. The Gemara answers: It is in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis that Rabbi Shimon spoke to them, and he meant as follows: According to my opinion, even if one ate any amount of flour he is also liable. But according to your opinion, concede to me at least that one is liable if he eats one kernel of wheat, as it is in the form of its creation. And the Rabbis say in response: There is a difference; an entity with a soul, i.e., a living creature, is significant, and one is liable for eating an entity of any volume. A kernel of wheat is not significant. The Gemara notes: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yirmeya, that Rabbi Shimon says: One who eats any amount of food that is forbidden is liable to receive lashes; the Sages said the measure of an olive-bulk only with regard to liability to bring a sin-offering for one who unwittingly ate forbidden food. MISHNA: In the case of a priest who eats first fruits before the one who brought the fruits to the Temple recited over those fruits the Torah verses that he is obligated to recite (see Deuteronomy 26:3–10); and one who ate offerings of the most sacred order outside the curtains surrounding the Tabernacle courtyard, or outside the Temple courtyard; and one who ate offerings of lesser sanctity or second-tithe produce outside the wall of Jerusalem; and also one who breaks the bone of a ritually pure Paschal offering; in all these cases he is flogged with forty lashes. But one who leaves the flesh of the ritually pure Paschal offering until the morning of the fifteenth of Nisan, and one who breaks a bone of a ritually impure Paschal offering, is not flogged with forty lashes. With regard to one who takes the mother bird with her fledglings, thereby violating the Torah prohibition: “You shall not take the mother with her fledglings; you shall send the mother, and the fledglings you may take for yourself” (Deuteronomy 22:6–7), Rabbi Yehuda says: He is flogged for taking the mother bird, and does not send the mother, and the Rabbis say: He sends the mother and is not flogged, as this is the principle: With regard to any prohibition that entails a command to arise and perform a mitzva, he is not liable to receive lashes for its violation. GEMARA: The mishna teaches that a priest who eats first fruits before the one who brought the fruits to the Temple recited the accompanying Torah verses is liable to receive lashes. With regard to this statement, Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva, whose statements are often cited in the mishna unattributed. But the Rabbis say: With regard to first fruits, the lack of placement alongside the altar invalidates them, and they may not be eaten; but the lack of recitation of the accompanying Torah verses does not invalidate them, and if one placed them and did not recite the accompanying Torah verses, the priest who eats them is not flogged. The Gemara suggests: And let Rabbi Yoḥanan say: This statement in the mishna is the unattributed statement of Rabbi Shimon, who stated this halakha explicitly, rather than attributing the statement to Rabbi Akiva, whose statement was not explicit. The Gemara answers: This teaches us that although he did not say so explicitly, Rabbi Akiva holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. What is the statement of Rabbi Shimon? It is as it is taught in a baraita with regard to food items that may not be eaten outside the walls of Jerusalem. It is written: “You may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain, or of your wine, or of your oil, or the firstborn of your herd or of your flock, nor any of your vows that you vow, nor your gift offerings, nor the donation of your hand” (Deuteronomy 12:17). The Sages explain that with regard to the phrase “nor the donation of [terumat] your hand,” these are first fruits. Rabbi Shimon said: What does this phrase come to teach us? If it is to teach the prohibition to eat the first fruits outside the wall of Jerusalem, there is no need for a verse, as it may be derived by means of an a fortiori inference from the lenient case of second-tithe produce. If with regard to the lenient case of second-tithe produce, one who eats them outside the wall is flogged, then with regard to first fruits, all the more so is it not clear that he is flogged? Rather, the verse comes to teach only with regard to a priest who partakes of first fruits before the person who brought the fruits to the Temple recited the accompanying Torah verses over them, teaching that he is flogged. The baraita continues: “Nor your gift offerings”; this is a thanks-offering and a peace-offering that one donates voluntarily. Rabbi Shimon says: What does this phrase come to teach us? If it is to teach that it is prohibited to eat a thanks-offering and a peace-offering outside the wall of Jerusalem, there is no need for a verse, as it may be derived by means of an a fortiori inference from the case of second-tithe produce, for whose consumption outside the wall one is flogged, despite the fact that it is not an offering. Rather, the verse comes to teach only with regard to one who partakes of a thanks-offering or of a peace-offering before the sprinkling of its blood on the altar, before the consumption of its flesh is permitted, that he is flogged. The baraita continues: “Or the firstborn”; this is the firstborn. Rabbi Shimon says: What does this verse come to teach us? If it is to teach that it is prohibited to eat a firstborn animal outside the wall of Jerusalem, there is no need for a verse, as it may be derived by means of an a fortiori inference from the case of second-tithe produce. If it is to teach that it is prohibited to eat a firstborn animal before the sprinkling of the blood, it may be derived by means of an a fortiori inference from the case of a thanks-offering and a peace-offering, which are offerings of lesser sanctity, as even non-priests may partake of their flesh. Rather, the verse comes to teach only with regard to a non-priest who partakes of the flesh of a firstborn even after the sprinkling of its blood, that he is flogged. The baraita continues: “Of your herd or of your flock”; this is a sin-offering and a guilt-offering, which are offerings of the most sacred order, which may be eaten only within the Temple courtyard. Rabbi Shimon says: What does this verse come to teach us? If it is to teach that it is prohibited to eat a sin-offering and a guilt-offering outside the wall, there is no need for a verse, as it may be derived by means of an a fortiori inference from the case of second-tithe produce. If it is to teach that it is prohibited to eat a sin-offering and a guilt-offering before the sprinkling of the blood, it may be derived by means of an a fortiori inference from the case of a thanks-offering and a peace-offering, which are offerings of lesser sanctity. If it is to teach that it is prohibited for a non-priest to eat a sin-offering and a guilt-offering after the sprinkling of its blood, it may be derived by means of an a fortiori inference from the case of a firstborn animal. Rather, the verse comes to teach only with regard to one who partakes of the flesh of a sin-offering or a guilt-offering even after the sprinkling of its blood, which is the correct time to partake of it, but he partakes of it outside the curtains surrounding the Tabernacle courtyard or outside the Temple courtyard, that he is flogged. The baraita continues: “Your vows”; this is the burnt-offering, which is an offering of the most sacred order and is entirely consumed upon the altar, and is brought as a gift offering, not as an obligation. Rabbi Shimon says: What does this verse come to teach us? If it is to teach that it is prohibited to eat a burnt-offering outside the wall of Jerusalem, there is no need for a verse, as it may be derived by means of an a fortiori inference from the case of second-tithe produce. If it is to teach that it is prohibited to eat a burnt-offering before the sprinkling of the blood, it may be derived by means of an a fortiori inference from the case of a thanks-offering and a peace-offering, which are offerings of lesser sanctity. If it is to teach that it is prohibited for a non-priest to eat a sin-offering and a guilt-offering after the sprinkling of its blood, it may be derived by means of an a fortiori inference from the case of a firstborn animal. If it is to teach that it is prohibited to eat a burnt-offering outside the curtains surrounding the Tabernacle courtyard or outside the Temple courtyard there is an a fortiori inference from a sin-offering and a guilt-offering. Rather, the verse comes

(1) (Devarim 12:17) "You shall not be able to eat in your gates": R. Yehoshua b. Karchah says (in respect to "able"): I am able, but not permitted. A cognate instance is (Joshua 15:63) "But the Yevussi, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, they could not drive out": They could but they were not permitted to do so.

(2) "the tithe" (ma'aser): This tells me only of clean tithe (that it may not be eaten outside of Jerusalem). Whence do I derive (the same for) ma'aser that is tamei? From (the superfluous) "your corn."

(3) Whence do I derive (the same for) food that is purchased for money of ma'aser? From "your wine."

(4) This tells me only of (such food that) is clean. Whence do I derive (the same for) what is tamei? From "and your oil."

(5) R. Shimon says: From (Ibid. 26:14) "I did not eat in my mourning of it and I did not consume of it in uncleanliness," (which implies) whether I were tamei and it, clean or I clean and it, tamei — where is he exhorted (not to eat it)? I would not know, if it were not written "You shall not be able to eat in your gates the tithe of your corn and your wine and your oil," and, elsewhere (15:22) "In your gates shall you eat it, the unclean and the clean together," (which implies that normally it may not be eaten together).

(6) I might think that one who gave it (second-tithe) as a gift to his neighbor (outside of Jerusalem, and he ate it there), he (the giver) was liable; it is, therefore, written "You shall not be able to eat it in your gates" — The eater is liable, but not the giver as a gift.

(7) R. Yossi says: I might think that there was liability only for (eating) tevel (untithed produce) from which nothing had been tithed. Whence is it derived (that there is liability) if terumah had been taken from it, but not first-tithe; if first-tithe had been taken, but not second-tithe; if second-tithe had been taken, but not poor-tithe? From (Ibid. 17) "You shall not be able to eat in your gates," and, elsewhere, (Ibid. 26:12) "And they shall eat it in your gates and be sated." Just as there, poor-tithe (is being referred to), so, here.

(8) R. Shimon says: The intent of the verse is only to prescribe separate precincts for the eating of holy of holies and lower-order offerings.

(9) "and the offering of your hands": What does Scripture come to teach us? If (that it is forbidden) to eat bikkurim (first-fruits) outside the wall (of Jerusalem)? This can be derived a fortiori, from ma'aser (the tithe), viz.: If ma'aser, which is permitted to non-priests — if one transgresses a negative commandment if he eats of it outside the wall (of Jerusalem), then bikkurim, which are forbidden to non-priests, if one eats of them outside the wall, how much more so does he transgress a negative commandment if he eats of them outside the wall! The purpose of the verse, then, must be to teach us that if one eats bikkurim before the invocation has been recited over them (viz. Ibid. 26:5), he transgresses a negative commandment.

(10) "and your gifts": These are thank-offerings and peace-offerings. What does Scripture come to teach us? If (that it is forbidden) to eat a thank-offering and peace-offerings outside the wall, this can be derived a fortiori from ma'aser, viz.: If ma'aser, which is not liable for piggul (improper intention), and nothar (exceeding of a time limitation) and for (being eaten by one who is) tamei — if one eats of it outside the wall, he transgresses a negative commandment, then a thank-offering and peace-offering, which are liable for piggul and nothar and for tamei, how much more so does he transgress a negative commandment if he eats of it outside the wall! The purpose of the verse, then, must be to teach us that if one eats a thank-offering and peace-offerings before the sprinkling of the blood (of the sacrifice) he transgresses a negative commandment.

(11) "and bechoroth": the first-born. What does Scripture come to teach us? If (that it is forbidden) to eat a bechor outside the wall, this can be derived a fortiori from ma'aser (as above); if before its blood has been sprinkled, this can be derived a fortiori from a thank-offering and peace-offerings, viz.: If a thank-offering and peace-offerings, which are permitted to non-priests — if one eats of them before their blood has been sprinkled, he transgresses a negative commandment, then a bechor, which is forbidden to non-priests, if one eats of them before their blood has been sprinkled, how much more so does he transgress a negative commandment! The purpose of the verse, then, must be to teach us that if a non-priest eats of it (even) after the sprinkling of the blood, he transgresses a negative commandment.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Putting down prevents, making the declaration does not prevent. But did we not state: “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’s. Rebbi Yose asked, which statement of Rebbi Aqiba? Rebbi Mana said, I heard my father 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 repeated. Rebbi Abba Mari said both, one following Rebbi Jehudah, the other following the rabbis. For Rebbi Judah who said it had to be repeated, because it applies to everybody. For the rabbis who instruct that it did not need to be repeated, because it was repeated.