Makkot 17a — the Talmud in English

He designates it by name

as the poor tithe in the north of the heap or in its south, in order thereby to exempt the heap from the status of tevel,

and he does not need to separate

the poor tithe from it.

This is not so with the other tithes—

The first tithe requires the separation from it of the tithe-offering, since a non-koen who eats the tithe-offering is liable to death. Therefore, he cannot leave the first tithe, with the tithe-offering within it, together with the rest of the produce, lest a non-koen eat the tithe-offering; rather, he must remove the tithe-offering from it.

And the second tithe must be separated, in order to bring it up and eat it in Jerusalem.

And Rav Yosef explains that the liability to lashes for one who eats tevel from which the poor tithe was not removed depends upon this dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer concerning the separation of the poor tithe from demai:

Is it not that they disagree concerning this

the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer:

For the one,

the Rabbis,

holds

that the poor tithe

of a definite obligation

renders it tevel

for the heap, if it was not removed from it.

And therefore, in the case of demai that is subject to the poor tithe, which is a doubt—for perhaps the am ha-aretz did not separate it—he must designate the poor tithe by name, in order to remove the produce from the status of doubtful tevel.

And

if

the other

Rabbi Eliezer

holds

that even tevel subject to the poor tithe

of a definite obligation,

from which no name was designated from the heap,

does not render it tevel

the heap.

For according to his view, there is no mitzva at all in designating the poor tithe by name; rather, there is only a mitzva to give the poor tithe to the poor. And according to him, the entire matter of designating “poor tithe” by name from the produce is only for the purpose of giving it to the poor. Therefore, in a doubtful case, where he gives nothing to the poor, there is no need even to designate it by name.

And Rav Yosef proves from here that the law of tevel with respect to the poor tithe depends upon the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer.

Abaye said to him

to Rav Yosef:

If so,

according to your words, that they disagree whether the poor tithe renders the heap tevel, why did they disagree concerning demai?

But

rather than disagreeing concerning its doubt,

in the place where they should disagree concerning demai, which is a doubt,

let them disagree concerning

tevel subject to the poor tithe

of a definite obligation,

from which he did not designate the poor tithe by name at all! Why should they disagree specifically concerning demai, which is a doubt?!

It is necessarily not so that they disagree.

Rather,

this is the explanation of their dispute:

Everyone

holds that the poor tithe

of a definite obligation,

from which he did not designate it by name,

renders

the heap tevel.

And here,

where they disagree concerning demai subject to the poor tithe—

they disagree in this:

The one,

Rabbi Eliezer,

holds: the ammei ha-aretz were not suspected concerning

the separation of

the poor tithe of demai.

For one must distinguish between the poor tithe and the other tithes, concerning which the ammei ha-aretz were suspected—

Since

the poor tithe is merely a matter of

money,

and there is no prohibition of consumption in it; rather, there is only, through failure to give it to the poor, a matter of robbery of the poor. And concerning robbery of the poor, he is not concerned.

And therefore, the am ha-aretz separates the poor tithe in order to correct the heap from the prohibition of tevel, and leaves the tithe that he separated for himself.

This is not so with the other tithes, which he does not wish to separate, since if he separates them he cannot leave them with himself as they are.

With the first tithe, he will be liable to separate the tithe-offering, whose consumption by a non-koen is punishable by death at the hands of Heaven, and he must give it to a koen.

And with the second tithe, when he separates it, he becomes obligated to bring it up and eat it in Jerusalem.

And

if

the Rabbis hold

that the am ha-aretz is suspected even concerning failure to separate the poor tithe,

since the matter is troublesome for him,

the labor of separating the tithe from the produce is difficult for him, because he does not know that it is possible to remove its status of tevel merely by designating the tithe by name, through designating a place in the north or south of the heap, without troubling to separate the tithe from the rest of the produce. And since the separation is difficult for him, he therefore also does not designate the poor tithe by name, and the heap becomes forbidden because the am ha-aretz

does not separate

the poor tithe from it.

We learned in the Mishna:

How much may he eat of the tevel, and so forth.

Rav Bibi said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: The dispute

between Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis is only

concerning a wheat grain

that is whole, as it was created.

But concerning flour,

which was ground and is not as it was originally created, Rabbi Shimon concedes that it is not considered a complete creature, and its measure is

according to everyone

a

an olive-bulk.

And

if

Rabbi Yirmeya said

in the name of

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: Just as the dispute is concerning this,

a whole wheat grain,

so

also

the dispute is concerning this,

flour.

That is, Rabbi Shimon disagrees concerning all the measures of prohibitions, and holds that one is lashed for any amount, even when they do not have the status of a complete creature. According to him, the measure of an olive-bulk, which is a halakha given to Moses at Sinai, was stated only with regard to liability for a sin-offering for unintentional violation of prohibitions of consumption, whose intentional violation is punishable by excision.

The Gemara infers from our Mishna in accordance with Rav Beivai's statement—

And with regard to a sin-offering, he is not liable for eating a complete creature unless the measure of the eating was an olive-bulk. And the Gemara infers from our Mishna in accordance with Rav Bibi’s words— We learned,

we learned in our Mishna:

Rabbi Shimon said to them

to the Sages: Is it not so that

you agree with me concerning one who eats an ant,

even

any amount, that he is liable!

And it is proven that he is liable even for less than the measure of an olive-bulk.

They said to him:

An ant is different,

for it is a complete creature,

and therefore he is liable for it even when it does not have the measure of an olive-bulk. But ordinary prohibition of consumption, when it does not involve eating a complete creature, requires him to eat an olive-bulk of it in order to be lashed.

He said to them: Even a single wheat grain is a complete creature,

it is considered a creature! If so, even according to your words, he should become liable for eating it, even though it does not have the measure of an olive-bulk.

And it is implied from Rabbi Shimon’s words that only one who eats

wheat, yes,

indeed Rabbi Shimon disagrees with the Rabbis concerning it, because it is a complete creature. But if he eats

flour, no,

Rabbi Shimon does not disagree; rather, he concedes to their words that when it is not a “complete creature,” its measure is an olive-bulk, in accordance with Rav Bibi!

And we reject this:

No!

Rabbi Shimon always disagrees even concerning flour, and holds that one is liable for eating any amount even when it is not a complete creature.

And what he said to the Rabbis, that they should agree with him concerning wheat—

according to their words

of the Sages

he said it to them.

And this is what he argued:

According to me,

according to my view,

even

for eating

flour too

he is liable for any amount.

But according to you,

according to your view, that only concerning the eating of a “complete creature” do you agree with me that an olive-bulk is not required,

at least agree with me concerning a single wheat grain,

which is

a complete creature,

that they should be liable for eating it!

And

if

the Rabbis

hold that liability for eating a complete creature, despite its not having the measure of an olive-bulk of eating, applies only to

a creature possessing a soul, because it is

because it is

significant.

But

wheat,

which is

not significant

by virtue of being a creature in its own right, one is not lashed for eating it without a measure.

It was taught in a beraita in accordance with Rabbi Yirmeya,

that Rabbi Shimon disagrees concerning all prohibitions of consumption and holds that one is liable for eating any amount.

For it was taught:

Rabbi Shimon says:

Eating

any amount—

it is sufficient

for

liability for it

to lashes.

And

they said

that one becomes liable specifically for the measure of

an olive-bulk only concerning

liability for a

sin-offering

alone.

Mishna:

The mitzva of bringing the first fruits is stated in the Book of Exodus: “The first fruits of your soil you shall bring to the House of the Lord

your God” [Exodus 23:19].

And it was repeated and restated in the Book of Deuteronomy [26:2]: “

And you shall take from the first of every fruit of the soil that you shall bring from your land, which the Lord your God gives you, and you shall place it in a basket. And you shall go to the place that the Lord your God will choose to cause His name to dwell there.

And you shall come to the koen who will be in those days, and you shall say to him: “I declare today,” and so forth. “

And the koen shall take the basket from your hand and place it before the altar of the Lord your God.

And you shall respond and say before the Lord your God: ‘An Aramean sought to destroy my father,’” and so forth. “

And now, behold, I have brought the first fruit of the soil that You have given me, O Lord.

And you shall place it before the Lord your God, and you shall bow before the Lord your God. And you shall rejoice in all the good that the Lord your God has given you and your household—you and the Levite and the stranger who is in your midst.”

And in tractate Bikkurim, the order of separating the first fruits and bringing them to the Temple is explained:

A person goes down into his field and sees a fruit from the seven species that has ripened first on the tree [the first fruit that blossomed that year on the tree]. He ties it to the fruit with a reed, in order to mark that it is the first-fruit fruit, and he does this on all the trees of the seven species in the field, and designates them by name, saying: “Behold, these are first fruits.”

And afterward he brings the first fruits up to Jerusalem [in the Mishna in tractate Bikkurim, Chapter 3, mishnayot 2–4, the entire procedure that they would perform when bringing the first fruits to Jerusalem is explained]. And when he reaches the Temple Mount, he takes the basket on his shoulder and enters with it until he reaches the Temple courtyard.

And while the basket is on his shoulder, he stands and recites from “I declare today to the Lord your God” [Deuteronomy 26:3] until he completes the entire portion.

When he reaches the verse “An Aramean sought to destroy my father,” he lowers the basket from his shoulder and grasps it by the upper rim, and the koen places his hand beneath the basket and waves it.

And the Israelite recites from the Torah, from “An Aramean sought to destroy my father,” until he completes the entire portion, and places the basket beside the altar , and bows and leaves.

And then the koen [from the members of the watch of that week] takes the first fruits, since the first fruits are one of the twenty-four gifts of the priesthood.

A koen

who eats first fruits

after they have seen the face of Jerusalem,

before he recited

their owner,

over them,

the one who brought them, the recitation of the first fruits from “An Aramean sought to destroy my father” [Deuteronomy 26:5], this person is lashed.

And in the Gemara it will be explained where the koen was warned concerning this—not to eat them before their owner recited over them the recitation of the first fruits.

And likewise, one who eats a sacrifice that is

most sacred

, such as a sin-offering or a guilt-offering,

outside the curtains

of the courtyard of the Tabernacle, or in the Temple outside the Temple courtyard, receives lashes.

And the Gemara will explain where they were warned concerning this.

And likewise, one who eats a sacrifice that is

of lesser sanctity

, such as a peace-offering or a thanksgiving-offering, outside the wall of Jerusalem.

And

likewise, one who eats

second tithe outside the wall

of Jerusalem—meaning pure second tithe that was eaten outside the wall after the second tithe had already come within sight of Jerusalem—receives lashes, as it is stated: “Before the Lord your God shall you eat it” [Deuteronomy 12:18], and earlier it is written: “You may not eat within your gates” [ibid. 17

].

one who breaks

the bone

of

a

pure Paschal offering receives forty lashes

, as it is written: “And you shall not break a bone of it ” [Exodus 12:46].

However, one who leaves over

the meat of a Paschal offering, as well as other sacred meat, until after the end of the time allotted for eating it,

while in purity

, when it is fit to be eaten—and all the more so when in ritual impurity—since the verse states, “You shall not leave any of it until morning; and what remains of it you shall burn in fire” [ibid. 12:10], does not receive lashes. This is because the verse comes to provide a positive commandment following a negative commandment: If you violated the prohibition of “You shall not leave any of it,” fulfill the positive commandment stated to rectify it, and you do not receive lashes for the violation. Furthermore, it does not involve an action.

And

likewise

one who breaks

a

bone

of a Paschal offering

while it is impure does not receive forty lashes

, as it is stated: “And you shall not break a bone of it” [ibid., 46]. And it is explained in tractate Pesaḥim [83a] that this verse speaks of a pure Paschal offering, and not of an impure one.

The mitzva of sending away the mother bird is to send the mother away from the nest before taking the chicks or the eggs, as it is stated: “If you happen upon a bird’s nest before you on the road, on any tree or on the ground, with fledglings or eggs, and the mother is sitting upon the fledglings or upon the eggs, you shall not take the mother together with the young. You shall surely send away the mother, and the young you may take for yourself, so that it will be good for you and you will prolong your days.”

One who takes

the

mother

, a bird sitting in a nest,

upon the young

Rabbi Yehuda says: He receives lashes, and he does not send away

the mother after taking her, in order to free himself from lashes. Rabbi Yehuda maintains that the meaning of the verse “You shall surely send away” [Deuteronomy 22:7] is: “Send away”—from the outset, before taking her. But once he has already taken her from upon her young, he can no longer fulfill the mitzva of “send away

».

And the Sages say: He sends her away, and he does not receive lashes.

For the Sages maintain that “send away” implies after taking her: If you took her, send away the mother, and do not continue to hold her in your hand. He is therefore exempt from lashes, because—

This is the general rule: With regard to every negative commandment that is accompanied by a positive commandment, one is not liable for it!

For so the Torah stated: If you violated the prohibition, fulfill the positive commandment associated with it, and be exempt.

All this applies when he can still fulfill the positive commandment and thereby rectify the violation of the prohibition. But if he slaughtered the mother, so that he can no longer send her away, he receives lashes.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: One who eats first fruits before he recited the declaration over them receives lashes.

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva the anonymous.

Rabbi Yoḥanan had received a tradition that Rabbi Akiva was the one who maintained that the recitation prevents the first fruits from being permitted for consumption, and that so long as he had not recited “An Aramean sought to destroy my father,” he had not completely fulfilled the mitzva of bringing the first fruits, and it was forbidden for a koen to eat the first fruits.

But the Sages say: With regard to first fruits, the placement prevents

their status.

Only placing the first fruits before the altar prevents fulfillment of the bringing of the first fruits, because the Torah repeated this requirement concerning them, as it is written: “And they shall place it before the altar of the Lord your God” [Deuteronomy 26:4], and likewise: “And you shall place it before the Lord your God” [ibid., 10

But the recitation

, in which the Israelite recites “An Aramean sought to destroy my father

does not prevent their status

, and it is permitted to eat them even before the recitation.

And we raise a difficulty: Why did Rabbi Yoḥanan state that our Mishna is the statement of Rabbi Akiva the anonymous?

But in the beraita that the Gemara will cite below, it is explicit that Rabbi Shimon agrees with our Mishna, that the recitation prevents the first fruits from being eaten.

And let him say,

let Rabbi Yoḥanan say about our Mishna:

This is the statement of Rabbi Shimon the anonymous,

for there is support for this from a beraita, whereas there is no support for the assertion that our Mishna is Rabbi Akiva’s.

And we answer:

This is what he teaches us

Rabbi Yoḥanan, by saying that our Mishna follows Rabbi Akiva: he wished to teach us

that

also

Rabbi Akiva holds like Rabbi Shimon.

And we explain:

What is the source for Rabbi Shimon’s view?

Where did we learn that Rabbi Shimon agrees with our Mishna?

As it is taught:

Several verses from the Torah must be introduced before beginning to study this beraita:

The Torah states [Deuteronomy 12:5]: “Rather, to the place that the Lord your God will choose from among all your tribes, to place His Name there; seek His dwelling [this refers to the Tabernacle at Shiloh], and come there. And there you shall bring

your burnt-offerings, your sacrifices, your tithes, the gifts of your hand, your offerings vowed and your freewill offerings, and the firstborn of your cattle and your flocks. And there you shall eat before the Lord your God, and you shall rejoice in all your undertakings, you and your households, with which the Lord your God has blessed you.”.

And afterward [in verse 11] it is written: “

And it shall be the place that the Lord your God will choose to cause His Name to dwell there [above, this refers to the Tabernacle at Shiloh; here, it refers to Jerusalem]. There you shall bring all that I command you: your burnt-offerings, your sacrifices, your tithes, the gift of your hand, and all the choicest of your vows that you vow to the Lord.” And afterward [in verse 17] it is written: “You may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain, your wine, or your oil, the firstborn of your cattle or your flocks, any of your vows that you vow, your freewill offerings, or the gift of your hand

Rather, before the Lord your God shall you eat it, in the place that the Lord your God will choose.”

And the beraita expounds the final verse.

The beraita begins by expounding the end of the verse, because if the verse were expounded in its order, it would be impossible to derive all the teachings, as will be explained below.

1.

“And the gift of your hand”—

these are the first fruits,

for the expression “hand” is used concerning them: “And the koen shall take the basket from your hand” [Deuteronomy 26

Rabbi Shimon said: What does this come to teach us?

Why did the verse that states, “You may not eat within your gates,” need to specify that the first fruits, too, may not be eaten outside Jerusalem?

If

the purpose is to prohibit

eating them outside the wall—

there is no need to state this.

For this law can be derived by

a kal va-chomer from second tithe

which is

less stringent,

as it is written at the beginning of the verse, “the tithe of your grain” [and below the Gemara will explain in what respect first fruits are more stringent than second tithe]:

And if, with regard to the less stringent tithe,

when one

eats it outside the wall,

his law is that he

receives lashes,

first fruits,

whose law is more stringent than that of second tithe,

all the more so

one receives lashes for eating them outside the wall!

Therefore, the verse did not come

“and the gift of your hand,” which teaches about first fruits,

except

in order

to

teach that

one who eats first fruits before he recited over them

the declaration of the one who brings first fruits, “An Aramean sought to destroy my father”—

», —

For whenever something is written concerning one subject but is not necessary for that subject, apply it to another similar subject, to teach a law concerning it.

Therefore, we say that if the verse is not needed to prohibit eating outside the wall, apply it to another appropriate prohibition.

2.

“And your freewill offerings”—

this is a thanksgiving-offering and a peace-offering

, which are ordinarily described in the Torah as freewill offerings, since they do not entail responsibility; if they were lost, one need not bring another in their place.

Rabbi Shimon said: What does this come to teach us,

why was it necessary to write it?

If

the purpose is to prohibit

eating them outside the wall,

this can be derived by

a kal va-chomer from second tithe

which is written at the beginning of the verse!

Therefore, the verse did not come

by writing “and your freewill offerings,”

except to

reveal to us that

one who eats a thanksgiving-offering or a peace-offering

before the sprinkling

of the blood on the altar

receives lashes.

For if the verse is not needed to prohibit eating it outside the wall, apply it to prohibit by a negative commandment the eating of a thanksgiving-offering or a peace-offering before the sprinkling, since there is no explicit warning against this elsewhere, only a positive commandment, as it is written: “And the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured out,” and only afterward, “and you shall eat the meat.”

».

“And the firstborn”—

this is the firstborn animal.

Rabbi Shimon said: What does this come to teach us,

why was it necessary to write it?

If

the purpose is to prohibit

eating them outside the wall,

this can be derived by

a kal va-chomer from second tithe

which is written at the beginning of the verse!

If

the purpose is to prohibit a koen, and certainly a non-koen, from eating them

before the sprinkling,

this can be derived by

a kal va-chomer from a thanksgiving-offering and a peace-offering

[and below the Gemara will explain in what respect the firstborn is more stringent than a thanksgiving-offering and a peace-offering].

Therefore, the verse did not come

by writing “the firstborn,”

except to

reveal that a non-koen

who eats from the firstborn even after the sprinkling receives lashes

, since the firstborn may be eaten only by kohanim, whereas elsewhere the Torah warned of this by a positive commandment, as it is written: “Only the firstborn of an ox, et cetera, and their meat shall be yours, like the breast of the waving” [Numbers 18

».

“Your cattle and your flocks”—

this is a sin-offering and a guilt-offering.

Рабби Шимон сказал: чему это должно нас научить,

Rabbi Shimon said: What does this come to teach us,

why was it necessary to write it?

If

the purpose is to prohibit

eating them outside the wall,

this can be derived by

a kal va-chomer from second tithe.

If

the purpose is to prohibit eating them

before the sprinkling,

this can be derived by

a kal va-chomer from a thanksgiving-offering and a peace-offering,

which are lesser sanctity offerings, whereas a sin-offering and a guilt-offering are most sacred offerings.

If

the purpose is to prohibit a non-koen from eating them

after the sprinkling,

this can be derived by

a kal va-chomer from the firstborn,

which is a lesser sanctity offering.

Therefore, the verse did not come

by writing “a sin-offering and a guilt-offering,”

except to

say that

one who eats from a sin-offering or a guilt-offering, even after the sprinkling, outside the curtains, receives lashes.

For elsewhere we find that the Torah warned of this by a positive commandment, as it is written: “In a holy place shall it be eaten, in the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting” [Leviticus 6

.

“Your vows”—

this is a burnt-offering.

Rabbi Shimon said: What does this come to teach us,

why was it necessary to write it?

If

the purpose is to prohibit

eating them outside the wall,

this can be derived by

a kal va-chomer from second tithe.

If

the purpose is to prohibit eating them

before the sprinkling,

this can be derived by

a kal va-chomer from a thanksgiving-offering and a peace-offering,

.

If

the purpose is to prohibit a non-koen from eating them

after the sprinkling,

this can be derived by

a kal va-chomer from the firstborn.

If

the purpose is to prohibit eating them

outside the curtains,

this can be derived by

a kal va-chomer from a sin-offering and a guilt-offering.

The Gemara will explain below in what respect the burnt-offering is more stringent than a sin-offering and a guilt-offering.