Makkot 17b — the Talmud in English

The verse did not come

by this, that it wrote “elevation”

but to

say that the one who

eats from the elevation-offering after the sprinkling, even inside,

and even a

koen—he is flogged.

For elsewhere we find that the verse warned about it by a positive command, as it is written: “And the sons of Aaron shall arrange ... it is a whole burnt offering” [Leviticus 1], for the elevation-offering is entirely for the altar and is not given for eating.

Thus far are the words of the beraita .

Rava said

words of praise concerning Rabbi Shimon:

She whose mother gives birth

everyone whose mother gives birth, should request mercy: May it be the will that she

give birth to a Rabbi Shimon. And if not, let her not give birth.

And although

Rabbi Shimon’s expositions are based on the fact that the matters mentioned in the verse “are not relevant” to the prohibition mentioned in the verse, since they can be learned by a kal va-chomer from elsewhere, and therefore a prohibition concerning another matter can be learned from them, and we find

that they have

all the matters learned by a kal va-chomer

a refutation

of the kal va-chomer, so that apparently it is no longer possible to learn other prohibitions from the matters mentioned. For they are needed for themselves [such as with regard to the prohibition against eating outside the wall], which cannot be learned by a kal va-chomer—nevertheless, Rabbi Shimon’s words are worthy of praise, as will be explained below.

And the refutations against the kal va-chomer are:

1.

What stringency does first fruits have over tithe,

because of which the prohibition against eating first fruits outside the wall is learned from tithe by a kal va-chomer,

for

first fruits

are forbidden to non-koanim,

which is not so with tithe?

On the contrary,

one should refute that

tithe is more stringent

than first fruits,

for

tithe

is forbidden to an acute mourner [on the first day of the death of his dead], for it is written in the section concerning the confession over tithes: “I have not eaten of it in my mourning.” But this is not so with first fruits,

which are permitted to an acute mourner according to Rabbi Shimon in Yevamot [73b].

If so, it is not possible to learn by a kal va-chomer from tithe the prohibition against eating first fruits outside the wall.

2.

And what stringency do thanksgiving-offerings and peace-offerings have over tithe, for

thanksgiving-offerings and peace-offerings

require the placing of the blood and the sacrificial portions upon the altar,

which is not so with tithe ?

On the contrary,

one should refute that

tithe is more stringent

than thanksgiving-offerings and peace-offerings,

for

it is impossible to redeem tithes with an asimon, which is a piece of silver without a design, but

they require silver bearing a design

[a coin stamped with a design or letters] for their redemption, as it is written: “And you shall bind up the silver in your hand” [Deuteronomy 14]—silver upon which there is a design . This is not so with thanksgiving-offerings and peace-offerings, for even when they become invalid with an invalidity of the body, and they have redemption, the verse did not require that their redemption be with something bearing a design .

If so, it is not possible to learn by a kal va-chomer from tithe the prohibition against eating thanksgiving-offerings and peace-offerings outside the wall.

3.

And what stringency does a firstborn have over thanksgiving-offerings and peace-offerings,

because of which the prohibition against a koen eating the firstborn before the sprinkling of the blood is learned from thanksgiving-offerings and peace-offerings by a kal va-chomer,

for

the firstborn

has its sanctity from the womb.

This is not so with thanksgiving-offerings and peace-offerings.

On the contrary,

one should refute that

thanksgiving-offerings and peace-offerings are more stringent

than a firstborn,

for they require laying on of hands, libations, and the waving of the breast and thigh,

which is not so with a firstborn, as we learned in the Mishna in Menahot [92a].

If so, it is not possible to learn by a kal va-chomer from thanksgiving-offerings and peace-offerings that there is a prohibition against a koen eating the firstborn before the sprinkling of the blood.

4.

And what stringency do sin-offerings and guilt-offerings have over a firstborn,

because of which a prohibition against eating by a non-koen is learned from a firstborn,

for

sin-offerings and guilt-offerings are

most holy offerings,

whereas a firstborn is an offering of lesser sanctity?

On the contrary,

one should refute that

a firstborn is more stringent

than a sin-offering and a guilt-offering,

for its sanctity is from the womb,

which is not so with a sin-offering and a guilt-offering.

If so, it is not possible to learn by a kal va-chomer from a firstborn that sin-offerings and guilt-offerings are forbidden to non-koanim.

5.

And what stringency does an elevation-offering have over a sin-offering and a guilt-offering,

because of which it is learned that it is forbidden to eat an elevation-offering outside the curtains,

for

an elevation-offering is offered

entirely

upon the altar, whereas this is not so with a sin-offering and a guilt-offering, for not all of it goes upon the altar; rather, they have a portion that is eaten by the koanim.

On the contrary,

one should refute that

sin-offerings and guilt-offerings are more stringent

than an elevation-offering,

for

they are offerings

that atone,

whereas an elevation-offering is not an offering for atonement, but comes as a voluntary offering .

If so, it is not possible to learn by a kal va-chomer from a sin-offering and a guilt-offering that it is forbidden to eat an elevation-offering outside the curtains.

6. And likewise one may further refute the stringency of an elevation-offering:

And all of them,

all those offerings mentioned above, such as thanksgiving-offerings and peace-offerings, firstborns, sin-offerings, and guilt-offerings,

are more stringent than an elevation-offering, for they contain two eatings,

the eating of the altar and the eating of a person, whereas an elevation-offering contains only the eating of the altar .

If so, it is not possible to learn an elevation-offering by a kal va-chomer from the other offerings that contain human eating.

If so, it is necessary to explain,

but what is it,

why did Rava praise Rabbi Shimon, saying that

she whose mother gives birth should give birth to a Rabbi

Shimon.

But the kal va-chomer teachings upon which his expositions are based are refuted.

And we explain: Rava praised Rabbi Shimon because

according to what he himself held,

according to Rabbi Shimon’s reasoning, since he did not accept the refutations of the stringencies, he knew very well how to

distort the verse for him, and expound it.

He was highly astute in this: he expounded the less stringent first, and afterward the more stringent, rather than according to the order presented in the verse,

for if he had expounded it in its order, he would not have been able to learn these prohibitions from it, each one individually.

For if he had expounded according to the order in which they are written, and not according to the order of their stringency, then he would first have had to expound:

“And firstborns”—this is the firstborn. And what does this come to teach us? If it is to eat it outside the wall, it should be learned by a kal va-chomer from tithe; if it is to eat it before the sprinkling, it should be learned by a kal va-chomer from thanksgiving-offerings and peace-offerings.

But this is not correct, for they had not yet expounded thanksgiving-offerings and peace-offerings.

And necessarily he would have had to say: The verse did not come except for one who eats from the firstborn before the sprinkling, that he is flogged. And then he would have no further source for the prohibition carrying lashes against a non-koen who eats from it after the sprinkling.

And likewise, the other prohibitions that Rabbi Shimon expounded were learned only because Rabbi Shimon expounded them according to the order of their stringency and not according to the order in which they are written.

And because of this Rava praised him.

And we raise an objection: How did Rabbi Shimon say that the details mentioned in the verse are not needed with regard to the warning against eating outside the wall, but rather with regard to another prohibition, since the prohibition against eating outside the wall can be learned by a kal va-chomer from tithe?

And do they warn from an inference

[and is it possible to learn a warning of a prohibition for which one is flogged by a kal va-chomer]?

But even according to the one who says, “Punishments are derived from an inference,”

[that a punishment may be learned by a kal va-chomer from elsewhere, where the Torah punished], he agrees that

one does not warn

the warning of the prohibition

from an inference!

If so, perhaps the entire verse here comes with regard to the prohibition against eating outside the wall, and not with regard to other prohibitions, since one cannot learn one from the other by a kal va-chomer.

And we answer: Rabbi Shimon does not learn from the kal va-chomer a prohibition that entails lashes, but only

a prohibition

of a negative commandment

in general

without lashes, and this can be learned by a kal va-chomer. And what is written, “he is flogged,” does not refer to lashes, but means that he is punished with the punishment of a negative commandment .

And we refute:

But Rava said:

A non-koen who ate from the elevation-offering, before the sprinkling, outside the wall—

according to Rabbi Shimon, is flogged five times:

a. Because of eating outside the wall, which is learned by a kal va-chomer from tithe.

b. Because of eating before the sprinkling, which is learned by a kal va-chomer from thanksgiving-offerings and peace-offerings.

c. Because he is a complete non-koen, who is forbidden to eat even after the sprinkling, and this is learned by a kal va-chomer from a firstborn; all the more so is he forbidden to eat before the sprinkling.

d. Because of eating outside the curtains, which is learned by a kal va-chomer from a sin-offering and a guilt-offering.

e. Because of eating an elevation-offering, which is forbidden even to a koen and even inside the curtains; all the more so is it forbidden to a non-koen outside the curtains and outside the wall .

If so, it implies that there are lashes also for the prohibitions learned by a kal va-chomer.

And we answer: Even in Rava’s words, the intention is only that

there were five prohibitions

and not that one is flogged for them; and what he said, “he is flogged five times,” means that he is punished for five prohibitions.

And we raise an objection:

But we learned

in our Mishna above: “

These are the ones who are flogged,”

and it says there: one who eats first fruits, and one who eats most holy offerings outside the curtains.

But there it is speaking of lashes and not merely of a negative-commandment prohibition, for it is explicitly written in the Mishna, “he is flogged forty.” And the source of the prohibition against eating first fruits before the recitation is according to Rabbi Shimon, as was explained on the previous page; and Rabbi Shimon learns these prohibitions by means of a kal va-chomer. If so, it implies that from a kal va-chomer one learns a prohibition that entails lashes .