Makkot 18a — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

Rather

the reason that they learn from “from the gift of your hand” that there is liability for lashes for one who eats first fruits before the recitation is not because they learn the prohibition of eating first fruits outside the wall by a kal va-chomer from second tithe, but because the details in verse 17

are an extra verse,

See above, 17a, at the beginning of Rabbi Shimon’s beraita, where we brought all the verses in full.

Since it is written

for earlier it is written, in verse 6:

“And you shall bring there

your burnt offerings and your sacrifices and your tithes and the gift of your hand and your vows and your freewill offerings and the firstborn of your cattle and of your flock.

And you shall eat there before the Lord your God,” and so on

Deuteronomy 12:6–

7.

If so, afterward, when the Torah writes the prohibition of eating outside the wall, it would have been enough

for the Merciful One to write, “You shall not be able to eat them”!

For the verse refers to the details that the Torah specified earlier, and it is not necessary to specify again all the forbidden things ,

Then why

does the Merciful One return and specify them,

that the Torah returned to specify: “the grain of your grain and your wine and your oil and the firstborn of your cattle and your flock and all your vows that you vow and your freewill offerings and the gift of your hand”—why do I need this?

Rather,

they are extra with regard to the prohibition of eating outside the wall, not because of the kal va-chomer, but because they had already been specified in the preceding verse.

And therefore, assign it

to single out for them

prohibitions of

new prohibitions

in which there is liability for lashes. Therefore, in the case of first fruits, assign it to eating before the recitation, for which there is liability for lashes, and likewise

for each and every one

assign it to a new prohibition for which there is liability for lashes .

The body of the matter:

We learned above:

Rava said: A non-priest who ate from a burnt offering, before the sprinkling, outside the wall, according to Rabbi Shimon receives five lashes.

A. Because of eating a sacred offering outside the wall, learned by a kal va-chomer from second tithe. B. Because of eating outside the curtains, learned by a kal va-chomer from a sin offering and a guilt offering. C. Because of eating before the sprinkling of the blood, learned by a kal va-chomer from a thanksgiving offering and peace offerings. D. Because of being a complete non-priest who eats even after the sprinkling, learned by a kal va-chomer from a firstborn. E. Because of eating a burnt offering even after the sprinkling and even inside the curtains.

And we raise an objection against Rava:

And let him also receive lashes because of “and a non-priest shall not eat, for they are sacred”

which is stated concerning the inauguration offerings, since, as it is written, “for they are sacred,” and Scripture gave a reason for the matter, because they are most sacred offerings; if so, it comes to warn the non-priest with a prohibition concerning all most sacred offerings, so that the non-priest receives lashes for eating them. And why did Rava not count this prohibition?

And we answer:

These words

that he transgresses this prohibition apply only

where they are fit for the priests.

They are fit for them to eat from the offering when it is inside, for the passage there speaks of the inauguration offerings that are eaten, namely a sin offering and peace offerings, and it is written there at the beginning of the verse, “And they shall eat them through whom atonement was made.”

That is not so

here,

in the case of a burnt offering,

which is not fit even for the priests

its flesh is not fit for eating even when it is inside the boundaries, since all the flesh of the burnt offering is burned entirely upon the altar, they are not included in this prohibition, and therefore he does not receive lashes because of this prohibition.

And we raise an objection:

And let him also receive lashes because of

“Exodus 29”

“And flesh in the field, torn, you shall not eat.”

We learned from the superfluous word “in the field” that Scripture speaks of the flesh of sacred offerings that went outside the boundaries, like a “field” that has no boundaries;

once the flesh went outside its boundary, it became forbidden.

And likewise, in the case of a fetus that extended its hand [outside the boundary of its mother] at the time its mother was slaughtered, the slaughtering of its mother does not count for the fetus’s hand, and it becomes forbidden.

If so, also in Rava’s case he should receive lashes because of this prohibition. And why did Rava not count it?

And we answer:

These words

that he transgresses this prohibition apply only

where inside

the boundaries it is

fit

for eating, analogous to “flesh in the field.”

That is not so

here,

in the case of the flesh of a burnt offering,

which is not fit even inside.

Therefore he does not transgress this prohibition .

And we raise an objection:

And let him also receive lashes in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer. For Rabbi Eliezer said,

from the fact that it is written concerning notar [Exodus 29]

“He shall not be eaten, for sacred

it is

they are ”.

And since Scripture gave a reason for the matter being disqualified, “for it is sacred,” we learn from this,