Makkot 18a (יח.) — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

Rather,

the reason that we derive from “from the gift of your hand” that one is liable to lashes for eating bikkurim before the recitation is not that the prohibition against eating bikkurim outside the wall is derived by means of a kal va-chomer from ma'aser; rather, the details in the verse are

an extraneous verse,

see above, 17a, at the beginning of the beraita of Rabbi Shimon, where we cited all the verses in full

Since it is written [as it is written earlier, in verse 6]

“

“And you shall bring there

your burnt offerings and your sacrifices, your tithes and the gift of your hand, your vows and your voluntary offerings, and the firstborn of your cattle and of your flocks.

And you shall eat there before the Lord your God,” and so on [Deuteronomy 12:6–7]

Deuteronomy 12:6–

7.

If so, when the Torah subsequently writes the prohibition against eating outside the wall, it would have sufficed

for the Merciful One to write, “You may not eat them”!

for the verse refers to the items that the Torah specified earlier, and there is no need to specify again all the prohibited items ,

Then why

does the Merciful One return and specify them,

namely: the grain of your produce, your wine, and your oil, the firstborn of your cattle and of your flocks, all your vows that you vow, your voluntary offerings, and the gift of your hand—what is the need for this?

Rather,

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

Therefore, assign them

to designate for them

new

prohibitions

for which one is liable to lashes. Accordingly, in the case of bikkurim, assign it to the prohibition against eating them before the recitation, for which one is liable to lashes; and likewise,

for each and every one

assign it a new prohibition for which one is liable to lashes .

The substance of the matter:

We learned above:

Rava said: If a non-priest ate from an olah before the sprinkling, outside the wall, according to Rabbi Shimon he is lashed five times.

a. Because he ate sacrificial meat outside the wall, derived by means of a kal va-chomer from ma'aser. b. Because he ate it outside the curtains, derived by means of a kal va-chomer from a sin offering and a guilt offering. c. Because he ate it before the blood was sprinkled, derived by means of a kal va-chomer from a thanksgiving offering and peace offerings. d. Because he is a complete non-priest who ate it even after the sprinkling, derived by means of a kal va-chomer from a firstborn offering. e. Because he ate an olah even after the sprinkling and even within the curtains.

And we raise an objection to Rava:

And let him also be lashed because of “And a non-priest shall not eat, for they are sacred” [Exodus 29],

which is stated with regard to the inauguration offerings. Since it is written, “for they are sacred,” and Scripture gives the reason for the matter—that they are sacrifices of the most sacred order—it follows that it comes to warn a non-priest with a prohibition against all sacrifices of the most sacred order, so that a non-priest is lashed for eating them. Why, then, did Rava not count this prohibition?

And we answer:

This statement

that one violates this prohibition applies only

where it is fit for the priests.

It is fit for them to eat from the offering when it is inside, for the reference there is to edible inauguration offerings, namely, a sin offering and peace offerings, and at the beginning of the verse it is written: “And they shall eat them, by which atonement was made for them.”

But

here,

with regard to an olah offering,

which is not fit even for the priests

its flesh is not fit to be eaten even when it is within the partitions , since all the flesh of an olah is burned entirely on the altar. They therefore are not included in this prohibition, and he is consequently not lashed because of it.

And we raise an objection:

And let him also be lashed because of [Exodus 29]

[Exodus 29]

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

We derive from the superfluous word “in the field” that Scripture is speaking of sacrificial flesh that went outside its partitions, like a “field,” which has no partitions:

Once the flesh has gone outside its partition, it becomes prohibited.

Likewise, in the case of a fetus that extended its foreleg [outside its mother’s partition] while its mother was being slaughtered, the slaughtering of its mother does not render the fetus’s foreleg permitted, and it becomes prohibited.

If so, also in Rava’s case he should be lashed because of this prohibition. Why did Rava not count it?

And we answer:

This statement

that one violates this prohibition applies only

where, inside,

within the partitions, it is

fit

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

But

here,

with regard to the flesh of an olah offering,

which is not fit even inside.

Therefore, he does not violate this prohibition .

And we raise an objection:

And let him also be lashed in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer. For Rabbi Eliezer said,

from the fact that it is written with regard to notar [Exodus 29],

“He shall not eat it, for it is sacred

it

they .”

And since Scripture gives the reason for the matter—that it is disqualified “because it is sacred”—we derive from this,