Makkot 18b (יח:) — the Talmud in English

Anything that is disqualified in the sacred realm

among all sacrificial items that became disqualified],

the verse comes to impose a prohibition against eating it.

And why did Rava not count this prohibition?

And we answer:

This applies

that one violates this prohibition only

where, before it became disqualified, it was fit

for consumption, as in notar. But

here,

in the case of an ola offering,

which, before it became disqualified,

was likewise not fit

and therefore one does not violate this prohibition.

We raise an objection:

And let him also receive lashes on account of the other

prohibition,

that of Rabbi Eliezer.

As it is taught in a beraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: Anything

item

to which the verse “It shall be entirely burned; it shall not be eaten” applies,

the verse comes

to impose

upon it

a prohibition against eating it.

If so, the flesh of an ola, which is entirely offered upon the altar, is subject to an additional prohibition against eating it. And why did Rava not count this prohibition?

And we answer:

Indeed, that is so;

Rava agrees that one receives lashes on account of this prohibition.

And Rava

counted only the prohibitions that derive

from this verse, “

You may not eat within your settlements,”

that is what he said. [סימן כוז"א]

Mnemonic: KUZA

Rav Giddel said that Rav said: A priest who ate

his portion

of a hatat or an asham before the sprinkling receives lashes.

What is the reason? —

Because

the verse says [(

Exodus 29)] “

And they shall eat them [(

Aaron and his sons, the priests, shall eat their portion of the offering),

which [(

already)]

has effected atonement through them [(

through the offering)].”

It follows from here that only

after atonement,

that is, only after the sprinkling of the blood, which effects atonement,

yes, [(

the priest may eat it).

But

before atonement, no,

the priest is not permitted to eat it. And this is

a prohibition derived from a positive commandment.

And every prohibition inferred from a positive commandment,

is a prohibition.

Rava objected:

How can it be said that a prohibition derived from a positive commandment is considered a prohibition rather than “a positive-commandment prohibition”?

But it is written in a beraita in the Sifra concerning the verse

“Any animal that has a split hoof, which is completely cloven into two hoofs, and brings up its cud among the animals, that you may eat.”

The wording of the verse demonstrates that only

“that you may eat.”

But,

and there is no

eating

of another animal,

which does not have these identifying signs and is impure, and that you shall not

eat.

And if it is as you say,

that a prohibition derived from a positive commandment is considered a prohibition, then why did the Torah write [Deuteronomy 14]

“You shall not eat these”; why do I need this?

Why did the Torah repeat the prohibition, by means of a prohibition, against eating an animal lacking the signs of purity, when the Torah had already prohibited this through a prohibition derived from a positive commandment?

Rather,

necessarily, a prohibition derived from a positive commandment is considered a positive-commandment prohibition, and therefore the Torah repeated the prohibition as a prohibition.

The Gemara answers:

If the statement [(

if the words of Rav Giddel who said them in the name of Rav were stated)],

was stated, it was stated as follows [(

this is how they were stated)]:

Rav Giddel said that Rav said: A non-priest who ate from a hatat or an asham before the sprinkling

of the offering’s blood upon the altar

is exempt.

What is the reason? —

Because

the verse says: “And they shall eat them, which effected atonement through them.”

Although this verse is stated concerning the eating of teruma, we learn from it with regard to the eating of sacrificial food. And at the end of the verse it is written: “And a non-priest shall not eat it, for they are sacred.”

And they derive from here:

Wherever the phrase “and they shall eat them, which effected atonement through them” applies,

that is, when it is fit for consumption by priests, then

the prohibition applies to it [(

then the prohibition is stated)]

“and a non-priest shall not eat

for

they are

sacred.”

But,

wherever the phrase “and they shall eat them

which effected atonement through them” does not apply,

that is, as long as it is not yet fit for consumption by priests,

the prohibition does not apply to it [(

the prohibition is not stated)]

“and a non-priest shall not eat it.”

The Gemara now cites several statements concerning the bringing of bikkurim and discusses them.

Rabbi Elazar said that Rabbi Oshaya said: With regard to bikkurim,

only

placing them

before the altar

is indispensable for them,

for fulfilling their mitzva and for permitting their consumption by priests.

But

the recitation

of the passage of bikkurim

is not indispensable for them.

Nevertheless, it is a mitzva not to eat them except after the recitation 12 .

We raise an objection:

Did Rabbi Elazar say this,

that the recitation is not indispensable for eating bikkurim?

But Rabbi Elazar said that Rabbi Oshaya said: If one set aside bikkurim before the festival

of Sukkot,

and the festival passed over them

and he had still not brought them to the Temple,

they must be left to rot.

Is it not

that the reason they must be left to rot

is that he cannot

recite the passage over them

after the festival has passed, since the Torah writes after the recitation of the passage of bikkurim, “And you shall rejoice in all the good,” and they derive from this that there is recitation only during a time of joy. Therefore, from Shavuot until Sukkot, which is the time when fruit is gathered and one rejoices in it, one brings and recites; but from Sukkot until Hanukkah, although much fruit is gathered until Hanukkah, nevertheless the joy of that year ended with the festival of Sukkot. Therefore, one brings but does not recite.

Since he set aside the bikkurim before the festival of Sukkot, when they were fit for recitation and the obligation of recitation took effect upon them, and when the festival passed they were disqualified from recitation, they must therefore be left to rot.

And if it enters your mind

that

recitation is not indispensable for them

with regard to bringing bikkurim,

why must they be left to rot?

He can still bring them without recitation.

And we answer: Actually, for items that are fit for recitation, recitation is not indispensable with regard to bringing bikkurim. But for those whose time has passed and which are no longer fit for recitation, recitation is indispensable for them.

In accordance with the statement of Rabbi Zeira,

as

we learned in tractate Menahot (103b): One who says, “It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal-offering of sixty-one issaron of flour,” brings sixty issaron of flour in one vessel and one issaron in another vessel. This is because up to sixty issaron, the flour can be thoroughly mixed with the oil of the meal-offering in a single vessel. But with sixty-one issaron of flour, the Sages have established that it cannot be properly mixed with the oil.

And the Gemara there raised the difficulty: What difference does it make that they cannot be mixed properly? Did we not learn in the Mishna that if he did not mix the flour with the oil, the meal-offering is valid after the fact?

And

Rabbi Zeira said: With regard to anything that is fit for mixing, the mixing is not indispensable for it.

Therefore, up to sixty issaron, the meal-offering is valid even if it was not mixed.

And anything that is not fit for mixing, the mixing is indispensable for it.

Therefore, with more than sixty issaron, the meal-offering is invalid.

This principle of Rabbi Zeira was not stated only with regard to mixing; rather, it is a general principle throughout the Torah, and therefore, also with regard to recitation when bringing bikkurim: For any bikkurim that are fit for recitation, recitation is not indispensable for them. But whenever they were fit for recitation, having been harvested before the festival, and the obligation of recitation took effect upon them, and the festival passed and they are now unfit for recitation, recitation is indispensable for them.

Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov taught

the ruling of Rabbi Elazar who said that Rabbi Oshaya said that placing the bikkurim is indispensable, whereas recitation is not indispensable,

as the statement of Rabbi Asi who said it in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan,

for Rav Asi stated it in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan.

And

there

was difficult for him that the

words of

Rabbi Yoḥanan contradicted the

words of

Rabbi Yoḥanan.

It was difficult for him:

Did Rabbi Yoḥanan say,

“With regard to bikkurim, placing them is indispensable, whereas recitation is not indispensable”?

But Rabbi Asi asked Rabbi Yoḥanan: With regard to bikkurim, from when are they permitted to priests?

And he said to him: Those fit for recitation,

from Shavuot until Sukkot, are permitted only

once he has recited over them.

And

those

that are not fit for recitation,

are permitted

once they have come before the entrance of the House

of the Temple, that is, once they enter the Temple courtyard, and placing them is not indispensable at all.

This is difficult:

the words of Rabbi Yoḥanan, from

recitation concerning recitation

for above he said that recitation is not indispensable, whereas here he said that recitation is indispensable.

And likewise

there is a difficulty

in his words, from

placing concerning placing

for above he said that placing is indispensable, whereas here he said that placing is not indispensable.

And we answer:

Recitation concerning recitation is not difficult.

This

the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan that recitation is indispensable, is in accordance with

Rabbi Shimon,

in accordance with whom we established our Mishna above, for he derives from “the contribution of your hand” that a priest who eats before the recitation violates a prohibition.

This

that Rabbi Yoḥanan said that recitation is not indispensable, is in accordance with

the Sages,

who disagree and maintain that recitation is not indispensable.

And likewise

placing concerning placing is also not difficult.

This

statement that placing is not indispensable is according to the opinion of

Rabbi Yehuda,

who expounds the additional “and you shall place it” in the Torah with regard to waving, and the verse does not repeat the word “placing” in order to indicate that it is indispensable.

And this

that Rabbi Yoḥanan said that placing is indispensable, he stated in accordance with

the Sages,

who derive from the Torah’s repetition of “placing” with regard to bikkurim that placing them before the altar is indispensable.

Where are the words of Rabbi Yehuda [(

where were Rabbi Yehuda’s words stated)]?

As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: “And you shall place it”—this is a wave offering,

for he understands “and you shall place it” as deriving from the expression “and God did not lead them” [Exodus 13], meaning that he waves it toward the four directions, and up and down.

You say

that “and you shall place it”

means a wave offering; or perhaps it means only actual placing?

When it says

earlier

“and he shall place it,” the placing is already stated

there.

How, then, do I understand

the requirement to derive from

“and you shall place it”? —

This is a wave offering.

And since, according to Rabbi Yehuda, there is only one verse concerning placing, and the Torah did not repeat it, it does not invalidate the mitzva.

And who is the tanna who disagrees with Rabbi Yehuda,

and holds that the placing invalidates?

It is Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov,

who derives the requirement of a wave offering from another verse.

As it is taught:

It is written in the Torah:

“And the kohen shall take the basket from your hand”—this teaches that bikkurim require a wave offering; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov.

And we raised a question about this:

What is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov?

How did he learn from the meaning of this verse, which speaks of the kohen taking the basket, that it refers to a wave offering?

And we explain:

It is derived

by a gezera shava,

“hand, hand,” from

the wave offering of the breast, thigh, and sacrificial portions of

the shelamim.

It is written here: “And the kohen shall take the basket from your hand.”

And it is written

with regard to the wave offering of the shelamim:

“His hands

[of the owner of the shelamim]

shall bring the fire offerings of the Lord”

Leviticus 7].

And from this we learn,

just as here,

with regard to bikkurim, the verse speaks of the hands of the

kohen,

as it is written, “And the kohen shall take the basket”

so too there,

with regard to the shelamim, it must be in the hands of the

kohen.

And likewise we learn from the shelamim with regard to bikkurim:

Just as there,

with regard to the shelamim, the verse speaks of the hands of the

owner, so here too

with regard to bikkurim, it must be in the hands of the

owner.

How is this possible

for both of them to wave it?

The kohen places his hands beneath the hands of the owners,

as the owners hold the rim of the basket, while the kohen places his hands beneath its bottom,

and he waves it.

Rava bar Adda said in the name of Rabbi Yitzḥak: Bikkurim—