Makkot 18b — the Talmud in English

Everything that is invalid in the sacred [offerings]

in all the sacred offerings that became invalid],

the verse comes to establish a prohibition against eating it.

And why did Rava not count this prohibition?

And we answer:

these words

that one transgresses this prohibition apply only

where, before its invalidation, it was fit

for eating, as with notar. But

here,

in the olah offering,

which, before its invalidation,

was likewise not fit,

therefore he does not transgress this prohibition.

And we ask:

and let him also receive lashes on account of the other

prohibition

of Rabbi Eliezer.

For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: everything

that

is included in “it shall be wholly burned; you shall not eat it,”

the verse comes

to establish

in it

a prohibition against eating it.

If so, the flesh of an olah, which is wholly offered upon the altar, has an additional prohibition against eating it. And why did Rava not count this prohibition?

And we answer:

indeed, so it is;

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

And Rava,

only the prohibitions that exist

from this verse, “

you may not eat within your gates,”

did he state.

Mnemonic: KU-ZA

Rav Gidel said in the name of Rav: A priest who ate

his portion

of a sin-offering or a guilt-offering 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, their portion of the offering,

which

already

atonement has been made through them

through the offering].”

And it follows precisely from here that only

after atonement,

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

yes, [already]

the priest may eat it.

But

before atonement, no,

the priest was not permitted to eat. And this is

a prohibition inferred from a positive commandment.

And every prohibition that is inferred from a positive commandment,

is a prohibition.

Rava raised an objection:

how can it be said that a prohibition learned from a positive commandment is considered a prohibition, and not a “positive-commandment prohibition”?

But it is written in a beraita in the Torat Kohanim concerning the verse

“And every animal that has a split hoof, cleft into two hoofs, and brings up its cud among the animals—that you may eat.”

And it is demonstrated from the wording of the verse that only

“that you may eat.”

But,

and there is not

to eat

another animal,

which does not have these signs, for it is impure, and it

you shall not eat.

And if it is as you say,

that a prohibition learned from a positive commandment is considered a prohibition, then this that the Torah wrote [Deuteronomy 14],

“These you shall not eat”—why do I need it?

Why did the Torah again prohibit, through a prohibition, one who eats an animal without the signs of purity, when the Torah had already prohibited this through a prohibition inferred from a positive commandment?

Rather,

necessarily, a prohibition inferred from a positive commandment is considered a positive-commandment prohibition, and therefore the Torah again prohibited it as a prohibition.

And the Gemara answers:

If it was stated

if the words of Rav Gidel in the name of Rav were stated],

this is how they were stated

thus they were said]:

Rav Gidel said in the name of Rav: A non-priest who ate from a sin-offering or a guilt-offering 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, through which atonement has been made.”

And although this verse was said concerning the eating of teruma, we learn from it concerning the eating of sacred offerings. And at the end of the verse it is written, “And a non-priest shall not eat, for they are holy.”

And we expound from here:

wherever “and they shall eat them, through which atonement has been made,” can be applied,

that is, when it is fit for the priests’ eating, then

we can apply to it

then the prohibition of]

“and a non-priest shall not eat

for

holy

they are”.

But,

wherever “and they shall eat them

through which atonement has been made,”

that is, as long as it is not yet fit for the priests’ eating,

we cannot apply to it

the prohibition of]

“and a non-priest shall not eat.”

The Gemara now brings several statements concerning the bringing of first fruits, and discusses them.

Rabbi Elazar said in the name of Rabbi Hoshaya: With first fruits,

only

placing

before the altar

prevents their [law] from being fulfilled,

both the fulfillment of their mitzva and the permission for the priests to eat them.

But

the recitation

of the passage of the first fruits

does not prevent their [law from being fulfilled].

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

And we ask:

And did Rabbi Elazar say this,

that recitation does not prevent the eating of first fruits?

But Rabbi Elazar said in the name of Rabbi Hoshaya: One who separated first fruits before the festival

of Sukkot,

and the festival passed over them

while he had still not brought them to the Temple,

they must rot.

Is it not

that the reason they must rot

is that he cannot

recite over them

after the festival has passed, since the Torah writes after the recitation of the passage of first fruits, “and you shall rejoice in all the good,” and we expound from this that there is recitation only at a time of joy; therefore, from Shavuot until Sukkot, which is the time of gathering fruits and rejoicing in them, he brings and recites, but from Sukkot until Hanukkah, although many fruits are gathered until Hanukkah, nevertheless the joy of that year ended at the festival of Sukkot; therefore, he brings but does not recite.

And since he separated the first fruits before the festival of Sukkot, and they were fit for recitation, and the obligation of recitation took effect upon them, and when the festival passed over them they were rejected from recitation, therefore they must rot.

And if it enters your mind

that

recitation does not prevent their [law from being fulfilled]

in bringing first fruits,

why must they rot?

For he can still bring them without recitation.

And we answer: In truth, with those fit for recitation, recitation does not prevent the bringing of first fruits; but with those whose time has passed and which are no longer fit for recitation, recitation prevents their [law from being fulfilled].

As Rabbi Zeira [said],

for

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 one vessel. But with sixty-one issaron of flour, the Sages have established that they are not mixed properly with the oil.

And the Gemara there raised the difficulty: What concern is it to us that they are not mixed properly? For we learned: If one did not mix the flour with the oil, after the fact the meal-offering is valid.

And

Rabbi Zeira said: Everything that is “fit for mixing,” the mixing does not prevent its [validity].

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

And anything that is not fit for mixing, the mixing prevents its [validity].

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

And this law of Rabbi Zeira was not stated only concerning mixing, but is a general principle throughout the Torah, and therefore also concerning recitation in the bringing of first fruits: all first fruits that are fit for recitation—the recitation does not prevent their [law from being fulfilled]. But anything that was fit for recitation, that was picked before the festival, and upon which the obligation of recitation took effect, and the festival passed, and it is now unfit for recitation—the recitation prevents its [law from being fulfilled].

Rav Aha bar Yaakov taught it

the law of Rabbi Elazar in the name of Rabbi Hoshaya—that placing prevents the [fulfillment of the law of] first fruits, but recitation does not prevent it—

as Rabbi Asi said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan,

for Rav Asi said it in the name of Rabbi Yohanan.

And

there was

a difficulty for him with the

words of

Rabbi Yohanan against the words of

Rabbi

Yohanan.

For this was difficult for him:

And did Rabbi Yohanan say,

“With first fruits, placing prevents their [law from being fulfilled], but recitation does not prevent their [law from being fulfilled]”?

But Rabbi Asi asked Rabbi Yohanan: “First fruits—from when are they permitted to the priests?”

And he said to him: “Those fit for recitation,

from Shavuot until the festival, are permitted only

once he has recited over them.

And

those

that are not fit for recitation,

are permitted

once they have appeared before the Temple

that is, once they enter the courtyard, and placing does not prevent [their permission] at all.

There is a difficulty

with Rabbi Yohanan’s words from

recitation against recitation,

for above he said that recitation does not prevent [it], whereas here he said that recitation prevents [it].

And likewise

there is a difficulty

with his words from

placing against placing,

for above he said that placing prevents [it], whereas here he said that placing does not prevent [it].

And we answer:

Recitation against recitation is not difficult.

This

the statement of Rabbi Yohanan that recitation prevents [it], is according to

Rabbi Shimon,

with whom we established our Mishna above, who learned from “the offering of your hand” that a priest who eats before recitation transgresses a prohibition.

This

that Rabbi Yohanan said, that recitation does not prevent [it], is according to

the Sages,

who dispute and hold that recitation does not prevent [it].

And likewise

placing against placing is also not difficult.

This

statement that placing does not prevent [it], is according to Rabbi

Yehuda,

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

But this

that Rabbi Yohanan said, that placing prevents [it], he spoke according to

the Sages,

who expound from the fact that the Torah repeated “placing” concerning first fruits, in order to say that placing them before the altar is indispensable.

What is [the source of the words of] Rabbi Yehuda

where were the words of Rabbi Yehuda stated]?

For it was taught: Rabbi Yehuda says, “And you shall set it down”—this is waving,

for he reads “and you shall set it down” in the sense of “and God did not lead them” [Exodus 13], meaning that he waves it to the four directions, and raises and lowers it.

You say

that “and you shall set it down”

means waving, or is it only actual setting down?

When it says

earlier

“and he shall set it down,” setting down has already been stated

already.

Then what do I understand

to expound from

“and you shall set it down”? —

This is waving.

And since, according to Rabbi Yehuda, there is only one verse concerning setting down, and Scripture did not repeat it, it does not invalidate.

And who is the tanna who disputes Rabbi Yehuda,

and holds that setting down invalidates?

It is Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov,

who derives waving from another verse.

For it was taught:

It is written in the Torah:

“And the priest shall take the basket from your hand”—this teaches concerning first fruits that they require waving; these are the words of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov.

And we raised the question:

What is Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov’s reason?

How did he learn from the meaning of this verse, which speaks of waving?

And we explain:

It is derived

by a gzera shava,

“hand, hand,” from

the waving of the breast, the thigh, and the sacrificial portions of

peace offerings.

It is written here, “And the priest shall take the basket from your hand.”

And it is written

concerning the waving of peace offerings:

“His hands

[of the owner of the peace offerings]

shall bring the fire-offerings of the Lord”

[Leviticus 7].

And from this we learn:

Just as here,

with first fruits, the reference is to the hands of a

priest,

as it is written, “And the priest shall take”

so there,

with peace offerings, it must be in the hands of the

priest.

And likewise we learn from peace offerings concerning first fruits:

Just as there,

with peace offerings, the reference is to the hands of the

owner, so here,

with first fruits, it must be in the hands of the

owner.

How is this accomplished?

The two of them wave it?

The priest places his hands beneath the hands of the owner,

for the owner holds the rim of the basket, while the priest places his hands beneath its bottom,

and waves it.

Rava bar Adda said in the name of Rabbi Yitzhak: First fruits—