Makkot 19b (יט:) — the Talmud in English

And we raise an objection:

This works well according to the one who says

that the principle is that, with regard to sacrificial offerings, one does not derive a hekesh from a matter that itself was learned through a hekesh,

we follow the matter that was learned

[the statement applies to the matter that was learned]; that is, sacrificial offerings cannot be derived through a hekesh from something that itself was learned through a hekesh. Here, since the matter being learned [second tithe] is non-sacred produce, it may be learned through a hekesh from something that itself was learned through a hekesh.

But according to the one who says

that the principle is that “with regard to sacrificial offerings, one does not derive through a hekesh from a matter that was learned through a hekesh,”

we follow the matter that teaches

[the statement applies to the matter serving as the source of the teaching]: sacrificial offerings learned through a hekesh cannot teach another matter through a hekesh—

what can be said?

How can second tithe be learned through a hekesh from the firstborn? After all, the matter teaching about second tithe is the flesh of the firstborn, which is a sacrificial offering; and since the flesh of the firstborn itself was learned through a hekesh from the blood of the firstborn, it cannot teach about second tithe through a hekesh, since a firstborn offering is a sacrificial offering, and sacrificial offerings cannot serve as a source for teaching others through a hekesh when they themselves were learned through a hekesh!

And we answer: The flesh of the firstborn is not considered

blood and flesh—

they are one matter.

The blood itself, which is sprinkled only when the Temple is standing, was not learned through a hekesh; rather, it is stated explicitly that it exists only when there is an altar.

We learned in the Mishna:

Most sacred offerings outside the curtains, lesser sanctity offerings and second tithe outside the wall:

And we raise an objection:

We already learned it,

for we have already learned

once

[this law] [that one who eats second tithe outside the wall receives lashes], as the tanna said at the beginning of the chapter: “And these are the ones liable to lashes—

second tithe and sacrificial animals that were not redeemed.”

The prohibition against eating second tithe that was not redeemed applies only when one eats it outside the wall of Jerusalem.

And since the law prohibiting the eating of second tithe outside the wall has already been taught, why did the tanna repeat it here?

And we answer:

Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: The latter clause

[of our Mishna, which is the latter clause of the previous Mishna at the beginning of the chapter] speaks

of pure second tithe, and a pure person who eats

[a pure person who ate pure second tithe]

outside the wall,

and he receives lashes.

Whereas the

first clause

[the previous Mishna, at the beginning of the chapter] speaks

of impure second tithe, or

[alternatively,]

an impure person

eating pure second tithe

and eating it in

Jerusalem

without redemption; he receives lashes because it is prohibited to eat second tithe in a state of ritual impurity in Jerusalem until after it has been redeemed.

without redeeming it. He is flogged because it is prohibited to eat second tithe in a state of ritual impurity in Jerusalem until it has been redeemed.

And we inquire:

And from where does

the Mishna above derive this law,

that it makes one liable for it

[for second tithe]

because of impurity

if one ate it without redeeming it?

And we explain: This law is derived from that

as it was taught:

Rabbi Shimon says:

The Torah states in the passage concerning the confession over the tithes that one declares that he conducted himself with the tithe according to its laws:

“I have not consumed from it

[the expression refers to destruction; that is, I did not benefit from it through eating, drinking, or anointing]

while impure.”

[Deuteronomy 26:14]

And Rabbi Shimon expounds that the expression “while impure” means:

whether I was impure

with bodily impurity,

and it was

the tithe

pure.

Whether I was pure, and it was

the tithe

impure

with its own impurity.

And the beraita explains:

And where is one warned

with a prohibition

concerning eating,

so that one may not eat second tithe in a state of impurity, as they said in the Mishna that one receives lashes for this?

I do not know

a specific place where one is explicitly warned, since the statement of the one bringing the first fruits, “I have not consumed from it while impure,” is merely part of the confession and is not a source for the prohibition.

Rather, the warning is derived by means of a gzera shava, as the beraita concludes below: “The verse states: ‘You may not eat within your gates.’” This is the end of the wording of the beraita.

However, before the Gemara quotes the conclusion of the beraita, it interrupts in order to raise a difficulty:

How could Rabbi Shimon say in the beraita that he does not know an explicit warning concerning the eating of second tithe while the person is impure?

After all, the prohibition against eating second tithe in a state of

bodily impurity

of the person—

is explicitly written!

For there is an explicit warning about this in the Torah, as it is written:

“A person who touches it

[one of the impure creatures listed there among the primary sources of impurity, thereby becoming a first-degree carrier of impurity]

shall be impure until evening, and he shall not eat of the sacred offerings

unless he has washed his flesh in water” [Leviticus 22].

And it is explained in tractate Yevamot that the prohibition “he shall not eat of the sacred offerings” stated here refers to eating second tithe. This is derived from the fact that it says here “unless he has washed in water”: he need not wait for sunset; rather, immediately after immersing and emerging, he may eat the “sacred offerings.” This law applies only to second tithe, because with regard to other sacred items, such as teruma or offerings of the altar, immersion alone does not purify him; he must also wait until the end of the day, at sunset.

If so, we have found an explicit warning that a ritually impure person may not eat second tithe!

Rather,

the Gemara explains: Rabbi Shimon, who said, “I do not know,” meant to ask where there is an explicit warning concerning

the impurity

of the second tithe

itself,

which is prohibited to eat—

from where?

And concerning this the beraita answers that its warning is learned through a gzera shava,

as it is written

with regard to second tithe:

“You may not eat within your gates”

[Deuteronomy 12:17].

And below,

with regard to a firstborn animal with a permanent blemish,

it says:

“Within your gates you shall eat it; the impure and the pure alike.”

[Deuteronomy 15:22]

And the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught:

From “the impure and the pure alike shall eat it” one learns that although a firstborn with a permanent blemish retains a certain sanctity, by virtue of which shearing and labor are prohibited—as is expounded in Bekhorot 15a from “according to all the desire of your soul you may slaughter and eat meat”: “‘slaughter’—but not shear; ‘eat’—but not feed to your dog; ‘meat’—but not milk”—

even

so, a

person who is impure and

a

pure person may eat

it

from one bowl, and there is no concern.

From here we learn that a firstborn with a permanent blemish may be eaten both in a state of bodily impurity [of the person] and in a state of impurity intrinsic to the food [the food itself].

For when the impure person eats from it, this is the eating of pure meat in a state of bodily impurity.

And when the pure person eats from it after the impure person has touched the flesh of the firstborn in the bowl, this is a pure person eating the flesh of the firstborn when the flesh itself has become impure.

And the Merciful One says: The form of impurity that is permitted to you with regard to the pure person—

this is what the verse “the impure and the pure alike shall eat it” teaches you—is specifically

there,

with regard to a firstborn with a permanent blemish, concerning which it is written: “Within your gates you shall eat it.”

But

here,

with regard to second tithe, concerning which it is said, “You may not eat within your gates”—

you may not eat!

It is prohibited for the impure person to eat together with the pure person. That is, it is prohibited to eat it both in a state of impurity intrinsic to the food and in a state of bodily impurity.

And this is the source of the warning prohibiting the eating of second tithe in a state of impurity intrinsic to the food.

And this is what the tanna said in the Mishna at the beginning of the chapter: that if one ate second tithe and sacrificial offerings that had not been redeemed, he receives lashes. The Mishna there is speaking of impure second tithe that was not redeemed, which is prohibited to eat even in Jerusalem.

And the Gemara infers: From the fact that the tanna in the Mishna speaks of second tithe that was not redeemed, it follows that, if one wishes, he may redeem it even in Jerusalem.

And although pure second tithe may not be redeemed in Jerusalem, as it is stated: “When the place is too far from you, then you shall exchange it for money” [Deuteronomy 14:24]—from here it follows that one redeems only when the place is far away, and not when it is nearby—nevertheless, impure second tithe may be redeemed even in Jerusalem.

And we inquire:

And from where do we know that

second tithe that became impure

is redeemable?

And we explain:

As Rabbi Elazar said: From where is it derived that second tithe that became impure may be redeemed even in Jerusalem?

The verse states

in the passage concerning second tithe: “And if the way is too long for you,

because you are unable to carry it;

then you shall exchange it for money” [Deuteronomy 14:24].

And “carrying” means only

the expression of

eating.

As it is stated

with regard to Joseph, when he sat to eat with his brothers in Egypt:

“He sent portions

[servings]

from before him”

[Genesis 43:34].

And this is the meaning of the verse: “When the place is too far from you”—when the pure second tithe is located outside Jerusalem, and you cannot eat it where it is located—or “because you are unable to carry it [to eat it],” even when the second tithe is located in Jerusalem, but you cannot eat it because it has become impure—in both circumstances, “then you shall exchange it for money”: you may redeem it.

The Gemara brings an additional derivation from “because you are unable to carry it.”

Rav Beivai said that Rav Asi said: From where is it derived that pure second tithe may be redeemed even

when it is located

one step outside the wall?

For although it is stated, “when the place is too far,” implying a distant place, nevertheless, since

it is stated, “because you are unable to carry it,”

an expression referring to a burden that one cannot carry and bring inside the wall, we learn that the Torah did not make the permission to redeem dependent on distance, but on the difficulty of carrying it. As long as there is still some carrying and bringing to be done inside the wall, even if only the distance of one step remains, it may still be redeemed.

And we raise an objection: But

this

verse, “because you are unable to carry it,”

is needed for

the derivation

of Rabbi Elazar,

concerning impure second tithe, that it may be redeemed even in Jerusalem. If so, how does Rav Asi derive from this verse that the permission to redeem depends on carrying rather than on distance?

And we answer: If the verse had been written only to derive from it the redemption of impure second tithe, even in Jerusalem,

if so, let the verse say

[it should have said]

“because you are unable to eat it,”

which is an expression referring only to eating.

What is the meaning of “to carry it”?

Why did the Torah write it in the expression “to carry it,” which refers both to eating and to carrying? In order to derive from it also the teaching of Rav Asi.

And we raise an objection:

And say that the entire verse

[all of it]

came only

[for the expression referring to] a burden

and was stated

only to derive the teaching of Rav Asi?

And we answer: If the verse had been written only to derive the teaching of Rav Asi—that the permission to redeem depends on carrying and not on distance—and not to derive the law of redemption for impure second tithe,

if so, let the verse say

[it should have said]

“because you are unable to take it,”

which is an expression referring only to carrying.

What is the meaning of “to carry it”?

Why did the Torah write it in the expression “to carry it,” which refers both to eating and to carrying?

Infer from it

that the Torah wished to teach us through the expression “to carry it”

two things:

both eating and carrying. Therefore, both derivations are made.

Rav Ḥanina and Rav Hoshaya were sitting at the entrance to Jerusalem, and they were asking:

May one redeem second tithe when it has already begun to enter within the wall of Jerusalem, or not?

It is obvious

that if

he,

the person carrying the second tithe, is

outside, and his burden is inside

the wall of Jerusalem,

the walls have caught it

for purposes of second tithe, and he may no longer redeem it.

But if

he is inside, and his burden is outside,

the matter is uncertain:

what is the law?

May he still redeem the second tithe or not?

An old man taught them

[he taught them]

in the study hall of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai

in order to resolve their uncertainty, from the verse

“When the place is too far from you”

[Deuteronomy 14:24]. From there they learn that, in order to redeem second tithe, Jerusalem must be distant

from all of you

[from your entirety], because “from you” implies from all of you. Therefore, when his body is inside, he may not redeem it, since he is not entirely distant from Jerusalem.

Rav Pappa raised a question:

What is the law if a person is standing inside the wall of Jerusalem and

is holding

the second tithe outside the wall

with a reed

[a long reed]

?

Do we say that since it is not on his shoulder, it is not dependent on him, and he is not considered to be the entirety of the second tithe, so that it is as though his burden is lying on the ground outside the wall and may be redeemed? Or perhaps, since he holds it with his hand by means of the reed, it is considered his burden, and he too must stand outside the wall in order to redeem it.

And the Gemara leaves the matter at

teyku.

Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: From when is one liable for second tithe

to receive lashes if he eats it outside the wall?

From when it has seen the face of the wall!

That is, once it has entered Jerusalem.

And the statement in the Mishna that one who eats it outside the wall is liable for lashes refers to a case in which it was first brought into Jerusalem and was subsequently taken out.

What is the reason

that one is not liable for it until it enters Jerusalem?

Because

the verse says: “Only

if

before the Lord your God

you shall eat it” [Deuteronomy 12:18].

[Deuteronomy 12:18].

And

in the preceding verse

it is written: “You may not eat within your gates.”

And we learn from this that only

wherever the verse “before the Lord your God you shall eat it” applies,

meaning that it has already entered the place where it may be eaten,

the verse “you may not eat within your gates” applies,

so that it is prohibited to eat it outside the wall.

But

wherever the verse “before the Lord your God you shall eat it” does not apply,

meaning that it has not yet entered the place where it may be eaten,

the verse does not apply

[the prohibition stated there does not apply]—namely, the prohibition of

“You may not eat within your gates.”

The objection is raised

from what we learned in a beraita:

Rabbi Yosei says: A priest who had in his hand

something he was holding,

one fig

alone

of untithed produce 3 ,

and he wished to separate teruma from it while it was whole. Anyone who separates teruma must designate a specific and defined place for the teruma, because the Torah says concerning teruma “the first”; thereby the verse teaches that the teruma must be separated in such a way that “the remainder is recognizable,” meaning that after separating the teruma from the untithed produce, it must be clear where the prepared produce is [the “remainder” of the teruma] and where the teruma is. This is possible only if, at the time of separation, the place of the teruma is precisely defined, so that it is known where the teruma is and where the remainder, prepared through its separation, is. The same applies to the separation of tithes.

And therefore, the priest stood and

said: This fig,

shall be

its teruma

at its tip [

on its tail-side].

First tithe

shall be

in

the

northern

side of the fig [but he did not separate terumat maaser from the first tithe].

And second tithe

shall be

to

the

southern side.

And it,

that same year, was

a year of second tithe,

which is the first, second, fourth, or fifth year in the count of the Sabbatical cycle.

And he,

the priest, was standing at that time

in Jerusalem,

which is the place where second tithe is eaten.

Or

it was the third or sixth year in the count of the Sabbatical cycle, which is the year of

poor tithe,

and therefore, instead of second tithe, he separated poor tithe,

and

even

he

was standing

in the outlying areas [

in the Land of Israel outside the boundaries of Jerusalem].

And since he had not rectified the first tithe, as he had not separated terumat maaser from it, it follows that this fig contains the prohibition of tevel: first tithe that is tevel because its terumat maaser had not been separated from it.