Makkot 19b — the Talmud in English

And we raise an objection:

This is satisfactory according to the one who says

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

we follow the matter that was learned

[this is said with regard to the matter that is learned]. That is, sacrificial offerings cannot be learned by a hekesh from a matter that was itself learned from a hekesh. Here, however, since the matter that is learned [second tithe] is non-sacred, it may be learned by a hekesh from a matter that was itself learned by a hekesh.

But according to the one who says

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

we follow the teacher

[this is said with regard to the matter that teaches], for sacrificial offerings learned by a hekesh cannot teach another matter by a hekesh—

what is there to say?

How is it possible to learn second tithe by a hekesh from the firstborn? After all, the matter that teaches with regard to second tithe is the flesh of the firstborn, which is a sacrificial offering; and since the flesh of the firstborn itself is learned by a hekesh from the blood of the firstborn, it cannot teach with regard to second tithe by a hekesh. For the firstborn is a sacrificial offering, which cannot be a matter that teaches others by a hekesh when it itself is learned by a hekesh!

And we answer: The flesh of the firstborn is not considered “a matter learned from a hekesh,” because

the blood and the flesh—

are one matter.

And the blood itself, which is sprinkled only when the Temple is standing, was not learned by a hekesh; rather, it is stated explicitly with regard to it that its existence is only when there is an altar.

We learned in the Mishna:

Most-holy offerings outside the curtains; lesser sanctified offerings and second tithe outside the wall:

And we raise an objection:

We already learned it,

for we have already learned

one time

[this law once]: that one who eats second tithe outside the wall is flogged. For in the Mishna at the beginning of the chapter, the tannai said: “And these are the ones who are flogged”—

“second tithe and consecrated property that was not redeemed.”

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

And since the law prohibiting eating second tithe outside the wall was already taught, why did the tannai repeat it here?

And we answer:

Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: The latter part

[of our Mishna, which is the latter part of the preceding Mishna at the beginning of the chapter], speaks

of pure second tithe, and of a pure person who is eating

[a pure person who ate pure second tithe]

outside the wall,

and he is flogged.

Whereas the

first part

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

of impure second tithe, and

[or]

of an impure person

while the second tithe is pure,

and he is eating it in

within

Jerusalem

without redemption; and he is flogged because it is prohibited to eat second tithe in a state of impurity in Jerusalem until after he redeems it.

And we inquire concerning this:

And from where does it

follow for the Mishna above,

that he is liable for it

[for second tithe]

because of impurity

if he ate it without redemption?

And we explain: This law is learned from that

as it was taught:

Rabbi Shimon says:

It is written in the Torah, in the passage concerning the confession over the tithe, in which he announces that he conducted himself with the tithe according to its laws:

“I have not consumed from it

[an expression of consumption; that is, I did not derive benefit from it through eating, drinking, or anointing]

while impure”

[Deuteronomy 26:14].

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

Whether I am impure

with bodily impurity,

and it

the tithe

is pure.

Whether I am pure, and it

the tithe

is impure

with its own impurity.

And the beraita explains:

And where is he warned

with a “negative commandment”

concerning eating,

that he may not eat second tithe in a state of impurity, as they said in the Mishna that he is flogged for this —

I do not know

a particular place concerning which he is explicitly warned, for what the one bringing the first fruits says, “I have not consumed from it while impure,” is only a confession, but it is not a source for the prohibition.

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

But before the Gemara cites 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 against eating second tithe while the person is impure?

After all, the prohibition against eating second tithe in

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 things among the primary sources of impurity mentioned there in the preceding verses, and thereby becomes a first-degree source of impurity]

and is impure until evening. He may not eat of the holy things

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

And it is explained in tractate Yevamot that the prohibition “he may not eat of the holy things” stated here refers to eating second tithe. This is learned from the fact that it is written here, “unless he washes in water,” which means that he does not require sunset; rather, immediately when he immerses and emerges, he eats the “holy things.” This law applies only to second tithe, because with the other holy things, such as teruma or altar offerings, he is not purified merely through immersion; rather, he also requires the completion of the day, through sunset.

If so, we have found an explicit warning that an impure person is prohibited from eating second tithe!

Rather,

the Gemara explains: Rabbi Shimon, who said “I do not know,” intended 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: Its warning is learned by 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 blemished firstborn,

it says

“You shall eat it within your gates; the impure and the pure”

[Deuteronomy 15:22].

And the school of Rabbi Ishmael’s tannai,

who teaches from “the impure and the pure shall eat it” that although a blemished firstborn possesses a certain sanctity, by virtue of which it is prohibited for shearing and labor—as they expound in Bekhorot [15a] from “according to all the desire of your soul you may slaughter and eat meat”: “you may slaughter”—but not shear; “and eat”—but not [give] to your dogs; “meat”—but not milk—

even

so, an

impure and

a

pure person may eat

it

from one bowl, and we are not concerned.

And from here we learn that a blemished firstborn may be eaten both in the presence of bodily impurity [of the person] and in the presence of its own impurity [of the food].

For when the impure person eats from it, there is here the eating of pure flesh in the presence of bodily impurity.

And when the pure person eats with him after the impure person touched the flesh of the firstborn in the bowl, there is here a pure person eating the flesh of the firstborn when the flesh is impure with its own impurity.

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

which is what the verse stated, “the impure and the pure shall eat it,” and which teaches you that it is permitted to eat both in the impurity of the eater and in the impurity of the person, applies specifically

there,

with regard to a blemished firstborn, concerning which it is written, “You shall eat it within your gates.”

But

here,

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

you may not eat!

It is prohibited for the impure person to eat with the pure person. That is, it is prohibited to eat it both in the presence of its own impurity and in the presence of bodily impurity.

And this is the source of the warning against eating second tithe in the presence of its own impurity.

And this is what the tannai said in the Mishna at the beginning of the chapter: that if one ate second tithe and consecrated property that was not redeemed, he is flogged. For the Mishna there speaks 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 tannai in the Mishna speaks of second tithe that was not redeemed, it follows that if he wishes, he may redeem it even in Jerusalem.

And although pure second tithe may not be redeemed in Jerusalem, because it is stated, “When the place is far from you, then you shall give it for money” [Deuteronomy 14:24], from here it follows that only when the place is distant may you redeem it, but not when the place is near. Nevertheless, impure second tithe may be redeemed even in Jerusalem.

And we inquire concerning this:

And from where do we know that

second tithe that became impure

is redeemable?

And we explain:

For 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 when the way is too far for you,

because you cannot carry it.

Then you shall give it for money” [Deuteronomy 14:24].

And “carrying” means only

an expression of

eating.

As it is stated

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

“And he carried portions

[servings]

from before him”

[Genesis 43:34].

And this is the explanation of the verse: “When the place is far from you”—when pure second tithe is located outside Jerusalem, and you cannot eat it in the place where it is located; or, “because you cannot carry it [eat it]”—even when the second tithe is located in Jerusalem, but you cannot eat it because it became impure. In these two circumstances, “then you shall give it for money”: you may redeem it.

And the Gemara brings another teaching from “because you cannot carry it.”

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

if it is located

one step outside the wall?

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

it is stated, “because you cannot carry it,”

an expression of a burden, which he cannot carry and bring inside the wall, we learn from this that the verse did not make the permission for redemption dependent on distance, but on the difficulty of carrying it. As long as there remains something to carry and bring 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 cannot carry it,”

is needed to

derive

as Rabbi Elazar,

with regard to impure second tithe, that it may be redeemed even in Jerusalem. If so, how does Rav Asi learn from this verse that the permission for redemption depends on carrying and not on distance?

And we answer: If the verse was written only in order 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 cannot eat it,”

which is an expression referring only to eating.

What is the meaning of “carry it”?

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

And we raise an objection:

And perhaps the entire

[the entire verse] is

only for this purpose

[the expression of carrying]

that it came,

and one should derive from it only as Rav Asi.

And we answer: If the verse was written only in order to derive from it as Rav Asi—that the permission for redemption depends on carrying and not on distance—and not to derive from it the law of redemption for impure second tithe,

if so, let the verse say

[it should have said]

“because you cannot take it,”

which is an expression referring only to carrying.

What is the meaning of “carry it”?

Why did the Torah write it with the expression “carry it,” which is both an expression of eating and an expression of carrying?

Learn from it

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

two things,

both eating and carrying. Therefore, both teachings are derived.

Rav Ḥanina and Rav Hoshaya sat at the entrance of Jerusalem, and it was asked of them:

May one redeem the 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, while his burden is inside

the wall of Jerusalem,

the walls have taken hold of it

the second tithe, and he may no longer redeem it.

But if

he is inside, while his burden is outside,

there is a doubt:

what is the law?

May he still redeem the second tithe or not?

An old man taught them

[taught them]

in the school of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai

in order to resolve their doubt, from the verse

“When the place is 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 all of you], because “from you” implies from all of you. Therefore, when his body is inside, he cannot redeem it, since it is not entirely distant from Jerusalem.

Rav Pappa raised a question:

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

is holding

[and grasping] the second tithe outside the wall

with a reed

[with a long reed]—

what is the law?

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

And the Gemara remains with the matter as

teyku.

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

to receive lashes if he ate it outside the wall?

From when it saw the face of the wall!

When it has already entered Jerusalem.

And that which is written in the Mishna, that one who eats it outside the wall is liable for lashes, refers to a case in which they first brought it inside Jerusalem and afterward took it out.

What is the reason

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

Because

the verse says

“except

before the Lord your God

you shall eat it”

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

when it has already entered the place of eating, there

does “you may not eat within your gates” apply,

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

But

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

when it has not yet entered the place of eating, there

“it does not apply

[it is not stated concerning it]” the prohibition of

“You may not eat within your gates.”

We raise an objection

from that which we learned in a beraita:

Rabbi Yosei says: A kohen who had come into his hand

who was holding in his hand,

one fig

alone

of untithed produce 3 ,

and he wished to separate teruma from it while it was whole. And everyone who separates teruma must designate a specific and defined place for the teruma, because the verse called teruma “the first,” thereby teaching that one must separate the teruma in such a manner that “its remnants are recognizable”; that is, after separating the teruma from the untithed produce, it must be recognizable where the produce that has been made fit [which is the “remnants” of the teruma] is, and where the teruma is. This is possible only if, at the time of separation, he precisely defines where the place of the teruma is, for then it is known where the teruma is and where its remnants, made fit through its separation, are. The same law applies to the separation of tithes.

And therefore, the kohen stood and

said: “This fig,”

shall be

its teruma

at its tip [

on the side of its tail].

The first tithe

shall be

in

the side

of the north

of the fig [but he did not separate the teruma of the tithe from the first tithe].

And the second tithe

shall be

to

the side

of the south.

And it,

that same year, was

the year of the second tithe,

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

And he,

the kohen, was standing at that time

in Jerusalem,

which is the place for eating the second tithe.

Or

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

the tithe for the poor,

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

and

even

he

was standing

in the outlying areas [

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

And since he did not rectify the first tithe, for he did not separate the teruma of the tithe from it, it follows that this fig contains the prohibition of untithed produce, of first tithe that is untithed with regard to the teruma of the tithe, which was not separated from it.