Makkot — Daf 19a

מאימתי מחייבין עליהן משיראו פני הבית כמאן כי האי תנא דתניא רבי אליעזר אומר בכורים מקצתן בחוץ ומקצתן בפנים שבחוץ הרי הן כחולין לכל דבריהם שבפנים הרי הן כהקדש לכל דבריהם

אמר רב ששת בכורים הנחה מעכבת בהן קרייה אין מעכבת בהן

כמאן כי האי תנא דתניא רבי יוסי אומר שלשה דברים משום שלשה זקנים רבי ישמעאל אומר יכול יעלה אדם מעשר שני בזמן הזה בירושלים ויאכלנו ודין הוא בכור טעון הבאת מקום ומעשר שני טעון הבאת מקום מה בכור אינו אלא בפני הבית אף מעשר אינו אלא בפני הבית

מה לבכור שכן טעון מתן דמים ואימורין לגבי מזבח בכורים יוכיחו מה לבכורים שכן טעונים הנחה

ת"ל (דברים טז, ז) ואכלת [שם] לפני ה' אלהיך וגו' מקיש מעשר לבכור מה בכור אינו אלא לפני הבית אף מעשר אינו אלא לפני הבית ואם איתא ליפרוך מה לבכורים שכן טעונין קרייה והנחה

א"ר אשי נהי דעיכובא ליכא מצוה מי ליכא ולימא מצוה וליפרוך אלא אמר רב אשי כיון דאיכא בכורי הגר דבעי למימר (דברים כו, ג) אשר נשבע [ה'] לאבותינו ולא מצי אמר לא פסיקא ליה

וליהדר דינא ותיתי במה הצד משום דאיכא למיפרך מה להצד השוה שבהן שכן יש בהן צד מזבח

ומאי קסבר אי קסבר קדושה ראשונה קדשה לשעתה וקדשה לעתיד לבא אפי' בכור נמי אי קסבר קדושה ראשונה קדשה לשעתה ולא קדשה לעתיד לבא אפילו בכור נמי תבעי

אמר רבינא לעולם קסבר קדשה לשעתה ולא קדשה לעתיד לבא והכא בבכור שנזרק דמו קודם חורבן הבית וחרב הבית ועדיין בשרו קיים ומקשינן בשרו לדמו מה דמו במזבח אף בשרו במזבח ומקיש מעשר לבכור

וכי דבר הלמד בהקש חוזר ומלמד בהקש מעשר דגן חולין הוא

when does the penalty begin? From the time that these come face to face with the Temple. Whose is the view [expressed here]? — That of the Tanna [mentioned in the following], as it is taught: R. Eliezer says: As regards first fruits, if some are left outside [the wall of Jerusalem] and some are taken within, those that are [still] outside are like ordinary fruits in every respect, while those within are [to be treated] like ‘things of the Sanctuary’ in every respect. R. Shesheth said: in regard to first fruits, [the omission] to place then, [before the altar] is a bar [to their release], but the [omission of the] recital is not a bar. Whose is the view expressed here? — That of the following Tanna, as it is taught: R. Jose reports three things in the name of three Elders [this statement being one of them]: R. Ishmael says that one might presume that [even] nowadays [although there is no Temple], a person must bring his second tithe to Jerusalem and eat it there [as such, instead of redeeming it]. But, there is this argument [against it]: Firstlings must be brought to [Jerusalem], the [appointed] place, even as second tithe must be brought to [Jerusalem], the [appointed] place. Now what is [requisite] in the case of firstlings? They may not [be eaten there] save when there is a Temple; and the same obtains in regard to second tithe, that it should not [be eaten there] save when there is a Temple! [This is not conclusive, because] in the case of firstlings there are requisite [specific] altar-rites, the sprinkling of blood and the burning of certain ‘prescribed’ portions [of fat]. [But] then [I ask] let first fruits support [my contention]! [To this, we may reply] what is [requisite] in the case of the first fruits? They too must be placed [before the altar]. Here then comes the instructive text, And thou shalt eat before the Lord thy God, [in the place which He shall choose to cause His name to dwell there, the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and the firstlings of thy herd and of thy flock,] wherein [second] tithe and firstlings are set side by side, showing that what obtains in firstlings, namely, that they may not be eaten there save when there is a Temple, equally obtains in second tithe, not to be eaten there save when there is a Temple. Now if it were that the non-recital is a bar, the wording of the last objection [before finally citing the Scripture text] should have been: [To this we may reply.] What is requisite in the case of first fruits? They need both, the recital as well as laying them [before the altar]. R. Ashi said: [This is not decisive] because even granted that [the recital] is not a bar [to the release of first fruits], yet is it not to be considered even a precept, and as such it could be made the basis of an objection! But no, said R. Ashi: [the reason of its omission is that] since first fruits were also brought to the Temple by proselytes and they ought to have recited the [prescribed] wording. I profess this day unto the Lord . . . that I am come into the land which the Lord swore to our fathers to give us and could not [as being inapplicable]; he [R. Jose] could not state it absolutely. But could not the argument run on and the deduction be based on common aspects? — [No,] as this can be refuted [thus]: What is their common aspect? They all have some ritual association with the altar. And [tell me], what is his [R. Ishmael's] view? If he deems the first dedication [by Solomon] to have been effected ‘for the nonce, and for all time to come,’ then even [unblemished] firstlings might be eaten nowadays [at Jerusalem even without Temple or altar]; and [on the other hand], if he deems the first dedication to have been efficient only ‘for the nonce, and not for all time to come, then the same question arises in regard to the firstlings [as to the second tithe]? — Said Rabina: indeed he [R. Ishmael] deemed the first dedication efficient ‘for the nonce, and not for all time to come, and here [in deriving the rule of the tithe from that of a firstling] he is thinking [of some particular incident] of a firstling, where the [ritual] blood-sprinkling [on the altar] had been performed just before the destruction of the Temple, and when the Temple was destroyed the flesh was still left [unconsumed by the priests]. And we compare the flesh to the blood thereof: just as for [sprinkling of] the blood, there is need of the presence of the altar, so for [the eating of] the flesh, there is need of the existence of the altar [not otherwise]; and then again, we compare second tithes to firstlings. But can a ruling inferred by analogy be employed [in matters appertaining to hallowed things] as basis of inference for a further analogy? — The tithe of corn, [wine and oil] is [considered] non-hallowed.34