Makkot

that one should ‘designate’ it, but need not set it apart.1 Is not here the point at issue this — that one authority [the Sages] holds that the known presence [of unseparated poor tithe in produce] makes it tebel,2 while the other authority [R. Eliezer] holds that it does not make it tebel! — Said Abaye: If that were the issue, why raise it in connection with demai? It should have been raised in connection with produce which is known to be untithed! Hence, [it must be said,] all are agreed that the known presence [of unseparated poor tithe] does render the produce tebel,2 and the issue involved here is rather this, that one authority [R. Eliezer] takes the view that the ‘amme ha-arez3 are not suspected of withholding the poor tithe of demai, as, being merely a money matter, they do [not fail to] set it apart;4 while the Rabbis5 take the view that ‘amme ha-arez are mistrusted about it, because it involves trouble,6 and as the separation of the due means some trouble to them,7 they will not set it apart. HOW MUCH OF TEBEL IS ONE TO EAT TO BECOME LIABLE? R. SIMEON SAYS THE MEREST MORSEL AND THE SAGES SAY AN OLIVE'S SIZE. R. Bibi reporting R. Simeon b. Lakish said that this difference of opinion referred only to the [grain of] wheat, but as to the [requisite amount of] flour all were agreed that it is an olive's size. But R. Jeremiah reporting R. Simeon b. Lakish said that there was a difference of opinion on both the [amount of] flour as well as the [grain of] wheat. We learn [in the Mishnah]: SAID R. SIMEON, DO YOU NOT ADMIT THAT IF ONE ATE THE MINUTEST ANT HE WOULD BE LIABLE? SAID THEY TO HIM: [ONLY] BECAUSE IT IS A SEPARATE CREATURE. SAID HE TO THEM: EVEN SO A [GRAIN OF] WHEAT IS A SEPARATE ENTITY. [Does not this text show that] there was a dispute only about the [grain of] wheat, but nothing about flour! — [Not so.] R. Simeon only argues [with the Rabbis] on their own contention: My own opinion [he argues] is that even the same quantity of [tebel] flour is enough [for entailing a flogging]; but even according to your contention, you should admit to me that one [grain of] wheat is a separate entity. And the Rabbis’ [reply]? — An animate thing is of sufficient importance [as to be considered a separate entity], but a [grain of] wheat is not of such importance. [In a Baraitha] it is taught as R. Jeremiah had reported: R. Simeon says that any minute quantity8 is sufficient to entail a flogging; the ‘olive's size’ mentioned [by the Rabbis] is required only to entail a [sin-]offering.’ MISHNAH. ONE WHO EATS9 OF FIRST FRUITS PREVIOUS TO THE RECITAL OVER THEM;10 [WHO EATS] OF MOST HOLY [MEATS]11 OUTSIDE THE HANGINGS; OF LESSER HOLY [MEATS]12 OR OF SECOND TITHE, OUTSIDE THE CITY WALL.13 ONE WHO BREAKS A BONE OF A PASCHAL LAMB14 THAT IS CLEAN15 RECEIVES FORTY [LASHES]; BUT ONE WHO LEAVES OF THE FLESH OF A CLEAN PASCHAL LAMB,16 OR BREAKS A BONE OF AN UNCLEAN [PASCHAL LAMB],17 IS NOT GIVEN FORTY [LASHES]. IF ONE TAKES THE DAM WITH THE YOUNG,18 R. JUDAH SAYS HE IS FLOGGED AND NEED NOT [THEN] SEND THE DAM FREE; BUT THE SAGES SAY THAT HE LETS THE DAM GO AND RECEIVES NO FLOGGING. THIS IS THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE; WHENEVER A NEGATIVE PRECEPT INVOLVES THE FULFILMENT OF SOME POSITIVE ACT,19 THERE IS NO FLOGGING FOR ITS CONTRAVENTION. GEMARA. Rabbah b. Bar Hanah citing R. Johanan said that this20 is only the view of R. Akiba who is reported anonymously,21 but the Sages say regarding [the ceremonies of] the first fruits that only placing them [before the altar]22 is a bar [to their consumption],23 but the [omission of the] recital is no bar [to their consumption]. Then why not say that the above is the view of R. Simeon who is reported anonymously?24 — This is what he meant to tell us that R. Akiba [also] held that same view as expressed by [his disciple] R. Simeon. Which statement of R. Simeon [have you in mind]? — As it is taught:25 ‘And the raising of thy hand’ — that is the first fruits.26 Said R. Simeon: What is the lesson intended by this text?27 If it is merely [to forbid] eating them [first fruits] outside the wall [of Jerusalem, there is no need]; it follows a fortiori from the less restricted second tithe [in this way]: Seeing that he who eats of the less restricted28 second tithe outside the wall, is flogged,29 is not that [flogging] more deserved for eating first fruits [outside the wall]? The text therefore can only mean to convey that he who eats them when the [prescribed] recital has not yet taken place, is flogged.30 ‘Nor of thy freewill offerings’31 — that means [not eating outside Jerusalem] of thank-offerings or peace-offerings. Said R. Simeon: What is the lesson intended by this verse? If [only to forbid] eating of these [meats] outside the wall, this follows, a fortiori, from the second tithe [as before].32 The text therefore can only mean to convey that he who eats of the meat of thank-offerings and peace-offerings before the blood had been sprinkled [on the altar]33 is flogged.34 ‘And the firstlings.’ — that means the firstborn [male animals].35 Said R. Simeon: What lesson is intended here? If [only to forbid] eating of these [holy meats] outside the wall, this [too] is [inferred already] a fortiori, from the second tithe [as before].36 If [to forbid eating of the flesh] before the blood had been sprinkled, this follows, a fortiori, from the thank-offering and peace-offering.37 The text therefore can only mean to convey that [a layman] who eats of the firstling even after the ritual blood-sprinkling, receives a flogging.38 ‘of thy herd or thy flock’ — that alludes to sin-offerings and guilt-offerings.39 Said R. Simeon: What is the implied injunction here? If only against eating of these outside the wall, this follows a fortiori, from the second tithe [as before];36 if against partaking of these before the blood-sprinkling [on the altar], this already follows a fortiori, from the thank-offering and peace-offering [as before];37 if against [any layman] eating of sin-offerings or guilt-offering [even] after the ritual blood-sprinkling [on the altar], this already follows, a fortiori, from the [law of the] firstling.40 The text therefore can only mean to convey that if a priest eats of sin and guilt-offerings even after the ritual blood-sprinkling outside the ‘hangings’, he [transgresses and] receives a flogging.38 ‘Nor any of thy vows’ — that refers to burnt-offerings.41 Said R. Simeon: What is the implied injunction here? If only against eating of these outside the wall, this already follows, a fortiori, from the second tithe [as before]; if against eating of these before the blood-sprinkling, it already follows, a fortiori, from the thank-offering and peace-offering [as before]; if against [any layman] eating of these same after the ritual blood-sprinkling, it already follows, a fortiori, from the [law] of the firstling [as before]; if against [priests] eating of these outside the ‘hangings’, it follows, a fortiori, from the sin and guilt-offerings.42 The text therefore means to convey need not be actually located nor separated; v. Dem. IV, 3. necessarily give it to the poor, but can still retain it for himself. This is however not the case with the first and second tithe, since the former will remain prohibited on account of the terumah (v. Glos.) which it contains and the latter until it is taken up to Jerusalem.] XVIII, 13. male priests only, in the inner precincts of the Temple (corresponding to the Court of the Tabernacle, ‘within the hangings.’ Cf. Num. XVIII, 9-10; Lev. VI, 7-11 (meal-oblation); 17-19, 22 (sin-offering); VII, 5-10 (guilt-offering); Ex. XXIX, 26 ff; Lev. VI, 9, 19 (inner holy precincts). Cf. also P.B. p. 12, sections 4-5. lamb. Cf. P.B. pp. 12 and 13, section 6-8. Of these the altar, the priests and the worshippers had each their share. Cf. Lev. VII, 11 ff. 18; 28-34; Num. VI, 19-20. and XVIII, 11-19. Simeon, cf. n. 9.] not eat within thy gates the tithe of thy corn, or of thy wine, or of thine oil (i.e. the second tithe of these); or of thy firstlings of thy herd or of thy flock; nor of any vows that thou vowest; nor of thy freewill offerings; nor of the raising (fruits) of thy hand. (Verse 18 continues positively: But thou shalt eat them before the Lord thy God in the place the Lord thy God shall choose (i.e. Jerusalem). Cf. ibid. 6-7: 11-14; 26-27.) To appreciate the subtlety of R. Simeon's ingenious arguments on this text, it is necessary carefully to note (a), that no flogging is due for not doing something recommended or even commanded, but for doing an action that is distinctly forbidden; and (b), that R. Simeon tries to prove (among many other things) from Deut. XII, 17, that the prescribed ‘recital’ over the First fruits is an indispensable ceremony, and if omitted, eating of the First fruits is forbidden on the pain of a flogging (of forty); (c), that to prove his theses he does not expound the verse in the order it is written, but in such a manner as will best fit in with his views, as will be seen as the argument proceeds. God. Deut. XXVI, 4 ff. Cf. p. 120, n. 3. such restrictions on the first tithe that was given to the priest-Levites; it could be eaten anywhere ‘even at the graveside’. Cf. Num. XVIII, 31. p. 100, n. 6.] time-limit; nor debarred (technically) as ‘stale remains’ or ‘piggul’; (v. Glos.) nor debarred to the (ritually) impure (as in the case of thank and peace-offerings), v. Lev. VII, 15-21 and XXII, 29-30. (Sifre). forbidden (in verse 27) on pain of a flogging. after the altar rites. Cf. Zeb. V, 8. and P.B. p. 13. the temple — ‘within the hanging’. (Cf. p. 120, n. 4.) Num. XVIII, 9-10, give the positive command about these, and R. Simeon now seeks to argue on the prohibition as entailing a flogging.