Makkot

that he who eats of the burnt-offering after the blood-sprinkling [on the altar], even within [the ‘hangings’], is flogged.1 Said Raba: [This is ingenious;] may every bearing mother bear a child like R. Simeon! And if not [quite like him], should she not bear any at all2 — though his a fortiori arguments may be refuted! For instance, in what respect [is it assumed] that first fruits are of graver importance3 [than second tithe]? In that first fruits are forbidden to lay people [non-priests]! But is not the second tithe rather of graver importance, because second tithe is forbidden to the onen4 [and the argument is thus unsound]? Again, in what respect [is it assumed] that thank and peace-offerings are of graver importance than second tithe? In that these have [also] the offering of blood and the certain ‘prescribed’ portions5 [of fat etc.] on the altar! But is not the second tithe rather of graver importance, because second tithe may be redeemed only with coined silver6 money [and no other]? Again, in what respect [do you assume] is the firstling of graver importance than thank and peace-offerings? In that it is sanctified from the womb7 [unlike those sacrificial animals]! But are not rather the thank and peace-offerings, of graver importance because thank and peace-offerings require the ‘laying [of the hand]’;8 ‘drink-offerings’ [of wine]9 and the waving of breast and thigh?10 Again, in what respect are the sin and guilt-offerings of graver importance than the firstling? In that they are in the category of most-holy!11 But is not the firstling rather of graver importance, because the firstling is sanctified from the womb?12 Again, in what respect is the burnt-offering of graver importance than the sin and guilt-offering? In that the burnt-offering is wholly burnt!13 But are not the sin and guilt-offerings rather of graver importance, because they afford atonement;14 nay, all [other] sacrifices are of graver importance than the burnt-offering, because those others are consumed in two ways?15 But if so, what [made Raba exclaim]: ‘May every bearing mother give birth to such as R. Simeon’? — It is because of his method of recasting16 and expounding the text to suit his own theory. But is a prohibition based on logical deduction17 warranted? For, even those who accept18 [in principle] a penalty derived by logical deduction as warranted do not recognise a prohibition based on logical deduction? — [No, R. Simeon desired] to demonstrate mere prohibition19 [in each case]. But did not Raba say that, according to R. Simeon, any lay person eating of the flesh of burnt-offering before the sprinkling of the blood and outside the wall [of Jerusalem] is flogged on five counts?20 — [He only meant to say] five mere prohibitions were involved [in this one act of eating]. But then, have we not learnt: These incur [judicial] flogging, etc? 21 supra p. 122, n. 5. devoted by the Torah to the matter. declaration to be made in the Temple (after the 3rd and 6th years in the Septennial Cycle) was: ‘I have not eaten thereof (i.e. of second tithe) in my mourning . . . nor given thereof for the dead.’ Deut. XXVI, 14. (The same condition attaches to first fruits, but R. Simeon does not share that view in the case of the latter. v. Yeb. 73b.) XV, 4 ff. Cf. the term runt, as ‘prescribed’ (not, ‘as it is said’) in the Prayer Book, when citing the sacrifices ordained for the occasion. E.g., P.B. p. 162. [Jastrow connects it with root denoting ‘to devote’, ‘to consecrate’, cf. Deut. XXVI, 17.] sacrificial animals have to be selected and dedicated as offerings. by the owners or worshippers. It should be remembered that eating of sacrificial meat was part of the ritual, hence the importance attached to it. he could not, in the absence of the a fortiori reasoning from thank and peace-offerings with reference to the eating of them before the blood sprinkling (as this would still remain to be proved), substantiate his thesis in regard to the eating of them after the sprinkling of the blood. The same applies to all the other arguments advanced by R. Simeon.] (ii) Sacrificial meat may not he eaten before the ritual sprinkling (on the altar). (iii) A layman (non-priest) may not eat of sacrifice-most-sacred (to which class burnt-offering belongs). (iv) Not even a priest may eat of such outside the ‘hangings’ (the inner precincts). (v) Burnt-offering is to burn entirely, no part thereof may be eaten. This proves that R. Simeon would also inflict the penalty of flogging. Mishnah 17a, including the EATING OF THE MOST HOLY MEATS OUTSIDE THE HANGINGS.