Makkot

— But [yet] the text1 is tautological! Consider: it having been written already, And thither ye shall bring . . . and there ye shall eat before the Lord thy God2 — could not the All-Merciful have proceeded briefly thus: ‘Thou mayest not eat them within thy gates’? What else then could be the purpose of the All-Merciful in having them all restated in detail, save to stress separately the prohibition3 attaching to every instance. The [above] text [stated]: ‘Raba said 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.’ Should he not be flogged on a sixth count arising out of the text: [And they4 shall eat those things wherewith atonement was made to consecrate and to sanctify them]; but a stranger shall not eat thereof because they are holy?5 — [No, as] that [prohibition bears on such meat] as was permitted for priests [to eat],6 while that [referred to in Raba's statement] is not proper even for priests. And should he not be flogged on the strength of [the text]: [And ye shall be holy men unto me: therefore] ye shall not eat any flesh in the field [like] torn [of beasts];7 [which is taken] to imply that any [holy] flesh that has got beyond its partition8 is forbidden? — [No, as] that applies to [meat] available when within the partition; whereas here [in Raba's case] it is not available even while within the partition.9 And should he not also be flogged on the strength of R. Eliezer's interpretation. For R. Eliezer said: [The words], it shall not be eaten because it is holy 10 convey Jerusalem. There are several other applications of this text. Cf. Hul. 68a. (Cf. Lev. XVII, 5.) burn it with fire; it shall not be eaten, because] it is holy.