Makkot

that the text means to declare as forbidden any [sort of] holy meat which has become disqualified? — [No, as] here too it can only refer to [meat that was] available before becoming disqualified, whereas here [in Raba's statement the meat] was not available even before it became disqualified. And should he not also be flogged on the strength of that other interpretation of R. Eliezer, as it is taught: R. Eliezer says [that the words,] It shall be wholly made to smoke; [it shall not be eaten,]1 impose a negative command against the eating of anything [that is ordered to be wholly burnt]? — Just so, and it is on this interpretation of the text that he based his statement. 2 R. Giddal citing Rab said (Kuza)3 that a priest who ate of a sin-offering or guilt-offering before the sprinkling of the blood is flogged. The reason [for this]? The writ says: And they [Aaron and his sons] shall eat of those things4 wherewith atonement was made5 ; which implies [that they are to be eaten only] after [ritual] atonement has been made, but not before atonement has been made; this being [an instance of] a negative command implied in a ‘positive command which is [tantamount to] a negative.’6 Raba raised objection from the following: And every beast that parteth the hoof and hath the hoof wholly cloven into two and cheweth the cud among the beasts, that ye may eat7 — [implies,] ‘that ye may eat,’ but ‘you may not eat another beast.’ Now, if [the principle be] as you stated, what further need to continue, But these ye shall not eat, of them that only chew the cud and of them that only have the hoof cloven?8 — We must therefore say that if the reported dictum be a fact,it must have been worded thus: R. Giddal citing Rab said that a stranger9 [layman] who ate of a sin-offering or guilt-offering before the sprinkling [of the blood] is exempt.10 The reason [for this]? The text says: ‘And they shall eat of those things wherewith atonement was made’ [that is] anyone to whom the former part of the text [the positive command] — and they shall eat of those things wherewith atonement has been made — applies, to him the latter part of the text [the negative command] — but a stranger shall not eat thereof, because they are holy — applies also; and [vice versa,] anyone to whom the former part of that text — and they shall eat of those things wherewith atonement has been made — does not apply, to him the latter part of that text — but a stranger shall not eat thereof, because they are holy — does not apply.11 R. Eleazar reporting R. Hoshaia, said regarding the [ceremonies of] first fruits that [the omission] to place them [before the altar] is a bar [to their release], but the [omission of the] recital is not a bar. But did R. Eleazar [actually] say that? Did not R. Eleazar reporting R. Hoshaia say that if a man had set apart [his] first fruits before the Feast [of Tabernacles] and the Feast passed [without these fruits having been presented before the altar] they are left to rot?12 Now what [is the implication here]? Is it not that [they are to be left to rot] because it is no longer the period for the recital over them?13 If then you suppose that the [omission of the] recital is not a bar, why are they to be left to rot? — In accordance with [the principle enunciated by] R. Zera, for R. Zera said: Wherever the conditions for mingling [oil with the flour for a meal-offering14 ] are present, the [omission of the] mingling is not a bar; but where the conditions are not present the [omission of] mingling is a bar.15 R. Aha b. Jacob taught the same [lesson] as a statement of R. Assi reporting R. Johanan,16 and thus made one statement of R. Johanan clash with another: Did R. Johanan17 say regarding the [ceremonies of] first fruits that [the omission] to place them [before the altar] is a bar to their release, but the [omission of the] recital is not a bar? Why, when R. Assi asked of R. Johanan how soon were the first fruits permitted to be partaken of by the priests, did he not reply that those [that had come] at the proper time for the recital18 [were released] immediately after the recital,19 and those that were not [brought] at the proper time for the recital [were released] immediately they had come face to face with the Temple20 — a statement which clashes on both points, in regard to recital as well as to placing them [before the altar]? — As regards the recital, it is not difficult [to explain the seeming discrepancy]: One statement21 represents the view of R. Simeon,22 while the other23 is according to the Rabbis. Again, as regards placing them [before the altar], it is not difficult [to explain the seeming discrepancy]: One statement21 is according to R. Judah;24 while the other25 is that held by the Rabbis.23 What statement of R. Judah [have you in mind]? — [It is the following,] as it is taught: R. Judah says, [And the priest shall take the basket out of thy hand] and set it down [before the altar].26 This refers to the [ritual of] ‘waving’.27 You say that it refers to the [ritual of] ‘waving’, or maybe it only means ‘setting them down’ ordinarily? As, however, [later it is said,] And thou shalt set it down [before the Lord thy God and worship before the Lord thy God,28 the ordinary ‘setting down’ [of the fruit] is already indicated. What then is the meaning of the former injunction, [and the priest shall take the basket out of thy hand] and set it down [before the altar]?26 It can only refer to the [ritual] ‘waving’.29 And who is the Tanna that does not concur with R. Judah? — It is R. Eliezer b. Jacob,30 as it is taught: And the priest shall take the basket out of thy hand31 — [‘out of thy hand’] indicates that the ‘waving’ is an essential part [of the ceremony]: these are the words of R. Eliezer b. Jacob. What is the reason of R. Eliezer b. Jacob? — It is derived from the occurrence of the word ‘hand’ [both here and] in connection with the peace-offerings [in this way]: Here it is written, ‘And the priest shall take the basket out of thy hand’31 and there it is written, His32 own hands shall bring the offering unto the Lord.33 Just as here the priest [is the recipient],34 so there the priest [is the recipient];35 just as there the owner tenders, so here the owner tenders. How is it [done]? [In each case] the priest puts his hand under those of the worshipper and waves them.36 Rabin b. Adda reported R. Isaac to have said: In the case of first fruits, by Raba on textual grounds and, in consequence, he emends the reported dictum by an interpretation of the text. This rule was debated in Palestine, Resh Lakish taking the view expressed above, while R. Johanan contested it by asserting that a ‘positive’ command implying a ‘negation’ is tantamount to a ‘positive’. Raba elsewhere explains the difference by a very apt illustration. If the Master bids his disciple, ‘Go fetch me some wheat,’ and the disciple brings wheat and barley, it can hardly be said that he disobeyed his master, although he went beyond instructions. If, however, the Master said, ‘Don't bring me anything else but wheat,’ he certainly disobeys instructions if he bring wheat and barley. V. Zeb. 34a. There is involved in this, the important logical difference between affirmation and negation. ‘Go fetch me wheat’ does not necessarily imply that I would not have barley — I might have it or not. But, ‘Don't bring me barley’ is clearly prohibitory on that point. V. B. Bosanquet's Essentials of Logic (1897), Lect. VIII, On Negation and Opposition of Judgments. Weeks (Pentecost) to Tabernacles (for Spring and Summer produce respectively), from early Sivan to the end of Tishri; and from Tabernacles to Chanucah (end of Kislev, for late autumn fruits). The recital could only be performed at the actual time of harvesting (Ex. XXIII, 16), when the heart rejoiced at the abundance (Deut. XXVI, 11), that is, between the Feast of Weeks (Pentecost) and Tabernacles; after that, the fruits were brought without recital, till Chanucah. Cf. Bik. I, 3, 6. XV, 4, 6, 9. before the altar to be released! in the name of R. Hoshaia above, the view generally held by the Rabbis. (quoted soon), by the worshipper. In our Talmud texts the second is quoted first, which makes R. Judah's interpretation difficult to understand. The order of the Biblical texts adopted here is that given by the Wilna Gaon in his notes uvhkt ,uba on Bik. III, 6. Cf. Tosaf. here, s.v. itnu and again, on Suk. 47b. s.v. ohufcv and ivf. hand under those of the worshipper who tendered the gift-portions and waved them to and fro, a dedicating motion. indispensable or barring their release by its omission. [It is a well-established principle that no prescription relating to offering is deemed indispensable, unless Scripture emphasises it by reiteration.] quality). will expound both cases as denoting ‘setting down’ ordinarily, the reiteration thus making the ceremony of placing before the altar an indispensable rite.]