Makkot

when does the penalty1 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 fruits2 in every respect, while those within are [to be treated] like ‘things of the Sanctuary’3 in every respect. R. Shesheth said:4 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 Elders5 [this statement being one of them]:6 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]: Firstlings7 must be brought to [Jerusalem], the [appointed] place,8 even as second tithe9 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].10 [But] then [I ask] let first fruits support [my contention]!11 [To this, we may reply] what is [requisite] in the case of the first fruits? They too must be placed [before the altar].12 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,]9 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]13 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].14 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,15 and as such it16 could be made the basis of an objection!17 But no, said R. Ashi: [the reason of its omission is that] since first fruits were also brought to the Temple by proselytes18 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 us19 and could not [as being inapplicable]; he [R. Jose] could not state it absolutely. 20 But could not the argument run on and the deduction be based on common aspects?21 — [No,] as this can be refuted [thus]: What is their22 common aspect? They all have some ritual association with the altar.23 And [tell me], what is his [R. Ishmael's] view?24 If he deems the first dedication [by Solomon] to have been effected ‘for the nonce, and for all time to come,’25 then even [unblemished] firstlings26 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]?27 — 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:28 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];29 and then again, we compare second tithes to firstlings.30 But can a ruling inferred by analogy31 be employed [in matters appertaining to hallowed things]32 as basis of inference for a further analogy?33 — The tithe of corn, [wine and oil] is [considered] non-hallowed.34 (according to one reading, Ben ‘Azzai). eaten at Jerusalem. Cf. Deut. XII, 6, 17; Num. XVIII, 13. fruits before the altar is a bar to their release. rite, and the recital as an enjoined (though not indispensable) precept which is not the case with the second tithe.] But in fact is not; which shows that nothing is to be inferred from its omission. (Against the other Rabbis who regard the omission of the recital as not a bar to the release.) before the altar, and the latter, lacking the specific altar rites of blood and fat etc., they nevertheless possess one aspect in common in that they both have to be brought to Jerusalem and consequently are in force only when there is the Temple in existence; and the same argument can similarly be applied to second tithe which also has to be brought to Jerusalem and hence not in force save when the Temple stood.] regard to Palestine as the Holy Land of Israel, for various religious observances, dues and privileges; (b) in regard to Jerusalem, as the Holy City within the mural precincts, for eating there certain holy foods of a minor degree of sanctity, and (c) in regard to the Temple and altar, for certain sacrificial rites. Here, the question touches only the last two. the pure or defiled alike (verse 21). the blood of the firstling and the eating of the flesh thereof; and the question would arise since it need no more be brought to the Temple, it is comparable to second tithe, and it should therefore be permitted for eating. It is however better to adopt reading of other texts and MSS. (v. D.S.) ‘then even second tithe should present no problem.’] the Temple) it could not be used for the ritual without an altar, nor could, therefore, the meat be eaten then. Jerusalem only during the existence of the altar. [According to the preferable text of versions referred to in note 3, Read: ‘Said Rabina, indeed he holds that the first dedication was for the nonce and for all time to come and the reason why R. Ishmael assumes that a firstborn may not be eaten nowadays is because he is thinking etc.’] demands the presence of the altar. matters appertaining to hallowed things (i.e. Temple and sacrificial rites).’ Tem. 21b, and Zeb. 49b. presence of the altar likewise for eating second tithe. become defiled even in Jerusalem, it may then be used just as ordinary corn, wine or oil, unlike first fruits or other sacrificial kinds (of offerings) mentioned together, which may not be eaten on becoming defiled. In using here one deduction for a further deduction on an ordinary nonsacred element, the aforementioned exegetical rule is not infringed.