Makkot

This reply [to the objection raised] is satisfactory according to the view that we follow the derived-point;1 but what of the view that we follow the instructive-point as well?2 — [Again no difficulty here, as] blood and flesh [in this case] are one and the same thing3 [being of the same animal]. WHO EATS OF MOST HOLY [MEATS] OUTSIDE THE HANGINGS; OF LESSER HOLY [MEATS] OR OF SECOND TITHE, OUTSIDE THE CITY WALL. Have we not already learnt this [in the former Mishnah], ‘And [who eats of] second tithe or of "sanctuary-gifts" unredeemed’?4 — Said R. Jose b. Hanina: The latter [Mishnah] refers to a second tithe that is clean and to a person in a clean state, who [unlawfully] eats [thereof, unredeemed,] outside the city wall; whereas the former [Mishnah] to a second tithe that is unclean and to a person in an impure state, who ate [unlawfully] of it [unredeemed,] within Jerusalem. Now, where do we find [in Holy Writ] that eating of second tithe in impurity5 renders one liable? — As it is taught: R. Simeon says: [The text,] Neither have I put away thereof, being unclean6 [implies]: Neither [have I eaten of it] while I was unclean and the tithe clean, nor while I was clean and the tithe defiled. And where is the admonition not to eat it? I know not . . .7 [You know not?] Is not [eating of holy meats during] personal impurity explicitly prescribed: The soul that toucheth any such unclean things shall be unclean until the even and shall not eat of the hallowed things until . . .?8 — But [I meant] its own defilement.9 It is written, Thou mayest not eat within thy gates.10 And later it is said, the unclean and the clean may eat together, as the gazelle and the hart.11 And the school of R. Ishmael taught that [this means that] even a ‘clean’ person and one who is ‘unclean’ may eat [meat of a blemished firstling] out of the same platter, without scruple.12 Thus does the All-Merciful direct; that what is allowed you elsewhere,13 for the ‘clean’ beside the ‘unclean’ [‘to eat thereof together’]. does not apply here,14 where — ‘thou mayest not eat’. And [again], whence is it derived that second tithe which has become defied is redeemable [even within15 Jerusalem]? — Even as R. Eleazar said: How can it be shown that second tithe which has become defiled may be redeemed even at Jerusalem? From the instructive text: [And thou shalt eat before the Lord thy God, in the place that He shall choose . . . the tithe of thy corn . . . And if the way be [too] long for thee]; if thou art not able to bring it up . . . then shalt thou turn it into money,16 and the expression se'etho17 [‘to bring it up’] means [in this connection] only ‘eating’, as in the passage. And portions [mas'oth] were brought forward unto them [Joseph's brothers] from before him [Joseph].18 R. Bibi, citing R. Assi said: Whence could it be shown that clean second tithe may be redeemed even within one pace of the wall outside Jerusalem? From what is said, When thou art not able to bring it up, [then shalt thou turn it into money]19 But is that text not claimed for the point already made by R. Eleazar? — Were that the [only] lesson intended, the text should have said, ‘when thou art not able to eat it’; why was that [unusual] expression, se'etho17 ‘[not able] to bring it up’ used. Am I to take it then, entirely in the sense suggested [by you]? — [No, as then another term,] li[n]telo,20 [‘(unable) to take the load’] might have been used; what then, does [this special term] se'etho17 convey? It suggests both meanings. R. Hanina and R. Hoshaia sat and raised the [following] question: What would be the case [where a pilgrim had just reached] the very entrance to Jerusalem.21 Obviously when he is outside and his charge inside [he cannot redeem], as the partitions [walls] have already taken in the charge; but when he is within and his charge [still] outside, what is the law? — Thereupon a certain aged scholar imparted to them a teaching of the school of R. Simeon b. Yohai [to this effect]: If the place is far from thee . . . [turn it into money],22 the word mi-meka23 [‘from thee’] [implies] ‘thy amplitude’.24 R. Papa raised the question: What if he [being within the entrance] carries his load on a stick [behind him]?25 — The question is left over.26 [WHO EATS . . . OF SECOND TITHE, OUTSIDE THE CITY-WALL.] R. Assi citing R. Johanan said: When does the liability begin [for eating of] second tithe [outside the city-wall]? As soon as it has [once] come within sight of the [interior] wall. The reason? Because [one] text reads: And thou shalt eat before the Lord thy God,27 [... the tithe of thy corn];28 and again it is written, Thou mayest not eat within thy gates29 [the tithe of thy corn].30 [We say that] wherever [the former command,] ‘eat before the Lord thy God’ — becomes applicable, [the other,] ‘thou mayest not eat within thy gates’ becomes applicable;31 and [vice versa], wherever the [former command], ‘eat before the Lord thy God’, has not become applicable, there too, [the other] ‘thou mayest not eat within thy gates’ is not applicable.32 An objection [against this exposition] was raised from the following: R. Jose said: If a priest picks a fig out of tebel33 produce, [and before eating] says, Let the terumah thereof be [situate34 somewhere] near the peduncle [stalk]; the first tithe thereof in its northern [left] part; the second tithe thereof in its southern [right] part, this being in a year when second tithe is due and he being then in Jerusalem; or, [let] the poor tithe thereof [be] in its southern side, he being then in the ‘country-adjoining,’ 35 if he then eats that fig, and 7th years of the Septennial Cycle. Cf. Sifre a.l. and on Deut. XII, 17. and M.Sh. V, 10. that refers to the impurity of the person, not to the impurity of the tithe that the previous speaker wished to elucidate. (ritually) ‘unclean’ eater. It should be noted that some of the restrictions attach even to the blemished firstling, before it is killed for food, e.g., it may not be shorn of its wool or milked. V. Rashi. flogged); which plainly suggests that in some cases it may be redeemed. [This however cannot apply to undefiled second tithe, which may not be exchanged into money except outside Jerusalem, and that for the purpose of taking it up there.] has the extended meaning of a ‘portion of food’ brought to the guest, as in the passage in Genesis cited here. Cf. II Sam. XI, 8. far,’ which is taken to provide (a) against distance and (b) against other difficulties that may arise even close to the Holy ‘City as explained here. oil. For such use of ogn v. Gen. XXXI, 31-32; Ex. XXII, 11, 13; cf. og Job VI, 4; X, 13 and XXIII, 14. This solves the difficulty felt by Tosaf s.v. tuv. suggested by l,tkn (‘thy corn’). Ex. XXII, 28, and Num. XVIII, 27; Deut. XXII, 9. [The meaning of the verse is accordingly, ‘If the place is far from what thou hast with thee,’ i.e., the load which thou hast with thee on thy shoulders. Consequently where he is already within, though his charge is still outside, since he is not with it, it is not considered far.] redeemable or to be taken out again, unless it has become defiled. may be eaten (temporarily). V. Ter. III ,5.