## Makkot Daf 17a

###### Makkot 17a:1
[Makkot 17a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/17a:1)

קוֹרֵא אֶת הַשֵּׁם, וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהַפְרִישׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
He designates a portion of the produce by means of **calling the name** upon poor man’s tithe, **but he is not required to** physically **separate** that portion and give it to the poor.


###### Makkot 17a:2
[Makkot 17a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/17a:2)

מַאי לָאו בְּהָא קָא מִיפַּלְגִי, דְּמָר סָבַר: וַדַּאי – טוֹבְלוֹ. וּמָר סָבַר: וַדַּאי – אֵינוֹ טוֹבְלוֹ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אִי הָכִי, אַדְּמִיפַּלְגִי בִּסְפֵיקוֹ, לִיפַּלְגוּ בְּוַדַּאי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Yosef suggests: **What, is it not** that **they disagree with regard to this: That** one **Sage,** the Rabbis, **holds** that produce from which poor man’s tithe was **certainly** not separated **is rendered untithed produce,** and therefore, in a case where there is uncertainty whether poor man’s tithe was separated, one is required to separate it; **and** one **Sage,** Rabbi Eliezer, **holds** that produce from which poor man’s tithe was **certainly** not separated **is not rendered untithed produce,** and therefore, one need not even designate poor man’s tithe by calling its name upon a portion of the produce? **Abaye said to** Rav Yosef: **If** it is **so,** that this is the point in dispute, **rather than disagreeing with regard to** a case of **uncertainty** whether poor man’s tithe was separated, **let them disagree with regard to** a case of **certainty** that poor man’s tithe was not separated.


###### Makkot 17a:3
[Makkot 17a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/17a:3)

אֶלָּא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא וַדַּאי – טוֹבְלוֹ. וְהָכָא בְּהָא קָא מִיפַּלְגִי, מָר סָבַר: לֹא נֶחְשְׁדוּ עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ עַל מַעְשַׂר עָנִי שֶׁל דְּמַאי. כֵּיוָן דְּמָמוֹנָא הוּא – אַפְרוֹשֵׁי מַפְרֵישׁ. וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: כֵּיוָן דִּטְרִיחָא לֵיהּ מִילְּתָא – לָא מַפְרֵישׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** contrary to the previous suggestion, say **that everyone agrees** that produce from which poor man’s tithe was **certainly** not separated **is rendered untithed produce. And here,** it is **with regard to this** that **they disagree:** One **Sage,** Rabbi Eliezer, **holds: *Amei ha’aretz* are not suspected of** refraining from separating **poor man’s tithe of *demai*. Since it is** merely a matter of **money,** and no sanctity is involved, **he separates** poor man’s tithe, although he does not actually give it to the poor. **And the Rabbis hold: Since the matter** involves **exertion for him, he does not** even **separate** poor man’s tithe.


###### Makkot 17a:4
[Makkot 17a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/17a:4)

כַּמָּה יֹאכַל מִן הַטֶּבֶל וְכוּ׳: אָמַר רַב בִּיבִי אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּחִטָּה, אֲבָל בְּקֶמַח – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל כְּזַיִת. וְרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: כְּמַחְלוֹקֶת בָּזוֹ כָּךְ מַחְלוֹקֶת בָּזוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **How much does one** need to **eat from untithed produce** and be liable to receive lashes? Rabbi Shimon says: Even if one ate any amount of untithed produce he is liable to receive lashes. And the Rabbis say: He is liable only if he eats an olive-bulk. **Rav Beivai says** that **Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says:** Their **dispute** is **with regard to** one who eats one kernel of **wheat** of untithed produce. **But with regard to flour, everyone agrees** that one is liable only if he eats **an olive-bulk. And Rabbi Yirmeya** says that **Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says:** Just **as** there is **a dispute with regard to this** case of a kernel of wheat, **so too,** there is **a dispute with regard to that** case of flour.


###### Makkot 17a:5
[Makkot 17a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/17a:5)

תְּנַן, אָמַר לָהֶם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: אִי אַתֶּם מוֹדִים לִי בְּאוֹכֵל נְמָלָה כׇּל שֶׁהוּא שֶׁהוּא חַיָּיב? אָמְרוּ לוֹ: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא כִּבְרִיָּיתָהּ. אָמַר לָהֶן: אַף חִטָּה אַחַת כִּבְרִיָּיתָהּ. חִטָּה – אִין, קֶמַח – לָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites proof from that which **we learned** in the mishna: **Rabbi Shimon said to them: Do you not concede to me with regard to one who eats an ant of any size that he is liable** to receive lashes? The Rabbis **said to** Rabbi Shimon: He is flogged for eating an ant of any size **due to** the fact **that** it is an intact entity in the form **of its creation.** Rabbi Shimon **said to them: One** kernel of **wheat is** also in the form **of its creation.** The Gemara infers from Rabbi Shimon’s response: For a kernel of **wheat, yes,** one is liable; for any amount of **flour, no,** one is not liable. Apparently, even Rabbi Shimon concedes that one is liable for eating only an olive-bulk of wheat flour, in accordance with the statement that Rav Beivai says that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says.


###### Makkot 17a:6
[Makkot 17a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/17a:6)

לְדִבְרֵיהֶם קָאָמַר לְהוּ: לְדִידִי – אֲפִילּוּ קֶמַח נָמֵי, אֶלָּא לְדִידְכוּ – אוֹדוֹ לִי מִיהַת דְּחִטָּה אַחַת כִּבְרִיָּיתָהּ. וְרַבָּנַן: בְּרִיַּית נְשָׁמָה – חֲשִׁובָה, חִטָּה – לָא חֲשִׁובָה. תַּנְיָא כְּוָתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: כׇּל שֶׁהוּא לְמַכּוֹת, לֹא אָמְרוּ כְּזַיִת אֶלָּא לְעִנְיַן קׇרְבָּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It is in accordance **with** the **statement of** the Rabbis that Rabbi Shimon **spoke to them,** and he meant as follows: According **to my** opinion, **even** if one ate any amount of **flour** he is **also** liable. **But according to your** opinion, **concede to me at least that** one is liable if he eats **one** kernel of **wheat,** as it is in the form **of its creation. And the Rabbis** say in response: There is a difference; **an entity** with **a soul,** i.e., a living creature, **is significant,** and one is liable for eating an entity of any volume. A kernel of **wheat is not significant.** The Gemara notes: **It is taught** in a *baraita* **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rabbi Yirmeya,** that **Rabbi Shimon says:** One who eats **any amount** of food that is forbidden is liable **to** receive **lashes;** the Sages **said** the measure of **an olive-bulk only with regard to** liability to bring a sin-**offering** for one who unwittingly ate forbidden food.


###### Makkot 17a:7
[Makkot 17a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/17a:7)

**מַתְנִי׳** הָאוֹכֵל בִּכּוּרִים עַד שֶׁלֹּא קָרָא עֲלֵיהֶם, קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים חוּץ לַקְּלָעִים, קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי חוּץ לַחוֹמָה. הַשּׁוֹבֵר אֶת הָעֶצֶם בַּפֶּסַח הַטָּהוֹר – הֲרֵי זֶה לוֹקֶה אַרְבָּעִים. אֲבָל הַמּוֹתִיר בַּטָּהוֹר וְהַשּׁוֹבֵר בַּטָּמֵא – אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה אַרְבָּעִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** In the case of a priest **who eats first fruits before** the one who brought the fruits to the Temple **recited over** those fruits the Torah verses that he is obligated to recite (see Deuteronomy 26:3–10); and one who ate **offerings of the most sacred order outside the curtains** surrounding the Tabernacle courtyard, or outside the Temple courtyard; and one who ate **offerings of lesser sanctity or second-tithe** produce **outside the wall** of Jerusalem; and also **one who breaks the bone of a ritually pure Paschal offering;** in all these cases **he is flogged** with **forty** lashes. **But one who leaves** the flesh **of the ritually pure** Paschal offering until the morning of the fifteenth of Nisan, **and one who breaks** a bone **of a ritually impure** Paschal offering, is **not flogged** with **forty** lashes.


###### Makkot 17a:8
[Makkot 17a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/17a:8)

הַנּוֹטֵל אֵם עַל הַבָּנִים, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: לוֹקֶה וְאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּחַ. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: מְשַׁלֵּחַ וְאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. זֶה הַכְּלָל: כׇּל מִצְוַת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ קוּם עֲשֵׂה – אֵין חַיָּיבִין עָלֶיהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to **one who takes the mother** bird **with** her **fledglings,** thereby violating the Torah prohibition: “You shall not take the mother with her fledglings; you shall send the mother, and the fledglings you may take for yourself” (Deuteronomy 22:6–7), **Rabbi Yehuda says: He is flogged** for taking the mother bird, **and does not send** the mother, **and the Rabbis say: He sends** the mother **and is not flogged,** as **this is the principle:** With regard to **any prohibition that entails** a command to **arise** and **perform** a mitzva, **he is not liable** to receive lashes **for its** violation.


###### Makkot 17a:9
[Makkot 17a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/17a:9)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: זוֹ דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סְתִימְתָּאָה, אֲבָל חֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: בִּכּוּרִים – הַנָּחָה מְעַכֶּבֶת בָּהֶן, קְרִיאָה אֵין מְעַכֶּבֶת בָּהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna teaches that a priest who eats first fruits before the one who brought the fruits to the Temple recited the accompanying Torah verses is liable to receive lashes. With regard to this statement, **Rabba bar bar Ḥana says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva,** whose statements are often cited in the mishna **unattributed. But the Rabbis say:** With regard to **first fruits,** the lack of **placement** alongside the altar **invalidates them,** and they may not be eaten; but the lack of **recitation** of the accompanying Torah verses **does not invalidate them,** and if one placed them and did not recite the accompanying Torah verses, the priest who eats them is not flogged.


###### Makkot 17a:10
[Makkot 17a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/17a:10)

וְלֵימָא זוֹ דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סְתִימְתָּאָה! הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סְבִירָא לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **And let** Rabbi Yoḥanan **say: This** statement in the mishna is **the unattributed statement of Rabbi Shimon,** who stated this *halakha* explicitly, rather than attributing the statement to Rabbi Akiva, whose statement was not explicit. The Gemara answers: **This teaches us that** although he did not say so explicitly, **Rabbi Akiva holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon.**


###### Makkot 17a:11
[Makkot 17a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/17a:11)

מַאי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? דְּתַנְיָא: ״וּתְרוּמַת יָדֶךָ״ – אֵלּוּ בִּכּוּרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What** is the statement of **Rabbi Shimon?** It is **as it is taught** in a *baraita* with regard to food items that may not be eaten outside the walls of Jerusalem. It is written: “You may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain, or of your wine, or of your oil, or the firstborn of your herd or of your flock, nor any of your vows that you vow, nor your gift offerings, nor the donation of your hand” (Deuteronomy 12:17). The Sages explain that with regard to the phrase **“nor the donation of [*terumat*] your hand,” these are first fruits.**


###### Makkot 17a:12
[Makkot 17a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/17a:12)

אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: מָה בָּא זֶה לְלַמְּדֵנוּ? אִם לְאוֹכְלָן חוּץ לַחוֹמָה – קַל וָחוֹמֶר מִמַּעֲשֵׂר הַקַּל: וּמָה מַעֲשֵׂר הַקַּל, אוֹכְלָן חוּץ לַחוֹמָה לוֹקֶה – בִּכּוּרִים לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן? הָא לֹא בָּא הַכָּתוּב אֶלָּא לָאוֹכֵל מִבִּכּוּרִים עַד שֶׁלֹּא קָרָא עֲלֵיהֶם, שֶׁהוּא לוֹקֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Shimon said: What does** this phrase **come to teach us? If** it is to teach the prohibition **to eat** the first fruits **outside the wall** of Jerusalem, there is no need for a verse, as it may be derived by means of **an *a fortiori*** inference **from the lenient** case of second-**tithe** produce. **If** with regard to **the lenient** case of second-**tithe** produce, one who **eats them outside the wall is flogged,** then with regard to **first fruits, all the more so** is it **not** clear that he is flogged? Rather, **the verse comes to teach only with regard to** a priest **who partakes of first fruits before** the person who brought the fruits to the Temple **recited** the accompanying Torah verses **over them,** teaching **that he is flogged.**


###### Makkot 17a:13
[Makkot 17a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/17a:13)

״וְנִדְבֹתֶיךָ״ – זוֹ תּוֹדָה וּשְׁלָמִים. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: מָה בָּא זֶה לְלַמְּדֵנוּ? אִם לְאוֹכְלָן חוּץ לַחוֹמָה – קַל וָחוֹמֶר מִמַּעֲשֵׂר, הָא לֹא בָּא הַכָּתוּב אֶלָּא לָאוֹכֵל בְּתוֹדָה וּבִשְׁלָמִים לִפְנֵי זְרִיקָה, שֶׁהוּא לוֹקֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **“Nor your gift offerings”; this is a thanks-offering and a peace-offering** that one donates voluntarily. **Rabbi Shimon says: What does** this phrase **come to teach us? If** it is to teach that it is prohibited **to eat** a thanks-offering and a peace-offering **outside the wall** of Jerusalem, there is no need for a verse, as it may be derived by means of **an *a fortiori*** inference **from** the case of second-**tithe** produce, for whose consumption outside the wall one is flogged, despite the fact that it is not an offering. Rather, **the verse comes to teach only with regard to one who partakes of a thanks-offering or of a peace-offering before** the **sprinkling** of its blood on the altar, before the consumption of its flesh is permitted, **that he is flogged.**


###### Makkot 17a:14
[Makkot 17a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/17a:14)

״וּבְכֹרֹת״ – זֶה הַבְּכוֹר. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: מָה בָּא זֶה לְלַמְּדֵנוּ? אִם לְאוֹכְלָן חוּץ לַחוֹמָה – קַל וָחוֹמֶר מִמַּעֲשֵׂר, אִם לִפְנֵי זְרִיקָה – קַל וָחוֹמֶר מִתּוֹדָה וּשְׁלָמִים! הָא לֹא בָּא הַכָּתוּב אֶלָּא לָאוֹכֵל מִן הַבְּכוֹר אֲפִילּוּ לְאַחַר זְרִיקָה, שֶׁהוּא לוֹקֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **“Or the firstborn”; this is the firstborn. Rabbi Shimon says: What does** this verse **come to teach us? If** it is to teach that it is prohibited **to eat** a firstborn animal **outside the wall** of Jerusalem, there is no need for a verse, as it may be derived by means of **an *a fortiori*** inference **from** the case of second-**tithe** produce. **If** it is to teach that it is prohibited to eat a firstborn animal **before** the **sprinkling** of the blood, it may be derived by means of **an *a fortiori*** inference **from** the case of **a thanks-offering and a peace-offering,** which are offerings of lesser sanctity, as even non-priests may partake of their flesh. Rather, **the verse comes to teach only with regard to** a non-priest **who partakes** of the flesh **of a firstborn even after** the **sprinkling** of its blood, **that he is flogged.**


###### Makkot 17a:15
[Makkot 17a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/17a:15)

״בְּקָרְךָ וְצֹאנֶךָ״ – זוֹ חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: מָה בָּא זֶה לְלַמְּדֵנוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **“Of your herd or of your flock”; this is a sin-offering and a guilt-offering,** which are offerings of the most sacred order, which may be eaten only within the Temple courtyard. **Rabbi Shimon says: What does** this verse **come to teach us?**


###### Makkot 17a:16
[Makkot 17a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/17a:16)

אִם לְאוֹכְלָן חוּץ לַחוֹמָה – קַל וָחוֹמֶר מִמַּעֲשֵׂר, אִם לִפְנֵי זְרִיקָה – קַל וָחוֹמֶר מִתּוֹדָה וּשְׁלָמִים, אִם לְאַחַר זְרִיקָה – קַל וָחוֹמֶר מִבְּכוֹר! הָא לֹא בָּא הַכָּתוּב אֶלָּא לָאוֹכֵל מֵחַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם אֲפִילּוּ לְאַחַר זְרִיקָה חוּץ לַקְּלָעִים, שֶׁהוּא לוֹקֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If** it is to teach that it is prohibited **to eat** a sin-offering and a guilt-offering **outside the wall,** there is no need for a verse, as it may be derived by means of **an *a fortiori*** inference **from** the case of second-**tithe** produce. **If** it is to teach that it is prohibited to eat a sin-offering and a guilt-offering **before** the **sprinkling** of the blood, it may be derived by means of **an *a fortiori*** inference **from** the case of **a thanks-offering and a peace-offering,** which are offerings of lesser sanctity. **If** it is to teach that it is prohibited for a non-priest to eat a sin-offering and a guilt-offering **after** the **sprinkling** of its blood, it may be derived by means of **an *a fortiori*** inference **from** the case of **a firstborn** animal. Rather, **the verse comes** to teach **only with regard to one who partakes** of the flesh **of a sin-offering or a guilt-offering even after** the **sprinkling** of its blood, which is the correct time to partake of it, but he partakes of it **outside the curtains** surrounding the Tabernacle courtyard or outside the Temple courtyard, **that he is flogged.**


###### Makkot 17a:17
[Makkot 17a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/17a:17)

״נְדָרֶיךָ״ – זוֹ עוֹלָה. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: מָה בָּא זֶה לְלַמְּדֵנוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **“Your vows”; this is the burnt-offering,** which is an offering of the most sacred order and is entirely consumed upon the altar, and is brought as a gift offering, not as an obligation. **Rabbi Shimon says: What does** this verse **come to teach us?**


###### Makkot 17a:18
[Makkot 17a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/17a:18)

אִם לְאוֹכְלָן חוּץ לַחוֹמָה – קַל וָחוֹמֶר מִמַּעֲשֵׂר, אִם לִפְנֵי זְרִיקָה – קַל וָחוֹמֶר מִתּוֹדָה וּשְׁלָמִים, אִם לְאַחַר זְרִיקָה – קַל וָחוֹמֶר מִבְּכוֹר, אִם חוּץ לַקְּלָעִים – קַל וָחוֹמֶר מֵחַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם! הָא לֹא בָּא הַכָּתוּב

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If** it is to teach that it is prohibited **to eat** a burnt-offering **outside the wall** of Jerusalem, there is no need for a verse, as it may be derived by means of **an *a fortiori*** inference **from** the case of second-**tithe** produce. **If** it is to teach that it is prohibited to eat a burnt-offering **before** the **sprinkling** of the blood, it may be derived by means of **an *a fortiori*** inference **from** the case of **a thanks-offering and a peace-offering,** which are offerings of lesser sanctity. **If** it is to teach that it is prohibited for a non-priest to eat a sin-offering and a guilt-offering **after** the **sprinkling** of its blood, it may be derived by means of **an *a fortiori*** inference **from** the case of **a firstborn** animal. **If** it is to teach that it is prohibited to eat a burnt-offering **outside the curtains** surrounding the Tabernacle courtyard or outside the Temple courtyard there is **an *a fortiori*** inference **from a sin-offering and a guilt-offering.** Rather, **the verse comes**